Ad Liberté

TMI: Najib is made Optimus Prime by Michael’s Decepticons — by Sakmongkol AK47

2012-01-27T16:09:00.002+08:00

Najib is made Optimus Prime by Michael’s Decepticons — Sakmongkol AK47

January 27, 2012

JAN 27 — Datuk Seri Najib Razak was crowned the “Father of Moderation and Transformation” by the World Chinese Economic Forum (WCEF), which said the prime minister’s “fair and just leadership” had benefited the Chinese community “tremendously”. WCEF chairman Datuk Michael Yeoh said in his speech at the conferment ceremony today.

This was the major news item of the day. WCEF is a gathering of Chinese hongs and towkays eager to seek business favours from the PM. How does Michael Yeoh come by his assessment?

Among others, Yeoh praised Najib’s 1 Malaysia platform, his administration’s decision to increase allocation to Chinese schools and the introduction of tax exemptions for churches and temples, saying the initiatives were proof of the prime minister’s commitment to “fairness and justice”.

Fuyoh! I had to pinch myself. Never have I heard such outpouring of boot-licking averments which Michael sought to prove by stating the material I placed in italics above.

Let me steal the thunder from Michael’s shameless sycophantic offerings.

Two weeks ago, I sat down with Dr Richard Cockett, SEA correspondent for The Economist.Also present was Wan Saiful Wan Jan, head of IDEAS. Richard posted the question to me as to whether Najib will succeed in his transformation ideas.

He will not succeed, I said. But let me say some nice things about Najib. Najib is a personable fellow and if you get close enough to him, you will have to be a black-hearted person NOT to like him. But that is as far as I can go. He is a nice and a personable fellow.

He has his heart at the right place, but as I wrote some time back, he is a political invertebrate. He doesn’t have the political will and personal strength to push through his programmes. I was ready to concede later that Najib, on account of his exterior rhetoric, may indeed have a backbone but still, I find difficulty to locate where on his anatomy.

Take the case of his New Economic Model. Nowadays we hardly hear about it. At the 2011 Umno General Assembly, Najib did not even mention it. Instead he devoted much of his speech sounding very combative and full of vehemence. What he has done was to actually retrograde to Umno cavemen politics. You disagree with us, we bash you in the heads with our swing sticks.

Ask yourself. How will Najib, for instance, push through his economic agenda? Answer: He will revert to the tested ways of selecting cronies, of giving direct negotiated projects masked by seemingly transparent methods to the chosen few. Those chosen few too will be recommended by the Man who can walk on water. He will continue with the patronage system instead of pushing his transforming ideas through.

The only transforming sensation that Najib will achieve is perhaps playing with his Transformers toys and watching the film starring Shia LaBeouf. His eyes will probably focus more on Megan Fox.

At the 2010 Umno General Assembly, for instance, all his big ideas were rejected and thwarted by Umno delegates, obviously mirroring the general objection to Najib’s adventurist ideas which were his alone and, most probably, scripted by expensively paid consultants. His idea of 1 Malaysia with the hazy notions of inclusiveness and outward readiness to “We must pool our collective talents in the interests of our nation so that together, we will win out.” Fulamak!

That to be read as: we must pakat pakat to swipe clean the country’s wealth and make hay while the sun shines. We will carry out the agenda of guatolonglu-lutolonggua win-win policies.

The delegates at that assembly immediately rejected Najib’s 1 Malaysia by insisting on Malay-first policies on everything. So what 1 Malaysia is Najib talking about?

His plans to transform the economy and especially that of the Malay economy through his NEM founded on the equally hazy notions of affirmative policies based on free market economics and affirmative policies based on merits were met with howls from delegates insisting on the continuation of NEP-like policies.

In the end, Najib could only muster his last trump card — to claim that after all he is the son of Tun Razak. That, no one can dispute. Genetically he is, but culturally, he isn’t. He doesn’t have the leadership qualities of Tun Razak.

How can he push his liberalist economic agenda through a mindset accustomed to patronage? Will the Umno warlords, who have only known survival through the patronage system of Umno, allow some anointed successor, albeit the son of Tun Razak, dismantle a system that has provided them with succour? That would be suicidal.

Najib will be sacrificed rather than allow a system that has spawn hordes of tenderpreneurs being replaced by an adventurist Najib Razak with a blasphemous idea.

In short, Najib faces a brick wall and he has nowhere to go. Either he faces the Umno firing squad or capitulate. At the 2011 Umno assembly, he has done that exactly — retreated shamelessly. That gutless and shameless position was effectively masked by his recalcitrant and combative rhetoric.

How will he push his transformation programmes through a sea of stubborn tenderpreneurs and obstinate rent-seekers?

So in answer to Richard Cockett, Najib can’t transform. He can only dream of becoming Optimus Prime. — sakmongkol.blogspot.com

* Sakmongkol AK47 is the nom de plume of Datuk Mohd Ariff Sabri Abdul Aziz. He was Pulau Manis assemblyman (2004-2008).

TMI: Race and Malaysian ‘exceptionalism’ — by Clive Kessler

2012-01-27T15:52:00.001+08:00

Race and Malaysian ‘exceptionalism’ — Clive Kessler

TMI: January 27, 2012

JAN 27 — “The world has admitted that multiracial Malaysia grew faster than other developing nations that did not have the problem of race to consider,” Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has recently remarked (“Dr M: Scrapping race-based policies will lead to chaos”, The Malaysian Insider, January 26).

Yet most nations and national communities these days are culturally pluralistic, not monolithic. Those, such as Japan, that are largely homogeneous are the exceptions, not the norm.

So, on the claimed grounds of its diversity, Malaysia is no exception.

If Malaysia is exceptional, it is not because — like so many other modern nations — it is culturally pluralistic and socially diverse but because official government policy has been erected upon the idea that such diversity is not simply ineradicable but both abnormal and dangerous.

Government in Malaysia stands upon the “enshrining” of the idea of the fundamental, inescapable and eternal political salience of that diversity — and, however benign the intentions of its greatest statesmen may be, upon its necessarily “sectional” and hence ultimately divisive official management.

If Malaysia has a “race problem” it is not because of a malign historical fate but because Malaysian governments have offered and justified themselves over the years since independence as the authoritative manager of racial divisions and antagonisms.

The Malaysian government has always presented itself as the wise manager, and as the sole available broker and arbiter, of a basic dichotomy which it says it wishes to overcome but upon which, and upon whose continuing power, it remains dependent.

That is its political basis and rationale.

This idea of the fundamental nature of such cultural differences and of their inescapably conflictual character has been established and elevated as the “ultimate political truth.” It is the central doctrine, or credo, of the reigning “national political theology.”

Malaysia, as it is now established and has been managed, especially since 1970, rests upon, presumes and requires that particular form of “racial” difference, separation and antagonism which the government yet continually pleads it wishes to overcome.

A strange, contradictory, even silly idea, really.

It is a silly idea precisely because it is contradictory — and no coherent, sustainable policy may be built upon an evident contradiction.

But where would BN be without it?

The question answers itself.

Yes, Malaysia does have an unusual “racial” problem.

Malaysia’s is decidedly a “racial” problem — provided one recognises, as modern social theory does, that “race” denotes not mundane cultural diversity and social pluralism themselves but their antagonistic political, ideological and doctrinal “sanctification” as the ultimate or core human reality.

To see that human diversity as irreconcilable, and as the basis of inevitable antagonism rather than as a source of creativity and engagement and hope, is a political choice.

It is a fact, or the dubious gift, not of insuperable past events but of contemporary and continuing human choice, of ideological and political preferences.

* Clive Kessler is Emeritus Professor of Sociology and Anthropology at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

TMI: Why was Anwar Ibrahim acquitted? — by Tommy Thomas

2012-01-19T13:52:00.000+08:00

Why was Anwar Ibrahim acquitted? — Tommy Thomas

January 19, 2012

JAN 19 — The stunned disbelief of most Malaysians when Anwar Ibrahim was acquitted on January 9, 2012 is the best proof of public perception that he had hitherto not received a fair trial, with a guilty verdict a foregone conclusion. A similar perception was felt by a vast majority of the 13,000 lawyers in the Malaysian Bar.

Politics of the Prosecution

For 3½ years since Mohd Saiful Bukhairy Azlan’s story emerged, the government has insulted the intelligence of Malaysians by declaring that Anwar’s prosecution was not influenced by politics. On the contrary, the case is all about politics, and nothing but politics.

If Anwar is not an electoral threat to Umno, he would not have been prosecuted. It is as simple, plain and obvious as that. If there are any who still doubt this critical statement of fact, take note that between 1998 and 2008 the media did not report any prosecution of consenting adults engaged in same sex activities. Does it mean that in that period no homosexual or lesbian activities took place in the country?

So why has there been so much governmental hostility against Anwar? Because he has been perceived by Umno as their greatest political adversary, and the only person who could be a potential prime minister. It ought to be recalled when Anwar was a popular deputy prime minister and minister of finance in the mid-1990’s, he generated the politics of envy in Umno. By 1997-8, then-prime minister, Dr Mahathir, was convinced that Anwar was a threat to his Presidency of Umno (and thereby the Prime Ministership).

The September 1998 sacking of Anwar as deputy prime minister, expulsion from Umno, brief detention under the ISA and prosecution for sodomy were actions taken by Dr Mahathir to eliminate a very serious contender to his office.

A decade later, Anwar’s singular contributions in leading Pakatan Rakyat to the best performance by an opposition party since Merdeka in the March 2008 general election raised Umno’s fears again. It was compounded by Anwar’s imprudent announcement in April 2008 that he would lead a Pakatan Government by September 16, 2008 (the 45th anniversary of the formation of Malaysia).

I suggest the decision to destroy Anwar politically a second time and to subject him to a second humiliating sodomy prosecution was taken by the powers that be in the wake of the March 2008 elections results.

The plot was hatched, and the agencies of the government went into action. In any modern society when the police and the prosecution authority conspire to destroy an individual, the whole force of the state is marshalled against the hapless victim. Unless there are strong countervailing independent organisations in that society, the individual is doomed.

Along with many others, I wrote in July 2008 that Anwar should not be prosecuted (see my article entitled “A second prosecution of Anwar Ibrahim — is it in the national interest?”) Such pleas fell on deaf ears. The prosecution, initiated in August 2008 during Abdullah Badawi’s administration, continued with great vigour under Prime Minister Najib Razak. The government controlled television, radio, and newspapers sensationalised coverage of the trial: intimate details of Anwar and Saiful were revealed, offending public decency and taste. Concerned parents had to shield their children from crude and graphic description of sexual activities.

Politics in Malaysia seldom concern idealogy or principles. Since Merdeka, the focus has been on personalities, invariably Umno Presidents and other senior leaders. Indeed, Anwar benefitted from the public image crafted by a pliant media during his 15 years climb up the Umno ladder.

In Sodomy 2, the politics of sleaze against Anwar reached a nadir, giving gutter politics a new meaning. On a comparative basis, few political leaders across the globe had been the victim of dirty state politics like Anwar.

With the slow rehabilitation of Aung San Suu Kyi and the opposition joining a coalition with Robert Mugabe, even Burma and Zimbabwe may have greater tolerance and respect for their opposition politicians. But in Malaysia, the Umno controlled forces worked on the principle that in order to destroy Anwar politically, they had to first humiliate him.

Politics of the Acquittal

The burning question is who was responsible for the decision to acquit Anwar on January 9: the Court or the politicians. Did the trial judge actually make the decision himself or was it in reality a political decision.

The fact that this is the principal aftermath of the acquittal itself is a commentary on the perception by Malaysians (including its lawyers) that in “political” cases the Courts are not independent of the executive.

In the four senior Commonwealth countries whose common law system Malaysia adopts, viz, England, India, Australia and Canada, no right thinking person (and certainly no lawyer) would question a judge’s independence if a similar acquittal had taken place in like circumstances. But not in Malaysia!

The judge

The only sure way for any lawyer to predict an outcome in a lengthy trial like Anwar’s is to review the trial judge’s overall conduct of that trial and then make a projection. In every criminal prosecution in Malaysia, elementary principles established over centuries forming the bedrock of our criminal jurisprudence have to be applied by every judge (juries having been abolished).

In the course of a trial a judge would have to make numerous rulings on procedural and evidential matters that would have a great bearing on his final decision. He also has to make a fundamental decision when the prosecution closes its case, viz, whether the defence has a case to meet. Only if he is satisfied that these elements have been proven by the prosecution on whom the burden solely rests, and which never shifts to the accused, should the judge call the defence.

Accordingly, applying the only rational basis available to those legally trained, the conduct of the judge during Anwar’s trial was consistently in one direction: totally in support of the prosecution’s case, and wholly unsympathetic to the accused. Hence, a conviction was inevitable.

In consequence, the judge’s acquittal was a U-turn of massive proportions. Lawyers who appear in court, that is, barristers, advocates or counsel, quickly develop a skill in “reading” judges. This is the human element in the judicial process.

No two judges in any country are alike. Each judge has his or her own temperament, personality, likes, dislikes and other idiosyncrasies. Having spoken to experienced lawyers who attended Anwar’s trial for substantial periods and whose antennae on “judge-reading” I respect, the judge’s behaviour on January 9 was in stark contrast with his general demeanour on the bench throughout the trial.

Lawyers who were in court on January 9 inform me that the judge was very edgy in his brief appearance (less than two minutes), merely announcing his decision in a couple of sentences and disappearing thereafter. Having reserved his decision for some months, he ought to have had his written reasons (grounds of judgment) ready for release that day. They have yet to be distributed. Most importantly, he was aware that the acquittal contradicted all his prior rulings against Anwar during the trial.

In the days following Anwar’s acquittal, apologists for the system have been heralding the dawn of a new era in judicial independence. Let me douse such naïve enthusiasm. Cases deemed “politically sensitive” by the judges are so predictable: the Executive always succeeds. Cases triggered by the Perak crisis of 2009 and those filed on behalf of the opposition states of Selangor, Kedah, Kelantan and Penang are recent examples.

An extreme illustration is provided by Kelantan’s oil royalty civil suit against Petronas (I disclose my involvement as Counsel for Kelantan). Bizarre and unprecedented rulings have been given by all the three levels of the highest Courts resulting in a transfer of a commercial dispute to the Civil Division, the intervention by the Federal Government as additional defendant when no claim is sought against it and the denial of discovery of documents by Petronas which is automatic in a writ action.

Accordingly, the Anwar acquittal will not be the harbinger of better things to come from the judiciary. One swallow does not make a summer!

Najib

If it is not the judge’s decision to acquit Anwar, it must follow that it was a political decision. Certainly two decisions indicate prior knowledge of government of the acquittal. First, it overturned its decision to prohibit the assembly of Anwar supporters in Kuala Lumpur, and agreed to allow them to congregate outside the court — even the police agree that there would be no risk when the crowd receives good news! Secondly, the government issued a press announcement within an hour of the court’s decision, welcoming the acquittal. Our bureaucracy never works at that speed.

It is ironic that from its first public announcement, the government has been claiming credit for the acquittal because it apparently demonstrates judicial independence. This is entirely misplaced. In a system of true separation of powers where the judiciary stands proudly and bravely independent of the executive, the executive can never be praised when judges make independent decisions.

That is how the system actually works. In Malaysia the system has been skewered from Merdeka and the executive can only be criticized for causing it. The executive can never receive praise if the system works as it is supposed to (which is not even the position in Malaysia).

What these announcements demonstrate is a “Freudian slip” on the part of the executive. It confirms that past judicial decisions were contrived at its behest. Because perception shades into reality, it would be difficult to convince the typical Malaysian who has become so cynical of the politically motivated prosecution and trial of Anwar, that his ultimate verdict was not similarly politically motivated. Thus, the fruit of a politically motivated trial is a politically motivated verdict.

Because it was a politically motivated trial, the ultimate acquittal decision was grounded in politics. It is an accepted premise among those campaigning for the hearts and minds of the Malaysian electorate, particularly in the Peninsula, that the real contest at the next election is for the Malay vote.

The Chinese apparently have given up on MCA and Gerakan, while the Indians are either too few or ambivalent about who to support. It should be kept in mind that in the last elections, Pakatan secured 51.3 per cent of the popular vote and 80 seats in West Malaysia.

Barisan Nasional secured 48.7 per cent of the popular vote and 85 seats. The opposition formed governments in 5 of the 11 States, and won 10 out of 11 Parliamentary seats in Kuala Lumpur. Thus a 3 per cent to 4 per cent swing of the popular vote would cause serious damage to Umno’s chances in Malaya.

In such a scenario, Sabah and Sarawak cannot be considered as safe deposits for Umno: political parties in East Malaysia have a habit of wanting to join the winning side so that they can be part of the Federal Government. Ideology and principle are also completely absent amongst the politicians on that side of the South China Sea.

It is against a background of a very close general election that Putrajaya made a political calculation: an acquitted Anwar would cause less electoral damage to Umno that a convicted Anwar. The martyr status must be denied to Anwar.

Beneficiaries of the Acquittal

The first beneficiary is Malaysia and its people. If the first sodomy trial in 1998-9 deeply divided and polarized Malaysia, the second trial was received much more cynically, with the vast majority of Malaysians not choosing to believe the version put forward by Saiful.

When the video scandal orchestrated by that paragon of virtue, Rahim Thamby Chik became known, most Malaysians preferred to accept Anwar’s version. The dirty tricks department of Umno lacks imagination and creativity, and their credibility has been shattered. Hopefully, they will leave Anwar alone. Hence, the acquittal was welcomed by probably the entire Malaysian population, apart from his old nemesis, Dr Mahathir who neither forgets nor forgives, and his small band of supporters.

Secondly, Anwar and his family, at a personal level. Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail has always behaved with remarkable poise and calm when her husband has faced the almighty wrath of the State. So have the children. To watch one’s spouse or father being humiliated on the public stage for years must be nerve-wrecking. They have conducted themselves with admirable dignity in terribly adverse conditions.

Politically, Anwar is also a great beneficiary of the verdict. His innocence, expressed from the very first moment in 2008, has been vindicated by a judge who had not shown him any sympathy and who had ruled against him in nearly every prior ruling throughout the trial. He is now a free man who spoke the truth (a rare commodity in Malaysian public life).

The greatest beneficiary is Pakatan Rakyat. Its three constituent parties must be congratulated for never wavering in their public position that their only candidate for the office of prime ministership is Anwar (even if he is in prison).

He is now free to become the nation’s 7th prime minister after the forthcoming general election. It is very much up to Pakatan to make that happen. They should focus on issues: the first that comes to mind is the economy. Bread and butter issues like the galloping cost of basic necessities caused by rampant inflation, the increasing disparity between the rich and the poor, and cheap wages paid to our workers because of the presence of some 3 to 4 million immigrants (legal or others) should be highlighted.

In the wake of the Great Depression in United States and Europe since the 2008 financial crisis caused primarily by grand scale borrowing and massive debt, it is grossly negligent for the Najib administration to spend lavishly by borrowing to stay in power.

Putrajaya’s debt to Gross Domestic Product (“GDP”) has increased in the 2 years of Najib’s leadership from 53.1 per cent to 54.8 per cent. In absolute terms, federal government debt jumped by 71 per cent in four years from RM266 billion in 2007 to RM456 billion in 2011.

In a recent statement, the Malaysian Institute of Economic Research (MIER) warned that at this rate of excessive spending, Malaysia’s national debt would equal its GDP by 2019: a truly frightening prospect. Have they heard of Greece or Ireland? Pakatan should highlight these facts. Lim Guan Eng’s prudent financial management of Penang, on the other hand, will erase its debt in four years, a remarkable achievement.

Anwar is the glue who cements PAS, DAP and Keadilan. He is their undisputed leader and unifying force. He should reduce his foreign travelling in the next 12 months, and concentrate on domestic politics. The nation has to be reminded of his leadership and administrative qualities: former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher in a visit to Malaysia in the early 1990’s publicly stated that she would “trade” him to become her minister of finance.

The politics of envy that characterized Anwar’s rise in Umno continued to bedevil him after his fall from grace in 1998. In the subsequent 13 years, numerous “famous” personalities joined his party or supported him, only to fall out dramatically. Each of them predicted the end of Anwar. Instead, where are Chandra Muzaffar, Zainur Zakaria, Ezam Nor, Zaid Ibrahim and Raja Petra Kamarudin?

If Umno perceives that it too can benefit from his acquittal, it is clearly wrong. The average voter will not easily forget that he was charged and tried by an Umno government. A mere acquittal will not erase the Umno stain in the way the State has persecuted Anwar for years. There would be electoral punishment.

The way ahead

Closure requires the government not to appeal the acquittal. The Attorney-General, as the chief legal adviser to the government, and the man whom Umno states took the decision to prosecute Anwar in 2008 should be accountable for his poor judgment. The buck stops at his office.

Both coalitions must discuss and debate weighty national issues, like the economy, education, health, public services or the over-development which is scarring our cities and creating a property bubble.

The electorate must be given a clear choice as to which coalition should be given the privilege of governing Malaysia for the next fiveears. A true two-party system must occur this time.

Fifty-four continuous years of one-party rule after independence is a sufficient learning curve, even for our cautious electorate! Is the next general election the time for change?

* Tommy Thomas is a lawyer who occasionally comments on politics and economics.

CAP: AELB not adhering to IAEA recommendations on Lynas... by SMM Idris

2012-01-12T13:00:00.003+08:00

AELB not adhering to IAEA recommendations on Lynas

Letter to the Editor 11^th January 2012

The manner in which AELB and Lynas Corporation are conducting public disclosure makes a mockery of international best practices, safety standards and the various International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recommendations which the government and Lynas had pledged they will honour.

Public Information and disclosure

Among the other IAEA recommendations relevant to public disclosure are:

Lynas should intensify its communication with interested and affected parties in order to demonstrate how it will ensure the radiological safety of the public and the environment.
AELB should intensify its activities regarding public information and public involvement.

These recommendations are an implicit acknowledgment by the IAEA that Lynas and AELB have all along operated in a non-transparent, unacceptable manner and both entities have to improve their policies on public disclosure and consultation with the rakyat.

Over the New Year holiday on 2^nd January 2012, the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI) announced that the Malaysia Atomic Energy Licensing Board (AELB) will display Lynas’ application for a temporary operating licence (TOL) for public feedback for barely 11 working days at several locations - AELB headquarters in Dengkil, Selangor; the Pahang State Secretariat, Kuantan; AELB’s site office at Lynas, Gebeng; and AELB’s east coast branch office Kemaman, Terengganu. Those who want to read the document have to submit a form provided at the locations before noon on Jan 20^th (sic).

These restricted locations and the process requirements are impediments to the public who want to view the document. The restrictions including the AELB form requirement is also tantamount to public intimidation.

In comparison, the Department of Environment (DOE) allocates a much longer review period without any requirement to fill up a form beforehand. The DOE allocates 5 weeks for a review of a Preliminary EIA (PEIA) report and 12 weeks for review of a Detailed EIA (DEIA) report. (For example, the DEIA Report for the Proposed Hydroelectric Project Hulu Terengganu by Tenaga Nasional Berhad was on public display from 30 Sept - 31 Oct 2008 at several specific locations and at all State offices of the DOE and the written comments must be submitted by 13 November 2008. The Executive Summary of the DEIA was also available online on the DOE website. The DEIA could even be purchased from a clearly indicated address. (Source:http://www.wwf.org.my/about_wwf/what_we_do/policy_main/policy_what_you_can_do/detailed_environmental_impact_assessment_for_public_review_2.cfm). There was no requirement for members of the public who wanted to review the DEIA to fill up a form, as is currently required by the AELB).

It is important to note that the DOE EIA Review process is clearly explained in DOE documents such as its widely published EIA Guidelines, Handbooks and also on the DOE official website, including details of the composition of the Review Panel etc. In stark contrast, the AELB seems to be an ad hoc, non-transparent, non-independent and much hurried process which may be susceptible and has clearly led to unfair and unprofessional practices. This indicates that the AELB has poor governance and has not fulfilled the recommendations made by the IAEA report to significantly improve AELB, inter alia, AELB technical skills and capacity as well as independence in order for AELB to handle regulation of industries such as Lynas.

Other impediments include, inter alia, members of the public who made time to view Lynas’ application were given ONE hour to read the 300-400 page technical document, and barred from carrying cameras, handphones and videocameras when inspecting the document. Some members of the public was escorted to the AELB office by Lynas staff, once again indicating that AELB is not independent. This also reveals the utter disregard and contempt the authorities, including the AELB, have for public accountability and transparency. The level and quality of engagement and consultation with the rakyat have been woefully inadequate. The project was hurriedly approved in 2008, without public consultation; a series of public discussions that had been planned were abruptly cancelled after only two sessions. The MB of Pahang refused to meet and hold talks with groups who opposed the project and called them irrational.

By not adhering to a credible process of public review as recommended by IAEA, the AELB should reject the Lynas project application for a temporary or permanent operating licence.

IAEA general safety guideline on and Classification of Radioactive Wastes

According to the IAEA’s general safety guides (GSG) on Radioactive Waste Classification (GSG-1), the radioactivity level of Lynas’ WLP solid waste which is reportedly at 6.2 Bq/g is categorised as Low Level (radioactive) Waste. The IAEA GSG-1 states that wastes in this class requires robust isolation and containment for periods of up to 300 years and is suitable for disposal in engineered near surface facilities. The typical safe storage depth is from the surface down to 30 meters.

According to Dr Lee Chee Hong in his comments (August 2011) on the IAEA Report, if the classification of Radioactive Wastes Safety Guide (GSG-1) was to be enforced for the WLP residue, then the RSF (Residue Storage Facilities) disposal method proposed by Lynas would be violating the IAEA standards.

Thus, a temporary operating licence (TOL) for Lynas would be contrary to the IAEA standards, safety guidelines and its specific recommendations on how AELB and the Malaysian government should be managing Lynas.

TOL under Act 304 does not fulfill IAEA recommendations

The temporary operation licence (TOL) is a stipulation of the Malaysian Radiation protection (Licensing) Regulations 1986 of the Atomic Energy Licensing Act 1984 (Act 304) – the main law governing radiation protection. However, Act 304 and its subsidiary regulations are sadly lagging behind international standards. Act 304 is very general in nature and woefully inadequate to handle rare earth processing plants especially the regulation of the safety aspects of the rare earth process, the radioactive waste disposal and storage, clearance threshold, radiation leakage, and health and safety damages caused by radioactive elements. Act 304 does not even regulate NORM (naturally occurring radioactive materials) and TENORM (technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive materials). More significantly, the Act invests wide ranging discretionary powers to the AELB and the Minister.

Thus, as far as the archaic Act 304 is concerned, theoretically, industries such as Lynas are potentially allowed to accumulate and dispose the water leach purification (WLP) radioactive solid waste residue on site if they obtained a written authorisation (e.g. TOL) from AELB. This is one way that Lynas can bypass the permanent waste storage impasse.

Given that the licensing and approval process hinges on the safe disposal and storage of radioactive wastes, it appears that Lynas has failed to come up with a credible solution to meet the conditions set out by the IAEA review. This is attested by the fact that Lynas has made five submissions (officially three) which were all rejected and the current one on display is the 6^th revised version (officially the 4^th).

According to Lynas Malaysia managing director Ahmad Marshal in a media event in December, the plan is to process the wastes into, among others, fertilisers and gypsum boards for sale. Under the current Act 304 and its subsidiary regulations that do not set disposal limits or the method of safe disposal and storage of radioactive wastes, what Lynas proposed could be done albeit with potential future consequences. It is left to the incompetent AELB alone to decide the exemption limits and methods for safe disposal and storage.

However, the TOL and its consequences would be contrary to IAEA standards, guidelines (e.g. the GSG-1) and specific recommendations for AELB and Lynas. IAEA recommendations have called for AELB to improve its human, financial and technical resources, competence and independence before it is deemed fit to regulate Lynas. To date there is no evidence that the Malaysian government and AELB have adhered to the IAEA recommendations. Currently, AELB cannot and is incapable of regulating Lynas and similar industries.

TOL is against Precautionary Principle

A temporary licence for activities generating radioactive wastes does not make sense neither is it based on international best practices principles – as once the wastes is produced, it is there. This is also not in keeping with the Precautionary Principle that Malaysia has agreed to in many environmental agreements and guidelines. The Precautionary Principle states that in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on the proponent. The principle promotes social responsibility to protect the public from harm.

As well the Malaysian authorities have failed to observe international best practices and legal principles other than the Precautionary Principle e.g. the Local Agenda 21 on sustainable development; public consultation and participation and the principle of prior informed consent; and public accountability and transparency.

AELB Independence: Ministry responsible is MITI or MOSTI?

The Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) indicated that AELB will meet on 30 January 2012 to decide on Lynas’ TOL application. It is highly perturbing that MITI continues to overstep its jurisdiction by yet again overtaking the role of MOSTI/AELB in the Lynas regulation process.

When the PEIA and RIA were made available to the public as a result of public pressure, there were serious doubts on the whole approval procedure and due diligence process. In fact, the poor governance made the credibility of the regulatory process doubtful. The regulatory authorities revealed that they were incapable of safely monitoring the Lynas operation, the radioactive wastes storage, disposal and decommissioning process in the future. To compound the problem further, MITI overstepped its jurisdiction and became the self-appointed spokesman endorsing the safety of Lynas’s plant operations. As it is, MITI is not the qualified ministry for the governance of ultrahazardous radioactive activities and public health and safety concerns. This again shows the poor governance and lack of due diligence in the whole process.

The MB of Pahang had said that the radiation level from Lynas’ plant is lower than bitumen used to resurface roads. AELB’s previous public announcements have also stretched the public’s credulity to the limit e.g. AELB DG Raja Datuk Abdul Aziz Raja Adnan had in April said that Lynas’ radioactive waste was so safe ‘you can just tabur (scatter) everywhere’. Such unqualified endorsements that the Lynas plant was safe by both unqualified politicians and the civil authorities can only mean they have become the spokespersons for Lynas.

The ‘seamless’ roles of Lynas employees and AELB’s officials makes the latter’s independence and authority highly questionable. When Lynas revealed in May 2011 that it had paid a sum of money to the Malaysian authorities as an indemnity for radioactive waste as part of AELB requirement, the DG of AELB denied this. ‘It’s got nothing to do with AELB. You got to check with MIDA. Check with MITI’ he was quoted. Till today no information has been forthcoming from any authority.

This poor governance structure and non-transparency has resulted in the IAEA international experts to make a clear recommendation that the AELB/MOSTI must have independence from other influences in order to be able to regulate industries such as Lynas.

Conclusion

The AELB should not issue a temporary operating licence (TOL) to Lynas.

Further, for the Malaysian government to regain public credibility and confidence CAP-SAM urges the following:

A judicial review of the government’s role and responsibilities in relation to public information disclosure and public participation;
A transparent process with a detailed and integrated approach that incorporates a socio economic impact assessment, health and safety impact assessment, a detailed EIA and RIA which will be coordinated and reviewed by an independent panel of technical experts;
A total review and revamp of Act 304 and its subsidiary regulations. At present it is a weak and toothless law and it needs to meet the requirements of international standards;
AELB/MOSTI, DOE/MNRE, MIDA/MITI and MOH must be independent and must be seen to be independent when it comes to issues which are within their jurisdictions. They must exercise integrity, professionalism and competence in their duties and work. This is in line with good governance;
MITI and MIDA (Malaysian Investment Development Authority) must beef up its capacities and expertise. There must be a review of MITI and MIDA and how it promotes foreign investments. They need to attract clean, sustainable and job creating industries instead of dirty toxic ones;
MITI and MIDA should respect the authority and competency of the regulatory authorities and should not guarantee projects which have not been approved by other regulatory bodies;
In the interest of good governance, there should be public disclosure and access to proposed MOUs with foreign investors. In light of this, the government must disclose how much it will have to pay Lynas Corp if the project is cancelled;
The government must ensure that all impact assessment studies have high standards of integrity, professionalism and expertise. Consultants who fail to meet the standards should be deregistered and blacklisted; and
The government must seriously improve its governance.

SM Mohamed Idris

President

Consumers Association of Penang /

Sahabat Alam Malaysia

OPEN LETTER: We must ALL VOTE & be Change Agents.. by Former Bar Council President Yeo Yang Poh

2012-01-10T13:38:00.000+08:00

Former Bar Council President Yeo Yang Poh wrote an open letter to ALL Malaysians, to discharge our responsibilities as a voter and make those elected candidates to be accountable for their promises made during the election campaign.

He believes that change and betterment are not empty dreams, if all of us play our respective parts.

Dear Fellow Malaysians,
It is true that there are things that we Malaysians should be proud of, and be thankful for. It is equally true that many things are not well in our country. They have not been well for some time now.

Matters of safety and security, price hikes, education, issues of equal opportunities and equal treatment, constriction of various forms of freedom, marginalization of several segments of society, the failing justice system, corruption in the public sector, the rising denial syndromes, the arrogance of wrongdoers nourished by their repeated ability to get off scot-free, and the numbness of the public reaction towards misdeeds and the lack of accountability, just to describe a few.

Many of the ills that we complain about in our society are the symptoms of the underlying causes. Some of the major root causes are:
(a) epidemic corruption in a system that does little to prohibit or redress it,
(b) lack of a system of transparency and accountability,
(c) the suppression of various freedoms so as to turn a silent majority into a silenced majority,
(d) a Government that is more interested in commanding than serving,
(e) a Parliament whose overwhelming majority cares more about power-consolidation than nation-building, and
(f) a weak "last bastion" in the form of a failing justice system.

Can things be allowed to go on this way? Can we afford to do so?
Should our future generations suffer the consequences of our permissiveness?

It is quite obvious that we need a better Government and a better Parliament.

But that will not happen if we, the citizens of Malaysia , do little more than blaming the Government and criticizing our Members of Parliament. It is we who put our MPs in the Parliament. It is we whomust take the ultimate responsibility. The buck stops at each and every one of us.

My earnest appeal to everyone is therefore as follows:
- discuss the need for a better Parliament and a better Government, with your family members, colleagues, friends and persons close to you;
- make it a point to go and vote in the next election, and to vote for change and for betterment;
discard the notion or excuse that your single vote will not matter;
- discard the notion or excuse that politics is dirty and all politicians are the same, and therefore that there is no point in voting;
- influence and encourage as many of your family members, colleagues, friends and persons close to you as possible, to come out and vote for change and for betterment in the coming election.

It is meaningless for us to complain about our Parliamentarians and the Government, if we do not first discharge a simple but sacrosanct duty of choice.

Let us all take the time to look into the beautiful but expectant eyes of our children, and of the children of many others for whom we care.
The future of our nation is meant for them. But millions of them cannot vote. They put their fate in our hands. They rely on us not just for their present living and support. They rely on us, too, to vote for a better future for them.

And after discharging our duty to vote, we must continue to be vigilant, and ensure that our elected representatives account for their actions, and make good their promises.

I humbly suggest to you that change and betterment are not empty dreams, if all of us play our respective parts. I invite you, and I urge you, to answer my appeal as set out above.

Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Yeo Yang Poh

An open letter to MPs on Peaceful Assembly Bill.... by Bar Council President Lim Chee Wee

2011-11-28T18:54:00.001+08:00

An openletter to MPs on Peaceful Assembly Bill

Lim CheeWee

3:57PMNov 28, 2011

Dear Wakil Rakyat,  You may have heardthat the Malaysian Bar opposes the Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011 (“PA 2011”) onthe grounds that it imposes unreasonable and disproportionate fetters on thefreedom of assembly that is guaranteed under the Federal Constitution.

There are provisions in PA 2011 that are far morerestrictive than the current law, such as the banning of “street protests”(assemblies in motion or processions) and the unlimited powers vested in thepolice to dictate the time, date, place and conduct of an assembly.

There are also provisions in PA 2011 that aresimply illogical. As an example, although police do not need to benotified of a religious assembly, such an assembly cannot be held at a place ofworship.

Furthermore, a person living within 50 metres ofa kindergarten or school cannot hold an open house for a festival, a funeralprocession or a wedding reception.

The Prime Minister, in his Malaysia Day speech on15 September 2011, promised the Rakyat of the following:  I often opine thatlong gone is the era in which the government knows everything and claimsmonopoly over wisdom. . . .

The government will also review Section 27 of thePolice Act 1967, taking into consideration Article 10 of the FederalConstitution regarding freedom of assembly and so as to be in line with internationalnorms on the same matter. . . . (emphasis added) 

Be confident that it is a strength and not aweakness for us to place our trust in the Malaysian people’s intelligence tomake decisions that will shape the path of their own future. . . .

It is absolutely clear that the steps I justannounced are none other than early initiatives of an organised and gracefulpolitical transformation.

It stands as a crucial and much needed complementto the initiatives of economic transformation and public presentation which thegovernment has outlined and implemented for over two years in the effort topioneer a modern and progressive nation. . . .

In closing, I wish to emphasise that free of anysuspicion and doubt, the Malaysia that we all dream of and are in the processof creating is a Malaysia that practices [sic] a functional and inclusivedemocracy where public peace and prosperity is preserved in accordance with thesupremacy of the constitution, rule of law and respect for basic human rightsand individual rights.  

'Outrageous to prohibitprocessions'

PA 2011 is neither consistent with “internationalnorms”, nor “in accordance with the supremacy of the Constitution, rule of lawand respect for basic human rights and individual rights”.

Instead, the Bill will take us further away frombeing “a modern and progressive nation”.  It is outrageous that assemblies inmotion are prohibited.  Assemblies in motion provide the demonstrators with awider audience and greater visibility, in order for others to see and hear thecause or grievance giving rise to the gathering.

Assemblies in motion has been described as “apotent method of expression and is a common phenomenon in democraticsocieties”[1].

History is replete with peaceful assemblies inmotion, which were agents of change and of good.

Processions led to nation'sfounding

On 27 February 1946 Onn Jaafar, founding fatherof Umno and the grandfather of our present Minister for Home Affairs, led aprocession of 15,000 individuals to protest the establishment of the MalayanUnion, which disregarded the interests of the Malay Rulers and the Malays.

This was the first of a series of processionsthat successfully opposed the Malayan Union, and later led to our nation’sindependence.

On Feb 27, 2008, the then-Prime Minister AbdullahAhmad Badawi led 20,000 people in a one-kilometre procession from the BatuPahat Umno office to the stadium to commemorate this rally.  There have beenother processions calling for the abolition of the Internal Security Act 1960,rights of minorities and electoral reforms.  For the Malaysian Bar, weorganised the Walk for Justice, which was held on Sep 26, 2007, to call for aroyal commission to investigate the VK Lingam video clip and the establishmentof the Judicial Appointments Commission, both of which were subsequently set upby the government. 

The present prohibition of procession robs therakyat of a right that currently exists under Section 27 of the Police Act,which regulates “assemblies, meetings and processions”.  Elsewhere, history isfull of various peaceful processions led by Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther KingJr and Nelson Mandela, to name but a few, which brought an end to oppressivelaws, policies and regimes.

It is ironic that the government now wants toprohibit the very processions that led to the founding of our nation, andothers that moved the prime minister to promise legislative reforms.

These promised reforms now strike back at thevery demonstrations that catalysed them.  The Malaysian Bar is steadfast in itsstand and determination that PA 2011, in its current form, must not becomelaw.

The Malaysian Bar is resolute that any attempt toregulate a fundamental liberty guaranteed under the Federal Constitution mustonly be done after due consultation with all stakeholders, including oppositionparliamentarians and civil society groups.

No other choice

To this end, the Malaysian Bar has proposed analternative bill to be considered, and calls for PA 2011 to be remitted to aparliamentary select committee for consideration.

At the second reading of PA 2011, we ask thatyou, as a wakil rakyat, support our call. 

It is not an exaggeration to say that tomorrow,you will hold the liberty of the rakyat in your hands. We ask that youtreat it with the deference it deserves.

Now, more than ever, you must remember that youwere elected as a representative of the people, to carry out responsibilitiesas a 'wakil rakyat'.  Please do not put blind obedience to party andpartisanship before your duties as a servant of the people. The rakyatshould not be made to suffer the consequences of party politics. PA 2011is an unjust law, being made in undue haste, which has received thecondemnation of the Rakyat.   There can be no other choice.  Do not passPA 2011. Support our alternative bill and our call for a ParliamentarySelect Committee.  

Yours faithfully,

Lim Chee Wee 

President Malaysian Bar   

[1] Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal in Leung KwokHung & Ors v Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (FACC Nos. 1 & 2of 2005, at para. 3).

TMI: Losing the Talent Gap with our Universities... World Bank

2011-11-21T18:51:00.001+08:00

Malaysia attractive to businesses but lacks talent, says World Bank

By Lee Wei Lian

November 21, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 21 — A World Bank report said today that Malaysia is at risk of developing two sides to its economy as its investment incentives shine but its internal talent lags behind.

This comes as Malaysia rose five spots this year to 18th in the World Bank’s ease of doing business index and was also ranked 21st most-competitive country by the World Economic Forum.

The World Bank report noted that Malaysia greatest advantage is its low-cost base and not its skills which are close to the levels seen in low-income countries.

“Malaysia is a very competitive country in the sense that it can provide businesses with an attractive package with which to compete in global markets,” said the report, noting that the package included infrastructure, regulations, fiscal incentives and political stability.

It added however that Malaysia could realise larger gains by tackling structural reforms to increase competition and competencies in the economy rather than improving the business environment.

The report said the Global Locations Index prepared by global consulting firm A.T. Kearney, which ranked Malaysia third out of 50 countries for offshoring and outsourcing services, revealed “reasons for concern rather than encouragement.”

“What emerges from analysing this index is that Malaysia ranks highly because its business environment, while not at the level of advanced economies, compares very favourably against lower-income countries, while labour costs remain much closer to lower-income countries than advanced economies,” said the World Bank. “Malaysia’s performance in skills is its weak point.”

The report also noted a “worrisome” trend of an increasing gap between the University of Malaya (UM) and the National University of Singapore (NUS), Southeast Asia’s leading university.

“The gap between UM and NUS has been high and generally increasing, especially in the sciences,” said the report.

“There is a need to improve the performance of outcomes of universities,” the World Bank’s senior country economist for Malaysia, Frederico Gil Sander, told The Malaysian Insider in an interview.

Sander (picture) also said that the country needed to put structural reforms as recommended by the New Economic Model (NEM) on the “front burner” with the implementation of projects.

“The strategic reform initiatives need to be implemented in parallel and with the same intensity,” he said.

Since taking office in 2009, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has initiated a reform agenda which included a government and economic transformation programme to be driven by the special purpose performance management unit Pemandu.

Critics say that the lack of radical reforms so far however effectively amounted to policy tinkering that would deliver only lacklustre results.

Umno veteran and former Finance Minister Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah said earlier this month that Najib’s reforms appeared to be coming in “dribs and drabs”.

Some analysts say however that the prime minister is constrained by hardliners in his party who would be opposed to widespread economic reforms that could threaten the rice bowls of politically-connected businessmen.

Bolehland’s Bunch of No-Nos... By Martin Jalleh

2011-11-05T19:10:00.000+08:00

Bolehland’s Bunch of No-Nos
By Martin Jalleh

Najib has no balls
Muhyiddin has no brains
Hishammuddin has no integrity.

Rais Yatim has no sense
Zahid has no defence
Nazri has no consistency.

Palanivel has no merit
Yen Yen has no explanation
Peter Chin has no energy.

Shafie Apdal has no clout
Noh Omar has no answers
Mohamed Yakcop has no transparency.

Shahrizat has no “beef”
Kong Cho Ha has no backbone
Liow Tiong Lai has no sincerity.

Ismail Sabri has no price controls
Ahmad Shabery has no medals
Idris Jala has no sagacity.

Ongkili has no innovation
Douglas Uggah has no enthusiasm
Shaziman has no accountability.

Tsu Koon has no leadership
Dompok has no support
Subramaniam has no empathy.

Rosmah has no self-control
Ezam has no real issues
Khairy has no decency.

MIC has no voice
MCA has no choice
Gerakan has no stability.

Judiciary has no honour
Police has no independence
AG has no impartiality.

MACC has no results
MCMC has no logic
EC has no credibility.

Parliament has no vibrancy
Speaker has no fairness
Civil service has no quality.

Himpun has no relevance
Jais has no evidence
Perkasa has no respectability.

Utusan Malaysia has no ethics
Umno’s papers have no limits
MSM have no objectivity.

Umno has no shame
It has made no changes
It has no morals and honesty.

BN has no future
A coalition of no principles
The government has no dignity.

Bolehland will have no money
The country will have no hope
A pariah nation – Asia’s tragedy!

Say “NO!” to Umno
Say “NO!” to BN
Say “NO MORE!”

(31 Oct. 2011)

TMI: Race quotas, politics led to falling UM standards, says World Bank study.... By Leslie Lau

2011-10-17T13:37:00.000+08:00

Race quotas, politics led to falling UM standards, says World Bank study

By Leslie Lau
Executive Editor

October 17, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 17 — A World Bank publication has found that standards at Universiti Malaya have fallen and the institution has been kept at a disadvantage because of race-based admission quotas and political interference in university management.

In contrast, Singapore’s decision to prioritise research, keeping English as the medium of instruction and a merit-based admissions policy have all contributed to the success of the National University of Singapore’s success, according to “The Road to Academic Excellence,” which studies what contributes to a world-class research university.

The study also noted that Malaysian secondary school students are not well prepared for tertiary education.

It points out that the Malaysian education system promotes rote learning, conformity and uniformity rather than fresh and creative thinking.

The study is led by two scholars — Philip Altbach and Jamil Salmi — while various chapters see contributions from various academics.

Salmi, a Moroccan education economist attached to the World Bank, also notes that “disturbing political developments, from the burning of churches to the whipping of a woman for drinking beer in public,” also cast a shadow on Malaysia’s “image as an open and tolerant society.”

The comparisons between UM and NUS is contained in a chapter entitled “The National University of Singapore and the University of Malaya: Common Roots and Different Paths.”

The chapter is authored by Hena Mukherjee, a former Universiti Malaya department head with a doctorate in education from Harvard University, and Poh Kam Wong, an NUS Business School professor.

According to the study, “at an early stage, the Singapore government realised the universities’ role in sustaining economic growth.

“In contrast, after 1970, UM’s institutional goals reflected the New Economic Policy, an affirmative action plan for ethnic Malays and indigenous groups, put in place in the wake of disastrous 1969 ethnic riots that took the lives of hundreds of people on both sides of the racial divide.,” the study found.

The authors said that apart from the student quota system, the NEP translated into more scholarships to Bumiputeras, special programmes to facilitate their entry into higher education institutions, and the use of the Malay language in place of English in the entire education system by 1983.

“In UM and in government, the policy impact spiralled upward so that Bumiputera staff members, over time, secured almost all senior management, administrative, and academic positions.

“As NUS kept pace with the demands of a growing economy that sought to become competitive internationally, with English continuing as the language of instruction and research, UM began to focus inward as proficiency in English declined in favour of the national language — Bahasa Malaysia — and the New Economic Policy’s social goals took precedence.”

The study noted however that there has been widespread recognition that the implementation of affirmative action policies in Malaysia has hurt the higher education system, sapping Malaysia’s economic competitiveness and driving some (mainly Chinese and Indians) to more meritocratic countries, such as Singapore.

In the broader study, the lead authors found that research was an important element in the making of a world-class university, as well as top-grade talent.

“We’re both convinced that serious research universities are important in almost all societies,” Altbach, who is the director of the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College, told the New York Times last week in an interview.

Said Altbach: “Independence, luck, persistence, some kind of strategic vision, adequate resources — usually, but not always, public resources — good governance structures, good leadership, the ability to attract good students and so on. But we have found that the quality of the faculty is really crucial.”

Salmi, who co-ordinates the World Bank’s activities related to higher education, told the same newspaper of their new 390-page study, which will be released later this month, that their advice is like that supposedly given for a rabbit stew recipe: “First, catch your rabbit.” Only in this case the advice would be: “First, catch your faculty.”

“The difference between a good university and great university comes down to talent.”

Steve Jobs: "You've got to find what you love"... Stanford Commencement Speech, 2005

2011-10-06T16:00:00.000+08:00

'You've got to find what you love,' Jobs says

Stanford Report, June 14, 2005

This is a prepared text of the Commencement address delivered by Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple Computer and of Pixar Animation Studios, on June 12, 2005.

I am honored to be with you today at your commencement from one of the finest universities in the world. I never graduated from college. Truth be told, this is the closest I've ever gotten to a college graduation. Today I want to tell you three stories from my life. That's it. No big deal. Just three stories.

The first story is about connecting the dots.

I dropped out of Reed College after the first 6 months, but then stayed around as a drop-in for another 18 months or so before I really quit. So why did I drop out?

It started before I was born. My biological mother was a young, unwed college graduate student, and she decided to put me up for adoption. She felt very strongly that I should be adopted by college graduates, so everything was all set for me to be adopted at birth by a lawyer and his wife. Except that when I popped out they decided at the last minute that they really wanted a girl. So my parents, who were on a waiting list, got a call in the middle of the night asking: "We have an unexpected baby boy; do you want him?" They said: "Of course." My biological mother later found out that my mother had never graduated from college and that my father had never graduated from high school. She refused to sign the final adoption papers. She only relented a few months later when my parents promised that I would someday go to college.

And 17 years later I did go to college. But I naively chose a college that was almost as expensive as Stanford, and all of my working-class parents' savings were being spent on my college tuition. After six months, I couldn't see the value in it. I had no idea what I wanted to do with my life and no idea how college was going to help me figure it out. And here I was spending all of the money my parents had saved their entire life. So I decided to drop out and trust that it would all work out OK. It was pretty scary at the time, but looking back it was one of the best decisions I ever made. The minute I dropped out I could stop taking the required classes that didn't interest me, and begin dropping in on the ones that looked interesting.

It wasn't all romantic. I didn't have a dorm room, so I slept on the floor in friends' rooms, I returned coke bottles for the 5¢ deposits to buy food with, and I would walk the 7 miles across town every Sunday night to get one good meal a week at the Hare Krishna temple. I loved it. And much of what I stumbled into by following my curiosity and intuition turned out to be priceless later on. Let me give you one example:

Reed College at that time offered perhaps the best calligraphy instruction in the country. Throughout the campus every poster, every label on every drawer, was beautifully hand calligraphed. Because I had dropped out and didn't have to take the normal classes, I decided to take a calligraphy class to learn how to do this. I learned about serif and san serif typefaces, about varying the amount of space between different letter combinations, about what makes great typography great. It was beautiful, historical, artistically subtle in a way that science can't capture, and I found it fascinating.

None of this had even a hope of any practical application in my life. But ten years later, when we were designing the first Macintosh computer, it all came back to me. And we designed it all into the Mac. It was the first computer with beautiful typography. If I had never dropped in on that single course in college, the Mac would have never had multiple typefaces or proportionally spaced fonts. And since Windows just copied the Mac, it's likely that no personal computer would have them. If I had never dropped out, I would have never dropped in on this calligraphy class, and personal computers might not have the wonderful typography that they do. Of course it was impossible to connect the dots looking forward when I was in college. But it was very, very clear looking backwards ten years later.

Again, you can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something — your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life.

My second story is about love and loss.

I was lucky — I found what I loved to do early in life. Woz and I started Apple in my parents’ garage when I was 20. We worked hard, and in 10 years Apple had grown from just the two of us in a garage into a $2 billion company with over 4000 employees. We had just released our finest creation — the Macintosh — a year earlier, and I had just turned 30. And then I got fired. How can you get fired from a company you started? Well, as Apple grew we hired someone who I thought was very talented to run the company with me, and for the first year or so things went well. But then our visions of the future began to diverge and eventually we had a falling out. When we did, our Board of Directors sided with him. So at 30 I was out. And very publicly out. What had been the focus of my entire adult life was gone, and it was devastating.

I really didn't know what to do for a few months. I felt that I had let the previous generation of entrepreneurs down - that I had dropped the baton as it was being passed to me. I met with David Packard and Bob Noyce and tried to apologize for screwing up so badly. I was a very public failure, and I even thought about running away from the valley. But something slowly began to dawn on me — I still loved what I did. The turn of events at Apple had not changed that one bit. I had been rejected, but I was still in love. And so I decided to start over.

I didn't see it then, but it turned out that getting fired from Apple was the best thing that could have ever happened to me. The heaviness of being successful was replaced by the lightness of being a beginner again, less sure about everything. It freed me to enter one of the most creative periods of my life.

During the next five years, I started a company named NeXT, another company named Pixar, and fell in love with an amazing woman who would become my wife. Pixar went on to create the world’s first computer animated feature film, Toy Story, and is now the most successful animation studio in the world. In a remarkable turn of events, Apple bought NeXT, I returned to Apple, and the technology we developed at NeXT is at the heart of Apple's current renaissance. And Laurene and I have a wonderful family together.

I'm pretty sure none of this would have happened if I hadn't been fired from Apple. It was awful-tasting medicine, but I guess the patient needed it. Sometimes life hits you in the head with a brick. Don't lose faith. I'm convinced that the only thing that kept me going was that I loved what I did.

You've got to find what you love. And that is as true for your work as it is for your lovers. Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven't found it yet, keep looking. Don't settle. As with all matters of the heart, you'll know when you find it. And, like any great relationship, it just gets better and better as the years roll on. So keep looking until you find it. Don't settle.

My third story is about death.

When I was 17, I read a quote that went something like: "If you live each day as if it was your last, someday you'll most certainly be right." It made an impression on me, and since then, for the past 33 years, I have looked in the mirror every morning and asked myself: "If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?" And whenever the answer has been "No" for too many days in a row, I know I need to change something.

Remembering that I'll be dead soon is the most important tool I've ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything — all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure — these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart.

About a year ago I was diagnosed with cancer. I had a scan at 7:30 in the morning, and it clearly showed a tumor on my pancreas. I didn't even know what a pancreas was. The doctors told me this was almost certainly a type of cancer that is incurable, and that I should expect to live no longer than three to six months. My doctor advised me to go home and get my affairs in order, which is doctor's code for prepare to die. It means to try to tell your kids everything you thought you'd have the next 10 years to tell them in just a few months. It means to make sure everything is buttoned up so that it will be as easy as possible for your family. It means to say your goodbyes.

I lived with that diagnosis all day. Later that evening I had a biopsy, where they stuck an endoscope down my throat, through my stomach and into my intestines, put a needle into my pancreas and got a few cells from the tumor. I was sedated, but my wife, who was there, told me that when they viewed the cells under a microscope the doctors started crying because it turned out to be a very rare form of pancreatic cancer that is curable with surgery. I had the surgery and I'm fine now.

This was the closest I've been to facing death, and I hope it's the closest I get for a few more decades. Having lived through it, I can now say this to you with a bit more certainty than when death was a useful but purely intellectual concept:

No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don't want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new. Right now the new is you, but someday not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it is quite true.

Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.

When I was young, there was an amazing publication called The Whole Earth Catalog, which was one of the bibles of my generation. It was created by a fellow named Stewart Brand not far from here in Menlo Park, and he brought it to life with his poetic touch. This was in the late 1960's, before personal computers and desktop publishing, so it was all made with typewriters, scissors, and polaroid cameras. It was sort of like Google in paperback form, 35 years before Google came along: it was idealistic, and overflowing with neat tools and great notions.

Stewart and his team put out several issues of The Whole Earth Catalog, and then when it had run its course, they put out a final issue. It was the mid-1970s, and I was your age. On the back cover of their final issue was a photograph of an early morning country road, the kind you might find yourself hitchhiking on if you were so adventurous. Beneath it were the words: "Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish."

It was their farewell message as they signed off. Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish. And I have always wished that for myself. And now, as you graduate to begin anew, I wish that for you.

Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.

Thank you all very much.

DQ Commentary:

On the day when Steve Jobs passed on (05 October 2011), I felt somewhat numb and ill at ease as to what to say, what to think... Perhaps, I am a tad too sensitive. I weep sometimes (at least, my tears have been known to flow effortlessly,) when emotional events and thoughts flood my turbulent if sensitive mind.

Then I remembered his very poignant Stanford University Commencement speech in 2005, one year after his initial diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. This speech epitomised Steve's take on life and living, and I think it represents his singular approach to this sojourn that we have on this earth.

We all should try to leave a little dent in this world, leave a few momentary footprints in the constantly shifting sands of time, even if these are just for a while, that we mean something, some happiness, some touches to someone else. Perhaps that is all that makes a difference between us humans vs. the extinct dinosaurs and other animals before us, and even ahead of us...

I like his urging for the young to be more spontaneous, to live life to the hilt, while at the same time be a little more irreverent and even outrageous, foolish even (perhaps without being self-destructive or too much of an extreme risk taker!)...

But we must find meaning and enjoy every moment that we have, mindful that all this 'allocated' time is never a given or a sure thing; that each of our lives is finite and most importantly, that our time has limits which are way beyond our complete understanding or our own power to influence, to change and possibly to postpone. We cannot simply put our hands out to stay our own execution, our own demise, when our time has come.

The ineluctable nature of death is that it will be upon us, like a thief in the night most times... and that we can only hope that we are ready; that we have done this and done that, and that we are at peace to meet our Maker: God, Allah, Rama or Gaia, whichever Universal Timeless Being that we believe in.

Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish! Live life!

Steve Jobs, RIP!

malaysiakini: Najib's gaping void between illusion and reality... by Terence Netto

2011-09-22T13:56:00.000+08:00

Najib's gaping void between illusion and reality

Terence Netto
Sep 22, 2011

COMMENT It's odd - this propensity of the Najib Razak administration to shoot itself in the foot just when it is poised to play the winning cards it intimates it has long been harbouring.

In this instance, the timing of the self-inflicted wound - thedecision to charge Mohamad Sabu under the Penal Code with criminal defamation as a result of remarks the PAS No 2 made over the Bukit Kepong incident - is most inopportune.

The case comes to court just after the Attorney-General's Chambers dropped charges against a coterie of Parti Sosialis Malaysia activists who were initially indicted for offences under the hoary Emergency Ordinance and obsolete laws.

Also, the case against Sabu is being pressed when the prime minister's predecessorcautions him over the possibility of internal opposition to his liberalising laws curtailing civil liberties.

It is a measure of the silo-mentality of some Umno leaders that they are more concerned about internal reaction rather than public restlessness with a status quo that the Umno supremo is trying to change.

In other words, how Umno reactionaries feel matters more than what the public wants.

Najib's ballyhooed moves have attracted an array of ayes and nays from sceptics, with contention building over who should take the credit for the intended liberalisation, an exchange that mirrors the ongoing debate over which political forces were more responsible for gaining independence for the country in 1957.

With regard to Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's caution about the likelihood of internal dissent, a Najib lieutenant has interjected to say that, perhaps, Abdullah lacked clarity about his own tilt towards liberalism, which was why, claimed Mohd Nazri Aziz, the former PM's attempt at 'perestroika' (restructuring of political discourse in Malaysia through relaxation of repressive laws) did not cut any ice with party reactionaries.

Talk about a lack of clarity about what liberalism ought to look like, what can be more addled than a decision shortly after liberalising measures were announced on prime-time television to prosecute ex-ISA detainee Mat Sabu for reason of his revisionist take on an incident that happened 61 years ago?

Form rather than substance

It has been argued in these columns that Najib knows the forms of liberalism, but not its substance, just as it has been suggested that he knows what 1Malaysia means - credit his 'We must embrace our differences' as having some worth - but does not know how to give effect to it.

The evidence of cognitive dissonance in the Najib administration is now too plentiful to deny.

From day one of his administration the PM appeared to want to smooth along nice and easy, with periodic announcements of changes to sclerotic policies and practices. But all the while his administration has been prey to jerks and twitches that throw it off-stride.

Out of this discontinuity between the reformist image he desperately wants to project and the reality that is considerably less amenable, the PM comes across as wanting the public to trust him.

Opinion surveys now tell him that the 'trust-the-PM' factor is slipping. Every new PM is given a wide berth by a watching public to strut his stuff, but once the people sense his act is tinsel, they can turn on the leader with a vengeance.

Look at predecessor Abdullah's slide from conductor of the 2004 BN landslide to casualty of the 2008 BN debacle, all within the span of a term.

The resounding lesson of that precipitous decline: Don't backslide once you have campaigned on a promise of reform.

Conjuring tricks

The problem reform-seeking Najib faces in his party and the administration is the undertow of stale thinking that hinders ameliorative policies.

In such circumstances, the task of leadership is to transform the public understanding of national issues and on the platform that affords the leader must break through the gauntlet of obstacles made up of reactionary forces, interest-group power, public passivity or cynicism, and conventional wisdom.

Najib is unable to transform his party's and his administration's assumption that democracy must be tutelary and citizens are essentially wards and not free agents.

This is the obsolete thinking he has not been able to change as the clock winds down rapidly to when he must seek his own electoral mandate.

Even if he gets it, it will be a victory without drum rolls, a majority without a meaningful mandate. That is because he has not defined clearly what he wants to do with it.

He is, in the end, more interested in form rather than substance, in management than in leadership, in tone than in content.

He is like the avuncular man who comes to do conjuring tricks at a children's party who is then startled to discover that the kids have grown up and want something more elevating.

TERENCE NETTO has been a journalist for close on four decades. He likes the occupation because it puts him in contact with the eminent without being under the necessity to admire them. It is the ideal occupation for a temperament that finds power fascinating and its exercise abhorrent.

fmt: Peanuts, not sweeping reforms....... by Kee Thuan Chye

2011-09-16T17:57:00.000+08:00

Peanuts, not sweeping reforms

September 16, 2011

Let’s not be fooled, people. The changes Najib announced are merely cosmetic, and will have to be passed in Parliament first before they become effective.

COMMENT

By Kee Thuan Chye

PEANUTS. That’s what Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak’s so-called “sweeping reforms” are. They hardly amount to a political transformation.

While it’s cheering to note that the Internal Security Act (ISA) will be repealed – finally, after our many years of waiting – and that the Emergency proclamations are to be lifted – a decision that is decades overdue – it’s disturbing to be told that they will be replaced by two new laws aimed at preventing subversion and safeguarding public order.

And even though the detention period under these new laws may be shorter, with further extensions to be made by court order, the Home Minister is still the one to decide who gets detained for suspicion of being a terrorist.

This means, theoretically speaking, that although Najib has given the commitment that “no individual will be detained purely based on political ideology”, there is no stopping the government from branding a political opponent a suspected terrorist, whether or not he is one. Just to lock him away.

Another so-called “reform” is scrapping the requirement for publications to renew their printing licences annually.

This, also, is nothing to crow about. It still means that publications have to obtain a licence that the Home Minister may or may not grant. It still means the Home Minister has the absolute power to suspend or revoke a licence at any time. And his decision cannot be challenged in court. He does not even have to give a reason.

It also means the Home Ministry can still call up newspaper editors and cow them into submission for publishing something the ministry finds objectionable. Like what happened recently to The Star when it ran the heading ‘Ramadhan delights’ for an eating-out supplement that was not totally devoted to halal food.

The ministry can still practise the double standards it has been practising – turn a blind eye to the race-baiting and rabble-rousing of Utusan Malaysia but come down hard on the minor transgressions of other publications. So where’s the change?

If the government were truly sincere and had the political will, it should repeal the Publications and Printing Presses Act (PPPA) and no longer require publications to obtain a printing licence. That would be in keeping with the spirit of what Najib talked about instituting in Malaysia when he announced the “reforms” on Sept 15 – a “democratic system based on the universal philosophy of ‘of the people, by the people and for the people’”.

Vague reforms
None of the newly announced “reforms” fully cohere with this spirit.

On Section 27 of the Police Act, Najib said there would be a review to take into consideration the provisions under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution which guarantees Malaysians the right to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of association.

But in the same breath, he said police permits would still be required for street demonstrations, subject to certain criteria.

If freedom of assembly, which should be a right of all citizens, is still curtailed in this fashion, what is that rubbish talk of Najib’s about forging a democratic system “of the people, by the people and for the people”?

He did say, however, that “permission to assemble will be given in accordance with procedures to be fixed later that will take into account international norms”. But this sounds vague. What international norms did he mean? And when is “later” going to be?

And speaking of Article 10, why doesn’t the government address the other impediments to freedom of speech, such as the Official Secrets Act (OSA), the Sedition Act, the Universities and University Colleges Act (UUCA), the Multimedia and Communications Act, the Public Order (Preservation) Ordinance?

No wonder Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein was smirking and applauding when Najib made his announcements. His absolute powers remain intact.

Let’s not be fooled, people. The changes Najib announced are merely cosmetic. And of course they will have to be passed in Parliament first before they become effective.

Meanwhile, Articles 149 and 150 are still there to provide Parliament with the power to pass laws that do not have to be consistent with the freedoms guaranteed in Articles 5, 9, 10 and 13, and to allow the Cabinet to declare an emergency. The Emergency proclamations may go, but Article 150 is still around. We the people are still vulnerable.

Some of us may say that we cannot expect the government to make such truly sweeping reforms in one go, and that we should be thankful for the small mercies we are now getting. Some may say this could be just the beginning, and more reforms could come.

That’s well and good. But at the same time, we should give credit where it’s due for this beginning. It’s not Najib we should thank. What we are getting is what has been due us for a long time, what any concerned government should have given us even without our having to pressure them to do so.

We should instead acknowledge that the March 8 effect lives on, and therefore the credit for these changes should go to us the rakyat for voting as we did on March 8, 2008. We voted in a stronger opposition, we denied the ruling party the two-thirds majority that it had abused to increasingly curb our democratic rights over the decades. We sent them the message that enough was enough.

These “reforms” have now come about because Barisan Nasional (BN) wants to stay in power, and it has realised that we have the power to decide whether that will happen. The “reforms” are meant to win back our votes. Ever since Najib took over as prime minister, he has been doing things merely to ensure that BN’s goal is fulfilled, not because he is altruistic or benevolent in spirit. We have seen his meanness in numerous other ways.

Watching him speak on Sept 15 when announcing these “reforms” as part of his Malaysia Day address, we could have contrasted it with his speech to 6,000 Umno members and Malay NGOs at Putra World Trade Centre (PWTC) a couple of days after the Bersih 2.0 rally, and call him “two-faced”.

Contemptuous chauvinist
At that PWTC gathering, he was far from being the prime minister who cared about reform and the good of the entire country.

He was a truculent thug who roused the crowd with the boast of Umno’s ability to round up a million members to “conquer Kuala Lumpur”. He was a contemptuous chauvinist who exhorted the Malays to unite in order to teach the Bersih 2.0 protesters a lesson and “show them whose country this is”.

No doubt, he has since realised his mistakes in his handling of the Bersih 2.0 rally and is now making amends. His ratings have dropped and he’s trying to make them go up again. Hence these “reforms”. But let’s be wary of his sincerity and be clear about his real purpose.

Let us keep sight as well of the many more ills that the government has not comprehensively addressed, such as corruption, rent-seeking, wasteful spending, Umnoputraism, our pathetic education system.

Let us demand more reforms, especially those pertaining to our institutions, such as the judiciary, the police, the Attorney-General’s Office, the Election Commission, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).

There is still a long road ahead. Unless and until the reforms are truly sweeping and the restrictive laws abolished, we should not put our trust in Najib and BN.

Make them sweat, make them work, and don’t let them take us for granted. Never again.

Dramatist and journalist Kee Thuan Chye is the author of ‘March 8: Time for Real Change‘. He is a contributor to FMT.

Wikileaks: Najib's Islamic moderation lip service

2011-09-04T12:35:00.000+08:00

Wikileaks: Najib's Islamic moderation lip service

Sep 3, 11 6:05pm

10 friends can read this story for free

Prime Minister Najib Razak, while attempting to portray Malaysia as a moderate voice in the Muslim, is doing just the opposite in his attempts to woo Malay support, according to a leaked US embassy cable.

Commenting on Najib's administration's handling of the 'Allah' and other religious issues, the embassy conveyed scepticism as to how far the PM would go to show that Malaysia was indeed tolerant of religious freedom.

“There has long been conflict between the ruling party's commitment in principle to freedom of religion and toleration of diverse views in practice,” read a US embassy cable sent to the US State Department on Jan 12 last year.

“Najib's public relations efforts to downplay differences among the races and religions and promote the concepts of toleration and moderation notwithstanding, he appears to have hardened popular views since the advent of his administration given the steps hardliners in the ruling party have forced on their fellow Umno members.”

Posted on Wikileaks last week, the cable cited the 'Allah' and Kartika issues and the cow's head incident and other issues related to the practice of religious freedom that had cast doubt on the PM's sincerity on the issue.

“Despite its extensive efforts to reassure expatriate and foreign audiences, the Malaysian government has focused only on protection of property and persons, foregoing an opportunity to make a clear statement on the maintenance of freedom of religion in the country,” it said.

According to the cable, it was believed that Najib was primarily interested in gaining the support of the Malay electorate at the expense of creating a true environment of religious freedom.

This, it said, was evident in how the government had used the judiciary to intervene on the 'Allah' issue and how it manipulated public statements including those of the Agong and the Selangor sultan, to send a message that the BN would not back down on the 'Allah' ban.

This contrasts with the PM's statements abroad, such as his lecture at Oxford in May titled 'Coalition of Moderates and Inter- Civilisational Understanding' where he sold the idea of Malaysia as a moderate nation that celebrated its diversity.

“Malaysians accept their diversity. We do not merely tolerate each other but we also embrace and celebrate,” Najib had said during his visit to the United Kingdom, at the invitation of the Oxford Centre of Islamic Studies (Oxcis).

Mere 'rhetoric'

The US cable said that the PM has not shown any effort towards achieving moderation aside from “rhetoric”.

“(Najib's) failure thus far to record much in the way of tangible results, beyond more forward-looking and liberal rhetoric, leads to popular suspicion.

“The conventional wisdom among most non-ruling coalition Chinese and Indians, for example, seems to be that the ruling party has orchestrated the 'Allah' issue so as to increase support among Malay voters by fomenting division between Muslims on one side and Christians or secularists on the other in the opposition coalition,” it said.

It added that Najib's earnest in implementing significant political reform was “debatable” and questions if it is mere “lip service” to win back conservative Malay support after serious setbacks in 2008.

It noted widespread cynicism and “distrust” amongst the non-Muslims at the PM's sincerity on religious tolerance.

“The popular view is widely and deeply held among non-Malay, non-Muslims that the government is antagonistic toward other religions and is engaged in a long-term effort to expand Islam's primacy in Malaysian society,” it said.

Religious controversy continues to blight Malaysian politics as the 13th general election looms, from the 'Christian PM conspiracy' tacked on the DAP to the recent Jais raid on a church in Damansara Utama, Selangor over alleged conversion of Muslims, that has spun off an apostasy sideshow.

Even Penang's Islamic authorities attempts at exercising tolerance recently, through their ban on loudspeakers at dawn, has become fair game for BN politicians.

ATimes: Finding the meaning of life... By Spengler

2011-08-30T13:52:00.000+08:00

Why you won't find the meaning of life

By Spengler

Much as I admire the late Austrian neurologist and psychiatrist Viktor Frankl, who turned his horrific experience at Auschwitz into clinical insights, the notion of "man's search for meaning" seems inadequate. Just what about man qualifies him to search for meaning, whatever that might be?

The German playwright Bertolt Brecht warned us against the practice in The Threepenny Opera:

Ja, renne nach dem Gluck

Doch renne nicht zu sehr

Denn alle rennen nach dem Gluck

Das Gluck lauft hinterher.

(Sure, run after happiness,

but don't run too hard,

because while everybody's running after happiness,

it moseys along somewhere behind them).

Brecht (1898-1956) was the kind of character who gave Nihilism a bad name, to be sure, but he had a point. There is something perverse in searching for the meaning of life. It implies that we don't like our lives and want to discover something different. If we don't like living to begin with, we are in deep trouble.

Danish philosopher, theologian and religious author Soren Kierkegaard portrayed his Knight of Faith as the sort of fellow who enjoyed a pot roast on Sunday afternoon. If that sort of thing doesn't satisfy us (feel free to substitute something else than eating), just what is it that we had in mind?

People have a good reason to look at life cross-eyed, because it contains a glaring flaw - that we are going to die, and we probably will become old and sick and frail before we do so. All the bric-a-brac we accumulate during our lifetimes will accrue to other people, if it doesn't go right into the trash, and all the little touches of self-improvement we added to our personality will disappear – the golf stance, the macrame skills, the ability to play the ukulele and the familiarity with the filmography of Sam Pekinpah.

These examples trivialize the problem, of course. If we search in earnest for the meaning of life, then we might make heroic efforts to invent our own identity. That is the great pastime of the past century's intellectuals. Jean-Paul Sartre, the sage and eventual self-caricature of Existentialism, instructed us that man's existence precedes his essence, and therefore can invent his own essence more or less as he pleases. That was a silly argument, but enormously influential.

Sartre reacted to the advice of Martin Heidegger (the German existentialist from whom Jean-Paul Sartre cribbed most of his metaphysics). Heidegger told us that our "being" really was being-unto-death, for our life would end, and therefore is shaped by how we deal with the certainty of death. (Franz Kafka put the same thing better: "The meaning of life is that it ends.") Heidegger (1889-1976) thought that to be "authentic" mean to submerge ourselves into the specific conditions of our time, which for him meant joining the Nazi party. That didn't work out too well, and after the war it became every existentialist for himself. Everyone had the chance to invent his own identity according to taste.

For complete article, read...

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/MH30Dj01.html

malaysiakini: Why EC's arguments are seriously flawed by John R Malott

2011-08-28T13:03:00.000+08:00

Why EC's arguments are seriously flawed

John R Malott
Aug 24, 11
7:53am

10 friends can read this story for free

COMMENT There has been much informed discussion in Malaysia over the past two months about electoral reform, with thoughtful proposals from reformers and counter-statements by the government.

In this article, the first of two, I take a look at some of the proposals that have been made and compare Malaysia's situation to that of other countries.

Lowering voting age
From an international perspective, Malaysia's 21 year age requirement is out of step with the rest of the world.

Wikipedia lists the voting ages in almost 240 countries and territories around the world, and overwhelmingly the predominant voting age is 18. Malaysia is one of only 12 countries where a voter must be 21.

Let's look at Malaysia's Asian neighbours. You need be only 18 to vote in Australia, Bangladesh, Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, India, Laos, Maldives, Mongolia, Nepal, New Zealand, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam.

In Indonesia and East Timor, it is 17; in South Korea, 19; and in Japan and Taiwan, 20. Together with Singapore, Malaysia is the only country in Asia to set the voting age at 21.

Let's also take a look at other nations in the Commonwealth, whose governmental structures and constitutions have all been influenced heavily by the British.

The voting age is 18 in Australia, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Bermuda, Canada, Ghana, India, Jamaica, New Zealand, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Uganda, the United Kingdom and Zimbabwe. Once again, Malaysia is an outlier.

In Malaysia, when citizens turn 18, they have the legal right to get married, have consensual sex, sign contracts, and buy alcohol and tobacco. They can leave school and work when they are 16, and they can drive when they are 17.

They do not, however, have the right to vote until they are 21. Why does this age gap exist?

Malaysia's age limit clearly is out of step with the rest of the world and also is inconsistent with the legal rights it grants its citizens at an earlier age, from marriage through employment.

Extending the campaign period

Bersih 2.0 advocates extending the campaign period to 21 days, but the Elections Commission is opposed to it. EC deputy chief Wan Ahmad Wan Omar says that a shorter period is sufficient for a nation of Malaysia's size and technological sophistication.

However, a number of Malaysian advocates of electoral reform have pointed out that in years past, Malaysia's election campaigns extended beyond 21 days.

Let's take a look at Wan Ahmad's justification for a short campaign and examine the campaign periods in other Commonwealth countries, with which Malaysia shares a political heritage.

The 2010 Australian elections were announced on July 17, and the polls were held five weeks later, on Aug 21.

Using Wan Ahmad's logic, Australia needs a longer campaign period because it is a big country. So let's look at some smaller-sized places, which also are technologically sophisticated.

The 2010 elections in the United Kingdom were announced on April 12 and held on May 6. That is a campaign period of 24 days.

This year's parliamentary elections in New Zealand were announced on Feb 2, but they will not be held until Nov 26, almost 10 months later!

What about Singapore, a nation that is only 582 sq km in area, just 0.2% of Malaysia's size? Their Parliament was dissolved on April 19 of this year, and the elections were held on May 7, which was 20 days later.

Wan Ahmad argues that the length of a campaign period is correlated to a country's size and sophistication, but as the examples of the UK, New Zealand, and Singapore show, the argument doesn't hold water.

Finally, while Malaysia's land area is smaller than other India or Australia, the physical separation of the nation into its eastern and western halves has an impact on national election campaigns. The flying distance between Kuala Lumpur and Kota Kinabalu is 1,624 km.

That is just 42km short of the distance between Bombay and Calcutta, and 123km less than the distance between New Delhi and Chennai. So for political leaders who need to criss-cross the country, the length of the campaign is important.

Using indelible ink

Bersih 2.0 advocates the use of indelible ink, which has proven to be a low-tech but effective method to prevent electoral fraud. EC deputy chief Wan Ahmad has made a number of points in opposition.

First, Wan Ahmad claims that Malaysia's Constitution would need to be amended, because the government cannot deny a registered voter his or her right to vote. This is incredibly perverse logic.

The purpose of indelible ink is not to prevent someone from voting; it is to prevent someone from voting twice, fraudulently and illegally. It is a crime-prevention and not a vote-prevention measure. Furthermore, when the government imported indelible ink for the 2008 elections, no one claimed then that the Constitution needed to be amended.

Wan Ahmad's second argument is chauvinistic. He says that indelible ink is for poorer, less sophisticated countries like India and Indonesia. Sophisticated countries like Malaysia deserve a more high-tech system like biometrics.

But then, in the same breath, he says that voters in the countryside are not sophisticated, and that they could be duped by people who dip their fingers in ink before they vote. So which is it - are Malaysians sophisticated or not?

Indelible ink has been in use in Indian elections since 1952, and there have been no accusations of fraud. The peasantry have not been duped. True, there have been problems in the Philippines because they used a lower quality ink that can be removed easily.

But Indian ink - which is what the Malaysian government imported in 2008 - stays on the skin for 72 hours and cannot be removed.

The irony is that many Malaysians believe that the proposed high-tech biometric system will lead to more fraud and more problems, not less. The equipment and database will be under the control of the government. Some blog reports say that the Malaysian companies that provide this kind of equipment have close political and family connections to government leaders.

Furthermore, as we all know, any computer system and database is only as good as the information that we put into it. High-tech systems are also prone to crash.

Can Malaysia deploy biometric equipment to thousands of polling places across the country, train personnel, and ensure both electricity and Internet connectivity, especially in the rural areas? A low-tech solution - indelible ink - seems easier, cheaper, and more reliable.

Permitting foreign observers

When Wan Ahmad was asked last July whether Malaysia would invite foreign groups to observe the country's next elections, the EC deputy chief became emotional and nationalistic: “Why do we need foreigners... commenting on our election system? They don't know our election laws. They don't understand our values.”

It is a matter of pride, he said. Malaysians would be hurt by the negative comments of foreign observers. “They are foreigners. Who are they? Why do we need Germans commenting on our election system?”

The irony is that he made these comments just as his boss, Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof, was in Thailand on a five-day trip with four other Malaysian election commissioners to observe the Thai elections. The Malaysian group had been invited by the Thai Election Commission, along with 11 other countries.

As in Malaysia, voters in Thailand are divided on the question whether their elections are free and fair. An Asia Foundation survey in 2009 found a split - 47% of those Thai surveyed said their elections are free and fair, while 48% disagreed.

But when asked whether the presence of election observers would give them more confidence that the results of the elections were fair, 62% said yes. Only 34% said that it would not.

From that point of view, it is in the government's interest to invite both domestic and foreign groups to observe the next elections. The heavy-handed government crackdown last July 9 against the Bersih rally certainly got the world's attention and raised international concern that all might not be as it seems in Malaysia.

The government says that elections are free and fair. The world needs to be assured about the strength and integrity of Malaysia's democracy. Inviting foreign observers is not an issue of national pride; it is a question of national interest.

JOHN R MALOTT was the US Ambassador to Malaysia, 1995-1998, and continues to follow developments in that country closely.

malaysiakini: Electoral reform: How does Malaysia fare? by John R Malott

2011-08-28T13:01:00.000+08:00

Electoral reform: How does M'sia fare?

John R Malott
Aug 27, 11
7:51am

10 friends can read this story for free

COMMENT This is the second of two articles about proposals that have been made for electoral reform in Malaysia, counter-statements by the government, and how Malaysia's situation compares to that of other countries.

Allow overseas voting

Many Malaysians have called for voting rights for all Malaysians who live abroad, and not just for government workers and military who are assigned overseas or Malaysians studying in foreign countries.

There are over one million Malaysians living overseas, but according to Election Commission deputy chief Wan Ahmad Wan Omar, only 2,500 of them are eligible to vote.

The government has not provided any convincing reason why all Malaysians overseas should not be permitted to vote. However, two days ago EC chairperson Abdul Aziz Yusof (left) said that "hopefully" all registered voters living overseas will be able to vote in the next general election.

To date, the government has resisted allowing overseas Malaysians to vote out of concern that many of the Malaysians who live overseas do not support Umno or its coalition partners. In addition, the ethnic reality is that many of the Malaysians living overseas are non-Malay, and likely not to vote for Umno.

So Umno's conclusion is that permitting overseas Malaysians to vote therefore might work against its interests.

There is no clear international consensus on what right citizens who live overseas have to vote in their home countries.

The ACE Electoral Knowledge Network examined the practices of 214 countries and territories. It reports that 115 countries, just a little over half, permit their citizens to vote from abroad. Malaysia is one of those countries. The other 99 countries and territories do not allow overseas voters.

ACE says that 80 of those 115 "OK to vote" countries do not impose any conditions on overseas voting, except that the voter must be a citizen. However, the other 35 countries, including Malaysia, impose restrictions. Those restrictions concern either the reason or the length of time that a person is overseas.

Malaysia is one of a number of countries to impose "activity-based restrictions." Why are you overseas? In Malaysia's case, only diplomatic officers and students abroad may vote. A number of other countries have the same conditions, such as India, Singapore, and Israel.

Some countries, usually those that do not impose "activity-based" or job-related restrictions, impose a time restriction. The assumption is that a citizen who has lived abroad for a number of years and perhaps become a permanent resident in another country should not be eligible to vote in national elections.

Australia, for example, denies the right to vote to any Australian citizen who has lived abroad for more than six years. For the UK, it is 15 years. For Germany, it takes 25 years before a German citizen overseas loses the right to vote.

In short, there is no clear international consensus. Half of the world's countries do not permit overseas voting. But of those that do, Malaysia has some of the more restrictive conditions.

A national discussion about the eligibility of Malaysians overseas to vote therefore would be a useful part of the dialogue on electoral reform.

Provide fair access to media
Well-informed voters - which can come only from the free flow of information about parties, candidates, and their positions - are essential to a healthy democracy. Bersih 2.0 has called for free and fair access to the media for all political parties.

There have been many international reports that support Bersih's position. Reporters without Borders places Malaysia 141st out of the 178 countries in its Press Freedom Index.

The US Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices declares that Malaysian opposition parties are unable to compete on equal terms with the governing Umno-dominated coalition because of restrictions on campaigning and freedom of assembly and association.

The State Department reports that "news of the opposition is tightly restricted and reported in a biased fashion."

Let's take a look at the ways in which information about parties, candidates and their positions are disseminated in Malaysia.

1) The state-owned and controlled media, RTM and Bernama, are supposed to be public institutions for all citizens in Malaysia, because they are supported by all taxpayers regardless of their political affiliation.

In reality, RTM and Bernama have become propaganda arms of Umno and BN. RTM evens uses taxpayers' money to broadcast Umno's political assemblies. RTM and Bernama take their political direction from the prime minister and the Information Ministry. They praise the ruling parties and castigate and demonise the opposition.

In other countries with publicly-owned broadcast systems - for example, the UK, Australia, Japan, and the United States - access is provided to all political parties, and an effort is made to be politically impartial.

EC deputy chief Wan Ahmad has said that he cannot compel newspapers and television stations to report on the opposition. That, of course, is true. It is not within the EC's authority. But it is within the government's authority and therefore a legitimate topic for discussion.

2) In Malaysia, privately-owned newspapers and television stations are owned by companies under the control of Umno, MCA and MIC, and can disseminate their views freely, to everyone.

By contrast, there are no television or radio stations owned by supporters of the opposition, and opposition newspapers cannot be sold openly. They can only be distributed to party members, a clearly discriminatory practice.

3) Wan Ahmad says that despite these restrictions, the opposition and its supporters have access to alternative media sources, meaning the Internet and its websites and blogs. That also is true. But it does not make for a level-playing field. The opposition is forced to campaign with one hand tied behind its back. They have a rifle, but the other side has a cannon.

Some alternative sites clearly are supporters of the opposition. Others (like Malaysiakini) try to provide a point of view that is more balanced than the mainstream media. As a result, their reporting does not always please Malaysia's rulers.

These alternative media outlets therefore have been subject to government harassment, such as the denial of service attacks that were launched against Malaysiakini during the recent Sarawak elections. This too cuts off the free flow of information to Malaysian voters.

Over two centuries ago, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press." Organisations and governments throughout the world have made it clear what they think about press freedom in Malaysia. It is no wonder that Malaysia ranks 141st in the world - even below Zimbabwe.

Ensure an impartial EC

Around the world, there probably are thousands of different ways in which governments at all levels - national, state, and local - organise and conduct elections. Because of this great variety, foreign analysts would not insist that there is one "right way" to organise and manage elections. Instead they would focus on some basic principles.

There are a number of questions that should be asked to determine whether elections are being conducted in a fair manner:

Is the organisation that is responsible for conducting the elections impartial, or does it favour one party over another?

Can the same be said about the leadership and staff employees of that organisation? Do they carry out their work in an impartial manner?

Is the organisation subject to political interference?

Are the decisions and actions of the organisation transparent, and are they fair? Do they treat both the government and the opposition equally?

Numerous academic studies conducted by both foreign and Malaysian academics have concluded that over the years, the independence and impartiality of Malaysia's election commission has been lost. In many cases, this is because its independence has been stripped by parliamentary action. So it is not fair to blame everything on the personnel who lead the commission.

However, various unfortunate statements by Malaysia's election officials have only reinforced the view that they favour one party over another. For example:

In 2007, then EC Chairman Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman said that "there is only one regime in this country that is capable of running (the country)."

Abdul Rashid went on to say that he was on the same wavelength as his friend, senior Umno leader Sanusi Junid, about what the country needs. "If we don't agree, then we are in trouble, because I run the elections," he said.

EC deputy chief Wan Ahmad (right) has taken to writing articles in Utusan Malaysia, owned by Umno, saying that the opposition is engaged in 'dirty tricks' and trying to scapegoat the EC in order to promote their political ambitions.

Wan Ahmad added, "BN has never attacked or put down the EC. That is the difference between PAS, DAP, PKR and BN."

Critics of the EC say that BN has no reason to attack or put down the EC, as the EC is doing BN's work.

In response to Wan Ahmad's comments, Bersih 2.0 issued a statement saying that the EC "continues to make comments that are less in the spirit of working together towards cleaner elections and more in the spirit of defending an incumbent party against contenders."

Bersih called on Wan Ahmad and the EC to end their war of words with political parties.

"Recent comments that have been made threaten the public image of impartiality that the EC needs to have to maintain public confidence. It is more the job of the deputy chairperson of a political party to make political criticisms than it is the deputy chairperson of the EC."

That is a sentiment with which most of the world would agree.

JOHN R MALOTT was the US Ambassador to Malaysia, 1995-1998, and continues to follow developments in that country closely.

JK Rowling's Speech at Harvard Commencement

2011-08-24T21:29:00.002+08:00

Text of JK Rowling Speech at Harvard Commencement

President Faust, members of the Harvard Corporation and the Board of Overseers, members of the faculty, proud parents, and, above all, graduates.

The first thing I would like to say is ‘thank you.’ Not only has Harvard given me an extraordinary honour, but the weeks of fear and nausea I have endured at the thought of giving this commencement address have made me lose weight. A win-win situation! Now all I have to do is take deep breaths, squint at the red banners and convince myself that I am at the world’s largest Gryffindor reunion.

Delivering a commencement address is a great responsibility; or so I thought until I cast my mind back to my own graduation. The commencement speaker that day was the distinguished British philosopher Baroness Mary Warnock. Reflecting on her speech has helped me enormously in writing this one, because it turns out that I can’t remember a single word she said. This liberating discovery enables me to proceed without any fear that I might inadvertently influence you to abandon promising careers in business, the law or politics for the giddy delights of becoming a gay wizard.

You see? If all you remember in years to come is the ‘gay wizard’ joke, I’ve come out ahead of Baroness Mary Warnock. Achievable goals: the first step to self improvement.

Actually, I have wracked my mind and heart for what I ought to say to you today. I have asked myself what I wish I had known at my own graduation, and what important lessons I have learned in the 21 years that have expired between that day and this.

I have come up with two answers. On this wonderful day when we are gathered together to celebrate your academic success, I have decided to talk to you about the benefits of failure. And as you stand on the threshold of what is sometimes called ‘real life’, I want to extol the crucial importance of imagination.

These may seem quixotic or paradoxical choices, but please bear with me.

Looking back at the 21-year-old that I was at graduation, is a slightly uncomfortable experience for the 42-year-old that she has become. Half my lifetime ago, I was striking an uneasy balance between the ambition I had for myself, and what those closest to me expected of me.

I was convinced that the only thing I wanted to do, ever, was to write novels. However, my parents, both of whom came from impoverished backgrounds and neither of whom had been to college, took the view that my overactive imagination was an amusing personal quirk that would never pay a mortgage, or secure a pension. I know that the irony strikes with the force of a cartoon anvil, now.

So they hoped that I would take a vocational degree; I wanted to study English Literature. A compromise was reached that in retrospect satisfied nobody, and I went up to study Modern Languages. Hardly had my parents’ car rounded the corner at the end of the road than I ditched German and scuttled off down the Classics corridor.

I cannot remember telling my parents that I was studying Classics; they might well have found out for the first time on graduation day. Of all the subjects on this planet, I think they would have been hard put to name one less useful than Greek mythology when it came to securing the keys to an executive bathroom.

I would like to make it clear, in parenthesis, that I do not blame my parents for their point of view. There is an expiry date on blaming your parents for steering you in the wrong direction; the moment you are old enough to take the wheel, responsibility lies with you. What is more, I cannot criticise my parents for hoping that I would never experience poverty. They had been poor themselves, and I have since been poor, and I quite agree with them that it is not an ennobling experience. Poverty entails fear, and stress, and sometimes depression; it means a thousand petty humiliations and hardships. Climbing out of poverty by your own efforts, that is indeed something on which to pride yourself, but poverty itself is romanticised only by fools.

What I feared most for myself at your age was not poverty, but failure.

At your age, in spite of a distinct lack of motivation at university, where I had spent far too long in the coffee bar writing stories, and far too little time at lectures, I had a knack for passing examinations, and that, for years, had been the measure of success in my life and that of my peers.

I am not dull enough to suppose that because you are young, gifted and well-educated, you have never known hardship or heartbreak. Talent and intelligence never yet inoculated anyone against the caprice of the Fates, and I do not for a moment suppose that everyone here has enjoyed an existence of unruffled privilege and contentment.

However, the fact that you are graduating from Harvard suggests that you are not very well-acquainted with failure. You might be driven by a fear of failure quite as much as a desire for success. Indeed, your conception of failure might not be too far from the average person’s idea of success, so high have you already flown.

Ultimately, we all have to decide for ourselves what constitutes failure, but the world is quite eager to give you a set of criteria if you let it. So I think it fair to say that by any conventional measure, a mere seven years after my graduation day, I had failed on an epic scale. An exceptionally short-lived marriage had imploded, and I was jobless, a lone parent, and as poor as it is possible to be in modern Britain, without being homeless. The fears that my parents had had for me, and that I had had for myself, had both come to pass, and by every usual standard, I was the biggest failure I knew.

Now, I am not going to stand here and tell you that failure is fun. That period of my life was a dark one, and I had no idea that there was going to be what the press has since represented as a kind of fairy tale resolution. I had no idea then how far the tunnel extended, and for a long time, any light at the end of it was a hope rather than a reality.

So why do I talk about the benefits of failure? Simply because failure meant a stripping away of the inessential. I stopped pretending to myself that I was anything other than what I was, and began to direct all my energy into finishing the only work that mattered to me. Had I really succeeded at anything else, I might never have found the determination to succeed in the one arena I believed I truly belonged. I was set free, because my greatest fear had been realised, and I was still alive, and I still had a daughter whom I adored, and I had an old typewriter and a big idea. And so rock bottom became the solid foundation on which I rebuilt my life.

You might never fail on the scale I did, but some failure in life is inevitable. It is impossible to live without failing at something, unless you live so cautiously that you might as well not have lived at all – in which case, you fail by default.

Failure gave me an inner security that I had never attained by passing examinations. Failure taught me things about myself that I could have learned no other way. I discovered that I had a strong will, and more discipline than I had suspected; I also found out that I had friends whose value was truly above the price of rubies.

The knowledge that you have emerged wiser and stronger from setbacks means that you are, ever after, secure in your ability to survive. You will never truly know yourself, or the strength of your relationships, until both have been tested by adversity. Such knowledge is a true gift, for all that it is painfully won, and it has been worth more than any qualification I ever earned.

So given a Time Turner, I would tell my 21-year-old self that personal happiness lies in knowing that life is not a check-list of acquisition or achievement. Your qualifications, your CV, are not your life, though you will meet many people of my age and older who confuse the two. Life is difficult, and complicated, and beyond anyone’s total control, and the humility to know that will enable you to survive its vicissitudes.

Now you might think that I chose my second theme, the importance of imagination, because of the part it played in rebuilding my life, but that is not wholly so. Though I personally will defend the value of bedtime stories to my last gasp, I have learned to value imagination in a much broader sense. Imagination is not only the uniquely human capacity to envision that which is not, and therefore the fount of all invention and innovation. In its arguably most transformative and revelatory capacity, it is the power that enables us to empathise with humans whose experiences we have never shared.

One of the greatest formative experiences of my life preceded Harry Potter, though it informed much of what I subsequently wrote in those books. This revelation came in the form of one of my earliest day jobs. Though I was sloping off to write stories during my lunch hours, I paid the rent in my early 20s by working at the African research department at Amnesty International’s headquarters in London.

There in my little office I read hastily scribbled letters smuggled out of totalitarian regimes by men and women who were risking imprisonment to inform the outside world of what was happening to them. I saw photographs of those who had disappeared without trace, sent to Amnesty by their desperate families and friends. I read the testimony of torture victims and saw pictures of their injuries. I opened handwritten, eye-witness accounts of summary trials and executions, of kidnappings and rapes.

Many of my co-workers were ex-political prisoners, people who had been displaced from their homes, or fled into exile, because they had the temerity to speak against their governments. Visitors to our offices included those who had come to give information, or to try and find out what had happened to those they had left behind.

I shall never forget the African torture victim, a young man no older than I was at the time, who had become mentally ill after all he had endured in his homeland. He trembled uncontrollably as he spoke into a video camera about the brutality inflicted upon him. He was a foot taller than I was, and seemed as fragile as a child. I was given the job of escorting him back to the Underground Station afterwards, and this man whose life had been shattered by cruelty took my hand with exquisite courtesy, and wished me future happiness.

And as long as I live I shall remember walking along an empty corridor and suddenly hearing, from behind a closed door, a scream of pain and horror such as I have never heard since. The door opened, and the researcher poked out her head and told me to run and make a hot drink for the young man sitting with her. She had just had to give him the news that in retaliation for his own outspokenness against his country’s regime, his mother had been seized and executed.

Every day of my working week in my early 20s I was reminded how incredibly fortunate I was, to live in a country with a democratically elected government, where legal representation and a public trial were the rights of everyone.

Every day, I saw more evidence about the evils humankind will inflict on their fellow humans, to gain or maintain power. I began to have nightmares, literal nightmares, about some of the things I saw, heard, and read.

And yet I also learned more about human goodness at Amnesty International than I had ever known before.

Amnesty mobilises thousands of people who have never been tortured or imprisoned for their beliefs to act on behalf of those who have. The power of human empathy, leading to collective action, saves lives, and frees prisoners. Ordinary people, whose personal well-being and security are assured, join together in huge numbers to save people they do not know, and will never meet. My small participation in that process was one of the most humbling and inspiring experiences of my life.

Unlike any other creature on this planet, humans can learn and understand, without having experienced. They can think themselves into other people’s places.

Of course, this is a power, like my brand of fictional magic, that is morally neutral. One might use such an ability to manipulate, or control, just as much as to understand or sympathise.

And many prefer not to exercise their imaginations at all. They choose to remain comfortably within the bounds of their own experience, never troubling to wonder how it would feel to have been born other than they are. They can refuse to hear screams or to peer inside cages; they can close their minds and hearts to any suffering that does not touch them personally; they can refuse to know.

I might be tempted to envy people who can live that way, except that I do not think they have any fewer nightmares than I do. Choosing to live in narrow spaces leads to a form of mental agoraphobia, and that brings its own terrors. I think the wilfully unimaginative see more monsters. They are often more afraid.

What is more, those who choose not to empathise enable real monsters. For without ever committing an act of outright evil ourselves, we collude with it, through our own apathy.

One of the many things I learned at the end of that Classics corridor down which I ventured at the age of 18, in search of something I could not then define, was this, written by the Greek author Plutarch: What we achieve inwardly will change outer reality.

That is an astonishing statement and yet proven a thousand times every day of our lives. It expresses, in part, our inescapable connection with the outside world, the fact that we touch other people’s lives simply by existing.

But how much more are you, Harvard graduates of 2008, likely to touch other people’s lives? Your intelligence, your capacity for hard work, the education you have earned and received, give you unique status, and unique responsibilities. Even your nationality sets you apart. The great majority of you belong to the world’s only remaining superpower. The way you vote, the way you live, the way you protest, the pressure you bring to bear on your government, has an impact way beyond your borders. That is your privilege, and your burden.

If you choose to use your status and influence to raise your voice on behalf of those who have no voice; if you choose to identify not only with the powerful, but with the powerless; if you retain the ability to imagine yourself into the lives of those who do not have your advantages, then it will not only be your proud families who celebrate your existence, but thousands and millions of people whose reality you have helped change. We do not need magic to change the world, we carry all the power we need inside ourselves already: we have the power to imagine better.

I am nearly finished. I have one last hope for you, which is something that I already had at 21. The friends with whom I sat on graduation day have been my friends for life. They are my children’s godparents, the people to whom I’ve been able to turn in times of trouble, people who have been kind enough not to sue me when I took their names for Death Eaters. At our graduation we were bound by enormous affection, by our shared experience of a time that could never come again, and, of course, by the knowledge that we held certain photographic evidence that would be exceptionally valuable if any of us ran for Prime Minister.

So today, I wish you nothing better than similar friendships. And tomorrow, I hope that even if you remember not a single word of mine, you remember those of Seneca, another of those old Romans I met when I fled down the Classics corridor, in retreat from career ladders, in search of ancient wisdom:

"As is a tale, so is life: not how long it is, but how good it is, is what matters."

I wish you all very good lives.

Thank you very much.

FMT: An ignoramus or an idiot? by Lim Teck Ghee

2011-08-23T13:44:00.000+08:00

An ignoramus or an idiot?
Lim Teck Ghee
FMT August 22, 2011

Since his appointment in 2009 as the Home Minister, Hishammuddin has been lurching from one self-inflicted debacle to another.

The statement by the Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein that the presence of more illegal workers compared to the legal ones is a cause of concern and could undermine national unity reveals either an ignoramus or an idiot.

Did he expect many less illegals given the super-efficiency of his ministry and the other government agencies sharing responsibility on this vital matter of securing our borders against unauthorised intrusion and stay in the country?

According to the current ongoing exercise, as of Friday, a total of 2,088,358 foreign workers had been registered, of whom 1,135,499 were illegals.

Probably everyone else in the country, except Hisham, knows this number is an under-estimate and a very large number are still waiting to be processed or are avoiding being included in the count altogether.

Since his appointment in 2009 as the minister in charge of this portfolio, Hishammuddin has been lurching from one self-inflicted debacle to another.

From bending over backwards to defend the indefensible conduct of demonstrators in the infamous cow head incident to his most recent use of repressive force against the Bersih rally, he has shown a standard of leadership of this important ministry which must be plumbing new lows or matching those lows attained by Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

Perhaps he has not had time to study and understand the situation with illegals in Malaysia, given the many important distractions posed by alleged anti-national and possibly terrorist groupings such as those Parti Sosialis Malaysia members recently taken in under the Emergency Ordinance for having on their possession Che Guevara and other communist attire; or the Bersih supporters who needed tear-gassing and a big clout on their thick skulls for upsetting the traffic flow on a weekend; or the MoCS supporters who want to ungild the lily white and ‘incorruptible’ reputation of one of the country’s most trusted and respected leaders through their potentially inflammatory Kuching walk rally aborted on “friendly police advice” – and by the way, is Hishammuddin related in any way to Taib Mahmud?

Summary of facts

If he has still not been briefed by his ministry officials on the foreign labour issue, this quick summary of facts, figures and other considerations may be useful.
The 10th Malaysian Plan document has a chart showing that the number of foreign workers in the country exceeded two million-plus in 2008. This figure has most likely increased rather than decreased.
The current hi-tech, super hi-cost biometric exercise seems to have registered only half of all workers with permits and probably fewer than half of those without.
The presence of so many foreign workers is not only due to economic factors but also to Umno’s political agenda which everyone in the country, except the non-Malay Barisan leaders and parties are aware of.
Thanks to ‘enlightened’ Umno and Barisan policies, the Malaysian economy and society is hopelessly and irredeemably addicted to foreign workers.
The great majority of foreign workers work a lot harder for a lot less than their Malaysian counterparts. They deserve to be treated with fairness and respect, and we should resist any witch-hunt aimed at blaming them for self inflicted socio-economic and political ills.
The profits in the foreign labour market have generated pervasive corruption amongst all levels of the police force, the Immigration Department, Rela, agents and other agencies – public and private.
The extortion of payments, services and loyalty from this marginalized segment and use of them as a pawn in the demographic and racial power game will continue whatever the changes in policy and new stances adopted for public consumption unless there is a regime change.

Some analysts who have observed the Home Minister closely – he is after all a graduate from the University of Wales and London School of Economics – are of the opinion that he is not an ignoramus or idiot.

He is a political animal aiming for the top position through scrupulous or unscrupulous means.

According to the latest hot news in the internet, there is more behind the Home Minister’s new found enthusiasm for pursuing the registration of foreign workers.

One is the claim that the new biometrics system is the cash cow for the coming Umno elections. Much of this hot news cannot be verified but readers can visit this website for details.

Dr Lim Teck Ghee is the director of the Centre for Policy Initiatives.

Is the Singapore Model Sustainable for Future Economic Growth?

2011-08-20T23:56:00.000+08:00

Is the Singapore Model Sustainable?

Beijing-born Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) political economist Professor Huang Yasheng had criticized Singapore 's state-linked enterprise model dominated by its two giant sovereign wealth funds GIC and Temasek Holdings as a sure-fire way to stifle the economy in the long run.

In a recent speech made at the Civil Service College, Prof Huang urged Singapore to rethink the Temasek model and warns that Singapore's state management model has milked this system for all it is worth.

The private sector is the best way to grow the economy. It has the most productive, most innovative and entrepreneurial culture. The state-owned enterprise system doesn't give you that. You are already hitting the wall. Retaining this strategy could mean sacrificing future growth that is possible only through a bigger, more dynamic private sector, he said.

Prof Huang felt that governments should not get involved in venture financing as they are using taxpayers' monies and questions how the government can defend its decisions to invest in failing individuals and projects.

Nine out of 10 investment projects fail. Does the government have such a high tolerance for risk? It's taxpayers' money, right? I don't think, politically, it's legitimate for the government to keep investing in failing individuals and failing projects. How do you defend these decisions, he asked.

Temasek Holdings is led by the wife of Singapore's prime minister Ho Ching. It had lost billions of dollars in failed overseas investments such as Thailand's Shin Corp, Australia's ABC learning, and U.S's Merrill Lynch. Ho Ching is an engineer by training.

GIC has been headed by Lee Kuan Yew since its inception in 1981, a lawyer by profession who has never worked in the financial industry before.

Prof Huang opined that Singapore should expand its private sector in order to compete with China and India :

Maybe a better way is for the government to fund more basic research and then allow universities, private equity firms, venture capital firms and rich individuals to take care of the rest. That is because even when the state sector is well managed, it is not as innovative as the private sector, he says. From a technological development point of view, you need a bigger private sector to compete, to come up with new products, processes and technologies, to better compete with India and China .

Under Singapore's state-model enterprise, civil servants are often placed in leadership positions in its major state-linked companies and research agencies. For example, the current head of A*STAR is Lim Chuan Poh, a former Chief of Army with no prior experience in the private sector.

Prof Huang felt that creative thinking is often in short supply with civil servants leading the charge due to the culture they are immersed in:

Civil service culture is about discipline. It's about execution. It's about efficiency. Entrepreneurial culture is about challenging the authorities, questioning the existing ways of doing businesses, moving away from the routines and norms. It's about the unconventional, rebellious and diverse. These values are almost polar opposites.

He also criticized Singapore's education system for not producing diversity in ideas and unconventional ways of solving problems and warns that Singapore risks going down in history as an economic has-been if it fails to exploit the potential of its private sector.

Prof Huang had hit the nail on the right spot about the macroeconomic problems plaguing Singapore “its one-dimensional political economy. However, he is not aware of the political implications of the Temasek model which serves two purposes: one, to ensure the continued political hegemony of the ruling party, or rather a select group of people and two, to keep the citizenry weak so that no alternative centers of power can emerge to challenge the status quo.

As entrepreneurs are fiercely independent, unconventional and rebellious by nature, they cannot be brought easily under control or co-opted into the system. Having a few rich self-make millionaires running around will pose a threat to the political elite, as Thailand's Thaksin Shinawatra and South Korea 's Lee Myuang Bak had shown.

Unfortunately, for a repressive, insecure and paranoid regime which is bent on complete control and dominance at all costs, it is unlikely to see the profound wisdom in Prof Huang's words and Singapore will have to pay the price for its ignorance one day when we are overshadowed completely by China and India .

FMT: Shocking racial disparity in civil service.... by Joseph Tawie

2011-08-20T14:14:00.000+08:00

Shocking racial ‘imbalance’ in civil service

Joseph Tawie

| August 20, 2011

The Chinese community make up less than two percent of the Malaysian government service.

KUCHING: Change, like charity should begin at home. Likewise Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak should have begun implementing his 1Malaysia concept within the civil service first before attempting to ‘teach the world’.

Alas this has not happened and Najib, according to Sarawak DAP has failed miserably in improving the racial composition of the civil service.

The situation is a poor reflection of his seriousness in implementing the 1Malaysia concept.

“He (Najib) has been shouting about the concept for the past two years, and yet the racial composition between the Malays and Chinese in government departments has not improved,” said Sarawak DAP secretary Chong Chieng Jen.

According to Chong, he had asked the PM, during the recent sitting of Parliament, to disclose the total number of civil servants in all the ministries and the racial breakdown of Malays, Chinese, Iban and Bidayuh staff.

He said he had asked for the update on number of civil service staff in the government’s employ up to 31 March 2011.

The revert, he received was shocking.

“In the Prime Minister Department, there are about 31,297 Malays to 797 Chinese. This is about two percent.

“And it is no better in majority of the other ministeries.

“Based on the reply given to my question in Parliament there is a big discrepancy between the Malays and Chinese civil servants.

“The worst is in the Rural Development and the Federal Territory Ministry where there are 2,442 Malays to 18 Chinese or less than one percent of the Chinese,” said Chong, who is also Bandar Kuching MP.

Listing out the detailed breakdown of Malay and Chinese civil servants, Chong said there was a clear ‘imbalance’ in racial compositions in all government departments, agencies and ministeries.

“It also clearly shows Najib’s 1Malaysia slogan is a mere slogan.

“There is no concrete policy to implement the 1Malaysia concept.

“There has been no improvement in the racial composition even after he announced the concept…even his department is worse than average.

He said: “There is no improvement in the racial composition based on the racial breakdown in the

“It shows that Najib is not the PM for all, but the prime minister for one single race,” Chong said after releasing the Malay to Chinese staff breakdown in the various ministries.

Breakdown

He listed out the reply from the PM’s department as below:

Ministry of Youth and Sports 2,980 Malays, 32 Chinese,

Ministry of Home Affairs 40,263 Malays to 614 Chinese;

Ministry of Works 6,221 Malays to 156 Chinese,

Ministry of Health 130,106 Malays to 9,500 Chinese,

Ministry of Finance 15,835 Malays to 508 Chinese,

Ministry of Foreign Affairs 1,215 Malays to 53 Chinese

Ministry of Education 273,791 Malays to 43,669 Chinese

Ministry of Tourism 455 Malays to 19 Chinese

Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development 5,461 Malays to 75 Chinese

Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture 8,839 Malays to 402 Chinese

Ministry of Higher Education 15,012 Malays to 334 Chinese

Ministry of Transport 9,028 Malays to 205 Chinese

Ministry of Defence 12,078 Malays to 113 Chinese

Ministry of Housing and Local Government 11,363 Malays to 173 Chinese