Politics of fear should stop

Har Wai Mun | Sep 16, 08 4:04pm

(Available at: http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/89826)

The recent ISA arrests sparked shock, fear and concern in Malaysians but this politics of fear is not alien to us. Malaysians are now constantly being reminded of the May 1969 riots. That black incident in our shared history was linked to three issues, namely Ketuanan Melayu, the New Economic Policy (NEP) and the Islamic state. These issues in themselves shouldn’t pose any problems if they are not politicised and manipulated by unscrupulous politicians.

Acknowledging Malay dominance and Islam as the country’s official religion has never been a problem with Malaysians as together with this, the constitution also guarantees the right of every citizen to freedom.

Indeed, our muhibbah spirit helps to nurture a harmonic, multicultural Malaysian society that is the envy of many nations around the world.

However, ISA takes away our freedom and strikes fear into our society. Communal politics create unnecessary conflicts among ethnic groups, hence creating fear. No one should influence Malaysians to see differences as conflict. We should embrace difference (in ethnic, religion and ideology) in a spirit of tolerance and understanding.

Secondly, the NEP is not the only affirmative policy in the world. There is Black Economy Empowerment in Africa, the “Germany Eastern burden” after Germany’s reunification and the aboriginal empowerment program in Australia.

Why are there no problems in these countries when this issue is brought up for discussion but immediate protests over the NEP after the March General Elections? Was it another tactic by the government to keep the rakyat in line? It seems we can’t have a rational, educated discussion about the issue without the threat of ISA hanging over our heads.

Thirdly, the Islamic state issue is a favourite game of the BN. It enjoys pitting DAP and PKR against PAS. It also tailors its opinions on the matter according to its audience. For example, to a Chinese audience, BN works to strike fear by saying that if PAS takes over, it will set up an Islamic state and their freedom would be threatened. But in a Malay-Muslim setting like the Umno General Assembly, members go all out to play to the Malay gallery.

It is no secret that in the March General Election, Chinese and Indian voters were warned that if they voted for the opposition, their ‘voice in the government’ would be jeopardised. As for the Malays, they were told that if they supported the opposition, their rights could be jeopardised. Such blatant use of racism is sickening but the coalition still believes such tactics are valid. This only goes to show how out of touch the government is with the ordinary rakyat.

Malaysians have matured tremendously over the past four years, especially in political matters. The alternative media like blogs and Internet news sites have provided Malaysians with a refreshing new insight into Malaysian politics. Gone are the days where we depended solely on newspapers for our daily dose of politics. Indeed, mainstream newspapers are now facing the very real threat of becoming irrelevant in today’s new political landscape.

The beauty of Malaysians today is we can all sit down and discuss our issues like the adults we are. There is absolutely no place for the politics of fear in our society. The government should give the people more credit than to scare them with outdated, archaic mechanisms, whose ultimate goal is not to keep peace but to stifle freedom of speech. Hence, the draconian ISA must be abolished! Instead of resorting to this, the government might do better by listening to the rakyat and giving them a fair chance to express themselves without fear.

Academic freedom and the end of academia

Har Wai Mun | Sep 5, 08
(Available at: http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/89169)

Apex University is the latest icon in Malaysia’s academic world, portraying great ambition and seriousness. But haven’t we already heard of ‘Smart Schools’, ‘Vision Schools’ and ‘Sports Schools’ before? All of these portrayed the same ambition and seriousness when they were launched years ago.

However, year by year, normal schools have out-smarted the Smart Schools in SPM and STPM examinations. The Vision School concept was the government’s effort to promote national unity but communal politics from the same government seems to be jeopardising its own efforts. We have yet to see any results from our Sport Schools either. So, will Apex University share the same destiny?

Without doubting Universiti Sains Malaysia’s credibility to win the status of Apex University, the first question is why must only one university be chosen? Why must we put all our eggs in one basket?

Instead, I believe it would have been better if the government outlined key performance indicators for universities where incentives and funding would be based on. This creates healthy competition, thus automatically accelerating progress towards excellence.

Giving special support and attention to only one university might not be fair to the other universities. In addition, the government might face huge embarrassment if the chosen Apex university is out-performed by the non-chosen ones.

Secondly, given the current scenario of limited freedom of speech and over commercialisation of the education sector in Malaysia, how can we achieve excellence in academia?
The lack of a thinking culture is getting more worrying and is becoming a major challenge to our academic society.

In Malaysia, exams act as a ‘quality control’ check on potential employees, starting from seven- year-old primary students to the fresh graduates in their early twenties.

As a result of heavy emphasis on examinations, the argumentative culture, which is needed for empowering thinking is being suppressed, hence causing the death of dialectics.

This situation is exaggerated by government suppression through various restrictions imposed on members of academia like laws such as the Universities and Universities Colleges Act (UUCA) and the Statutory Bodies Act, plus the need to have teaching permits for lecturers.

Over commercialisation has resulted in the mushrooming of colleges, universities or even private schools, thus overwhelmingly increasing the supply of education services.

Simple economic theory will tell that increase in supply (education institutions) without an increase in demand (students) will lead to a decrease in price (quality of education through lower entry requirements).

Over supply of graduates could also cause unemployment and underemployment. Professor Khoo Kay Kim has contrasted the situation in the millennium era with that of University Malaya's early days, when a mere 25 percent of its students who had come in as freshies would walk up the stage to receive their degrees on convocation day, four or five years later.

But now, the passing rate in the university is very high, exceeding 90 percent and this is even more apparent in private universities because failing the students mean alienating potential customers.

Besides that, Malaysia’s academic excellence is being threatened by career minded school teachers and university lecturers who view their academic posts as careers and assume academic activities as ‘teaching only’.

The worst is the assumption that an academic job is an easy job for a stable income. They will not bother or might even discourage others from conducting research.

On top of that, flexible working hours accorded by the institutions of higher education for research purposes are utilised by careerists to earn extra income from giving part-time tuition, selling unit trusts or partaking in direct selling.

Let us also not forget about a shocking effect from this market-driven education – the issue of "thesis outsourcing" in Malaysia. This issue made headlines in December 2007. It was reported that hundreds of master’s and PhD students in Malaysia were getting "professional thesis writers" to pen their thesis.

The Higher Education Ministry said it was aware of this, but as educational institutions were not complaining about it, little could be done to put a stop to this shameful practice.
Last but not least, administrative hegemony, that comes together with discrimination, would continue to derail Malaysian academics towards excellence regardless of what the government has planned.

Two prominent cases worth mentioning: Firstly, Prof KS Jomo, an internationally renowned Malaysian economist left University Malaya for the United Nations early this year to take up appointment of assistant secretary-general after "decades of frustration, discrimination and non-recognition of his academic and intellectual talents and qualities".

Jomo was never given any senior appointment, although many of his students have been made deans of faculty or heads of department. His application to be a senior professor was supported by three Nobel laureates as referees, but was rejected.

The second case is of Associate Prof Dr Edmund Terence Gomez, also from University Malaya. Despite being given strong verbal assurance by the university’s vice-chancellor, Gomez was initially denied a two-year leave of secondment to take up the prestigious research appointment as Project Manager at the Geneva-based United Nations Research Institute for Social Development to pioneer global research on racial conflict.

The university claimed it turned down the application because it needed the services of the lecturer.

In the two cases mentioned, international recognition for Jomo and Gomez should have been seen as an honour to the universities and their outstanding achievements should have been encouraged. Political or racial discrimination should not interfere and control academic freedom and fairness.

So, whither Malaysia’s academia? Could the Apex University programme save our education system from the end of academia? The whole education system should be re-evaluated and upgraded. Academic freedom and fairness should be guaranteed.

Failing to do so might resulted in Malaysians losing confidence in their own education system and therefore sending their children to international schools and foreign universities. There have been rumors that even our ministers are doing so. If this is true, what else can we say?

Oil Price Hike: Reuter’s Factbox & Anwar Ibrahim vs. Ahmad Shabery Public Debate

Oil price hike issue seems to extend its lifespan from prior to the 12th Malaysian General Election to the recently ended Permatang Pauh by-election. Here are some information on this issue – an extract of information from Reuters and a summary of arguments on Malaysian oil subsidy policy that mostly based on the Anwar Ibrahim versus Ahmad Shabery public debate.

Reuters’ Factbox: Why oil prices hit a record high?

Source: http://www.reuters.com/news/globalcoverage/energy
Access date: 28 August 2008

Prices have rallied from a dip below $50 at the start of 2007 and this year have risen by around 40 percent from $95.98 a barrel at the end of last year. Adjusted for inflation, oil is well above the $101.70 peak hit in April 1980, according to the International Energy Agency, a year after the Iranian revolution. The balance of demand and supply is tight with daily demand of roughly 86 million barrels per day, almost the same level as daily supply.

The following are other major factors that have driven the oil market higher.

(1) Dollar weakness and funds

A combination of weaker performance in other asset classes and expectations of continued strength across the commodities complex has drawn in investors and speculative funds, providing further support for the market. An added incentive for them has been the weakness of the dollar against other major currencies, which makes dollar-denominated commodities relatively cheap. They are also seeking an inflation hedge, as commodities tend to rise when other asset classes fall.

(2) OPEC

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) has been at the forefront of those citing speculation and a weak dollar as the reason for higher prices, saying it is pumping enough oil to keep the market balanced. Saudi Arabia, the biggest OPEC producer, is expected to raise output close to 9.5 million barrels per day (bpd) in June up from around 9.1 million bpd in May. OPEC has not officially increased output since a meeting last September and has no plans to meet formally until September 9.

(3) Peak oil?

Some analysts have questioned whether OPEC is capable of raising its output significantly. The so-called pessimists have argued the world's oil supplies are at or near a peak. Optimists say there is still plenty more oil and improved technology will ensure it can be extracted from the ground, but a host of political issues has hindered production from many of the biggest reserve holders. Iraq's output has been disrupted by years of sanctions and then war. Sanctions have also limited exploration in Iran and violence has interrupted flows in Nigeria.
Adding to the difficulties of getting oil out of the ground, high prices have fuelled a trend for resource nationalism, or resource-holders seeking to keep the bulk of their natural wealth for themselves. The biggest OPEC producers already prohibit foreign operators from accessing their oil reserves. Non-OPEC Russia, the world's second biggest oil exporter, has also been limiting foreign involvement in its upstream while its output has stagnated.

(4) Demand

There is mounting evidence high prices have begun to erode demand, but continued growth in China and other emerging economies is expected to offset the impact of any fall in developed countries. While high taxes reduce demand in some developed economies, subsidies spur consumption in emerging economies. In the developed world, some governments are considering reducing taxes, while emerging economies, struggling with the growing burden of subsidies, have started to lift them.

(5) Refinery Bottlenecks

Even if there is plenty of crude to meet demand that does not mean there is an adequate supply of refined products, such as diesel and gasoline, as there is a lack of refining capacity. Faced with planning battles and reluctance to invest in the downstream sector, which is not always profitable, the world's biggest energy consumer the United States has not built a new refinery for decades.


Anwar vs. Ahmad Shabery public debate

The debate entitled ‘Form the government today, reduce fuel prices tomorrow’ was organized by news portal Agenda Daily and took place at Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka in Kuala Lumpur at 8.30pm on 15th July 2008. The contents of the debate and other off-the-stage justifications from the government as well as counter-arguments from Anwar Ibrahim are summarized as below:

Government: Global oil price increase, thus increase the government’s financial burden to subsidize.

Counter-arguments: Malaysia is a net oil exporter. Thus, increase in oil price should be beneficial to Malaysia. Increase in net oil revenue could be channel towards domestic fuel subsidies.

Government: Fuel (petrol) price in other foreign countries are much higher. Examples are Norway and Finland. Hence, fuel in Malaysia is under-priced.

Counter-arguments: Those countries that have higher fuel price are non oil-exporting countries. Furthermore, theirs income per capita are much higher than Malaysia.

Government: Petronas already contributed much of its profit back to government for subsidies. Government could not take all of Petronas profit as the company needs retain profit for further development.

Counter-arguments: Repayment from Petronas is enough; only the usage of its repayment is questionable. Example is channeling government revenue to infrastructures and giving tax relief incentive for the benefit of industry players is actually another form of “subsidy”, but not to the poor but to the capitalist. Unnecessary projects and corruption cause leakage to the needed fund to subsidy for fuel. Deals with IPP also seen as leakage and benefit to capitalists rather than the poor citizen.

Government: Malaysia’s oil reserve will finished in near future. Therefore, government needs to have prudent saving from current oil revenue for the benefit of the future. Otherwise, a more shocking bigger fuel hike may happen once Malaysia turn from net oil exporter to net oil importer.

Counter-arguments: Those reports about exhaustion of Malaysia oil reserve are based on assumption that no other oil field would be found in Malaysia. Thus, if more new oil field found, Malaysia would still be net oil exporter. Furthermore, Petronas is currently exploring oil field overseas instead of locally. Petronas should be encouraged to continue doing so to prolong exhaustion of oil reserve in Malaysia. Investment returns from Petronas could also be another source of funds for fuel subsidies.

One World, One Dream: Whither Malaysia?

The Beijing 2008 Olympic Games finally came to a conclusion, offering few thoughts to the world and also to Malaysian. China topped the standings by winning the highest number of gold medals. This shows the world that the emerging of China as a potential superpower is not merely a dream or myth. Therefore, some Western powers lead by the United States shows sign of distress by “attacking” the credibility of China. Attacks started even before the bidding for this Olympic Games. China lost in its first attempt, believing that anti-China propaganda, particularly on human rights issues, did the damage to China. During the torch run, disturbance were everyway as sentiment over the issues of Tibet been fanned up non-stop in Western media. Some Western media have been criticizing host China since the opening ceremony. Criticisms included questioning China’s ethical behaviour over the issues of Lin Miaoke’s photogenic stand-in for the real singer, Yang Peiyi, China boasting their military might in the opening ceremony, alleged fake (recorded) live fireworks display, continuous voicing out on China’s human right abuse and accusation of China’s gymnast being underage. Perhaps, a clear jealousy over China success is the medal ranking – putting the United State as No. 1 by using the “total medals” as yardstick for ranking instead of ranking by number of gold medals is seen in various Western media. See Telegraph’s report that criticized US media on this issue. Anyway, all those criticisms as well as ranking method discrepancy may have their respective merits in this rhetoric-oriented world.

Beijing 2008 Olympic Games Final Medal Standings

Rank	Country	Gold	Silver	Bronze	Total	Rank by total
1	China	51	21	28	100	2
2	United States	36	38	36	110	1
3	Russian Fed	23	21	28	72	3
4	Great Britain	19	13	15	47	4
5	Germany	16	10	15	41	6
6	Australia	14	15	17	46	5
7	Korea	13	10	8	31	8
8	Japan	9	6	10	25	11
9	Italy	8	10	10	28	9
10	France	7	16	17	40	7
	Selected Asian countries
31	Mongolia	2	2	0	4	=44
31	Thailand	2	2	0	4	=44
33	DPR Korea	2	1	3	6	=30
39	Azerbaijan	1	2	4	7	=27
40	Uzbekistan	1	2	3	6	=30
42	Indonesia	1	1	3	5	=38
50	India	1	0	2	3	=51
51	Iran	1	0	1	2	=57
52	Bahrain	1	0	0	1	=69
65	Kyrgyzstan	0	1	1	2	=57
65	Tajikistan	0	1	1	2	=57
71	Malaysia	0	1	0	1	=69
71	Singapore	0	1	0	1	=69
71	Vietnam	0	1	0	1	=69
80	Chinese Taipei	0	0	4	4	=44
81	Afghanistan	0	0	1	1	=69

Source: Official Website of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games at http://en.beijing2008.cn. [Note: Original link to respective countries medal intact for access to further information]

Compliments to host China are plenty as well. Quoting Reuters, “China basked in the glow of their 51st gold medal and got a clear thumbs-up from International Olympic Committee on the last day of the Games on Sunday…The hosts finished well clear atop the medals table with 15 more golds than the United States.” CNN reported “Grand fireworks and spectacular choreography brought to a close the Beijing Games Sunday as one of the most remarkable Olympics in recent history were declared at an end” while AFP wrote that “For China, the investment of more than 40 billion dollars on the Games reaped handsome rewards. They not only topped the gold medal count, but a near flawless organisation meant the controversies that marred the build-up largely slipped into the background.” AFP also quoted IOC President Jacques Rogge described the Games as “truly exceptional”. Rogge further elaborated that "more than 40 world records were set, more than 100 Olympic records, and of course we had the two icons of the Games, Michael Phelps and Usain Bolt" say it all for the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.

Picture source: Official Website of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games

Besides China, South Korea and Japan are the only Asian countries managed to be ranked among the top ten (by gold medals count). Another 16 more Asian countries managed to win at least a medal, including a silver achievement for Malaysia. But, the question is should Malaysia has won more medals? Relentlessly boasting its “dynamic” economic, why Malaysia seem so proud of merely winning a silver medal? Please do not compare with Singapore. Benchmarking towards a lower level of achievement is not a good culture for the country, indeed any country. One of the higher benchmarks that could inspire Malaysia is Jamaica. Jamaica won 6 gold medals, 3 silver medals and 2 bronze medals with Usain Bolt creating world records in men 100 meters, men 200 meters and men 4x100 meters rally. Even fellow Asians like Mongolia, Thailand and DPR Korea respectively have two gold medals.

From the opening and closing ceremony, host China gave emphasis on Chinese writing and system, including the arrangement of participating countries parade (that surprisingly seeing Australia delegations coming out at the end of the parade), the countdown and its President’s speech. If Olympic is held in Malaysia, will our national language, Bahasa Malaysia being emphasized and given priority over English? Not to dream of topping the medal standings like China, but when will Malaysia produce its first gold medallists and world record breakers? When will Malaysia have a world sport icon?

One world, one dream. Sports such as Olympic (and maybe Soccer World Cup) could bring all countries around the world to share a dream of sportsmanship. Regardless of triumph or disappointment, it would be good if the world could stop all conflicts (even for a short while) to savour the excitement of the Games peacefully. Nevertheless, dreams may be different again after the Games. When China is realizing its dream, the United States may begin to have nightmare of losing its superpower status. Meanwhile, Malaysia seems have not wake up from its sweet dream since long time ago. Hence, in four years time in London 2012 Olympic Games, whither Malaysia?

Reference:

AFP. 2008. Curtain down on 'truly exceptional' Beijing Games. Source: http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/newsmlmmd.eec675fb1ae4cc3ca249a6b0eb442603.101.html. Access date: 24 August 2008.

CNN. 2008. Grand spectacle closes Beijing's Olympics. Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/SPORT/08/24/olympics.close/index.html. Access date: 24 August 2008.

Reuters. 2008. IOC says China Games leave positive legacy. Source: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=sportsNews&storyid=2008-08-24T094553Z_01_SP110934_RTRUKOC_0_US-OLYMPICS.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsArt-R1-MostViewed-1. Access date: 24 August 2008.

Non-bumis will be an asset for UiTM

My comment was published in malaysiakini’s “Your Say” column, available at http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/87828. An extract from that column is as below:

[Background of the issue: Khalid Ibrahim, the Selangor Menteri Besar’s (MB) suggestion to reserve 10 per cent of places in Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) to non-Bumiputeras and foreigners. His suggestion received heavy protest]

Har Wai Mun: The MB's reasoning for his suggestion is to allow UiTM students to gain more exposure and be friendlier to people of other races.

If anyone thinks his reason is not correct, the logical counter-point would be along the lines of either ‘the suggestion would not allow students to gain more exposure and be friendlier to other races,' or ‘allowing students to gain more exposure and be friendlier to people of other races is not beneficial'.

Hopefully, the MB's suggestion will be viewed constructively and is not obscured by communal sentiment. Non-bumis will be an asset to UiTM.

Quoting a declaration on various placards on parade at the demonstration, the MB's suggestion might not only ‘Selamatkan UiTM' (Save UiTM), but might propel UiTM to be a world-class university that makes all Malaysians very proud!

[Note: My other published articles in malaysiakini – shorten and modified from the entries in this blog is as below]

Fuel price hike: Alternative suggestions

www.malaysiakini.com/letters/84381

A post-tsunami, early-Merdeka wish list

www.malaysiakini.com/letters/87363

Unstoppable Anwar against immovable BN

www.malaysiakini.com/letters/87496