FlawedThinker

THE 2012 ADDRESS

2012-01-01T23:58:00.000+09:00

It’s 2012. If you’re still into the whole Mayan calendarthing, this is our last year. But does it matter?

No.

What does matter, then?

To me, it’s simple. It matters that we as a society are toosimplistic, too willing to take too many things at face value. It matters thatwe refuse to think deeply, that we do not commit ourselves to rational andinsightful discourse about the things that matter. It matters that we arecontent to get by, to do good enough, when all over the world, there arepeoples who need change just to go to sleep with a full stomach. It mattersthat we think protests and activism are cool, but refuse to contribute to theintellectual climate that makes it possible. It matters that our icons arepeople who are famous for God knows what, and not thinkers, scientists,activists and the like.

Granted, there’s a lot (maybe too much) wrong with the world.And there are many obstacles that come in our way. Inequality, poverty, lousyteachers and so on. But none of us should surrender to these. None of us shouldmake these excuses for giving in to simple escapism and cheap thrills.

Whether we are 8, 18 or 80, we should never be content withwhat’s already there. If you’re a doctor, ask how a drug/treatment could bemore effective. If you’re a lawyer, don’t be content with the laws as they are.If you… well, you get my drift. At least, I hope so.

So this year, let’s start to be hungry to learn. Pick upsome good books, on science, on politics, on different cultures, ways ofthinking and ways of living. How you want to end up is entirely up to you;knowing a little bit about everything, or everything about a little bit. Heck,some combination of the two, if it pleases you.

Do more. If the newspapers feature some disaster, don’tforget it the next month. Track the victims’ progress. Or get to know a culturefew have heard about. Everyone knows about Brazilian samba. How about the YanomamoIndians?

And for heaven’s sake, let’s all learn to have a goodargument without insulting the opposing party. Yes, I’m talking to you too,Malaysian politicians.

Here’s to an enlightening 2012. Live. But more importantly,learn.

'Life without knowledge is death in disguise’

Talib Kweli

2011- HOW THE YEAR WENT

2011-12-31T17:38:00.000+09:00

It was the best of years, it was the worst of years.

I think that's how I'll remember 2011. It was a great year, no doubt about that. In fact, on a good day, I might even call it the best yet, of my 18 years. Even so, it wasn't exactly a bed of roses, and shit did happen. Anyway, on to the nitty-gritty.

Kolej Yayasan UEM, Lembah Beringin. This place, more than
any other, defined 2011 for me.

Going to college, which in my case, was Kolej Yayasan UEM, was doubtless the biggest experience of the year. I was introduced into an entirely different academic system, which, among other things, told me that much of what I'd learned earlier were half-truths, at best. A-Levels proved to be a formidable academic challenge; I've enjoyed the mental workout a lot. Especially Biology. Awesome stuff. (Thanks, Ms. Yati and Mr. Vroege)

I met loads of awesome people at KY, too. Some were upfront and extroverted. Others took some time and effort to get to know. You know what? I don't regret that at all. Thanks to KY's population, I had lots of fun (crazy CoD and Battle for Middle Earth sessions) and interesting, insightful conversations (Carolyn, Alia, Raehan, Rachel, Sharavana Vel). KY's people also introduced me to awesome new experiences. Special thanks to the Debate Club for the education in British Parliamentary Debate. Hats off to Carolyn (again) and Amir Rozlan for the introduction to Model United Nations.

Mos Def and Talib Kweli, the rappers who make up Black Star.
This group inspired me; they're my soundtrack to 2011

Other things KY did for me was giving me an excellent library (I could live there if I had food, a bed and shower), cool places for walks (Saad Square, and the walkway roof), and the chance to represent it in the KDU Interschool Debate (quarter finals, and 5th best speaker; thanks all our debaters and esp. Raehan, Carolyn and Ms Rena). I'm also very glad for all the eye opening rap music I listened to; I learned a lot and got to relax too.

I wasn't an angel this year, far from it. I could have been a lot more perceptive to others, not blindly blundering on with what I wanted. I could have trusted more carefully. I could have controlled my tongue. I could have worked harder, and delayed less. To all the people I hurt and offended, in various ways, Mea Culpa. I'm sorry. To the personal demons I've faced down- this year was a draw. You will never win. (Some people will know what I'm talking about here).

My grandfather's death impressed on me just how important it is to know the people you love. I really wish I got to know him better, but in the end, he taught me a lot, both from his old encyclopedias and his slow, musings on life and his past. Thanks, Tata. We miss you.

This is the Ipoh Railway Station, where my grandfather used to run a bookstore.
I still have some of his old papers, marked with the shop's letterhead.

Above all, thanks to all the people who were just there, as ears and shoulders. Por Yin, James, Syahira, Jered, Thaanesh, Aina, Vivian, Raehan, Vivek, Syed Johan, Sharavana Vel, Mayuri, Shermaine, and of course, Carolyn. This year wouldn't have rocked without you guys. Thank you.

A good year, this.

(P.S- If there's anyone I left out, I'm so sorry. I love you all, and you have a special place in my heart)

QAT OFF

2011-12-23T17:34:00.000+09:00

It is a given fact that every country has one curious feature, which, to foreign observers at first seems jarring, then becomes so normal that it fades into the background, like bold wallpaper at an acquaintance's house. In Yemen, this feature is qat (also spelled khat or gat), a mildly stimulative leaf chewed by nearly everyone.

Like many curious features though, qat is slowly, but surely, killing Yemen.

Terraced qat fields near Wadi Dhahr

Economically speaking, it's never a good idea to plant a crop that's banned in most developed countries, and hence, is only purchased by locals, who are, in any case, poor (Yemen has a GDP per capita of just 2600 USD). In 2005, the total area under cultivation was 123, 933 hectares, according to the Ministry of Agriculture. Given the MoA's estimate that this area grows by 12% a year, by the end of 2011, this area could be 244, 622 hectares! Such an extensive area would be of better economic use if dedicated to cash crops like coffee, of which Yemen used to be a major producer. It would be even better if the land was directed to construction of factories and other economic infrastructure.

Using this area of qat cultivation and Ethiopian production estimates, 244 622 hectares of land could produce over 100 000 tonnes of coffee a year. Assuming Arabica coffee beans are used to replace qat, this amount is currently valued at 218.7 million USD, translating to substantial profits for rural farmers.

Worse, qat uses up about 30 percent of Yemen's already scarce water supplies. Yemeni agriculture relies primarily on groundwater, as rainfall is scarce. If qat cultivation continues, the lack of good profits it brings will mean that the government and general public will not have sufficient finances to cope with rising water prices, never mind the social and industrial consequences such a rise would entail.

Moreover, qat is chewed in afternoon sessions that begin after the Yemeni workday ends at 2-3 p.m. These sessions last about 3-4 hours and are social events in themselves. Logically speaking, time wasted in this way could be put to better use, mainly for longer (and more productive) workdays. It is difficult to directly connect the national qat addiction to Yemen's lack of development, but a quick comparision of the country with many of it's Arab neighbors is telling indeed.

Men chew qat in a hut overlooking the crop in Yemen.
Qat chewing sessions can last up to five hours a day.

In fact, qat is even regarded in playing a negative role in the Yemeni protests against President Ali Abdullah Saleh. Protesters quietly dispersed every afternoon to chew qat, meaning that the anti-government momentum that toppled Tunisia's and Egypt's rulers was just not there. This despite the fact that economic conditions in Yemen are much worse than those of the other two nations. Yemeni's might endlessly disparage their political leaders at qat sessions, but until tribal militias clashed with government security forces, stunted by qat, that's all many of them do- talk.

Completely eradicating something which has got its claws so deeply sunk into a country is probably impossible. However, once the dust has settled in Yemen, a new government could begin by allocating land to other purposes and extending the workday. Post-revolution, Yemen will face many obstacles to progress. Here's hoping qat won't be a hurdle far into the future.

EQUALITY

2011-12-20T20:53:00.000+09:00

Can true equality within a society ever be achieved? People have, for ages, been expressing the hope that we will live in a world where we are all equal, where divisions within society, especially wealth and class based divisions, will cease to exist. Entire governments have staked claims to power on the belief that they can create a truly egalitarian society.

But can true equality be achieved? No.

The reason for this is simple. All men are not created alike. Within a system, there will always be people who work harder, know how to bend the rules or are plain lucky. These people will end up richer and more successful. Inevitably, there will be people left at the bottom of the pile.

Now, if governments start giving preferential treatment to those left out, that would in itself be a source of inequality, because not everyone is going to get such treatment. In that sense, there is another kind of inequality, in the way the government treats its people, as some people get special protection from it, and others don't.

Even with such handouts, there will be people who know how to put them to the best use, and people who take them for granted badly enough to end up just scraping by. Or even worse than before. Inequality cannot be eradicated, but it can be reduced.

Yet, governments still promise equality when it's impossible to achieve. In Malaysia, politics is essentially a battle of the Equalizers- which party (or coalition, rather) can truly achieve equality in our sorely divided country? Tragically, most of the solutions that would make a strong dent in inequality (improving rural education, eliminating quotas, and workfare instead of welfare) are often not the most catchy of political initiatives. For starters, they take time, and usually involve the disadvantaged community in effort of its own.

So what to do? The closest governments and societies can ever come to true equality is by providing equal opportunities for all. That means improving the standards of the educational facilities offered to the entire population, instead of using government funds to pay for excellent educational facilities for certain groups (i.e. MARA). It means a welfare system that focuses not on handouts, but on handups. It will also require all ethnic groups to do some heavy lifting, like rejecting the primacy of any particular group and eliminating vernacular education (more on that in another post, maybe).

This is not a diatribe against welfare, mind. Just because inequality can't be eliminated doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Rather, it is a reminder that we can never be a truly equal society, and so the endless pursuit of quotas and other blunt force tools to eliminate inequality should be scrapped, because the harm they bring does not justify pursuing an impossible ideal. And it is an appeal to recognize that equality of opportunity is the best we can provide, and also that most (or all) forms of welfare should aim to put the disadvantaged peoples back into earning their own keep. Tying benefits to eventual employment or food aid to continued schooling are examples.

Inequality cannot be eliminated. But if governments give every person an equal (or as close to equal) chance for personal advancement while steering clear of quotas and other blunt force preferential tools, we can go a good way to reducing it.

DURBAN: THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY

2011-12-12T16:43:00.001+09:00

I must say, I was surprised (pleasantly) when I heard of a global climate deal coming out of Durban, South Africa. With the global economic climate being what it is, I hadn't even remembered the talks were on this year! If I had, I wouldn't have expected any sort of deal, because of aforementioned economic crisis.

Anyway, what do we have here? The negotiators at Durban agreed on a format for a fund to help poor nations tackle global warming. Details are sketchy at the moment (at least for non-journalists like me), but with luck, the fund will focus more on fine-tuning existing technologies as well as paying for their implementation in developing countries. It should also allow for some form of overseeing body to ensure funds are not wasted, especially by trying to force technologies into areas where it can't work, or where the adoption of one 'green' technology causes some other form of environmental destruction. (Hydropower and non-cellulosic ethanol come to mind). Most importantly, the fund must provide means for poor people to adapt to the effects of climate change.

The COP17 pleasantly surprised most fence-sitters with what came out of it

But that's the small fries of the talks. The talks far more significant achievement is this: that the Kyoto Protocol be extended until 2017 (previously set to expire in 2012), that a new legally binding deal be negotiated next year, and that developing countries accept legally binding emissions targets in future.

On the face of it, this is simply standard UN kick the can down the road behavior. But look closely. For starters, developed countries have accepted, more concretely, that they do need to help poor countries in tackling the problem. Since rich nations have historically caused much of the warming that we're now experiencing, that is fair. But since developing nation emissions have now surpassed that of developed countries, they should be legally bound to cut emissions too. And this new agreement finally gets them to do that, after years of insisting they should have the right to develop as they wish.

China and India agreed, with no small measure of reluctance, to commit themselves to cuts in future.

Still, it's not all roses. This agreement is most definitely not the urgent action the Earth needs, as nations threatened by rising sea levels note. Scientists point out that delaying a deal for yet another year (with the prospect of more delays) means that it will be harder to keep the global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius, as stipulated in the Copenhagen accords. Then there is the downright ugly news. Japan, Russia and Canada will pull out of the extended period for the Kyoto Protocol, and that Australia and New Zealand might not join in.

Uglier still was the delegates focus on the exact language and phrasing of the various parts of the agreement. To quote, they were not free of the obsession with detail by which mediocre men think they are influencing events.

The delegates at Durban will have to do a lot better next year if the successor to Kyoto is going to have real meat to it.

All in all, to me, this is a moderate deal. The successes of having a climate deal after 2012, and of having developing nations commit to legally binding carbon cuts are important. Still, this deal will not go down as revolutionary (or even as particularly significant) because it is just too little. Too little decisive action, too little conviction, and too little financing..Hopefully, it will not be too late.

CLEANING HOUSE

2011-07-08T16:12:00.008+09:00

The BERSIH 2.0 rally in Kuala Lumpur, scheduled for tomorrow could have represented a welcome change in Malaysian democracy. The organization, now banned, has some very legitimate criticisms of the Malaysian electoral process, which, if acknowledged, could reduce some of the endless mud-slinging by defeated politicians and focus more attention on more pressing issues.

BERSIH's demands are not confined to elections either. They include several demands to implement the very foundations of a modern, open democracy that Malaysia lacks, either completely or to a worrying degree. Among these are demands to strengthen public institutions, stopping corruption and stopping dirty politics.

The ideas offered by BERSIH, by and large, are what is needed to make Malaysian politics cleaner, more mature and more substantive.

These last three demands are probably the most important, mainly because putting them in place largely clears up the whole vote-fraud she-bang. In addition, they also ensure that other aspects of Malaysian political life, like the courts and media remain impartial. This impartiality is important to ensure that people who could shake up Malaysian politics are not discriminated against, and also so idealistic youth are not discouraged from entering politics.

Even if none of BERSIH's demands are heeded by the Electoral Commission, the rally would still be a welcome exercise in free speech, and freedom of expression. It would show that there are people whose brains are not stultified by the constant lack of depth of Malaysian politics. And it raises uncomfortable questions that must be addressed sooner rather than later, instead of simply sweeping them under the carpet and maintaining a false image of a united, peaceful and progressive society.

Unfortunately, it is this lack of depth that causes Malaysian's politicians to think rally = chaos. And also to believe BERSIH is Communist, when opportunistic groups (unaffiliated with BERSIH) simply distributed pamphlets in support of the MCP.

Idiots like Ibrahim Ali, Pasir Mas MP, are the ones who have jeopardised Malaysia's democracy by threatening confrontations in response to legitimate exercises of free speech.

Rallies are peaceful things, if controlled by the police and kept violence free. What's made this one potentially chaotic is the threat by pro-government rowdies (like UMNO Youth and Perkasa) to have counter rallies and confrontations. And this lot, being uneducated and uncouth, are the violent ones. But the government lacks the brains to distinguish this and has used them as part of the excuse to ban BERSIH.

The government response has also jeopardized Najib Tun Razak's efforts to paint his government as open, liberal and moderate. Equally bone-headed has been the suggestion to BERSIH to mass in a stadium, knowing full-well no municipal government will allow a rally by a banned group in any of it's stadiums.

Najib Razak's efforts to win back the electorate with moderate politics coupled with economic transformation has foundered thanks to his administration's poor response to BERSIH.

The government should recognize it is to it's advantage to heed BERSIH's demands. If not, the target's it has set itself under the GTP and ETP become very much harder to achieve, especially the ones regarding foreign investment. And it will find itself booted out of office at the next election, Najib's popularity notwithstanding.

HELPING HANDS IN AFGHANISTAN

2011-05-16T15:26:00.007+09:00

As Afghanistan, with the fresh encouragement given it by the death of Osama bin Laden, seeks to haul itself out of chaos, it cannot escape an observer's notice that there are many players vying to claim some sort of stake in the country's future. For the most part, this, in keeping with the trend of global integration of economies, is beneficial to the country, but must also be managed properly.

The most prominent international player would no doubt be the US, but not only because of the American combat brigades stationed there. American businesses are also viewing Afghanistan as a location ripe for investment, albeit with increased security needs; as of September 2009, there were 10712 Defense Department security contractors in the country. The fact that the Afghan economy grew by 13.5% in 2007 has assured investors that Afghanistan can be a viable business opportunity.
PepsiCo's planned plant in Afghanistan augurs well for Afghan employment, as well as the Afghan consumer products market.

That is why PepsiCo, in April 2011, signed a deal with Dubai-based Alokozay Group to manufacture and distribute Pepsi, Diet Pepsi, 7 UP and Mountain Dew in Afghanistan, via a $60 million bottling plant in Kabul. The plant, expected to come online in 2012, is estimated to create 3000 direct and indirect jobs.

But it's not just business that attracts Americans to Afghanistan. The Department of Defense Education Activity programme recruits and sends teachers to Afghanistan. Non-profit education outfits are also in the game, such as the American University of Afghanistan, which operates on the US liberal arts model and has 780 students as of 2011.The hope is that Western educational efforts will develop strong human capital in the country, as well as a generation of tolerant and open-minded youth to lead Afghanistan in future.

Afghan girls in an American run school. Focusing on education would provide better alternatives than the Taliban to Afghanistan's youth, and liberate oppressed communities like the Hazara.

Another major player in Afghanistan is India, whose efforts have been met with contempt by erstwhile rival Pakistan. Since 2001, India has given about$1.2 billion in aid to Afghanistan, in addition to undertaking several major infrastructure projects, like the construction of the Afghan parliament (scheduled for completion this year). Bilateral trade between the two countries stood at $358 million in March 2008.

The killing of bin Laden on Pakistani soil tarnished Pakistan's image in both Kabul and Washington; India, seeking to press this advantage, pledged on 12^th May to bring total aid up to $2 billion, while also beginning to train Afghan police and forming an Afghan female police battalion.

The problem with India's dreams is simply that Pakistan would not like it. The fact remains that the Taliban was created, funded and armed by Pakistan to gain leverage in Afghanistan, which it hoped would then be an ally against India. After all, Pakistan never purged the Taliban on its soil until strict demands by the US. At the same time, one recalls Baitullah Mehsud's 2008 pledge to fight alongside the Pakistani government if war broke out with India. An Indo-Pakistani power struggle over Afghanistan would further destabilise the country's safety, and hence, its economic prospects.
Though Baitullah Mehsud is no more, the Pakistani-created terror network he helmed, the Taliban, continues to ravage Afghanistan.

Inevitably, China is also looking to boost its profile in Afghanistan. Chinese companies go about winning resource contracts in the country in much the same way they have been doing so in Africa. (In fact, the method is actually called the Angola model). For example, in February 2010,China Metallurgical Group Corporation won a contract to mine Afghanistan's Aymak copper mine with a $3.4 billion bid that included a commitment to build a power plant, a railway that will link the mine, the smelter and China (!), schools, roads and mosques. The deal also promised that all non-managerial staff will be Afghans in five years.
China's method of securing contract's in resource rich developing countries creates indirect GDP growth by bringing with it roads, schools and, in Afghanistan, mosques.

The fact that these countries are willing to make huge economic bets on the future of Afghanistan augurs well for that future, as well as American efforts at maintaining security in the country. Whatever the case for foreign investment, eventually Afghanistan must be strong enough to prioritize domestic investment, sales and consumption. For now though, here's to Afghanistan's future, to the continued growth of its people.

STAY THE COURSE

2011-03-17T19:44:00.000+09:00

The ongoing quake-and-tsunami caused nuclear crisis in Japan has stoked fears in Malaysia over whether Malaysia should build a nuclear power plant. Currently, under the government’s Economic Transformation Plan, such a plant aims to become reality by 2021 (2016 at the earliest).

Here’s why we should stay the course.

From an energy point of view, the fact remains that come mid-decade (worst-case scenario), fossil fuels will become uneconomical as a power source. Nuclear power plants are the most powerful of the other energy options out there- producing 3600 kW per acre, while solar produces between 74 kW and 222 kW of power per acre.

A conventional nuclear reactor. The public's misconceptions concerning the safety of nuclear power should be countered with the facts- France produces 80% of it's power from accident-free nuclear energy.

Other fuel sources have much bigger failings. In Malaysia, strong breezes are to be found only at the coasts and in mountains. Building wind turbines in such areas would hurt tourism revenues and contribute further to the loss of Malaysia’s forest cover, of which only 56% remains. The same argument goes against hydropower. Remember, Malaysia has a pledge to maintain 50% of her forest cover under the Rio Earth Summit.

Wind turbines would ruin tourism to Malaysia's beaches and hill getaways. At a time when new tourist destinations are popping up with alarming speed, we do not need more turn-offs.

Solar power will continue to suffer from the problem of overcast and night-darkened skies for a while yet. Technologies like heated salt and MIT researcher David Nocera's fuel cells are on the horizon to mitigate this, but logically speaking, hinging a country’s electricity generation on the weather doesn’t seem very wise. Solar can and should play a major role in Malaysia’s energy future, but shelving nuclear power in favour of it is the wrong move.

Nuclear power’s safety issues are decisively handled by several new technologies on the horizon. The first of these are the fourth generation nuclear reactors, scheduled to be able to go online by 2021. One model, known as the Very High Temperature Reactor, uses unreactive helium as a coolant, and has a graphite composed core, meaning a high heat capacity and structural stability at superhigh temperatures.

A scaled model of a Very-High Temperature Reactor, one type of Generation 4 nuclear power plant.

Moreover, Toshiba Corp. and NuScale Power have both come up with what are best called nuclear batteries. Mini power plants buried in the ground, these cheap reactors can produce 10-45 megawatts of power, with Toshiba’s reactor lasting 30 years. The best feature? They are safe, one because the whole system is submerged under water, the other because it has no moving parts and a dual mechanism to prevent meltdown.

These mini nuclear reactors offer exciting possibilities for power in remote areas, as well as a putting less strain on fragile electrical grids in developing nations.

It is plain here that the options for Malaysia to keep her power plant plan on track are available. The question here is whether the Malaysian government has the political will to slug it out with the opposition, and the eloquence to explain the facts to the public. The facts are with us. Let us keep the faith.

THE EFFECTS OF THE ATTACK

2011-02-15T22:21:00.001+09:00

There can be no real doubt that today, multiculturalism is under attack from the forces of integration and plain racism. All over the West, the powers that be (even in normally mild-mannered states) have begun a massive crackdown on the freedom of migrants to express their cultures, whether by banning burqas, minarets or outright deportations of minorities (as in France’s campaign against Gypsies)

It is not very difficult to ascertain the causes of this reprehensible behavior. In Europe, politicians are desperate for votes following the global recession, and the Euro’s current troubles. To that end, they have made attacking migrants (and their culture) a political staple to win over voters on the far-right. These attacks also have an appeal to those mainstream voters who mistakenly believe that migrants ‘steal’ local jobs.

In America, the vitriol hurled by right-wingers against Muslims has its’ roots in the Sept. 11 attacks, which (more or less) turned the word ‘Islam’ into mud. The recent proposal for a Muslim community centre a couple blocks away from the site of the WTC, Newt Gingrich’s crusade against ‘sharia’ and a growing sense that moderate Muslims do little to oppose their radical co-religionists have rekindled the old xenophobia.

Whatever the causes, the stampede against multiculturalism will have numerous ill effects, the first of which is a dangerous increase in terrorist recruitment. It is very easy for the propaganda agents of al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba to use bans on burqas and mosque minarets as propaganda that the West is against Islam. This would obviously succeed in recruiting new radicals willing to strike at civilian targets throughout the West and in Western military bases.

Moreover, it is likely that anti-Muslim policies will put Muslims on the defensive, which would cause them to elect harder-line politicians of their own. Once that happens, cooperation on urgent Middle Eastern and global issues, like Palestine, would become markedly harder, as these politicians shirk from working with the West. The Palestinian peace process does not need more leaders like Ahmadinejad, revered domestically largely because of his grandstanding against the West.

At the same time, it will become harder for Western democratic leaders to speak out against human-rights abuses worldwide, which increases the likelihood of further unrest similar to that of Egypt’s.

These effects would combine to further, significant economic hardship. The fact remains that if America seeks economic growth in an era of high domestic consumer indebtedness, it has to look to exports. There is little point in making consumers in fast growing Muslim countries disdain American exports by enacting anti-Muslim laws and such.

More importantly, the West can ill-afford to alienate its’ migrants, who bolster the falling birth rates in most European countries. With more young workers (both skilled and unskilled), it would be easier to foot the pension and medical bills of graying populations, as well as fill up numerous essential but unwanted jobs. True, at this point in time, there are few countries that beat the prosperity per capita of Western countries, but this being when most growth will come from developing countries (including the migrants own countries of origin), this will change sooner or later. And then, migrants will look for the country that most makes them feel welcome.

THE EFFECTS OF THE ATTACK

2011-02-15T22:21:00.000+09:00

THE JAIL

2011-01-15T18:54:00.001+09:00

Arrived at KYUEM (Kolej Yayasan UEM, aka The Jail) on Tuesday and just finished a hectic week of induction.

The verdict?

If this is jail, I want a life sentence!!!

Seriously, I'm not kidding. Mainly this is because of the great batchmates here: Aina, Jabbar (whom we call Nando's but Aina calls 'girlfriend'), Shawn, Shankar, Aizat (roommates- great guys), Jayson, Alia, Kash (short for Kashiff), Sunny (it's a girl, Michaelians),Vivek, Raehan, Sha, Qistina (Qissy for short), Vivian (these people call me 'Jesus'), Char Siew (real name- Er Wei), Shuba, Loy (cool name, eh?) and loads more. Everyone's friendly, funny and nice.

The induction sessions were quite good. As is customary, there was one touchy-feely session that had most people crying. I wanted to but couldn't, so by this point, I think my tear duct's have burned out due to Ipoh's sun. I'm not joking, it's possible, happened to Mandela.

Food's ok, better than I expected, and if you get bored, just leave the Dining Hall and head to the Cafeteria. The lecturers are mostly awesome, esp. Dr. Foord (Physics), who is surely the closest person to Stephen Hawking I've met. Cool library, with awesome History books and my type of magazines. Nerd stuff, like The Economist, Time, etc!!!

The wifi sucks, partly because my chalet's kinda far from the hotspot, and because there are so many friggin people on it! So does the shower, which is freezing and smells of rust.

To sum up, great people, good sessions, good food, sucky showers and wifi. Not bad for a jail. Will post pics when I can. BTW, Happy Ponggal! (Just realized it was).

PS-If the post looks bad, it's cause I can't beautify it due to the wifi. I can't reply on the cbox either, so I'll answer here.

Mark- I dunno why she became a fan, No solicitation. Taking Maths and the 3 Sciences.
Others- Please chill, do the venting in person...

DECK THE HALLS

2011-01-03T19:25:00.009+09:00

I just got back from a medical check up at the government Greentown Health Clinic in Ipoh. Thankfully all my tests were clear, and I certainly didn't test positive for anything (ganja included).

But anyway, as I was leaving, I noticed a Christmas tree in the clinic's lobby. Which was a rather nice nod to the season, though it is coming to a close. The sight sparked a chain of thought in my brain.

Why is a Christmas tree used, and not, say, a Nativity scene? (For those who don't know, it is a scene of the birth of Jesus in the manger, with the baby surrounded by Mary and Joseph and usually some donkeys, sheep and oxen)

Surely the Nativity scene is more meaningful and worthwhile than a Christmas tree? Or, God forbid, Santa Claus?

More to the point, why are the commercial and 'fun' aspects of religious celebrations highlighted by government agencies, the mass media and private corporations instead of the spiritual aspect?

One reason why many Malaysian youth grow up with little understanding of different religions is because in each festival, these bodies emphasize the Christmas carols, rendang, floats, and kolam, all without mentioning the meaning behind these symbols. Some symbols, like Christmas trees, have little connection to the festival's true meaning, and contribute to the fact that many young people see these festivals as occasions for wild partying, noise and excessive alcohol.

The more we refuse to show the spirituality of religious festivals, the more parties like this we will have.

Some, like Malaysia's Islamic clerics, would no doubt object to portraying the religious aspect of festivals in government buildings or the mass media. No doubt they would say that this will overshadow Islam and confuse the nation's Muslims. These statements make no sense, because Islamic religious leaders could also emphasize the spirituality of their festivals, instead of letting radio stations play endless ads about rendang and ketupat.

Moreover, with 60% of Malaysians being Muslim, how would this overshadow Islam? And Malaysia's Muslims surely have a strong enough faith that they won't be confused just by a Nativity scene, or a portrayal of Rama killing the demon Ravana

The display of such religion-centred art during religious festivals would promote interreligious understanding and unity.

If we are truly 1Malaysia, and we really support multiculturalism in Malaysia, then, showing everyone the true meaning of Christmas, Deepavali, Hari Raya, and Wesak Day will not harm anyone except those with backward brains. Surely we have grown up enough?

HOMOSEXUALITY IN CONSERVATIVE COUNTRIES

2010-12-21T18:59:00.009+09:00

This week, Malaysians were shocked by news that a Muslim man, Azwan Ismail, had posted a video on YouTube admitting he was gay, but that he had learned to accept itself and urging other Malaysians to do the same. His video shone the spotlight on an ongoing campaign in Malaysia to push for greater tolerance of homosexuality. More importantly, Mr. Ismail has once again highlighted how difficult it is to be homosexual in Malaysia and other conservative countries.

Since the video broke, Mr. Ismail has received death threats, and Malaysia's Islamic clerics have responded with typical narrow-mindedness. Harussaini Zakaria, Perak Mufti, said Mr. Ismail has "derided his own dignity and Islam in general". Jamil Khir Baharom, Cabinet minister for Islamic affairs, said officials might take "appropriate action to prevent this from spreading because it would hurt Islam's image"

Baharom's response that Mr. Ismail will be persecuted exemplifies the narrow mindedness of the Malaysian establishment.

The fact is that such a response to homosexuality is a worldwide phenomenon. 74 countries worldwide have laws banning homosexual activities. There are Christian countries, Muslim countries, economic powerhouses and rural backwaters in that list. In January of this year, Malawi's first gay couple were put on trial, where they were mocked by the public and face a jail sentence of up to 14 years if convicted.

A map of countries outlawing or criminalizing homosexuality. Countries of all types are in the list, but the unifying feature is a a resistance from religious or faith based groups.

By and large, negative reactions to homosexuality have come from religious groups and religiously minded individuals. The Abrahamic religions all view homosexuality as forbidden (haram, in Islam), exemplified by the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. It is worth noting, however, that, according to Wikipedia "homoerotic themes were present in poetry and other literature written by some Muslims from the medieval period onward and which celebrated love between men. In fact, these were more common than expressions of attraction to women."

To me, however, there is no reason for the religions of the world to criticize homosexuals, or to push governments to declare it illegal. My reasoning is very simple: those who are gay do not harm their fellow man. The idea that they somehow erode the traditional definition of marriage is daft: allowing gay people to marry will not reduce the marriage rate among heterosexual couples. If a man and woman want to marry, they will marry, even though their next door neighbour is gay and is going to marry a man.

Is anyone seriously saying that love between a man and a woman is so weak that they don't marry just because gay people are allowed to marry?

So what if gay couples can be legally married? How will that reduce the marriage rate between heterosexual couples? If a gay man is forbidden to marry a man, he won't marry a woman!

In fact, allowing gay people to marry would encourage the creation of families, which, after all, are beneficial to the growth of children, should the couple choose to adopt. We are all familiar with the benefits of families eating, playing and working together. The kids have a stronger foundation in forming relationships, are more confident about themselves, etc. These benefits remain even though the parents are both of the same sex.

Now, on to religions and homosexuality. If religions do believe in mercy, love, and justice to fellow man, then, why do they push for bans on homosexuality? If the image of God that religions wish to project include a God that is forgiving, loving, just and merciful, religions should not press governments to ban homosexuality. Personally, I believe that the responsibility of religious bodies is only to ensure that their own flock do not become homosexuals and that those confused about their sexuality are given love and a helping hand.

I am not saying that religious bodies should accept gay marriage. What I am saying is that civil same-sex marriage should be allowed. For example, if a gay couple wants to marry, they can have a civil marriage, recognised by the state. Religious bodies would not marry them, because the Bible and the Quran do prohibit same sex marriages. The point of this post is simply to argue that religious bodies should not impose their views on everyone else. If the Church (or Mosque) doesn't want to marry a gay couple, don't marry them, but don't campaign to stop them being married under civil law.

If the image of God we really want to project is an image of love, let us also love and accept gay couples, and allow them to marry legally. If religions don't want to marry them, don't marry them, but don't campaign to stop them being married by the state.

If God really has a problem with it, then He will take action when we reach the Pearly Gates.

This view will not be accepted by most religious leaders, except maybe by the progressive pockets of organized religion worldwide. I myself am having some doubts about my stand, because I am a relatively devout Catholic. However, I can accept this view because I know the Church is an organization of love, justice and unity. This is simply the true practice of what we preach.

WHERE IT STANDS NOW

2010-12-17T14:45:00.000+09:00

Right now, biotechnology is still widely regarded as an up-and-coming industry in developing countries, despite the fact that the industry has experienced three "waves" (green, red and white). In developed countries, it is an established, but fast growing sector, with governments having long promoted the industry, especially in the US and continental Europe.Curious little proteins called enzymes are the engine for the growth of white (industrial) biotechnology. Firms like Novozymes have recognzed this, and set up operations all over the world.

In the US, the main hub for biotechnology is the state of California. As with Silicon Valley, businesses and government have united to create a highly conducive atmosphere for biotechnology firms. For example, the Stem Cell Initiative promises 3 billion USD over 10 years (beginning 2006) from the Californian government for stem cell research in the state. The voters also seem enthusiastic about biotechnology: several public referendums on banning GM crops in California were rejected by the public with wide margins (61-39% in Butte County).

The third biggest biotech hub in the US, North Carolina, benefits from its educational excellence designed towards science careers, particularly biotechnology. While the state has invested about 1.2 billion USD over the past 10 years in biotech, biotech firms like the state because of the research triangle formed by North Carolina State University, the University of North Carolina and Duke University. But its not just a fanciful name, the triangle is home to the North Carolina Biotech Center.The community college system prepares students for technician jobs, and short courses in specific skills are also offered.

Duke University in North Carolina is one of the reasons why the state is such a thriving biotech hub. Countries wishing to expand their biotech industries should learn from this.

The US federal government has also been keen on biotechnology. While President Bush didn't exactly hold science in high esteem, President Obama has reached out to scientists, overturning stem-cell funding restrictions by executive order. The US stimulus programme allocated 8 billion USD to 12,000 research projects nationwide. A significant portion of the money has gone to keeping researchers salaries paid, but let's not underestimate that. There is no benefit to scientists going jobless, especially when they're trained in such a useful field.

Europe, meanwhile, really supports its' biotechnology sector. There are a total of 234 biotechnology parks in Europe; the UK alone has 56, France, 51. As of 2005, the 27 European member states invested 1 .208 billion Euros in the sector. While the recession did affect the industry, governments were quick tor respond: Norway gave the biotech industry a 300 million Euro bailout fund. On top of that, major business-enzyme players are present in Europe, while renewable raw materials are abundant in the continent.

The citizens of Europe have a misguided and irrational view of GM crops, which is holding back the sheer potential of Europe to contribute to new crop varieties and greater farm yields.

In Europe, white biotech is best known, partly because green biotech has a bad rap with the public. Part of the reason is the environmental effects of white biotech, which Europe seems very keen on; noting that carbon emissions could be cut by 17-65%.

Asia does not want to be left out of the field. India, while having instituted a moratorium on BT Brinjal, remains hopeful that biotech will help it pull off a second Green Revolution. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh recently set up a working group to look into ways to reduce food inflation; one of the group's recommendations was increased biotech investment. China, meanwhile, sees double digit growth in biotech, with the sector projected to reach a size of $ 9 billion by this year. The Chinese government, meanwhile, has given tax incentives (50% tax deductibility) and invested in quasi venture capital companies, causing total venture capital investment to rise by 22% from 2005 to 2006.

Other parts of Asia, like Malaysia, have immense natural potential for biotechnology research; after all, there are lush tropical rainforest throughout Asia, which provides raw materials for medical and industrial biotech. Malaysia, for example, is one of the 12 Mega Biodiversity sites in the world, and is working to capitalize on that.

Southeast Asia's lush tropical rainforests provide abundant source materials for biotechnology research. It is a great pity, then, that governments do little to check logging.

All in all, countries are seizing the exciting new opportunities in the field, although numerous obstacles remain. Some are plagued by hostile public reception to biotech, others by cumbersome bureaucracy, corruption and low intellectual-property protection.

However, it will not be good if the government meddles overmuch in the sector, this kills competition and is wasteful. Governments should provide the proper support mechanisms for science based businesses, and step back so innovation and competition set the field on fire.

HOW DO YOU FIX AN ECONOMY?

2010-12-16T22:21:00.009+09:00

The American economy remains stuck in the doldrums, with unemployment remaining near 10% and continued weak credit despite near-zero interest rates. The housing market remains weak.

This does not seem likely to improve anytime soon, thanks largely to misplaced concern about the deficit and more deadlock anticipated in Congress. With Republicans opposing anything that adds on to the deficit, (although the $858 billion was allowed to pass just because it came as tax cuts), the government might be deprived of some of its best tools for cutting unemployment and restoring growth.

If congressional Republicans choose to beholden themselves to the hypocritical, anti-intellectual Tea Party Movement, the economy is on course for very poor economic growth.

The consensus among wise folk is that the US needs more fiscal stimulus. The initial $800 billion package was, odd as this may seem, too small and scattershot. Christina Romer, chairwoman of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, calculated the US needed $1.2 trillion of it. Plus, the meltdown was worse than thought when Romer was running the numbers

The bottom line here is simple: the government should dole out more money for infrastructure projects, small and medium businesses, and manufacturing. With more people employed, more taxes are paid and, depending on the project, GDP is increased in other ways, for example, constructing new solar plants encourages further investment by corporations and reduces fuel expenditures. The extension of the Bush tax cuts also encourages consumption as well as hiring.

The breakdown of the first stimulus plan. Congress must make sure the second one is more focused on job creation, skills training and small business support.

Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel laureate in economics writes in Newsweek (Issues 2011 edition) that "the cost of not spending is even higher". As he points out, workers lose their skills, and "human capital will be destroyed" if the country experiences high unemployment for years.

More importantly, the American economy needs to be rebalanced. There are two ways of doing this. Firstly is by moving the economy away from the dodgy financial services that started the whole mess in the first place. Worse, the swelling of the financial sector came at the expense of the manufacturing sector.

Data on Wikipedia shows the financial sector producing between 12-15% of total sales, receipts or shipments, ahead of construction (less than 6%) and not far behind manufacturing (just above 18%).

Shuttered factories testify to the slow but sure death of the manufacturing sector in the US. It is worth noting that the worst period of American job creation was during 2001-2007, the Bush years.

The second (probably more effective) way to rebalance the American economy is to boost exports. For too long, the US economy has been focused on domestic consumption, with too little income coming from exports. This does not make sense, because US know how (when sensibly utilized) produces beautiful, cutting-edge products that people desire. Plus, with US consumers also drowning in debt (household indebtedness stood at 132% of income in 2009) , they can no longer be counted upon like they once were as a source of growth.

So why then do these facts abound? The US Congress has not ratified free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and worst of all, South Korea. PayPal reports that only 14% of US merchants sell to overseas customers.

US exports clearly should be beefed up. Trade with developing markets like South America and Asia remain small, and will stay that way until more free-trade agreements are signed and approved.

The solution, then, is for the Obama administration to support more small businesses, which create the vast majority of jobs. Congress must also remove barriers to international trade, and thus encourage firms to sell to the rapidly growing middle class overseas.

These steps will not be easy to get through Congress, simply because 'stimulus' has become a four-letter word to voters. But Obama can use the silver tongue he wielded during his campaign here too.

He could point out that he's kept the tax cuts. He could also point out that the returns from the public investment (that's a nicer word than stimulus), would raise future income and tax revenues, which would help trim the debt. The bottom line is, spending now might be the best way to reduce debt in future.

A HALF HURRAH

2010-12-13T19:31:00.008+09:00

Sorry for leaving the updating this late. I just finished my SPM, which is THE public exam in this country.

I couldn't believe my eyes when I turned to the world section of the newspaper and saw this:

UN CLIMATE DEAL WINS WIDE BACKING

The 2010 Climate Conference in Mexico took place amid widespread pessimism that governments had the will to unite to stop global warming. Instead, the world was pleasantly surprised.

After all, 2009's Copenhagen Climate Conference was nothing but a sugar-coated failure. And now this? At the 2010 conference in Cancun, Mexico?

This deal is actually a kind of Green Climate Fund, in which rich countries help poor nations mitigate, and cope with climate change. The Mexico-brokered proposal includes measures for sharing clean technologies, helping protect tropical forests, and helping poor nations adapt to the effects of global warming.

Under the Green Climate Fund, the fact that there will be global cooperation to preserve rainforests is heartening, as biodiversity will also benefit from the move.

Probably most inspiring was this line in the article "the United States, China and dozens of other countries rallied around the plan...". These countries were, as recently as weeks before the conference playing what seemed to be an endless blame game. Rich countries demanded the poor join them in taking action, while developing countries, led by China, demanded developed countries do their bit first, and kept using poverty as an excuse.

The expression on Nicolas Sarkozy's face displays perfectly how frustrating the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference was.

It is true, of course, that many underdeveloped countries need financial and technical aid to address global warming. But it's also true that many developing countries are rich enough to start, with many in better fiscal positions than the West. Brazil, China (who spent 45 billion dollars to polish its image for the 2008 Olympics) and India, for example, can tackle global warming without a fund. That said, the fund should be directed to poor countries, not developing countries. (I'm sure you understand the distinction).

The 45 billion USD that China spent on the Olympics could be used to build about 189 photovoltaic solar plants, each producing 53 MW of power to 15 000 homes.

The reason this is a half-success is that no binding deal to cut emissions by fixed amounts came out of the talks. Developed and developing countries simply agreed to postpone this (and their accountability dispute) to 2011. Plus, Bolivia remained opposed to the deal, meaning the decision cannot be formally adopted. No one (except for the negotiators, perhaps) is happy about this particular outcome.

Still, the fact that countries can act together is a huge boost to those of us who were losing hope. But there's more to do. Developing countries should start cleaning up their act (and not ignore their problems just because they were pointed out by an also-guilty developed country) while developed countries should take the lead, because regardless of who started the warming, all of us will have hell to pay.

B SAVE THE WORLD

2010-08-27T18:53:00.000+09:00

No, B is not a superhero, nor is it the initials of a certain American politician. It does stand for a cause which I'm quite interested in, and hope to join when I'm older and have the necessary qualifications.

B- biotech. And yes, it can save the world, if we let it.

Now, lets see how. First, in agriculture. Biotech enables plants to yield more food for human consumption, both by directly increasing yield and making plants more pest reisistant. This means that rising food demand can be supported by fewer plants, which means less forests need to be cut down for agricultural space. Obviously, more forests are better, because they absorb (sequester) the world's carbon emissions. At the same time, it provides water-catchment areas that ensures rivers flow even in times of drought, further boosting agriculture.

While genetically modified food's impact does need to be further studied, if no scientific evidence that they harm the environment is found, it does need to be allowed and encouraged. Too many people die of hunger each day.

Mark Lynas author of "High Tide" says 30% of the world's land could become unfarmable in the next few decades, so maximizing what's there is key.

Plus, biotech would also help in the medical field, especially in cheapening and speeding up drug production. Genetically modified yeast and E. Coli bacteria are used to produce synthetic insulin or antibiotics. Thanks to medical biotech, we now have diagnostic devices that define suitable patients for certain biopharmaceutical products. For example, the drug Herceptin was approved with a matching diagnostic test to treat breast cancer in women whose tumour cells are detected to express the HER2 protein.

Medical biotechnology stands to treat countless diseases, especially those involving bacterium and viruses.

Still, the coolest application of medical biotech is the one known as pharming. In pharming, genes containing code to produce pharmaceuticals are transplanted into a host animal or plant that ordinarily does not have that gene. As a result, the host species then actually PRODUCES the medical product, which can then be refined into a marketable drug.

Last, but perhaps most relevant to our times is the applications of biotechnology in industry, known as white biotechnology. The main projected application of white biotech is the fermentation of organic matter to produce alternative fuels. In the ethanol industry, biotech could single-handedly turn the industry green, as enzymes could break down cellulose in all types of plants to produce cellulosic ethanol, which is a far better alternative to current ethanol which requires refining the sucrose in corn and sugarcane.

How cellulosic ethanol is produced. Biotechnology would increase the speed and efficiency of the process, while reducing its' costs.

They rely heavily on fossil-fuel inputs, so much so that by some estimates, they produce more carbon than the amount of gas they replace. And they require the loss of large areas of forests, which, when cut down, release carbon as well. Plus, to harvest sugarcane, workers burn the field first to make the cane easier to cut. Need I say more?

The potential applications of biotechnology, whether green, red or white, would transform our world significantly. It would lift millions out of poverty, stop the wastage of energy, and above all, sever our ties to fossil fuels, maybe forever.

This article is the first in a series on biotechnology. In the next one, we'll look at where the field is hottest, and what governments and companies are doing for it now.

SAVING SABAH

2010-07-12T01:32:00.012+09:00

The government's plans for a coal-fired power plant in Sabah has generated widespread concern, not least because of the simple fact that, well, it's coal, stupid.

Of course, the economic arguments that the government has put forward to support the proposal cannot be denied. Sabah does need power, and 300 MW of the stuff is very tempting. And coal is the cheapest power source out there. Plus, the government and the national utility, TNB, would like us to believe that the plant is going to be clean, with neglible carbon emissions.

I'm surprised anyone can keep a straight face and say the words "clean coal". Malaysians must be spared such tripe.

Of course, I don't buy this rubbish that a coal-fired plant can be "clean". That's rubbish. If our dear minister, Peter Chin Fah Kui (who, ironically is Energy, Green Technology and Water Minister. Shame on him), ever held a piece of coal, he'd know that.

Sabah has rivers, sunlight, waves and oil-palm plantations, all of which could produce power in an eco-friendly and economically viable way. One of the most promising methods, burning waste from oil-palm plantations (which is different from using the oil-palm fruit as ethanol, as I'm opposed to), is supported by research from the Asia Biomass Office.

They estimate a ton of EFB can generate about 1,330 kWh of electricity. 6.6 million tonnes of EFB would generate about 8,423GWh. With current price of electricity at about 6 cent/kWh, power generation using 6.6 million ton of EFB will be about 1.72 billion ringgit sales per year.

While I remain opposed to using palm oil ethanol as vehicle fuel (due to the food vs. fuel debate and the ineffectiveness of the ethanol itself), burning plantation waste for electricity is fine in very small, regulated amounts.

Plus, studies by Sabah Environmental Protection Association show that based on the location of the oil palm mills, most are in clusters, small power generating plants of about 10MW plant each could be built in Beluran, Kudat, Semporna, Kunak and so on to supply clean, renewable energy to the east coast.

Solar energy might hold more promise. With solar-thermal scientists now researching new technologies like reflective mirrors of lightweight polymer and not glass, and techniques like molten salt being used to capture heat for nighttime generation, the world is on the cusp of a new solar revolution. The Solana Generating Station in Arizona, scheduled to go online in 2012, will have 3 sq. miles of parabolic mirrors generating 280 MW of power.

A solar thermal power plant. It involves using mirrors to focus sunlight on a receiver where the heat will boil water to get steam for turning a turbine.

It would be a shame if Malaysia, blessed as it is with abundant sunlight (4-5 kilowatt hours of solar radiation hits each square metre of Malaysia every day) fails to capitalise on these technologies. Even Germany, with only 1-2 kilowatt hours of such radiation, has become the world's solar leader, thanks to a system that enable regular homeowners to earn cash by putting solar panels on their roofs and selling the excess power to the grid. Mr. Peter Chin should know these facts, unless he's forgotten his portfolio.

Yet, the fact that the second Terms of Reference report was pushed through by the government despite little amendment to the heavily biased first report shows that the relevant ministry cannot even be trusted to do its' job. To be fair to the environment, and Sabah's people (whose taxes are being directed to air pollution), the government should scrap the whole silly idea.

Mr. Peter Chin is proving inept at doing his job. Which Green Technology Minister supports a coal-fired plant?

I distinctly remember our Prime Minister promising to slash our carbon intensity by 40% at the Copenhagen summit. And what about that much talked about slogan "Rakyat Didahulukan, Pencapaian Diutamakan"?

THE FIRST FOOTBALL POST

2010-06-27T01:11:00.005+09:00

I was checking football results on yahoo!sport the other day, working while checking the internet feed for the Italy-Slovakia match. (Sure, like I kept working, in the end, I just watched the damn match, and saw the last 3 goals being scored).

Slovakian substitute Kamil Kopunek lobs in the winning goal against defending champs Italy to knock them out of the World Cup

Anyway, this is one of the comments I saw:

"You Europeans think you're so great. Wait ten years. The Asians and Americans will dominate this sport, just like they do the Olympics."

Could it happen?

Maybe.

Why not? Firstly because football isn't a part of Asian, or American culture the way it is in Europe or South America. In those regions, football is a way of life! Football is everywhere over there, and kids pick up the game from a young age. Football in those regions is associated with immortal cultural elements in ways which are near impossible to replicate in Asia or the US. Take the Brazilian samba, or the fact that English-Irish nationalism was evident in British football fans in the 80's and 90's. In a country where football is known as "soccer" dominating this sport in such an environment is a tad laughable, at least for the moment.

Brazilian football is as much a part of the samba as samba is a part of the beautiful game.

And then of course is the area of technical ability, which is something that needs lots of time and stringent management to develop properly. In this area, the Asians are most likely to lose out. The Asian leagues are beset by corruption, mismanagement, and a lack of professionalism by the players. In Malaysia, for example, the local football governing body is managed by politicians and royals who know absolutely nothing about managing a football squad. Youth training schemes also need to be beefed up to spawn success, as the example of Germany has shown. Its current crop of young heroes (I still can't believe the 4-0 rout of Argentina), came about as a result of reforms undertaken after the team's early exit from Euro 2000.

Lukas Podolski is just one of the many young players currently taking the World Cup by storm, proof that the German youth system is paying off handsomely.

The US team, while they had a great run, had forwards who often seemed at sea, and who never seemed to take the game to the opponent from the starting whistle. They instead woke up after conceding opening goals, and even then relied overmuch on Landon Donovan. Their strikers, Clint Dempsey and Jozy Altidore were virtually silent.

Landon Donovan celebrates after rescuing the US yet again. No team can rely so much on one man and expect to win a tourney, let alone the World Cup.

Against Argentina, the South Koreans defensive flaws were opened up painfully, as the Argentine forwards latched on to numerous defensive lapses to end up with a 4-1 victory. An observation of the German side throughout the tourney reveals a fresh squad whose strikers are always willing to fall back and mark opposing strikers tightly. The Brazilian's (who were extremely unlucky to lose to Holland) had their defenders coming forward too, like Lucio, Juan and most notably, Maicon.

Maicon in action in Brazil's 3-0 rout of Chile. Asian and American teams need equally versatile players; strikers should not hang around upfront waiting for pinpoint passes.

These achievements are not impossible for Americans or Asians. But they will require a radical shift in mindsets and the focus of football development in both regions. They have made great strides over the past 50-odd years, but to go further and "own this sport" more must be done.

WE ARE TO BLAME

2010-06-08T14:50:00.003+09:00

People have been making lots of noise about the recent oil spills, especially the one in the Gulf of Mexico.

The one near Singapore has been largely forgotten, after all, since when has the general Malaysian public placed concern over the environment?

Environmentalists and the American public mainly feel anger at BP, whose oil derrick exploded and started the leak in the first place. But there is also a growing chorus of protest against the way US President Barack Obama has handled the crisis, which I feel is a bit unfair, seeing as the President has declared that all clean-up costs are to be borne by BP.

But, strangely, few people have blamed our reluctance to wean ourselves off oil as a cause.

Think about it. Who continues to support and believe climate change denying politicians? Who continues to drive SUVs and waste electricity? The fact remains that the public is as much to blame as BP is, but of course, few would dare say this out loud.

Branching out from this is the fact that the disaster highlights a new need for a flat out carbon tax. And unlike what certain populist politicians claim, it will not hurt the poor, after all for every gallon of gas the poorest 20% of households use, the richest 20% use 3-4 gallons. And like Al Gore proposed, the tax could be offset by reducing other taxes (like sales taxes, and GST to the poor)

The bottom line is, oil needs more than ever to be phased out quickly, and not just because of global warming. There isn't much enjoyment in eating oil-poisoned tuna either.

PPM- THE LATEST DEADLY DISEASE

2010-03-28T16:50:00.008+09:00

Here's a particularly troublesome paradigm that I've noticed among people, especially that very curious breed that calls themselves voters.

Its called Populist Political Mentality.

The premise is very simple. To victims affected by this disorder, it means that whoever is in power must give them what they want (not need) as quickly as possible, else, regardless of what else this government did for them, they'll not vote for it. Another defining characteristic of this group is the complete unwillingness to sacrifice short-term benefits for extreme long-term gain, as well as being extremely gullible to populist statements by irresponsible politicians and thus, judging by their hearts and never with their heads.

These people are the American 'Tea-Partiers', who would rather let people die due to a lack of health insurance just because they feel the government shouldn't interfere in personal healthcare. These people are the Greeks who vote a new government in to slash the debt, yet riot when the government talks about going thrifty to save cash. These people are also, tragically, the Malaysians who would never allow prices to be raised, despite the deficit reaching 47 billion ringgit last year.

Populism does go a long way in helping to fish for votes, especially from Low Information Voters. But its real cost is terrible. It causes a rapid cooling of political favor towards a certain candidate once he's been elected and finds out that getting parliamentary approval can be slow and agonising. At the same time, people become more willing to vote for the next flashy opponent who comes with all style and little substance (insert Sarah Palin joke here). And it means that these opponents (like the US Republicans) will keep blocking necessary legislation to keep up the image of the bold, upstart opponent.

In Malaysia, PPM often causes displays of hypocrisy in people, who typically complain of higher prices, yet spend on things like smartphones for all the kids before they start school, etc, etc. Sure, there's nothing wrong with buying goods, but when there is a debt crisis looming that could affect you much worse in future, why complain about reduced subsidies and yet splurge unnecessarily?

When countries go bankrupt after excessive borrowing to support a PPM infested population, bad -no, terrible- things happen to its people. Stock markets worldwide crash, the people lose ALL forms of government benefits, salaries are trimmed and the currency becomes worthless, driving up prices far more than they would have been had subsidies been slashed earlier on.

PPMs effects vary depending on the kind of policy attacked by the government. In more advanced democracies, where people argue about the environment, healthcare, nuclear energy and such, an attack would be something like climate change doesn't exist, or bluefin tuna should continue to be fished. Either way, the effects are destructive, silly and unnecessary.

So, lets start acting with a little bit more maturity, and be prepared to make some sacrifices and judge things by what is being said, not how loudly people say it.

GREENWASHING- PART I

2010-03-14T23:01:00.013+09:00

Going green is one of the hottest issues around right now (apart from the recent string of celebrity sex scandals). Almost every major company (and a few definitely un-major ones) now have some product, service or initiative that promises to be green.

But are they?

The comic is a perfect example of greenwashing- its meaning, and its dangers.

There is plenty of evidence to prove plenty of these wrong. Resoundingly so. So much so that the term greenwashing was coined to refer to the "practice of companies disingenuously spinning their products and policies as environmentally friendly, such as by presenting cost cuts as reductions in use of resources.It is a deceptive use of green PR or green marketing"- quoted from Wikipedia.

Anyway, one of the biggest greenwashing scams are the cleaning up of rivers through the throwing of EM mudballs into rivers. The story goes that the microbes in the mudballs digest the pollution in the rivers. Hundreds of politicians (who really should know better, but hey, they ARE politicians), corporate figures (who need to be seen doing SOMETHING "green" for the dullards who are pressmen), NGOs, old wives (who need something to do in their retirement) and school kids (this is one reason why many grow into classic Malaysians), gather round and hurl balls of mud into rivers, then go home feeling all saintly because they made a difference.

Note the number of wealthy looking Malaysians and incredibly misled do-gooders. Wonder why none of the reporters had the sense to report the truth.

Some difference. It turns out that EM mudballs have to be thrown continually into a river to produce even a small effect, and this results in a tremendous cost to those involved. Money which could be spent really going green- like installing LED bulbs, or replacing the company cars with Priuses. In the worst case scenario, these disillusioned masses of old wives, CEOs and government officers could be doing serious damage to river ecology by throwing billions of microorganisms into the river and turning it into a giant microbe reactor site.

What if some sort of mutant emerges from Sungai Kinta and swallows up SMK. St. Michaels?

SMK. St. Michaels, located next to the banks of Sg. Kinta, where a massive, environmentally unfriendly project is going on. Lets hope they don't start throwing EM balls in there to 'go green'.

Another great lie we are all swallowing is the so-called green efforts by petroleum companies. I'm sure you've seen those wonderful chalk-drawn ads by Shell showing a complex but meaningless diagram that supposedly ends up with a bottle of green natural gas.

Excuse me?

Very nice, but can anyone at Shell tell us what in the name of Charles Darwin does this have to do with going green?

In case the numskulls at Shell haven't noticed, NG isn't much greener than petroleum. How about pouring those precious ad dollars into solar power at Shell offices? And that includes showing us how much of their money they put in, not one ad about some obscure wind plant somewhere .Or what about really throwing its' full weight behind a climate deal, instead of leaving world leaders afraid to offend the big oil companies with tough environmental laws? And, no, "clean coal" doesn't count as going green.

This is coal, and clean coal will only exist if the world's entire population became blind.

If you've actually held a piece of coal, you'll know what I'm talking about.

TRIAL BY FIRE- PART TWO AND THE FUTURE

2010-03-09T18:26:00.005+09:00

The UTP Inter-School Debate Finals were on March 3rd. Our school very graciously agreed to send a busload of around 40 Form 1 and Form 2 supporters. Delightful little creatures they were, although they casually ruined our chances of getting any shut-eye.The gallant debaters of SMI after qualifying for the finals. From left- James, me, Kenny and Fred, the reserve.

So, the debate. It was close, but that was to be expected, given that our opponents were Malay College Kuala Kangsar. They are exceptionally good, with a powerful command of English and a heavy assortment of facts, figures and ideas.

They were proposing the motion "Health, Safety and Environment Education should be Introduced in Schools." Which left us opposing, a somewhat tougher battle. And the result?

Since many already know it, I'm just going to come out with the fact that we lost.

It was close, very much so, and we did speak well, and the judgement could have gone to us as well. But we could have done a whole lot better, by focusing more on certain key issues, and by explaining some a little more clearly. I, personally, could have touched on a number of more powerful rebuttals. But well..

Thanks to all who helped. The school for their support, our teacher advisors, Mr. Rajan and Mr. Waran, our family members, and the supporters who went with us. Apologies for not turning in a win. And to the rest of the squad: I'm proud to have spoken with you all. You guys rock!

Its' ok though. Second place isn't too bad, considering. And it turns out that the main Parliamentary English Debate competition is back on. So, onward.

(Many parts of this post have been written with a lot more optimism than I really feel)

WHEN WILL WE ACT?

2010-02-25T23:04:00.005+09:00

Michaelians will have probably realized (unless they've been living under the art room) that we have a giant hornet's hive hanging off a water pipe. For the uninitiated, it's on the pipe of the highest floor next to the Form Six office's window. All you need to do is look up around that area. Trust me, you can't miss it.

Anyway, it's been there for awhile now, and it really looks... dangerous/ creepy/ gross. But this might be because I'm kind of terrified of buzzing, flying things.

The point I'm trying to make isn't that I'm a wuss. It is a polite request as to when (or if) the school plans to remove it. I need hardly remind anyone of the hazards of having the thing next to a window which offers access to several of the school's nicest teachers. (Mr. Rajan, Pn. Fairoz, and Pn Tan Cheng Choo come to mind.)

Like so many problems in this country, will we wait for it to kill/ seriously injure someone, before we act? School safety is one thing that cannot be messed with, but the fact that hundreds of schools and educational facilities have termite infested boards, faulty beams, bad bridges (think Kuala Dipang) and electrical wiring from Dato' Maharaja Lela's time.

Many a time, even if someone does die, the issue becomes hotter than Megan Fox, before becoming colder than an ais kacang again. Whatever the problems involved in these situations, be it corruption, a close-one-eye attitude, or simply lack of funds, they have to be looked into and stopped quickly.

Those who embezzle funds for school infrastructure should be punished more severely than normal corrupt officials. I mean, we're talking students here! What happened to modal insan? If lack of funds is an issue, then it's time we cut wastage, especially in terms of government electricity consumption.

(Maybe government offices are instructed to leave lights on to provide profit for TNB. Just a thought.)

Here's to the removal of that nest, and to similar problems in all schools. There's no point in having laptops in schools if a six-legged creature brings down the building.

TRIAL BY FIRE- PART ONE

2010-02-23T16:15:00.005+09:00

The Universiti Teknologi Petronas Inter-School Debate was on Saturday. We competed with a previously untested combination (me, Kenny Liew, James William Foong), who went with drastically underprepared points (we're Michaelians). And the result.....?

I'll tell later. (Aren't I a sadist?)

Anyway, we discovered that we were the ONLY non-fully governmental school there. The others were all MRSMs, Sekolah Berasrama Penuh, or Sekolah Menengah Sains. So there I was, fully expecting to get screwed (again) because our speeches had been prepared the night before.

The semi final topic hadn't even been discussed! And these schools typically employ powerful points, backed up with a carpet bomb of facts and figures. Plus, they smile when they speak too.

Michaelian debaters will know that I'm usually the mad one in a temper on stage.

But we managed to keep our cool, and thanks to wonderful last minute preparations and spectators (they helped us prepare for the semis while we debated in the 3rd round- it was conducted a la round robin), plus the fact that we- especially me- toned down the hard, fast style.

(I smiled & spoke gently in a debate for the first time! Ever!)

We won all four rounds, and qualified for the finals! Those are on March 3, which means I'll be skipping exams!

We're up against MCKK, and if we keep up the new and improved style, we can win! About time we won something, too...

A big thank you to everyone who helped, especially Mr. Rajan, the spectators (my brothers and Thomas Liew) and the reserve speaker (Frederick Pereira)- who also drained the battery of the speakers' iPod, DSLR camera and Acer laptop. God bless you all. Wish us luck!!

THE MALAYSIAN ECONOMY

2010-02-10T00:34:00.019+09:00

The Malaysian economy has been facing severe problems in recent years, which started becoming apparent after the departure of the engineer of the best growth period in Malaysian history- Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohammad.

By the numbers- official figures show that approved investment for the first nine months of last year totaled RM19.1 billion, of which RM12.2 billion was foreign direct investment. That is a far cry from the RM62.8 billion of approved investments in the previous year, with just over RM46 billion in the form of foreign capital.

The KLSE shows a drop, which is an apt metaphor for the future of Malaysia's economy.

Sad huh?

The problems are deep and far ranging- starting with a climate that has failed to keep attracting investors. Previously, we could boast of low labour costs, a good business environment, and general harmony in the nation. No more. Other countries now have even cheaper labour markets, like China and Vietnam. Harmony in the nation is more endangered day by day, even without ethnic tensions. Just look at our crime rate, which has proved able to spook high-tech operations in the country's industrial areas- the heist of 47 million ringgit worth of Intel chips from an air cargo terminal in Penang comes to mind.

Bayan Lepas International Airport, a key entry point for foreign investors needs to beef up security if it doesn't want to be overlooked.

Worse, the idea of operating in the country is becoming a bit of a joke among multinational companies. Friendlier investment climates are found in locales like Singapore, Indonesia and Thailand. This is due to revolting bureaucracy, which means it is terribly difficult to start and do business. The Ease of Doing Business Index, published annually by the World Bank, ranks Malaysia 23rd in its 2010 list, a 2-place drop from 2009. Singapore ranked 1st in 2010, and 2009, while Indonesia recorded a 7-place jump from 2009.

Reversing the trend starts with the government. It needs to slash away the huge rainforest of red-tape (they're bigger than our REAL rainforests!) It needs to fix infrastructure, especially security related ones, at ports and other transport points, like airports and highways. And they need to create an education system that produces critical and creative thinkers, instead of students who simply memorise and regurgitate huge volumes of facts. This spurs the change to a real knowledge based economy (computers, services and solutions) instead of simply constructing hard drives, semiconductors and shoes.

In January 2009, Intel- the world's largest chipmaker- announced that it was shutting down operations in Malaysia. Personally, I'm not surprised.

If Malaysia is to keep its economy humming steadily in the years to come, these changes are necessary. More necessary is an immediate end to denial of the problem. And I wish that, like so many issues in this country, it won't be swept under the carpet after a brief outcry.

UGLY TRUTHS

2010-01-30T00:00:00.008+09:00

Malaysia has not regained pre-1997 levels of growth, despite the government insisting all is well with the economy. Corruption and patronage have taken firmer hold- as may be indicated by the Port Klang Free Zone controversy. Investors are turning wary of strained ethnic relations in the country, and the baton of 'new Southeast Asian economic powerhouse' has shifted to... Indonesia!

Shocking, especially when you consider that Indonesia has 17.8 % of its population below the poverty line (as of 2007).

Not only that, the Malaysian government is showing a powerful resistance to moving with the times. Rote learning still forms the core of the education system and, bowing to the desires of backward elements in the society, Maths and Science will be taught once again, in Bahasa Malaysia. Plus, the modernization of teaching methods have been slow and unwieldy, and the quality of young teachers being produced yearly is steadily dropping.

This is UPSI- Malaysia's most recognizable teacher training university. Failure to keep its' standards high has led to a drop in teacher quality, and, we all know what happens then.

But, rather than addressing the problem, the government refuses to even acknowledge it, tweaking the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (the most important public exam) to produce a steady 'rise' in the number of top scorers.

Malaysian economic woes also reflect a lack of willingness to change. The government has eyed green technology and energy efficiency warily, with plans slowly getting underway to green Putrajaya and Cyberjaya. Plus, in this country, the Sarawak government has the what, idiocy, temerity, gall (?) to classify coal as a renewable energy source! The government is also the first to cry foul when the West points out environmentally unsound practices here, but shakes its legs when the allegations are proven true. Which is why you'll never here of the Malaysian government trying to go further in grass-to-fuel research.

Palm oil plantations destroy forests- we only have 56% of our forest cover remaining-, reduce biodiversity, and endanger the culture of the Malaysian indigenous people.

It'll have to be eco-unfriendly palm oil, due, perhaps, to national pride.

One of this country's biggest problems -inter-ethnic and inter-religious relations-, however, isn't purely the fault of the government. Nor is there a whole lot the government can do about it- apart from resisting boneheaded courses of action, like fighting over a word to fish for votes.

The solution starts with us ordinary Malaysians, people like you and me. We are the ones who must shelve our default skepticism and at least give 1Malaysia a chance. With everyone I talked to, the immediate response was '1Malaysia is just a show'. Worse, parents subconsciously teach their kids to only mingle among those of their race/ religion, and spout all kinds of racist rhetoric at home. Really, I can think of no other reason as to why self-imposed segregation is observed in each and every Malaysian public school.

Malaysian schools are no longer places for interracial mingling. No surprise, then, that the colours in this photo aren't mixing.

Not only that, the way we treat people and the environment is also fast becoming rotten. We like to say we are a warm, friendly people, but here's the truth.We admire anyone with a lighter skin and blue-er eyes than us, yet shun the poor migrant worker. We hail the white tourist, but scorn the African student.We pity endangered animals only in the lunar calendar and on tee-shirts, yet kill and eat them as soon as we can. We complain about the hot weather, but burn our rubbish and choke the sky with our SUVs.

The SUV is one vehicle that should have never been invented. It pollutes the sky and burns a hole in the pocket. All it does well is boost the ego, as if we need more of that.

So really. It's not all the government's fault. How about we quit complaining, and start thinking of more than ourselves? Of more than oursleves and our exotic dinners, fancy cars and big houses?? How about we spare a thought for the marginalized and poor, the destitute and downtrodden, and of course, the environment? Is it too much to ask that we, government included, use our brains and hearts equally?

WHEN PUSH TURNS TO SHOVE

2010-01-20T01:20:00.005+09:00

My best friend said a very.... interesting (?) comment today in school. I forget how the conversation went, but it ended up like this "... you'll probably want to be the President of Greenpeace one day."

And that got me thinking.

Greenpeace is THE environmental NGO out there, yet its methods are often controversial, usually involving direct action. This ranges from sit-ins to the blocking of whaling vessels and criminal damage on coal-plants. To the average person, such activities do seem rather radical- after all, its 'just' the environment, but to me, (except the last bit) all of their activities are justified, for the public continues to ignore environmental concerns in favor of tiger-bone, ivory and sharks- fin soup.

But, where do we draw the line? Where does direct activism become eco-terrorism? Can it really be justified in the name of the environment? As forecasts for the state of our biosphere becomes ever more dire, does it become right to bomb, maim or kill in defence of the planet? Consider the fact that human lives are going to be sacrificed by depleted mountain glaciers, melted ice and more extreme weather events

It does not. Not for me. Because the value of human life is the same as the value of animal and plant life all over the world. This means that if you're fighting to save species, destroying your own to call attention and grab the headlines does seem rather bird-brained.

And what would happen if we set an oil-palm headquarters alight? Carbon dioxide is released, isn't it? It therefore becomes more illogical to destroy the environment in the hope of saving it.

Still, deploying vessels to physically block whaling craft is quite alright. And shooting animal poachers is also fine. Maybe we should consider the death penalty or life imprisonment for poachers and illegal fishermen.

In the meantime, lets accept that since its the Year of the Tiger, that great beast deserves our respect. Why waste money eating its parts when the science says there're no benefits whatsoever? You wouldn't want a tiger to eat you, right?

THE ALLAH ISSUE

2010-01-19T16:15:00.007+09:00

Government response to the attacks have been rather positive, but these cops need to catch the perpetrators fast.

When Malaysia makes it into international newsmagazines, its almost always for the bad stuff. Piracy and the loss of mangroves in National Geographic, human trafficking in Newsweek, and the Perak political crisis in The Economist. Not to mention rampant deforestation in many NGOs reports and websites. Well, we just got in The Economist, thanks to the Allah controversy, and the burning of churches.

Aren't we famous?

My belief is that Catholics should be allowed to use the word Allah, simply because, in the Middle East, where Christianity came from, Allah simply means 'God'. For 600 years after that, Arab Christians and Jews continued to use it to mean God, and when the Prophet Muhammad founded Islam, the preexisting word for God was then taken to be used by Muslims worldwide. There is, thus, a shared history of the word Allah for the 3 Abrahamic religions, and it should stay that way.

This is Allah, a beautiful name for a beautiful God in three beautiful religions. Check out the Wikipedia article for full details on the word.

In Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country, Christians are allowed to freely use Allah in their worship and even public posters and banners. Even Arab Christians use the term to mean 'God'. According to Gwynne Dyer, a journalist for the Salt Lake Tribune "... Malaysian Muslims should take a lesson from early [Arabian Muslims]...[the Christians] were quickly conquered by Muslim armies, but were not forcibly converted... improbable that they had to change the word they used for God". (Read the article here)

The government likes to say that when we use Allah, we will confuse the nation's Muslims. However, since the Herald already carries the word TERHAD, how are Muslims supposed to get to read it? Plus, I believe this nation's Muslims are intelligent enough to know the difference in the contextual usage of the word. Those believing that the word's usage is somehow their right (!) are lacking judgement, maturity and are an affront to the intelligence of Malaysian Muslims. A simple history review (provided Free Of Charge above),is enough for this country's educated Muslims to understand the truth.

Like the Economist's article, I believe that the current controversy is no more than the effort of the government to woo Islamic hardliners after losing more of their support to PAS in the last general election. Prominent intellectuals, like Universiti Malaya's Azmi Sharom also believe in this scenario. By contrast, PAS has become a voice of moderation saying that the other Abrahamic religions be allowed to use Allah to mean God in Malay. The 1Malaysia concept has thus come under serious threat, because whoever wins, gaping wounds have been opened. And these can't be stitched up easily.

If the whole issue is indeed a tactic by UMNO to win votes, then the 1Malaysia concept is as good as dead.

In short, this issue has to play out in the courts with all parties maintaining cool heads. Reiterating my support for the Herald, I would like to point out that if the Herald loses this case, which word do we lose next? Amen?

WHY WE MUST ACT

2010-01-09T23:08:00.012+09:00

Now, the world knows that governments need to act, fast, to counter climate change. And most of us already know the perils of living in a warmer world. Many of us are even unfortunate enough to have experienced global warming's initial effects already (think the Kelantan-Terengganu floods and the current searingly hot afternoons). Still, government officials, not feeling these effects directly, drag their feet when it comes to action.

As great a leader as he is, President Obama is still subservient to the laws of politics, notably compromise. Pity.

One reason for this is politics, simple, despicable politics. You see, leaders promise to take action on climate change, but never specify just how much action they want to take, or when they want to take it. And of course, ambiguity is always the mark of a great politician. But more troubling is the fact that environmentalist leaders are scared to death of alienating the voters who don't believe in man-made global warming, or those who argue about the cost. Other than forget the environmentalist votes they could get, they then decide to compromise. Which is why you hear about Obama's plan for clean coal, when a greener choice would be mext-generation nuclear power.

This is a coal strip mine. Now, how clean can this be, compared to the near zero- emissions rate for nuclear power?

Thing is, global-warming won't compromise. The tons of carbon we've belched into the Earth won't hang around and wait for all of us to agree on the issue; it's cooking the planet as we speak. Which means if a government's got something it wants to do on global warming, then it sure as heck should start doing it! Screw the politics.

But politics isn't the worst of it.

There's actually a fair bit of greed here. Oil rich nations (with a significant number of African ones) are dead against a carbon neutral economy, in which oil won't feature. Heck, oil's effects are much more far-ranging than simply the environment- it's caused wars, widened the rich-poor gap, and, in developing countries, caused the curse of black gold. But, because it brings in a windfall in profits, governments are not about to give it up for something as universal as, say, solar. That includes Malaysia; petronas funds too much of the government budget for it to wean itself off oil in the near future.

Despite having oil, many Nigerians live in slums like this, as powerful elites siphon off oil royalties.

Therefore, it's up to us. It is us who must reject plastic, save energy (the sun is bright enough to be used to study- just open your windows), and recycle whatever cannot be reused. Branching out from mere global warming, we must also save our endangered animals by ensuring they remain in the wild- not in our houses, not on our dinner plates, but in our seas, skies and forests. It will be a tough fight, and public revolution is necessary. But we, the young people of today, must look at the choices our parents and grandparents made yesterday, and reject them in favour of a tomorrow with the real planet God made for us.

A TO-DO LIST

2010-01-05T16:15:00.010+09:00

Now that Copenhagen has failed, the world's attention now turns to the next international meeting in Mexico, 2010. And, as everyone knows, there are certain things that the world's nations need to do to for the next meeting to flow without allegations of hypocrisy, walkouts or protests. My ideas are fairly simple, but they will work wonders in helping to draft an agreement, as well as in carrying out the tasks agreed upon.

For developed countries, it is absolutely critical to start coming up with more agendas on how to tackle the problem in their own country first. To this day, the US still has not passed a domestic climate bill, with President Obama more concerned on the health care issue. Adaptation of green energy, especially next-generation nuclear power, is also going very slowly. In developed countries, politics, rather than economics holds up the process. Plus, developed countries, are fearful of imposing more emissions limits on major carmakers, as the world slowly begins to escape recession, but with the economic outloook getting better, it is time to start doing so. Europe also has to do more, such as imposing a carbon tax, besides its' regular carbon market.

Next generation nuclear plants like this one are essential to combat global warming. Too bad nuclear energy still suffers from bad press.

Speaking of markets and money, the fund for developing countries carbon emissions should also be increased. Developed countries have pledged $ 100 billion to help developing countries fight climate change, but while this figure is too little, the $800 billion requested by Malaysian PM Najib Tun Razak is way too much. Still, the developed nations need to raise money, and this is probably best done through carbon markets. But, better than this method is to develop and transfer green technologies to developing countries, as well as harnessing their abilities to fight climate change (like jatropha biofuel).

As for the developing countries, they've got quite a bit to do too. First, they need to compile a full energy audit, showing all energy sources and measuring the emissions of major industrial sites. They should also note certain target areas for immediate action, and put these areas on the priority list for receiving Western aid and technology. Plus, they should also do complete analyses of transportation systems, calculating the number of cars on the road, and what energy sources do public transport systems use. It's also integral to do energy audits for all government buildings as well as providing incentives for private companies to do the same.

Sights like this are common in developing countries too. Sadly, their environmental impact assessments aren't.

Even more important is the effort needed by developing countries to receive the money that 1st World nations properly. It is a known fact that many developing countries, the African ones in particular, handle simple cash aid with such corruption that perhaps 90% of the money given is siphoned off by official after official before it finally reaches its' target. By that time, the amount is too little to be put to any use. The problem is much worse in these countries' Environmental Protection Agencies, as bribery to flout eco-laws is a norm in developing countries' industries. It is imperative thus, that for effective use of the money, or maybe even increased handouts (if the West decides to trust the 3rd World more), corruption must be stamped out.

Perhaps one of the biggest stumbling blocks in global climate action could be removed if corruption was tackled. As an extra bonus, social equality would improve too.

These steps are by no means the only ones, they are simply what I consider to be the most important. Not just because they'll be effective in the next round of talks, but because they will have multiple advantages, not just climate related ones. So, to work!

A RESPONSE TO THE INDIAN RESPONSE

2009-12-24T00:35:00.009+09:00

The Indian government is acting like fools.

I'm sorry, but there is no other way to describe it. Even China has some common sense.

This comes after reading the whole of India's response to the Copenhagen Accord, made by its' Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh, who said India 'has come out quite well in Copenhagen'.

Excuse me?Mr. Ramesh, do you want your grandchildren to inherit a 50 degree Celsius India?

Lets' analyse, and debunk all his baseless arguments here, shall we? "The Copenhagen accord "bears in mind that the social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing countries," Ramesh said.

Right. Now, firstly, the Accord was never created to give Mr Ramesh something to gloat about, only to make sure SOMETHING came out of the meeting. And yes, it is true that economic development and poverty eradication are the main concerns of developing nations. But seriously, there are many ways to develop a country, and eradicate poverty, while preserving the ecosystem. Reducing wastage of electricity is one, via energy-efficient devices, that would help the poor save money, while enjoying equal privileges.Compact fluorescent lightbulbs are more energy efficient and last longer compared to tungsten bulbs. Wouldn't this help the poor save money and aid in poverty eradication?

And what about green energy technologies? India produces some of the brightest scientific minds every year. Surely the Indian government is not underestimating its' graduates capabilities to come up with new clean tech to help India corner the market for such devices? If the government tried a little harder, it can stop India's brain drain (to the U.S. especially) and work on its own, cost efficient measures to save Earth. Plus, if India expects the developed world to come up with solutions, then Indians will have to buy green products from other countries, and this will NOT benefit Indian economic development (or poverty eradication) in any way.
With India producing more and more scientists, doesn't it make perfect sense to fund local development of green tech? Wouldn't this help economic development?

Next, the good minister wants "to ensure that the interests of developing countries and India in particular are protected in the course of negotiations in 2010 and beyond".

So, it is not in India's interests to protect from extreme weather events caused by climate change? Might I remind Mr. Ramesh that just last year, India was hit by severe floods in Maharashtha, Andrha Pradesh and Bihar? And bear in mind that AP is a key agricultural center for Indian consumption. Is Mr. Ramesh so concerned about mere economic development that he forgets a human's basic necessity to eat? Or worse, is his cushy office enough to make him forget about the fate of hundreds of poor farmers who rely on a good, predictable, un-global warming-ed, climate to fill their bellies and clothe their bodies?
Mr. Ramesh obviously doesn't think of these people, who will be forced to do this daily (?) if he continues to resist solid, legally binding action against global warming.

Maybe it is. After all, this is a man who was willing to form a coalition (with Brazil, South Africa, and China) that worked to block a proper deal in Copenhagen.

I'm sure he enjoyed his vacation there. And that his post as Environment Minister comes with a gas-guzzling, Earth warming SUV. You're a good man, Mr Ramesh.

COPENHAGEN'S FAILURE

2009-12-23T23:57:00.010+09:00

So, in the end, my worst fears came to pass. There was a walkout (by the Africans), developed countries promised no increase in emissions cuts, developing nations acted like they're all broke and need funding, and generally, no-one could agree on anything.

And in the end, 26 nations (out of 193!!) got together at the last minute and hashed out the Copenhagen Accord, a mere realization that in future, the world must come up with a strategy to limit the global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius. Like we didn't know that already.

Plus, the other nations only 'noted' the Accord, without committing to it particularly enthusiastically. Whatever Obama says about the Accord (do check out India's response), Copenhagen WAS a FAILURE!

Oh and that was a 'small' matter about climate protesters clogging up the venue.

I'm not kidding. There were so many of them, and the wonderful organizers, wanting to 'be democratic' and 'champion freedom of speech', let them harass, block and crowd the place. This was to the extent that important people who actually had important things to contribute could not get in. Like Lord Nicholas Stern, author of the Stern Report.

Anyway, a big, sincere thank you to all those who prayed for a victory of common sense. I feel your pain and I'm sorry it got thwarted. But, the battle goes on.

And a big thank you to China, for blocking anything and everything constructive, plus all developing nations who act like global warming is a rich world problem and keep insisting they fund every damn thing the developing world needs to do to stop it. Right down to the last freakin' eco-bulb. Screw them all.

I guess we shouldn't forget the developed countries. Thanks for setting a wonderful example, and to the U.S, that 17% emissions cuts target is a really wonderful effort. And to all you rich, money-minded fools all over the world for presenting governments with a powerful lobby against emissions cuts.

And lastly, if you're the consumer out there who insists on his air-cond every night, his SUV, his extravagant plastic use, his laziness to recycle, and his general Earth-polluting ignorance, this goes out to you too.

I love you all!

WHAT THEY COULD DO

2009-12-09T23:50:00.011+09:00

If the repeated demands for money and tech are any indication, developed countries sincerely believe that they have little of their own stuff to contribute to the fight against global warming. Truth be told, they do and not just in terms of products either, but also in market terms.

Firstly, the nature of the people in developing nations means that battles on green tech are fought not only on efficiency, but also on cost. 3rd-world people, much more than richer populations, are less idealistic when it comes to the environment, and more concerned about cost. In this sense, due to the rapid emergence of developing nation consumption, green companies will be more motivated to cheapen their products, which in turn promises greater profits, and that leads to greater funds available for further research.Wanted- cheaper solar panels. If solar panels carried a "Made in China" tag, they could be hundreds of times cheaper.

As an added bonus in the price wars, developing countries also allow for green appliances to be produced far more cheaply. Take China, where mobile phones can be made and sold for $80, with full touchscreens, internet access and every other cool feature. Similarly, such price revolutions could be moved to solar cells, compact fluorescent bulbs and wind turbines. Of course, quality control is an important issue that needs more than ever to be taken into account.

And then there's the young population. While most developed countries are facing an aging population, developing nations have been blessed with a boom on young people. Not only are young people the engine for change (helping spearhead calls for climate action) but they will provide a pool of workers and innovators in the world's next big field: green tech. Plus, they provide companies with an incentive to develop such products as electric sports cars, green laptops and hip reusable shopping bags. They are, in short, producers and consumers in the exciting new world of reduce, reuse and recycle.The Tesla Roadster electric sports car. The younger population of developing nations would provide an eager market for such green products.

Last of all, developing nations also contain stores of untapped resources that are integral in cutting emissions. Take for example China. With one of the world's largest proven lithium reserves, Chinese participation is essential in the development of electric car batteries. In addition, African nations close to the Sahara Desert typically contain a plant- the jatropha, which has seeds containing oil suitable for biofuel. Jatropha is exempt from the typical food vs fuel debate plaguing most biofuels because it grows on land that can't support any other plant.A hedge of jatropha. Want 'em to power your cars, Americans? You need to work with us first.

But for these benefits to actually come through, developing nations must stop heaping near-total responsibility on rich countries, and promote green-mindedness among their people. Similarly, the 1st world should realize that only shared partnerships with the 3rd world will result in a comprehensive effort to repel the spectre of global warming.

DEVELOPED VS. DEVELOPING- WHERE THEY STAND NOW

2009-11-28T16:21:00.013+09:00

Anyone following our governments' efforts to unite to save the environment would surely notice a gaping rift, that between developing and developed countries. The former is represented by: the U.S. and fighting for the developing countries is the up-and-coming kingpin of the world economy: China.Side by side? Not when it comes to the environment.

The story goes like this: since the Chinese are building the equivalent of two coal-fired power plants every week, developed countries insist developing countries should be bound to cut emissions by as great a number as the developed countries must do themselves. This is true, since new data shows developing countries now account for 54% of CO2 emissions worldwide, and that developed-country emissions are starting to come down. Thank God.
The Chinese, still developing, love cheap coal. The Germans, developed, get along much better with solar.

According to developing countries, however, developed countries are mainly responsible for global warming. True, since in the past, developed countries did emit more then developing nations, and since there's a lag time before CO2 starts heating the planet, past developed countries are responsible for most of the CURRENT warming we are experiencing. Developing countries also insist that they are still developing and should be allowed to do so without interference. And, they say that if they are to cut emissions, developed countries must fund it and provide the technology.U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with Malaysian Foreign Minister Anifah Aman. On climate change, Mr. Anifah says: "Give us the tools and we will act." Wonder how Mrs. Clinton feels.

There are numerous reasons for both sides taking the positions they do. Mainly, it is economic- developing countries do not want to have to pay for the high upfront costs. Developing countries who depend largely on oil also do not want to have to give it up. After all, if they keep resisting the switch to renewables, high oil prices will benefit them greatly. Plus, clean technologies are right up the alley of rich countries, who have the money and expertise to control the market, and developing countries do not want to lose out. That might also be why they demand for clean-tech transfers from rich countries. This is highly regrettable, as the long term returns from going green are way higher.

Socially, developing countries prefer to focus on economic development, as opposed to environmental preservation. As I have written before, the level of environmental consciousness in developing countries is tragically low. People here prefer jobs and cash to hybrids and recyclables. In China, the Communist Party is bound to increase the standard of living drastically, to compensate for the lack of freedom under communist rule. If they were to slow this improvement in favour of the environment, the Party could very well face riots that might kick them out of power.The Communist Party needs a roaring economy to stay in power. Too bad for the Earth.

These thinking patterns do no good to anyone. In fact, if they continue, then developed countries might give up their own efforts to cut emissions, and just when they were starting to go green too. Regardless of what developing country governments say, shouldn't we stand up and start the change?

OFFSETS- SOME REALITIES

2009-11-21T13:20:00.000+09:00

Among mega-companies, offsets seem to be the buzzword when it comes to slashing CO2 emissions. In fact, it has even become popular among regular citizens seeking to go green while maintaining flights, pleasure cruises and the like.

What are offsets? Basically it works like this. If you go on a carbon-emitting flight to, say, New York, you calculate roughly how much CO2 your flight emitted, and then try to soak it up, usually by planting trees. One year in Sydney, town authorities planted trees to offset carbon emissions from New Year's fireworks. (This piece will focus largely on tree-planting offsets).

Now I know what you're thinking, it does seem too good to be true right?

Yes, it probably is.
Offsets- like planting trees- sound good. But are they?

Lets examine some scientific evidence. Trees take many years to mature to an age where they are capable of even absorbing the carbon from a motorbike, let alone a plane trip. Younger trees certainly do not absorb as much carbon as older ones, meaning that the trees you plant as offsets might not be living up to your expectations. Maintenance of forests can be notoriously difficult, especially if trees are planted outside their optimum climates, and can release CO2- think forest rangers, tractors, etc. Take for example Coldplay's offsets project: which ended up with nothing more than dead mango trees, which, when decomposing release more CO2 into the atmosphere.Sorry gents. Guess Death and all his friends paid a visit to those mango trees.

Invasive species also form part of the critique against offsets. As everyone knows, certain trees are meant to be grown in certain places only. When green-minded dreamers ignorant of the facts mess with this, things get icky. For example, eucalyptus trees are often planted to deliver fast results. However, planted in Third World countries, its' thirst for water kills other native species, and deprives the soil of nutrients while not returning enough nutrients. According to my copy of The Earth Report 2, a 100sqm hybrid eucalyptus plantation, in one year, takes up 1594 kg of calcium, and returns only 335 kg.

Even if eucalyptus and similar trees are not used, the want of quick offsets, and a lack of regulation means that local ecosystems and animal habitats could get seriously messed up. To make matters worse, there have been claims that indigenous communities have been forced off their land to make way for tree-planting projects, as evidenced by a World Rainforest Movement report documenting land disputes and human rights abuses at Mount Elgon, Uganda, where 300 families were chased off their land.

Other forms of offsets, like investing in clean technology, (members of the public usually donate to wind-farm developments) might show more promise than tree-planting. But again, there are risks. Without proper documentation, regulation and information disclosure, people could just get swindled into donating to failed projects. Wikipedia cites:
-widespread instances of people or organizations buying worthless credits that do not reduce
emissions
-companies profiting from doing very little to actually reduce emissions
-a shortage of verification making it difficult for buyers to confirm the value of their donations
Investments in clean-tech could be a good form of offsets. With regulation. Maybe.

Whatever happens in the whole offsets business, the fact remains that we need to CUT emissions, not try to balance them out. That means nixing the SUVs and the drives to places within walking distance. That means saving energy, and practicing the 3R concept. Whatever governments say or do, we, the people, have the real power to save Earth.

THE POLAR PROBLEM

2009-11-16T21:12:00.006+09:00

From the Hopenhagen Blog

Even as I speak, the very last polar bear may be dying of hunger on account of climate change, on account of us. And I will sure miss the polar bears. Their babies are so warm and cuddly and trusting, just like ours. --Kurt Vonnegut, Armageddon in Retrospect.

We’ve got 100 years left with polar bears. So says the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. One hundred years before the Arctic’s most iconic beast–now the poster animal for global warming–can no longer find food, and joins the ranks of saber tooth tigers, mastodons, and woolly rhinos. But there still is hope. So says Richard Ellis.

My own- There are actually various reports on the scale of the crisis. Polar bears being seen with one cub, instead of the usual two are one. Dead bears found on the ice- two or three as reported by one National Geographic journalist- is another indication. But they all agree on the same thing. Fail to act against global warming, and that's the end of the bears that captivated our childhood imaginations (no offence, Mr. Panda).

My own- See those smashed up bits of ice? They're not supposed to be there, not in areas previously frozen all year around. Note the rounded edges. To photographer Mitusaki Iwago's ice, the loss of the floes' sharp edges is also due to global warming. That the imposing image of a creation so mighty, it claimed the Titanic, is becoming more "gentle" is another example of how man has stripped the Earth of its' dignity.

The Hopenhagen blog- As for the upcoming Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change, drastic measures are a crucial component to the bears' survival. "... Resolutions passed to diminish global warming and the spread of greenhouse gases will have a direct impact on the bears. How could they not? Polar bears, more than any other species are dependent upon the Polar ice cap for their survival, and unless steps are taken to slow down the melting, the bears, without their life-saving ice pack, will swim into oblivion."

ENERGYVILLE

2009-11-14T16:45:00.003+09:00

In an attempt to raise awareness about energy and environmental issues, Chevron Corporation has started an online game called Energyville. It's actually very straightforward, you have to choose methods to power your city, while considering the economic, environmental and security impacts your choices have. The less impact, the higher the score.

Now, I know what you're thinking. Just choose green energy sources and you'll be fine right? Wrong. You are hampered by the real challenges facing these technologies today. For example, you can only use solar sparingly, due to the high cost. After 3 or 4 wind turbines, you will be prevented from installing anymore due to geographical and supply concerns. Most of the time, you have to use petroleum at least once due to such constraints.

After a round, you are given the chance to choose which further cause you want to pursue- usually moderate efficiency or aggressive efficiency. You are also dealt a couple of random events, showing how your choices work out in future, and the effect of these events on your impact meters. Things like 'renewed violence in the Middle East limits petroleum supply' or good stuff like 'ethanol produced from switchgrass improves environmental impact'.

Bottom line, I placed 56698 out of 399170 players. I generally did better than the comparision scores, especially when I narrowed down the comparision to Malaysia. Maybe this shows how far we have to go to go green.

We really should start brushing up on our green knowledge. There is no other backup planet for us.

FEELING THE HEAT- ALREADY

2009-11-11T18:26:00.003+09:00

As we all probably know, Kelantan and Terengganu's flood woes are about to get a lot worse due to the melting of the Siberian ice caps up north, a process that global warming is surely accountable for.

In many ways, this scenario represents all that is terrible about the human cost of environmental degradation. Those responsible for global warming and every other scourge of the Earth are caused by the rich, and the effects borne out by the poor. As the rich clamor for exotic fish on their table, and to hell with overfishing, native populations are torn apart as fishermen migrate to towns to find work, resulting in unemployment, crime and juvenile delinquency.

But, it's not the rich's problem, is it? No, because that delicious, buttery bluefin tuna matters a hell of a lot more than a child's life. And who cares if an entire mountain buries slums due to deforestation? Not the rich.

Which brings us back to the problem. Kelantan and Terengganu are, arguably, Peninsular Malaysia's poorest states. All the rich states- Selangor, Penang, Johor, maybe Perak- lie along the West Coast. And it is the fast growing class of rich people in these states who drive gas-guzzling SUVs, throw out waste by the ton, build factories that flout environmental laws, and attempt to use up as much resources as they can. Penang and KL are the worst example of crass, sickening, don't-give-a-damn-about-others mentality, where the rich can buy a 2nd penthouse metres away from filthy slums.

And now K&T are paying the price for the Malaysian rich's sickening individualism. Have a heart people. You won't die without an SUV, or sharks' fin soup, or even without that over-packaged tech toy and mountains of plastic bags. The Earth crisis is already lapping at our shores- literally. Do you rich Penangites and KL-ites want to wait for the floods to sweep you away personally? No amount of SUVs will help.

Let's pray for our brothers and sisters in K&T. More importantly, let's pray for our cold hearts of stone, that we may finally start moving to save the Earth. Amen.

HOPENHAGEN

2009-11-07T18:02:00.002+09:00

Hopenhagen, the global movement for climate action in Copenhagen, recently launched its' blog.
Besides news from the movement's frontline, guest authors will, from time to time, post pieces to move leaders to action. I'll try, whenever I don't have pieces to post myself, to repost some of the content on the Hopenhagen Blog.

In the meantime, sign up to the Hopenhagen petition; the link's on the left. Adios, and God bless.

DECEMBER 12

2009-10-31T23:06:00.005+09:00

On Dec. 12 2009, world leaders gather to discuss a global plan to combat change that will replace the current Kyoto Protocol. To most environmentalists, this is our last chance to come up with a concrete plan and to actually work on it, as continuing current greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions rates will lead to a point of no return, such as the melting of permafrost in the Poles.

Sadly, the chance that the Copenhagen deliberations will fail is all too high. After all, the U.S., still does not have climate-change legislation and developing countries rely on rich nations to help them slash emissions. Powerful interest groups who will be harmed by a deal to cut carbon emissions, like oil workers and agribusinesses (who worry the abandonment of not-so-green corn ethanol), relentlessly campaign to block government action and influence the negotiations at Copenhagen.

There are a number of possible outcomes of Copenhagen. The worst case scenario is that the talks might derail completely, with leaders storming out in a huff, and effectively dooming our planet.

Then, there's the other extreme. We might actually come up with a comprehensive plan that really combats global warming, with all the necessary changes- electric cars, wind power, green technology transfers, etc. with a punishment of crippling sanctions to noncompliant signatories. The challenges then would come from failure to implement these changes due, perhaps to corruption and mismanagement.

Realistically, however, what might result from the negotiations is a treaty that occupies the middle ground, with just enough emissions cuts to appease greens, yet with numerous concessions, conditions and enough fine print to take the edge off the cuts. Such a deal won't be enough to combat global warming effectively. At best, this kind of treaty would buy us some time, delaying points of no return enough for us to revisit the issue again to come up with a better treaty. Given world leaders' track record on global warming, this is the most likely outcome of Copenhagen.

We can push our leaders to a better deal this December. Sign the hopenhagen.org petition at left. Then spread the word to turn up the voice for change. Two minutes is all you need. Earth needs you. Don't let it down.

A 22ND CENTURY DICTIONARY

2009-10-13T16:20:00.008+09:00

If we don't care for the environment now, our great-grandchildren could start using dictionaries with entries like these. The dictionary is fully digitized, but only because trees no longer exist.

A clean bill of health (noun): The world record of being fully healthy without any diseases at all. Once commonplace before 2050, there has only been one such person since 2052.

Air (noun): The mixture of gasses, mainly nitrogen, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, that constitute the atmosphere, and are harmful to living things. Oxygen, once abundant, in air is now carried in special tanks (see 'gas tank')

Air corridor (noun): Special, cleared routes for aircraft to fly in, which, unlike the air surrounding them, is clear of smog (see 'smog')

Air plants (noun): A primitive method of growing plants in the air, discontinued since 2050, when the air ended up killing plants grown in this method. (see 'air pollution')

Air pollution index (noun): A numerical scale used for measuring how polluted the air is. In 2050, the maximum point of this scale has been increased numerous times, from 300, to 500, to 750, etc. As of 1st Jan 2120, it currently stands at 2050. (see 'air pollution')

For now, these entries are unthinkable, but they could become reality if we persist with huge petrol guzzling SUVs, needless air conditioning, and if we refuse to recycle. Start a change. Save the world.

THE PROBLEM WITH PAKATAN

2009-10-06T16:00:00.006+09:00

March 8, 2008 might have been a momentous day for Malaysian politics due to the political tsunami that gave the Opposition a much greater voice. I, for one, hoped for a dawn of greater maturity in the political sphere, but in the year and a half since that day, it's clear that despite the gains, there has been no great change, just more of the same.

For starters, the opposition Pakatan Rakyat coalition does not have any solid political ideology, its' sole aim being to defeat the governing Barisan Nasional coalition. In no other circumstances, except sheer, power- hungry desperation would a secular party focusing mainly on economic interests team up with staunch Islamists who perceive development as the product of infidels. For a while, this conflict of interests was tempered by the work of Anwar Ibrahim, but with an impending sodomy trial and having apparently vanished off the headlines, infighting over issues like sharia law could seal the coalition's doom.

It is the aforementioned power-hungry desperation that leads to other, more pressing problems like party-hopping. Even assuming that the BN does not lure away PR politicians with money or power, the defections as a result of PR's shoddy coalition makes perfect sense. It would be the desire to overthrow BN that leads politicians to join PR, exacerbated by Mr. Ibrahim's grand promise that PR would take over on Sept. 16, 2008. Frustrated at PR's slow progress, and lacking a clear, collective political ideology to hold on to, politicians would thus feel no qualms about switching to the governing coalition.

It doesn't help that Pakatan's stand on issues is unclear, at best. At worst, keeping the coalition together has prevented them from coming out with concrete policy plans, apart from chants of "Abolosh ISA" or "Makkal Sakthi (People's Power)". The reformist premership of Najib Tun Razak, however, has blunted the former sharpness of these criticisms, and made their lack of policy plans ever more glaring. If indeed PR wants to become a viable government in future, it needs to have sound economic, social, political and environmental policies. Since Malaysians are largely bread-and-butter voters, the key to power is to communicate these issues to the masses, making them understand how these affect their lives.

One problem with PR which could be turned into an opportunity is foreign policy. Ever since its' creation, PR has offerred little or no comment on international incidents, with most of its' politicians, except Mr. Ibrahim, lacking experience on a global stage. BN's current foreign policy tasks, though, haven't been great shakes either, certainly compared to their zenith under Mahathir Mohammad, Malaysia's 4th Prime Minister- think Bosnia-Herzegovina and the 'Look East Policy'. PR could win points by cleaning up its' act enough to start slamming BN for its' repeated clashes with both Indonesia and Singapore, especially over popular street food and cultural elements.

In conclusion, PR needs to do a lot of work and soul-searching if it really wants to change Malaysia. Does it really want power so badly that it's willing to throw common sense out the window? Disbanding the coalition might cede victories to BN in the short term, but done right, it'll merely be the calm before the storm. And heaven knows the BN surely will face a storm one day.

GREEN PARTIES- THE ASIAN SCENARIO

2009-09-29T17:14:00.005+09:00

Green Parties have long been a mainstay in First World politics, ever since the Values Party, as it was called in New Zealand, established a specific programme for such parties. Spread now throughout developed countries, they enjoy varying degrees of success, from having parliament reps (New Zealand, Australia) to being part of governments (Finland, Ireland) to probable spoilers in presidential elections (the U.S.)

These parties have an ideology vastly different from other political parties. They are typically values and people-oriented, emphasizing decentralized governments, human-centred technology, renewable energy, grassroots democracy and values like co-operation, nurturing and peacemaking. While many parties call themselves 'green parties' (non-capitalized) their environmentalism is often challenged by economic worries, and can be laden with protectionist measures, thus ignoring other aspects of sustainability. By contrast, the values mentioned above are the core pillars of Green Parties (capitalized).

In Asia, however, Green Parties have, for the most part, yet to make a significant (or even minor) impact on local politics, and the reasons for this are complex and diverse. Firstly, it comes from the nature of politics across the continent. Not only do parties campaign on strictly traditional bread and butter issues, political arrangements like coalitions, especially those with the sole aim of gaining power, pose a formidable challenge to Green Parties. If making inroads among voters proves difficult, Green Parties will find coalition arrangements unviable; with limited seats and clout, to realize green policies, the core promises of Green Parties could remain unfulfilled, effectively alienating a Green Party's voter base.

The reason for that limited voter headway comes from the nature of Asian society at this point in time. Asia's rapidly developing economies are typically export-based carbon-belchers- focusing on manufacturing and large scale agriculture (palm oil in Indonesia and Malaysia). This, coupled with the ever-present Asian attitude of 'the Americans started global warming', makes governments refuse large investments in green technologies, for fear that it would hurt their economies. The rapid growth in the region has also fueled a rampant culture of pollution-producing materialism, as Asia's nouveau riche aim to spend on fast cars, luxury crocodile skin bags and shark's fin soup, besides not giving a damn about tommorrow.

Still, for a party with the ideals of the Greens, it can still garner widespread support, with a little charisma and creativity. Targeting the youth would be an integral first step, as social and environmental awareness- green is, after all, the new pink- is increasing among this age group. Not only that, pitching its' case to victims of environmental crises, like Haryana, India's pesticide-poisoned farmers, would boost the Greens, thanks also to its' clearly stated political ideology that trumps the anarchy element in some Asia opposition parties- think Malaysia's Pakatan Rakyat.

In conclusion, it's time for Asian visionaries to begin preaching a different gospel of government, one that is not just green, but pure of heart as well. The whole of Asia going Green might just be what eco-crusaders need, but the challenges that kill other political dreams- corruption, cronyism, infighting- must be well negotiated too. Tread with caution, Greens.

THE GREAT GOVERNMENT OCEAN CONSPIRACY

2009-09-26T00:06:00.003+09:00

Our seas, and the life they sustain, are under severe threat. Global fisheries' stocks have crashed in many places, leaving the small, native populations they once supported high and dry. Dying reefs and protein crises among Africans have also surfaced in recent years. The causes are many, but the main killers of our seas are: our governments.

Oil exploration is one area in which governments have failed spectacularly, as its' presence sparks a loss of all common sense in our leaders, We are all familiar with oil spills and leaks, but this goes a lot deeper. Their conduct, especially when facing the current oil shortage is disgraceful; instead of using the shortage to push for biofuels, solar power or hydrogen fuel, they instead began leasing new oilfields in ever-more fragile areas, A good example is Alaska's icy North Slope and the Beaufort Sea. Needless to say, drilling for much harder-to-reach oil pockets is more environmentally damaging, more threatening to local population and more costly.

When it comes to fisheries, governments are again incapable, insensible and at times dishonest. Set fishing quotas often lack enforcement; officials are also often heavily corrupt. This allows fishing companies to catch double/ triple the allowed amount. Nations which import plenty of endangered fish, like Japan and China, enact laws full of loopholes, like Japan's phony scientific-whaling laws. Many poorer nations, meanwhile, allow excessive exports of fish to foreign markets, leading local fishermen to use illegal nets to capture thousands of fish in the hope that they will catch expensive fish like shole or shrimp. Their nets usually grab 'bycatch'- fish like rays, squid, etc., which they dump overboard, exploiting a lack of laws on such practices and wasting valuable protein for their starving people on shore.

Judge governments by their record on shipping and most deserve to be chucked out of office. Aging ships, lacking laws mandating sustainable disposal, often travel to ship breaking yards in developing countries, usually India, which are devoid of stringent environmental laws. Polychlorinated biphenyls and asbestos are typically leached into the seas, as the hulls are discarded in ship graveyards. Governments have also failed to control ship movement in areas rich in sea grass, which, upon destruction by ship propellers, could trigger crashes in aquatic populations.

Moreover, governments the world over have impeded conservation by not assisting scientific research. Ocean agencies (unless they deal with oil exploration), and national parks agencies, typically are not granted high budget allocations. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Research Program Act of 2009 only granted $33.5 million dollars to the NOAA for 2009 purposes, while two U.S. commissions recommend the budget for ocean research be doubled. Governments also ignore scientific predictions and studies about how development could affect oceans; as in the North Slope case, the Alaskan and federal American government repeatedly ignored warnings of reduced biodiversity.

Now, the public needs to extensively broaden its' knowledge of what it can do to save our seas. Following Greenpeace and WWF campaigns on the issue is a very good start, as are changing our own habits that cause the problem- no more sharks' fin soup, turtle eggs, or bluefin tuna sushi. Awareness is the first step to dragging the conspiracy out of the shadows and finally killing it dead.

GO IT ALONE

2009-09-22T18:54:00.003+09:00

In an article for Newsweek (Looking for Leadership, Sept. 7 2009) Dennis MacShane wrote about how European politicians fear the Obama Administration is ignoring the continent. The article went on to state how Europe needs American guidance and direction, and, after reading it, I was left puzzling: Why the heck?

To my mind, Europe perfectly capable of charting its' own course. Despite an European Parliament election fiasco, in which fringe groups like the Pirate Party won seats, it continues to have rather capable (if somewhat uncharismatic) leaders, like Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy. These are backed up by fresh, progressive politicians and a recovering economy that should be enough to handle problems like immigrant integration, Silvio Berlusconi, internal problems, interstate oil pipelines and foreign conflicts, like Somalia and Afghanistan.

In fact, Europe has been showing some signs of independence from America recently, which makes its' current search for American leadership all the more puzzling, starting with the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and Nicolas Saarkozy's reaction to Russia's attack on Georgia. While the then-outgoing Bush administration dithered before condemning both combatants, Mr. Sarkozy immediately flew to the area to begin peace talks. The war eventually ended with a six-point peace treaty brokered by Mr. Sarkozy, showing Europe can act remarkably if he wants to, or if it feels threatened enough.

Truth be told, the Europeans can (and maybe already do) lead the way on a number of pressing global issues. They are weathering the economic storm as well as, or maybe better than, the Americans, thanks to the Euro, and their social security systems (as in France). On energy policy and climate change, America could learn a thing, or two, or three from Europe. Nuclear power supplies 78% of French electricity, without any nuclear accidents, while Germany, Spain and Italy make up 3 of the world's top 5 solar leaders, and Britain is the first country to put legally binding limits on carbon emissions. Science and technology is also alive and well in Europe, as evidenced by industrial biotech operations in France and the Netherlands.

Europe can also rest assured due to a simple fact: that it actually shares many common interests with the U.S. Both share a keen desire for obvious causes like world peace, globalisation and "democratization". Working towards these, Europe can rest assured it will seldom clash with America, unless it insists on stupid ideas like releasing convicted terrorists. In any case, Vice-President Joe Biden has also started tackling key European issues in four visits there this year. Still, a strong, Cairo- type speech by Mr. Obama himself, setting specific policy targets, would help in issues like Russia and Muammar Kaddafi.

Europe should thus responsibly realize its' immense capabilities, to check the rise of overdependence on America. Its' leaders should remember that, as Mr. MacShane put it, while "a tradition [of the personal American stroking of European leaders brought] peace, prosperity, freedom and democracy to the European continent" such sentiment might not be so welcome now. After all, 70 % of Germans blame the U.S. for Germany's economic slump.

THE POWER OF GREEN THUMBS

2009-09-18T23:34:00.004+09:00

It may surprise us developing Asians that Parisians, dwellers of one of the world's most spectacular cities, do not choke in their own smog. Nor do they rip out their hair after work. New Yorkers, meanwhile, don't even worry about having chicken to eat, daily! If your face is now green with envy, you just answered the question: it's due to city greenery, especially community gardens.

Parisians, in particular, have an especially powerful desire to green their city, and any barren space is thus turned into a park. This is, obviously, good for the environment, and subsequently, on city-dwellers' health. There is growing proof that leaves filter and trap pollution: in Chicago 234 tons of particulates, 98 tons of nitrogen dioxide, 93 tons of sulfur dioxide, and 17 tons of carbon monoxide are removed by trees. The phenomenon known as urban heat islands are also reduced as greenery provides shade, through transpiration, cooling water vapour. As a result, lifespans are lengthened; the French clock in at 80.98 years, while the equally green Japanese enjoy 82.12.

Vast city parks also have perceptible effects on human, especially child, development. Perhaps this is due to the fact that we humans evolved in a natural environment, unaccustomed to smokestacks and sirens. In an October 2006 article in National Geographic Magazine, Jeniffer Ackerman presented scientists' suspicions that green spaces boost voluntary attention, which controls how we cope under pressure; city life, naturally, makes us grumpy. A study by Frances Kuo of the Landscape and Human Health Laboratory found that people living near greens were less agressive, scored better on concentration tests and managed daily problems more effectively.

The study also found that those dwelling in greener areas had a stronger sense of community- and its not hard to see why. Before the advent of air-conditioned megamalls and cybercafes, parks were the top meeting places for most people. Even now, they offer a sense of romance and companionship. Community gardens go a step further- various races coming together to share green thumbs in Paris are likely instrumental in maintaining goodwill. As Muslims also manage chicken "farms" in urban New York, expanding and upgrading public parks might give a little extra push to 1Malaysia.

But, selling these ideas about green spaces in Asia is hard, primarily because municipal governments and the public still oppose a city lot with only plants and no profits. Typically, authorities cover this materialism with arguments that they have no more space for parks, but then a stroll through Ipoh city reveals exactly the opposite: plenty of unused, disease breeding areas that could become parks. Parks are also, sadly, the first public amenities to be deprived of funding by cash-strapped towns, no thanks to their significant erection and maintenence costs.

This illustrates yet again that environmentalism improves our world by far more than simply cleaning our air or cooling our Earth. We all know we are but a strand in life's web, so improving the state of that web will benefit both our bodies and minds. How long before those providing the force for change outmuscle the inertia?

GREEN CAN BE COOL!

2009-09-15T17:15:00.007+09:00

At least, green cars can. The Tesla Roadster, an all electric vehicle that is the choice of the likes of Arnold Schwarzenegger is proof, as is the Toyota Prius. But BMW surely takes the cake with this beauty, the Vision EfficientDynamic concept car. With four-wheel drive in electric mode, killer styling, and its ability to hit 100 km/h in 4.8 secs, this one is sure to set your heart racing, sans the guilt about the environment. Of course, the turbodiesel engine on this hybrid is a bit of a setback, but with a milege of 62.5 miles per gallon and CO2 emissions at a low 99 g/km, does it really matter? Check it out here!

GREENBACKS FROM GREEEN

2009-09-11T23:28:00.006+09:00

A pet peeve for governments and companies going green is the cost, both in funding green technologies and terminating profitable but polluting companies. This is partly due to inertia, and the uncertainty of making quick returns on investments. Truth is, environmentalism can generate as much as it expends.

There are all sorts of savings to be found in emissions reductions, a combination of certain methods would save the U.S. hundreds of billions of dollars while cutting 1.3 billion tons of CO2 annually. Savings mostly come from buildings' emissions reduction, and, even in other areas, cuts that save money typically emphasize efficiency. In the U.S., for example, using data from a March 2009 National Geographic, more efficient electronics in homes would cut emissions 100 million tons a year, saving 9.3 billion dollars, while cellulosic biofuels slash 600 million tons of carbon, saving 3.2 billion dollars even with its' research costs factored in.

But most, if not all, CO2 cuts that require high initial investments eventually save, or begin generating profits. Distributed photovoltaic solar power in the U.S. costs 29.4 billion dollars, but then, a barrel of sunlight won't cost $176 (unlike oil). Nor do you need huge armies to control the sun. Some methods to cut emissions just need a little promotion and publicity before they start raking in revenue. Consider a freeze in deforestation in Malaysia, Indonesia and Brazil, which would require some primetime ad spots to overcome the fall in timber revenue and inject profits into these nations' economies.

Going green would also allow for diversifying of economies, especially of those tethered to such volatile commodities like oil (the Middle East) or diamonds (large parts of Africa), or on easily tamperable financial products (loans, mortgages, etc.). Green technologies would boost rural economies (like through cellulosic ethanol) long outshone by industrialization, and kickstart domestic demand (by marketing efficiency to consumers as value for money). More importantly, countries which develop and export CO2 reducing technologies would find steady sources of income from buyers looking to overhaul their energy systems, like the Spanish building solar power plants for American utility companies.

Economic benefits also come from better foreign relations with new allies other than the U.S. Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) leader has called for a retreat to Asia in foreign relations. Viewed with the DPJ's green-mindedness, Japan could work with China on the latter's green car project, bringing technological bravura and much- needed quality control. Branching out from this, Japan can begin supplying high-end products (like laptops, Walkmans and HDTVs) to China's newly wealthy, while thrifty Japanese consumers would benefit from an influx of cheap Chinese products. African economies would likely benefit more from, say, cellulosic ethanol partnerships than from condition-laden loans from the U.S.

Clearly, we have a lot to gain from going green, and companies and governments should see this. A profound change in mentality needs to start now, not just for our environment, but also for the millions of poor who would benefit from a greening of our minds.

THEY'VE GONE OUT OF WHACK

2009-09-09T17:14:00.004+09:00

Recent reports suggesting that glaciers and icecaps may be melting much faster than previously predicted, rubbishing computer models that predict melting as sluggish and gradual. At Greenland's ice sheet, for example, temperatures predicted at minus 20 had turned to rain in 2007. Why is this happening, and what does this mean?

The first reason is the nature of sheet ice in Greenland and Antarctica. Snow covering the ice prevents it from melting by reflecting the sun's light and heat; however, once global warming melts the snow, the dark ice (or worse, rock) underneath absorbs heat much faster, defying predictions made only a year ago.

The meltwater produced as a result also absorbs more heat due to its' darker colour. But meltwater is dangerous to ice because it plunges into open moulins and crevasses, breaking up the ice and lubricating its' base. The ice then flows much faster to the sea, where warm ocean currents continue to eat away at the already ravaged ice.

Perhaps more devastating is what is released, not exposed, once ice sheets melt: CO2. Recent research shows that icecaps hold in carbon dioxide from millions of years ago, and that this is released back into the atmosphere once the ice melts. This accelerates the melting of ice, perhaps more so because heat is now trapped closer to the poles itself.

There are two main effects of this acceleration of melting, the first being an impact on polar wildlife. Much more than we already know, ice is central to these animals' lives; phytoplankton, producers in the Antarctic food web, grow on the underside of ice; ice depletion could thus drive bowhead whales to extinction. Polar bears and ringed seals need ice to rest and rewarm in between swims, and with ice melting, they are forced to make longer, riskier swims, causing scientists to fear the extinction of polar bears sometime this century.

Moreover, ice-melting predictions being proved wrong will also impact how the formulation of climate-change policy. Many scientists have now revised ideal atmospheric CO2 concentrations to 350 or 300 parts-per-million, down from a previous 450 ppm. The EU has agreed to temperature cuts of 2 degrees Celsius, which will amount to an 85% emissions reduction. More worrying is how the sudden unreliability of ice models has caused renewed bickering over global warming prevention; geoengineering is now being bandied about as a real option, but is heavily criticized ethically (will we still be willing to cut emissions significantly?) and scientifically ( a parasol in space won't solve ocean acidification)

As we approach a point of no return, one model remains unchanged: that we need to drastically cut emissions now. It we don't, then just like the computer models, our climate will go right out of whack too.

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH ISLAM

2009-09-05T15:59:00.004+09:00

As Muslims worldwide observe the holy month of Ramadan, we see even more chaos in the Middle East and other parts of the world by Islamic radicals. Yet, we also see a heartening effort to continue reaching out to Muslim communities in Western countries, like Barack Obama's iftar meals. Still, terror networks like al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiah continue to destroy cities and ruin lives.

Part of the problem is due to the Western world misunderstanding the nature of these terror groups. They are commonly referred to as Islamic terror networks- implying that Islam somehow condones terror, when anyone even slightly familiar with the religion knows it does nothing of the sort. When such rhetoric is spouted by American and European leaders, it gives radicals a basis for the claim that everything the West does is part of a plan to destroy Islam. Using this rhetoric and basing such claims on them, Islamic radicals can then obtain support among (mainly poor Muslims) by saying it is a Muslim's duty to oppose the so-called 'enemies of Islam'.

It would also help reconciliation efforts if Western leaders were to end military efforts against Muslim countries. And if they were to stop forcing democracy on Muslim countries, a process which has created nothing but failed states worldwide. On that score, the West should realize that theocracy, or monarchy can govern a country just fine, better, perhaps, than democracy in certain places.

Thus, a good beginning is to stop calling terrorists Islamic terror networks. The proper term is radical-Islamic terror networks, as there has to be an understanding that these people are different from regular Muslims, who don't take radical views of the Quran. Additionally, states that successfully integrate other faiths, like Indonesia, should be given due and appropriate recognition, but not to the point that an implication is given that Islam is somehow unfriendly.

The onus now is on the West to continue efforts to understand and accept the Muslim world, not as a reluctant ally, but as a close brother and equal. Similarly, Muslim leaders should not be overly paranoid about the West and be willing to find common ground, especially on sore points like Israel. And, times like Ramadan are excellent opportunities for bonding. Dates, anyone?

DEPTH OF PERCEPTION

2009-09-03T16:52:00.005+09:00

My copy of 'The Earth Report 2' contains an entry titled 'deep ecology', but i never actually read it, assuming it was a brief article on animals and plants that live in extremely deep parts of the ocean. How wrong I turned out to be when I finally read the entry.

Deep ecology is actually a branch of ecological philosophy that places a greater value on both human and non-human species alike, as well as on the ecosystem and processes in nature, and establishing environmental and green movements. Wikipedia states that: "The core principle of deep ecology is the claim that, like humanity, the living environment as a whole has the same right to live and flourish. Deep ecology describes itself as "deep" because it persists in asking deeper questions concerning "why" and "how" and thus is concerned with the fundamental philosophical questions about the impacts of human life as one part of the ecosphere".

Therein lies the first difference between deep and 'shallow' ecology- shallow ecology views humans as separate from their environment, and is concerned about environmental preservation purely because of human interests. 'Shallow' ecologists, therefore, are worried about such matters as which countries will be flooded due to climate change, certainly noble, but they ignore issues like global warming's effects on wildlife and biodiversity.

Second, deep ecology rejects the industrial worldview of 'mechanical mechanism', instead seeing the world as a whole. It refutes claims that the world can be broken down into separately and independently existing parts for analysis. It therefore understands that global warming caused deaths of butterflies (a real example) will have bigger ramifications further up the food chain, as opposed to a shallow ecologist's blunt "They're dead butterflies. So what?"

And, lastly, shallow ecology accepts that the dominant ideology is of economic growth. Therefore, in a shallow ecologist's mind, how much he should spend on green programs are always dictated by the cash he has readily available, and by the cheapest such programs he can get away with. Stopping oil-sands projects in favour of detailed environmental studies (another real example) are therefore out of the question; plus, green programs that might not be effective but can pull in revenue (like eco-tourism- its' impact on animal lifestyles is highly debatable) are always their favoured choice of environmental policy. Deep ecologists, however, understand that environmental concerns take foremost priority over economic ones.

In short, it is high time we show shallow ecology the door, along with its' methods of saving the planet, especially geoengineering. To stop global warming and every other environmental problem, we are going to think real deep.

CELLULOSIC ETHANOL- THE PROMISES, THE PROBLEMS

2009-08-28T23:34:00.003+09:00

In a previous post (KERETA SAWIT- THE TRUTHS), you might have noticed the mention of cellulosic ethanol (CE). For those who don't know, CE is a biofuel made by breaking down cellulose in plant matter and fermenting the resulting sugars. Unlike other ethanol (grain alcohol- which requires the simpler breakdown of sucrose), it does not require food crops, like corn kernels, sugarcane, etc. but can be made from any non-edible part of any plant.

Therein lies CE's first promise; it would have a much higher fuel yield. Since all plants are made up of cellulose, agricultural residue, forestry wastes, paper pulp, fast- growing prairie grasses and even algae could be used for fuel. Switchgrass yields up to 800 gallons of ethanol per acre per year, double that of corn, and equal to the current 'numero uno' ethanol crop, sugarcane, and one acre of algae could even yield up to 5000 gallons a year. These yields are augmented by the fact that CE crops can grow on arid, infertile land unsuitable for food crops. The potency of this combination of factors is revealed in the 2000 acres of algae farms in the Sonoran Desert that could double current U.S. ethanol production.

Plus, CE is also greener than petroleum, obviously, and other ethanol crops. Food crops require carbon belching technologies (aircraft, harvesters) during production, and sugarcane fields are burned to ease harvesting by hand. CE thus has a 85- 91% CO2 reduction compared to petroleum, which is greater compared to corn ethanol (22%), soy biodiesel (68%) palm oil (28%) and sugarcane (56%). CE crops also don't require soil- unfriendly pesticides, fertilizers or irrigation, and require less nutrients, besides causing less or no soil erosion, and providing wildlife habitats. Besides, bags of algae hung outside factories could soak up emissions.

Moreover, the economics (and politics) of CE also look promising. Adopting CE as our main fuel would save on petrol and other biofuel-crop subsidies, like corn. Governments and companies would also save on costs to defend Middle Eastern oilfields, and deprived of a global need for petroleum, Russia and the Middle East can no longer use fuel as political or economic leverage. Still, CE needs to be cheaper than petrol for these benefits to come through; its' current high price is the reason why it's not commercially produced. Since these costs have even forced temporary shutdowns of research reactors, a lot of work does need to be done here.

The next potential benefit of CE is its' actual usefulness as a fuel. CE can be used for almost all the current uses of petroleum; certain types of algae can be used to brew jet fuel. The energy ratios of CE also look promising; its' maximum of 1 unit of energy input to 36 units of enrgy output shames corn (1:1.3), sugarcane (1:8) pal oil (1:7), soy biodiesel (1:2.5) and even petrol (1:10.5). However, current production methods (heating with concentrated acids to hydrolyse cellulose into sugar) inlock only 45% of the energy available in plant matter, compared to the 85% unlocked during oil refining. Scientists, however, think they've found the answer: genetically modifying bacteria which digest cellulose in the guts of termites.

CE is thus in a position where its' surprisingly diverse promises could be killed by its' challenges, which pander to man's worst instincts of greed, mediocrity and molestation of the Mother Earth. These shackles have always restrained us as a species, but now, can we break them?

**For a longer, more detailed version of this article, leave a note in the Cbox, or drop me a comment, with your e-mail add. I'll send this to you as soon as possible. -Noel.

THE 2ND GREEN REVOLUTION

2009-08-24T23:17:00.003+09:00

Since 2005, the price of rice has increased 500%, despite farmers reaping record crops. Similar price hikes of other staple crops (corn, wheat, etc.) indicate that world food production can no longer keep up with production. The Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research, which first doubled production from 1950 to 1990, now needs to turn in an encore performance by 2030, half the time than it did earlier.

With that in mind, it's time to start figuring out the 2nd green revolution, and the first step requires no more than common sense in the form of sustainable farming. Since past green revolution techniques (lots of pesticides and chemical fertilizers) led to depleted aquifers and salinized soils, crop rotation, polyculture, composting, agroforestry, biological control and interplanting with legumes need to be mandated. Green agriculture would preserve and improve soil health, meaning production can be increased without clearing forests, vital in slowing global warming, which also decimated crop yields.

It's also imperative that this revolution be properly brought to Africa. The first never came here due to corruption, mismanagement, rickety infrastructure and cost, which forced Africans to export crops, leaving themselves hungry. Development aid packages should now focus less on industrialization and more on providing hybrid seeds and training to local farmers for sustainable farming. Both types of agriculture- high tech and sustainable- are beginning to take roor, the former via Malawi's Millenium Villages, and the latter through the Soils, Food and Healthy Communities (SFHC) project, so the challenge is to keep them both going.

Farmers' rights and welfare also make up an often overlooked, yet integral, aspect of sustainability. Farmers should be empowered to sell their own produce, eliminating unscrupulous middlemen, and should not be taxed for side products: e.g. selling catfish reared in paddy boxes. Plus, trickery like making high yielding varieties infertile (forcing farmers to keep buying new seeds yearly), coating seeds with chemicals, and sacrificing built in disease resistance during breeding (so that if chemical companies own seed breeding companies, as is common, those companies can sell more pesticides) should all be outlawed so that farmers need not sell their produce to pay for the costs of farming. This will enable agricultural societies to have sufficient food and income.

Of course, biotechnology and targeted breeding are also vital in this revolution. New crop varieties must be created with increased drought tolerance, nitrogen efficiency, pest resistance and photosynthesis rates (making more with existing sunlight and water resources). Unlike in the past, new varieties should produce high varieties without relying on pesticides and fossil-fuel based fertilizers.

The onus is now on governments and scientists to merge immediate results with long term sustainability. I'm praying for food, farmers and fertility, that this Green Revolution may be one of multicoloured harmony.

*For a longer, more detailed version of this article, leave a note in the Cbox, or drop me a comment, with your e-mail add. I'll send this to you as soon as possible. -Noel.

MEDIVH AND ME

2009-08-24T00:47:00.004+09:00

OK, Warcraft fans reading the title are going to wonder what this is. It's 11.48 p.m, late, by my standards, and I'm musing a few lines in a Warcraft novel (The Last Guardian, by Jeff Grubb).
Here, Medivh and Khadgar ponder the nature of time, in relation to the visions at Karazhan Tower.

The focus of their thoughts is whether or not time is a clock, mechanical and ordered, or an hourglass, a reasonably reliable timekeeper, but random, and unpredictable, since a grain of sand will never end up in the same position twice.

Of course, not being God, it's impossible to really answer the question, but we are all entitled to our choice. I'd go for the hourglass. Maybe because we can never truly predict our actions based on the past. Because humans have a streak of unpredictability that trumps orderly timekeeping. Or maybe I'm posting this because I'm stumped in the process of my next post. (It's currently 2 and a 1/2 pages long, and making it a page long is nigh impossible). A big apology to the Earth for wasting electricity. I won't switch on my air-con later.

Or maybe I will. After all, time is an hourglass. I could never really like an orderly, well- planned universe.

Maybe I will tomorrow.

ONE ENDS, ANOTHER BEGINS

2009-08-23T22:43:00.001+09:00

So ends PPSMI (Teaching Maths and Science in English) another Malaysian Education Experiment, its' guinea pigs unceremoniously discarded and left all the worse for wear. In an act of mitigation, another experiment has been launched, that of boosting the standard of English by longer subject times, recruitment of foreign teachers, etc. Here's why PPSMI was doomed all along, and why its' replacement is a sorry answer.

One of PPSMI's aims was to improve the standard of English among Malaysian school students. Logically, how is this even possible? In both Maths and Science, the language used, be it English, Chinese or Urdu, is direct, terse and functional. Scientific language does not have even a minute grasp of the real beauty and essence of its' language medium. In the decision to teach both subjects in BM, no-one said that this was to improve the standard of BM, rather, the reason given for the reversal was to improve the understanding of both subjects. Similarly, PPSMI's main goal should always have been to make university level Science and Maths jargon easier to grasp, and not for the purpose conceived by the dolts that are our policymakers.

Plus, I doubt very much that the government was even serious about achieving this misguided main goal. Improperly training teachers in English, assigning those same teachers to teach Science and Maths, continuing with bilingual public exam papers, not penalizing spelling and grammatical errors in Science and Maths, etc, etc. In many places, especially rural areas, PPSMI was little more than a translation of textbooks, with little or no effort by teachers to teach and make sure students fully understood the subjects in English. In such a half-past-six environment, it's no wonder the erstwhile opponents of PPSMI were able to find enough ammo to shoot it down.

The replacement for PPSMI seems a rather decent attempt to boost the standard of English among students, and if properly implemented, could open up exciting new possibilities. Malaysian Man Booker Prize-winners! A new culture of literature and greater prominence of public intellectualism! But the new plans do not provide any methods to reverse the decline of the in Malaysian Maths and Science scores on the international stage. The vast, vast majority of scientific jargon is reserved for science, seldom or never used in regular spoken or written language, and will thus never get into English textbooks. This means that students will forever remain unknowing of these terms and at a disadvantage in both higher education and at workplaces. Contrasting language styles of standard, descriptive and scientific language also would result in hilarious and/ or disastrous consequences, mainly misinformation and delays, both intolereable in science.

In short, the soon-to-be-implemented English improvement system should be adopted in tandem with PPSMI. Malaysia needs both a higher level of command of English, and scientists who can hold their own and cooperate on a global stage. It's time to ignore the whining of both rural folks committed to a culture of mediocrity and the so called 'pembela bangsa dan bangsa'. Now's the time to move forward. If you can't take the heat, get out!

DREAMS IN COPENHAGEN I

2009-08-22T17:16:00.000+09:00

As the year inches closer and closer to its' close, environmentalists are becoming more and more interest in December, the freezing Danish capital of Copenhagen. No, it's not because of Christmas, but because world leaders meet yet again under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. With the Kyoto Protocol, which is due to expire in 2012, widely regarded as insufficient, many regard Copenhagen's outcome as our last shot to save Earth from global warming.

There are three main aspects that Copenhagen must include, aside from a strong opposition io the usual whining from developed nations about the economy and costs. The first is standard: the reduction of emissions, which must now be more drastic, especially when compared to the paltry 7% required under the Kyoto Protocol. Princeton Researchers Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacala say that to hold CO2 levels at 450 parts per million ,global emissions must be slashed 50% (or 12 billion metric tons) by 2057. Developing countries, previously "encouraged to develop sustainably", must now be given targets of their own that would allow for sufficient modernization: for example, as a developed country, country X must only emit 20% more CO2 than it did as a developing nation.

Secondly, any agreement reached in Copenhagen must include mandates for restoration of destroyed environments, which have resulted in irresponsibly high CO2 emission: e.g. deforestation via slash and burn. Restoration of such areas would also increase our environment's capacity to offset emissions by absorbing carbon dioxide and filtering the air for other pollutants. The restoration of such areas would provide a host of other benefits beyond emissions reductions, like wildlife habitats, improved soil quality, eco- tourism, and proliferation of water catchment areas.

Lastly, Copenhagen must become a launch pad for a complete shift in human mentality, a beginning for the greater realisation that man is merely a strand in the web of life. True, such a drastic paradigm shift will require far more than a treaty, and here is where Copenhagen's outcome is likeliest to fail, and failure here would be the worst of all. This is because if we fail here, then the perception that man should only preserve Earth for his own sake will begin to take root ("shallow" ecology over deep ecology) . This, in future,could cause a backtrack in genuine green efforts and a beginning in merely avoiding the effects of global warming, such as geoengineering. A treaty, however, could make it mandatory for participating countries to begin massive media campaigns to educate the public about going green.

These are my hopes, and also the hopes of all who really wish for an end to man's arrogance towards the environment. May our politicians turn Copenhagen from a frigid capital to a battlefield of victory for Earth, and not a boulevard of broken dreams.

H1N1 RETURNS

2009-08-01T15:55:00.000+09:00

It looked bad at the beginning, then seemed to get better. We let our guard down for the barest of moments, and it claimed 4 lives, spread to smaller towns (like Ipoh, where 3 Andersonians have been confirmed sick), and infected a whole lot more. There is precious little that we know about it, and in the face of its ruthless onslaught, we are no more than sitting ducks. For those who have been living under a rock (and you'd be well advised to return there for safety) I'm talking about influenza A(H1N1).

Public vigilance, once very high, fell after media reports that there were no new infections, and that some of those infected had been cured and sent home. This could also be traced to a real weariness of crises, and a burning desire for a return to normalcy. After all, the economy had just imploded, and two great superstars passed on.People stopped washing their hands, stopped stiffling sneezes, and assumed sniffles were just the common cold. Some stopped being serious about their home quarantines.That's how the deaths came.

But its' not all the public's fault. Typical bureaucratic ham-handedness in handling the disease also resulted in the resurgence. Case in point, when certain public institutions of higher education got hit by the virus, the government chose to close down these institutions and send the students home. Honestly, what were they expecting? For the students, young, sprightly, free spirited, men and women, such an occasion would be nothing less than a holiday, and they would thus act accordingly. Dinners with family, outings and excursions with friends, would definitely spread the virus around.

It's sad that this had to happen, especially since I thought the outbreak was dying down. Now that it has, however, it's very prudent to relook and revisit prevention methods. This includes not sneezing in public, staying in if you have a cold and etc. On the government's part, they must immediately focus on acquiring newly-developed H1N1 vaccines, and stop blaming private hospitals. If humans are to be wiped out by a virus, lets at least make sure it's not the flu.

REQUIEM TO YASMIN

2009-07-26T16:20:00.000+09:00

Celebrated local filmmaker, Yasmin Ahmad passed away at 11.25 pm, Saturday, 25 July 2009, after massive bleeding in the brain which followed a stroke on Thursday. The director, 51 is famous for her films and advertisements that capture the essence of Malaysian racial harmony. Which makes me think, why?

Films like Sepet (part of which was shot in my primary school), Gubra and most recently, Talentime, showed that despite the many profound differences between us, we can, and must, learn to live with each other. Veteran actress and close friend Fatimah Abu Bakar said,"She had a big heart and vision that we usually don’t understand. That was why people misunderstood her. But she never intended any malice". Other prominent industry veterans spoke along the same lines, reminding us that Yasmin's death represents a cruel blow against the forces of morality and tolerance, and a huge loss in a society already not richly endowed with morality. And, so now I ask, what has Yasmin taught us?

In many ways, the lessons she taught were no different from other great men and women: love thy neighbour, do unto others as you wish others to do unto you, honour your father and your mother, and so on. Yasmin showed us that regardless of our mother tongues, there is only one language we should speak: the language of love. The only difference is, film was her canvas, the canvas on which she displayed the art of loving.Just like Michael Jackson, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy, she believed that whatever our faults, we have it in us to "tear down these walls," to "heal the world", to “be the change you want to see in the world.” But maybe best of all was that she "had a dream" and that she was determined to share it with us.

Like all the great people with so much love to give, she is no more... As with everyone else who wanted us to transcend skin colour, God loved her so much more. But there is a great poem by Mary Frye, which I think truly captures the fact that everytime someone extends a helping hand, Yasmin's spirit is there.

In Loving Memory of ...Yasmin Ahmad

Do not stand at my grave and weep,
I'm not there; I do not sleep,
I am a thousand winds that blow,
I am the diamond glints on snow,
I am the sun on ripened grain,
I am the gentle autumn rain.
When you awaken in the morning's rush,
Of quiet birds in circling flight.
I am the soft starlight at night.
Do not stand at my grave and cry,
I'm not there; I did not die.

Thank you, Yasmin. Keep teaching us to love.

-Noel-

KERETA SAWIT- THE TRUTHS

2009-07-25T00:12:00.000+09:00

The Malaysian government has been attempting, though feebly, to respond to the drastically increasing range of environmental effects that human activities have on the world today, the most worrying of which is probably global warming. Moreover, the government is also bound to its Kyoto Protocol requirement to reduce carbon emissions by 2012, and that as of 2005, we are actually way off the mark. To help repaint this bleak picture, the government is rather keen on producing palm oil biodiesel, not just because it believes that it would help Malaysia achieve the target, but also because the country’s economy would benefit greatly, as we are the world’s number one palm oil producer. The recent sequencing of the oil palm genome was good news for the Malaysian Palm Oil Council (MPOC), as such an achievement would open the door for production breakthroughs, that could help create high-yield, disease- resistant, pest defying varieties of the crop, and subsequently boost hopes of palm oil biofuel.

However, a nasty string of reports, articles and studies have emerged, all bearing news that turn palm oil biofuel (POB) from a Godsend against global warming into Satan. Esteemed scientific publications, such as Science, and National Geographic magazine have noted the various vagaries of POB, from environmental to social. Marcel Silvius, a climate expert at Wetlands International in the Netherlands, went as far as to say “As a biofuel, it (POB) is a failure”. Sadly however, the MPOC has responded to all this scientific evidence with allegations of protectionism, as shown in a 24 February 2007 article by its chairman, Tan Sri Datuk Dr Yusof Basiron. In addition to the allegations, Mr Basiron made several factual errors, supposedly to further the cause of POB. However, as USAToday noted, “palm oil’s lustre has faded on the biofuel scene” and here’s why, plus the reasons it should stay that way.

Forest destruction: The fact is, palm oil is a plant, and plants need land to grow. To get land in a country not known for its land area, like Malaysia, something has to go, and unfortunately, that something will be tropical rainforest. OilChange International estimates that if current rates of deforestation for oil palm plantations continue, 98% of Malaysian and Indonesian rainforest will be gone in just 15 years. The aforementioned ‘current rates’ are merely the rates that are needed for Malaysia to export POB, mainly to the European Union. If the entire Malaysian vehicle fleet is mandated to run itself on POB, I’m willing to bet that Malaysia won’t have any forests by the time I’m married (I’m 15+ now), since obviously the government will want a Malaysian company, perhaps SimeDarby to produce POB for local consumption. Willie Smits, who set up StarVision, a satellite mapping service that charts the rainforests’ decline, says “…the areas where companies are getting permission for oil palm plantations are those of high-conservation forest.” This means that as the craze for POB becomes more frenzied, species such as the Sumatran tiger, Asian elephant and Borneo’s orang-utans are going to be swept aside by chainsaws and bulldozers, whose onslaughts are masterminded by POB. In our earnestness to capture a slice of the world’s biofuel market, our natural species must not be victimised, and if it is the West who has realized this problem, then we must not cry foul and butcher these animals anyway. Malaysia has been designated as one of the world's 18 megadiverse countries largely because of these animals, which have also generated tourism revenue. Deforestation will also see other environmental problems, notably flash flooding, as powerful tropical storms erode the exposed soil, subsequently clogging up our rivers. Not only that, our rivers will also run dry and thus be unable to sustain marine life as water catchment areas will have been destroyed for oil palm plantations. Moreover, extensive deforestation would also contribute to rivers drying up during droughts, as forested land typically stores water and releases it back into nearby waterways during extreme dry spells. While its’ true that laws do exist to protect our forests, historically, how effective have they been? Let’s not take the risk, and eschew palm oil for our forests.

Social Crises: The forests in Malaysia don’t just provide shelter to flora and fauna, but also house vast communities of Orang Asli. Besides the environmental degradation caused by deforestation, these communities, already increasingly fragile, would suffer a possibly fatal blow if palm oil biofuel continues to be promoted. The fact is, these people feel a very powerful attachment to their home, even if the forest might not mean much to us. To them, it is an inseparable aspect of their lives, and they, dare I say it, value the jungle more than most of us value our brick houses. Malaysia’s Orang Asli have powerful cultural, spiritual and religious ties to every tree, clearing and moss covered boulder. Being forbidden to have fixed settlements, the Penans, for example, migrate every time there is a death in the community. The Ibans cannot build homes in parts of the forest in where they can hear the calls of certain types of birds, which are God’s messengers that bring warnings of hardship. Malaysia, does not have a proud record of dealing with the Orang Asli, ranging from indifferent to downright nasty. Having not adopted UN International Labour Organisation Convention No 169 (1989) that removes “assimilationist” orientated international standards towards indigenous rights, the government has also not sufficiently protected them in their natural residence, as proven by the recent barrage of news that Penan girls were raped by loggers in the area. Malaysian activist posted on his blog that the Penans “ancestral lands were seized for oil palm and acacia plantations as well as destroying their forests, the source of their food”. This goes to show that if we continue to promote palm oil, we could kill the Orang Asli.

Food vs. Fuel: Palm kernel oil is a surprisingly essential food product, being used in margarine, chocolate, cream, condensed milk, doughnut fillings, biscuits, cakes, swwets, cream for coffees, peanut butter, various baked products and even as a supplement in animal food. Palm oil is also used in frying, as it is resistant to high heat. Food products with palm oil, or palm kernel oil, last longer, give food products added volume, a softer texture and a far lower trans fat content. As such, people with obesity have been advised to opt for palm oil food products, plus, it’s generally cheaper than imported canola or olive oil. However, the past three years have seen a 90% jump in palm oil prices, and I would bet that it is in part due to the squeeze caused by expropriating food for fuel. Moreover, as the global food crisis deepens, global agriculture output can no longer keep up with consumption. While oil palm is not a grain, its usage as a meat supplement renders it vulnerable to the recent spike in newly- prosperous meat eaters, and its’ prices could increase again. If you’re a capitalist, or a farmer, that’s a boon, but to regular citizens, it’s a burden. This could also spell doom for health- conscious citizens, and eventually to the farmers, as annoyed consumers flee from palm oil in droves. And the government seriously does not need to spend precious ringgits trying to subsidize margarine.

The Effectiveness of Palm Oil as A Fuel: Measurement of effectiveness of any biofuel inevitably yields comparisions with petroleum. The obvious first question is price at the pump. Well, M.R. Chandran, former head of the Malaysian Palm Oil Association said that crude oil would now have to be as much as $130 a barrel before palm-oil-based biodiesel is competitive. As oil prices currently hover around $70 ($66.27 as of 3rd July 2009) a barrel, it’s safe to say that palm oil looks hopelessly outdone, and that despite EU mandates for 30% of vehicles to run on biofuel, consumers could be returning to petroleum as I write.Moreover, the energy balance of POB, which is the energy input vs. the output stands at an average of 7, compared to 8 for sugarcane ethanol and up to 36 for cellulosic ethanol. Moreover, contrary to popular belief, POB, like any other biofuel, is not carbon neutral. Heavy amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, like methane, nitrogen oxide and such, are released during cultivation, harvesting, transportation, and processing. In fact, the carbon released when tropical rainforest is cleared for oil palm plantations creates a carbon debt of 83 years, and if peatland rainforest is cleared, the debt soars to 423 years! Using all this data and statistics provided by National Geographic Magazine, October 2007 shows that the actual carbon reduction of POB is actually just 28% compared to petroleum, paltry, when you consider that to actually halt global warming, a reduction of 12 billion metric tons by 2057, a reduction of 50% is required . Palm oil biofuel, like all other food crops, is therefore unsuitable for our cars and trucks.

In conclusion, it is my sincere hope that the Malaysian government abandons any and all palm oil biofuel plans, both domestically and internationally, and directs funds to alternatives that are really green (hydrogen fuel cells and cellulosic ethanol). Scientists predict that not only is warming occurring faster than previously predicted, but that even if all emissions stop now, the Earth will still warm by about 3.6 degrees Celcius; so badly have we roasted our planet.We have only a small, fast closing window left to pull Earth back from a point of no return. Why then, do we keep bouncing off the walls?

THE THINKER WELCOMES

2009-07-24T23:21:00.000+09:00

Yo, it's Noel. And, first up, this blog is not a typical journal of my life per se, but about a whole load of musings and articles based on my thoughts on how the world works and should work. So, if, by chance, you happen to be hunting for the latest goss, or the emo ramblings of a 16 year old, then sorry. But, if you are looking for a perspective on serious issues, here's the place. Enjoy, and do comment. Thanks.