I CRY FOR YOU, MALAYSIA- PART II

I think, if asked to say what makes me saddest about my country, my answer would be the nature and level of political dialogue in general, and the upcoming election in particular. The God-honest truth is, to me, this election is really a choice between a rock and a hard place. 

Now, let's not be hasty to judge my calculus here. If I could vote in the election, my vote would go to the Opposition coalition, but only in the interest of opening up the political climate and eventually forcing both parties to start coming up with really intelligent, non-populist policy discourse.

My belief is the Opposition is not going to really bring the change I'd like to see in this country. The truth is, they've based their pitch on two pillars: the first, that the National Alliance has ruled long enough, and the second, that the Alliance's long rule has led to unforgivable corruption in nearly every level of government.

The Opposition's contention on corruption is welcome and essential for the nation, but I wonder how much they are overstating their immediate ability to combat the problem.

This corruption focus has been the core of nearly everything the Opposition has talked about. Deficit growing too big? End corruption. Funds needed to improve public services. End corruption. And so on. You hardly hear much else from Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim and Co.

Now, I'm not saying the increased heat on corruption is a bad thing. But there are two main reasons I won't give the Opposition as much credit for it as many others do. The first is the sheer scale of the problem. Much of the Opposition calculus underestimates the simple reality that in a nation where corruption is as prevalent as ours, getting rid of it is not going to happen as easily, quickly, or thoroughly as many of their other presumptive policies require. 

Second, after corruption, what then? If you ask me, much of what's in the Opposition's Common Policy Platform isn't really very different from what the National Alliance could come up with. No successful democracy can thrive with one party in support of heavy government intervention in the economy, and the other proposing more government intervention in the economy (which is clearly a separate issue from PARTY intervention in the economy). 

The Pakatan Rakyat's Common Policy Platform and their First 100 Day promises range from the  'not enough' to downright scary.

I want the abolition of the special rights and privileges. I want a serious discussion on ending any and all subsidies and price controls. I believe we need a party that's going to fight for a minimally sized federal government (again, which is quite different from fighting for keeping parties away from business). I believe we need a party that can start putting forward the case for ending most forms of redistribution of wealth, instead of simply deciding what's the best way to redistribute income. And I want parties to allow members to speak their minds freely, without being tossed out for challenging official party doctrine. 

Sometimes, I wonder if Mr. Ibrahim will have the political courage to  ask the people to do some difficult but necessary things.

I desperately want to see this somewhere, ANYWHERE, in our political situation. But I don't. So for me, an Opposition vote isn't a vote of faith in them, but more a desire that, with the rise of a real two party system, we can see a move towards some real, realistic policy. I'll credit the Opposition for their boldness and commitment to cleaner government, but Malaysia needs far more than just that.

PAUL RYAN- NOT BAD, BUT....

Weeks of speculation finally culminated Saturday with Mitt Romney’s announcement of Paul Ryan as his running mate for the 2012 US Presidential election. And it isn’t hard to see why. With his youth and popularity, Mr. Ryan brings a powerful energy to the ticket, and a sense of warmth that the often-wooden Mr. Romney lacks on the trail. Plus, as a wonkish budget guru, there is no risk of him saying anything overwhelmingly stupid, a la Palin.

Having said that, though, adding Mr. Ryan to the ticket probably made it a whole lot harder.

The two men have an obvious chemistry, and Mr. Ryan is far more comfortable talking to voters on the trail.

We’ll start with his economic and fiscal ideas. Mr. Ryan has not been one of those obstructionist Republicans, content to vote no to a Democratic bill and stop there. Rather, he has been particularly pronounced in championing alternative budgets and deficit reduction plans of his own.  There are two problems with the Ryan plans (The Roadmap for America's Future Acts and alternative budgets in 2009, 2010 and 2012).

The first is its treatment of Medicare and Medicaid. On the former, Mr. Ryan’s plan calls for defined payments to seniors, who can then use the money to buy private or government insurance plans. Mr. Ryan assumes competition between providers will drive insurance costs down, and the plan’s proposed payouts are to increase at a rate slightly more than GDP grows. Mr. Ryan wants Medicaid funding to be slashed by $ 735 billion over ten years, and the cash given back to states to spend as they see fit.

And therein lies the problem. Back when Mr. Ryan came out with his deficit plan, the bill received a great deal of fanfare from Republicans before it quietly sunk under the radar. One of the main reasons for this was seniors, for whom Medicare is an extremely emotive issue, and a plan that makes them pay significantly more out of their own pockets, as the Congressional Budget Office reports, is not going to go anywhere.

Mr. Ryan with his 2012 budget proposal 'The Path to American Prosperity'

Political commentators are already voicing concerns on the impact such a budget would have on one of the most important states this election- Florida, where seniors are a more powerful force than they are anywhere else in the nation. A July 9 Rasmussen Reports poll gave Mr. Romney 46% support to Mr. Obama's 45%, which means anything could happen from now until November.  

The Romney campaign had always been rather vague on specific economic and fiscal policy. Now that Mr. Ryan’s given the ticket details, he’s given a new boost to Barack Obama’s constant line of attack that a Romney presidency would gut the middle class to enrich the wealthy. That would be the second problem with Mr. Ryan’s deficit plan- it calls for eliminating all taxes on capital gains, interest, and stock dividends and to cut the top tax rate by a full ten percentage points.

A snapshot of what the Obama team has (unsurprisingly) said about Mr. Ryan. Expect more of the same from the President's team.

With all that, it’s hard to see why Mr. Romney would want to burden his (probably intentionally vague) campaign with such politically troubling detail. In my opinion, conservatives would have voted for unexciting Mr. Romney anyway; that’s how much they dislike Mr. Obama. The question from here on out is simple: will Messrs. Romney and Ryan do well enough at explaining the economic rationale of such an extensive hacking of the welfare state to independents? Maybe; Mr. Romney is a businessman after all, but I'm skeptical.

It has been famously said that the job of Vice President is ‘not worth a bucket of warm piss’. Still, recent vice presidents have been pivotal enough- look at Dick Cheney on national security and Joe Biden on the Afghanistan-Pakistan conundrum. Mr. Ryan looks to be as important, whether he eventually emerges a help or hindrance.  

QAT OFF

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.

HELPING HANDS IN AFGHANISTAN

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.

WHERE IT STANDS NOW

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?

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.

B SAVE THE WORLD

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.

THE MALAYSIAN ECONOMY

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.