I CRY FOR YOU, MALAYSIA- PART III

We, as a nation, as a collective whole, have lost the promise of that day, nearly 55 years ago.

When I was a kid, I was an unabashed patriot. It all seemed so simple back then. Mahathir Mohammad was a demigod, Malaysia was the best nation in the world, and there was more than enough reason to sing 'Keranamu Malaysia' as loudly as possible every National Day. I even wanted to become a soldier at one point. 

Growing up does funny things to the world around you. In Malaysia, that meant exposes about corruption, or learning what Mahathir had done to his once-darling deputy, Anwar Ibrahim. And the courts. And the press. Many of the people I'd grown up with became solidly, vehemently anti-government. I held out a little longer, I think; that and debating mean I see the current political situation with a (slightly) different set of lenses.

As I prepare to leave, and to hopefully begin a career and life abroad, I recall the times friends have suggested I stay, said that I could help fix Malaysia. I have many answers to this question, none of which will satisfy those people who'll give me grief for not 'menabur bakti kepada tanah air'.

I think the first has to do with a simple reality: that if I do want to help feed the world, to find solutions to the precarious state of global food supplies, I can't do it here. Biotech initiative after biotech initiative has fallen by the wayside, and the country doesn't have the scientific, legal, or financial infrastructure that will make truly beneficial GM research feasible. The way I see it, the global food situation is a transnational issue, and blind nationalism is an obstruction to really helping the people who need it most. 

If I succeed at what I intend to achieve, Malaysia will reap its benefits. Don't worry.

What about politics here? Off the table. Completely. For starters, I don't have very much faith in the system as it is. I'm talking about all sides of it. The parties, the press, the electorate, all of them. As I told a friend recently over coffee, I don't think me or my ideas are going to get very far over here. Call that what you want, that's just the way I see it. 

Plus, I don't entirely trust myself with power anyway. It's very easy to lose your moral direction, and believe me when I say I think I'm vulnerable.

The truth is, I'd want very much to come back, to never give up on Malaysian food, the people or all the other cool things the inner patriot once loved about Malaysia. But there are bigger issues at stake, and I just can't tackle them here. This, I think, is a sentiment many students share.

I will keep hoping and wishing for genuine progress in Malaysia, because the seven year old who thought the Petronas Twin Towers were the coolest thing in the whole world has never truly gone away. For now, I'll shed a quiet tear, and say a silent prayer. God bless you, Malaysia. 

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.

I CRY FOR YOU, MALAYSIA- PART I

In Malaysia, religion plays an outsize role in daily life, far more than as simply a personal guide to virtuous living. Enshrined in the Constitution as the official religion, it is the basis for many laws, and tales of it's enforcement in people's lives colour national discourse. For more than fifty years, that has been the way it is.

Which is to say, problematic. For starters, it protects the continued violation of a basic human right, that of freedom of religion. Islam's status means that its commandment that adherents never leave the faith is enforced with chilling rigidity by the State Religious Departments. This is in direct contravention of Articles 2 and 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the former states 'everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms.... in this Declaration, without distinction of... religion', while the latter not only affirms freedom of religion, but also affirms a right to conversion

We've ratified the Declaration. How about truly putting it into practice, and not ignoring the bits that challenge our status quo?

But this isn't simply a matter of violating abstract freedoms. The reality is, religion is a human construct, and needs to update its collective psychology every now and then, and conversions are a crude but effective way of both indicating if that is happening, and an incentive to stay relevant and disciplined. Take this mechanism away, and religious thinking begins to ossify. That's likely why many youth see their religious leaders as anachronistic and why social ills are becoming more prevalent among Muslim youth.

The no-conversion rule has a significant impact on other religions in Malaysia, as they are banned from proselytizing to Muslims. Arrests of supposed proselytizers aside, the rule has led to a mindset of suspicion and hostility, with the some Malay newspapers particularly prone to spread baseless rumours about the simplest things, choking off cross-cultural exchange and deepening the divide. Also, Islam's protected status means the official Sunni Islam of the Shafi'i school of thought can rely on security forces to act against other sects, instead of going head to head in real theological debate, which further solidifies the sense of invulnerability and disconnect.

The sheltering of Islam by its official status means clerics will eventually grow further and further away from its flock.

Islam's status also means it has been intensely politicised. You hear stories of parties saying voting for them is the Islamic thing to do, and in Malaysia, any moral misstep can be career assassination. Not only does this distract from real, productive policy discussion, it  also taints the beauty of Islam as a religion. History shows the comfort of state patronage breeds corruption in a religion's higher echelons; religion becomes another tool of statecraft, instead of an internal moral compass.

Crude, but broadly accurate. Need I say more?

Plus, religion is an intensely private relationship between you and God/Allah. Thrusting it nakedly into the public eye infuses it with tribalism, anger and partisanship, bespoiling its beauty.

As I leave Malaysia, one of my greatest wishes is for no religion to hold an official status here, that conversion and preaching can occur freely, and that the Sharia legal system can be reformed to make it truly subservient to civil law and used in family cases that ONLY affect Muslims. Sure, it's been done one way for 55 years now, but that doesn't automatically preclude change.

This is my first cry for you, Malaysia.

STEP UP REVOLUTION- A NERD'S TAKE

This isn’t exactly a review of the movie, since I don’t watch enough movies to qualify as even a half decent authority on the subject. Rather, this is a chronicle of a whole chain of thoughts triggered by the film, starring Kathryn McCormick and Ryan Guzman (with a brief but noteworthy appearance by Adam Sevani).

Not usually what I watch, but sometimes, you need to kill time and end up pleasantly surprised.

This is as far as I’ll go about the film’s quality: its dance sequences are excellent, though the climactic sequence takes some time to get the punch of the earlier dances. The story is banally predictable, and the acting nothing special, except maybe when McCormick goes all seductive. So yeah, watch it if you like slick moves, don’t if you’re into good acting and properly developed original plots.

The final dance sequence in the movie, a choreographic feast, not so much a good story.

The aforementioned train of thought emerged because the movie not-very-convincingly posits some chillingly relevant questions about (youth) protest movements and the common man vs. capitalism. (Cough-Occupy-Cough).  In the movie, the dancers use well-choreographed flash mobs to rally public support against a move to develop their neighborhood, only to lose it with one stunt that takes a strident, angry, and militant tone instead.

In many ways, this is what happens when a group that has a grievance with a well-entrenched, more powerful adversary first puts its case forward. Piquing public interest and eventually support is, in liberal democracies, the easiest way for the little guy to stand up to the big bully. The fact is, however, that the public is both very tentative about change, and apathetic when the challenge to authority is posed by a small group with little direct connection to the broader populace.

These two contentions, taken together, seem to suggest that the movement to rally the public must be something people don’t see as threatening or dangerous. The first flash mob against the development fits this perfectly; it is cheeky, sharp and bold,but above all, nonviolent.

Still from the first mob against the development.

  As often happens, many within the movement often get frustrated with the slow pace of change or feel the leadership isn’t going to the core of the problem. Subsequently, they take things into their own hands, feeling a more direct and confrontational approach might be the answer. The next mob uses smoke canisters, more aggressive moves and angry slogans, culminating in a brawl with security and arrests. The developers, having regained public sympathy, get permission to build.

The militant tone of the next mob costs the dancers a lot of support, and leads to a fracture in the movement.

It’s tempting, at this point, to conclude that all protest movements must thus be Gandhi-esque and avoid violence to have a chance of success. But that’s naïve, and not quite right. I believe militant wings of protest movements are a key factor in encouraging entrenched interests to seek a settlement with the moderates. The radicals may or may not shut up (historically, many do), but the demands of the little guy have been largely met, and the opposing public desires for normalcy and justice are satisfied.

Also, it’s healthy for the moderates; they’re forced to ensure they maintain their nimbleness, energy and quality of ideas.

The challenge, then, is for the protest movement to ensure its main face is always a strong moderate, even if the radicals are adept at grabbing headlines. Sure, the Black Panthers received a lot of press, but ultimately, Martin Luther King Jr. knew how to draw public attention to the moderates in the black revolutionaries. As our world is riven by more and more public displays of disaffection, we all hope they learn these lessons, if not necessarily from the film. 

ON NUMBERS AND THE FUTURE

Not too long ago, The Star frontpaged a report on falling street crime figures that was celebrated by the government, but met with much skepticism by the public. Subsequent well-publicised snatch thefts and mall carpark robberies had the government scrambling to respond, while deepening the public sense that the numbers are a sham.

I don't like dismissing government statistics out of hand; I think reflexively rubbishing the numbers is both excessively pessimistic and rather unreasonable. Still, street crime figures, to me, tell another story, and not just because of the many tales from victims turned away from lodging police reports.

It will take a concerted effort, and a lot of time, for Malaysian trust in the police, and thus belief in their safety, to improve

Before I get into that, I'm going to comment briefly on public perceptions of their safety. The reason much of the public doesn't buy the figures is simple: there is, at present, an immense crisis of trust with Malaysian law enforcement. The aforementioned tales play a part, as do the stories of corruption, violence against suspects in custody and lack of frequent patrols in many urban areas. But remedying this will take more than just responding to those complaints, and a very long time indeed, so in the foreseeable future, Malaysians will be more pessimistic about their safety than the numbers make reasonable to be.

Moving to the main thrust of the piece: what else do street crime figures tell us? I will give the government and the police some credit for the fall in street crimes, but then, they only tell part of the story. Street crimes are, after all, committed mainly by youth, out of need. As the Malaysian economy grows, I believe it is more likely that crime will move into the shadows, out of the public eye. I speak, of course, about organized crime, international syndicate activity and corporate crime.

Does the government have the gumption to stand up to the vested interests that profit from corporate crime?

Malaysia's international record on people and drug smuggling has to improve significantly, and it doesn't appear that government policy focuses adequately on corporate crime. Enforcement of laws on the latter issue are fragmented among five different agencies; meanwhile, Malaysia remains a Tier 2 nation on the US State Department's human trafficking watch list.

As the nation's per capita income continues to grow (and hopefully more inclusively than at present), socioeconomic improvement means less people will turn to street crime to get by. However, it also means a bigger lure for, shall we say, more professional crime. This simple fact means the nation needs to ask itself two questions. The first is this: Will the government be able to shift its resources and focus to the latter?

Over time, more crime will move out of dark alleys, and into the gilded halls of wealthy and ruthless syndicates.

The second question? Will Malaysians continue to press their government on crime once it fades into the shadows?

MAKING OUR SOCIETY BLIND

I've been very scared lately by a whole host of loud voices demanding the death penalty for snatch thieves. As far as public demands go, this is probably one of the most bone-headed and barbaric ones to come our way in recent years.


Many people are incensed by continued stories of people dying due to bad falls after snatch thefts, but I'd like to respectfully point out that snatch thieves are not hardened killers. None of them sets out with the intention to kill anyone during a theft, and intent is important in criminal cases; to want to hang people who 'technically' killed someone sets us on a whole slippery slope of serious events. We are screaming overloud at what is actually a very small (but attention grabbing) part of the snatch theft picture. 

Snatch theft is an issue guaranteed to ignite passions and inflame emotions, neither of which are good guides to effective law-making.

In any case, we don't hang accidental murderers. We call that manslaughter. A poor kid who snatched a bag to feed himself isn't a vicious murderer who regards the death as a bonus point. Logic suggests that it's an extra burden for him to live with.


The death penalty, I'm sure we all realize, is largely useless as a deterrent to anything. Malaysia hasn't experimented much with its' death penalty, but many countries who have abolished capital punishment report no increase in crime following its abolition. Criminologists, by an 88.2% majority, do not believe the death penalty is an effective deterrent, as reviews of pro-deterrent studies reveal that they 'fall apart under close scrutiny' (Jeffrey Fagan, director of the Centre of  Crime, Community and Law at Columbia Law School). 

Statistics suggest the death penalty isn't a deterrent. Another statistical analysis here, by John Donnohue and Justin Wolfers, shows estimates of lives saved by the death penalty are fundamentally flawed.

In any case, the death penalty is barbaric. We as a society do our moral standing no credit when we stoop to the levels of asking for revenge. Of the vast range of punishments in the penal system, the death penalty, due to its terminal nature, is the only one that doesn't seek to reform the prisoner or put him to service, so all it serves is a primal desire to see someone die for ending another life, since we know it isn't an effective crime prevention measure. 


We as Malaysians pride ourselves on our hospitality, kindness and acceptance. How the Chinese, Malays and Indians treat each other is only part of that story. An arguably more important part is how we treat the migrant worker, the homosexual, the drug addict, the criminal. It is my belief that as long as we cannot find it in our hearts to be the better person than a killer, we have no right to call ourselves a civil society. 

Need I say more?

Part of the reason we gravitate towards such tools as the death penalty is that it's a simple, blunt force tool that appeals to our baser natures. In fact, truly solving street crimes like snatch thefts requires distinctly unglamorous tools, like more inclusive economic growth, an elevation of vocational education and reform of local policing measures. Just like everyone will rally around a catchy, Kony 2012 style campaign, but not a long term fix to the underlying problem of democracy and structural poverty in Africa. 


For that, to me, is the real problem. Our education system is too broken to be truly counted on as a way out of hardcore poverty anymore, and quality skills training doesn't nearly reach as many youths as it should. It might also be an idea to devolve more powers to local councils and local police units. They, after all, can better understand the community and respond more effectively to local crime and socioeconomic concerns.


I'll not pretend snatch thefts- and crime in general- isn't a serious problem in our society. The question is, are we so keen to throw away the last remaining vestiges of civility in our nation in order to 'save' it?

THE SEARCH FOR HOPE CONTINUES

These days, American politics does not inspire much confidence in anyone. Sadly, it could get worse, as eleven states- Texas, Georgia, and Tennessee among them- have passed strict laws requiring photo IDs before a person can vote. State governors say the new rules are meant to curb voting fraud, but in practice, the new laws will prevent many legitimate voters from casting their ballots.


The voters shut out are primarily, black, poor and elderly. On the whole, 11% of eligible voters don't have updated, state issued photo IDs; the percentage rises to 25%, 15% (among those making less than $ 35 K a year) and 18% respectively. These groups are likelier to lack driver's licences, be born out of state, work multiple jobs or have disabilities, which means they cannot afford the extensive and expensive paperwork required for state IDs. Many government services have never needed state IDs, and things like employee and student cards are not accepted by many of the states' new laws.

Texas Governor and former presidential candidate Rick Perry has declared his support for the law. His state's version would allow concealed-carry handgun licences as valid ID, but not employee or student IDs.

The scale of disenfranchisement is far more extensive than any fraud the laws seek to prevent. Fraud is not, as supporters of the laws claim, a serious issue in American elections- a 2011 report by the Republican National Lawyers Association found 400 election fraud prosecutions in the US over the past decade, not even one per state per year. Between 1997 and 2010, in Kansas, there were 7 convictions for voter fraud, none for voter impersonation- the true kind of fraud voter IDs would stop.


By contrast, the new laws could adversely affect more than five million voters. As it is, in 2008, 2.2 million registered voters did not vote because they lacked proper ID.

More than anything, the new laws appear to be the latest weapon in a tragically vitriolic campaign for November's elections, as if the attack ads weren't bad enough.

 To me, this move is nakedly political, coming as it is in states under Republican control, some of which are key battlegrounds this November. Seeking an advantage in a close election, Republicans must surely have realised the new laws will bar many voters who traditionally vote Democratic. One Republican official in Pennsylvania said as much, even. 

Eric Holder, who recently called the new laws 'poll taxes' , has, as Attorney General, the power to prevent the laws' implementation.

If states insist on laws like this, even though they don't solve the true fraud that DOES occur in American elections, then they should also undertake a commitment to provide free IDs to everyone who lacks it.


Under the Voting Rights Act of 1964, states with a history of discrimination must obtain permission from the Department of Justice or the Appeals Court of the Washington D.C. Circuit to change election laws, and its likely both these institutions will strike down many of these laws. Still, if Republicans agree there is a crisis of faith in American politics, they should realize it is not at the ballot box, but up on Capitol Hill, where the word 'compromise' has long been forgotten.

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.

EQUALITY

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. 

CLEANING HOUSE

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

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.

THE EFFECTS OF THE ATTACK

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.

DECK THE HALLS

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

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

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.