Similarities and Differences

All comparisons are normally based on similarities and differences. People draw comparison when things or people are so similar in forms, functions or purposes, and when they are so different or contradictory.

Such comparison is often made between people when setting up a partnership in marriage,
social or business association, and political parties in the pursuit of common goals.The common goals become more important than their similarities of differences.The similarities would be used the reinforce each others interest while the differences can be used to complement each other's shortcomings.

Political parties are famous for setting up a partnership based on common goals irrespective of conflicting and contradictory characteristics and even dogmas. Even when each party represents a different segment of society, when put together they can represent all the segments. That I believe is the philosophy of Barisan Nasional.

That philosophy has worked for more than half a decade. It worked well under able leadership who could integrate all interests amicably. If any other parties try to emulate this and failed it's not the philosophy that's bad but the inability of the leadership to come to terms with each other.

The Barisan philosophy has proven that differences in culture, mother tongue and religion need not be a stumbling block to a political partnership. As long as certain basic rules of tolerance and birthrights are observed, common objectives can be achieved by cementing a partnership or coalition. Why should cultural differences stand in the way if each party is ready to respect the other's culture? Why should mother tongue be an issue when a common national language has been agreed upon? And why should religion be a stumbling block when no one segment is forced to embrace the religion of the other segments or be subjected to its rules and regulations?

Only when the basic rules of tolerance and acceptance of birthrights are violated can there be problems. It's a failure of the internal process of negotiations and interest
integration within the partnership that caused the problems.The leaders of the component parties should be able to represent the interests of their supporters without violating the basic rules and birthrights of the other parties. A failure to do so can only reflect on the failures of the leaders as the philosophy of forming a partnership among parties with different interests and dogmas has been proven to work for more than half a decade in Malaysia.

Getting Rich Through Borrowing

There are two terms my parents used to advise me not to be involved in, ie "getting rich through borrowing" or "rich in debts". I guess they amount to the same thing although the word "rich" in the second term is an euphemism. But modern financing has it that in order to get rich in business one must borrow from the bank and invest the money in some highly profitable projects and projects with a very high rate of return.
Can that principle be also applied in running the business of a nation? There are many forms of borrowing though. Borrowing from the local or World Bank is one way.From rich countries on a G-t0-G basis is another. Selling bonds with a future date of maturity, is also a form of borrowing to be paid later when the bond matures. And there are so many types of business that a country can enter into with another country or countries. Import-export agreements achieved through Memorandum of Understanding, multilateral or bilateral help and assistance, counter-trading etc.etc.
One other form of business promotion is to open up the country to foreign investment with several forms of tax incentives and liberalization of trading laws and regulations.Any businessman from any country with money to invest can come in and be provided with the land and infrastructural facilities, also the protections to ensure that his business venture will prosper, even at the expense of protection to the local business and industrial activities and initiatives.
Two considerations, therefore become very crucial. One is how much of borrowing can a country make including selling bonds which must be redeemed over a period of time? Two, to what extend can inducement and protection be give to a foreign business venture before they begin to hurt the local initiatives? In conducting the business of the nation in Malaysia, I'm sure our experts have considered these matters very thoroughly in order to protect the interest of the nation first, and making "profits" as a second priority.
However, in some cases we begin to feel that "profits" and the availability of cash or credits for development in order to achieve the status of a high-income nation, are given first priority. Extensive borrowing reaching to more than 50% of the GDP is a case in point. Some development experts say that above 24% is already bad. But, of course, some developed countries like Japan also has a high rate of foreign borrowing while Greece overshot the 100% mark. The spread of foreign-owned super- and hypermarkets can definitely affect the business of local traders and shopkeepers, although they rehoused in shopping complexes open local traders.

To what extent do the various supermarkets or supermarts affect the business of local businessmen, we don't really know. No studies have been done. But we know that the loans and bonds sold outside the country must be redeemed one day by the young people of today. So, should a nation stretch its economic capacity and future potentials to afford a higher standard of living for the current generation than the standard that it can actually afford now, by borrowing and selling bonds as much as possible? Is it ethical or desirable to raise the income of the nation by other than actual productivity increase ( call it superficial increases) in order to achieve the status of a developed nation? To me it's like getting rich by borrowing, which must be paid for by the future generation.

The Super Rich Malaysians...

I wonder how many Malaysians can rattle out the names of the 40 or so billionaires and multimillionaires of the nation, the greatest number in South East Asia? More importantly know them by some of the great contributions they had made to the nation and the business they are in? I do believe that many Malaysians do know the names of the great billionaires and multimillionaires from other countries especially USA, UK, Japan etc. Why? Because they have contributed directly to the welfare and well-being of the common people, and not just to the economy of the nation in general.

How and what's the difference? All billionaires and multimillionaires certainly have played a major role in developing the economy of the nation and developing the area of business they lead such as in the sugar industry, rubber, tin, forest product, telecommunication, entertainment, casino, banking, real estate, oil palm etc. etc. They are of course famous in their field of expertise and industry, and among the other rich Malaysians who have some dealing with them.

But they might be totally unknown to the common Malaysians unless they have some institutions , service or industrial products, or other philanthropic contributions that have benefitted the common men and women directly. The late Lim Goh Tong for example is famous for his Genting casino and entertainment city visited by all Malaysians ( not the casino which is out of bound to the Malays). Robert Kuok maybe famous as the Sugar king but do the man-in-the-street know him unless he or she reads the papers and listens to the national news often enough in order no to miss the name being mentioned. Do the average Malaysians, especially at the village level, know know Ananda Krishnan? Or do they know the ex-Globe chief Tan Sri Kishu better.

I'm pretty sure that most of the names of the billionaires ( I don't want to mention names, just google if you want to know) are completely foreign to the average Malaysians in the city and the more so in the rural parts of the country. Their contributions to the economy of the nation and to the nation in general just do not touch or effect the life of these common men and women. Not as much as Tan Chong through Tan Ching Motors, or Hong Leong through the Hon Leong Bank, or Lim Kok Wing through his educational institutions or Loh Boon Siew through his Honda motor cycle outlets.

What I want to say is that the super rich and mighty could be so busy managing their mighty financial empires that they forgot to do something for the common men in the street and in the 'kampungs'. Their contributions to the the powers-that-be in the nation or the government could run into millions but not a single cent might rich the common folk. Are there schools, libraries, medical centers, centers for the disabled or retarded, low budget stores etc,etc, initiated and funded by these super rich tycoons to benefit the ordinary folks. Are there some institutions, funds, grants, scholarships etc. established by them which the ordinary folk could appreciate? The universities and institutions of higher learning are always short of funds to do research, to commission writers to do some studies or write some literary work, to undertake experimental works for some innovation etc. Don't they ever think of contributing to these institutions if not to establish new ones in their names?

If they have already done so in some unknown ways, it's not enough to make the common Malaysians appreciate and applaud their status as a Malaysian billionaire or multimillionaire. The common folks might still think and feel that these supper rich are only interested in doubling and tripling their wealth.

Certain things in life need not change...

Modern life is full of changes. They are necessary and we associate changes with modernity and progress.But deep in our hearts we know that we sometimes miss "the good old days". We know that some of the changes are not always for the better. We must admit that some of the things we call modern and progressive are in fact, regressive.We hate the changes made, or even regretted them, but would be too proud to accept out mistake. Worse, som changes once made cannot be retracted. We cannot just switch back to the old ways once the old values are destroyed.

The trouble in trying to say that certain things need not be changed in life is that, overall things are better now than before. We certainly don't want to go back to the time of bullock carts, horse carriages, oil lamps, deep wells for drinking water, foot messengers etc. For most people today even a TV or an Internet breakdown or service interruption is a torture, an unacceptable deprivation. We love what we have today, yet groaned about many changes which suddenly appear to be taking us in the opposite direction - to social decay and destruction.

What for example? In the extreme case just look at the arms race, the manufacture of sophisticated armaments and weapons of mass destruction. Wasn't it nice when we didn't have all these to put us in danger of a sudden holocaust? Wasn't it better to have a quarrel or a war using swords and daggers where you must really face your enemy before you can cut him down or be slaughtered yourself. Now thousands can be killed by just clicking a switch. You never really see the victims shudder and die.

A most controversial item on the question of whether the old ways are better than the new is with regard to primary education and education in general. Boys and girls, and even young men and women are now receiving programmed or canned education directed at developing their intelligence and skill to go into certain profession. But the social, moral and ethical bases of education seemed to be missed out thus producing young men and women often said to be conceited, lacking respect for the old people including their own parents, and in pursuing their own interest would not hesitate to step on the heads of their friends and colleagues.They become bullies and incorrigibles even while in primary schools because teachers could no longer use the cane to bring them into line. We hear today (NST May 26) the president of the Malaysian PTA associations calling out for the teachers to be given the power to cane errant students in order to bring back the good discipline in schools. If nothing is done to improve the deteriorating discipline, we might next see students shooting their teachers with a handgun, as had happened in the US.

In Malaysia all the vocational schools are now to become colleges, vocational colleges, to prepare the youths to become trained functionaries. The Universities too will more and more offer subjects that will produce trained manpower ( and women power too of course) ready for use by the labor market. What do we see today about these young so-called professionals? Do they appreciate the literature, the culture and the history of the nation, the non-material things that hold the country and the people together more than than common economic and material goals? As we see things today, politics can play havoc with nations, societies, communities and even families. Only the common social, cultural and ethical values, often inculcated in the junior classes can hold people together, and the education system seems to be very weak in developing that area of human concern. Even old and time-honored institutions like marriage and families are falling apart because of the lack of common social, cultural and historical base to hold them together


I like to bring a simple example of a failure in the education system which can have a profound effect on our society. In the primary and secondary schools in Malaysia, music has never been taught. Almost all adults who had no special education in music are musically illiterate and can't read the musical notes. Could they, therefore, really appreciate the musical composition of great musicians like Mozart,Beethoven, Chopin, Tchaikovsky,Bach etc or even the great musicians of their own country both now and before Yes, they can always appreciate the jazz, rock n roll, the blues, the "dangdut" etc, when they hear it over the TV or radio. But can they appreciate the classics,the concerto, the symphony, sonata, opera etc. To many of the young today, as long as the music has a lot of beat and rhythm, it's loud and strong making one moves with it, that's good music. To really appreciate music you must be able to read music. To just enjoy the sound, of course everyone can do that.

We now face the the young Malayians not being able to speak good English as a second language.So plans are afoot to train our English teachers in England again, Brinsford-Lodge style.At one time we really look down on Malaysians who tried to speak English like the Englishmen - using correct grammatical English and even the pronunciation. Now, do we want to bring back that tradition? All we want is correct grammar and usage - not the hot-potato-in-the-mouth sound. Well, it goes to prove that something that we did in the old days were good. Like emphasizing the three Rs in education-reading, writing, and arithmetic. Now, some children in the lower secondary schools could not master even those, although the education system has undergone numerous changes. Not all the changes that we have brought today are good. Indeed some of the old things need not change at alall. There are just too many of the old things that we miss today.

High Cost of Books....

The development of a nation certainly depends on a good reading habit among its citizens. The intellectual capacity of the nation's population as a whole will determine the level of progress a nation can achieve, quite irrespective of its wealth in natural resources. Even when the elites of a nation are very well-educated and well-trained, if the masses lag behind in their self-education through reading, the wheels of change and progress can be slowed down very much.

One is never surprised to see people reading a book while traveling in a plane, train, cars and buses in the western countries. The habit has also caught on in Japan and urban China. I mean just ordinary citizens, not professors, executives, teachers, students etc for whom reading is a must and is their job. But in the developing countries, to see an ordinary citizen (not the elites mentioned)glued to a book while traveling, sitting in a coffee=-shop or resting under the shade, is quite a rare sight. Reading a newspaper, a magazine or some promotional advertisements and colorful consumer handouts, yes. But not a book, a novel or some professional magazines.

Why? There are a thousand and one reasons. Public transports are normally packed in the developing countries, uncomfortable and no air-conditioning.The temperature is often very high and people are sweating. Even the air-conditioned restaurants and cafes are often too crowded to promote a reading habit or the lightings are not that conducive. In some cases the piped music is just deafening. And now in this age of electronic gadgetries, people would rather talk on their handphones, listen to their favorite music and songs, or watch the TV rather than do some lonesome reading.

Nonetheless the government and book publishers are certainly doing their best to promote a healthy reading habit among the populace, as is the case in Malaysia.Writers are being encouraged to write, publishers are encouraged to publish more books on general knowledge, book festivals are being held every now and then, awards are given out for writers, funds issued to support publication etc, etc. No complain there.

But, look at the cost price of books as written on the covers. Any good book certainly costs more that RM20-RM30. The cheap sales and discounted prices are of course available but such books are often not to palatable to read ( with the exception of used books, of course). You need at least a hundred bucks to get a few good books. Even Dr Mahathir's book, Doctor in the House, is not something that you can acquire with the balance of your budget for the supermarket to buy necessary household items. Of course a hundred bucks for books is nothing to those earning a four or five figure income. What about those earning at or just above the minimum wage? Remember that there are also the text books to buy for the kids. And are they really cheap? Not for those in the higher forms. Oh yes, the government did issue a RM200 coupon to assist parents in buying books for their school children. But we are talking about books for the average citizens, those that make up the majority of the population.

Some books cost as high as RM200 or RM300 or more.Forget the Coffee Books in glossy colors and beautiful prints meant for the rich. I am talking about books for general reading, like the novels which cost more than RM30 each. A small book containing religious poems that I saw at the recent International Book Fest costs RM90 (by foreign poets) and RM45 (by local poets).

Admittedly the books are printed on expensive glossy papers with elaborate cover designs. Are we trying to produce books for library decoration or of reading. Why don't we publish on cheaper newsprints of a higher quality than some cheap books produced in the Philippines, India and Indonesia.If books can be bought at less than RM20, I think more people will buy them..and hopefully read them. One reason for the books being too costly is because the distributors take some 30-50% of the sale price. Dewan Bahasa set the standard in this matter and all publishers must accept the example to get their books sold. The government should look into this issue as a matter of urgency as well as the issue of the skyrocketing price for houses. Unless there is some control in this matters, the recent increases in pay would not mean much in terms of promoting the reading habit in Malaysia, while housing developers become filthy rich catering for the wealthy.

Persistent Signs of Underdevelopment

Many aspects of life in the towns and cities of Malaysia would show that we are already a developed nation. The growth of urban infrastructure and high-rise buildings, the maddening traffic jams in urban centers, the throng at supermarkets and shopping malls, the pomp and ceremony of national celebrations and anniversaries, the sophistication of trade fairs and business promotions, the grandeur of sports and cultural activities, all point to a level of development similar to that of the developed nations.

What then keeps us at the backwaters of modernization and development? Or serves as reminders of the fact that we are not yet that modern or sophisticated?

Many I'm sure will straightway point to the existence of rural villages all over the nation, still living in substandard housing with substandard infrastructural facilities. We find such villages sometimes just a few kilometers aways from the urban centers.They of course proliferate in the remote areas of the country, hidden by thick (though rich) forestland and jungle as compared to the well cared-for estates and Felda resettlement areas. Many of these areas are the homes of aborigines and the forest tribes who feel uncomfortable living in houses made of brick and mortars.

But even the western countries which comprise the so-called developed world including the developed eastern countries like Japan and North Korea and the southern island of Australia and New Zealand, have their rural or tribal/aboriginal population. That doesn't make them underdeveloped. Some of the Latin American countries are as developed as any on their North American counterpart. Yet they too have a large number of low-income and "poor" population and the country countries cannot be called underdeveloped.


What then are the primary signs of underdevelopment? I would think that they include not just economic indicators like low income, sprawling urban and rural poverty, inadequate infrastructural facilities, shabby housing areas with old and dilapidated houses, the lack of medical and educational facilities etc. If so then Malaysia can already be considered as highly developed for we don't see such situation anymore.But there are other social and cultural factors that to me indicate the country's lack of a claim to being fully developed. These include small and simple things like the lack of civility and decorum when driving on the road and not keeping to your lane or giving adequate signal before crossing it,
throwing rubbish and food wrappers out of the car while driving,respecting the right of others when moving in a crowded place like a shopping mall or supermarket, giving an applause after an artist finishes a performance, even queuing up for services which in Malaysia has recently improved very much.

What I'm saying is that there are still many little social and ethical things that the Malaysian public don't observe which can make the Malaysian society appears as still underdeveloped. There is no way that I can list them all but we get embarrassed or even shameful when we see it happening. Things like a couple of Malaysians talking and laughing very loudly in a quite and cozy restaurant or cafe, noisily clearing your throat and spitting in the public,leaving a picnic area or a table without clearing the rubbish you created, and shopkeepers allowing the corridor in front of their shops to be dirty or messy.

We seldom see such things happening in the so-called modern and developed society, Yes we do see some of the unruly youths or anti-social elements breaking the social and ethical code of conduct. But they do not represent the society as such.

Money Politics

Is there anything at all that can be done today without using money? I really wonder for even when comforting myself in the bathroom the electricity bill will increase, the water bill will go up,and more toilet papers must be purchased. Even digging a hole in the backyard or unclogging the drains needs money to buy the necessary equipment or chemicals to be used.

So how can the huge wheels of government function without lots of money. And how can the political parties function to get elected into the government without spending huge sums of money to win the election?

It's therefore nonsensical to say that money politics is a "no-no". Everything that a political party needs to do to win an election must be financed. The question is whether it will be financed by the political party concerned or, if the party is now in power,by the government. What and where is the dividing line between work and expenses which can be paid by the government and that which must be paid by the political parties or by the politicians who would like the work to be done?

Simple questions but the answers can be very messy. Modern day government would have already planned all that it would like to do in the next few years (usually called the master plan of 3,4,5 years and even longer, beyond the 5 year life of the current government). The major projects to be undertaken would already have been identified. But many smaller projects, sub-projects, tasks and new and urgent work have not.The need to get these works done is often identified towards the end a government's term and the approach of a fresh election. That's when money is dished out in response to any demand which is backed by some political pressure.Millions are dished out to win over the unhappy or dissatisfied electorates.

It is here that political and societal or developmental objectives become inseparable. Projects necessitated by a political need can be easily brought under the approved government development plan and be financed fully by the government. After all the project is still for the purpose of promoting the welfare and wellbeing of the public although it could have been forced on the political leadership by some pressure group whose support the political party in power needs badly. Many of such projects emerge as the political party in power stepped up its campaign to gain more support for the coming election and millions can be dished out each day.

The promise of money for projects which had never been included in the set long term plan, raises the issue of whether such promise amount to corruption. Sometimes the demand for the project arises only when the leaders of the political party in power ie. the government, go to certain areas to campaign, or merely to explain government policy or just to meet the public.As a result millions are promised for projects approved almost on the spot. The approval may even take the form of a bargain - "You give us your support and we approve the project which wil cost so many hundreds of million." How then can we stop the opposition from saying that such promises border on corruption? The opposition will certainly not be able to offer such promises as it does not control the development fund of the nation.

Is this not money politics or is money politics confined to actually giving some money to people to vote for certain candidates contesting an election for certain positions in the party - in other words buying votes? Is buying support with the promise of giving money for projects, not included in the term? If not does it constitute corruption? If neither then what is it and is it morally and ethically sound? I kept scratching my head to find an answer until a lot of hair has already fallen.