Hantu Laut
Pak Lah says don't compare Singapore with Malaysia.Read it here.
He says you can't compare "first-class grapes(Singapore) and first-class apples(Malaysia).
In the first place, metaphorically speaking, there are no 1st class grapes and 1st class apples in both English and the Malay language.There are only sour grapes and bad apples in English.
In the " The Fox and the Grapes" fable by Aesop, the fox made many attempts to find a way to reach the grapes hanging high on a vine but failed to reach it, retreated and said "The grapes are sour anyway"
The moral of the story is, it is easy to despise something you can get.
Who should we compare ourselves with in this region, Burma, Philippines or maybe Timor Leste ? Would that be a fair comparison ? What about Zimbabwe in Africa that has a whopping inflation rate of farcical 66,000 percent, where everyone is a millionaire but poor and a loaf of bread costs over 100,000 Zimbabwean dollars.
Isn't it natural that we compare with the best or the better ones rather than with something inferior to us.Wouldn't it be natural that we chose Singapore as a model due to its thumping success and close proximity to us.
Pardon me, Mr Prime Minister, I don't think Singapore is a first-class grapes, I think it is a 'chilipadi' and a 'buah keras'. Malaysia could have been a hotter chillipadi and a tougher buah keras if there where less corruption, nepotisn and cronyism. We have bigger land area, bigger population and much more natural resources than that tiny dot south of us. They have nothing but brains that have made them the envy of many nations and one of the highest per capita income in the world. Singapore is the touchstone for other countries especially Malaysia.
Three weeks ago you said Malaysia was the 6th most competative country in the world, now you say we are the 8th in the world. Which is the correct one?
I tell you what, both of your figures were wrong, cooked up by your good-for-nothing MOF boys.Why didn't they give you the source of their information so your humble citizens can check the validity of your claim.
The correct information, if you want to know and for all Malaysians to know are shown below.These are ratings done by IMD, a leading business school in Switzerland and WEF (World Economic Forum)
Overall Scoreboard 2007 (PDF, 151)
WEF World Competative Ranking
From the chart you would notice Malaysia's ranking for 2007 was 23rd by IMD and 21st by WEF, not 6th or 8th as given to you by your MOF boys who probably did a stitch-up on you.
I do agree with you that the Malaysians economy has been doing fairly well the past few years but at the same time the costs of living has also jumped up making life difficult for the average Malaysians. It is the middle and lower income group who are taking the brunt of the higher prices.
Last but not least, the disinformation must stop.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Sunday, February 17, 2008
HINDRAF: THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS
Hantu Laut
I am not in agreement with what the government has done to stop peaceful demonstrations. On the same note I wouldn't have any sympathy for the Hindraf's organisers who used children to go on the streets to further their dangerous political agenda.
Such selfish action taken by them involving children is appalling and should not be tolerated. They try to use psychological blackmail by using innocent and clueless children to plead to the PM to accede to their demands.Even more disgusting are those parents who lent their children without any consideration for their safety. What are they trying to teach those children at such tender ago ? Learn how to protest and how to defy authority ?
The children are brought along so the police will not use tear gas and water cannon on them due to the presence of those children. They are using them as human shield and would blame the government should any harm befall the children.They underestimated the niceties of the Malaysian police.
What happened today was a clear indication that those in Hindraf are desperate and would use whatever method to get what they wanted.
Hindraf, please leave the children alone.
I am not in agreement with what the government has done to stop peaceful demonstrations. On the same note I wouldn't have any sympathy for the Hindraf's organisers who used children to go on the streets to further their dangerous political agenda.
Such selfish action taken by them involving children is appalling and should not be tolerated. They try to use psychological blackmail by using innocent and clueless children to plead to the PM to accede to their demands.Even more disgusting are those parents who lent their children without any consideration for their safety. What are they trying to teach those children at such tender ago ? Learn how to protest and how to defy authority ?
The children are brought along so the police will not use tear gas and water cannon on them due to the presence of those children. They are using them as human shield and would blame the government should any harm befall the children.They underestimated the niceties of the Malaysian police.
What happened today was a clear indication that those in Hindraf are desperate and would use whatever method to get what they wanted.
Hindraf, please leave the children alone.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
THE UNKINDEST CUT
Hantu Laut
Read the following article from the Economist and see for yourself the hypocrisy of the Western nations who have been outspoken about conservation and preserving the rainforests of the world.
They blame the poor and less developed nations for extracting forest resources to generate revenues without making an effort to help those countries minimise the ecological damage.Much have been said about its conservation but very little had been done to actually conserve it.
From the jungles of Borneo to the deep lust forests of the Amazon, indiscriminate exploitation of the forests have been going on for decades without any sincere effort to minimise it other than providing lip service.
Those like the American charity, Conservation International who are prepared to finance conservation but is limited by its financial resources, wanted the cheapest price possible, which become meaningless to the host country as it does not help in any economic improvement of the country concerned.
Corporations and NGOs do not have sufficient financial resources to undertake this mammoth and non-profit endeavours.It has to be an agglomeration of rich and developed countries putting their resources together.A reasonable conservation fee should be paid to the host country that have agreed to conserve its tropical rainforests for the benefits of the global community
The best possible scenario would be to establish a new body under the auspices of the United Nations and make the top 20 richest countries as permanent members and make them contribute certain percentage of their GDP to the rainforest conservation fee.The selected forests should than be made as World Heritage Site with no commercial activity allowed other than low impact eco tourism.
Here is an opportunity for them to help poorer countries to protect and preserve pristine forests from destruction and none had taken up the offer for a chicken feed sum of US$1.6 million a year.
If the conservationists can't pay this meagre sum than they shouldn't complain if the logging company buy the rights to destroy it.
The government of Cameroon will soon have to sell the pristine tropical rainforest of 830,000 hectares to the loggers to generate revenue for the country, if no rich nation, big corporation or NGOs come forward to conserve it.
The rich Western nations especially the US, Japan and Western European countries should put their money in their mouths.
Read the following article from the Economist and see for yourself the hypocrisy of the Western nations who have been outspoken about conservation and preserving the rainforests of the world.
They blame the poor and less developed nations for extracting forest resources to generate revenues without making an effort to help those countries minimise the ecological damage.Much have been said about its conservation but very little had been done to actually conserve it.
From the jungles of Borneo to the deep lust forests of the Amazon, indiscriminate exploitation of the forests have been going on for decades without any sincere effort to minimise it other than providing lip service.
Those like the American charity, Conservation International who are prepared to finance conservation but is limited by its financial resources, wanted the cheapest price possible, which become meaningless to the host country as it does not help in any economic improvement of the country concerned.
Corporations and NGOs do not have sufficient financial resources to undertake this mammoth and non-profit endeavours.It has to be an agglomeration of rich and developed countries putting their resources together.A reasonable conservation fee should be paid to the host country that have agreed to conserve its tropical rainforests for the benefits of the global community
The best possible scenario would be to establish a new body under the auspices of the United Nations and make the top 20 richest countries as permanent members and make them contribute certain percentage of their GDP to the rainforest conservation fee.The selected forests should than be made as World Heritage Site with no commercial activity allowed other than low impact eco tourism.
Here is an opportunity for them to help poorer countries to protect and preserve pristine forests from destruction and none had taken up the offer for a chicken feed sum of US$1.6 million a year.
If the conservationists can't pay this meagre sum than they shouldn't complain if the logging company buy the rights to destroy it.
The government of Cameroon will soon have to sell the pristine tropical rainforest of 830,000 hectares to the loggers to generate revenue for the country, if no rich nation, big corporation or NGOs come forward to conserve it.
The rich Western nations especially the US, Japan and Western European countries should put their money in their mouths.
The price of conservation
The unkindest cut
Feb 14th 2008
From The Economist print edition
Cameroon wants to sell a forest, but conservationists don't want to buy it
FOR rent: 830,000 hectares of pristine tropical rainforest. Rich in wildlife, including forest elephants and gorillas. Provides a regionally important African green corridor. Price: $1.6m a year. Conservationist tenant preferred, but extractive forestry also considered. Please apply to the Cameroonian minister of forestry.
That, in essence, is what the government of Cameroon has been offering since 2001 in an attempt to make some money from a forest known as Ngoyla-Mintom. The traditional way would be to lease the land to a logging company. But Joseph Matta, the country's forestry minister, would rather lease it to a conservation group. The trouble is, he cannot find one that is prepared to take it off his hands.
The idea of conservation concessions has been around since 2000. It was introduced by an American charity called Conservation International, which realised the going rate for logging concessions was often so low that it could afford to outbid the foresters. It has since leased forests in Guyana—where it has 80,000 hectares of Upper Essequibo—and in Peru, Sierra Leone, Papua New Guinea, Fiji and Mexico. But even in 2001 it reckoned that at $2 a hectare Ngoyla-Mintom was too dear. Its land in Essequibo costs a mere 37 cents a hectare.
Mr Matta, of course, thinks Ngoyla-Mintom is worth every penny. Indeed, the price has gone up. The government now wants additional money to compensate Cameroon for forgoing the jobs and local development that come with logging. The forest is pristine habitat of a sort likely to contain some extremely valuable pieces of timber. It also connects three other large protected areas (see map), and thus forms an important part of a regionally important green corridor. Mr Matta says that if one group of conservationists or another doesn't cough up soon, he really will be forced to get on the phone to the loggers.
A compromise put forward by the World Wide Fund for Nature has failed to find favour. The WWF suggested keeping an unexploited core of Ngoyla-Mintom while the rest is opened to limited “sustainable” hunting and forestry. The quid pro quo would be a lower rent. Read more.....
Friday, February 15, 2008
ELECTION 2008 - WILL THERE BE SURPRISES ?
Hantu Laut
Election Commission Chairman, Tan Sri Abdul Rashid has announced nominations on 24th Feb and election on 8th March.There will be 222 parliamentary seats and 505 state seats up for grab.
Will Pak Lah be lucky this time around? There are mixed reactions as to what would be the result of the forthcoming polls with many still giving him a comfortable win over the oppositions.
As usual the oppositions are still disorganised and are expected to overlap in several areas where each one seems to think they have strong support.A clash between the oppositions would give clear advantage to the BN. Many Malaysians are still not comfortable with the idea of having the oppositions as an alternative. It's a Catch 22 situation and a sense of better the devil you know than the one you don't. The oppositions don't have credible manifestos to make the electorate fall head over heels in love with them.
Anwar Ibrahim of PKR lamented that Abdullah called the election sooner to frustrate him from standing as candidate.He was disbarred from standing for politicial office for 5 years due to his criminal record. The five-year period expires in April this year thus making him eligible to stand in few weeks time.There is some truth to his claim.
Abdullah should have waited and allow Anwar to participate and prove to the people once and for all that Anwar's politicial career is over as claimed by UMNO. Doing what he did would give credence that UMNO fear of Anwar is genuine.
The biggest blow and frustration would be for Hindraf and the Indian community. Most so-called Indian seats are likely to go to BN.There are no predominantly Indian constituencies, most are marginal and need support of other communities to win.
Other disadvantages for the opposition are money and machinery. The BN has a huge war chest and government machinery at their disposal. The main stream media is under their control and monopoly.Worse and most unfair is the campaign period. With only two weeks to go, the opposition would be hard press for time to get their machinery moving to get to the masses.
Some political pundits predicted BN would get less than what they got in 2004 but would still get 2/3 majority. Not good news for the opposition.
I am sure there will be some surprises in store for Malaysians come this March 8th.
Election Commission Chairman, Tan Sri Abdul Rashid has announced nominations on 24th Feb and election on 8th March.There will be 222 parliamentary seats and 505 state seats up for grab.
Will Pak Lah be lucky this time around? There are mixed reactions as to what would be the result of the forthcoming polls with many still giving him a comfortable win over the oppositions.
As usual the oppositions are still disorganised and are expected to overlap in several areas where each one seems to think they have strong support.A clash between the oppositions would give clear advantage to the BN. Many Malaysians are still not comfortable with the idea of having the oppositions as an alternative. It's a Catch 22 situation and a sense of better the devil you know than the one you don't. The oppositions don't have credible manifestos to make the electorate fall head over heels in love with them.
Anwar Ibrahim of PKR lamented that Abdullah called the election sooner to frustrate him from standing as candidate.He was disbarred from standing for politicial office for 5 years due to his criminal record. The five-year period expires in April this year thus making him eligible to stand in few weeks time.There is some truth to his claim.
Abdullah should have waited and allow Anwar to participate and prove to the people once and for all that Anwar's politicial career is over as claimed by UMNO. Doing what he did would give credence that UMNO fear of Anwar is genuine.
The biggest blow and frustration would be for Hindraf and the Indian community. Most so-called Indian seats are likely to go to BN.There are no predominantly Indian constituencies, most are marginal and need support of other communities to win.
Other disadvantages for the opposition are money and machinery. The BN has a huge war chest and government machinery at their disposal. The main stream media is under their control and monopoly.Worse and most unfair is the campaign period. With only two weeks to go, the opposition would be hard press for time to get their machinery moving to get to the masses.
Some political pundits predicted BN would get less than what they got in 2004 but would still get 2/3 majority. Not good news for the opposition.
I am sure there will be some surprises in store for Malaysians come this March 8th.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)