Intelligence from Malaysians about the environment!

It is incumbent for all residents of this planet to be more conscious about preserving the environment for future generations. As it is, some scientists have already concluded that our planet is beyond salvage – past the tipping point. Nonetheless, it is part of the human condition to try and strive, especially for those of us living and working close to the Bukit Gasing Forest Reserve.

Archidex 09, the annual Malaysia Architecture, Interior Design & Building Exhibition, this year focused on environmentally sound practices and developments. Green Product Icons were proudly depicted by various exhibitors, and a new addition to this year’s forum was the Green Bulding Forum where the latest issues in green design and green building index were presented and discussed. The Green Building Index, Malaysia’s home-grown response to similar initiatives in the US, UK, Australia and Singapore, was also jointly launched by Architects Association and Association of Engineers. Participants thus learned and gained from views and insights shared on key issues and trends impacting the building community, especially from the panel of renowned green building experts speaking at the Green Building Forum.

It remains questionable if Green, having arrived in Malaysia, will stay. Foreign experts noted that Malaysians live extraordinarily wastefully when it comes to key resources such as water and fuel. And we do so because of the subsidies that have become entrenched in our way of life. Water, petrol, electricity are all ridiculously cheap in our country, whereas wages are low. Consequently, we are doubly incentivized AGAINST adopting new technologies which are friendly to the environment. These technologies unquestionably lead to savings in consumption, but the upfront cost of adoption are 1) too expensive for most of us and 2) will never be recovered based on the low costs of water and fuel in our country.

Skeptics have also accused developers and corporations of only being interested in the environment because it is better for business. Adoption of the emerging green vocabulary and acquisition of certifications such as the GBI and Greenmark arguably give business enterprises a competitive advantage. However, throughout history since the advent of capitalism, it is this commercial element which has pushed and advanced growth in our societies. Employment has become the means of survival for virtually everyone living on this planet in this era, and consequently, business enterprise and governmental intervention are the twin foundations on which societal change needs to be founded. Now all that remains if for us as individuals to care enough – as reflected in our willingness to pay to save the environment and to voice our concerns to those in authority.


Jointly contributed by K.C. Tan, H.S. Kok, G.S. Koh
31 July 2009

From: www.bukitgasing.webs.com

I used to think that Hishammuddin was a relatively intelligent fellow, in spite of comments by various friends to the contrary. Well, I was duly shocked when he waved around the keris in 2007 proclaiming Malay supremacy. With the new year barely begun, this scion of a proud aristocratic family is again demonstrating his idiocy by calling for demonstrations against the US and Israel. I'm not in support of what Israel is doing, but isn't it hypocritical to ban demonstrations by students when the issues are domestic (and against the ruling coalition), while simultaneously organizing it when it's about the affairs of other nations?!!



NST 2009/01/09
Gaza Under Siege: Ministry plans huge protest by schoolkids By : Regina Lee

PUTRAJAYA: Nearly all schoolchildren in the country will be mobilised to protest against the Gaza offensive by Israeli forces.
Education Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein said about five million pupils and 360,765 teachers from more than 10,000 schools would be involved. "This is to create a wave of pressure for the Israelis to stop their violence and oppression of Palestinian civilians." He said the ministry would be working with the Information, Foreign, and Youth and Sports Ministries, as well as Peace Malaysia, to expand the campaign to a mega scale."When we protested against the US invasion in Iraq, we managed to get 200,000 people into Putra Stadium, Bukit Jalil.
"We are confident that youth leaders from political parties, including those in Pakatan Rakyat will join us in this fight against the Zionist regime," he said after his ministry's New Year gathering at Putrajaya International Convention Centre here yesterday.Hishammuddin said the directive was passed in the cabinet meeting on Wednesday. Asked on the danger of exposing children to such atrocities, the minister said: "When they grow up, they will have to face global issue like peace, environment and the economic crisis."He said he would be using the Unesco platform, of which he is an executive board member, to voice out Malaysia's concern over the Gaza crisis.

Auld Lang Syne

I believe that history repeats itself. So, as we begin a new year, it's good to reflect on not just recent history, but history stretching back.

Social contract (Malaysia)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The social contract in Malaysia refers to the agreement made by the country's founding fathers in the Constitution. The social contract usually refers to a quid pro quo trade-off through Articles 14–18 of the Constitution, pertaining to the granting of citizenship to the non-Malay people of Malaysia, and Article 153, which grants the Malays special rights and privileges. The term has also been used occasionally to refer to other portions of the Constitution, such as the Article stating that Malaysia is a secular state.

In its typical context related to race relations, the social contract has been heavily criticised by many, including politicians from the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition, who contend that constant harping on the non-Malays' debt to the Malays for citizenship has alienated them from the country. Such criticisms have met with opposition from the Malay media and the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), the largest political party in Barisan Nasional. Many Malays, typically from UMNO, have used the social contract to defend the principle of Ketuanan Melayu (Malay supremacy).

Contractual terms

The Constitution does not explicitly refer to a "social contract" (in terms of citizenship rights and privileges), and no act of law or document has ever fully set out the social contract's terms. Its defenders often refer to the Constitution as setting out the social contract, and the Malaysian founding fathers having agreed to it, although no reference to a "social contract" appears in the Constitution. Instead, the social contract is typically taken to mean a quid pro quo agreement that provides the non-Malay and other non-indigenous peoples of Malaysia (mostly the Malaysian Chinese and Malaysian Indian) with citizenship, in return for their granting special privileges to the Malays and indigenous people of Malaysia, collectively referred to as the Bumiputra (sons of the soil).[1]

A higher education Malaysian studies textbook conforming to the government syllabus states: "Since the Malay leaders agreed to relax the conditions for citizenship, the leaders of the Chinese and Indian communities accepted the special position of the Malays as indigenous people of Malaya. With the establishment of Malaysia, the special position status was extended to include the indigenous communities of Sabah and Sarawak."[2]

Another description of the social contract declares it to be an agreement that "Malay entitlement to political and administrative authority should be accepted unchallenged, at least for the time being, in return for non-interference in Chinese control of the economy".[3]

The Constitution explicitly grants the Bumiputra reservations of land, quotas in the civil service, public scholarships and public education, quotas for trade licences, and the permission to monopolise certain industries if the government permits. In reality, however, especially after the advent of the Malaysian New Economic Policy (NEP) due to the racial riots of the May 13 Incident which occurred in 1969 when Malays held only 4% of the Malaysian economy, Bumiputra privileges have extended to other areas; quotas are set for Bumiputra equity in publicly traded corporations, and discounts for them on automobiles and real estate ranging from 5% to 15% are mandated.

The Constitution also included elements of Malay tradition as part of the Malaysian national identity. The Malay rulers were preserved, with the head of state, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, drawn from their ranks. Islam would be the national religion, and the Malay language would be the national language. These provisions, along with the economic privileges accorded by Article 153 of the Constitution, made up one half of the bargain, and have been referred to as the Malay Agenda. The nature of these provisions is disputed; although many Malays refer to them as "rights" – a term common in UMNO rhetoric – critics have argued that the Constitution never refers to special rights for the Malays:

“ There is no such thing as a racial "right" to be given special treatment. And that is not me being argumentative, it's the Constitution. You won't find "Malay rights" in the supreme law of our land, instead, you will find terms such as "special position" of Malays. The difference is more than semantics. A right implies something inalienable. A privilege on the other hand is a benefit, presumably given to those who need it.”

Such critics have used this basis to argue that the social contract was meant "to protect the Malays from being overwhelmed economically, administratively and politically from the immigrant ethnic groups of the time", instead of granting particular special rights to the Malays.[4]

Some suggest that this bias towards Malays in education and politics is, in part, a response to the ability of the Malaysian Chinese to secure most of the country's wealth. The Indian Malaysians, as with the Indian Singaporeans, can make a case for being those that lose out the most, although this may be disputed.[citation needed]

The government did roll back the quota system for entry to public universities in 2003 and introduced a policy of "meritocracy". However, this new system was widely criticised by the non-Bumiputras as benefiting the Bumiputras by streaming them into a matriculation programme that featured relatively easy coursework while the non-Bumiputras were forced to sit for the Sijil Tinggi Persekolahan Malaysia (STPM, or Malaysia Higher School Certificate). Although in theory non-Bumiputras may enter the matriculation stream, and Bumiputras may sit for the STPM, this rarely occurs in reality. Meritocracy was also criticised by some quarters in UMNO as being discriminatory, as it caused the rural and less-prepared Malays to fall behind in university entrance rates.

The Reid Commission which prepared the framework for the Constitution stated in its report that Article 153, the backbone of the social contract, would be temporary only, and recommended that it be reviewed 15 years after independence. The Commission also said that the article and its provisions would only be necessary to avoid sudden unfair disadvantage to the Malays in competing with other members of Malaysian society, and that the privileges accorded the Malays by the article should be gradually reduced and eventually eliminated. Due to the May 13 Incident, after which a state of emergency was declared, however, 1972, the year that Article 153 was due to be reviewed, passed without incident.

According to the social contract's proponents, in return for the enactment of these originally temporary provisions, non-Malay Malaysians are accorded citizenship under Chapter 1 of Part III of the Constitution. Except for the Bumiputra privileges, non-Bumiputras are otherwise generally regarded as equal to their Bumiputra counterparts, and are accorded all the rights of citizenship as under Part II of the Constitution. In recent years, some have sought to provide Malay citizens with more political rights as per the ketuanan Melayu philosophy. However, most of these ketuanan Melayu proponents argue that their additional rights are already written as law and thus only seek to "defend" them from their opponents.

When he assumed the Presidency of UMNO, Tunku Abdul Rahman (later the first Prime Minister of Malaysia) stated that "...when we (the Malays) fought against the Malayan Union (which upset the position of the Malays' rights) the others took no part in it because they said this is purely a Malay concern, and not theirs. They also indicate that they owe their loyalty to their countries of origin, and for that reason they oppose the Barnes Report to make Malay the national language. If we were to hand over the Malays to these so-called Malayans when their nationality has not been defined there will be a lot of problems ahead of us." However, he continued that "For those who love and feel they owe undivided loyalty to this country, we will welcome them as Malayans. They must truly be Malayans, and they will have the same rights and privileges as the Malays." [5]

[edit] Early criticism

Article 153, and thus by extension the social contract, has been a source of controversy since the early days of Malaysia. Singaporean politician Lee Kuan Yew (later the first Prime Minister of Singapore) of the People's Action Party (PAP; its Malaysian branch would later become the Democratic Action Party or DAP) publicly questioned the need for Article 153 in Parliament, and called for a "Malaysian Malaysia". Questioning the social contract, Lee stated: "According to history, Malays began to migrate to Malaysia in noticeable numbers only about 700 years ago. Of the 39 percent Malays in Malaysia today, about one-third are comparatively new immigrants like the secretary-general of UMNO, Dato' Syed Ja'afar Albar, who came to Malaya from Indonesia just before the war at the age of more than thirty. Therefore it is wrong and illogical for a particular racial group to think that they are more justified to be called Malaysians and that the others can become Malaysian only through their favour."[6]

Lee criticised the government's policies by stating that "[t]hey, the Malay, have the right as Malaysian citizens to go up to the level of training and education that the more competitive societies, the non-Malay society, has produced. That is what must be done, isn't it? Not to feed them with this obscurantist doctrine that all they have got to do is to get Malay rights for the few special Malays and their problem has been resolved." [7] He also lamented, "Malaysia — to whom does it belong? To Malaysians. But who are Malaysians? I hope I am, Mr Speaker, Sir. But sometimes, sitting in this chamber, I doubt whether I am allowed to be a Malaysian."Lee's statements upset many, especially politicians from the Alliance, Barisan Nasional's predecessor. Then Finance Minister Tan Siew Sin of the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) called Lee the "greatest, disruptive force in the entire history of Malaysia and Malaya." Tunku Abdul Rahman, the first Prime Minister of Malaysia, considered Lee to be too extremist in his views, while other UMNO politicians thought Lee was simply taking advantage of the situation to pander to the Malaysian Chinese.

PAP-UMNO relations were chilled further by the PAP running several candidates in elections on the Malay peninsula, with UMNO retaliating by trying to run candidates on its ticket in Singapore. Eventually, the Tunku decided to ask Singapore, through Lee and some of his closest confidantes, to secede from Malaysia. Eventually, Lee agreed to do so, and Singapore became an independent nation in 1965. The Constitution of Singapore contains an article, Article 152, that names the Malays as "indigenous people" of Singapore and therefore requiring special safeguarding of their rights and privileges as such. However, the article specifies no policies for such safeguarding, and no reference to a "social contract" has ever been made by the political establishment in Singapore.

[edit] Present debate

In 2005, the social contract was brought up by Lim Keng Yaik of the Gerakan party in Barisan Nasional. Lim, a Minister in the government, asked for a re-examination of the social contract so that a "Bangsa Malaysia" (literally Malay for a Malaysian race or Malaysian nation) could be achieved. Lim was severely criticised by many Malay politicians, including Khairy Jamaluddin who is Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's son-in-law and Deputy Chairman of the UMNO Youth wing, and Ahmad Shabery Cheek, a prominent Malay Member of Parliament from the state of Terengganu. The Malay press (most of which is owned by UMNO) also ran articles condemning the questioning of the social contract. Lim was adamant, asking in an interview "How do you expect non-Malays to pour their hearts and souls into the country, and to one day die for it if you keep harping on this? Flag-waving and singing the Negaraku (the national anthem) are rituals, while true love for the nation lies in the heart."

A year earlier, Abdullah had given a speech where he mentioned the most "significant aspect" of the social contract as "the agreement by the indigenous peoples to grant citizenship to the immigrant Chinese and Indians". However, Abdullah went on to state that "the character of the nation" changed to "one that Chinese and Indian citizens could also call their own". However, the speech went largely unremarked.

In the end, Lim stated that the Malay press had blown his comments out of proportion and misquoted him. The issue ended with UMNO Youth chief and Education Minister Hishamuddin Hussein warning people not to "bring up the issue again as it has been agreed upon, appreciated, understood and endorsed by the Constitution."

Earlier that year, Hishamuddin had waved the keris (traditional Malay dagger) at the UMNO Annual General Meeting, warning non-Malays not to threaten "Malay rights" and to question the social contract. This was applauded by the UMNO delegates, but widely ridiculed in the Malaysian blogosphere.

Other politicians, mostly from opposition parties, have also criticised the NEP and its provisions, but refrained from directly criticising the social contract or Article 153 of the Constitution. Former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim of the Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) promised he would roll back the NEP if he ever gained power, and many from the Democratic Action Party (DAP) have also spoken out against the NEP. They criticised the NEP as benefiting only a small portion of Malays, mostly well-connected and urban, while ignoring the rural and poor Malays, and noted that the NEP's avowed goal was to give the Malays a 30% share in the country's economic equity, regardless of whether only a few or many Malays held this share. The DAP has been particular in arguing it does not question Article 153 or the social contract, but merely seeks to abolish inequitable policies such as the NEP.Article 10 (4) of the Constitution permits the government to ban the questioning of Article 153, and thus the social contract; indeed, the Sedition Act does illegalise such questioning. The Internal Security Act (ISA) also permits the government to detain anybody it desires for practically an infinite period of time, and many, including politicians from the DAP such as Lim Kit Siang and Karpal Singh have been held under the ISA; it is widely believed this was because of their vehement criticism of Malay privileges.

More recently, some commentators have remarked on younger Malaysians chafing at the terms of the social contract. One wrote that "half a century on, younger non-Malays especially feel they were not parties to deals and contracts (at the time of independence) and should not be beholden to them."[8] In 2006, several non-Malay parties in the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition called for a reexamination of the social contract; Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's refusal to do so reportedly triggered "much consternation". Abdullah was quoted in the Malay media as saying: "If we change this balance and if we are forced to meet all over again on the rights of every group, it will not be the same as now. It would be far from satisfactory. Whatever the new formula, it will not succeed because the old formula is enough, is already maximum. As everyone had agreed to this before, why do we want to disturb this and meet again?"[9]

That year, at the UMNO General Assembly, several delegates criticised other members of the government coalition for criticising the social contract and ketuanan Melayu. One stated that "If they question our rights, then we should question theirs. So far we have not heard the Malays questioning their right to citizenship when they came in droves from other countries."[10] Others argued that the Bumiputra communities continued to lag behind the rest of the country economically, and called for stronger measures in line with the social contract.[11] One delegate, Hashim Suboh, made headlines when he asked Hishammuddin, who had brandished the kris again, "Datuk Hisham has unsheathed his keris, waved his keris, kissed his keris. We want to ask Datuk Hisham when is he going to use it?" Hashim said that "force must be used against those who refused to abide by the social contract", provoking criticism from the DAP, which accused him of sedition.[12]In response to what it termed "[t]he veiled threat of violence ... made explicit during last year's UMNO conference", The Economist criticised the social contract, calling it "absurd and unjust to tell the children of families that have lived in Malaysia for generations that, in effect, they are lucky not to be deported and will have to put up with second-class treatment for the rest of their lives, in the name of 'racial harmony'", and called policies based on the social contract "official racism".[13]

Usage in other contexts

The social contract has also occasionally been referred to in a context other than that involving race relations. In the 2004 general election, the DAP ran on a platform of defending the "social contract" by combatting an Islamic theocracy, which the Constitution forbids, but was endorsed by former Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad, Lim Keng Yaik and by PAS, the second-largest Malay-based political party in the country.

Bukit Antarabangsa: The Roots of Tragedy

The roots of tragedy
QUESTION TIMEBy P. GUNASEGARAM

Banning development on hillsides is the wrong prescription to prevent landslides. The right one is to ensure that standards are set and adhered to.

YOU don’t ban cars because of accidents. You make sure that people drive carefully, roads are built better, cars are safer and in good condition, people use safety belts and only qualified people drive, to mention just a few measures to reduce road deaths.

Short-circuiting any of these, or compromising on these standards, results in higher accident rates and a greater number of deaths and injuries when accidents happen. Like all public concerns, road safety has to be managed.

The recent hill-slope tragedy at Bukit Antarabangsa just outside Kuala Lumpur is yet another example of management of the process of property project assessment and development going awry.

Just as banning cars is not the solution to death on the roads, stopping hillside development is not the answer to the problem. It will only compound what is already a difficult situation in the country with regard to property projects given the looming economic crisis, which has made potential buyers rather cautious.

Lest we be accused of insensitivity and an uncaring attitude towards the plight of those killed, their families and those who are homeless because of the landslide, let us reassure them that concern for them and their worries is uppermost in our minds.

To arrive at the correct solution to problems requires emotions to be calmer and a proper perspective of the issues at hand. Otherwise, in the haste to appear conciliatory to those affected we can make decisions which will benefit no one at the end of the day and potentially harm others.

The problem in this case is not hillside development but the wrong kind of hillside development. The solution is not banning hillside development but ensuring that hillside development takes place under carefully controlled and supervised conditions to reduce the danger of landslips.
What are the prerequisites for that? First and foremost we need honest and competent local councils and authorities. Honesty is all important, because if the integrity of councillors and council heads can be compromised, the decision-making is going to be bad and in favour of the developer, no matter what.

Next is competence. That’s necessary at least at two levels. First, you need it to be able to establish what are the standards for hill-slope development. Next you need that to be able to monitor and establish for certain that developers adhere to the standards agreed upon.
For those who want to find the root cause of the tragedy, that’s a good place to start.
The questions to ask are these: Are our local authorities honest enough to turn down inducements that developers may offer and stick to professionalism and integrity? Are they competent enough to ensure that proper safety standards are set and adhered to?
If our answers are “no” to both those questions, then we should go about taking measure such that the answers are affirmative soonest. Honesty and integrity come first. If that can be established, competence can be bought.

There are enough consultants and experts on all kinds of construction methods and standards set in other parts of the world.

It will be quite straightforward, from a technical point of view, to set standards for hill-slope development. Perhaps this can be done federally and the standards made a requirement under the law for all local authorities to adhere to.

That will mean that all construction will be governed by a set of uniform standards no matter where in Malaysia the construction takes place.

On the second point of enforcement and supervision, one should merely send a thief to catch a thief. Developers have their own consultants to ensure projects are carried out to specifications. All the local authorities need to do is to have their own to ensure the same.

The cost of these consultants can then be charged back to the developers, who probably will pass the increased costs to the consumer. But such increased costs, in relation to the size of the
project, are likely to be small and constitute a form of insurance to house buyers.

These measures are basic and are a matter of routine in developed countries around the world – and to be sure there are many safe hillside development projects around the globe, too. Why they are not adopted here is a matter of some amount of conjecture, but not much, and it is possible for the reader to draw his own conclusions.

Even if all these measures are implemented, there is no absolute guarantee that landslides won’t take place. Just like car accidents can’t be completely stopped, we can’t completely stop landslides.

But without a doubt, we can take many measures to reduce their incidence, and the chances of them happening again, and cut the number of fatalities when they happen.

Which is what government, both local and federal, should be doing instead of theatrically thumping their chests and crying out in anguish each time such a thing happens.

P. Gunasegaram is managing editor of The Star. He thinks that corruption is responsible for a lot more ills than we sometimes realise.

Thank you, Zaid!

Once in a while, a voice of sanity surfaces:


Zaid: Chinese Malaysians Have Made Great Sacrifices
http://www.mysinchew.com/node/16969
KUALA LUMPUR: Former minister in the prime minister's department Datuk Zaid Ibrahim said true Malays need not be afraid, or feel lack of a sense of security.
"Take myself as an example. I'm a pure Malay, but I have a sense of security. I feel proud of my own race and culture."
However he said, the problem is that many people do not understand or respect history. Indians, Chinese and Malays have been participating in the nation-building process since a few centuries ago. The Indians used to work in the estates, while the Chinese and Indonesians have all made valuable contributions and sacrifices for the nation too. But we have all forgotten this.
Zaid Ibrahim quit his Cabinet post because he did not agree to the government's decision of detaining civilians under the Internal Security Act (ISA).
He said during an exclusive interview with Sin Chew Daily that the Chinese used to work here as miners, and they made great sacrifices during the confrontation with the communists, adding that we must understand history and what they have done for the nation.
"The rights of every individual must be respected and taken care of by everyone else."
"We are only talking about Malaysia as the 19th largest export country in the world, and that we have the twin towers and are a developed country... Do you think we have done all this ourselves? You're wrong. This achievement has been made after so many people from different ethnic groups have sacrificed for the nation.
"We are not talking about the positive things, but instead discussing how we should get worried because the Chinese have opened how many more new stores here.
"As a matter of fact, the first feeling we should have is not about worry. We should work harder to keep up with them instead.
"I've never been worried about the Chinese. In my legal firm, my partner is a Chinese, and we trust each other. Do you think I have built up my success all on my own?
"I'm not scared that the Chinese are smart, for I'm also very smart. I'm not scared that the Chinese are hard working, for I'm also very hard working. We have bad guys in every ethnic group, and you're cheated simply because you're not smart enough. We must educate young Malaysians to look at things from a positive perspective."
Zaid said certain people have kept on mentioning May 13 to blackmail the people. However he felt that given our current situation, this thing would never happen again.
"I am thinking, for a better future, all Malaysians should stand up and speak out bravely. The Chinese must defend the rights of the Malays, and the Malays must also defend the rights of the Chinese. Everyone must be properly taken care of here."
He felt that we should not rely on a single political party to take care of a particular community. It should be that the rights of every individual must be respected and taken care of by everyone else.

(By HOU YALUN/Translated by DOMINIC LOH/Sin Chew Daily)

The Backyard Environmentalists of Petaling Jaya

It’s fantastic how residents associations have stood up in 2008 to make known their grouses, especially about the poor performance of the Klang Valley’s various municipal authorities. Banding together into one of many Joint Action Committees, Petaling Jaya ("PJ") and Kuala Lumpur ("KL") citizens in particular have conducted public demonstrations, filed suits and led the way in exploiting the media and local press to further their causes, ranging from complaints about out of control advertising billboards, poor sanitation and traffic woes to broader issues such as environmental protection. It goes to prove that the best way to get asses off couches is to bring the cause into our backyards.

The ongoing saga of Bukit Gasing in Kuala Lumpur is a classic example of the power of NIMBY (“Not In My Back Yard”) activism. Back in 2006, residents living in the foothills of what used to be colonial rubber estates, got wind that development was being contemplated by owners of undeveloped portions of the area, which these residents have been enjoying as a green backdrop for several years.

For those who aren’t aware of the situation, a group of PJ residents living in the foothills of Gasing Hill conducted an effective campaign in 20006/2007 to mislead members of a very gullible Malaysian press corps into believing that a forest reserve was about to be developed by unscrupulous developers in cahoots with corrupt city officials. By recasting their neighbour as a mysterious agent of politicos bent on the destruction of forests, these residents managed to garner a huge swell of public support, with its calls for demonstrations drawing participants even from other towns.

It subsequently surfaced that the so-called forest reserve was actually overgrown residential lots with corresponding titles dating back to the 1970’s, before anyone came to live in the area. In effect, these residents were trying to deprive their neighbours of their right to build after they the present residents had themselves happily bought homes in the “forest reserve”. It’s a pity that the same amount of energy isn’t being applied to the true destruction of rainforests in rural Peninsular Malaysia: simple math would suggest that saving thousands of acres of virgin jungle will do the world a lot more good than defending 38 acres of a dilapidated rubber estate in the city. But therein lies the rub: those thousands of acres aren’t in the backyards of these activists.

Hypocrisy at the Zoo

The Singapore Zoo recently unveiled a new show “The Rainforest Fights Back”, in which a fat and gaudily bejewelled man claiming to be a land developer attempts to “cut up” precious tracts of rainforest to be developed into a hotel, resort and various other projects. In proceeding to the targeted site deep in the forest, he gets lost but is able to hoodwink an innocent native girl to guide him in excahnge for a bag of candies. She is of course dismayed when his intentions to transform her forest become known but luckily, the animals of the forest get into the act, and repel him by throwing nuts at him.

Perhaps the Zoo ought to have consulted with Capitaland, presently the largest developer in South East Asia, (and a major sponsor) of the Zoo when the show was being planned. Had they done so, they would have more accurately portrayed the villainous developer as a highly educated, expensively bespoked graduate of NUS with connections to the Singapore government instead of the uncouth bumbling red-neck portrayed on stage. I don’t think any self respecting developer would be caught dead either dressed like or behaving like that actor.

On a general level, it’s been perpetually interesting to observe how conservationists generally come from highly developed nations which have already chopped down their own forests. Statistically, more forests are actually cut down for farmland, timber, dams and subterraneous natural resources rather than for development. However, it probably wouldn’t resonate as well with a gullible audience to be presented with the notion that forests are being cut down so that they can get hamburgers from their fast food outlets, furniture for their apartments, and fuel for the powerplants generating electricity for their TV’s and computers. Nor would it be politically correct to suggest that the natives are themselves burning rainforests in order to create farmland, build new villages and in general eke out a better life for themselves. It is indeed more convenient to appeal to this affluent audience’s sense of righteous indignation by portraying that forests are being destroyed for luxurious holiday destinations which would be beyond even their ability to pay for.

The test of true concern which citizens of developed nations have time and again failed at is found in their unwillingness to provide sustained support for those whose lot in this world is pathetic. We’re ok when it comes to occasionally giving a donation, but we balk at the notion of providing regularly to undeveloped nations. And don’t even think about asking us to drive around less, or not switch on our air-conditioners so often, or eat less beef, or shop less at our malls.

Incidentally, the Singapore Zoo is great. Everyone with the opportunity should pay it a visit.

Internal Security Act

What could possibly have been going on in the heads of the our leaders to have sanctioned the arrest of 3 persons under the Internal Security Act? I can understand Raja Petra: his attacks on the Deputy Prime Minister Rosmah Najib and her husband were getting to be a little too close for comfort. But why Teresa Kok – an inexperienced politician - and why the reporter Hoon Cheng Tan – one of dozens who have been covering the seditious antics of UMNO’s Datuk Ahmad Ismail?

Speculation 1: Najib had to get Raja Petra out of the way, but to detain him alone would be too obvious. So pick a couple of other targets- ones which aren’t too high profile – to get a mixed bag and attempt to spin it as a general initiative to calm the growing waves of unrest in the country.

Speculation 2: Same as above for Petra, but overtly attack a member from each of the Opposition and the Media, as a warning sign that Badawi and Co are willing to use brute force to stay in power.

Speculation 3: Imagine this… A cramped closet. Inside are Badawi and his closest allies. All except the PM are fretful, sweating nervously and emitting BO as the news of the Opposition courting members of parliament in Taiwan zip in on their latest HSDPA handphones. Pak Lah, the epitome of calm, nods off as usual, but owing to the dim lighting, his nodding was interpreted as acquiescence to proceed by the others present. Enter… the Malaysia Zone! Da Da Dee Dee Da Da Dee Dee

Speculation 4: Badawi and the leader of the Opposition, Anwar Ibrahim (a real hypocrite, bless him!) are secretly in league. This scheme, which any political monkey could have foreseen as being fraught with more downside than upside, was cooked up because Anwar’s efforts to woo enough MP’s over to topple the government on Anwar’s (rapidly approaching) boasted date of September 16 wasn’t working. And so, Badawi had to do something spectacularly stupid to push public opinion back towards Pakatan Rakyat. Ta Daa!

The reported response from the police regarding Hoon Cheng’s arrest was a classic: they claimed to be attempting to protect her. But what can you expect from wise guys who walk around collecting protection money: they didn’t know what else to say and so used the same line that they apply to local shopowners. Wise guys in uniform: aren’t there a few movies along this line? And so we come full circle: greek actors wearing masks on a stage: Hypocrites.

Do trees falling make a sound?

My friends in Penang were inconvenienced over the weekend by a landslide which blocked a principal road they often use. There were several other landslides in the state brought on by the continuous rain over the past few days. These incidents bring to mind an old philosophical question: does a tree falling deep in the forest make a sound if nobody hears it?

The response from some of the affected residents is classic. As reported in the Star “Landslides in Penang being cleared”, September 8, 2008), one of them managed to highlight the idiocy of living next to hills in two concise sentences:
“Lee Wai Tuck, 46, said landslides in their area were common. He said he was shocked to see his backyard covered with mud and rocks right up to his back door.”

Now, if I were living in an area where landslides were common, it wouldn’t at all surprise me if an abundance of mud and rocks were to appear suddenly in my living room. Moreover, I wouldn’t be looking to point fingers.

Penang’s Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng, on visiting the residents said the Government would identify the ownership of the hilly area. “If it is privately owned, the state will ask the owners to do remedial work”.

However in Selangor, vocal critics aligned with Lim’s Pakatan Rakyat (“PR”) party colleagues are doing everything they possibly can to ensure no works take place on hillslopes, even if those slopes need stabilizing. One of PR’s more famous MP’s, a certain R. Sivarasa (defender of alleged Malaysian sodomists), reportedly ran around earlier this year vapidly and repeatedly saying “Not one cangkul in the ground” in seeking to publicize his efforts on behalf of various residents living around Gasing Hill. (For you non-Malaysians, a cangkul is akin to a spade. This is actually a great study of hypocritical owners telling other owners why the former should have the right to live dangerously but not the latter. More on this another day).

Another interesting case study which I've ben tracking is the hillside project called Damansara21 where work has been halted as the result of complaints by its neighbours: the owner, Selangor Dredging Berhad, is in a Catch-22 situation: do works, risk landslides and be condemned; don’t do works, risk landslides and be condemned.

I’ve been told, and it makes sense to me, that just as trees fall naturally without human interference, landslides also occur naturally without human interference. The residents living on and around hillslopes voluntarily choose to do so with this knowledge and should move out if they are concerned about landslides. However Malaysians, being what we are, are clearly capable of building our houses on sand without foundations and then scratching our head in wonder when the rains come.

Pakatan Rakyat or Pakatan Hutan

The Malay Mail published an article entitled "Rape of forest reserve continues unabated" on 3 September 2008. It was topped (as usual) by a provocative photo of an excavator next to a mess of fallen trees, bearing the caption "Deforestation: Illegal land clearing taking place in the Raja Muda Musa Forest Reserve. This picture was taken last May"

This was a great expose containing multiple instances of hypocrisy:

State executive councillor Elizabeth Wong continues to display her utter disregard for the poor and disenfranchised. It's easy to shout "Save the forest" from her air-conditioned office and comfortable home, but who gives a shit about the farmers who eke out a living from huts next to the forest. “Officers in charge of enforcement should act firmly. We cannot be selective about when we want to carry out preventive action because this is a serious problem,” she added.

The best part of this latest nonsense from the immature state government of Selangor is that it was another State executive councillor, Yaakob Sapari, who was in charge of Agriculture and Natural Resources who stopped the enforcement officers. "Yaakob told Malay Mail that he wanted to give those who have encroached into the forest reserve more time to move out and find an alternative site... Almost all these farmers have been lurking in and around the forest reserve for many years and have refused to leave, simply because they have no where else to go."

On a general tack, this article is one of so many others by the Malaysian media that obviously pander to the public's desire for scandal at the expense of accurate and fair reporting. I've had the pleasure of chatting with various editors who have at various times separately commented that what sells newspapers is sex, violence and scandal; truth doesn't figure into the picture. Let the readers be misled, so long as they keep buying our paper!!

The entire barrage of articles accompanying the recent landslide in Damansara Heights provided a vivid study of how wildly differing accounts can be of just one, manifestly observable event: some reported that mud had flowed into the house while others claimed that whole houses were completely destroyed; some claimed that the residents were fearfully relocating while another emphasized that residents want to move back or are staying put, etc etc.

In this case, having failed to find tantalizing and current photos to back the article, the Malay Mail dug out a photo which was not only outdated, but not even of the affected areas and parties. Contrary to the title and photo, it turns out that there was in fact not just one excavator at the forest reserve, but three, all of which were driven by officers from the Selangor Forestry Department going about their duties! It's getting so bad that the newsstand looks like it only has tabloids on offer: next thing we'll see is pictures of little green men running about on the front page.

To the State Government of Tan Sri Khalid, I say: GROW UP! Life is complex and the last thing you ought to be doing is behaving as if there is only one solution to every problem. And while you're growing up, stop hypocritically calling yourself Pakatan Rakyat, and start calling yourselves Pakatan Hutan. At least we'll know what we're voting for.

I generally confine my views to the Malaysian scene and will return to it shortly after some additional research. However, it's always good to take note of hypocrisy when it happens on a large scale. And surely nothing can be grander than committing a blatant act of hypocrisy on the Olympic stage. At this point, you're probably thinking about the idiotic games officials who invoked the gods of Milli Vanilli (did I even spell his name right?) when they allowed a little girl to be impersonated during the Opening Ceremonies. But I'm thinking more of Putin and his cronies (yes, they have cronies in super powers too): Send a contingent to Beijing to profess unity, fraternity, human excellence, etc., etc., etc., while launching an attack on Georgia AT THE SAME TIME! Wow! Now THAT'S what I call hypocrisy! It doesn't quite rank up there with Nazi Germany hosting the games, but it's close.

And always in the background is the Grand Master of Hypocrisy. For those of you that are blinded by the razzle dazzle of Hollywood, pay attention to the small print which points to the acts of the US in fomenting discord all around the world. As it relates to the theme of this post, American reporters were sent to Sichuan Province just as the games started to casually question victims of the earthquake whether they resented the Chinese government for spending billions on the Olympics instead of rehabilitating cities and villages ravaged by the quake. To their dismay, they encountered national pride and faith. By some lucky quirk of editorialism, the interviews were allowed to be broadcast, including an off the cuff admission by the reporter that Americans are whiners when compared to the bravery and confidence expressed by true victims. Ain't it amazing how the Games brings out the best?

PR REPORT CARD: D, MAYBE F

So I’m talking to a young friend of mine working on a class project, for which he’s been reading various reports and wondering why the new Selangor Exco is so anti-commerce. He pointed out the following in particular:

State assemblywoman Elizabeth Wong has said, “Local councils should be the first filter to ensure that there is a sustainable environment, which is why local elected representatives should be on the board… The positions would be filled by non-governmental organisation members, community leaders and some political representatives.” (The Star)

Her partners in the DAP seem to be bent on nationalizing everything:
“Among the initiatives, they [DAP’s Edward Lee Poh Lin (Bukit Gasing state assemblyperson), Elizabeth Wong (Bukit Lanjan state assemblyperson), PKR’s S Sivarasa (Subang MP) and Hee Loy Sian (PJ Selatan MP)], will undertake is to ask the Federal Territory MPs to raise the matter with DBKL to halt the work and to re-purchase the land from the developer before gazetting it as a green lung… “The question of the compensation will be done in detail but it should not be done at the profit of the developer,” said Lee. (Malaysiakini)

The State Exco has put various projects on hold. MPAJ was reported as a state acquisition of one of these two properties for RM290 million (The Sun)

First, it’s interesting to observe that the business sector appears to have been sidelined: the assemblypersons don’t seem interested in what local businesses have to say. Second, I work with about 30 colleagues; if the company can't make a profit, well, that would be 30 families without a breadwinner in short order. Is it the intention for the State government to hire the people who will lose jobs as companies go out of business?

Indian industrial leader Tarun Das’ reaction to the momentous fall of the Berlin Wall was cited by TL Friedman in his book “The World is Flat” through an insightful description of the state of India from independence to 1989:

“Nehru had come to power [after the end of British colonial rule] and had a huge country to manage, and no experience of running a country: The US was busy with Europe and Japan and the Marshall Plan. So Nehru looked north, across the Himalayas, and sent his team of economists to Moscow. They came back and said that this country [the Soviet Union] was amazing. They allocate resources, they give licenses, there is a planning commission that decides everything, and the country moves. So we took that model and forgot we have a private sector… That private sector got put under this wall of regulation. By 1991, the private sector was there, but under wraps, and there was mistrust about business. They made profits! The entire infrastructure from 1974 to 1991 was government owned… [The burden of state ownership] almost bankrupted the country… We were always at 3 percent growth, the so-called Hindu rate of growth – slow, cautious, and conservative. To make [better returns], you had to go to America.”

I wouldn’t of course compare BN’s recent election losses to either the fall of the Berlin Wall or Indian independence; or the PR coalition to Nehru’s administration, but there are some interesting parallels. It has been shown again and again that government controls will not lead to the utopia that many social democrats envision. Just look at the state of our steel sector which is rife with profiteering and the size of our government bureaucracy which absorbs a crushing 51% of our GNP.

Can you imagine how many schools RM290million will build? How many impoverished families could be fed if we could reduce some of the resources used to fund our umpteen ministries? Can it be argued that spending monies to buy back pieces of private land is justifiable? At this pace, any time I’m upset about what my neighbour is doing on his land, I’ll petition the government to acquire his property! After all, why should only the residents next to vacant lots be entitled to public funds to expand their backyards?

I’m all for reviewing fishy projects involving persons connected with the old authorities. But it seems like some of our new reps are going on a witch-hunt: Are we going to throw out the baby with the bathwater?

Anyways, I told my friend that it is still early days. After all, there are lots of other hypocrites in the assembly: maybe they'll cancel each other out.

MOOKL - (Coalition to) Move Out Of KL

Here’s a useful suggestion. Move out of KL.

Those who make the most noise about the increasing population in Kuala Lumpur should be the first to volunteer to move out.

Population increase is inevitable. According to Department of Statistics, there is one baby born every 58 seconds in KL. By 2020, there will be over 377 million more people simply by birth.


KL City Plan NOT Flawed

The National Physical Plan (NPP) anticipates population increase, development and refurbishment and there are plans for these.

Featured in NST recently, Derek Fernandez claimed that the KL Draft Plan is flawed because it contradicts the NPP (25 persons per hectare) as stated below:

“…However, in line with NPP objectives to achieve higher levels of land use efficiency, better use of infrastructure, in particular public transport and to create a higher quality urban environment with more parks and recreation areas,the present overall gross urban density of approximately 29 persons per hectare will need to decrease slightly to 25 persons per hectare. This target gross urban density has been adopted to establish a macro level assessment of the need to provide urban land.”

If DBKL were to follow the NPP guidelines strictly, all residents would have to live in detached homes and not terrace/link homes, apartments and condominiums - which is practically not achievable.

A quick check on the NPP’s website revealed that Fernandez conveniently left out the subsequent paragraphs that states:

“For the individual states, this figure will need to be adjusted to account for the development characteristics of each area. The present overall gross density of Kuala Lumpur is for example higher than 25 persons per hectare. At the Kuala Lumpur conurbation level however, 25 persons per hectare is an applicable average even though individual components of the conurbation, such as Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur have been developed at higher
densities.

Accounting for the increase in urban population to the year 2020, a further 331,520 hectares of land will be required for urban uses. This results in a total commitment for urban land in 2020 of some 768,610 hectares; an area equivalent to approximately 5.8% of Peninsular Malaysia’s land area.”

Source: NPP Town Plan
Scroll down to 4.5.4 Urban Land -> i. Requirements

Isn’t it a coincidence that his career has grown (and the number of clients) by leaps and bounds in light of these issues? Are lawyers allowed to ‘advertise’ and 'sell' their service via the media?

The lazy mainstream, alternative media and blogs who don’t bother to do their own research, preferring to conveniently quote him blindly, contribute to his rising popularity.

Taking advantage of such issues for career advancement is just way below ‘low’.

Implication of No-Development and No-Population Increase

Cities should be allowed to grow, given proper development plans. By saying no to development and to population increase, the noisemakers are in fact implying that:

* Children cannot live close to their elderly parents

* Young couples should buy houses outside of KL if they want a home of their own

* Outstation folks and foreigners cannot marry and live with KL-lites

* Outstation and foreign students who come to study in the city cannot stay on to work after they graduate

* Anyone from outstation cannot find employment in the city

* Expatriates are not welcomed

* No one other than existing residents can move to / live in the city

* It’s ok for prices of property to rise due to property shortage


Take Action

Everyone should contribute by taking action, and not just pay lip service. Citizens should do their bit by moving out of the city. The government must do their bit by improving public transportation and building better public roads. Toll rates must be reduced. And City Hall must ensure strict compliance by developers.

Many others have already moved further from the heart of the city because they can get a more comfortable home and a better living environment for a lesser value. I for one am moving my family to Sg Buloh.

The noisemakers should set an example by being the first to move out.

If not, don’t expect any support for exercising hypocrisy.

Damansara 21 - Advertorial

“Hill-slope development: Planners must have flexibility to decide”

After so many “against-hill slope-development” articles on the papers, finally... I see a letter (in NST which dated 22 May 2008), written by S.S.S from Kuala Lumpur, which offers a different point of view. I hope more of the silent majority would come forth and speak against the ‘noisy’ minority.

“Hill-slope development: Planners must have flexibility to decide”

I AM an engineer and would like to clarify some misconceptions highlighted in the media regarding hill-slope development.
While I do recognise the Highland Towers tragedy as a lesson for all of us, we must also acknowledge that if proper precautions and technical plans are put in place, there is also nothing wrong in building houses or apartments on hill slopes.

What is important is for the engineers and builders to put in place the right plan and technology to ensure that the safety aspects of the development are given attention.

In this regard, I urge the public to not oppose all forms of hill-slope development.

As long as safety precautions are taken into consideration, city planners must be given the flexibility to decide.

“Pakatan reps could have done better” ??

The residents of Bandar Mahkota Cheras are caught in the middle of a right- of- way tussle between Cheras- Kajang Expressway concessionaire Grand Saga Sdn Bhd and Bandar Mahkota Cheras’s developer, Nurajaya Sdn Bhd.

A reader of NST had voiced his opinion regarding the “Bandar Mahkota Cheras Crisis” saying:

“Pakatan reps could have done better”

IF the incident at Bandar Mahkota Cheras is an indication of the post- March 8 political maturity of Malaysians, then I must confess that I am completely underwhelmed by it all.

The utter disrespect for the law, inept crisis management skills and weak leadership are not the hallmarks of a progressive society.

Many Malaysians understood the difficult situation the Bandar Mahkota Cheras residents were in. But despite my sympathies, I find it hard to accept the complete lack of respect for law and ignorance of the legal process by these residents.

They not only took the law into their hands but also continually resorted to illegal means to demolish the barricade put up by highway concessionaire Grand Saga.

If the residents' actions were disappointing, then the behaviour of DAP's elected representatives can only be described as loutish. Anxious to portray themselves as defenders of the people, they behaved in a highly unethical, reprehensive and undemocratic manner.
Instead of helping to find an amicable and legal solution, these members of parliament were guilty of prolonging and worsening the crisis. It is clear that these MPs had resorted to populist actions to promote their personal and party agendas.

The police, too, did not cover themselves in glory by certain of their actions and inactions, either.

In their misplaced zeal to maintain "law and order", they acted in a manner that was not consistent with their ultimate objective of serving the nation and people.

But I was happy to note that they later changed their approach to a more practical, people-friendly and non-confrontational one that was more appropriate for such a crisis.

The most disappointing performance of this incident must surely be that of Selangor Menteri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim. Not only did he fail abysmally as a leader but the former corporate bigwig also allowed his executive council, state assemblyman and MPs to hijack the incident and turn it into a political drama that almost turned tragic.

Khalid seems to have failed to grasp the fact that despite the complexities of the matter, as the leader of the state, he should have been at the forefront in solving the issue rather than issuing contradicting and confusing statements from Shah Alam.

I shudder to think of the consequences if the federal government had not stepped in to solve the problem. My confidence in the leadership of Khalid and the Pakatan Rakyat government is eroding day by day.

NST, Letters Section, Page 27,
Published on 6 June 2008

I agree with the writer that more often than not, the PKR subscribes to populist actions. They pick and choose issues that have high media visibility for example this Bandar Mahkota Cheras issue and several hill slope developments.

Aside from making noise from rallies and demonstrations, nothing constructive has been proposed for matters that affects the nation. What are their recommended solutions for the increase in fuel price, food shortage, etc?

Petrol to cost RM2.70 from midnight

As I was driving back home this evening, I noticed scores of cars lining up at jam-packed petrol stations. All are scrambling to fill up at least one tank-full of petrol before the price increase by midnight. The same kiasu behavior was noted during the last price hike.

The fact is, there is only so much you can save from one pump. In the long run, what we all need to do is to change our lifestyles.

Based on a survey conducted (up to 2004) by the German Agency for Technical Co-operation, fuel price has been on a gradual rise (as below). Of late, the rise has been more dramatic. If anyone can find a comparison table from 2005 to 2007, please share! I think toll operators should subsidize our fuel price. What say you?

Malaysiakini posted this Malaysia-only table charting the spectacular price increase. Everything is increasing and my clients are not paying me more!

The Rule of Law

In Tun Mahathir's blog yesterday, he wrote:

Malaysia is a country which practices the rule of law. Our laws must cover every aspect of our societal life, so we will know exactly what we can do and what we cannot do. Prime Ministers in particular must have everything spelt out for them in this respect. This will enable them to be charged if they had breached the rule of law long after they had retired.

Governments, serving Prime Ministers and Ministers are well placed to initiate action against others. But when the Government, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister do something wrong, like cover-ups for example, then police reports may be made against them. But how can the person reporting be sure that the police will investigate without fear or favour. I believe some reports have been made but so far there have been no results. Public confidence would be undermined if investigations by the proper authorities are not made. If the investigation is only to clear the name, then can we say the rule of law is being properly practised?

We therefore need to have more Royal Commissions manned by people of impeccable character like the ones on the Lingam tapes. The Commissions can then make proposals based on speculations and possibilities can then investigate the possibilities and probabilities and help clear those in power. When this is done we can say that this beloved country practises the rule of law.

The rule of law, in its most basic form, is the principle that no one is above the law. Thomas Paine stated in his pamphlet Common Sense (1776): "For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other."

However, procedures of court are still subject to manipulation and seasoned politicians cum lawyer have every opportunity to 'play the gallery' feeding clueless journalists with information leading to 'trial-by-media.'

Although the law is king, unfortunately, perception is truth.

Pulau Batu Putih

Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim must be kidding. 12 to 4 is NOT a win-win judgment. For an island that is only 14.3km from Tanjung Penyusop in Johor and 46.3km from Singapore, the outcome is a national embarassment.

We have a long history and culture of 'tidak-apa' attitude as seen from this case. The loss is our own undoing. UMNO and BN also has a habit of losing Malaysian land without a fight. The biggest example is the loss of Singapore!

'You are a mouse!"

In response to Dr M's intention to quit UMNO, some veteran UMNO members have only this to say (in thestar.com.my, 19 May 2008):

PM Abdullah: Shocked

Meanwhile, Abdullah said he was shocked by the decision and, despite their differences, had not expected him to leave.

Umno Deputy President Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak expressed his shock ...

Umno veteran and stalwart Tan Sri Aziz Tapa, 85, said that he was shocked at the news and was at a loss for words.

Umno supreme council member Tan Sri Rahim Thamby Chik said, "It's shocking news to me."

In Narnia: Prince Caspian, Prince Caspian was taken down by a courageous talking mouse named Reepicheep while running away from some Telmarines. With a sword pointing at the princes' neck, Reepicheep said, "What are your last words?" And the bewildered prince replied, "...you are a mouse!" To which the exasperated Reepicheep said, "You guys have no imagination."