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!