Raise the red flag, cut out the hypocrisy!

Raise the red flag

On The Beat By WONG CHUN WAI

Cut out the hypocrisy in the anti-palm oil campaign.

THERE’S no such thing as a national tree in Malaysia but if ever there has to be one, I would propose the oil palm tree. It may have originated from elsewhere, like the rubber tree, but it has been a miracle tree for this country.

Many Malaysians are aware that palm oil is used as raw material for cooking oil and soap but not many would know that it is also used in the making of instant noodles, cookies, biscuits, candles, washing powder and even medical and cosmetic products, including anti-ageing applications.

Even the tree’s trunks can be used for making furniture.

Palm oil can also be used to create biodiesel. Since 2007, all diesel sold in Malaysia must contain 5% palm oil, putting us at the forefront of promoting biodiesel.

But more importantly, the Malaysian palm oil industry earned a healthy RM60bil in 2010. This was an increase of RM10bil from 2009. Revenue is projected to reach RM80bil and the perception is that the industry will eventually be the country’s biggest money earner.

The income generated by the high price of palm oil has led to a mini economic boom in rural townships throughout the country and benefited the ordinary people.

In simple language, it means an assurance of jobs and income, with a guaranteed daily wage of RM90 in rural areas where the cost of living is low.

In contrast, as shown in some studies, the rural population of many developing countries often earns a mere RM7 per day and employment is sometimes limited or seasonal.

The fact is that while over one billion people have scarce access to food and jobs globally, in Malaysia, we rely on 300,000 foreigners to take on jobs we shun. This includes jobs in the palm oil industry.

In Malaysia, our concern is not lack of food but how to cut down on intake of carbohydrates to reduce our waistline. Slimming centres have become a multi-million ringgit business because of this.



For the foreign labourers working in oil palm plantations here, their employment means there will be food daily for over a million family members in Indonesia, Bangla­desh, the Philippines and other countries.

Oil palm is also important for the Malaysian smallholders and the retail business, which will enjoy the trickle-down effect. And the Government will gain as well, through the collection of corporate taxes, which are then used for education, health and infrastructure development.

It means a lot for the children of the smallholders and foreign workers who know they won’t have to go to bed hungry each night.

Over the past few months, however, their livelihood has been threatened by Western non-governmental organisations who have stepped up their campaign against Malaysia’s palm oil industry.

This time, they have widened their target audience to include even primary school children in the United States, Europe and Australia.

If the argument in the past was about health, this time the campaign has shifted towards the purported deforestation of land and the killing of orang utan. Naturally, these issues would be more emotionally appealing and fashionable given the global concern for environmental issues.

No one in his right mind would argue against protecting the environment but the red flag, rather than the green flag, has to be raised when the real issue is whether these NGOs are being funded by lobbyists from the soy bean, sunflower and other seed oil competitors.

There is a lot of hypocrisy here, really. Orang utans may have been affected but look at the shocking decline in the number of koalas in Australia as a result of human clearing and other factors.

It has been reported that the number of koalas has dropped by 95% since the 1990s and that only 43,000 of these tree-dwelling marsupial are left on the mainland. In southeast Queensland, the number has dropped from 25,000 to 4,000 in a decade. Just Google for more information.

Even the world’s 1.5 billion cows are being blamed. There’s a 400-page report quoting the United Nations, which has identified the world’s rapidly growing herds of cattle as a huge threat to the climate, forests and wild life. And they are being blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, too, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs.

The report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, titled Livestock’s Long Shadow, surveys the damage done by cows, sheep, chickens, pigs and goats.

Livestock is responsible for 18% of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together – and there’s a lot of cows and sheep in Australia, I believe.

The Independent newspaper in Britain reported that burning fuel to produce fertilisers to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it, and clearing vegetation for grazing, produces 9% of all emissions of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas.

And wind and manure from livestock account for more than one-third of emissions of another gas, methane, which warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide.

But I feel that the greatest contributor to global warming has been left out – the great appetite of developed countries for fossil fuel, which is essential for their continued economic performance. The need to continue their lifestyle contributes to the huge emission of CO2.

It makes them look intelligent talking about orang utan and deforestation in exotic Borneo, which many might not even be able to locate on the map, while drinking Dom Perignon at fancy parties after being dropped off by chauffeur-driven gas-guzzling limousines. 

Double standards are the stuff of the powerful?

Diplomatic double-talk

Behind The Headlines By BUNN NAGARA

Double-dealing and double standards are the stuff of the powerful in the world at large.

THERE is something of a double bind when a troubling situation and the common understanding of it are both flawed.

For example, the uprising in Syria and the opposition to a draft UN resolution calling on President Bashar al-Assad to step down have typically been misrepresented.

Russia and China vetoed a draft resolution backed by Western and Arab countries at the UN Security Council (UNSC) last weekend calling on Assad to step down. The usual recriminations about their “betrayal” of the Syrian people followed.

One allegation was that Russia and China were merely opposing the resolution for their own selfish interests. Both countries were said to have major investments in Assad’s Syria, so they would not upset Damascus.

But if regime change were to come anyway, Moscow and Beijing would be as savvy as anyone to invest in a new Syria.

According to some Western accounts, regime change would come sooner rather than later.

Then Russia and China were said to be anxious to block a Syrian uprising only because they feared a similar outcome at home.

However, governments have never had the problem of contradicting foreign and domestic policies. Besides, Syrian dissidents have no known links with Chechen or Uighur militants.

China was also said to have gone along with Russia’s objection because Beijing placed a higher priority in maintaining strong ties with Moscow than with Washington or London.

A slightly more nuanced interpretation of that argument was that Russia and China sought to counter yet another Western-led effort to use the Security Council as a rubber stamp to serve US-Israeli interests in West Asia.



Overall, Western fury at Russian and Chinese non-compliance portrayed their vetoes as abhorrent and aberrant.

In the process, other reasons were conveniently ignored.

Russia and China have reasons for vetoing the draft resolution, and these may include those cited above. But their main reason patently relates to their experience of having been caught out in similar hostile adventures before.

The Western camp has argued that the resolution did not authorise military action against the Syrian government. But given recent experience in other Muslim countries, that is neither an assurance nor a selling point for the resolution.

In December 2000, UNSC Resolution 1333 on Afghanistan was supported by Russia and the US. It was criticised by then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, and China and Malaysia (then a UNSC non-permanent member) abstained.

The reservations then were that the Afghan people would suffer most from the resolution, and that peace talks with the ruling Taliban would be scuppered. A year later, war came.

Several UNSC resolutions on Iraq later led to its illegal invasion and controversial occupation. China, France and Russia by then had serious reservations about such resolutions, with doubts about whether war could be authorised.

US and British diplomats assured the world that the latest Iraq resolution need not authorise war. War came nonetheless, on spurious grounds and with disastrous consequences.

By 2007, China and Russia had had enough of such Western diplomatic shenanigans. They both vetoed a resolution tabled by the US and Britain on Myanmar.

Then on to Libya in 2011: a resolution that was supposed to have authorised only a “no-fly zone” became a hostile military action to “protect civilians”, which in turn meant war – again.

It was another exercise in regime change, whatever official words were used for the effort: of a country “in breach of UN resolutions”, one’s “responsibility to protect”, or “remaining seized of the matter”.

By 2012, it would be perverse for Russia and China, or any other country outside the Western orbit of client states, to remain oblivious to the ulterior motives behind UNSC resolutions.

Days before Morocco had tabled the draft resolution on Syria, both Russia and China had already indicated their opposition to it, so there were no grounds for the sense of shock and horror that followed.

Much of Western media reporting on the issue continues to miss some salient points. By the time of last year’s Western-led attack on Libya, if not before, at least one important lesson should have become clear.

And that is how Western encouragement of local uprisings in several Muslim countries can doom dissidents relying on uncertain support from abroad.

With Libya, both sides were armed and not above using violence against civilians caught in the middle.

It also quickly became clear that the anti-government forces had no hope of winning without foreign military support. But at the same time, such support is illegal in attacking a sovereign state.

In the Western perspective, the case for providing military support was expressed as “not betraying” the people who had chosen to fight their government.

This would have the predictable effect of encouraging more militants in other countries to wage war against the state, regardless of their chances of victory and the undemocratic nature of their rebellion.

Now Syria has proven the point. Without foreign military assistance, the innocent and virtuous masses would be said to have been abandoned to mass slaughter.

And on it goes. It has the chilling and compelling effect of obliging, even blackmailing, all other countries to attack any particular country regarded as ripe for regime change.

With Syria, the government’s military strength to the opposition’s capacity to mount a physical challenge is 10 times that of Libya before. If the sponsors of the failed resolution asking Assad to go quietly still insist it does not require war to be effective, they must be lying.

Their intelligence agencies should have informed them of the odds on the ground in Syria by now. Russia and China have already called their bluff.

Malaysian Chinese at a Political Crossroads forum; Chua-Lim Debate, all hype but no climax

All hype but no climax

Analysis By BARADAN KUPPUSAMY  Feb 20, 2012

Many at the much-touted debate between Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek and Lim Guan Eng were left disappointed as key issues whether a superior two-party system is on the cards and DAP's justification of its alliance with PAS were not answered. 

DATUK Seri Najib Tun Razak, when opening the Chinese at the Crossroads forum on Saturday morning, had a word of advice for Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek. Citing boxing terminology, the Prime Minister urged the MCA president “to punch above your weight”, which means that Dr Chua had to do better than expected.

While Dr Chua said after the “bout” that there was no winner or loser in the “ring”, except the people, to the disinterested observer he did indeed win the day with his better presentation skill, delivery and unflustered manner.

Dr Chua upstaged his opponent, Penang Chief Minister and DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng, in the hour-long battle.

Lim entered the ring with a formidable reputation as a veteran street fighter, gained from years of lambasting MCA and Barisan Nasional at every ceramah.

Experience, however, carried the day for Dr Chua. That was the verdict of observers including some DAP leaders.

Dr Chua, a survivor of many MCA battles, spoke directly to the larger television audience. He came well-prepared.

He had also the right gestures; not grand-standing, but delivering in a matter-of-fact manner.

Lim came on stage with a public image of a debater, but left with that reputation scarred.

He now wants a second round with Dr Chua, either in Bahasa Malaysia or English, presumably to repair the damage received from the first debate that was held in Mandarin.

While both Lim and Dr Chua are English-educated, moderator Tang Ah Chai was impressed by their use of Chinese proverbs.

The duo's supporters at the Berjaya Times Square hall were equally matched.

On hudud law, Lim slipped away without answering Pakatan Rakyat's socio-economic programme.
Instead, he emphasised how well Penang is today with him at the helm.

He reiterated that Pakatan acted as counter-weight to the Barisan; that if it were to take over the Government, it will deal with inflation, remove tolls and give RM1,000 to some 2.1 million citizens annually.

He said Pakatan would ensure transparency by revealing its representatives' assets, have open tenders and that corruption would not be tolerated.

Dr Chua, on the other hand, stressed that the DAP was merely advancing causes that were dear to PAS, such as the banning of cinemas and alcohol, and making multi-ethnic Malaysia Islamic.

He said DAP did not dare face Umno, but pits the Chinese against each other in all its 48 years of existence, adding that PAS would be the real beneficiary should the Pakatan come to power because it had a bigger membership base.

The audience were partisan to their heroes. And, when question time came, they used the session to embarrass both men.

DAP supporters also shouted down a questioner who raised the issue of PAS demolishing a turtle statue that adorned a roundabout after it came to power in Terengganu in 1995.

Many were left disappointed as the key issues of the day whether a superior two-party system will surface after the general election and how DAP justifies its alliance with PAS and hudud were not answered by either one.

But the fact remains: No matter how DAP justifies PAS (and it failed to do so at the debate), it is a burden to carry along an ally that is religion-based and has its own aims and ideals.

The audience, most of whom will vote at the next general election, has to decide if they want a DAP aligned to an intolerant PAS that has its own narrow-world view and demanding for an Islamic state; or a tried and tested MCA in the reforming Barisan that advocates a secular state.

Guan Eng did not say it

DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng says he did not say: “We do not agree the Prime Minister must always be a Malay because we want the people to decide”.

The Star had erroneously attributed the statement to him in a report during his debate with MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek and also in a commentary by K. Baradan yesterday.

The error in translation and in the commentary headlined All hype but no climax is regretted. The Star apologises for the error. Tuesday February 21, 2012

A political debate to watch out for

ANALYSIS By JOCELINE TAN joceline@thestar.com.my

A debate between two of the fiercest ‘fighting cocks’ in Chinese politics next week will add to what many hope will be a culture of civil discussion on political and policy issues.



ANYONE remotely interested in Malaysian politics would probably zero in on the political debate between MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek and DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng next week.

MCA and DAP are long-time nemeses and their leaders take shots at each other almost daily, but this will be the first time that the respective top guns of the two parties are taking on each other in a debate format.

Add to this the heightened political climate and the prospect of a general election being called this year and the stage is set for an event that will attract the attention of the Chinese, if not the Malaysian audience.

On top of that, these are two of the fiercest “fighting cocks” in Chinese politics today even though they were trained in rather sedate professions – Dr Chua is a medical doctor and Lim a chartered accountant. Lim is famous for his street-fighter style of politics, who hits out even before anyone tries to hit him.

Dr Chua is an Alpha male and arguably the most aggressive president that MCA has ever elected. He has been described as a wartime president for his ability to take charge in a time of crisis.

Another interesting aspect of the debate is that Dr Chua is coming in as the perceived underdog even though he is from the ruling coalition. He does not hold a government post and he did not contest the last general election.

Lim on the other hand is coming in from a position of strength as Chief Minister of Penang. He is also Bagan MP and Air Putih assemblyman, one of a handful of privileged DAP leaders who contested dual seats in 2008. His party has never been this strong and it is the most powerful component in Pakatan Rakyat.

The topic has yet to be confirmed but it will revolve around the future of the Chinese in the context of the 13th general election. The Chinese are now the most highly politicised community in the country and some are touting the forthcoming debate as a battle for the hearts and minds of the Chinese.

It is probably not that grandiose but it will be a platform for the two men to showcase where they stand on key issues affecting the Chinese. It will provide their audience a chance to assess their thinking and ability to argue under the glare of the spotlight. Of course it is also about scoring political points because the Chinese always look up to a leader who can hit out and also take the heat.

But, generally speaking, this sort of political debates should be a welcome development in Malaysian politics where politicians are given the chance for their personality to come through and more important, to demonstrate the depth of their intellect and knowledge.

Political debates are part of the democratic process and they are a sign of a maturing democracy.

In the United States, the debates by Republican and Democrat candidates fighting for their parties’ presidential nomination have a worldwide following. The debates provide a glimpse of the personality and thinking of the persons vying to be president.

It is surprising that there have not been more of such political debates in Malaysia because previous events have been quite encouraging and generated a great deal of interest. They were definitely a world apart from some of the wild and outrageous stuff one hears at political ceramah.

The most recent debate between two Chinese politicians – Lim and Gerakan president Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon – was in August 2008. It was touted as “Chief Minister versus ex-Chief Minister” and the topic concerned a land controversy in Penang.

Another Chinese debate that took place in the 1990s was between the then Youth chiefs of MCA and DAP, namely Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat and Lim, on the rather plebian topic of “Who is the political parasite?” Those who followed it said it was highly entertaining even though it was lacking in constructive purpose or value.

One of the most watched debates was the one between PKR de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and then Information Minister Datuk Ahmad Shabery Cheek in 2008 where they argued about the rising price of oil and the opposition’s boast that if they came to power, they would reduce the oil price the next day.

It was quite brave of Shabery to take on Anwar given his reputation as an orator but both men actually did well with Anwar having the edge.

The 1980s was a period where PAS and Umno were constantly challenging each other to debate on whose party was more Islamic; it was the era of kafir-mengkafir, where each accused the other of being infidels. Umno was under a great deal of pressure from PAS for being in a coalition with non-Islamic parties. The big irony now is that PAS is doing the very same thing with DAP and PKR.

But around that time, Anwar, who had just joined Umno, had taken on PAS’ Datuk Hadi Awang on the subject at a debate hosted by the Malaysian Islamic Study Group in the University of Illinois, United States. It was a hot topic here even though it was happening far from home.
The most talked about debate in recent weeks is of course the one between Umno Youth leader Khairy Jamaluddin and PKR strategy chief Rafizi Ramli last month in the United Kingdom. The two Generation X politicians spoke quite impressively and in a very civil manner on whether Malaysia was moving in the right direction towards Vision 2020. The video on YouTube had about 64,000 views.

Khairy had also taken on PAS vice-president Datuk Husam Musa in Kota Baru in 2008. Khairy proved he was a “jantan (manly) politician” in taking on Husam in the PAS state and won admirers from both sides of the fence.

The Chua-Lim debate has the promise of being something quite different given the personalities of the two men and the fact that it is taking place at a critical intersection of Malaysian politics.

No change in debate topic   
Asli: Misunderstanding led to confusion 
By WONG PEK MEI   pekmei@thestar.com.my,  Monday February 13, 2012
 
PETALING JAYA: Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute (Asli) has stressed that there's no change in the topic of the Feb 18 debate between Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek and Lim Guan Eng.

Asli director and chief executive officer Datuk Michael Yeoh said they had never changed the topic “Is a two-party system becoming a race system” to “Future of the Malaysian Chinese”, as claimed by some.

“I think there might have been a misunderstanding. Both sides had already agreed on this topic,” he said, in response to Lim's claim that the title of the debate had been changed without his knowledge.

Yeoh said the “The Chinese at a Political Crossroads in the Next General Election” forum would be from 9am to 6pm while the much-anticipated debate between the MCA president and DAP secretary-general would be held from 5pm to 6pm.

The forum, to be conducted in Mandarin and English, at Berjaya Times Square next Saturday, is open to the public and entrance is free.

Yeoh said those interested in attending must call 03- 209305393 (Janet) to register.

Other than the debate, other topics to be discussed are the changing political landscape, the struggle of vernacular education, the social and cultural landscape in the country and the new Chinese dilemma.

Meanwhile, Astro Chinese Language Business head Choo Chi Han said the debate would be aired live from 5pm to 6pm on Astro AEC channel (301) but the channel would begin to broadcast at 4.30pm with a pre-panel discussion.

“The discussion will be moderated by AEC host Siow Hui Min while the guests appearance list is yet to be confirmed,” he said, adding that the discussion would be in Chinese.

The entire programme will be repeated at 11pm the same day after the channel's Evening Edition News.
Astro Awani (Channel 501) will also broadcast the debate, translated to Bahasa Malaysia, live. Details will be confirmed later.

Chinese voters will be more politically aware in next election, says Asli director  

By NG CHENG YEE chengyee@thestar.com.my,  Sunday February 12, 2012

PETALING JAYA: “The Chinese at a Political Crossroads in the Next General Election” forum is expected to raise political awareness and keep voters informed about their options in the next general election.

Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute (Asli) director and chief executive officer Datuk Michael Yeoh said the forum, organised by Asli and MCA think-tank Insap, would allow for intellectual discussions on the future of the Chinese community and the directions they could take in the next general election.

“We hope the forum will help people to make a more informed choice when they vote,” he said.

He said among the topics that would be discussed were the changing political landscape, the struggle of vernacular education, the social and cultural landscape in the country, the new Chinese dilemma and the much-anticipated debate between MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek and DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng.

Acknowledging that the interest in the forum had shot up due to the debate, Yeoh said it might involve heated arguments but he believed the speakers would do it rationally.

He said Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall chief executive officer Tan Ah Chai had been selected as the moderator of the debate.

On why the organiser shot down the proposal by Lim to have former MCA president Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat as the moderator, Yeoh said: “We wanted someone who does not have a political background.”

The forum will also involve speakers from both sides of the divide, including MCA deputy president Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai, SUPP president Datuk Seri Peter Chin, Gerakan president Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon, DAP deputy chairman Dr Tan Seng Giaw, Liberal Democratic Party president Datuk Liew Vui Keong and DAP strategist and international bureau secretary Liew Chin Tong.

Others include MCA Youth chief Datuk Dr Wee Ka Siong, MCA young professional bureau chief Datuk Chua Tee Yong, DAP deputy secretary-general Chong Eng, Gerakan secretary-general Teng Chang Yeow, DAP MP Teo Nie Ching and SUPP treasurer Datuk David Teng Lung Chi.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak will deliver the keynote address on “Succeeding with Political Transformation”.

The forum, to be conducted in Mandarin and English, will be held at Berjaya Times Square next Satur-day.

It is open to the public and entrance is free.

 Guan Eng: I agreed to a different debate topic

 Sunday February 12, 2012

BUTTERWORTH: DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng claims that the title for the Feb 18 debate with MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek has been changed without his knowledge.

The Penang Chief Minister, who declared on Friday that he would take on Dr Chua, said he did not know that the topic had been changed to the “Future of the Malaysian Chinese”, as claimed by some.

“It is not acceptable to talk about the Chinese community only, as DAP is for all Malaysians,” he said after meeting Village Safety and Develop­ment Committee (JKKK) members at the Dewan Besar Sungai Dua here yesterday.

The debate is to be held during the “The Chinese at a Political Crossroads in the Next General Election” forum organised by Asli and MCA think-tank Insap at Berjaya Times Square in Kuala Lumpur on Feb 18.

The debate will be aired over Astro AEC.

Related posts:

Malaysian Two Party System Becoming a Two-Race System?” A question of one or two sarongs!

Malaysian Politics: Chua-Lim Debate Sets New Standard

Malaysian Chinese Forum kicks off with a bang; Chua-Lim showdown!

Is the Two-Party-Sytem becoming a Two-Race-System? Online spars started ahead of tomorrow Chua-Lim debate!