PAS-led govt cheques to schools dishonoured!

ALOR SETAR: The PAS-led government made a major blunder when it handed out RM229,000 in allocations to 58 Tamil schools in the state four days ago.

Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Azizan Abdul Bakar gave out the cheques to the Parent-Teacher Association representatives of the schools. However, the cheques could not be cashed.

The cheques, dated Dec 31, 2012, had a three-month validity period until March 31, but were only distributed on April 2.

Many of the PTA representatives were shocked by the timing of the handover and left wondering if it was an attempt to ensure Indians' support for Pakatan Rakyat.

Kedah DAP committee member S. Neelamekan described it as an “an unwanted embarrassment” to the government.

“The state government should have been more careful and avoid being ridiculed by Barisan (Nasional),” he said. “The cheques must be replaced as soon as possible.”

State executive councillor S. Manikumar has since apologised to the schools for the mistake.

“The cheques were prepared last December and were rendered invalid because they did not bear the signature of the State Financial Officer,” he said.  “We apologise for the technical error.

“However, we have already asked the school PTAs to exchange the cheques with new ones from the state finance office,” he added.

Manikumar said the contribution was for school activities and programmes, adding that the schools received between RM3,000 and RM10,000 each, depending on the size of the enrolment.

MIC Baling division Youth chief M.A. Ramasamy said this bungle clearly showed weaknesses in the Kedah state administration.

He said each of the schools was given RM10,000 during the previous rule under Barisan.

By SIRA HABIBU  sira@thestar.com.my

Dressing stature

Elegant couple: China’s President Xi Jinping and wife Peng disembarking from a plane on arrival at Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, recently for a two-day visit. – EPA

 

JUST when you think there are no new personalities projected into the spotlight, comes the debut of the First Lady of China (Peng Liyuan) last week. Her first foreign engagement was accompanying the president on an official visit to Russia and a few countries in Africa.

When the plane doors opened, people saw a modern elegant lady, unlike her predecessors.

She took the husband's arm when walking down the stairs from the plane instead of walking behind holding the rails. Most unconventional.

Everyone knows that no matter how independent we are, we need to hold on to our man for support when we are navigating steps on high heels. Especially where there is an audience and we cannot afford to trip.

It took a couple of days before people could figure out what “branded” items she was wearing. The bag she was carrying looked nice but did not have the conspicuous logos of a luxury brand that one can spot from a distance.

Throughout the whole trip, there was only a pair of modest pearl earrings. There were no necklaces, strings of chunky pearls or big and flashy stones.

It was just so refreshing. Now wonder there was incessant news about her in the foreign and domestic media in China.

Given her stature, she did not need to dress to scream, “look at me”. People will be looking and scrutinising her. It reminds me somewhat of Adele. If you have a great voice, you can just sing. You don't need all the massive accompaniments.

When you are in London or Paris, the crowd who buy designer bags like they are free, without needing to think long and hard over which one to buy, are from China. Here is now someone who has shown that you can look elegant, fashionable and well put together without the need to carry expensive brand names.

I can understand the need to dress up. When one is a young up-and-coming executive, one has to drive a nicer car and carry some expensive branded items to show either taste or success. But as we progress in life, the need to create an impression dissipates.

I like this interesting story about dressing and change in a CEO interview. To change the work culture and have people take pride in their work, the new CEO initiated a “dress like you are attending a wedding” campaign as his first project.

His message was simple. Be bothered to dress up for work because it is important. Let your dressing be a reflection of your professional attitude. When you are a slob, you will be sloppy.

Have you noticed the ladies selling snacks on the Shinkansen? Their hair tied up neatly and makeup immaculate. Uniform is neat, tidy and clean. They wear black cord shoes with heels. They might be pushing a trolley and selling snacks but they are professional and polite. They have their processes. Before they leave the compartment, they bow and say goodbye.

Have you seen the lady who welcomes you as you drive into the shopping centre in Seoul? She is in a black formal looking suit, looking immaculate and welcoming you as you drive into the car park. She does this with pride, like welcoming a VIP. I thought it was too much.

We did try once to dress with the times. During the initial dot-com days, we thought we could dress casual and carry a backpack. After the dot-com craze fizzled out, so did our dressing. It was very difficult to go into a boardroom looking like you are better suited for a different place. You can dress what you like at your office but when you are with clients or in their office, you need to dress suitably so that clothes are not the distraction or the talking point.

As a consultant, I always felt the need to dress well enough to look professional and carry the right demeanour to inspire confidence. Somehow, in the early days of a client relationship, casual just don't cut it.

It is not right to judge someone by their dressing. However there are many studies that show the impact that dressing and appearance has on the first impression.

Coming back to Peng Liyuan. She impressed on the world stage with good taste, projecting a unique personal style. Let's hope she is able to sustain the excellent dress sense by not having to wear chunky and expensive branded items.

TAKE ON CHANGE
By JOAN HOI 
● Joan Hoi is the author of Take on Change. She is hoping that the trend for “no brand” high fashion has been sparked!

Related posts:

China's First Lady Peng Liyuan leading by example 

First lady in the limelight

President Xi: Russia ties ensure peace; foreign debut illuminates China's 'world dream' 

Wife of China next president Xi Jinping

China newly elected President Xi Jinping and Premier Li ... 

A victory for patients & generic drugmakers vs Novartis in landmark patent case

The Indian Supreme Court’s ruling that only genuinely new inventions should be granted patents means that medicines can still be affordable.

The front office of Novartis in Mumbai, India, Monday, after India's Supreme Court rejected drug maker's attempt to patent a new version of a cancer drug Glivec. 

PATIENTS around the world who look to India for low-cost medicines to treat their ailments heaved a sigh of relief last week when the Indian Supreme Court turned down a claim for a patent for a cancer drug.

This means that drug companies in India can continue to produce generic versions of the same drug, Glivec or Gleevec, at a much lower price, thus making it affordable to thousands more cancer patients.

Glivec, produced by the Swiss-based company Norvartis, can cost a patient up to US$70,000 (RM217,000) for a year of treatment, whereas the generic versions of the same medicine made by Indian companies cost around US$2,500 (RM7,750). The drug is used to treat some forms of leukaemia as well as a rare type of stomach cancer.

The Supreme Court decision also seems to open the road for patents not to be granted for more medicines, since it confirmed that only drugs that are genuinely a new invention can be granted patents.

When a patent is granted to a company for a drug, other companies are not permitted to produce generic versions of the medicine for a period of 20 years or so.

The monopoly given to the patent holder enables it to charge high prices since there is a lack of competition.

Many or even most patients are unable to buy the medicines, giving rise to frustration and despair especially when their lives are at stake.

Some companies whose patents are about to expire apply for a new patent for the same drug after changing the composition slightly or changing the form of the drug.

The “new” drug is often not a new invention, but only a minor modification that is made with the aim of having the patent renewed for another period. This practice is popularly termed “evergreening” of the patent.

An extension of the patent term means that the company continues to enjoy the monopoly and high prices, which continue to be out of reach to many patients.

Although governments are obliged to have laws allowing for patents to be given for inventions under the World Trade Organisation’s TRIPS agreement, each country is allowed to set its own definition and standards for what is an invention.

The Supreme Court decision confirms that the Indian patent authorities exercised their powers lawfully and properly when they rejected the patent application for Gleevec on the ground that the medicine was not a new invention.

Novartis had challenged the interpretation given by the Indian Patent Office to Section 3 (d) of the Indian Patents Act that seeks to prevent the grant of patents for non-inventive new forms of known medicines.

The Novartis application had claimed a patent for a new salt form (imatinib mesylate), a medicine for the treatment of chronic myeloid leukaemia, sold under the brand name Gleevec (or Glivec in other countries).

The Indian patent office had rejected the patent application on the ground that the claimed new form was anticipated in an earlier US patent of 1996 for the compound imatinib and that the new form did not enhance the therapeutic efficacy of the drug. The decision was upheld by the Indian Patents Appellate Board.

The legal challenge from Novartis had caused anxiety among patients groups, governments of developing countries and some international organisations in view of the possible negative implications for access to affordable medicines if the Norvatis petition succeeded.

Most developing countries rely on Indian generic drug companies for the supply of low-priced medicines for many diseases.
A weakening of the interpretation or use of Section 3 (d) would have enabled multinational drug companies to extend their patent monopolies based on “evergreening” or “trivial” incremental improvements which could delay the supply of generic medicines for the treatment of HIV/AIDS, cancer and other diseases.

The decision by the Indian Supreme Court is thus of major significance not only for India but for patients and health authorities in the developing countries.

In interpreting Section 3 (d), the Supreme Court observed that this section was introduced in the 2005 amendment to the Patents Act to ensure that while India allowed product patents on medicines in accordance with its WTO obligations, it did not compromise public health through “evergreening” of pharmaceutical patents.

The court hence took into account the concerns about the impact of the TRIPS agreement on public health and on the development of an indigenous pharmaceutical industry.

Moreover, it considered the implications of the Novartis case for the availability of essential medicines at affordable prices globally.

The court decision reproduced two letters from Dr Jim Yong Kim, the former director of the Department of HIV/AIDS at the World Health Organisation (current president of the World Bank) and from UNAIDS to the Indian health minister expressing their concerns relating to the continuous availability of affordable Indian generic drugs in other developing countries.

Thus, the Supreme Court decision has implications beyond India. It upholds the high standards by which drug patent applications can be processed. While genuinely new inventions are granted patents, drugs that are not really new need not.

The implication is that Indian generic companies can be expected to produce many more medicines in future, and continue their reputation as the “pharmacy of the developing countries”.

It is also heartening that the court decision reaffirms the priority for concerns for the patients’ right to receive treatment at more affordable prices.

The court decision is also likely to spark interest among other developing countries about the Indian patent law and the policies guiding it. Developing countries can learn from the Indian approach of balancing patents and public health.

Global Trends
By MARTIN KHOR
Related posts:
 The US Pacific free trade deal that's anything but free?
ASEAN plans world's largest trading bloc in Asia, the ...