Keeping crimes at bay

A city is never the safest place to live. Granted, it has its plus points; amenities, a nightlife, events, infrastructure and now, even mamaks seem to come with free wi-fi. But all that doesn’t mean city dwellers can’t expect a fair crime rate. And by that, I mean a generally safe environment.

Yet, as with most cities in the world, it’s hard to feel safe when we read about one crime or another taking place on a regular basis. And it becomes pretty rampant during bad economy periods; as what we’re experiencing.

But regardless of the economic climate, civilians ought to be able to walk down a street without checking behind their shoulders every two seconds. And that’s where the police play their part.

And should there be a lack of personnel… to whom do we go to for public safety?

Perhaps this is why the recent accident involving a snatch theft and a potential victim (A woman chased the snatch thief in her car, leading to accidentally hit him and kill him) created such a huge uproar. There are two sides to a story and a good number of the public cheered in unison for the consequent of becoming a snatch thief. ‘Let that be a lesson,’ they seem to say.

I’d have to disagree with the overall condoning of what happened though; and deem it unfortunate that someone had to suffer a tragic outcome despite the events leading to it. There is a reason why civilized society developed law and punishment; and correctional facilities. And as long as we keep to it as best as we can, then crime should be met with its match.

The overall gaiety that karma does indeed seem to work, would, in a worst case scenario, encourage ‘Punisher’ like vigilantes. And while everything is fine and dandy in the movies, things aren’t so in real life.

I fear for the mindset we’d embed in the young generation – for they are watching our moves and silently taking note. Call me an old fashioned educator but I feel the morale we’re pushing for speaks louder that the vindication of a collective repulse felt over rising crime rates.

And perhaps, emotion played too strong a part in this case. As it shouldn’t be.

With that, I can only hope the police force judge for themselves the extent of anxiety felt by citizens to give rise to such an outburst. And take law and enforcement up a notch.

Then perhaps, we’d see crime rates reduced and public security increase.

Bag it up!

It can take up to 1,000 years for plastic bags to biodegrade.

Yet, we continue to give out over a billion plastic bags worldwide every day.

Why then, isn’t the recent discussion of possibly banning plastic bags in Malaysia not treated with more gung-ho than Germany getting a kick in the goalpost in Euro 2008? Perhaps because those familiar with the perils of encouraging the use of plastic bags are shrugging their shoulders and saying, ‘Well, it’s about time,” while those who aren’t are questioning, ‘What’s the big freaking deal?’.

The big freaking deal - is that now that petrol price has gone up to RM2.70 per litre and global rates are at US$130 per barrel, we should realise more than ever the importance of reducing petroleum wastage. And the correlation to plastic bags? - It takes 430,000 gallons of oil to produce 100 million non degradable plastic bags.

Lets consider this - we’re dumping hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil into the manufacture of plastic bags that we ultimately use for a grand total of one time before dumping them into the waste bin. Grand way of depleting the earth of precious resource, eh?

And that’s not withstanding the other impacts we’re inflicting on ourselves every time we use a plastic bag.

According to the San Fransisco Department of Environment, we use about 4 trillion to 5 trillion non-degradable plastic bags worldwide annually. However, because plastic bags are essentially polybags made of recycled materials, recycling it any further is difficult while burning them creates air pollution. If that‘s not enough to pour cold water over your altruistic integrity, it costs $4,000 to process and recycle 1 ton of plastic bags before reselling them for $32. The exceedingly ’profitable’ economic equation means you’d be lucky to find three people in a hundred who will lean towards recycling plastic bags.

The rest of the 97% of plastic bags that don’t get recycled end up at dumpsites. In fact, China and India are increasingly becoming targeted as Third World dumping sites for wastes of the west. We in Malaysia aren’t so irresponsible toward other countries. We just dump them into our own backyards.

If that fills up, we head to the local rivers where the flow of nature will take trash away to be filtered and diluted by the great sea.

Or will they get diluted?

It’s true that plastic bags don’t biodegrade. They photo degrade. Plastics merely get broken up into smaller fragments of plastics until finally becoming plastic dust particles called ‘mermaid tears’ or ‘nurdles‘.

Great news? Hardly. This process could take hundreds of years. And even then, nurdles are inclined to soak up toxic chemicals such as the deadly PCBs and DDE compound (from the disreputable insecticide DDT) not to mention the toxic dyes used in the production of plastic bags, all of which is then dispersed into the food chain when microscopic plastic gets swallowed by marine wildlife. Another reason to avoid the sushi, no?

But while the effects of eating plastic-flavoured fish may come to light years from now, more than a million wildlife die every year from plastic ingestion or getting caught in plastic and other debris. Endangered animals such as the leatherback turtles, harbour porpoises and the black footed albatross are especially ungrateful to the worldwide acceptance of plastic bags. They should be - most of them are now dead. With plastic bags found in their stomachs. You see, most marine creatures don’t come equipped with contact lenses. They think plastic bags look like jelly fish. And plastic particles look like food crumbs. So they eat them. Only to find that internal infections, choking or blockages in their intestines forces them to give up eating. These animals then suffer a prolonged death of starvation.

Plastic trash in oceans don’t just affect wildlife. They are responsible for beach litter, degrading commercial value of properties and hurt the fishing industry. 750,000 plastic bags were found during the 2006 International Coastal Clean-Up which took place in over 60 countries. The UN Environment Programme says it’s impossible to thoroughly clean parts of the ocean that extends 100 feet below the surface and spans the area of a continent. So most plastic bags that float easily to the deepest ends of the ocean, stay there.

Back on land, plastic bags continue to clog up drains and sewerage contributing to stagnant water and mosquitoes breeding. Indeed, who hasn’t seen a plastic bag flying with the wind?

In China, this sight has gained the nickname ‘white pollution’. In South Africa, plastics bags are all over the place, earning itself the nickname the ‘national flower’.

So, what can we do?

If we resort to paper bags, we’re just forcing trees to grow faster to feed our appetite for bags. Paper bags can be used once before usually getting stained or wet.

But lo-and-behold the reusable degradable bag!

Choose from the fashionable ones with bright colours and design or settle for any cotton tote you have. Reusable bags are already the norm in Ireland where a tax of about 20 cents is levied on the usage of plastic bags since March 2002. This tax has raised millions which is then channelled toward environmental concerns. Usages of plastic bags has also dropped by 90% - showing signs that it is a system that can be adopted worldwide.

"There certainly hasn't been an angry uprising of shoppers (in Ireland) saying we want our bags for free," says Claire Wilton, senior waste campaigner at Greenpeace-UK . "I think a lot of people recognize they are wasteful. That's why they try to save them to use again."

Other countries that have discouraged the use of plastic bags are Australia, Bangladesh, Italy, South Africa and Taiwan. Mumbai, India has banned the bags while London is hot on its heels. Several cities in United States has already banned plastic bags though a national ban has not arrived. In contrast, China recently placed a national ban on plastic bags - effectively putting 37 million barrels of oils to better use.

"Every time we use a new plastic bag, they go and get more petroleum from the Middle East and bring it over in tankers," said Stephanie Barger, executive director of Earth Resource Foundation in Costa Mesa, California. "We are extracting and destroying the Earth to use a plastic bag for 10 minutes."

The solution? Bag it up!

As a man thinketh

The recent live debate between the Opposition De Facto leader and the Information Minister last night shows that we’re clearly hungry for debates and welcome it with open arms.

People are naturally thinkers; with a billion thoughts running through the neurons of our grey matters. This is what differentiates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. And perhaps, this is why we are already famous for turning the local ‘mamak’ stall into our choice of debate hall on various issues.

If yesterday we lament the way we think our graduates are churning our memorized answers (the ‘skema jawapan mentality’) in exams, today we know we are looking for answers, not afraid to question policies thrown down at us and accept decisions with blind faith.

It is a great move toward what our friend the Australian Prime Minister calls ‘a vibrant democracy’. With that in mind, we also acknowledge the glaring power of the media to disseminate information and even influence the way the masses think.

This brings to mind the nationwide spelling bee competition that is televised on a local channel. It is interesting to see our students spell out words that even I would struggle to get right.

And while we can certainly go ‘ooohh!’ over watching students get tough words right, it would also be interesting to watch our students’ debate. I remember a debate competition I watched that was organized by the International School of Kuala Lumpur. The two finalist schools were debating in the style adopted by the US. That is – debaters were asked questions by the public or opposition after their prepared speech. The debaters must answer on the spot.

It was obvious one needed more than a well-researched and prepared speech to survive such a debate. Clearly, it also encouraged independent thinking and placed a great emphasis on knowledge.

The finalists were merely high school students, 17 years of age. And of course, the eventual winners were from the international school itself, possibly from having groomed their students to be thinkers from day one.

The question is, if we can televise a spelling bee competition, then we can certainly televise debates. Better still if the debates were by our university students (thus future Dewan Rakyat MPs) or even NGOS, political parties, lobbyist etc (in which the possibly higher viewership will bring in sponsors or advertisers).

The audience, of course, stand to gain the most from this. Issues such as development of World Heritage Sites be discussed in public and not relegated to the obscure parts of a newspaper. Along the lines, we may see the quality of debates in Parliament increase from the already fascinating yet sometimes hilarious level that we currently enjoy.

But hey, the world doesn’t have to revolve around politics. We want more people to be able to display the composure and rhetorics of the speakers last night. So, why not make debates more common?

Fueling green feelings

From a capitalist standpoint, raising oil prices was a brilliant idea. So, why didn't the oil producing nations do it earlier? Then, Malaysia, as an exporter, stand to gain loads before we run out of oil (in, what - 2015?).

The picture painted here shows a more scary picture - that we apparently get to choose between saving the economy or saving our planet. Most nations are pushing green earth policies on the back burner as we try to cope with the global inflation.

The point is - why do we need sky-high fuel prices before we realise how dependent we are on it? And if we had faced this predicament earlier, would it have increased our urgency for developing alternative fuels?

In a recent debate on the increment of fuel prices locally, one of the speakers pointed out that Malaysia's oil reserves was supposed to have ran out in 2005, yet, thanks to intensive exploration, we now have an oil company that drills and operates in 33 countries.

Which is cool.

We must have spent billions on that.

Which is also cool. Because obviously, that was the immediate problem.

I wonder how much was spent on alternative fuel.

I know we have made ventures into that. Pak Lah has ensured that our palm oil and various agricultural output be researched as biofuel.

I particularly like the way some parties put it. Not. But they did think out of the box - they thought not of oil but electricity. Just think, one day, we might have a USB cable attached to our cars (or maybe not, but fascinating isn't it? :-)

And then, there's cars fueled by water! Well... hydrogen technically, but using electrolysis (electricity=renewable energy) to produce hydrogen from water - well that's just brilliant! They called it the hydrogen vehicle (that well, uses hydrogen fuel cells). The car, produced by General Motors was aptly called Sequel (As in Fossil Fuel was the prequel, eh?).

Then last year, a Japanese car manufacturer, Genepax, introduced the car that runs on water. Simply fill in the tank with water and waalaaa! The car runs using an internal generator that does the whole electrolysis thing. It was reported by Reuters, so that's pretty exciting. Imagine attaching a hose from the kitchen tap to the driveway!

But then again, if it's too good to be true... well, you know the saying.

So that brings us back to our rising petrol prices and where we stand in the world of alternative fuels. If we knew years ago we were gonna run out of oil in 2005 (now 2015), why were we issuing APs by the dozen? Or... if the abundance of cars on our roads couldn't be helped, where's our very own durian-fueled cars?

The hating game

In what has been a turbulent prelude to the Beijing Olympics, we hear of an American tourist murdered by a Chinese national just a day after the opening ceremony of the 2008 Olympics.

The victim was the father-in-law of the US national volleyball coach and was visiting landmarks in Beijing with his daughter at the time of the attack.

His crime? Probably being an American.

Did we see it coming? We had a clear warning from some parties that the ‘Hate America’ campaign was alive and well. Perhaps not coincidentally, President Bush was in Beijing at the time.

To give this violent incident the benefit of the doubt would be vital. The mantra ‘innocent till proven guilty’ should hold so we refrain ourselves from accusing extremist factions. But of course, this is hard. Given that the Australians athletes has been told to display the Australian flag on articles of clothing when traveling. (Presumably because Aussies are well liked in China and aren’t the real targets of hate groups).

Given the current climate of hate attacks and the auspicious theme of the Olympics – where countries cast aside their differences and unite under the spirit of sports – this is indeed a tragedy that stirs deep feelings.

It’s not the first time we’ve seen hate during a sporting event. Previously, when countries had issues with another (usually hosting nations), they boycotted the event. In 1984, 65 countries did just that at the Moscow Olympic Games for the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan.

Indeed, if 65 countries had refrained from participating for Soviet’s invasion, how are we to expect that less people would feel resentment towards the US for their act of invasion? Add that indignation to the difficulties of a declining global economy which some say is due to the war and we get blood spilling cries of anger.

Bearing in mind that the aforementioned attack could in fact be random, we’re forced to ponder if the nationality-annihilation epidemic has become the norm for some.

Cases has been reported with alarming regularity since 9/11 and more so since the war waged to seek and destroy weapons of mass destruction unearthed little more than dessert sand which were then used to bury the innocent dead.

True, there will be those who rejoice the capture of certain parties but are we singing to the tune of ‘A life for a life?’

Did President Bush unleash a deadly virus when he declared that he was willing to take lives for the lives lost? For it seems the infection has spread globally.

Can the spirit of sports and international unity prevail for the remaining of the games and put a screeching halt to our contempt for differing government policies? While the idea of international friendship and the allure of ethical sportsmanship have always been the ambassador of events such as these, there is little doubt that sports sometimes brings out the less flattering side of us. Countries pour a fortune into winning medals – sometimes not for the glory of raising the standards but as an act of one-upmanship against another country.

Just ask Fidel Castro who pumped millions in sports training – paid for by the working class – just so Cuba could be placed in the top 20 medal earners among the almost 200 countries that participated.

Only this time, pride isn’t the driving force. Anger is.

So by having these Games, are we in fact igniting a spark already fueled by hatred?

Let’s hope international medal chasing isn’t the glorified version of keeping up with the Jones. And that any athletes doing well don’t give the impression that they do so at the expense of a disadvantaged nation.

For while restraining sports to a local level may decrease comparisons and increase security for the short term, we’d lose the positive vibes that true sportsmanship is all about.

The Games must go on.

How much is that water in the window?

I don’t mean to be rude, but I doubt if the opportunity to save RM11.60 will translate into alliances for the ruling state of Selangor. Or maybe I’m just being cynical – assuming that the free water project is geared towards buying loyalty.

If the program was intended for the welfare of the 11.5 million Selangor residents, then congratulations to the powers that be for thinking about the rakyat.

But at the risk of sounding like a disgruntled KL citizen who will still be laden with a water bill come June, here’s why I think free water isn’t necessarily a good idea.

In the first place, might I remind you of the ‘Save Water’ campaign run by the government not too long ago? Oh, you remember the ads – a happy family spraying water all over the garden or whilst washing a car; followed by a stark reminder to use pails of measured water instead of a free-for-all water hose.

Now, how in the name of H2O is getting free water from the government going to assure us that we don’t plunge into a state of infinite pool parties?

Imagine this – dad’s taking a 20-minute shower, mum’s leaving the tap on while she washes the vegetables, sis does her laundry every morning instead of when the load is full, bro attacking the Kancil as if he’s a fireman at the burning WTC and baby sis playing in the man-made rain as she floods the garden.

And the reason for this – “The water is free, mah! Since we are getting 20 cubic metre of water, might as well use it. And if we use less than that, then rugilah!”

And if the family’s use goes beyond the quota? Well, then it’s, “Only pay RM5 mah! No big deal lah!”

See my point?

Of course, now I sound like I’m saying Malaysians are a wasteful lot. Far from it. At 2000 cubic metre per person per year, the US is the world’s leading water consumers. So with only a given 20 cubic metre per month, we’re not the biggest contributors of water usage.

Assuming we all stick to that quota.

But we don’t say ‘Give a man an inch, and he’ll take a mile’ for no reason.

So the point remains – will free water be used or abused?

As much as we’re leaning toward increased green awareness and are working towards implementing recycling bins nationwide, the fact that we need government parenting on conservative use of water blaring from tv screens indicates we’re not yet as environmental friendly as we’d like to think.

And while there are scores of good or poor consumers who deserve to be rewarded with free water (a renewable natural resource and therefore a right for all beings?) – the move to provide free water could wind up being a step backward in our quest for it’s conservative use.

Consider this; while the blue planet is famous for its 97% make-up of water – only 0.036% is available for use. Why? Because most of it is undrinkable seawater and only 0.5% is consumer friendly freshwater. Of this, only 10,000,000 km3 of water is stored underground and faster than nature can replace this, we are depleting it for drinking water (50%), industrial water (40%) and irrigation water (20%). The rest of the water is in lakes or rainfall and over 5,000km3 is in reservoirs.

Then, there is the uneven water distribution in the world. Even as we bathe in a sprinkle of heated sky juice at home, 1.8 million people die every year from diarrhoel diseases (including cholera) due to lack of clean water and hygiene –the equivalent of 15 killer tsunamis a year.

But “Hey!”, some asks. “What has our water got to do with people miles away?” Surely we’re not expected to ferry tones of water to African countries?

Those who are secretly glad our causeway friends has to rely on us for water may rub their hands in glee and think that countries with a natural resource disadvantage should make political compromises in obtaining these economic goods. And not expect us to forfeit our gifts in the land of opportunities.

But here’s a fact: UNESCO’s World Water Development Report (WWWDR, 2003) predict that available water will decrease by 30%-40% in the next 20 years. Clean water is said to eventually become the next valued commodity – like oil – to be traded by water-rich countries such as Canada, Chile, Norway and Columbia.

So the possibility that we may one day be in our neighbour’s shoes – seeking clean water from other countries – are very real.

And I seriously doubt if our Malaysian Boleh patriotism will extend to bottling recycled water in pretty packaging branded, ‘Air Kita’. (Because then, the term ‘Air Kita’ will bring a whole new meaning, won’t it?)

How do we know this repugnant scenario is possible?

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development reports that 120 million people in South East Asia are already without improved drinking water source.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) which consists of 30 countries globally, needs at least USD200 billion annually to replace aging water infrastructure to continuously provide supply, reduce leakage rates and protect water quality.

“When expenses exceed revenues, water service deteriorates and is not sustainable” – OECD.

Case in point – Northern Ireland does not have water bills – yet. Cost of water supply is instead a part of domestic rates that also covers education, health and transport.

However, recently, Northern Ireland faces pressure to conform its water infrastructure – pipes, sewage plants etc – to EU water standards by 2010. This requires GBP 3 billion over the next 10 years. Lack of investment means the way to obtain this amount is through water bills – an act that will simultaneously liberate government funds into other worthy concerns.

Although water seems to magically appear from the sky, UNESCO defines the cost of supplying water as the capital and operating costs for abstracting, treating and transferring water to the point of use.

Should we then be concerned that without revenue consumers’ water bills, the standards of our local supply chain of clean water might be compromised?

I mean, after all, we’re asking the Selangor government to sponsor RM17 million monthly and expect top-notch handling of our water system with no cost cutting tricks in the maintenance of our water structure.

On top of that, we’re letting the Selangor government cut down its budget on local educational or health plans development in order to subsidise our water.

All because we wanted to save RM11.40.

Which would give us what? A McDonald’s set meal consisting of a Grilled Chicken Foldover, fries and a cola drink.

Is that the value we place on our water?

South Africa is already promoting it’s own version of Free Water Systems. This directs grey water – water from baths, showers, hand basins and clothes washing machine – to be filtered and reused to water the garden. An estimate of 40% of about 200,000 residents in the town of Santa Barbara in California, USA already uses grey water systems.

The SMART rainmetre system collects rain water that is naturally clean to be stored in tanks for future use – thus reducing the need for processed freshwater. In fact, a 200m2 roof can collect 9000L of water per month.

The specially designed Toilet Stop minimizes water wastage in flushes by releasing water only as long as you hold the flushing handle. An inventive method capable of reducing your total water bills by 20%.

With so much creativity invested in reducing our consumption of water, why are we snatching Selangor’s water of it’s value by stripping it of it’s price tag?

I suppose, at the end of the day, we really do want to save that RM11.40.

A buck for a book

Tamil Nesan (and the Star) today reported that Datuk Seri Shafie Apdal, Minister in the Unity, Culture, Arts and Heritage Ministry suggested that the government hand out allowances to civil servants to buy books. This in the spirit of promoting reading.

While the gesture shows the ministry’s seriousness in promoting what is no doubt a good habit, one must wonder if giving people a buck for a book (well... Ringgit if you insist) would actually see our book readership population rise from 13%.

According to the National Library, only 2.8% of Malaysians read newspapers and 8.2% read magazines. A sad number, one must admit.

I wonder though, if the reason people hardly read is because they couldn’t afford to do so. Surely there are more than 2.8% of Malaysians who are in the middle income bracket – hence enough disposable income to buy a book. If a newspaper only cost over RM1 yet lack readership, one can hardly say the fault lies at the pricing of reading material.

Besides, if price was really the issue, then there’s the good ol’ National Library that charges RM5 for membership and RM0 for borrowing a book. Granted, the National Library is no MPH bookstore (and all the really good books are located in the higher floors and can only be read within the vicinity) but I’ve read and borrowed more than enough good books to know that the library is good enough for the ferocious reader who likes to borrow three books a month.

Instead, most people when questioned cite a lack of time for the reason their bookshelves are bare. Simple arithmetic tells us that a movie takes two and a half hours at most to watch. While a book takes from three days to a month – depending on how much time you spend reading.

And I suppose, how much attention span do we have on a story, anyway?

Then, there’s the fact that going out for a movie means meeting up with friends and possibly followed by a nice dinner. Reading, on the other hand, is a solitary affair.

Even if one were to watch a movie alone at home, it’s infinitely easier to switch off from the daily grind and immerse yourself in a film that will end before it’s your turn to do the house chores again. Reading, on the other hand, requires patience and dedication. Every time something important crops up, out comes the book mark and the tale awaits indefinitely to be finished.

By this point, you probably think yours truly is against reading or the promotion of it. On the contrary – I feel reading is a habit we should cultivate from a very young age. The saying ‘Start ‘em young’ is a cliché when it comes to promoting the habit of reading.

The very fact that reading requires more brain cells than watching a film – (imagination in a descriptive text, concentration when a single sentence forms the entire paragraph, extensive vocabulary and occasionally, the patience to reach quickly for a dictionary when the author decides to use a bombastic word to underline his superior education) – means it has to be a labour of love. The joy of reading has to be the reason we go out and buy books.

People easily part with a few hundred Ringgit on clothes and fancy dinners yet think twice about getting the latest publication not because they lack the financial ability to do so but because they doubt the value they’re getting for their money.

Perhaps, instead of offering cash for a union of man and book, we could understand that reading as a past time – should be encouraged and promoted for what it is – an enjoyable way to spend time.