Categories
Conflict & disaster Environment

[2332] Sendai and Fukushima are not in Malaysia

Malaysia intends to have an operational nuclear power plant by 2021. Multiple individuals and groups oppose the plan. The opposition is based on multiple legitimate concerns. I believe the biggest fear is the chances of a nuclear meltdown. Chernobyl and the Three Mile Island accident are two examples popularly cited to rationalize the fear.  The latest incident around Sendai that included the shutdown of several plants and an explosion in Fukushima is becoming the third example.

It is wrongly becoming a third example.

While the explosion might have led to a meltdown — the latest news reported that the situation is under control now — the explosion itself was caused by a very strong earthquake that is unheard of in Malaysia.

Really, earthquakes in Malaysia hardly deserve the term. Tremors fits the characteristic better and those tremors hardly cause any damage to buildings, if it does at all.

The very limited possibility — out of this world chances — of Malaysia experiencing similar earthquakes that Japan is used to, and especially to the magnitude that Japan suffered several days ago, negates the nuclear incident in Fukushima from becoming a valid case to back anti-nuclear power position in Malaysia. There are many others examples to cite from, but Sendai is just not one of them.

Sendai and Fukushima are just not a precautionary tale for Malaysia. Anyone who thinks so deserves to be accused of being unfamiliar with Malaysia. To make a parallel out of the incident is to ignore local circumstances, which are essentially different to that of Japan’s.

Categories
Photography Travels

[2331] A lonely road in Versailles

This is somewhere in the Gardens of Versailles.

On the right beyond the wall is the residence of Marie Antoinette, the Queen of France whom lost her head to the guillotine.

Categories
Liberty Society

[2330] The police force and the military must remain separated

The roles of the police and the armed forces are different. One enforces the law while the other stands on guard against the enemy of the state. The difference in functions and in challenges both faces necessitate the two to be separated. When two security forces are combined, the power of the military expands. With that, there is a fear that the military might see everything that it faces as enemy of the state. The military becomes paranoid and then acts upon the policing power that it has. That is a step towards military rule.

I am raising this issue because I have read in the news recently that the police is cooperating with the military in fighting crime. In the Parliament yesterday, the Minister of Home Affairs confirms the news report.[1] He said that the Ministry was having strategic cooperation with several entities including the military. The cooperation includes the use of military camps for training and recruitment of police officers and joint patrol.

Whether this militarizes the police force is arguable, but what is certain is that it will expand the influence of the military in our society.

The goal of reducing crime rate in the country is laudable. The goal however does not justify all means. The rule of laws must still be adhered to. Rights must be respected, including those belonging to criminals. The goal also does not justify the erosion of separation between the police and the armed force.

The two must remain separated.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — Kementerian Dalam Negeri sedang dan akan mengadakan kerjasama strategik dengan pihak lain antaranya seperti Angkatan Tentera Malaysia yang telah dilaksanakan bagi menangani jenayah seperti penggunaan kem-kem tentera untuk melatih dan merekrut anggota polis, mengadakan rondaan-rondaan secara bersama dan menyerap bekas personel tentera dalam perkhidmatan polis. [Page 3. Hansard. March 9 2011.]

Categories
Society

[2329] Just one ticket, please

I have been to a number of cities with superb rail networks before but I hardly took any notice of them. I simply took the convenience that came along with them for granted. I have come to conclude that any good big city will always have a good rail network servicing the city and its suburbs. The fact that a city has one is not something that quickly impresses me anymore.

While I was wandering the streets of Paris, the issue of the planned mass rail transit system in Kuala Lumpur began to dominate Malaysian headlines. Paris is famous for many things and one of those things is its dense rail network called the Metro. With the MRT in mind, I began to compare the Metro to the existing rail network in Kuala Lumpur.

It is probably unfair to make that comparison. The French capital began building its system nearly a century earlier than Kuala Lumpur did. The French had a lot of time to build and to perfect their network while Kuala Lumpur is still building its network. Nevertheless, there are things Kuala Lumpur can learn from Paris.

One of them is definitely how the lines are integrated, given how badly the network in Kuala Lumpur performs in this respect. Prime examples of lack of integration are the monorail line at KL Sentral, the light rail transit stations at Masjid Jamek and the distance between the Bukit Nanas monorail station and the Dang Wangi station on the Kelana Jaya LRT line.

The planned MRT is poised to repeat these past mistakes. One station belonging to the MRT line is not going to be constructed at KL Sentral but somewhere near to the transportation hub of the city. The distance between the hub and the planned MRT station appears to be farther than the distance between the hub and the nearby monorail station.

The need to travel the distance to change trains is an annoyance for commuters but sometimes it is understandably unavoidable. The issue of cost, land ownership or other innocent constraints may prevent perfect integration between lines. In Paris, there are places where one has to walk for a considerable distance to change trains.

The ticketing system in Paris fortunately makes the action less of a chore. Whatever the train line a commuter needs to take, he or she simply needs to buy the ticket once. There is no need to buy a different ticket for a different line. That means there is no need to queue at the counter or machine multiple times. It also means a commuter need not pass through a ticket verification barrier one time too many.

In Kuala Lumpur, different lines have their own tickets. The need to purchase multiple tickets because one needs to change trains causes long queues. Add to that the fact that these machines in Kuala Lumpur tend to accept exact change only, never mind that some of these machines tend to be offline typically; riding the trains can be an extremely stressful experience.

There is of course the Touch ”˜N Go and other cards that partially address the problem of lack of ticket integration across all the intracity lines.

Yet, not everybody can afford to store considerable credit in those cards and even if affordability is not an issue, not everybody wants to use it. Many times, individuals need to ride the intra-city train infrequently. That makes these cards a relatively expensive investment for a person in a country where a lot of individuals earn less than RM2,000 per month.

My suggestion for the new MRT line and together with the LRT network is this: if the intracity lines cannot be integrated physically with verification barriers placed everywhere, at least integrate its ticketing systems. Since the LRT is under Syarikat Prasarana Negara and so too the MRT eventually, surely such an integration will not be too hard to do.

And yes, please make those machines a little bit more flexible in accepting bills.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

First published in The Malaysian Insider on March 2 2011.

Categories
Politics & government Society

[2328] An arrogant free riding migrant

There are times when Malaysians living abroad can be arrogant, perceiving too highly of their worth to Malaysia. There are Malaysians abroad who are highly skilled and educated, of course, but not all of those living overseas are. Most are architects, professors, financial wizards, etc. Some are cab drivers, cooks at some fast food place, janitors, etc. Some are old people of no clear expertise.

Somehow, I get the idea that the mainstream narrative is all Malaysians living abroad are highly skilled or educated who expertise are prized.

I want to blame the Malaysians media, printed and online for that. The media or even those offering opinion on how to address the brain drain take some details for granted and tend to highlight successful Malaysians abroad only. That in the end paints the picture that all Malaysians living abroad have highly skilled or educated, who could contribute to the development of Malaysia more than others.

The truth is that not all Malaysians living abroad are highly skilled or educated. Not of all of them are successful either. There are those who can be easily replaced by locals cheaply. Some migrated because of their family connection, not so much of skills and attracting them back may only bring indirect benefits, which in the net might not present a convincing case.

There is nothing wrong with migration. I am not condemning those who migrated for whatever reason. There are a lot of legitimate reasons to migrate out of Malaysia: job opportunity, discrimination, politics, family, etc.

What I have issue with is the arrogance of some of these people who migrated, when the arrogance is clearly unearned. Here is an example.

A prominent Malaysian politician was in Sydney some months ago. He gave a talk. He attracted a large crowd. He is after all a good speaker.

At the end, there was a question and answer session, which too many have the tendency to turn that period into a soapbox session.

An old former Malaysian, now an Australian citizen, a retired teacher, probably in his 60s, came up to offer his opinion. He rambled about how if Malaysia wants him to come home, the people in Malaysia need to change first.

The people in Malaysia need to change, he said. As if he was the top candidate for Talent Corporation, whatever that government-linked entity actually does.

Is he ignorant of the fact that many Malaysians are doing what they can to change the system? There are Malaysians who disagree with the system and have to suffer the system in fact.

What is more angering about the arrogance is that he proudly announced his intention at free riding. He expects others to change the country while he lives his retired life comfortably, while possibly on a relatively generous transfer payment the Australian government provides for pensioners in Australia.

I rolled my eyes.

It is completely understandable that some people have no stomach to participate in change personally. There are always opportunity costs involved, if guts is not an issue. It is also fine if one decides to return to Malaysia if the society changes for the better. A lot of Malaysians would likely do that. I personally have a number of friends with that thinking. I do not blame them and it is only natural. I cannot think of a good reason to chastise them.

But that particular person does not have the moral authority to put it so arrogantly. No one in that situation has. The license to arrogance vanishes immediately as one free rides.