After scooping pails of water from the pool, they called
up newspaper offices to register their protest. Another city dweller resorted
to bathing at the health club in Rennaisance Hotel because there was no water
in his house for over a week. The less fortunate in many parts of the city had
to turn to fire hydrants and nearby streams.

All these Klang Valley residents
have been left high and dry over the past few weeks. In parts of Wangsamaju,
Cheras and Datuk Kramat, water supply has been disrupted for almost two weeks.

For a capital of a country that is seeking developed nation status, the water
problem has reached crisis level. We shouldn't be scooping water from drains
and streams, yet that is precisely what is happening.

The alternative is to
wait for the mobile water tanks. Malaysians cannot be blamed for not putting their
faith in the authorities. It is sheer incompetence when water tankers arrive in
our neighbourhoods without a proper schedule or a fair system of distribution.
These tankers even turn up at midnight, according to some complaints received
by the press.

Those of us who have had to put up with this situation have found
that water supply was cut without warning. No point trying to contact the
Selangor Waterworks Department. The line is usually engaged or calls go
unanswered;  only silence on the other
end.

According to the Meteorological Services Department, rain has not been
falling in catchment areas. As a result, the volume of water at Langat Dam,
Klang Gates and Tasik Subang Dam has remained low. One possible way out is, of
course, to conduct cloud-seeding over the three dams. Before that can be done,
there must be enough cumulus clouds or rain clouds. Cloud-seeding is also
expensive and not always successful.

This water crisis should make all us sit
up and take stock of the situation. When hills are chopped down, trees
disappear. Even if it rains, water trickles down into streams before reaching
the dam. That is why catchment areas are important. We don't need experts to
tell us that catchment areas must be away from places where the possibility of
pollution is real.

The siting of factories and industries near our rivers is
also cause for concern. Malaysians have a right to question how approvals were
given in the first place. Is it ignorance, poor planning or plain corruption?
The so-called love for the environment by the influential and powerful should
go beyond planting trees in the presence of the media. Going green, for
example, does not mean opening more golf courses. In the Klang Valley, there
are more than 50 of them.

 We need to protect our main range, which is the
source of 90% of Peninsula Malaysia's rivers, to ensure continuous supply of
fresh water for our future. Two years ago, the Malaysian Water Association
predicted that the country would face a major water crisis by 2010 if the Main
Range is not protected. We should not treat our rivers like sewers because they
provide 97% of our raw water supply.

How many of us remember the Love Our
Rivers campaign? After the initial publicity, we have gone back to our filthy
ways. It's time for all states to sit down and come out with a workable
national water policy. Malaysians will not accept any watered-down explanations
from bureaucrats over their failure to provide decent water supply. The thirst
for a good water supply plan has never been greater.

Risking their lives, they have  turned up in rickety boats that  made it through choppy waters,  carrying with them hopes of a better life.

Bringing along their families,  they are
prepared to be caught and  sent back by
the authorities  a  small price to pay, no doubt.

Like all matters which deal with  human
lives, there's always some  degree of
sympathy being evoked  on both
sides.

Some idealistic but naive non government organisations, for example, have
reacted angrily to the  use of the Internal
Security Act  against tekong darat who
bring in  these illegals.

These middlemen are no more  than just
human smugglers, to put  it bluntly,
cashing in on the misery  of these
unfortunate illegal immigrants.

They are not to be treated with  kid's
gloves. We can forget about  getting them
to volunteer information about their activities, especially their link with
corrupt officers.

There is a lot at stake here. Malaysia has to deal sensitively with  its neighbours  at the same time  grapple with the economic crisis   without straining bilateral ties.

Malaysia cannot appear to be  harsh in
dealing with human lives  but it cannot
allow pity to stand in  the way of
national security.

Like Singaporeans, Malaysians  are
worried about the influx of illegal immigrants which could lead to  social and political unrest, if
unchecked.

No country wants to take in thousands of unemployed people from  its neighbours when it has its own  problems to deal with.

The long-term implications,  should they
settle permanently, are 
staggering.

We have already heard about foreigners giving birth in local hospitals,
stretching our overworked  hospital
staff. Their children are  already in our
schools, taxing our  resources
further.

Well aware of the far-reaching 
consequences, Thailand, for example, has announced its decision to  expel one million foreign workers,  mainly from Myanmar.

Singapore, with a population of  three
million people, is worried  that the tiny
island republic would  be swamped
overnight with illegals. It has dealt severely with illegals under the law
which allows  whipping.

NGOs and the foreign media  should admit
that this problem is  not peculiar only
to this region.

In the United States, it has become a daily routine for its officers  to stop Mexicans and others sneaking across
its borders.

We have seen on television how  French
authorities drag African illegal immigrants out of their  homes.

In the United Kingdom, bona fide 
tourists, suspected of wanting to 
overstay, have been deported at the 
drop of a hat by immigration officers at Heathrow airport.

For years, Malaysia provided  shelter to
Vietnamese refugees.  The Vietnamese
problem was less  complicated in the
sense that they  made it clear they had
no interest  to settle here.

The refugees were kept in camps  until
they were relocated to a third  country.
Unfortunately, many  countries of their
choice were not  willing to accept
them.

While many in these countries  were quick
with their criticism  about how the
Vietnamese were being detained, they were less accommodative when it came to
embracing these refugees.

In Malaysia, we see our officers 
distributing nasi bungkus to every 
illegal immigrant who is sent home.

We have been much more tolerant than many countries, particularly over the last
few years during  the boom period.

Desperate for manpower, Malaysian employers readily hire foreigners  with no questions asked  sometimes.

Yes, there are unscrupulous employers who prefer to employ illegals not only
because they are  cheap but also because
they can be  exploited.

Official figures put the number  of
foreign workers, both legal and  illegal,
in Malaysia at about two  million but
Malaysians cannot be  blamed if they
think the number is  higher.

Sabah, for example, has an estimated 400,000 foreigners, mostly  Indonesians and Filipinos, but this  looks like a conservative figure.

It wouldn't be cheap for us to  send back
these illegal immigrants,  who will keep
coming back. Keeping them in detention camps for  long periods is not the answer either.

Our neighbours can help if they  are
ready to send their ships to  take their
people back.

For the Foreign Ministry and the  police,
great diplomatic skill and  sensitivity
are required to manage  this
problem.

Maximum understanding and  goodwill,
without compromising  our national
interests, are needed.

It's a tall order, but Malaysians  must
not forget: in this present economic situation, charity has to begin at
home.

Some of its leaders have decided  to vent
their anger at critics including Fomca, giving the impression  that the MTUC is unable to tolerate  criticism which its unionists freely  dispense almost daily though its  press statements.

A little humility doesn't hurt. The  MTUC
and Cuepacs represent a  large number of
workers, but the  unions should not take
for granted  that they speak on behalf of
all Malaysians.

Neither should the MTUC leadership assume that others, including  the press, have insufficient knowledge of
unionism.

In respond to my comments last  week,
MTUC vice-president Mustafa Hassan issued a two-page  press release which, among other  things, implied that I do not know  anything about unionism.

In his rebuttal, Mustaffa said  unionists
should be decently  dressed as they
attend many international conferences and meetings.

He also explained that MTUC's 
multi-pronged objectives in the 
chicken boycott included encouraging consumers to look for
alternatives.

I thank Mustaffa for taking the  trouble
to give MTUC's point of  view.
Unfortunately, Mustaffa did  not take the
opportunity to explain  why Malaysians
were so unconvinced by the chicken boycott.

He described as “trivial'' the  case of
Selangor MTUC assistant  secretary K.
Somasundram who  was found treating his
daughter to  chicken nuggets at a
Kentucky  Fried Chicken outlet.

It maybe be trivial to the MTUC  but for
many Malaysians it was  symbolic of the
entire boycott   showing lack of support
and confidence.

The intention by MTUC and Cuepacs to raise consumer issues is  commendable. Like unionism, consumerism is
not the monopoly of  consumer
activists.

Instead of calling for boycotts, it 
would be better if unions can come 
up with alternatives. With combined resources, they could perhaps go
into food production for its 
members.

It could also find ways for members to buy chicken or fish at better rates than
those at wet markets.

Both unions could also work with 
co-operatives and organic farms to 
sell their produces direct to members. They could also work with  fish-rearers to beat the price rise.

A factory in Penang, for example, has encouraged its workers to  plant vegetables during their free time. The
result is that at the end of  the month,
they go home with their  wages and free
greens.

With its strong network, both  unions
could encourage factories to  adopt the
same approach.

The days of union rhetoric is  over. The
public and members  want to hear real
alternatives and  solutions.

Before it proceeds with its move  to
boycott fish, it should seriously 
consider whether Malaysian consumers will swallow hook, line and  sinker what it preaches.

There is no doubt that fish is  more
expensive than chicken but it  is still
at a tolerable level if a consumer cooks at home. Fish dishes  at restaurants are exorbitantly  priced, needless to say.

But fish prices vary greatly, depending on locality and outlet (hypermarket or
wet market).

Price comparison, as anyone who  has done
any marketing will tell  you, can be
grossly unfair and incorrect.

At this point, the proposal to boycott fish sounds, well, fishy. On a  scale of one to 10, it looks like both  unions are fishing in troubled waters again.

So, what is their bone of contention?

The MTUC and Cuepacs should  reconsider
their decision to call for  a fresh round
of chicken boycott,  which it said will
be longer and  more systematic.

They have also said that a campaign would be carried out to boycott imported
rice and traders who  cheat consumers and
increase  price indiscriminately.

This time, the unions must make  sure
their officials do not buy fillet o-fish at McDonald's.

The leaders of the country's two largest  unions should have realised that  chicken, or a chicken-based meal,  is not only the cheapest meat but  also a Malaysian favourite. They are either
out of touch with  consumer reality or
have over-estimated their strength. Anyone who has been to our pasar malam or
wet markets recently  would be able to
tell the unions that  beef, fish or
prawns are more expensive than chicken meat. And even before anyone could  cry foul over the boycott, a senior  unionist was caught at a Kentucky  Fried Chicken outlet. Needless to say,
feathers were  ruffled and there were
plenty of  red faces  as red as cock combs. The MTUC has yet to
announce  the fate of Mr K.
Somasundram,  the MTUC assistant
secretary  caught treating his daughter
to a  chicken lunch on the first day
of  the supposed boycott of the meat.
Somasundram, it was reported,  was merely
trying to be a good father. His five-year-old daughter  wanted chicken nuggets, so he  bought some. The only problem was that
Somasundram was also a co-ordinator of 
the campaign. The incident has left him with  more than he can chew, and it will  be difficult for Malaysians to swallow his
explanation. Zainal Rampak, the MTUC president and veteran of many political
parties, was no match for Colonel 
Sanders, as far as the child was 
concerned. Poultry farmers are saying that  the cost of chicken feed is no  “chicken feed.'' Chicken feed used by
Malaysian  farmers are 65% corn and
soya  bean, which make the chickens  grow big. The feed includes palm oil kernel,
tapioca chips and grass  pellets. It's
all very scientific. The  MTUC and Cuepacs
leaders, like  many of us, must have
thought otherwise. The adage that “the early 
bird catches the worm'' does not 
quite hold water these days. Umno Youth chief Datuk Zahid  Hamidi has an apt Bahasa Malaysia description
for the chicken boycott   hangat hangat
tahi ayam (flash  in the pan). Even Fomca
president Prof Hamdan Adnan isn't quite convinced,  saying the campaign should be targeted at
eateries and that consumers should be allowed to buy at the  markets. Hamdan, who was attending a  consumer conference in Penang  last week, told reporters that union  officials were sore with him over  his purported lack of support for  the boycott. Our unions, presumably,
never  thought that their chicken
boycott  would leave a bitter taste in
everyone's mouth. Hamdan, who was supposed to 
share his hotel room with a unionist, said his partner did not show  up. He wasn't sure whether it had  anything to do with the chicken  boycott. Following the failure of the
boycott, the two unions appear to have 
chickened out from further action 
against roti canai sellers and kopi 
tiam operators. They can hardly be blamed. Too  many of our unionists have grown  fat. Comfortable in their bush jackets, no
one can tell them apart from  government
officials and corporate  leaders these
days. Overseas trips and high salaries, 
it seems, have made some lose 
sight of the working and living conditions of the working class. They  have to realise that unionism goes  beyond issuing press statements  and asking for pay increases. Members, for
example, have a  right to know what they
are doing  to cut down expenses and
increase  productivity, Accountability
and transparency  should not be just
buzzwords for  the public and private
sectors but  also the unions. One
unionist, in his quest for publicity and sycophancy, announced  that members were willing to take  a pay cut 
without seeking the endorsement of his members. Needless to say, the
members  were outraged at his statement.
The chicken boycott is another  example
of where our Malaysian  unions have gone
wrong. There is always a need to look at 
issues from all sides. It's no good 
saying let's boycott chicken without considering the consequences  to the industry, including the position of
poultry farm workers. Perhaps the unions can learn  from this experience and be more  mature in their approach. It is all  right to be less gung-ho if their efforts
benefit everyone. If there is any Malaysian who has  found the prices of chicken to be  unbearable, it would have to be  poor Somasundram. For the rest of us, there
was nothing to crow about.

They hold no political position  but wield tremendous political  clout, with an uncanny ability to influence the political direction of a  party and even the country.

The most obvious example is Sonia Gandhi, the 51-year-old widow  of former Indian Prime Minister  Rajiv Gandhi. She's not even running for elections but has become  the central figure in India's polls.

To the Congress Party, she appears to be its only hope of salvaging what's left of the once great  party in the country's fractious  politics.

She's of course not the only contemporary example. There's Hillary Clinton who has come to the defence of her husband, accused of  having an affair with an intern.

Imagine the embarrassing consequences if Hillary had remained on  the sidelines, shunning state functions and refusing to say anything  to defend her husband.

The mere act of being silent and  conspicuously absent from the side  of Clinton would have sent the  world's most powerful politician  limping out of the Oval Room.

You could say this would be a  terrible blow to Clinton who has  been accused of having oral sex in  the White House.

Philippine presidential hopeful  Joseph Estrada who has been accused of liking the three Bs   booze, bimbo and baccarat  is  equally lucky.

Despite being called a political  dumbo by his detractors, his PhD  wife has always come to his defence.

History, of course, is full of such  examples. Argentine's Evita Peron  outshone her husband while Jiang  Qing influenced her husband Mao  Zedong greatly.

The widows of many South Asian  leaders have become leaders in  their own right, taking over positions once held by their husbands.

Nobody in these countries  seemed to mind that their only  proven talent has been making  naan and tandoori chicken. The  family name was enough to send  them into a political frenzy.

Some wives, of course, become  their husband's worst enemies.  Marcos could have possibly clung  on to power if Imelda wasn't so obsessed with shoes.

The Filipinos understandably  kicked up a storm and gave Marcos  the boot finally.

South Africa's Winnie Mandela  didn't help her husband Nelson  Mandela one bit.

In Malaysia, the wives of politicians are an equally powerful lot  although they are much more discreet.

Taking the back seat at political  functions while their husbands enjoy the limelight, women power has  hardly diminished.

The wife of a senior Malaysian  politician, for example, heads a  newspaper and exerts great influence on the party.

Seasoned political writers have  long realised the importance of  spouses, cleverly forging close  links with them.

Recently, a young reporter attempted to contact a Cabinet minister at his house. Each time she  called, she was told that the Datuk  was either meeting some party  members or performing prayers.

With the deadline approaching,  the exasperated reporter finally  approached a political reporter,  telling him of her predicament.

The political reporter told her  not to worry. Picking up the phone,  he called the house and asked for  the Datin instead.

Within minutes, the busy Datuk  was calling the newsroom instead  and offering his assistance.

In fact, some politicians have  been known to send their wives to  meet the wives of their party leaders during general elections, lobbying for seats and posts.

One Datin, whose husband was  left out of an important government post after a general election,  is said to have sought the support  of another Datin.

The two Datins were said to be  close friends, often exchanging  recipes for curry dishes.

No one is quite sure what transpired in the kitchen until today  but something must have brewed  there. A plan must have been  cooked up, you may say.

Soon, the particular Datuk was  appointed to a post which he was  not recommended initially.

Politicians can tell you that the  bedroom and the kitchen can both  be a boon and a bane. You just have  to know what's cooking.