THE United States ranks low in the credibility stakes. It can no longer wax lyrical about free trade and fair play because the world now knows that when it finds itself facing stiff competition, it uses a ruling the magnitude of a nuclear bomb to retaliate.

Firstly, US president Donald Trump declared a national emergency and barred American companies from doing business with companies deemed a national security risk.

Then, companies like Google and Microsoft stopped making software and services available to Huawei, China’s biggest smartphone vendor.

The ban essentially means that future Huawei phones will no longer get Google play apps, YouTube, and almost certainly no updates to Android Q or other platform-level upgrades since these would require Google’s sign-off, too.

Sure, you can still make calls or use WeChat and other Chinese platforms, but for users in most parts of the world, the phone is pretty much useless.

Word is that Huawei poses a security risk, but no clarification has been forthcoming to what these threats include exactly.

There is a sense of déjà vu here.

The world was once told by the US and its allies that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but we learnt in the end there were none. Now, we have the Iran threat, but that’s another story all together.

From what little info has trickled into the worldwide web, the suggestion is that Chinese-manufactured devices have hidden back doors that could potentially allow an attacker to gain special access.

It sounds like a script excerpt from a James Bond movie, with spooks using a master password to break into high security facilities.

But incredibly, Huawei and ZTE Corp, another telecommunications equipment manufacturer, were cleared by the US House of Representatives permanent select committee on intelligence.

The two had been accused of providing “incomplete, contradictory and evasive responses to the committee’s core concerns” during their year-long investigation on the threat they supposedly pose to American interests.

In the end, the committee found no concrete evidence of infringement. But that didn’t stop the two companies from being labelled a national security risk and getting kicked out of the US.

IS, the German internet security watchdog, inspected Huawei laboratories in Germany and found no evidence of espionage, and The New York Times quoted American officials saying that the case against the company had “no smoking gun – just a heightened concern about the firm’s rising technological dominance”.

Rightly or wrongly, in the game of perception, the US has lost its moral ground. Thanks, in many ways, to an impulsive president.

Most of the world’s population thinks the bullying of Huawei is simply Trump’s hallmark. It isn’t about a security risk, but an economic threat.

Outside China, Huawei is arguably the most successful Chinese consumer brand so far. Thanks to a good and relatively cheaper product, it is now the second largest phone vendor in the world.

One strong accusation levelled at Huawei is that it enjoys Chinese government backing, and that China uses its spies to steal US technology for these private companies.

It’s a really warped perspective because, using the same logic, why is the US president taking such a hard line against a private company that’s merely selling phones?

The answer could well lie in the technology race.

Now, it’s about who launches 5G first, the next generation of mobile broadband imminently replacing 4G.

With 5G, we will see exponentially faster download and upload speeds. Huawei is widely renowned for being 12 months ahead of its competitors in the 5G race.

It began to develop its own 5G technology as early as 2009. In 2013, Huawei hired more than 300 top experts from the wireless industry around the world and announced that they had invested US$600mil (RM2.5bil) in 5G research.

In 2016, Huawei set up a 5G product line for such devices.

What started as a three-man company now has thousands of employees engaged in 5G product development. Following this, in 2017, and then in 2018, Huawei invested almost US$1.4bil (RM5.8bil) in 5G product development.

The South China Morning Post has, however, also reported that apart from its tremendous commercial benefits, 5G – the fifth generation of mobile communication – is revolutionising military and security technology, which is partly why it has become a focal point in the US’ efforts to contain China’s rise as a tech power, and the Western nation’s allegations against Chinese companies is simply symptomatic of its insecurities.

“The future landscape of warfare and cybersecurity could be fundamentally changed by 5G.

“But experts say 5G is more susceptible to hacking than previous networks, at a time of rising security concerns and US-China tensions on various interconnected fronts that include trade, influence in the Asia-Pacific region and technological rivalry.

“These tensions provide the backdrop to controversy surrounding Huawei, the world’s largest telecoms equipment supplier.”

It’s also a fight between China and the US on who leads the artificial intelligence domain, as with 5G advancements, it means “whereas existing networks connect people to people, the next generation will connect a vast network of sensors, robots and autonomous vehicles through sophisticated artificial intelligence.

“The so-called Internet of Things will allow objects to ‘communicate’ with each other by exchanging vast volumes of data in real time, and without human intervention.

“Autonomous factories, long-distance surgery or robots preparing your breakfast – things that previously existed only in science fiction – will be made possible.

“Meanwhile, though, it is being identified by many military experts as the cornerstone of future military technology,” the newspaper reported.

As TV personality Trevor Noah says, humorously, in his show, the 5G war isn’t just about “loading an entire movie in three seconds but about the Chinese spying – which the US also wants to do.”

He sarcastically added that “the US is losing the 5G race and luckily, we have a maniac in our team who’s willing to play dirty.”

As the battle rages on, spilling into the already acrimonious US-China trade war, the controversy has become more bitter, and complicated, with the US egging its allies to ban Huawei from building its next generation of mobile phone networks. So far, Britain, Germany, Australia, New Zealand and Canada have either banned Huawei or are reviewing whether to do so.

Japan, a US ally, seems to have been dragged into the propaganda of persecuting Huawei, too.

In China, the actions against Huawei have stirred a storm of nationalism, with the Chinese calling for a boycott of iPhone, a reaction which could eventually affect other American and European products, at the rate things are escalating.

Even within the Chinese diaspora, the messages of unequivocal support for Huawei have gone viral in the world’s social media sphere.

The irony is that the iPhone is not only assembled in China, but its very inception starts in that country at a much earlier stage, and from a much deeper part of the earth, too.

At least 90% of rare earth minerals – naturally occurring solids whose combination comprises essential iPhone parts – are mined in China, notably in Mongolia, it’s reported.

“Lanthanides, scandium, yttrium and some other alien-sounding names at the bottom of the periodic table (remember your secondary school?) make the iPhone ‘light, bright and loud.’ Its colour screen, glass polishing, circuitry, speakers and vibration unit come from a mix of these rare earth minerals,” it says in Finances Online.

The report added that where American companies would take months to pool thousands of industrial engineers, and even more months to construct new assembly lines to accommodate a trivial but urgent change in an iPhone spec (say, its glass panel needing to curve to hatch on the body six weeks prior to launching), it only takes 15 days in China to do the same.

“To put it in perspective, one production line in China can assemble 72,000 iPhone 5 back plates daily; one factory can have four to five production lines and China can have as much as a hundred of these factories, opening or closing a few of them depending on the current demand.

“The last part – opening and closing plants like a mom-and-pop store – is almost impossible in an American economy.

“It is no longer a city counting the number of manufacturing plants it has, but the manufacturing plant can be counted as a city in many Asian economic zones.”

And it’s common knowledge that Mickey Mouse merchandise is made in China, and likewise all the branded sportswear sold globally. The profits these companies are raking in are simply down to the low cost of operation.

Trump should know and do better. Instead of threatening and bullying Huawei with trumped up charges, he should urge American companies to be more competitive, make better products and keep prices low.

I am dumping my iPhone, upgrading my South Korean Samsung and for the first time, getting myself a Huawei. I hear the camera is really good, and it doesn’t even need a zoom lens for magnification. And that sophistication comes from a license to thrill.

AS my plane began its descent onto the runway of Rwanda International Airport in Kigali, the East African country’s capital, a crew member advised passengers to leave their plastic bags on board.

Plastic bags have been banned in Rwanda due to environmental reasons. It’s illegal to import, produce, use or sell plastic bags and plastic packaging, except within specific industries, such as medical (hospitals) and pharmaceutical.

As I lined up to have my passport checked, a large sign, which read “Use of non-biodegradable polythene bags is prohibited,” greeted me. It was the second warning.

After collecting my luggage, it was the Custom officers’ turn to search my bags, to see if I had broken the law. And if I had, the plastic items would have been confiscated and coupled with a fine of US$65 (RM271) per item.

And get this – Rwanda has implemented this law since 2008, a good 11 years ago!

Last month, Tanzania announced that polythene bags would be stripped from commercial use and household packaging from June 1, warning producers and suppliers to dispose their stock in the process.

The ban on plastic means that Tanzania will join the ranks of Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi in mitigating the effects of plastic waste.

Meanwhile, here in Malaysia, we are grabbing international headlines for all the wrong reasons.

We rank among the top 10 worst countries for plastic waste pollution, with “most of our plastic waste dumped, a small portion burned, and an even smaller fraction recycled,” according a report.

Malaysia is also the preferred destination for dumping plastic waste, with imports from countries like the United States, Britain, Australia, Germany, France, Switzerland and New Zealand, littering our land. Ironically, these are nations which righteously and proudly lecture the world on environmental cleanliness.

It was reported in 60 Minutes that Australia had more than 71,000 tonnes of such waste shipped to Malaysia in just 12 months.

This scourge began when China, which had been importing and recycling much of the world’s plastic waste for the last 20 years, started to ban such imports at the end of 2017, citing environmental concerns.

To put it bluntly, Malaysia has earned notoriety as “the dumping ground for plastic waste” on a global scale.

Thanks to greedy Malaysians and lax enforcement, this filth has been dumped in rural areas including Jenjarom, a town in Kuala Langat, Selangor, which is now home to 17 million kg of dumped waste.

So, what are we doing about the plastic waste in Malaysia? Last October, Energy, Technology, Science, Climate Change and Environment Minister Yeo Bee Yin said Malaysia was pushing towards becoming a zero single-use plastic country by 2030.

No one expects Malaysia to impose an overnight and arbitrary decision, but the deadline is more than 10 years from now, giving the impression that there’s no great urgency in solving the problem.

It will be even harder for Yeo to push for a complete ban on plastic waste, since too many ministries and authorities are involved.

This is big money business and powerful lobbyists are at work here because the plastic waste industry is worth a staggering RM3.5bil.

Even Housing and Local Government Minister Zuraida Kamaruddin has been quoted saying that “it is rather challenging for the government to ban it entirely.”

She said ministries including Energy, Science, Technology, Environment and Climate Change; International Trade and Industry; and Water, Land and Natural Resources, had collectively agreed on the direction of the plastic waste import conundrum and its business potential.

“We cannot take this matter lightly as it provides a huge contribution to this country’s revenue,” Zuraida told the Dewan Rakyat, in response to a question by Klang MP Charles Santiago, who asked if the ministry would alter the National Solid Waste Management (SWM) Policy to ban all imported plastic waste.

However, she said there were no plans to change the SWM policy for now. In response to Santiago’s claim that there were 100 illegal plastic processing factories still operating in Klang even after the local council revoked their licences, Zuraida said a circular had already been issued to local authorities – notably those in Selangor and Penang – to shut down illegal factories.

“Since the incident was exposed, we have frozen licences to import plastic.

“Each licence application to process these plastic materials needs to get a consent letter from the ministry, and we have not approved any application since then,” she added.

Let’s not count on any swift action to reduce, if not completely ban, plastic waste from our shores.

In China, the stroke of a pen implemented the ban, so shipments were re-routed, and they are now in Malaysia.

And here, we are still hibernating and pondering how “we can phase out the import”.

Of course, no one can instil a time frame. So, for all the rhetoric and bravado, the bottom line is this – we can’t be sure if the government has the willpower to impose such a ban.

The official figures are alarming. Between January and July last year, Malaysia’s plastic waste import from its 10 biggest source-countries jumped to 456,000 tonnes from 316,600 tonnes in the whole of 2017, and 168,500 tonnes in 2016, it was reported.

In the same period, the country imported 195,444 tonnes of plastic waste from the US alone, the synthetic substance’s biggest exporter. This is double the 97,544 tonnes it took in for almost the whole of last year. Singapore exported about 19,000 tonnes of plastic waste to Malaysia last year, too.

So, what did our government do after the public outcry and international condemnation from environmental groups?

In late July, the government imposed a three-month freeze on existing approved permits (AP) for plastic waste imports, following feedback regarding their improper usage and air pollution caused by illegal plastic recycling factories.

A total of 114 recyclers with APs had their revenue stream jeopardised.

And then what happened?

Three months later, the ministry lifted the ban, citing a fear of losing out on economic benefits – and of course, now, we know more than RM3bil is at stake. Never mind its disastrous effects on the health of the people and environment.

Presumably, in a bid to display that action was taken, the government introduced tighter regulations: recyclers had to fulfil 18 new conditions before securing APs, and they’ve been forced to pay a levy of RM15 per tonne of imported plastic waste. It’s hilarious because this is chicken feed to these importers.

Legitimate recyclers – whose services are truly helping the environment – exist, but it’s unfortunate they have been lumped together with the ugly importers, and this is where the authorities must be more consistent in their enforcement efforts.

So, the harsh reality is that we are sitting on top of the world’s largest pile of plastic waste, and we don’t have the gumption to ban it, or ship it to its countries of origin because we stand to lose RM3.5bil.

The most likely outcome from all of this is, we will merely impose a higher levy, and struggle to decide on a timeline for it. And to encapsulate such inaction in an age-old phrase – this stinks!

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad

TUN Dr Mahathir Mohamad has said many times, and in different ways, too, so the message is clear and consistent – Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim will be his successor and there should be no doubt of this.

But for whatever reasons, the Prime Minister is constantly grilled about this by the media. Will the PKR president succeed him as Prime Minister, and when will the world’s oldest prime minister step down? This is the regular line of questioning.

It’s incredible that he has never lost his cool answering these two questions, and neither has he directed his press officers to tell the media not to bring the subject up.

So the press keeps bringing it up, and, for even stranger reasons, these repeated news reports still grab an audience.

Perhaps, many aren’t prepared to whole-heartedly embrace politicians’ sales pitches, because they often lack value in truth. There is also the little detail of the two men’s past record of bitter acrimony that still haunts their most loyal supporters.

The only thing that brought them together was their determination to end Barisan Nasional’s 60-year stranglehold, to topple Datuk Seri Najib Razak and haul him and Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor to court to face multiple charges of corruption and money laundering.

It’s no secret that the component parties made a written pact that Dr Mahathir would be PM following the May 2018 general election victory, and that Anwar would eventually take over. The only thing that wasn’t put in black and white was the time frame leading to the hand-over.

Anwar, the PKR leader with no Cabinet post, has been patient, and has kept repeating the near-obligatory line, “Dr Mahathir must be given the latitude and space”. The truth is, he has little choice but to remain the PM-in-waiting.

The speculation – resulting in perceived uncertainties – is also due to the open differences between Anwar and Datuk Seri Azmin Ali, his deputy in PKR.

But last week, Dr Mahathir Mohamad said in clear terms that he would step down as premier after two years to make way for Anwar, although in a subsequent interview, he added that it could be three years.

Dr Mahathir said that anyone who takes over from him isn’t required to adhere to his instructions or follow his example.

“He is free to do what he thinks is best as prime minister. I have no say on what happens after. My job is to prepare the country as much as possible,” he said in a special interview in conjunction with the first anniversary of the Pakatan administration on Wednesday.

Of course, those aligned to Anwar – who was sacked as deputy prime minister in 1998 by Dr Mahathir and then jailed – are insistent he take over the reins in a year.

However, there is no time frame, and curiously, this is all turning into Anwar’s advantage that Dr Mahathir be allowed to fix the many economic headaches battering the country.

Besides the eye-watering amount of money looted from the coffers, the country is facing a multi-prong attack of falling commodity prices, a shrinking ringgit, poor consumer sentiment, the outflow of funds and a weak stock market.

Adding to his plate, Dr Mahathir is forced to grapple with the inexperience, and perhaps, incompetence of some of his ministers, a mutinous civil service and a security force that has kept supporting the opposition in a series of by-elections.

If that isn’t enough, Umno and PAS have successfully played up the purported loss of Malay supremacy to the DAP – a euphemism for the Chinese – when ironically, it was the Malay leaders who stole from government bodies.

Billions of ringgit have gone missing from the Federal Land Development Authority and Lem-baga Tabung Haji in what can only be described as “jaw dropping losses”.

Those entrusted with safeguarding these assets, unfortunately, squandered them despite professing to protect the Malay race and Islam.

With a line-up of greenhorn Cabinet members, Dr Mahathir is the most likely person to fix these problems. There is the consensus that he is the only one who can reign royalty in and openly oppose them. The rest of us ordinary Malaysians may face sedition charges for posting disparaging remarks on social media.

A few days ago, Dr Mahathir reiterated that he would not see out a full term and will step aside after fixing problems his PH coalition claims it inherited after forming the federal government.

PM Mahathir, who turns 94 in two months, told a conference with the foreign media: “We will make most of the corrections within a period of two years, and after that, I think the others will have less problems to face.”

When pressed on whether he meant two years in power or from now, he replied: “I don’t know whether it is three years or two years, but I am an interim prime minister.”

As much as many Malaysians want Dr Mahathir to continue as PM, given his spike in popularity compared to his previous run as PM, we need to be realistic. Even he is realistic.

He turns 95 next year, and he’s only human. So he is subject to the same biological and ageing processes as any one of us, although at 94 now, he can put many 49-year-olds to shame.

If he completes the full five-year term, he will be 98 years old, and I don’t think anyone in his right mind expects him to serve the full five years, or even four years.

Next year is Malaysia’s turn to host the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) summit, where the world’s most powerful leaders, including US President Donald Trump, Russian president Vladimir Putin and Chinese premier Xi Jinping, will attend the historic meeting in Kuala Lumpur.

Dr Mahathir will play host, and certainly, we expect him to want to take centre stage at this global event with these giant figures and revel in the moment. It will be decades before KL has another chance to welcome this economic showpiece, which takes place in November this time around.

Many events are lined up for the run-up to the Apec summit, and 2020 is certainly a year to galvanise the country as it’s also Visit Malaysia Year.

The only nagging question is how much has been done to prepare ourselves for the Big Show. It’s also one befitting Dr Mahathir, as he prepares himself to pass the baton to Anwar.

Dr Mahathir has said that he will not reshuffle the Cabinet. He should have though, as he would be able to better use the expertise, talents and skills of his ministers. Some are not cut out for certain portfolios, because of their personalities, lack of social and linguistic skills, and even interest.

The Cabinet was hastily cobbled together, and surely a year later, it has become obvious to Malaysians who the performers and non-performers are. We may be wrong in our evaluations, but politics is all about perception.

The surveys so far conducted are based on public sentiment, even if many members of society lack the full details of the back stories.

In any company, the probation period for a new employee is anywhere between three and six months, but politicians seem to have special rules. After all, this is the only profession where no experience or proof of education is required. The public gets arrested and jailed for using fake qualifications, but that conveniently doesn’t apply to ministers.

Every company has a succession plan where potential candidates are named to take over a position, and if that doesn’t pan out, the company then looks for one, even if that means turning to head-hunters.

The risk management team reports the implications of not having clear lines of leadership.

But in Malaysia, we have a 94-year-old leader, with a mixed line up ministers, some would say, motley and mismatched, right down to a 26-year-old serving his first term as MP.

And the designated successor has no Cabinet post or key role in the federal government. In Malaysia, the strangest things can be made to make sense.

Education is that realm where wrongs are set right and learning thrives, yet, right off the bat, the new matriculation intake has found itself in murky waters.

SOME leaders in our federal and state governments, now or then, seem to be guilty of this habit – announcing decisions before studying the implications of their policies.

So it was no surprise that after the Education Ministry announced the controversial changes to the matriculation programme, a row erupted, and soon, the Prime Minister had to weigh in on the debate.

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said he would address the quota system issue of the pre-university matriculation programme intake.

When asked for his comments on whether the quota system would be abolished, he said: “We will study the problem.”

Once again, it looks like the 93-year-old leader must step in to clean up another mess before things start to stink.

The controversy exploded when the Cabinet decided to increase the number of students entering the matriculation programme from 25,000 to 40,000 while maintaining the 90% quota for bumiputra students.

The matriculation programme was originally aimed at encouraging bumiputra students to pursue studies in science.

The highly sought-after programme – due to its cost-effectiveness – is equivalent to a one- or two-year pre-university course, and enables students to pursue a degree upon successfuly completing the programme. Enrollees only need to pay a registration fee and the rest is borne by the government.

However, the concern now is that by doubling the matriculation intake, it will affect the seats available to those vying for places in public universities via the Sijil Tinggi Persekolahan Malaysia (STPM) route.

During my time, in the 1980s, when I was sitting for the then Higher School Certificate (HSC), the matriculation programme had already been launched. At present, STPM and matriculation students number about 43,000 and 25,000 respectively.

No rational or fair person will begrudge aid provided to students who need a helping hand, let’s be clear.

But I am not sure if the ministry has given thought to the fact that we may have a surplus of matriculation students – about 60% – at the expense of their STPM counterparts.

Let’s give the ministry the benefit of doubt that they surely would have, given the many experienced experts there, but no narratives have been forthcoming to explain anything to parents and students, especially those preparing for their STPM exams this year.

If the government plans to double university intake, have backup plans been installed to accommodate the sudden surge in science students into our financially-strapped universities?

While non-scholarship students in public universities must pay their own fees, matriculation students not only get free education, but are given allowances, too.

Public universities are already cutting down on contract academic staff as fundraising programmes are being carried out.

Unemployment is underscored by the huge number of jobless graduates, whose changing fortunes have found them unemployed in a soft market. In some cases, their weak language and social skills put them at a disadvantage.

As the intake increases, other relevant infrastructure, like hostels, laboratories and teaching staff, won’t multiply overnight, as MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Wee Ka Siong rightly pointed out.

“How will the ministry ensure quality in matriculation education? And the suggestion of getting teachers from teachers’ training colleges to teach in matriculation is illogical because their syllabus is totally different,” he said.

The new matriculation policy has also taken the race-based programme to another level and goes against the aspiration of being an inclusive New Malaysia.

DAP leader Dr P. Ramasamy has rightly said the increased quota for bumiputra by the government was spurred by fears of a backlash from sections of the Malay-Muslim community. This is what happens when political expediency and interest come into play.

The former Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia political science lecturer said with the revised quota, the bumiputra allocation will increase the number of students from 22,500 to 36,000.

He said, in comparison, the number of non-Malays will increase by only 1,500 students, beyond the current 2,500.

“I’m taken aback by the Cabinet’s decision. We have failed to move forward. It appears as though the Cabinet was not prepared to take a bold decision in increasing the intake of non-Malay students, particularly Indians.”

Education Minister Dr Maszlee Malik, in defending the new policy, said all students deserve a “better opportunity” when they apply for matriculation placement, adding that “the bumiputras will still enjoy their 90% quota”.

Dr Maszlee reportedly said the increased intake for matriculation students was based on a Cabinet decision to get more students into tertiary education and to accord all races equal opportunity.

He also said the Cabinet had instructed his ministry to discuss with the Finance Ministry the government’s burden in bearing the cost of the increased number of matriculation places.

This looks like another case of putting the cart before the horse. Announce first and work out the maths later.

Instead of emphasising need-based programmes, the government has, instead, strengthened a race-based system.

As a student at university, I was often queried by my well-intentioned Malay varsity mates about which scholarship I had obtained. I jokingly told them it was FAMA – father and mother.

I’ve always been grateful for having secured a place in a local university, particularly since there were only five then – and certainly no private universities – and that gratitude has only grown since that degree helped change my life.

And that conveniently brings me to my point: Let’s not deny our children, regardless of their race, a place in our universities, which are funded by multi-ethnic tax payers.

If parents are financially sound, no prayers would be needed for students to earn slots in our public institutions of higher learning, it’s that simple.