The pressure has been mounting from within Barisan Nasional, especially in the Umno rank and file, for her to go as the National Feedlot Corporation issue continues to escalate and the Opposition keeps harping on it almost daily.

Shahrizat has maintained that she has no knowledge nor any role in the family-owned NFC, which is facing accusations of criminal breach of trust and misuse of government loan.

She has told her friends and supporters that she has never interfered in her husband’s business, especially the details of the NFC operations.

In fact, the Opposition has carefully left her out in their accusations, which are targeted at her husband and children who all hold positions in the NFC.

But it is still a no-win situation. The past one month has certainly been traumatic for Kak Ijat, as she is affectionately called, and certainly she has received much sympathy from her supporters and friends who regard her as one of the most moderate leaders.

She is known for her open-mindedness and multi-racial approach. Her public relations skills are first class. She has touched and won many hearts.

For many of her loyalists, it has been an emotional ride as they have campaigned hard to defend her. Many Barisan leaders, non-governmental organisation activists and editors have received numerous calls from her most ardent backers.

But Shahrizat is a seasoned politician who understands the reality of politics. She probably understands that the NFC controversy needs closure before the general election.

She is an elected Wanita Umno chief and no one can take that position away from her. However, her positions as a Cabinet minister and senator are appointed ones.

She owes it to the Prime Minister and, certainly, she must make it easy for Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.

Those who have worked under and with Najib would vouch for his tolerance, kindness and patience.

For other Barisan component parties, the issue has also become complicated. As the controversy involves an Umno leader, most have chosen to refrain from making open statements in the spirit of the coalition’s cooperation. But they also want it to end swiftly.

The daily accusations by Pakatan Rakyat have been difficult for anyone to defend because there is a lack of information from the NFC.

It is a huge loan but no one knows exactly what the terms and conditions are.

It also remains to be seen how much of the issues are civil and which are the criminal elements in contention.

The police have announced that they have completed their part, saying there is a case, which earned a quick rebuke from the NFC’s lawyer, Datuk Seri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, who has an impressive track record in the courts.

It is now up to the Attorney-General to decide based on the investigation papers filed by the police and the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission.

Given the severity of the allegations, the public wants to know how much is the truth, how much is just political spinning by the Opposition and what the authorities have gathered from their investigations.

Last week, Tan Sri Muyhiddin Yassin said the scheme issue was expected to be resolved by next month, adding that considerable progress had been made so far by the special committee to review the scheme.

“We should wait for the right moment (for it to be announced),” he said after a special meeting with personnel from the public service at Stadium Negara.

The Prime Minister had ordered a review of the scheme after criticism from government servants that it was lopsided and only benefited top civil servants.

There had been reports that under the proposed SBPA, certain categories of senior officers would enjoy a salary increase of at least 50%, which worked out to an average of RM5,000 per month.

The top government officers in the premier grades would get their salaries adjusted by between RM30,000 and RM60,000 a month, which understandably caused much unhappiness among the rank and file.

The quick intervention of Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak to put the scheme on hold has been well received by the civil service with the sentiment that he had put a stop to what many felt was grave injustice. Much progress has since been made to end this impasse.

Muhyiddin’s announcement is pertinent as it gave an indication of how the issue has been resolved.

Another key issue is the proposed listing of Felda Global Ventures Holdings (FGVH), which Felda group chairman Tan Sri Mohd Isa Abdul Samad said had received the support of its 112,000-odd settlers.

Last week, he gave an assurance that the settlers would retain full ownership of their land and benefit directly from any potential revenue realised from the listing exercise. He also said the settlers’ holdings in Koperasi Permodalan Felda (KPF) would be untouched.

The Felda settlers’ interest would be directly protected by a special purpose vehicle (SPV) and any potential proceeds resulting from the proposed listing would not be channelled through KPF, but through the SPV, he added.

KPF has about 220,000 members, 112,635 of them settlers. The rest are Felda employees and the children of settlers.

There has been talk that FGVH’s market capitalisation could reach as high as RM21bil upon listing, with many of the Felda settlers looking forward to the plans which had received huge coverage in the Bahasa Malaysia dailies.

The civil service and the Felda settlers in the rural constituencies have long been a backbone of the ruling Barisan Nasional and these two concerns obviously needed to be addressed before any elections can be called.

There is another issue that needs closure – the National Feedlot Corporation controversy, which has dogged the headlines. Investigations are being carried out by the police and the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission.

If elections are not called by June, then it is unlikely to take place until next year. Fasting starts at the end of July, with Hari Raya falling in the third week of August while the Haj season begins in September and ends in November.

The Dewan Rakyat is set to begin its 20-day meeting from March 12. This will be followed by a second meeting from June 11 to June 28 (12 days). The final meeting of 34 days, which includes presentation of the Budget, will be from Sept 24 to Nov 27.

The Budget, once tabled, would be debated on until next year when the Dewan Negara meets, before it is officially approved.

In short, June will be Najib’s last window period whether to call for polls. It also coincides with the school holidays, which start on May 26 and end on June 10. If nothing happens, then it is almost a foregone conclusion that it will take place next year.

Preparations for the elections appear to have gone high gear now with Najib making popular announcements almost every few days.

It is understood that the Barisan Nasional chairman has also started to meet individual heads of the various component parties.

The polls seem to be getting nearer for sure. As Najib continues his nationwide whirlwind visits, the urgency and the momentum are picking up.

Hoslan’s problem started when he was removed as the imam of Masjid Al-Rahimah in Kampung Pandan in 2008. Then, in June last year, the Federal Territory Religious Council obtained a court order forcing him to vacate the imam’s quarters where he had been staying for a decade with his seven children.

The FT Religious Council obviously had a disciplinary problem with this former al-Arqam follower but Hoslan, in turn, claimed he had tendered documents alleging irregularities in handling mosque funds.

When the panel of judges heard this case on Wednesday, Hoslan threw a slipper, followed by the other one, at the judges. He then threw his ihram (a piece of white cloth) on the floor and performed the sunat prayer. His actions caused more than a stir.

Police later escorted him out of the court and he was told the judges had decided not to take action against him.

There was only one reporter who witnessed the incident and the judges sought his cooperation not to publish it. So, if not for the online news portal The Malaysian Insider, we would all have missed this unprecedented incident.

Calls by the other media to the offices of the registrar and judges were not returned when they tried to follow up on the report the following day. Only Hoslan seemed to enjoy the attention he was getting from the media.

The three-member panel of judges comprised Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinuddin, who is Chief Judge of Malaya, Datuk Suriyadi Halim Omar and Datin Paduka Zaleha Zahari.

Obviously, the judges have shown compassion, tolerance and liberalism by not wanting to punish the guy. But in doing so, they have sent a wrong message to Malaysians.

They could at least have reprimanded him instead of pretending the incident did not happen and hoping that the media would not become aware of it.

It’s as good as telling us that it was okay for Hoslan to throw his slippers at the judges and then bad-mouthing them to the media outside the court.

It was only after this unfortunate episode became public knowledge that deputy registrar Jumirah Marzuki lodged a report against Hoslan – on Friday, two days later.

More incredibly, she was quoted as saying that she lodged the report because the second slipper which Hoslan had flung towards the Bench had hit her!

Come on, I am not sure whether she expected Malaysians, including the police, to share her disappointment or to laugh at her decision.

Justice Zulkefli has told the media “to let the police investigate”.

Let’s hope the police will not have to take a decade to investigate this open-and-shut case involving an irate man who really needs to have his head examined.

Zulkefli is spoken about affectionately by most court reporters, who describe him as a “kind person”. So they were not surprised when he said “the panel did not make any decision to cite Hoslan for contempt of court as it does not serve any purpose. We do not want to get into the drama. It will complicate the matter further.”

But there are some fundamental issues here. First, the Federal Court is the highest in the country. Two, the panel was led by the third highest judge.

Hoslan does not deserve to be treated like a hero for throwing his slippers at these top judges. By not taking action on the spot, our honourable judges may send the message that they did not mind the action of this man.

No one should be allowed to go scot-free for throwing things at the Bench because they are unhappy, angry, sad or insane. In law, students rely on past court cases or precedents. Well, this is one precedent of a man who threw his slippers at the judges and got away with it.

There is no other way in this case. Hoslan should be taken back to the court and punished. The fact that he is a religious figure should also be taken into consideration. He should have been more composed and exemplary instead of behaving in an outrageous manner.

Throw the book at him!

The highly-charged atmosphere, with supporters of both sides applauding every point, also ensured that the one-hour war of words came to a fitting climax, heralding in a new political culture that will hopefully pave the way for future debates of this nature.

Questions from the floor were passionate although in some instances they deviated from the topic of the debate. But both speakers did not allow themselves to be rattled. They acquitted themselves well and maintained the spirit of being able to disagree without being disagreeable.

That the debate was conducted fully in Mandarin, even though both speakers were not Chinese-educated, reminded us of the reality that in this country we are able to understand one another, no matter the language, and the days of speaking only to a single-language constituency are over.

The fact that many of us, including this writer, had to rely on the Malay translation by Astro, also confirms that politicians have to be careful about what they say because the message will always get through, no matter the language.

But it was a jolly good show, all things considered. Dr Chua has certainly set a precedent when he decided to take on DAP strongman Lim.

Their styles are different and both have their strong points.

As is normal in all debates, zooming in on the opponent’s Achilles heel often results in the opponent doing his best to skirt around the issues. That much was obvious when Lim failed to adequately respond to Dr Chua’s questions concerning the DAP’s stand on hudud law and Pakatan Rakyat’s socio-economic plan.

The MCA president’s experience was obvious, especially as he rounded off the debate with his anecdote to Lim about the heroes in the Chinese historical novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms.

Lim, however, was also able to highlight the point that a viable two-party system simply means that any side can be thrown out if it does not live up to the people’s expectations.

It is common for opposition leaders to throw challenges but it is rare for those who represent the government to take them on.

In the political history of Malaysia, one can count by the fingers the number of public debates that have taken place between the two sides.

There have not been many debates of this nature because it is always easier for the politicians to take their rhetoric to ceramahs in front of their own supporters where they know their adversaries are not in attendance.

The entertainment approach appeals to the crowd and the speaker does not have to be on guard with whatever he says even if it can be outlandish.

But in a one-to-one debate such as the one we witnessed yesterday, especially in front of a televised audience, it is a different ball game.

The most recent debate between two Chinese politicians was way back in August 2008, soon after the political tsunami.

Back then, Lim and Gerakan president Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon squared off in a debate touted as “Chief Minister versus ex-Chief Minister” and the topic concerned a land controversy in Penang.

Another debate took place in the 1990s between the then Youth chiefs of MCA and DAP, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat and Lim respectively, on the rather interesting topic of “Who is the political parasite?”

This writer covered the event which was carried over two nights. It enthralled a packed audience at the Selangor Assembly Hall. Everyone had their view as to who won but I think both were winners for their readiness to debate against each other.

Although it was highly entertaining, that debate lacked constructive purpose and focus and I believe both veered away from the topic, which itself was too general.

One of the most watched televised debates was between PKR de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and then Information Minister Datuk Ahmad Shabery Cheek in 2008. They faced off to argue about the rising price of oil and the opposition’s boast that if they came to power, they would reduce the oil price the next day.

It was quite brave of Shabery, a relatively junior minister then, to take on Anwar, given the latter’s reputation as an orator. In the end, both men actually did well although Anwar did have the edge.

But the biggest debate, unfortunately, did not take place in Malaysia but in the United States where Anwar, who was then in Umno, took on PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang at the University of Illinois in 1982. This was the period of kafir-mengkafir, where each accused the other of being infidels.

At that time, PAS followers refused to attend prayers in mosques led by imams perceived to be aligned to Umno, which was also accused of working with infidel parties like MCA and Gerakan.

But, of course, there are no permanent enemies or friends in politics. Who would have thought that Anwar would now be a PAS ally in Pakatan?

It augurs well for our political maturing process that younger leaders are coming to the fore.

Recently, Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin took on PKR’s Rafizi Ramli in the United Kingdom and the debate was conducted in a civil manner. Intellect and knowledge were the important factors in their debate.

Certainly, we hope that yesterday’s debate between Dr Chua and Lim will spur more Malaysian politicians to spar with each other in the same way.

Malaysians are pretty tired of the current name-calling politics where intellectual discourse seems to be absent.

Democracy is not just about voting once every five years. It is also about being able to articulate one’s thoughts openly. Dissent does not make one subversive and anti-national.

We as stakeholders cannot leave demo­cracy entirely to the politicians. We must be ready to broaden our minds by reading and analysing everything.

It is not just the Chinese who are at the crossroads, as the overall theme of the Asli/Insap forum indicated. All Malaysians are at the crossroads and we have to be sure which road we take. There is no room for second guessing.

Even the tree’s trunks can be used for making furniture.

Palm oil can also be used to create biodiesel. Since 2007, all diesel sold in Malaysia must contain 5% palm oil, putting us at the forefront of promoting biodiesel.

But more importantly, the Malaysian palm oil industry earned a healthy RM60bil in 2010. This was an increase of RM10bil from 2009. Revenue is projected to reach RM80bil and the perception is that the industry will eventually be the country’s biggest money earner.

The income generated by the high price of palm oil has led to a mini economic boom in rural townships throughout the country and benefited the ordinary people.

In simple language, it means an assurance of jobs and income, with a guaranteed daily wage of RM90 in rural areas where the cost of living is low.

In contrast, as shown in some studies, the rural population of many developing countries often earns a mere RM7 per day and employment is sometimes limited or seasonal.

The fact is that while over one billion people have scarce access to food and jobs globally, in Malaysia, we rely on 300,000 foreigners to take on jobs we shun. This includes jobs in the palm oil industry.

In Malaysia, our concern is not lack of food but how to cut down on intake of carbohydrates to reduce our waistline. Slimming centres have become a multi-million ringgit business because of this.

For the foreign labourers working in oil palm plantations here, their employment means there will be food daily for over a million family members in Indonesia, Bangla­desh, the Philippines and other countries.

Oil palm is also important for the Malaysian smallholders and the retail business, which will enjoy the trickle-down effect. And the Government will gain as well, through the collection of corporate taxes, which are then used for education, health and infrastructure development.

It means a lot for the children of the smallholders and foreign workers who know they won’t have to go to bed hungry each night.

Over the past few months, however, their livelihood has been threatened by Western non-governmental organisations who have stepped up their campaign against Malaysia’s palm oil industry.

This time, they have widened their target audience to include even primary school children in the United States, Europe and Australia.

If the argument in the past was about health, this time the campaign has shifted towards the purported deforestation of land and the killing of orang utan. Naturally, these issues would be more emotionally appealing and fashionable given the global concern for environmental issues.

No one in his right mind would argue against protecting the environment but the red flag, rather than the green flag, has to be raised when the real issue is whether these NGOs are being funded by lobbyists from the soy bean, sunflower and other seed oil competitors.

There is a lot of hypocrisy here, really. Orang utans may have been affected but look at the shocking decline in the number of koalas in Australia as a result of human clearing and other factors.

It has been reported that the number of koalas has dropped by 95% since the 1990s and that only 43,000 of these tree-dwelling marsupial are left on the mainland. In southeast Queensland, the number has dropped from 25,000 to 4,000 in a decade. Just Google for more information.

Even the world’s 1.5 billion cows are being blamed. There’s a 400-page report quoting the United Nations, which has identified the world’s rapidly growing herds of cattle as a huge threat to the climate, forests and wild life. And they are being blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, too, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs.

The report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, titled Livestock’s Long Shadow, surveys the damage done by cows, sheep, chickens, pigs and goats.

Livestock is responsible for 18% of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together – and there’s a lot of cows and sheep in Australia, I believe.

The Independent newspaper in Britain reported that burning fuel to produce fertilisers to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it, and clearing vegetation for grazing, produces 9% of all emissions of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas.

And wind and manure from livestock account for more than one-third of emissions of another gas, methane, which warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide.

But I feel that the greatest contributor to global warming has been left out – the great appetite of developed countries for fossil fuel, which is essential for their continued economic performance. The need to continue their lifestyle contributes to the huge emission of CO2.

It makes them look intelligent talking about orang utan and deforestation in exotic Borneo, which many might not even be able to locate on the map, while drinking Dom Perignon at fancy parties after being dropped off by chauffeur-driven gas-guzzling limousines.

There may be some comfort from a recent report by global management consultant A.T. Kearney which ranked Malaysia as among the world’s top 10 most attractive destinations for foreign direct investment.

Malaysia also experienced a significant jump up the Index from 21st to 10th. Inflows jumped 537% from 2009 to 2010 to US$9bil (RM27bil).

This number will be further surpassed in 2011 and is likely to continue in this positive direction based on the sentiments reflected in Kearney’s FDI Confidence Index, a regular measure of senior executive sentiment at the world’s largest companies.

The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012, meanwhile, ranked Malaysia at 21 from its previous 26th position for overall global competitiveness.

The latest World Bank’s Doing Business Report also saw the country’s “Ease of Doing Business” ranking move up from 23 to 18, out of the 183 economies surveyed.

But while we may be happy with these positive news, we really need to watch how our neighbours are doing. And we are not talking just about the countries in the same range like Singapore, Thailand and Indonesia, but also the less developed ones, including Myanmar.

In Myanmar, the speed of reforms recently carried out by its government has surprised many, including its strongest critics. The generals are now focused on economic matters instead of on their usual political tirades, like condemning the Americans. Capitalism is suddenly a buzzword in Naypyidaw.

Last week, Myanmar Industry Minister U Soe Thein travelled to the annual World Economic Forum in Davos to promote the once pariah nation to the largest gathering of capitalists and leaders of the Western world.

He got the ears of these powerful businessmen by revealing that his government was drafting a tax incentive law, which would be the most attractive in the region, as it prepares to achieve a 6% growth target in 2012.

The law could be passed by the end of the upcoming parliamentary session in February and a plan is under way to boost the international business community’s confidence in the kyat, Myanmar’s currency, in consultation with the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The package would include an eight-year tax exemption status with possible extension if the ventures prove profitable for the country.

He also revealed plans to upgrade the central bank to a fully independent entity instead of being just a department under the Finance Ministry.

The minister, who seldom meets journalists, said: “We were very busy meeting global policymakers, officials and CEOs.”

The delegation in Davos busied themselves attending sessions on the Eurozone crisis, job creation, sustainable energy and green policy, resources management, population and growth, poverty eradication, refugee and displaced persons, women and children, SMEs, anti-corruption and good governance.

“Yes, we are in a hurry …” said the minister, citing the country’s preparations for the 2013 Southeast Asian Games, and 400 meetings scheduled before it assumes chairmanship of Asean in 2014, plus the Asean Economic Community in 2015, and to achieve the UN Millennium Goals.

While it is good for our neighbours to prosper, as the region will benefit as a whole, we should also be more vigilant about competition.

A recent report by the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation predicted that the Philippines would be the 16th biggest economy in the world by 2050, surpassing Australia, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia.

For a sense of perspective, we should recall that in the 1950s, the Philippines was the most dynamic economy in Asia and was hailed by the World Bank as a future powerhouse. Half a century later, the country was described as “the sick man of Asia”. And today, its future is shining bright.

No wonder that during the recent Taiwan presidential election, candidates were challenged not only on their position on China but also their views on the implications of the growing economies of the “VIP” countries, an acronym for Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines.

Certainly, if our politicians spend less time politicking and devote more attention to how our neighbours are energising their economies, we will be more prepared to face the future, which is more than just about who will win at the polls.

Enough time has been wasted on mind-boggling political issues that divide the nation. We need to get out priorities right.

They did not inspire their students with stories of how we could learn from the past and how relevant history is to us. History is not about forcing students to just memorise dates and signing of treaties.

History is about his story, and teachers should respond with lively accounts, even personal trivia, of the personalities involved to spice up their classes.

With a short remark, Prof Emeritus Tan Sri Khoo Kay Kim restarted a debate on the existence of Hang Tuah, who is said to have lived during the reign of Sultan Mansur Shah in 15th century Malacca. Hang Tuah is believed to be the greatest of all of the sultan’s admirals and was described as a ferocious fighter.

Certainly, he has been and is still held in the highest regard in Malaysian Malay culture, and so when our eminent historian said he did not exist, many Malaysians felt let down, even cheated.

Many remember learning in school that Hang Tuah was a hero with a steadfast sense of loyalty who readily sacrificed his friendship with his best friend Hang Jebat after the latter rebelled against the Sultan.

Furthermore, we are also being told that Princess Hang Li Po, who was supposedly married to Sultan Mansur Shah, is probably fictitious as well.

But to be fair to Prof Khoo, he is not the first historian to dispute the existence of Hang Tuah or Hang Li Po. It has long been the subject of conjecture at university level. At school level, however, students seemed to be just happy to swallow what their teachers taught them.

The conventional method of teaching history could be the reason for this, but lack of critical thinking in our education system is another factor. Most students rely entirely on notes given to them and they don’t do their own research on the subject.

Teachers could address this shortcoming by, for example, stating specifically that Hang Tuah is a subject of myth and legend at the start of lessons. Students should also be informed that the location of his tomb, if it exists, remains in dispute.

In the case of Hang Li Po, her existence has long been disputed since she was never recorded in the chronicles of the ruling Ming dynasty. Others say that if she ever existed, she was probably a very beautiful maid in the imperial house who was picked to assume the role of a princess, which is said to be a common practice.

But we should not let the legend of Hang Tuah be forgotten. He should remain a symbol of morality, loyalty, bravery and humility – principles that are enduring.

In fact, Hang Tuah has not even been promoted or marketed as well as other figures of fiction like Sherlock Holmes, the detective created by Scottish author and physician Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. The London-based “consulting detective” has now made it into several movies, including two contemporary versions, besides being in the books and TV productions.

Holmes’ fictional home address, 221B, Baker Street, has been turned into a museum under government protection for its “historical and architectural” importance. Never mind if he’s not real; Sherlock Holmes is being so well marketed that there is even a statue of him outside the Baker Street tube station.

Most of us would also know of the legendary Robin Hood and his band of Merry Men, what with the penchant among film and TV producers to feature heroes, be they real or fictional. In English folklore, Robin Hood, known for “robbing from the rich and giving to the poor”, was described as living in Sherwood Forest in Nottinghamshire, a county in England.

Cashing in on Robin Hood’s heroism, Nottinghamshire has aggressively promoted Sherwood Forest as a tourist attraction and there is even a Robin Hood airport and the Robin Hood statue.

So what if Sherlock Holmes, Robin Hood and the Loch Ness monster are all not real? The locals are certainly benefiting tremendously from tourist money earned from spinning tales of these legends.

In Malacca, however, it is easier to get a T-shirt printed with Che Guevera’s iconic face than one with Hang Tuah’s. Never mind if the face of Hang Tuah resembles M. Nasir or P. Ramlee. Where can tourists buy replicas of the magical Taming Sari, the keris used by Hang Tuah? And where is the path that tourists can take to the Hang Li Po trail up Bukit Cina, a site supposedly given to the entourage who accompanied her from China?

There should be a statue of Hang Tuah where tourists can pose for photographs which they can take home to remind them of the legend. There should even be a museum in Malacca to pay tribute to him, and where re-runs of the Hang Tuah movies could be screened.

So, instead of just whining and feeling depressed over Prof Khoo’s thesis, we should ask ourselves why we have not cleverly promoted Hang Tuah and the other legendary figures in Malacca. Keep the legend alive.

But more and more young Malaysians are now saying no to shark fin soup in line with the campaign to prevent the killing of sharks for their fins.

Getting the support of the young is crucial in the campaign because of the massive increase of the middle class in China and other Asian cities.

If the younger set is prepared to say no to shark fin in their menu, it will be a major step forward in the global campaign against shark-finning.

Roping in retired Chinese basketball icon Yao Ming in the fight against eating shark fin in his homeland last September was a major coup.

Together with British tycoon Richard Branson, he then made an appeal against eating shark fin to a group of 30 of China’s richest and most influential business people.

“When demand happens, the buying happens and the killing happens,” Yao, the seven-foot-six-inch-tall (2.29m) former centre who retired in July due to injuries after eight seasons with the Houston Rockets, was quoted as saying.

Yao is now using his post-retirement free time to help campaign against the slaughter of sharks, which is said to involve around 1.5 million sharks a week and is taking some of the species close to extinction.

The event sponsored by the conservation group WildAid is aimed at starting a conservation movement in China “not just to protect the sharks but to protect tigers, and to protect other species that are in peril of extinction,” Branson said.

News reports have quoted anti shark-finning campaigners as saying that fishermen kill more than 70 million sharks each year for their fins, which can sell for US$700 (RM2,175) a pound (450g) while the soup can cost up to US$80 (RM248) a bowl.

It is said that the fins are cut from the sharks and their bodies are discarded, leaving them to die.

Last week, the Shangri-La group declared that its 72 hotels would no longer offer shark fin or other shark products in their menu.

It is not clear whether the order came from Robert Kuok, the Malaysian tycoon who owns the luxury chain of hotels worldwide, many of which are in China.

Its rival, the Peninsula chain of hotels, which also has operations in China, stopped offering shark fin in their premises on Jan 1.

The Shangri-La’s decision is crucial because over 90% of shark fins are consumed in China and countries with huge Chinese population, including Hong Kong and Taiwan.

With an increasingly affluent Chinese population, the demand for shark fins has shot up sharply in recent years. This means more sharks would be hunted for their fins, and that means the population of sharks will disappear much faster than anticipated.

Besides soup, shark fin is also used in some dim sum delicacies, especially in some dumpling wrappings.

Westerners are only familiar with shark fin soup but the product is also widely used in other forms of cooking.

The campaign against eating shark fin involves film and music celebrities but businessmen must also be included as they wield tremendous power. At a practical level, they host dinners almost on a daily basis, especially in China.

They can set an example by taking shark fin soup off the menu for corporate dinners, thus sending a strong message to their staff, clients and even rivals. It is good corporate practice now to stop eating shark fin products.

Politicians should also join in the campaign because this appeals to the young set of voters who are revolted by the practice of shark-finning.

Many hotels and restaurants have also responded positively by offering artificial fins without compromising the taste of the soup.

Customers are happy to pay for the fakes as they feel that the restaurants are ready to meet the changes.

As we usher in the Year of the Dragon, the topic of conversation at the reunion dinner should not just be about political sharks, who need no saving, but of the global campaign to save the real sharks.

Let’s all join the campaign!

With March now out of the picture, May and June have suddenly become the talking point. By July, the fasting month would have started and it is most unlikely that polls would be held at that time.

The Dewan Rakyat will begin its 20-day meeting from March 12 and this will be followed by a second meeting from June 11 to June 28 (12 days). The final meeting of 34 days, which includes presentation of the Budget, will be from Sept 24 to Nov 27.

While Barisan Nasional component parties and the Opposition are already at near peak in their preparations, the fact remains that Najib does not really have to go for early polls.

He has all the time in the world. There’s nothing really to stop him from going for a full term, which is April 2013, as some powerful figures in Umno have advocated.

While the political transformations are taking place, the economic changes need to be seen and felt. Announcements alone are insufficient at a time when voters have become cynical towards the establishment.

The High Court decision to acquit Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim of the sodomy charge, with the judge citing lack of corroborative evidence in the two-year-long trial, has stunned many from both sides of the political divide. The decision surprised even Anwar himself and Barisan leaders as well.

Najib has said the verdict shows that as chief executive of the country, “I don’t interfere in the judiciary.”

But perception is everything and it would take a bit of time for Malaysians to regain their faith in the judiciary whose image has taken much knocking. To be blunt, its image is badly dented.

For the prosecution, the case was another fiasco. Malaysians are now used to reading about the poor chain of evidence handling, which has seen the prosecution continuously losing many high-profile cases. One may even ask why bother to charge Anwar in the first place if the case, in particular the evidence, is weak.

Our public institutions have come under much scrutiny and rightly so. Still, we must not forget the high standard of integrity that has been kept by the Auditor-General’s Office.

Every Auditor-General who has come to office has kept the faith of Malaysians, pointing out the flaws, excesses and wastefulness of government agencies and ministries. While it’s not corruption in many cases, there were glaring examples of careless spending of taxpayers’ money, something Malaysians would describe as “spending like it’s their grandfather’s money”.

The controversial National Feedlot Corporation issue began with the findings in the A-G’s report and it has snowballed since then.

The police must also be lauded for their sharp improvement in handling public display of dissent. Certainly, the force has learned from the lessons of the Bersih 2.0 rally.

The public will not be convinced when the police say they fired water cannons into Tung Shin Hospital because they were not aware it was a hospital.

The calm and controlled manner in which the police handled several recent demonstrations deserves credit. They are also more prepared now, recording their own videos and releasing information via social media.

In some instances, they have been faster than even the media, as in the case of the Anwar court verdict.

Political reforms can certainly be seen now but Malaysians still need to feel the economic transformation.

KTM commuters who travel between Kuala Lumpur and Negri Sembilan in horrendous conditions want to see extra coaches soon and folks in the Klang Valley want to see the tunneling works for the MRT project to begin.

If anyone tells you he knows the date of the elections, he’s bluffing. Najib has told no one, not even the highest level officials, so carry on guessing.

Last week, the social media zoomed in on the ministry’s official site which had a page listing out guidelines on “ethical clothing” that have to be adhered to by its staff.

Other interesting examples included “collared shirts and tight Malay civet berbutang three” for “berkolar baju Melayu cekak musang berbutang tiga” and “long-sleeve batik shirt with collar/mongoose fight made in Malaysia” for “Baju batik lengan panjang berkolar/cekak musang buatan Malaysia”.

There was also “shine closed” which was translated from “kasut bertutup”.

Thankfully, the Defence Ministry responded in double quick time – it not only took down the relevant pages but also posted an online clarification promising to make the necessary corrections. Still, time on the Internet moves by the milliseconds so the spread in cyberspace could not be so easily contained.

The ministry adopted the right and honourable approach by not offering any lame excuse or shifting the blame.

This is not the first time lazy and incompetent officials have got us into trouble. If they are not capable enough, they should seek the help of professionals.

Last April, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and his entourage must have laughed their heads off when they saw the words in Chinese printed on the banner backdrop at the welcoming ceremony in Putrajaya.

The words were literally translated from the Bahasa Malaysia sentence, “Istiadat Sambutan Rasmi Sempena Lawatan Rasmi TYT Wen Jiabao Ke Malaysia” (Official welcoming ceremony in conjunction with the official visit of His Excellency Wen Jiabao to Malaysia).

The Chinese translation had so many serious syntax and grammatical errors that the Chinese-literate Malaysian ministers and members of the media could only cringe in embarrassment. Translated literally, it read, “Official welcoming ceremony, with him Wen Jiabao His Excellency’s official visit Malaysia”.

Our officials apologised to Wen Jiabao and this was widely reported in China.

Although Bahasa Malaysia is our official language, it is necessary that all our official websites also have an English version simply because English is the language of the Internet. There are many convenient translation tools on the Internet, such as Google Translate and Yahoo BabelFish, but while these tools claim to be able to translate practically every language on the planet to another, they are not meant to substitute the services of professionals.

I decided to use Google Translate to translate “pakaian yang menjolok mata” and was pleasantly surprised that the English equivalent was “dress scantily”; it was certainly much better than “clothes that poke eye”. But on the more difficult phrases, this tool failed miserably.

What our ministries should do is to engage professionals who are not only competent in English but are able to make their websites attractive. Two ministries – Home, and Women, Family and Community Development – have websites that are regarded as more “innovative and approachable” and they will certainly draw more visitors.

The bigger issue here is that Malaysians have to accept the reality that horrendous English is here to stay. The day our leaders killed English as a medium of instruction and further downgraded the language as a subject in schools was the beginning of its demise.

Teaching hours for the subject have been drastically reduced and a compulsory pass is not even required in our school exams. So how serious can we be about uplifting the standard of English in this country? Worse, many teachers who are teaching English in schools are themselves not fluent in the language. It’s truly a case of the blind leading the blind.

Just yesterday, a retired civil servant, Dr Pola Singh, wrote that in the course of going through the application forms for jobs meant for graduates, he came across numerous instances of local graduates listing down that they have an “honest” degree when they meant an honours degree.

Honest to goodness, this is no laughing matter.