It was a prestigious school and was also well known for its education and discipline standards. It is an open secret that parents who do not live nearby forge addresses to try to get their children enrolled in this school where places are limited.

Although I come from an English medium school and I am unable to speak or write in Chinese, my wife and I took the decision to send our daughter for early Chinese education because we wanted her to speak Mandarin. By then, we were already realising the growing importance of knowing Chinese.

As with many children from urban middle-class homes, my daughter spoke in English with us and her school mates at Puay Chai.

When she entered Form One – she was in PJ Catholic High School, a national-type school – she continued to learn Chinese. Again, English was widely spoken in her school.

In fact, in the United Kingdom where she sat for her A-levels, her school even offered Chinese as a subject and encouraged its predominantly British students to study the language and sit for exams.

In my case, my parents sent me to an English medium school even though they were Chinese educated because the world revolved around Britain in the 1960s. English had economic value and my father had no sentiments with China.

In fact, we have no family links with anyone in China.

I chose to send my daughter for early Chinese education simply because China was by then heading towards becoming a major economic power. Besides, the language would be useful not just in China but Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore as well.

It is this Chinese language asset that has enabled us to have a strong and advantageous link with China, just like our Malay and Indian brethren have their links to India, Indonesia and the Middle East in their linguistic and religious connection.

At Puay Chai, parents were prepared to pay extra money to have the classrooms air-conditioned and they had to personally collect their children’s school report cards. If a student’s average results were not up to standard, the school sometimes called up the parents to explain.

Chinese schools in Malaysia have built a strong reputation over the decades but it’s not an entirely successful story. There is a danger that many students have become monolingual, unable to speak good Bahasa Malaysia and English.

On April 26, 2011, the online news portal The Malaysian Insider, citing a study, reported that a significant number of secondary school dropouts with Chinese primary education had little or zero command of English or the national language.

Studies had shown that nearly one in four Chinese students had failed to complete secondary school and their dropout rate was virtually the same as that for Malays and other races, the news portal reported.

In a survey of 159 schools nationwide in 2010, the National Union of Teaching Profession (NUTP) found that one-third of students from those schools could not understand either English or Bahasa Malaysia when they transferred to national secondary schools.

Another one-third was found to be able to understand only a bit of English or BM, while the remaining one-third could fully comprehend both languages.

The report quoted NUTP secretary-general Lok Yim Pheng as saying that the survey was done to find out the reasons behind the high dropout rate among Chinese students who were required to take part in the “remove class”, a year-long programme to ease their transfer from Chinese primary schools to national-type schools.

Chinese educationists should pay serious attention to this problem. The fact is that while there are many Chinese primary school students who are fluent in English and BM, a huge chunk do not have these skills because they or their parents do not interact with people of other races and English or BM is not spoken at all at their homes.

So, when a Chinese education group like Dong Zong (United Chinese School Committees Association of Malaysia) demands that non-Chinese speaking teachers be removed from their vernacular schools, it runs contrary to what we are trying to achieve for Malaysia.

It smacks of racism and intolerance. In short, it is unacceptable.

What kind of schools are we trying to run by having only teachers of a single race? What’s wrong with having non-Chinese speaking teachers who can teach Bahasa Malaysia or English?

They may just encourage these children from Chinese-speaking homes to meet Malaysians of other races, learn about the religion of other races and, in the process, become friends.

Those who sign up for French classes would know that the teachers would never use English to teach the language.

The position of the Chinese schools is guaranteed under the Federal Constitution. Period. It is acceptable to suggest that more should be done. Fair enough. But to suggest or to imply that the government has not done anything to help Chinese schools when the figures show otherwise is a lie.

This year, Chinese schools partially aided by the government would receive RM100mil. The government has also agreed to allocate RM95mil for the relocation of 13 schools, the setting up of seven new schools and reconstruction of eight others.

Allocations are deposited directly into the school board’s account to avoid unnecessary accusation of interference from civil servants or politicians.

In fact, the government has even allowed Chinese schools to be built on land which could be used for national schools. The government is also now paying RM2,000 of the monthly utility bills of Chinese primary schools.

Last year, a total of 1,648 Chinese students received government scholarships and this does not include the MCA’s Kolej Tunku Abdul Rahman (KTAR) and Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (Utar). KTAR has produced 185,000 graduates and Utar 27,000 graduates.

The question to critics here is what they themselves have done for Chinese education and whether they have successfully produced a generation of confident, multi-lingual students who are at ease with other Malaysians.

Unsure of whether they will get re-elected, or worse, dropped as candidates, many are understandably jittery and overly-sensitive as the pressure builds up. After all, much is at stake.

Wanting to get the attention of their party bosses, they start bombarding media offices with tons of press releases, many of which are hardly newsworthy.

The political minnows are unlikely to get their news across and that’s when news organisations are accused of sidelining them for purported political motives.

Then there are rural-based politicians who wonder why they do not get any coverage at all. They insist on the presence of the press even when most of the newspapers do not reach their constituencies, let alone read by the voters there.

There are politicians who blame everyone for their failings except themselves. Again, their critics and the media get the blame.

There’s another group of has-been politicians. They have held positions including Cabinet posts for what feels like forever but never seem to be able to fade away. They still refuse to find time to play with their grandchildren.

So, come election time, they will find a way to get some publicity, including trying to seek a seat to contest or to quit their party.

Retirement age, it would seem, is only for the ordinary citizens, not for politicians. We have got two generations contesting in polls. We have father-son teams, a husband-wife-daughter team, and with Malaysians increasingly living longer, we may end up having their grandchildren as fellow candidates too.

By now, Malaysians are used to the saying that there are no permanent friends and enemies in politics. So, last week, former Selangor PAS leader Datuk Dr Hasan Ali was accused of spending lavishly during his tenure in the state government, including “wasting” RM300,000 to renovate his office.

The allegation was made by PKR’s Azmin Ali, the Gombak Setia assemblyman, who also said more than RM500,000 was spent on a conference organised by the Selangor Malay Customs and Heritage Corporation.

Barisan Nasional rightly asked why Azmin was only making this revelation after Dr Hasan had left PAS and Pakatan Rakyat.

But politicians always have an answer for every question, no matter how illogical it sounds. Azmin replied that he only received the evidence recently and had asked PAS to probe the matter even before Dr Hasan was sacked.

The state executive councillors are located on the same floor at the state government’s office and no one is going to believe that no one knew renovations were being carried out in Dr Hasan’s office. It’s the same with the purported expensive conference.

Surely, there must have been meetings on the budget allocated for the conference and it is difficult to accept that no one knew about the allocated sum.

Barisan state assemblymen have rightly asked whether these would be exposed if Dr Hasan had remained in PAS and had not rebelled against the state government.

Dr Hasan, in any case, was supported and campaigned for by the same Pakatan leaders in the 2008 elections. The same people who criticised him now are the same people who had heaped praises on him then, persuading people to vote for him.

It’s never a dull day in Malaysian politics – on some days it is amazingly incredible – but at the same time, Malaysians are not getting surprised any more.

My wife insists that she gets to return to Indonesia during her break on Malaysia Airlines and arrangements are made at the airport so she would not be hassled by Indonesian Immigration officers and hustlers.

Yuli gets a say in most decisions involving the household and I have my lucky stars to thank, considering that many Malaysians have a horror story to tell about their maids.

She has picked up the English language, learnt how to cook some of my favourite Penang nyonya food, and she can even laugh at the Hokkien sitcoms on Astro.

But my sister-in-law has not been lucky. She has had two maids and both were a disaster.

The first was an Indonesian from Flores who spent most of her time in the living room in front of the TV rather than in the kitchen. Her addiction to instant noodles would have made her worthy of an academic study.

The second, a Cambodian, was worse. She put on weight within weeks of her employment after she discovered the magic of the refrigerator and oven.

But that wasn’t enough. She stole food, secretly storing them in a bag in her room. Apparently, she’s never heard of expiry dates.

Still, that was tolerable until she decided to go on a mutiny, snubbing directives and snapping back at her boss. Then she walked off and refused to come back.

Here’s the best part: the agency had the audacity to ask for her salary to be paid despite her absence without leave and work not rendered.

I won’t be surprised if she has been “recycled” and is now with another desperate Malaysian couple who needs a maid.

There’s another story. Lady boss asked the Cambodian maid why she had not prepared the husband’s breakfast as she was told.

The maid’s reply: “Madam, Sir is already big. Sir knows how to make breakfast. I no need.”

I swear this is not made up, but I am not sure if the maid has gone for counselling or if she has been sent back to Cambodia.

And here’s another one. There is a friend who installed CCTV at his home so he could monitor what’s happening there from his office. Lucky for him – he found out he had a psychopath on his hands when he saw his Indonesian maid regularly talking to her image in the mirror and rolling on the floor laughing hysterically.

She would burn so-called blessed papers, presumably jampi, and insist that his children consume them before they went to school. The final straw came when she asked my friend to post her “love letters” – addressed to President Suharto!

Again, we are not sure if she’s safely back and undergoing mental treatment in her home country or if she’s with another new Malaysian tuan. Hope someone tells her there’s now a new Indonesian president.

There may be stories of maids being abused and certainly Malaysians in their right mind would not tolerate such incidents. It gives our country a bad name and also leads to pressure from their countries to slow down the numbers coming in to Malaysia.

But there are also stories of Malaysian employers who suffer emotional and financial abuse from maids. These are less reported but that does not mean they are isolated cases or it’s simply because non-governmental organisations are not taking up cases of abused employers.

So, Malaysians are not amused when Indonesia tells us that their maids headed here will only perform one task and must be paid RM700 for that.

I believe Malaysian employers would not mind paying more, but not for less work. Pressing frustrated employers with such unreasonable demands is certainly going overboard.

It has been reported that the fresh batch of 106 Indonesian maids headed here would only carry out one task for their bosses. They would be trained to do four household chores – cooking, babysitting, taking care of the elderly, and housekeeping – but will perform only one of these tasks for their employers.

The report stated that the workers were undergoing four skills training courses over 21 days and must be paid RM700 a month by their Malaysian employers.

The Malaysian Maid Employers’ Association and Malaysian National Association of Employ­ment Agencies have rightly questioned the announcement. Come on, this one is surely a bad deal.

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.