Prime Minister David Cameron, in cutting short his trip to Africa to call for a special meeting of the Commons, was grilled incessantly by the Opposition. But he took it all in stride.

Although he could not bring himself to apologise for hiring a former staff of News of the World, Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper which has been accused of carrying out illegal hacking into mobile phones, he carried himself well, showing his willingness to take on his opponents.

The Speaker moderated the proceedings with finesse and we were shown what the Westminster parliamentary system, which our own Dewan Rakyat is modelled after, is all about.

A day earlier, also shown live, we watched the parliamentary select committees in action.

Never mind if there were disagreements, even accusations of perjury at times, but everyone spoke in measured tones. Everyone went out of their way to ensure there was dignity and decorum – except for the moment when a failed comic attacked Murdoch with a foam pie.

Now we all know about his young wife Wendi Deng. Her left hook and swift intervention by a constable were sufficient to wrest the loony away. Not much fuss there, and no need for an Emergency Order, for sure.

Compare that with our Malaysian politicians. With a general election looming, possibly by next March, the posturing seems to have become louder.

Don’t look far. Just read the blogs, the political websites and the comments posted. Many of us seem to contradict ourselves. We call for a better political culture with intellectual discourse and debate over policies and issues, but we often degenerate into name calling.

Instead of reading an entire commentary to consider the salient points raised, some enjoy picking up a single sentence or even a word to tear apart the writer’s opinion. There’s nothing wrong with this except that it often ends up in a distasteful round of name calling and personal attacks.

Regardless of our political affiliations, it is hardly the political road that we want for Malaysia.

If you support the opposition, you risk being labelled a traitor, communist, socialist, Jew or at least remotely Jewish-linked.

On the other hand, if you back the government, or are simply being neutral, you are called a running dog, coward, corrupt or a spineless person and your next three generations will be duly cursed. Of course, you would also be labelled a traitor.

In Parliament, MPs are suddenly transformed into verbal monsters with childish tantrums who, as they lunge at each other, call others by animal names.

If we read the postings on blogs and tweets, we can see many shouting about transparency and accountability but most opt to remain anonymous even as they run down others as cowards. So who is the coward in the end?

Perhaps it’s the fault of our education system, or our lack of proficiency to speak or debate in more than one language, or simply our political culture. Being articulate is surely not our strong point.

Maybe we have become so angry and fed up with what is happening that we no longer wish to be polite. Or have we really lost our marbles and are therefore unable to rationalise? Is it no longer politically correct to be moderate or neutral with the frightening emergence of the “us” or “them” syndrome?

The partisanship is so strong that both sides expect the media to be excessively pro-government or openly slanted to the opposition. An objective and unbiased media, to some, even means being openly hostile to the government. That has become the fastest way to be popular, fortunately or unfortunately.

Even fugitive blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin has found out, and lamented, that when he exposes scandals involving the government, he is a hero but when he does the same with the opposition, he is turned into a political pariah instantly.

If the government is regarded as being intolerant to dissent, the same attitude is also detected among the ranks of the opposition. In the fight for votes and power, the end seems to justify the means. Nothing is sacred.

So when we read about faked deaths in a recent demonstration, those who claimed to be righteous and demanded “truth and justice” can also become strangely silent. Malaysians do not know who and what to believe any more, what with new issues appearing one after the other.

There is too much contradiction and sacrificing of principles, all seemingly in the name of justice. Look at it carefully, however, and it is simply about the advancement of individual political careers and attempts to control Putrajaya.

The authorities have not been consistent. The police have stopped opposition ceramah, arrested those taking part in candlelight vigils and ridiculously nabbed politicians wearing yellow T-shirts with the word “Bersih”.

On the other hand, it is open knowledge that the opposition holds ceramah almost every other day. The demand for a 21-day campaigning period does not seem to gel. In fact, the ceramah is supposed to be a closed-door affair if its definition is strictly enforced, but many of them have turned into rallies.

In short, the rules are not consistent. Make it clear and easy for all parties to apply to hold such talks. Let there be fairness. The political and media landscapes have changed but many of our civil servants and leaders are still stuck in a time warp, and seemingly indifferent to it.

So we have officials who black out parts of an article in The Economist when one can easily access it online, or put hurdles out to ban the Bahasa Malaysia Bible when all it takes is a simple click to print the entire version from the Internet.

But emotions and scoring points seem to have become the obsession of many Malaysians. Is it any wonder that one of the popular pastimes among Malaysians is playing the “Angry Birds” game on their mobiles and tablets?

Can we stop being angry people and try to make sense of the issues affecting the nation instead? Or better still, just laugh at them? It’s just the run-up to the silly season, as cynical reporters call it.

The two are not afraid to face angry crowds at meetings where people have heaped criticisms, made unreasonable demands and often vented their anger at the Government. The participants are often the urban middle class who are outspoken.

From MRT stations to transformation plans to key performance indicators, they have spoken about the grand plans for development that are being rolled out.

Generally, their explanations made sense to their listeners, but at times people became lost when they delved into the details. But there is one common feature at such town house meetings – the two are ready to listen to the public.

The people want to be heard and not be talked down to. This is what many of our politicians do not seem to realise.

If non-politicians like Mohd Nur Ismail and Idris are able to take the heat, there is no reason why some of our politicians should prefer the safer way by delivering speeches, often mundane and unimaginative ones, at the rostrums.

Both have set the standards by putting their views and also the input of the people on websites, and setting up toll-free lines for ideas and suggestions, in the case of SPAD. They also hold exhibitions to show the rakyat what they have.

Young Malaysians want to see their leaders with rolled-up sleeves on stage taking on questions relating to issues affecting their daily lives. They want to tell our leaders how they are coping with the increase in cost of living and how they have to sacrifice their sleep and leave their homes early to beat the increasingly bad traffic jams.

They want to talk about the need to provide more trains to take them home after work, how to make their neighbourhoods safe and about their children’s education.

How many of our leaders know the price of onions, chicken or chilli at the markets despite professing to represent the common people?

The rakyat will be sufficiently satisfied if our leaders can listen, respond with decent answers, come back to see them again and, if they screw up, to just have the decency to apologise and stop being defensive.

We are not interested in 100-storey buildings, stupid political quarrels, whether wives should be obedient to their husbands in bed or racist tirades from political dinosaurs like Datuk Ibrahim Ali of Perkasa.

The bread and butter issues matter most to Malaysians – nothing more, nothing less.

The trouble with most politicians is that once they hold the microphones, they cannot let go. But they had better learn to pass the microphones to their listeners more.

Young people have seen a dressed-down US President Barack Obama at meetings with the people. Never mind if the occasions are part of some clever public relations exercise, these are powerful visual messages.

Even the straight-laced Chinese leaders who don’t have to worry about elections also realise the need to be seen conducting such intimate meetings, where even the bodyguards know how to move away from the cameras. In both instances, new standards have been set.

Such images give these leaders a more caring and down-to-earth persona and project them as keen to listen, instead of being aloof or in a hurry and are only interested in a photo opportunity with aimless handshakes.

Young Malaysians, especially those whose jobs require them to make presentations to their clients to clinch business deals, have reasons to be critical when they listen to their leaders.

Many of our leaders, to these young professionals, fall way short of their expectations and the result is that they do not have respect for the leaders.

The young have become more outspoken, more articulate, and they demand greater democratic space.

Their world view is certainly very much in contrast to the older leaders. And if the latter equates the demand for greater democratic space with chaos and disloyalty to the country, then it would be a costly political error. Again, it would be another case of politicians not listening hard enough or even bothering to listen.

The country can also do away with certain pompous ministers who demand that their subordinates greet them at the airport. One or two are known to throw tantrums when they are not accorded such respect, and they insist that their staff spend an entire day moving around with them when they are making state visits. Moving around in an entourage seems to give them a sense of self importance.

Worse is to call for press conferences when they really have nothing new or anything sensible to say. Often, it is a case of talking for the sake of talking.

Malaysian taxpayers would also be very thankful if they could see an end to the elaborate dances and greetings for politicians at every function, and the 15-minute salutation to address the never ending list of Tan Sris, Datuk Seris, Datuks and Datins. What’s wrong with just “tuan-tuan dan puan-puan”? Can we just get to the point so we can all get back to our work, please?

Neither should we be paying for those huge billboards showing the faces of our leaders. There is no difference between Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat leaders when it comes to such ego trips.

The bottom line is the rakyat is the boss – it’s that simple. So, regardless of their political affiliations, our politicians had better start listening hard instead of just talking too hard.

Their supporters have the right to argue and convince others that it is their constitutional right to protest but, again, do not expect everyone to share their enthusiasm.

When jazz singer Datuk Sheila Majid tweeted: “I am disappointed with all political parties, NGOs and Bersih. There are better ways to approach,” she immediately received a nasty rebuke from a PKR activist who shot her down, saying he used to respect her. She probably lost a fan because of her tweet.

There are enough people who would like to tell them that their protest was illegal and that they should know this is basic law.

Protesters should know better that when you attend a demonstration, it is not going to be a picnic. One should expect to be arrested and hauled into a Black Maria, so let’s not kid ourselves into believing that the cops would give them a red carpet welcome.

Certainly, only a politically naive person, or someone in self-denial, would believe that Datuk S. Ambiga was acting on her own.

Yes, of course, it was not politically motivated. The opposition politicians just happened to be there. Yes, they just bumped into each other at KL Hilton.

In the case of the government, many are also shaking their heads at the authorities’ sledgehammer treatment of Bersih 2.0.

Just weeks ago, not many Malaysians knew who Ambiga was. Thanks to the over-excitement of the authorities, she has become an icon overnight.

And don’t blame Malaysians for being cynical over the claims that communist elements were involved in the rally. More so when those dreamer socialists were said to have T-shirts bearing the names of dead Commie leaders.

Suddenly, Che Guevera, whom many teenagers at Pertama Complex had all this while thought was Bob Marley, was declared dangerous and subversive.

Then there was the obsession with the colour yellow. By the way, there were enough Malaysians who actually believed the Digi Man was arrested by the police, although the e-mailed picture was doctored.

But it was a funny spoof, and I wish there were enough Malaysians with a sense of humour to laugh at the fat yellow man.

Arresting people who wear yellow T-shirts with the word “Bersih” is not going to help the government win votes. Something is wrong with us if we believe revolutions can be launched by wearing yellow T-shirts with the word “Bersih”.

One need not be a rocket scientist to know the political backlash of such an action, even though there may be good security measures.

And the police, trying too hard to be friendly, put on its Facebook pictures of those detained being served with a buffet meal. There were round tables covered with tablecloth. Not bad at all, man!

No wonder there are many people who think a protest in KL is really a stroll on a weekend.

And then there was Perkasa’s Datuk Ibrahim Ali. The man is really comical. After driving enough people into a frenzy with his racist tirade, he decided to stay home. At one point, he claimed he could mobilise 15,000 people. As a face-saving gesture, he declared he would take “a stroll” at Tasik Titiwangsa. It must have been a pretty long stroll. He was probably walking around in circles.

And we can assume everyone would declare themselves winners. Bersih 2.0 will say that they managed to stage a protest despite the police locking down the city.

The authorities, too, will say that they won this round by claiming that the Bersih 2.0 crowd wasn’t as massive as they had expected.

Ibrahim Ali could also declare himself a winner as he could have successfully earned a place in the Malaysian Book of Records for taking the most number of strolls at Tasik Titiwangsa.

Umno Youth’s Patriots can also claim to be winners despite walking barely 200m before being tear-gassed and arrested.

There was another record – Anwar could still post a tweet at 4.40pm that says “undergoing CT scan for injury. Wishing #Bersih all the best.”

How he could take his mobile phone into a CT scan machine is a wonder. The Opposition leader had purportedly fallen during the protest.

Either Malaysians must be very bad in Maths or they are very good at exaggerating. The police said there were only 5,000 protesters whereas Datuk A. Samad Said said 50,000 while the pro-opposition Malaysia Chronicle news portal claimed 100,000 people.

The silat exponents turned out to be a lot of hot air in the end.

The biggest losers were the public who got stuck in horrendous traffic jams. Businesses can count their losses, vendors could not distribute their newspapers, commuters found at least eight LRT stations shut, the city’s cabbies had to stay at home and, worse, terrified city dwellers had to stock up on food unnecessarily.

And taxpayers must certainly be wondering why their money is being spent on bringing so many cops into the city – and serving a buffet meal to law-breakers at Pulapol – when they should be busy catching criminals.

It must be brought to mind that not everyone who supports Bersih 2.0 are pro-opposition. Many middle class urban voters are unhappy about many issues and it won’t hurt the government to listen to them. Don’t give up on them so they won’t give up on the government. Some concerns are legitimate ones that need fixing.

Likewise, Pakatan Rakyat should not misread today’s rally as an endorsement of the Opposition.

It does not look like there is going to be a compromise or a middle ground solution between the organisers of the rally and the police. The organisers want to proceed and have no intention of applying for a permit.

The police, meanwhile, have said there will be no more talk with the organisers and stressed that it is time now for action and the full force of the police would be applied.

Deputy Inspector General of Police Datuk Seri Khalid Abu Bakar did not rule out the possibility of the police invoking the Internal Security Act to nab participants of the illegal rallies.

What is different from the first Bersih protest held in 2007 and other past massive protests is that this time, two other parties have warned that they would proceed with counter demonstrations if the Bersih 2.0 rally went ahead.

This time, the police fear a clash and their concerns are justified, given the emotions that have built up. From the information the police have gathered, there are good reasons why police are talking about taking tough preventive measures.

In 1997, supporters of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim staged a huge protest after the court sentenced him to six years’ jail for sodomy. A passing TV3 vehicle was attacked in front of Masjid Jamek by an angry mob in full view of the public and many shops were looted. And it was a one-sided affair then.

Anwar’s conviction, the protests and the backdrop of the 1997 financial crisis in Asia certainly had an impact as (then Prime Minister) Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad had a tough election in 1999.

In the case of the Bersih protest in 2007, which also called for electoral reforms, about 250 demonstrators were arrested as they clashed with the police. When elections were called the following year, Pakatan Rakyat won five states, despite claiming the electoral rolls were “unclean”, and that cheating and dirty tactics were used. And for the record, PAS has ruled Kelantan for 21 years.

But it’s hard to argue against a case for a clean electoral system. It’s a clever political package. Seriously, who can argue against such a clarion call and who can say “no” to freedom of expression and the right to protest, which are all basic principles of demo­cracy?

It’s understandably attractive for many and, undoubtedly, a matter of choice if people wish to take part in the rally. But again, those who organise the rally and those who wish to take part should also know the legal and political consequences of their decisions.

Any gathering of five, without a permit, is illegal and even if we feel that it is an archaic law, it remains a law until it is changed.

The organisers of Bersih 2.0 should give a convincing answer to whether their campaign is initiated by Paka­tan Rakyat, which has given the whole show a political dimension, or it has been hijacked by them.

It doesn’t help that Anwar has said he could just call organiser Datuk S. Ambiga to call off the rally. Of course, like many politicians, he claimed he was misquoted.

PAS deputy president Mohamed Sabu has also said on record that the Bersih 2.0 rally would help Pakatan in the elections.

On the surface, it looks simple but it’s all politics in the end and not quite as innocuous as it seems. The reaction has been political, and likewise the counter protests.

The organisers of Bersih 2.0 cannot expect their rivals to join them on the argument of a clean electoral system when the latter feels that the system is sufficient, admittedly it can still be improved, as the opposition has gained so much.

Against the rising political temperature, the issue has become more explosive when elements of religion and sedition come into play.

Some have said the authorities over-reacted and the communist revival claim is a little scratched, given the fact that almost all the commie icons are long dead. Even China and Vietnam are communist in name only these days.

Still, the July 9 rally won’t be a stroll in the park. It is a political event. So, let’s not bluff ourselves that it is a non-governmental organisation affair as they wouldn’t be able to marshal the numbers, if it is indeed an NGO show. The organisers need PAS particularly to bring in the crowd.

It is essentially a show of strength ahead of the polls. The competing forces too have little choice but to bring in the numbers. Every single one of them will claim to represent and act for us, not because the rallies and counter-rallies will help their political ambitions.

There will be enough people who believe in them. Just as enough people climbed trees to put up PAS flags and quarrelled with their families and friends for Datuk Ibrahim Ali, until he called himself an independent. There will also be people who still believe in him now that he is representing an NGO and he is doing all these for Malay rights.

There will also be people who believe politics can be clean and there are wannabe politicians with noble intentions.

The Datuk Trio, meanwhile, must be upset at the seeming obsession of the authorities over the Bersih 2.0 rally as the sex video issue has been forgotten overnight, which is what Anwar probably wants.

All these groups could hold their gatherings in stadiums, with even a short march thrown in, if they want to. They could shout and make speeches for 24 hours if they want, but as Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim was quoted in Sinar Harian as saying, it would have lacked the “oomph”.

Without the chaos, the anger, the water cannon, the arrests, it would not be a success. So it all comes down to that.

The country’s demographic change has many political, economic and social implications and the big boss of the Lion Group conglomerate certainly knows how the trend will affect the community.

Being a businessman, Cheng chose to dwell on the economic aspect. The owner of the Parkson department store chain said the Chinese community would have a chance to play a leading role in the country’s economy even though the population was low.

Speaking at the ACCIM Youth conference, Cheng did not want to ruin the upbeat mood, telling his listeners not to be pessimistic. Being the shrewd businessman that he is, he cleverly stayed away from talking about the political effects.

But he can certainly calculate what is ahead. The continuing drop in the Chinese population would correspond with a drop in political clout.

In a plural society, racial numbers do matter. It is the same in the United States where election candidates play along racial voter numbers to win their votes.

In 2009, journalist researcher Helen Ang highlighted in her report that the country’s Chinese population will decline to a mere 18.6% of the population in 25 years. While the bumiputra population for this decade (2011-2021) will see at least 1.98% annual growth, the Chinese population growth over this period will only be 0.73% annually.

Citing a study by researcher Saw Swee Hock, Ang wrote that by 2035, Malaysia will have 41 million people, with bumiputras making up 72.1% of the population.

Even Penang is now officially a Malay majority state. The latest statistics from the Department of Statistics indicate that Malays are increasing and have now outnumbered the Chinese by 0.7% in the once Chinese dominant state.

In 2009, the Penang Malay population stood at 654,300, just ahead of 651,600 Chinese by 0.1%. Last year, it widened to 0.7%. Of the estimated 1.6 million population in Penang, 670,100 were Malays (41.6%) while 658,700 were Chinese (40.9%). There were 9.7% In­dians (155,600), 7% non-Ma­laysians (112,200), 0.8% others and other bumiputras (13,300).

In Selangor, another state with a big Chinese population, they now make up 29% of the state’s population of over five million.

We all know the reasons for the drop in Chinese population, which range from late marriages, preference for small families to migration. But there is less talk about the political effects, particularly the community’s diminishing political importance.

Chinese voters generally get angry and offended if they hear, even in the most subtle way, that their votes could be foregone. After all, in any election, every vote is crucial.

In a close fight between two Malay candidates, for instance, the minority Chinese voters can be the deciding factor. In fact, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has always reminded his listeners that it was the Chinese voters who saved many Umno candidates in the 1999 general election following the sacking of his deputy Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Indeed, the Chinese can be kingmaker by voting strategically. Or they can vote to vent their frustrations and end up outside the government.

The big test will come in the next general election. Of the 222 parliamentary seats, only 40-odd seats are in Chinese majority areas. The others are Malay majority or racially mixed seats. There is no Indian majority parliamentary seat.

It is obvious at this point there is still much resentment in urban Chinese areas, with the voting pattern aligning towards the opposition. There is even a misconception that the Chinese, if they voted for the opposition entirely, would see their position strengthened based on the belief that PKR-PAS can deliver the Malay seats.

But it is a big gamble as the Chinese voters may just find themselves the only one outside the government, as in the case of Sarawak where the community was led by PKR-PAS to believe that the other races would join in to topple Tan Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud.

In the end, the DAP ended up with 12 state seats while the SUPP was almost wiped out. The urban Malays-Dayaks, it turned out, voted solidly for Barisan Nasional, with PBB winning all 35 seats it contested. The SUPP lost its deputy chief ministership and is left with only two state assemblymen.

The question now is whether the Chinese voters would be happy with the 40-odd parliamentary seats for the DAP come the next election and see the community representation completely out of the government as they increase the number of PAS Members of Parliament.

The Chinese are the ones who will chart their future since Malay and Indian votes have shifted back to Barisan. It is now a choice of whether they want to follow their heart or rule with their head.

We are told that there are only 60 licensed massage centres in the whole of Selangor, which means the thousands of such centres that we see are illegal.

That comes to one point – why are they able to operate openly in so many residential areas without the local councils cracking down on them?

Can the people be blamed for thinking there are elements of corruption involved, and strong suspicions of protection with powerful backing?

Or is it simply that enforcement is so pathetic the officers are fighting a losing battle against the massage parlour operators?

State executive councillor Ronnie Liu can be sure that no one in the state believes his claim that there are only 60 licensed premises and that the licences were issued before 2006.

After Pakatan Rakyat came to power, no new permits were issued, according to him.

One has to be a fanatical loyalist of Liu to believe this. Or, if we accept his claim, it simply means the state has been unable to stop the sprouting of these massage centres.

There’s another factor that makes the situation different from the other states – the political dimension of this multi-million ringgit service industry.

Liu himself has been the target of many allegations, including finger pointing by his own comrades, until DAP chairman Karpal Singh had to issue a directive ordering a halt to more discussions on the issue of support letters and allegations of cronyism.

Liu also got himself some unnecessary publicity in 2008 when he was arrested by the police for allegedly obstructing the Subang Jaya Municipal Council enforcement workers and police personnel who were raiding a suspected vice den in Puchong.

He was accused by the police of allegedly trying to stop the police and council workers who were trying to seal a shop lot which was used as an illegal massage centre.

The Pandamaran state assemblyman was arrested on the spot but released on bail. The next day, the police received an order from the Attorney-General’s Office to charge him. The court case is on-going at the PJ Magistrate’s court, with Liu being called to enter his defence already.

The Local Government, Study and Research Committee member has also sued former Selangor Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Muhammad Khir Toyo for allegedly accusing him of immoral activities and involvement in vice.

Liu denied that he had obstructed the authorities from carrying out their duties.

Last year, Karpal Singh rescued him after his party leaders accused him of abusing his official state letter heads. A gag order was issued and the matter hushed up. He was let off with a “severe reprimand” from the party.

Liu survived that political storm but his assistant Tee Boon Hock, a Klang municipal councillor, found himself sacked from the party for allegedly misusing the letter heads to secure contracts for his cronies.

But there are more questions than answers to the massage centre issue in Selangor. Klang Municipal Council president Muhd Ikhsan Mukri has said there are 45 licensed massage parlours in Klang.

If there are only 60 licensed massage centres in the whole of Selangor, and out of this Klang has 45, that would make Klang the town with the highest number of licensed massage centres.

How Klang has managed to get all the licences is another question.

Muhd Ikhsan said that since the beginning of this year, 16 operations have been conducted and 81 premises were checked. He did not explain how they checked on 81 premises if there were only 45 legal ones.

Tee, who is now a sworn political enemy of Liu, has claimed there are 60 massage centres in Klang. He did not say whether they are legal or illegal.

In all fairness, there are many legitimate massage centres in Selangor. In fact, the operators of clean ones have to struggle, often on unfair terms and turf, against the illegal ones that offer sex services.

Many decent ones in Selangor offer family packages and have clear signs put up to say they do not tolerate sex services.

Certainly, there is bigger demand for massage services in Selangor because of the stressful lifestyle here. Most Selangor residents work in Kuala Lumpur but reside in the suburbs of Petaling Jaya. And massages have been proven to be able to relax the muscles.

I do not wish to rub it in. There is nothing wrong in issuing more permits for massage centres but to claim that no new permits are being issued and then we see such premises mushrooming, even in residential neighbourhoods, only smacks of poor governance.

Have we become so politically partisan that we have refused to ask how this foundation, which has a horrible reputation for mismanagement, could possibly be able to utilise the land properly and efficiently?

There are now suspicions, rightly or wrongly, that the land currently being used by nursery operators would be passed on to crony developers once it has been acquired by the state.

Yayasan Selangor is not in the business of developing land. It cannot even run itself properly. We are now suddenly being told that the land where the nurseries are located has underground water pipes and that, for security reasons, the nursery operators have to move out.

But Yayasan Selangor will get the land. We should then be demanding to know why Yayasan Selangor would want the land with all these “dangerous” water pipes.

The fact is that these 50 nursery operators are sitting on land that is next to the over 1,300ha of land belonging to the Rubber Research Institute of Malaysia which has been earmarked for redevelopment. The development in the area comes under the Greater Kuala Lumpur Strategic Development Project initiative which is under the 10th Malaysia Plan.

Of the present total land area, rubber plantations take up about 939ha (2,320 acres) while the remainder includes the nurseries and other buildings. So who can blame them if they are suspicious of the motives of the state government?

Even if we accept the argument that the state has the right to take over this land, we should be looking at the track record, or lack of it, of Yayasan Selangor.

Financial mismanagement has caused Yayasan Selangor to chalk up RM7.41mil in deficit from January till November last year.

In normal circumstances, the financial state of the foundation would have been called a scandal and there would have been a demand for a Royal Commission of Inquiry to be set up to investigate it.

But it looks like many of the Barisan Nasional state assemblymen are still not thinking, acting and functioning like aggressive opposition leaders.

Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim himself has revealed that “expenditure that is not transparent, prudent or reasonable had caused the cost of Yayasan Selangor’s 40th anniversary celebration to reach almost RM1mil”.

The audit on Yayasan Selangor was done from Nov 29 till Dec 1 last year after the Sultan of Selangor snubbed the foundation’s 40th anniversary luncheon, which was scheduled for Nov 15, over its exorbitant cost. The luncheon was subsequently called off.

First, the state government said the luncheon was billed at RM300,000 but Selangor Umno claimed that the event would have cost RM800,000. The audit report showed that the foundation actually spent RM996,472 on the overall celebration.

The luncheon may have been cancelled but Yayasan Selangor still had to pay RM387,232. The other costs included RM225,000 for copies of the Quran, RM206,040 on souvenirs and clothes, and RM178,200 on a fishing competition.

Can someone shed some light over this fishy event involving public funds?

The audit report also stated that Yayasan Selangor could recover an estimated RM148,500 from the company in charge of the luncheon, but it had yet to do so.

The fiasco, however, did not stop the Yayasan Selangor board of trustees from paying themselves bonuses of RM5,000 last year – a violation of the foundation’s memorandum.

Yayasan Selangor’s board of trustees includes Khalid, who is chairman, former state secretary Datuk Ramli Mahmud, Selangor executive councillor Dr Halimah Ali, Ilham Marzuki, Datuk Mohd Arif Ab Rahman, Sulaiman Wak and Haji Mohd Adenan Deraman.

The only saving grace is that the Mentri Besar has taken action and revealed the contents of the audit, and a former deputy general manager has been charged in court on three counts of graft involving RM45,000 in connection with the anniversary celebrations.

The nursery operators who have been toiling the land for over 22 years are now being shown a grand plan submitted by Yayasan Selangor. It supposedly involves converting the land into an expo area with plans for flower shows, 24-hour security and proper lighting.

Who are Yayasan Selangor to tell these operators how to run their nurseries when they have no experience whatsoever in this business?

And if they buy the Yayasan Selangor idea, what about the security of the water pipes claim that has been bandied about?

The story doesn’t seem to tally at all. Would the water pipes/security claims suddenly vanish?

It’s just like the pomelo farmers in Tambun, Perak, who have finally been given a 99-year land lease after having to fight their case for years.

Then there are the ornamental fish rearers in Gopeng who are still fighting for their land despite bringing in millions of ringgit for the country.

These people truly deserve our support. They have toiled on their land for decades while contributing to the nation’s economy and no one should grab the land from them.

Certainly, in Sungai Buloh, Yayasan Selangor should learn to run itself first before telling the flower growers how to run their business. It’s really none of Yayasan Selangor’s business.

In the United States and Europe, the price of fuel for cars changes almost every day as it is not subsidised. This is something most Malaysians are unfamiliar with as we are, and have been, living on subsidies for almost every essential item, even sugar which is unheard of elsewhere.

The government’s bill for subsidising petrol, diesel and gas has risen from RM8bil to RM18bil a year. Yes, it’s a staggering figure and certainly we can expect the numbers to keep increasing unless there is a drop in crude oil prices.

The government can take the easy way out by keeping the prices of petrol down to remain popular, especially with a general election looming. But that would be bad governance.

If Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim can reduce the price of petrol as he claims, I am sure Obama would be quite keen to hear from him. The Opposition Leader must have a magic wand. He may be able to do it but the long-term effects would be disastrous and could well bleed the nation. To put it bluntly, it could bankrupt Malaysia.

There is a cost to the subsidy – the govern­ment should be channelling the subsidy to the health, education and housing sectors. There are also many infrastructure projects that have already been announced and we wonder how many of these would be affected, even put on hold, if the subsidy bill continues to spiral upwards.

The government could save at least RM103bil over the next five years if it were to slash its subsidy bill now. This, however, can only be done gradually with enough notice served on Malaysians to explain that the govern­ment just cannot continue to bear this burden.

The government has little choice but to explain to the people the rationale behind the subsidy cuts. It’s not an easy task as ordinary Malaysians have bills to pay. And against the backdrop of increasing costs of production, most employers would be hard-pressed to increase the salaries of their workers.

At the same time, we can expect industries to pass their cost to consumers even though the increase in electricity rates is only an average of 7.12%.

The Opposition has been playing the populist card, blaming the government for every price hike and promising to reduce the price of oil, which any rational person would know is not achievable. Surely, every serving government would want to keep prices down to get itself re-elected.

Economists want the government to take a more daring approach to push ahead the subsidy rationalisation exercise. But they are obviously not counting the political costs if this is not done gradually.

Their fear is that if Malaysia continues to bear the high subsidy bill, it would impact on the country’s sovereign ratings as the budget deficit would stand to widen.

In simple language, the country’s debt cannot be allowed to increase if its credit status is to be respected. The bottom line is: provision of subsidies is not a sustainable practice. It has to be removed eventually but at the same time, the government is well aware that any decision should not affect the consumers’ standard of living. Even some government MPs have been cautious about any increase in petrol or food items.

But take the sugar subsidy as an example. When the prices of coarse and fine sugar increased by 20 sen to RM2.30 per kilo, it reduced government subsidy by RM116.6mil from RM400mil per year. The latest increase is the first this year, after last year’s hikes of 20 sen in January, 25 sen in July and 20 sen in December.

It is incredulous that we would fork out so much for sugar while we ask for less of it with our teh tarik. Yet some of us will get bitter when there is a cut in subsidy for sugar.

Look at the statistics: there are 1.4 million adults suffering from diabetes as at 2006, according to a national health and morbidity survey. We can assume that the number has gone up since then, at the rate we consume sugar-laden soft drinks.

Now, according to estimates by the Health Ministry’s disease control division, health promotion, management and treatment of diabetic patients take up about 15% to 17% of the ministry’s total budget of RM13.7bil in 2009. That can’t be sweet news to Malaysians, especially taxpayers. Moreover, that figure does not include diabetics who seek treatment in private hospitals.

But at the same time, we, too, want the government to cut down on excessiveness and wastage and review existing projects that are perceived to bring little economic returns.

We can save but the government must also play its part. It’s a shared responsibility.

Malaysians, like everyone else on this planet, cannot live like they used to.

The days of cheap food will be a thing of the past. We cannot depend on fossil fuel forever. We cannot leave the fan, air-conditioner, lights and television on for no reason and, certainly, our children will pay a heavy price if we waste water as we are doing now.

This seems to be the only immediate answer if we want to sustain the planet.

It’s a simple pleasure in life and certainly most Malaysians would describe our traditional breakfast as heavenly.

I am sure it’s a Malaysian creation. I still do not know why Singapore has not staked a claim on this brilliant culinary work.

Maybe Singapore refuses to be associated with anything that’s regarded as half-measured, half-done or half-boiled. But hey, our national tolerance for mediocrity is higher, so if it tastes good, who are others to tell us otherwise.

I do not know whether our penchant for half-boiled eggs has anything to do with the national psyche but let’s not allow jealous foreigners to divide us. We do not want Perkasa to turn this into a nationalist frenzy over half-boiled eggs and we certainly don’t want Ibrahim Ali to issue “ada telur” dares to imagined foes.

Half-boiled eggs would be frowned upon in Western countries, where most hotel kitchens refuse to accept such orders as the eggs would not be cooked according to the stipulated health requirements.

Westerners, who cannot stomach what we eat, feel they could be exposed to salmonella, the bacteria that can lead to food poisoning. So never bother asking for half-boiled eggs during your holidays overseas.

Besides, what’s half-boiled eggs without kicap?

Older Malaysians have been taught from young that to stay healthy, we should have two half-boiled eggs every morning. I really do not know how, when and why some medical experts suddenly concluded that eating eggs, especially with the yolks – the best part of the eggs – can ruin your health.

One large egg is said to have 213mg of cholesterol, all found in the yolk, and eating too much of it can lead to a high cholesterol level. That’s what was said in one story I googled.

But I have also read that former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had a strict diet of 28 eggs a week plus steak, salads and her favourite tipple – whisky – each time she campaigned.

That’s according to personal documents published by the Margaret Thatcher Archive Trust. She is turning 86 this year and we know for sure that this Iron Lady remains one of the best leaders the world has seen so far.

I am pretty sure Tony Blair and Gordon Brown didn’t like eggs. But I am convinced that Tan Sri Rafidah Aziz and Datuk Seri Dr Ng Yen Yen also eat plenty of eggs. They are sharp and look good. Gutsy, for sure, and they make many men politicians look like wimps.

Datuk Seri Dr Mohamad Khir Toyo conti­nues to defy nature. But I’m not sure if it’s half-boiled eggs or tempeh, a popular Javanese soy product.

I do not know why but eggs always seem to fly in the direction of some politicians. Joining the fray over the award of Public Service Depart­ment (PSD) scholarships, maverick minister Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz has finally said the controversy should be discussed by taking into consideration the views of other parties, including the MCA and Gerakan.

He seems to miss the point – no one is saying that all PSD scholars should be sent overseas. What the applicants have complained about is that there have been those with less than 8A+, some allegedly with just 6A+, who have been sent overseas by the Government.

It does not matter what race or religion the applicants are but if you are not a top achiever, what are the possibilities of these scholars entering top schools like Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard or Imperial College London?

It does not make sense to use taxpayers’ money to admit them into middle or low-level universities.

Our grading system has already been questioned by top foreign universities. The high string of distinctions mean nothing to them now.

Yes, we are all aware the Prime Minister has promised that students who obtained 8A+ and above are eligible for PSD scholarships to study either locally or abroad. It’s a fantastic decision and everyone should be clear about it.

But procedures on scholarships should be clear and open. It really doesn’t make sense when there are mismatches, bad decisions and even questionable moves. It is precisely this resentment that has led to eggs being thrown at the faces of the PSD officials.

All the good intentions of the Government are now being affected because of these half-boiled, or rather half-baked, measures.