Time to rest: Saleng’s age is equivalent to 178 human years and he has not had a female companion in many years. — Filepic/The Star (2017)

THERE was a time when going to the zoo was an exciting family affair, but not anymore. Young ones now frown on the idea of keeping animals in cages.

Being exposed to information online, many young Malaysians, like their global contemporaries, also hate the idea of animal tourism.

Likewise, young people can’t imagine why their parents would still want to eat shark fin soup.

Recently, when the Melaka Zoo revealed it needed to buy a lion, the tender document went viral and earned a roar of disapproval.

It’s a Catch 22 situation for the Melaka Zoo. It needs to replace 28-year-old Saleng the lion, also known as the King of Malacca Zoo, because authorities feel he should be allowed to rest and not be paraded.

Saleng’s age is equivalent to 178 human years, so the state has certainly made the right call. Also, he has not had a female companion in many years.

If that’s not enough, there have been allegations on social media that Saleng is scrawny, and likewise the tigers there. The state authorities have steadfastly denied the claims, though.

Melaka is stuck with the zoo. It can’t simply shut it down and release the animals.

As with all zoos, maintenance is an expensive affair. It has also become increasingly politically incorrect to keep animals locked up in small, cramped conditions because many of us see zoos as prisons for animals.

Revenue has dropped and this has worsened following the Covid-19 pandemic since zoos have been forced to close temporarily.

But even before the pandemic, a rethink about zoos worldwide was brewing.

Animal parks and sanctuaries, like those in Africa, have taken over from zoos as they allow animals to roam freely in a huge natural enclosure. Unfortunately, this would never be possible in land-scarce Malaysia.

The only argument for retaining zoos is the focus on conservation and education, especially to save endangered species and make the public aware of nature’s wonders.

For example, the lion the Melaka Zoo wants to buy isn’t captured from the wild but likely from breeding programmes. The inability to find Saleng a mate is a sad story, though.

In zoos elsewhere, breeding has been successful, and it has helped, to some extent, in stopping the extinction of some animals.

With zoos, the public can see animals up close and not merely on screen in TV programmes or online videos. Not everyone can afford to travel to Africa on expensive safari excursions to see real animals roaming.

But in the end, the cost of confining animals completely outweighs the benefits. It’s a violation of animal rights because no one should lock animals up.

Zoos are like circuses. They are a thing of the past. Animals are not supposed to be beaten to entertain us. We know these animals are forcibly trained to do these tricks against their will.

It’s good that most circuses have closed shop because people have lost interest in such lame entertainment, and operators find the astronomical cost of running circuses too difficult to bear.

Most animals in zoos look either bored or stressed because they are confined. They’ve been robbed of their instincts and hunting skills because they are fed.

They sleep most of the time because there’s really nothing they can do.

It’s a cruel business because inter-generational bonds are broken when animals are sold or traded between zoos. It basically amounts to splitting up families.

Last week, a mistreated and dangerously overweight elephant that spent more than 30 years languishing inside a notorious Pakistani zoo made world news when he was freed, thanks to a wide-reaching and lengthy campaign led by singer Cher.

Kaavan, who became known as “the world’s loneliest elephant” after his partner died in 2012, had spent 35 years in captivity – and in shackles – at Islamabad’s Marg-hazar Zoo, a run-down institution that served as his home until the American icon secured his release.

It had taken four years for the animal-loving singer and a team of experts from Four Paws International to rescue the 36-year-old elephant. Those involved in the operation said they spent weeks training him to calmly enter and exit his custom-built crate (designed to transport a 5.5-tonne mammal) so they could take him to the Cambodian Wildlife Sanctuary.

Likewise, the campaign against animal tourism in Thailand has stepped up with tourists being discouraged from taking pictures with drugged tigers.

Riding on elephants has also been frowned upon, owing to growing concerns about the distressing way these animals – reported to be among the most sensitive and intelligent mammals – are treated.

Now, most tourists, especially those from the United States and Europe, prefer to just observe elephants from a distance in their natural surroundings.

Better educated travellers now understand that they must respect animals and that there should be no physical contact with them.

Before they dive into the ocean, scuba divers and snorkelers are now reminded not to touch or feed sea creatures.

Except for the petting section, zoos have also disallowed the public from animal feeding.

Writer Benjamin Wallace Wells, in an essay titled “The Case for the End of the Modern Zoo” wrote aptly that “the whole animal captivity picture began to look decidedly more grim and less defensible”.

Zoos are not going to be closed any time soon, but there must be a better way to see these animals in bigger and more natural preserves. So cages must be done away with.

Politicians who still only talk about building zoos are really relics of the past with no creative ideas to score tourist dollars. More and more holidaymakers have found Sabah and Sarawak ideal destinations because they want to experience nature and animals in the wild and not in zoos.

As Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi said, the greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. Locking them up is certainly not the way to go.

IT’S the government’s job to grease the wheels for businesses to stay afloat, especially the smaller ones, as Malaysians struggle with the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic

The new 2021 liquor guidelines have banned the sale of hard liquor in all sundry shops, convenience stores and Chinese medicine shops in KL.

The ruling was predictably swiftly executed and involved no consultation with stakeholders. And it’s also clearly an infringement of minority rights.

Rules on liquor sale have been racking up. Oktoberfest events, which were allowed previously, have since been banned, too.

Recently, DBKL announced a freeze on all new liquor licence applications with immediate effect. So, yet another ruling on the sale of hard liquor.

Beer will still be sold at Chinese medicine shops and convenience stores, although only available from 7am – 9pm and placed away from non-alcoholic beverages.

Another ruling indicates that liquor sale won’t be allowed on premises facing police stations, places of worship, schools and hospitals.

So, if you’ve been operating such a business for decades, in front of a police station, for example, now, you’ll have to close shop because of this new ruling.

It takes effect in October 2021, which means these stores have about 10 months to adjust.

Shorter operating hours have also been imposed on pubs, bars and restaurants in KL. Most of us want to unwind after work, and in KL, that’s not 5pm. Besides, socialising only begins after 9pm.

KL is also an international city, so many tourists in the Bukit Bintang area obviously want to stay out late.

I would have expected such a ruling to come from PAS-run states like Kelantan and Terengganu, but not KL, what with its huge non-Muslim population.

The irony is that while DBKL has decided to clamp down on these small businesses, liquor can still be sold in restaurants, bars, hotels, commercial complexes, warehouses and supermarkets.

I can’t tell if we’re supposed to be grateful to DBKL for this discretion, but this is where something seems to have gone askew – you can buy and drink hard liquor from these outlets, but not from your neighbourhood convenience stores and Chinese medicine shops.

And why are Chinese medicine shops being targeted? They are mostly patronised by Chinese, if not 99.9%, and with their business dwindling, many have converted parts of their shops to sell general food items as well as hard liquor.

Strangely, wine has now become classified as hard liquor. Most drinkers would likely beg to differ because it’s accepted as part of food matching. Champagne is used for celebrations, mostly.

For the ignorant, including PAS MP Nik Muhammad Zawawi Salleh, who has since apologised, liquor consumption isn’t banned in the Bible.

As we all know, the first miracle performed by Jesus was to turn water into wine at a wedding, and there are many references to the use of wine in the Bible, too. Many churches in Europe still practise using wine for holy communion, although Ribena is mostly used in Malaysia.

Here’s the biggest myth – most Malaysians are killed on the road from drink driving. But the facts say they die from not wearing helmets.

Statistics indicate that 60% of motorcycle fatalities happen in rural settings, which presumably have no liquor or convenience stores selling hard liquor. Not even beer.

These victims were also not drunk or intoxicated. Most were either not wearing helmets, or just bad motorists.

Malaysia has the highest road accident death rate in Asean and the third highest in Asia. The World Health Organisation’s 2013 statistics portrayed Malaysia among the emerging countries with the riskiest roads after Thailand and South Africa.

Malaysia registered a death rate of 23 per 100,000 population. Based on these statistics against the estimated population of 30 million, 7,000 to 8,000 people die on our roads every year. And more than 50% of road accident fatalities involve motorcyclists. According to findings by the International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences, the highest number of motorcycle fatalities occur in rural locations (61%), primary roads (62%) and straight road sections (66%).

“The majority are riders (89%), 16 to 20 years old (22.5%), and 90% of the motorcycles are privately owned.

“Of those involved in fatal accidents, 75% of the motorcyclists wear helmets, and 35% do not have proper licences.

“The highest number of fatalities by type of collision is ‘angular or side’ (27.5%).”

Bukit Aman Investigation and Traffic Enforcement director, Datuk Azisman Alias said that between January and June 2019,281,527 accidents were reported in the country. This number is a 2.5% increase from 2018, which saw 274,556 accidents in the same period.

Our motorcyclists are the biggest culprits, and victims, too. They account for two-thirds of road crash fatalities and sadly, the majority are teenagers. These are the ones who consider wearing a helmet optional

Yet strangely, liquor has taken the rap for accidents. Following some high-profile cases of drink driving, which unfortunately involved policemen as victims, these tragedies have been cited for a clamp down on liquor sales.

It’s probably to please PAS since the Islamist government is now a part of the ruling Federal Government and many state governments.

So, we have the likes of the Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Ahmad Marzuk Shaary and PAS leaders cheering DBKL’s decision, with the former saying the government hasn’t ruled out expanding KL’s liquor sale ban on these types of businesses to other states.

The Federal Territory has the highest alcohol consumption, followed by Sarawak and Sabah. That makes sense given KL’s huge non-Muslim population and its tourists.

According to reports by the International Organisation of Good Templars, Malaysia has the highest liquor tax worldwide at 15%.

Statistics show the total revenue tax on alcoholic beverages in Malaysia from 2012 to 2017 increased from RM1.4bil to RM1.9bil.

The Confederation of Malaysian Brewers Berhad estimates that the brewing industry in Malaysia alone supports 61,000 people in direct or indirect employment, while taxes, salaries and profits are equal to 0.3% of gross domestic product. They also pay hundreds of millions in corporate tax and other taxes, including SST and GST.

But the biggest challenge after this will be the prevalence of illicit liquor, which will be a threat to national tax revenue, estimated at RM1.5bil in losses to the government, which already desperately needs revenue.

The DBKL move has left a bitter taste in many in KL, especially when the food and beverage industry has taken a severe beating.

It’s a malaise rooted deep in the legacy of our political forefathers, and we want none of it.

IT’S common knowledge that the ringgit’s value has depreciated. Anyone needing to purchase foreign currencies for trade and travel purposes can vouch for that.

So, when Deputy Youth and Sports Minister Wan Ahmad Fayhsal Wan Ahmad Kamal suggested that Bank Negara print more money notes to give to the people to spend, brickbats came flying at him.

The Bersatu Youth chief was invited by BFM Radio to share his thoughts on Budget 2021’s impact on the young, especially the B40, or Bottom 40% tier of low-income earners. I listened closely to the recording of the interview online titled “Wan Fayhsal: BNM Should Print Money.”

In impeccable English, he spoke about the plight of the young, expressing concern that some of those in M40 (middle group) are slipping into B40.

It was a quick point he shared, but one that has turned Wan Ahmad into the butt of jokes. He suggested what’s called helicopter money policy, where the central bank can directly print money and give it to people to spend, adding that it was “quite doable” and “we just need an innovative policy from the central bank.”

It doesn’t help that neither economics nor finance are the forte of this former lecturer, who specialises in geopolitics and security, which he studied at the prestigious King’s College in London.

He’s also a trained chemical engineer from Universiti Teknologi Petronas and was an employee of the national oil and gas company. However, that doesn’t mean he can’t comment on other issues including economics, like journalists, who are jack-of-all-trades but masters of none, as the saying goes. But do your homework, at least.

Printing money won’t help the economy and will further diminish the ringgit’s value. It leads to inflation and reduced purchasing power, and ultimately, less wealth.

The difference in the United States is that it can afford to print the green notes because it’s in demand and is used as the standard global trading currency. It’s the only country making money from printing currency notes. But for bankers and economists, printing money doesn’t mean handing out cash to the people. And it’s not the Zimbabwean way, for sure.

The ordinary worker worries about getting retrenched, facing a pay cut, being unable to pay bills and servicing loan instalments.They are wary of spending, which consequently renders restaurants the casualties of this socioeconomic structure.

The well-heeled talk about withdrawing their savings from banks because the interest rates are too low. Lower interest rates make it easier to apply for a loan to buy assets such as houses and cars, but it being approved is an entirely different story.

The affluent are also exchanging tips on which stocks to buy and what foreign currencies to cash in on, instead of cradling the weak ringgit.

Speaking economically, there’s plenty of liquidity, meaning there’s a lot of money going around. The rich and upper middle class can’t travel, so they trade at the stock market. In fact, the Bursa is doing very well, some stocks particularly.

Governments are looking at quantitative easing (QE) or creating currency. Central banks create new money electronically and don’t print money for distribution to the people. The Bank of England, for example, determines how much should be in circulation, but they’re not physical bank notes. They are electronically generated to support government bonds.

Bonds are a kind of investment, where you lend money to the government and it pledges a repayment with an interest in a stipulated timeframe. In many countries, investors buy government bonds as it’s regarded a safe instrument with the public expecting the government to repay.

According to the BBC, the first QE programme in the UK was launched in 2009 when the financial crisis was threatening the economy, unemployment was rising, and the stock markets were in freefall.

“The Bank subsequently launched new rounds of QE after the eurozone debt crisis, the Brexit referendum and the coronavirus pandemic. Other countries started QE programmes after 2009, including the US and Japan.”

It said the government will spend well over £300bil on fighting the coronavirus pandemic this year, through measures such as the furlough scheme, support for businesses and extra funding for the NHS.

“That means it has to borrow hundreds of billions of pounds, which it does by issuing bonds. The fact that at the same time the Bank of England is buying hundreds of billions of pounds’ worth of bonds helps the government to raise that money.

“The Bank doesn’t buy directly from the government, it buys from other investors, but its actions make government borrowing cheaper and easier.”

The news agency explained that the government also pays lesser interests on bonds by the Bank of England than other institutions, taking further pressure off public finances.

In another news report, Kameel Mydin Meera, a former dean of the Institute of Islamic Banking and Finance at the International Islamic University Malaysia, believes the government should opt for QE. He said the government’s move to raise its debt ceiling will give it more room to borrow money for programmes to stimulate economic recovery. However, he believes Putrajaya should opt for a different approach.

“QE allows the government to increase the supply of money in the economy without borrowing. It involves printing or creating new ringgit and the idea is to boost spending within the economy and in doing so, stimulate the economy.”

Former Finance Ministry secretary-general Tan Sri Mohd Sheriff Mohd Kassim equated Wan Ahmad Fayhsal’s idea of printing more money as handouts to “Aladdin’s magic carpet.”

“Bank Negara will not do that because it is not what central banks do. Central banks around the world do print money, but it’s not for the government to distribute the currency notes around, ” he said.

The highly respected economist said central banks use the money to settle debts, including bonds the government or the private sector issue.

“The bonds that a central bank holds become its asset to balance against the liability of the notes that it issued. When a central bank buys the bonds, it is effectively lending the money to the issuer, which could be the government or private sector.

“When a central bank does this, it is putting more liquidity into the economy – it is like adding the engine oil to get the car to run. No central bank prints money like Santa Clauses to distribute candies for children during Christmas, ” he texted this writer.

In our country, financial knowledge is low with almost 70% of Malaysians in need of education on the subject, according to a survey by financial literacy platform Multiply. It found that 21% were ranked Finance Newbies – those who don’t know the basics of personal finance, while another 48% were ranked Finance Cadets – those who have just begun to learn the ropes.

Communication by our leaders and policy makers is also poor. It’s reflected in how Covid-19 decisions are made and carried out. With flip flop calls, down-liners like policemen and enforcement officials of councils invariably receive vague guidelines. That’s why they’ve been constantly issuing summons, which has upset the public. Then there are the double standards, which has fittingly earned our ire.

So, Malaysians won’t entertain politicians talking about “printing money” without explaining it well.

Wan Ahmad Fayshal has put his foot in his mouth too often. He has called for the abolishment of vernacular schools, claiming these schools have failed to instil a strong sense of national identity in students.

He later said he merely called for it to be institutionalised, missing the obvious point that it’s already institutionalised because vernacular schools are government funded and part of the education system.

Wan Ahmad Fayshal is only 33 and has a future in politics, but he has grabbed the headlines for all the wrong reasons with his poor arguments and ineffective communication.

At the minute, he’s perceived as lacking progressive ideas and preferring to play the racial card, just like the rest of the old school politicians, the ones Malaysians are fed-up with.

It’s still about race, patronage politics and giving handouts. Sadly, for a young politician we hope can offer a fresh perspective, he’s starting out like a chip off the old guard’s block.

Malaysians are now living in unusual times and they don’t have the patience to deal with politicians like him.