Compact questions
The Guardian | Media
Monday June 14 2004
Revolutions are never smooth transitions. After an initial burst of fervour there are usually periods of relative calm during which everyone – the leaders and the led – are able to assess whether tearing up the old world was a good idea after all.
It is a worrying time for the leaders because they can't go back. But how do they maintain the momentum? Why, they ask themselves, has the initial euphoria vanished?
That's the quandary facing both the Independent and the Times just now in the great compact revolution. As the latest official circulation figures reveal, the sales rises prompted by the move away from the broadsheet format have slowed dramatically in the past couple of months.
The Independent's astonishing year-on-year rise, up 22.86% on last May, is a tribute to its strategy of changing its shape. But the rate of increase has slowed considerably in the last two months.
It has built a platform and now comes the hard grind: without the aid of the publicity and marketing which previously gave it a sales boost it must convince more people to switch from their current choice of title.
The picture is somewhat distorted by the fact that the Indy did not go completely tabloid until May 17, so we must wait for the next set of figures to provide greater clarity.
Similarly, the Times's performance is difficult to analyse because it does not publish a compact on a Saturday, an issue which has performed badly in recent months after a lacklustre revamp.
What the figures do show is that the Monday-to-Friday compact Times was selling 301,000 copies last month, which means that half the readers are still not getting it. The tabloid figures will improve because the paper has now dropped its broadsheet in various regions. But will that mean the broadsheet loyalists begin to desert it?
The consistent problem for the Times is that its compact appears so much less authoritative than its broadsheet. The writers are there, the stories are there and most – but by no means all – the words are there. Yet the perception of the smaller version is that it lacks the gravitas expected of a paper of record.
Unlike the Independent, which has made the switch rather easily – due, in part, to its fewer pages and to its more committed journalistic agenda, which is more adaptable to the tabloid format – the Times's effort has been clumsy.
If upset Times broadsheet readers do seek out an alternative, the Daily Telegraph and the Guardian would be delighted, because both are suf fering: the Telegraph is heading down towards 800,000 while the Guardian is struggling to keep its head above 350,000. Both titles need to take advantage of the becalmed compact revolution.
One title which desperately needs more buyers is the Financial Times, which is in something of a crisis. Its "headline" British sale in May was just 131,454, but 23,815 of these were bulk sales and a further 5,404 were sold at a discount. So the FT's full-rate sale in its home country last month totalled just 102,235.
To put that in perspective, in May 1999 the FT was selling 155,000 at its full cover price in Britain. So, in five years, it has lost 34% of its home circulation, a dramatic fall by any standard.
It's no wonder that the Business, the Sunday title on which the Barclay brothers have lavished millions, has found it impossible to attract a paying audience and depends for its sustenance on being given away free inside other publications.
The only conclusion is that the business niche, once one of the most healthy reading markets, now appears unable to support a viable newspaper.
The daily red-tops have nothing to crow about either, but the most eye-catching figure is surely the Daily Mirror's decline. It has been steadily losing sales over the months but the latest drop must be linked to the publicity surrounding the episode of the faked army torture pictures and the subsequent departure of its editor, Piers Morgan.
What would be fascinating to know is whether readers departed because they were upset by the use of hoax pictures or because they were disappointed at Morgan's sacking. This picture of David Beckham making an adjustment to a heart monitor did not rile the England captain or the Football Association. But a sneak shot of Beckham in his underpants, making a very different kind of adjustment, certainly upset the FA when it was published in the Sun and the Daily Star. The FA's lawyers warned editors that long-lens pictures were "an unjustifiable intrusion" into Beckham's private life. If the Press Complaints Commission is asked to inquire – and it hasn't yet received a letter – it will be an interesting case. The player was on a hotel balcony where he could argue that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Despite that, the best response by the PCC might be to do sweet FA.
Monday 28 June 2004
Broadsheet or tabloid?
Compact questions
The Guardian | Media
Monday June 14 2004
Revolutions are never smooth transitions. After an initial burst of fervour there are usually periods of relative calm during which everyone – the leaders and the led – are able to assess whether tearing up the old world was a good idea after all.
It is a worrying time for the leaders because they can't go back. But how do they maintain the momentum? Why, they ask themselves, has the initial euphoria vanished?
That's the quandary facing both the Independent and the Times just now in the great compact revolution. As the latest official circulation figures reveal, the sales rises prompted by the move away from the broadsheet format have slowed dramatically in the past couple of months.
The Independent's astonishing year-on-year rise, up 22.86% on last May, is a tribute to its strategy of changing its shape. But the rate of increase has slowed considerably in the last two months.
It has built a platform and now comes the hard grind: without the aid of the publicity and marketing which previously gave it a sales boost it must convince more people to switch from their current choice of title.
The picture is somewhat distorted by the fact that the Indy did not go completely tabloid until May 17, so we must wait for the next set of figures to provide greater clarity.
Similarly, the Times's performance is difficult to analyse because it does not publish a compact on a Saturday, an issue which has performed badly in recent months after a lacklustre revamp.
What the figures do show is that the Monday-to-Friday compact Times was selling 301,000 copies last month, which means that half the readers are still not getting it. The tabloid figures will improve because the paper has now dropped its broadsheet in various regions. But will that mean the broadsheet loyalists begin to desert it?
The consistent problem for the Times is that its compact appears so much less authoritative than its broadsheet. The writers are there, the stories are there and most – but by no means all – the words are there. Yet the perception of the smaller version is that it lacks the gravitas expected of a paper of record.
Unlike the Independent, which has made the switch rather easily – due, in part, to its fewer pages and to its more committed journalistic agenda, which is more adaptable to the tabloid format – the Times's effort has been clumsy.
If upset Times broadsheet readers do seek out an alternative, the Daily Telegraph and the Guardian would be delighted, because both are suf fering: the Telegraph is heading down towards 800,000 while the Guardian is struggling to keep its head above 350,000. Both titles need to take advantage of the becalmed compact revolution.
One title which desperately needs more buyers is the Financial Times, which is in something of a crisis. Its "headline" British sale in May was just 131,454, but 23,815 of these were bulk sales and a further 5,404 were sold at a discount. So the FT's full-rate sale in its home country last month totalled just 102,235.
To put that in perspective, in May 1999 the FT was selling 155,000 at its full cover price in Britain. So, in five years, it has lost 34% of its home circulation, a dramatic fall by any standard.
It's no wonder that the Business, the Sunday title on which the Barclay brothers have lavished millions, has found it impossible to attract a paying audience and depends for its sustenance on being given away free inside other publications.
The only conclusion is that the business niche, once one of the most healthy reading markets, now appears unable to support a viable newspaper.
The daily red-tops have nothing to crow about either, but the most eye-catching figure is surely the Daily Mirror's decline. It has been steadily losing sales over the months but the latest drop must be linked to the publicity surrounding the episode of the faked army torture pictures and the subsequent departure of its editor, Piers Morgan.
What would be fascinating to know is whether readers departed because they were upset by the use of hoax pictures or because they were disappointed at Morgan's sacking. This picture of David Beckham making an adjustment to a heart monitor did not rile the England captain or the Football Association. But a sneak shot of Beckham in his underpants, making a very different kind of adjustment, certainly upset the FA when it was published in the Sun and the Daily Star. The FA's lawyers warned editors that long-lens pictures were "an unjustifiable intrusion" into Beckham's private life. If the Press Complaints Commission is asked to inquire – and it hasn't yet received a letter – it will be an interesting case. The player was on a hotel balcony where he could argue that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Despite that, the best response by the PCC might be to do sweet FA.
The Guardian | Media
Monday June 14 2004
Revolutions are never smooth transitions. After an initial burst of fervour there are usually periods of relative calm during which everyone – the leaders and the led – are able to assess whether tearing up the old world was a good idea after all.
It is a worrying time for the leaders because they can't go back. But how do they maintain the momentum? Why, they ask themselves, has the initial euphoria vanished?
That's the quandary facing both the Independent and the Times just now in the great compact revolution. As the latest official circulation figures reveal, the sales rises prompted by the move away from the broadsheet format have slowed dramatically in the past couple of months.
The Independent's astonishing year-on-year rise, up 22.86% on last May, is a tribute to its strategy of changing its shape. But the rate of increase has slowed considerably in the last two months.
It has built a platform and now comes the hard grind: without the aid of the publicity and marketing which previously gave it a sales boost it must convince more people to switch from their current choice of title.
The picture is somewhat distorted by the fact that the Indy did not go completely tabloid until May 17, so we must wait for the next set of figures to provide greater clarity.
Similarly, the Times's performance is difficult to analyse because it does not publish a compact on a Saturday, an issue which has performed badly in recent months after a lacklustre revamp.
What the figures do show is that the Monday-to-Friday compact Times was selling 301,000 copies last month, which means that half the readers are still not getting it. The tabloid figures will improve because the paper has now dropped its broadsheet in various regions. But will that mean the broadsheet loyalists begin to desert it?
The consistent problem for the Times is that its compact appears so much less authoritative than its broadsheet. The writers are there, the stories are there and most – but by no means all – the words are there. Yet the perception of the smaller version is that it lacks the gravitas expected of a paper of record.
Unlike the Independent, which has made the switch rather easily – due, in part, to its fewer pages and to its more committed journalistic agenda, which is more adaptable to the tabloid format – the Times's effort has been clumsy.
If upset Times broadsheet readers do seek out an alternative, the Daily Telegraph and the Guardian would be delighted, because both are suf fering: the Telegraph is heading down towards 800,000 while the Guardian is struggling to keep its head above 350,000. Both titles need to take advantage of the becalmed compact revolution.
One title which desperately needs more buyers is the Financial Times, which is in something of a crisis. Its "headline" British sale in May was just 131,454, but 23,815 of these were bulk sales and a further 5,404 were sold at a discount. So the FT's full-rate sale in its home country last month totalled just 102,235.
To put that in perspective, in May 1999 the FT was selling 155,000 at its full cover price in Britain. So, in five years, it has lost 34% of its home circulation, a dramatic fall by any standard.
It's no wonder that the Business, the Sunday title on which the Barclay brothers have lavished millions, has found it impossible to attract a paying audience and depends for its sustenance on being given away free inside other publications.
The only conclusion is that the business niche, once one of the most healthy reading markets, now appears unable to support a viable newspaper.
The daily red-tops have nothing to crow about either, but the most eye-catching figure is surely the Daily Mirror's decline. It has been steadily losing sales over the months but the latest drop must be linked to the publicity surrounding the episode of the faked army torture pictures and the subsequent departure of its editor, Piers Morgan.
What would be fascinating to know is whether readers departed because they were upset by the use of hoax pictures or because they were disappointed at Morgan's sacking. This picture of David Beckham making an adjustment to a heart monitor did not rile the England captain or the Football Association. But a sneak shot of Beckham in his underpants, making a very different kind of adjustment, certainly upset the FA when it was published in the Sun and the Daily Star. The FA's lawyers warned editors that long-lens pictures were "an unjustifiable intrusion" into Beckham's private life. If the Press Complaints Commission is asked to inquire – and it hasn't yet received a letter – it will be an interesting case. The player was on a hotel balcony where he could argue that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Despite that, the best response by the PCC might be to do sweet FA.
Friday 25 June 2004
Maybe
Dr M once said we need something tall like the Petronas tower so that we got something that we can look up to. Are we alone?
---------
The Guardian | G2 | Friday June 11 2004 | pages 4 - 5
Tower power
The winning design to redevelop Ground Zero faces mounting opposition from campaigners who want the Twin Towers to be rebuilt. James Westcott on the latest twist in a tortuous tale
On July 4, the ground will be ceremonially broken on the construction site of the new World Trade Centre. "As we commemorate the founding of our nation," New York's state governor, George Pataki, said at a recent luncheon, "we lay the foundation for our resurgence." The Freedom Tower, designed by architect Daniel Libeskind in collaboration with corporate behemoths Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM), mimics the posture of the Statue of Liberty and rises to a symbolic 1,776ft.
Not everyone is happy, however. "We are replacing a symbol of world peace and human cooperation with a self-absorbed salute to America," says Robin Heid, executive coordinator of the activist architectural group Team Twin Towers. The Libeskind plan, he argues, is "tone deaf to a monumental degree".
Team Twin Towers was formed in 2002 when Heid, an ex-paratrooper in the US Army, teamed up with Randy Warner, a TV executive based in Los Angeles. They are the biggest of many groups lobbying for the "restoration" of the twin towers as a defiant and therapeutic response to September 11.
Heid insists that the desire to rebuild isn't just a knee-jerk reaction to terrorism, or a response to the frustration that Ground Zero remains a largely empty crater nearly three years on. "Rebuilding is a fundamental, visceral human response. If they knocked down Big Ben, what would they do? Have a design contest? Instead of having a clocktower have two doves twirling around a pole?"
It seems that many people agree with Heid. The Team Twin Towers plan for buildings two storeys taller than the originals has received glowing endorsements from the fiercely rightwing magazine the National Review and from Rupert Murdoch's New York Post. "Americans have always understood the Twin Towers," said columnist Nicole Gelinas. "They were us: stark capitalism, power and beauty without explanation or apology."
The WTC skyscrapers were never much loved as architecture, until now. But a poll in 2002 found that half of New Yorkers wanted them rebuilt, and Team Twin Towers cite other polls that show up to 70% support for rebuilding. The modernism the two blank, monolithic towers represented has become something of a safe tradition compared with the perceived postmodernism of the Libeskind/SOM plan. It's as if what the towers symbolised – power, or cooperation, depending on how cynical you are feeling – can now only be embodied in the II shape.
Another team advocating for rebuilding, Make New York New York Again, have come up with a design that is, by their own admission, populist. "The average person doesn't have to figure out the theories or what the designer was thinking of," says Ken Gardner, gesturing at his model twin towers. "This plan transcends architecture." John Hakala, a partner in the group and an influential lobbyist of the editorial boards of New York's tabloids, says: "Libeskind's building is twisted. It just seems to imply something bent out of shape, destroyed. It might be interesting architecture somewhere else. But for those of us who smelled the towers burning – and I lost my best friend there – it's not right for this site."
Gardner and Hakala inadvertently raise interesting questions about whether any architect could achieve the miracles expected at Ground Zero, while working in perhaps the most complicated and politically delicate building site in the world. Juggling the governor's office, the property developers, the Port Authority, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, the mayor's office and victims' families, would seem an impossible task. The supporters of "restoration" have a certain cynical and depressing logic: erase the architect from the picture and replace his divisive, elitist ideas with something popular and economically viable.
But isn't there a possibility that people will be disturbed to see the towers rising again? "That's why they're not exact replicas," Gardner says. They would restore the familiar and now beloved silhouette to the skyline, but would have different detailing and updated safety features. The new towers would have a double steel skin – a tube within a tube – for strength, and six stairwells instead of four for safety. A 500ft mast on the north tower would make it the tallest building in the world.
The Make New York New York Again plan was not submitted to the "innovative design study" launched in 2002 by the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, the newly created body charged with overseeing the rebuilding. This may have because their model wasn't ready, but Hakala claims other reasons. "The competition was not really a competition," he says. "Anybody who entered was required to surrender all of their intellectual property rights. So there were only about 400 entries, whereas with the major truly open architecture competitions in Europe, there are usually about 3,000 entrants. A lot of really big names said 'We're not going to play by those rules. This isn't what usually happens.'"
Perhaps it isn't surprising that many New Yorkers are disillusioned by the painfully slow and tangled rebuilding plans. Team Twin Towers calls the whole LMDC process, which included town hall-style public meetings, a "mass group therapy session" and a "farce". "Guess what?" Heid says, "therapy's over." But wouldn't rebuilding be the ultimate act of therapy? "Exactly," he says. The restoration advocates claim to have expediency on their side: the twin towers would be "marketable," says Gardner. They also claim idealism: "Rebuilding would be the most profound act of counter-terrorism through peace not war," Heid argues.
Matters are further complicated by the fact that Pataki's announcement came just two days after Larry Silverstein, the property developer who holds the lease on the World Trade Centre site, lost an insurance case in which he tried to claim that the September 11 attacks on the twin towers constituted two separate incidents. He won't get the double payout he was counting on to fund the $8-$10bn redevelopment. With a maximum payout of $4.5bn, Silverstein's landlords, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, are nervous about his ability to pay. "The fact is, Silverstein doesn't have the money to build," Hakala insists.
With such financial uncertainty, "the groundbreaking ceremony is absolutely meaningless," Gardner says – except perhaps as a diversion from the real issue: Freedom Tower just isn't very popular. "You don't see it on a single mug, T-shirt, postcard or pin around the city," says Hakala. "People don't know what it is." Hakala believes that new twin towers would appeal to New Yorkers' pride and to tenants' loyalty and defiance, something Freedom Tower has failed to do in the 17 months since it was announced. Pataki will have his office there, but he might be quite lonely: not a single private sector tenant has signed up so far. With a downtown office vacancy rate of 14%, it's arguable whether 10m square feet of new space is really needed.
Other evidence of cracks in the masterplan for Ground Zero: Pataki can't find anyone to fund the September 11 memorial. Sanford Weill, chief executive of Tishman Speyer properties and Jerry Speyer, chairman of Citigroup, both turned down the offer to chair the fundraising board. "They're too smart to say why," Hakala hints darkly. "But the reason is that they don't want to attach their names to something that's about to collapse."
Hakala and Gardner say that they are having success lobbying top politicians and financiers in New York, and believe they are in with a chance of sneaking into Ground Zero. So are they? A source close to the redevelopment, who did not wish to be named, put that chance at "a million to one".
---------
The Guardian | G2 | Friday June 11 2004 | pages 4 - 5
Tower power
The winning design to redevelop Ground Zero faces mounting opposition from campaigners who want the Twin Towers to be rebuilt. James Westcott on the latest twist in a tortuous tale
On July 4, the ground will be ceremonially broken on the construction site of the new World Trade Centre. "As we commemorate the founding of our nation," New York's state governor, George Pataki, said at a recent luncheon, "we lay the foundation for our resurgence." The Freedom Tower, designed by architect Daniel Libeskind in collaboration with corporate behemoths Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM), mimics the posture of the Statue of Liberty and rises to a symbolic 1,776ft.
Not everyone is happy, however. "We are replacing a symbol of world peace and human cooperation with a self-absorbed salute to America," says Robin Heid, executive coordinator of the activist architectural group Team Twin Towers. The Libeskind plan, he argues, is "tone deaf to a monumental degree".
Team Twin Towers was formed in 2002 when Heid, an ex-paratrooper in the US Army, teamed up with Randy Warner, a TV executive based in Los Angeles. They are the biggest of many groups lobbying for the "restoration" of the twin towers as a defiant and therapeutic response to September 11.
Heid insists that the desire to rebuild isn't just a knee-jerk reaction to terrorism, or a response to the frustration that Ground Zero remains a largely empty crater nearly three years on. "Rebuilding is a fundamental, visceral human response. If they knocked down Big Ben, what would they do? Have a design contest? Instead of having a clocktower have two doves twirling around a pole?"
It seems that many people agree with Heid. The Team Twin Towers plan for buildings two storeys taller than the originals has received glowing endorsements from the fiercely rightwing magazine the National Review and from Rupert Murdoch's New York Post. "Americans have always understood the Twin Towers," said columnist Nicole Gelinas. "They were us: stark capitalism, power and beauty without explanation or apology."
The WTC skyscrapers were never much loved as architecture, until now. But a poll in 2002 found that half of New Yorkers wanted them rebuilt, and Team Twin Towers cite other polls that show up to 70% support for rebuilding. The modernism the two blank, monolithic towers represented has become something of a safe tradition compared with the perceived postmodernism of the Libeskind/SOM plan. It's as if what the towers symbolised – power, or cooperation, depending on how cynical you are feeling – can now only be embodied in the II shape.
Another team advocating for rebuilding, Make New York New York Again, have come up with a design that is, by their own admission, populist. "The average person doesn't have to figure out the theories or what the designer was thinking of," says Ken Gardner, gesturing at his model twin towers. "This plan transcends architecture." John Hakala, a partner in the group and an influential lobbyist of the editorial boards of New York's tabloids, says: "Libeskind's building is twisted. It just seems to imply something bent out of shape, destroyed. It might be interesting architecture somewhere else. But for those of us who smelled the towers burning – and I lost my best friend there – it's not right for this site."
Gardner and Hakala inadvertently raise interesting questions about whether any architect could achieve the miracles expected at Ground Zero, while working in perhaps the most complicated and politically delicate building site in the world. Juggling the governor's office, the property developers, the Port Authority, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, the mayor's office and victims' families, would seem an impossible task. The supporters of "restoration" have a certain cynical and depressing logic: erase the architect from the picture and replace his divisive, elitist ideas with something popular and economically viable.
But isn't there a possibility that people will be disturbed to see the towers rising again? "That's why they're not exact replicas," Gardner says. They would restore the familiar and now beloved silhouette to the skyline, but would have different detailing and updated safety features. The new towers would have a double steel skin – a tube within a tube – for strength, and six stairwells instead of four for safety. A 500ft mast on the north tower would make it the tallest building in the world.
The Make New York New York Again plan was not submitted to the "innovative design study" launched in 2002 by the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, the newly created body charged with overseeing the rebuilding. This may have because their model wasn't ready, but Hakala claims other reasons. "The competition was not really a competition," he says. "Anybody who entered was required to surrender all of their intellectual property rights. So there were only about 400 entries, whereas with the major truly open architecture competitions in Europe, there are usually about 3,000 entrants. A lot of really big names said 'We're not going to play by those rules. This isn't what usually happens.'"
Perhaps it isn't surprising that many New Yorkers are disillusioned by the painfully slow and tangled rebuilding plans. Team Twin Towers calls the whole LMDC process, which included town hall-style public meetings, a "mass group therapy session" and a "farce". "Guess what?" Heid says, "therapy's over." But wouldn't rebuilding be the ultimate act of therapy? "Exactly," he says. The restoration advocates claim to have expediency on their side: the twin towers would be "marketable," says Gardner. They also claim idealism: "Rebuilding would be the most profound act of counter-terrorism through peace not war," Heid argues.
Matters are further complicated by the fact that Pataki's announcement came just two days after Larry Silverstein, the property developer who holds the lease on the World Trade Centre site, lost an insurance case in which he tried to claim that the September 11 attacks on the twin towers constituted two separate incidents. He won't get the double payout he was counting on to fund the $8-$10bn redevelopment. With a maximum payout of $4.5bn, Silverstein's landlords, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, are nervous about his ability to pay. "The fact is, Silverstein doesn't have the money to build," Hakala insists.
With such financial uncertainty, "the groundbreaking ceremony is absolutely meaningless," Gardner says – except perhaps as a diversion from the real issue: Freedom Tower just isn't very popular. "You don't see it on a single mug, T-shirt, postcard or pin around the city," says Hakala. "People don't know what it is." Hakala believes that new twin towers would appeal to New Yorkers' pride and to tenants' loyalty and defiance, something Freedom Tower has failed to do in the 17 months since it was announced. Pataki will have his office there, but he might be quite lonely: not a single private sector tenant has signed up so far. With a downtown office vacancy rate of 14%, it's arguable whether 10m square feet of new space is really needed.
Other evidence of cracks in the masterplan for Ground Zero: Pataki can't find anyone to fund the September 11 memorial. Sanford Weill, chief executive of Tishman Speyer properties and Jerry Speyer, chairman of Citigroup, both turned down the offer to chair the fundraising board. "They're too smart to say why," Hakala hints darkly. "But the reason is that they don't want to attach their names to something that's about to collapse."
Hakala and Gardner say that they are having success lobbying top politicians and financiers in New York, and believe they are in with a chance of sneaking into Ground Zero. So are they? A source close to the redevelopment, who did not wish to be named, put that chance at "a million to one".
Thanks to Najib for this bad publicity
Streats | June 25, 2004
Smog’s a state secret
Malaysia won’t declassify air pollution figures; S’pore continues releasing them
By Chua Kong Ho
SINGAPORE has no plans to make air pollution figures a state secret, unlike Malaysia which yesterday announced it would continue to keep them classified.
Malaysia said distorted foreign media reports on air pollution would drive tourists away and affect the economy.
Singapore, on the other hand, will continue to put out additional information and health advisories when it is affected by smoke haze.
Malaysia’s Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak said distorted reports on the PSI (Pollutant Standards Index) readings might keep tourists away if they knew how much smog from neighbouring Indonesia was blanketing parts of the country.
According to state news agency Bernama, he said: “It will be a problem (if it is declassified) since it will get distorted by the international media.
“They will then give a grim picture of Malaysia, and that is the concern we have. It could be overplayed and it will have an adverse effect on the economy.”
Malaysia classified the air pollution index as an official secret in 1997 at the height of the haze crisis.
It now only refers to air quality as good, moderate, unhealthy or hazardous.
Singapore, however, has no plans to go this way.
Said a National Environment Agency spokesman: “We publish 24-hour PSI readings in the media and NEA website daily. When we are affected by smoke haze, we publish additional information such as three-hour PSI readings and health advisories.
“The information is intended to inform the public of the situation so that they can take the necessary precautions.”
A check of the NEA website showed that besides the PSI reading, the statutory board also publishes the readings of individual pollutants, such as sulphur dioxide and carbon monoxide.
It also updates the three-hour PSI reading every hour from 7am to 7pm daily. Yesterday’s PSI reading at 5pm was 24, while intra-day readings stayed within the “good” range.
A reading of zero to 50 is considered good, 51 to 100 moderate, 101 to 200 unhealthy and 201 to 300 very unhealthy. Anything above 300 is hazardous.
With such information being withheld in Malaysia, people there won’t know exactly how bad the air they’re breathing is.
Malaysia’s opposition Chinese-dominated Democratic Action Party (DAP) urged the government on Wednesday to make public the pollution index to fully minimise health hazards posed by the haze.
Said DAP chairman Lim Kit Siang: “It was a most short-sighted decision. For while Malaysians support tourist promotion to bring in tourist revenue, this cannot be at the expense of the health and welfare of the citizens or those of the tourists themselves.”
Mr Lim said that in the era of information technology, it is sheer folly for the government to pretend that it could mislead foreign tourists into believing the air in Malaysia is clean.
Veteran Singapore-based public relations practitioner Yap Boh Tiong agrees.
Said Mr Yap, a former journalist and founder of Mileage Communications: “Keeping the numbers secret isn’t going to stop the media from taking pictures and publishing them. People can see for themselves and smell the air. It’s not going to solve anything.”
Instead, the authorities should tackle the problem at the source and also be seen to be proactive in engaging the public, both local and foreign, he said.
“Tell the public what you’re doing to control the problem. You could give out masks or set up a health hotline for the public. The idea is to tell tourists that ‘we welcome you, and we’ll take care of you’.”
Drawing a parallel to the Sars situation last year, he praised Singapore’s handling of the outbreak, where the authorities were upfront and transparent about the situation and the measures taken to combat the disease.
The haze reduced visibility in the Malacca Straits yesterday to 1km from the usual 6km, heightening the risk of collision among the hundreds of seacraft plying the busy waterway.
Smog’s a state secret
Malaysia won’t declassify air pollution figures; S’pore continues releasing them
By Chua Kong Ho
SINGAPORE has no plans to make air pollution figures a state secret, unlike Malaysia which yesterday announced it would continue to keep them classified.
Malaysia said distorted foreign media reports on air pollution would drive tourists away and affect the economy.
Singapore, on the other hand, will continue to put out additional information and health advisories when it is affected by smoke haze.
Malaysia’s Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak said distorted reports on the PSI (Pollutant Standards Index) readings might keep tourists away if they knew how much smog from neighbouring Indonesia was blanketing parts of the country.
According to state news agency Bernama, he said: “It will be a problem (if it is declassified) since it will get distorted by the international media.
“They will then give a grim picture of Malaysia, and that is the concern we have. It could be overplayed and it will have an adverse effect on the economy.”
Malaysia classified the air pollution index as an official secret in 1997 at the height of the haze crisis.
It now only refers to air quality as good, moderate, unhealthy or hazardous.
Singapore, however, has no plans to go this way.
Said a National Environment Agency spokesman: “We publish 24-hour PSI readings in the media and NEA website daily. When we are affected by smoke haze, we publish additional information such as three-hour PSI readings and health advisories.
“The information is intended to inform the public of the situation so that they can take the necessary precautions.”
A check of the NEA website showed that besides the PSI reading, the statutory board also publishes the readings of individual pollutants, such as sulphur dioxide and carbon monoxide.
It also updates the three-hour PSI reading every hour from 7am to 7pm daily. Yesterday’s PSI reading at 5pm was 24, while intra-day readings stayed within the “good” range.
A reading of zero to 50 is considered good, 51 to 100 moderate, 101 to 200 unhealthy and 201 to 300 very unhealthy. Anything above 300 is hazardous.
With such information being withheld in Malaysia, people there won’t know exactly how bad the air they’re breathing is.
Malaysia’s opposition Chinese-dominated Democratic Action Party (DAP) urged the government on Wednesday to make public the pollution index to fully minimise health hazards posed by the haze.
Said DAP chairman Lim Kit Siang: “It was a most short-sighted decision. For while Malaysians support tourist promotion to bring in tourist revenue, this cannot be at the expense of the health and welfare of the citizens or those of the tourists themselves.”
Mr Lim said that in the era of information technology, it is sheer folly for the government to pretend that it could mislead foreign tourists into believing the air in Malaysia is clean.
Veteran Singapore-based public relations practitioner Yap Boh Tiong agrees.
Said Mr Yap, a former journalist and founder of Mileage Communications: “Keeping the numbers secret isn’t going to stop the media from taking pictures and publishing them. People can see for themselves and smell the air. It’s not going to solve anything.”
Instead, the authorities should tackle the problem at the source and also be seen to be proactive in engaging the public, both local and foreign, he said.
“Tell the public what you’re doing to control the problem. You could give out masks or set up a health hotline for the public. The idea is to tell tourists that ‘we welcome you, and we’ll take care of you’.”
Drawing a parallel to the Sars situation last year, he praised Singapore’s handling of the outbreak, where the authorities were upfront and transparent about the situation and the measures taken to combat the disease.
The haze reduced visibility in the Malacca Straits yesterday to 1km from the usual 6km, heightening the risk of collision among the hundreds of seacraft plying the busy waterway.
Thursday 24 June 2004
Still talking ...
Below was the interview with PM Abdullah by theSun on 20 June 2004.
--------
Pak Lah: Bigger mandate, bigger duty
By: (Sun, 20 Jun 2004)
WITH the 11th Parliament due to be opened on Monday, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi answers a range of questions put to him by theSun about the state of affairs on the hill.
Abdullah gives refeshingly straight answers on the scope for democracy in a House overwhelmed by government MPs, the poor quality of parliamentary debate, accountability to the rakyat, and more.
We also present the responses to the same questions by DAP chairman Lim Kit Siang, who will return to the Dewan Rakyat as the Leader of the Opposition after more than four years in the cold.
Q. A healthy democracy should have an active opposition to provide a check and balance. Considering the Opposition in this country has always lacked in representational strength in Parliament, how has this phenomenon affected the practice of democracy in Malaysia?
A: The Opposition's historical lack of representational strength in Parliament is a result of democracy at work.
We have had regular elections that have been conducted freely and fairly since independence and opposition parties have participated in all of these polls. Barisan Nasional has suffered defeats in certain states.
We have had a lack of representational strength in certain state legislative assemblies when we were out of power. But because in our political system power is vested with the people, we worked at convincing the voters that BN is still the best choice.
Participating in a democracy means accepting the people's political choices. If they choose BN overwhelmingly, that must be respected as the voice of the majority. Also, I would like to point out that the Opposition's strength in Parliament is not the only barometer of whether or not there are effective checks and balances to executive power.
In our age of ICT, the media -- whether print, electronic or web-based -- have a greater capacity to keep an eye on the executive.
I also welcome NGO participation in policy discussions and this also serves as a check to executive decision making. I have also told the judiciary repeatedly that I respect their independence because that is a cornerstone of the principle of separation of powers.
So checks and balances go beyond the Opposition's strength in Parliament.
The BN government enters the supreme legislative body with its biggest representation on May 17. Will this superiority in number lead to laws being bulldozed through Parliament without enough debate?
Absolutely not. A bigger mandate means a bigger responsibility to serve the people who have voted us in.
And I believe voters expect bills to be carefully drafted and then debated in Parliament. Parliament cannot be a rubber stamp, even with such a big majority for BN. MPs will want to debate and even propose refinements to bills, and by MPs I mean including those on the opposition bench.
I would like to see more select committees set up for bills relating to matters and issues of high public interest. We can even get public's views.
How can the government ensure the voice of the people is adequately heard, through their wakil rakyat, and more importantly, acted upon?
I have spoken at length about the report cards that I expect from MPs.
BN MPs are all on notice. None of the MPs, including cabinet ministers, are assured of a candidacy at the next general election. Much will depend on their report cards and a significant component of this report card is the MPs' responsiveness to the needs of their constituents.
What is your view on parliamentary debates being broadcast live, as is done in some countries? At least for important Bills?
The tabling of some important Bills like the Budget is carried live on television. I am open to more broadcasts of Parliamentary debates. Whether we begin with live telecasts of debates or taped weekly round-ups is something that we should think about.
I think people would see whether their MP is doing his or her job in Parliament, or just being a mere spectator.
As a long-serving MP, do you think the quality of debates in the Dewan Rakyat has improved or has the standard gone down?
There were great orators in the past who could fire up the chamber with wit and substance. I find some of the interventions made by MPs today to be superficial and shallow, displaying a lack of preparation.
I want BN MPs to do their homework before speaking. Get their facts straight, and then talk.
There have been allegations in the past that the MPs were not given sufficient time to study a bill or proposed law before it was presented for debate in the Dewan Rakyat. What is your comment on this?
I am aware of this complaint. I hope it does not continue to happen. If the government is proposing a bill, we should give MPs ample time to study it. After all, we have nothing to hide.
In your meeting with elected representatives from your party, have you ever impressed upon them the need to keep up-to-date with developments at home and abroad and to be prepared before standing up to debate in the Dewan?
Of course. At times, I have been embarrassed by the lack of preparation by some of our MPs, especially when compared with some of the opposition MPs. I will not have any of that now. We must raise the bar of parliamentary debate, and I want BN MPs at the forefront of raising that bar.
What are your views on calls to make the parliamentary public accounts committee more active and effective?
I am open to that. In fact, I am even suggesting more parliamentary committees for various policy areas. I want this Parliament to work.
This means all these committees that we are talking about reinvigorating or setting up must be active and effective. It should also allow a bipartisan approach to some key issues on which both sides of the House can find common ground.
Do you think sufficient status is accorded to the office of Opposition Leader? Do you think past Opposition Leaders have acquitted themselves well in this role?
It is up to whoever who becomes the Opposition Leader to dignify that office with the status it deserves. If he or she performs well, then the status of the office will certainly be elevated in the public's eye.
--------
Pak Lah: Bigger mandate, bigger duty
By: (Sun, 20 Jun 2004)
WITH the 11th Parliament due to be opened on Monday, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi answers a range of questions put to him by theSun about the state of affairs on the hill.
Abdullah gives refeshingly straight answers on the scope for democracy in a House overwhelmed by government MPs, the poor quality of parliamentary debate, accountability to the rakyat, and more.
We also present the responses to the same questions by DAP chairman Lim Kit Siang, who will return to the Dewan Rakyat as the Leader of the Opposition after more than four years in the cold.
Q. A healthy democracy should have an active opposition to provide a check and balance. Considering the Opposition in this country has always lacked in representational strength in Parliament, how has this phenomenon affected the practice of democracy in Malaysia?
A: The Opposition's historical lack of representational strength in Parliament is a result of democracy at work.
We have had regular elections that have been conducted freely and fairly since independence and opposition parties have participated in all of these polls. Barisan Nasional has suffered defeats in certain states.
We have had a lack of representational strength in certain state legislative assemblies when we were out of power. But because in our political system power is vested with the people, we worked at convincing the voters that BN is still the best choice.
Participating in a democracy means accepting the people's political choices. If they choose BN overwhelmingly, that must be respected as the voice of the majority. Also, I would like to point out that the Opposition's strength in Parliament is not the only barometer of whether or not there are effective checks and balances to executive power.
In our age of ICT, the media -- whether print, electronic or web-based -- have a greater capacity to keep an eye on the executive.
I also welcome NGO participation in policy discussions and this also serves as a check to executive decision making. I have also told the judiciary repeatedly that I respect their independence because that is a cornerstone of the principle of separation of powers.
So checks and balances go beyond the Opposition's strength in Parliament.
The BN government enters the supreme legislative body with its biggest representation on May 17. Will this superiority in number lead to laws being bulldozed through Parliament without enough debate?
Absolutely not. A bigger mandate means a bigger responsibility to serve the people who have voted us in.
And I believe voters expect bills to be carefully drafted and then debated in Parliament. Parliament cannot be a rubber stamp, even with such a big majority for BN. MPs will want to debate and even propose refinements to bills, and by MPs I mean including those on the opposition bench.
I would like to see more select committees set up for bills relating to matters and issues of high public interest. We can even get public's views.
How can the government ensure the voice of the people is adequately heard, through their wakil rakyat, and more importantly, acted upon?
I have spoken at length about the report cards that I expect from MPs.
BN MPs are all on notice. None of the MPs, including cabinet ministers, are assured of a candidacy at the next general election. Much will depend on their report cards and a significant component of this report card is the MPs' responsiveness to the needs of their constituents.
What is your view on parliamentary debates being broadcast live, as is done in some countries? At least for important Bills?
The tabling of some important Bills like the Budget is carried live on television. I am open to more broadcasts of Parliamentary debates. Whether we begin with live telecasts of debates or taped weekly round-ups is something that we should think about.
I think people would see whether their MP is doing his or her job in Parliament, or just being a mere spectator.
As a long-serving MP, do you think the quality of debates in the Dewan Rakyat has improved or has the standard gone down?
There were great orators in the past who could fire up the chamber with wit and substance. I find some of the interventions made by MPs today to be superficial and shallow, displaying a lack of preparation.
I want BN MPs to do their homework before speaking. Get their facts straight, and then talk.
There have been allegations in the past that the MPs were not given sufficient time to study a bill or proposed law before it was presented for debate in the Dewan Rakyat. What is your comment on this?
I am aware of this complaint. I hope it does not continue to happen. If the government is proposing a bill, we should give MPs ample time to study it. After all, we have nothing to hide.
In your meeting with elected representatives from your party, have you ever impressed upon them the need to keep up-to-date with developments at home and abroad and to be prepared before standing up to debate in the Dewan?
Of course. At times, I have been embarrassed by the lack of preparation by some of our MPs, especially when compared with some of the opposition MPs. I will not have any of that now. We must raise the bar of parliamentary debate, and I want BN MPs at the forefront of raising that bar.
What are your views on calls to make the parliamentary public accounts committee more active and effective?
I am open to that. In fact, I am even suggesting more parliamentary committees for various policy areas. I want this Parliament to work.
This means all these committees that we are talking about reinvigorating or setting up must be active and effective. It should also allow a bipartisan approach to some key issues on which both sides of the House can find common ground.
Do you think sufficient status is accorded to the office of Opposition Leader? Do you think past Opposition Leaders have acquitted themselves well in this role?
It is up to whoever who becomes the Opposition Leader to dignify that office with the status it deserves. If he or she performs well, then the status of the office will certainly be elevated in the public's eye.
Alamak Najib!
Media can play up API readings: Najib
Available at http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=3714
KUALA LUMPUR: Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak says the government is not willing to declassify Air Pollution Index (API) readings as Official Secrets Act because the international media will distort the actual situation.
"They will paint a grim picture of Malaysia. That is the concern we have. It could be overplayed and it will have some adverse impact on the economy," he said.
Updated: 12:15PM Thu, 24 Jun 2004
Available at http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=3714
KUALA LUMPUR: Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak says the government is not willing to declassify Air Pollution Index (API) readings as Official Secrets Act because the international media will distort the actual situation.
"They will paint a grim picture of Malaysia. That is the concern we have. It could be overplayed and it will have some adverse impact on the economy," he said.
Updated: 12:15PM Thu, 24 Jun 2004
The Arrogance of the ruling government
NEWS ANALYSIS:
Outcome of Pasir Putih polls petition never in doubt
By Zubaidah Abu Bakar | NST 24 June 2004
Available from http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Thursday
/Columns/20040624083518/Article/indexb_html
ONE more parliamentary seat to add to the already overwhelming majority the Barisan Nasional has in Parliament. No difference to Pas’ wafer-thin control of the Kelantan State Government.
And finally, peace of mind for Pas that it can continue to rule the State without fears it may lose control through a court decision.
In a nutshell, this is what the decision by the High Court to nullify the election of Pas’ Kalthom Othman as the Pasir Putih MP and also to strike out nine other petitions filed by the BN and Pas involving both state and parliamentary constituencies means.
There are no more petitions challenging either state or parliamentary results which means with Pasir Putih being added on to the BN’s scoreboard, there will be no other changes to the March election results.
There was never any doubt that the BN would be declared the winner for Pasir Putih because from the beginning, all parties agreed that Kalthom had been wrongly declared the winner when the votes were really in favour of the BN’s Che Min Che Ahmad, the former deputy director-general of the Malaysian Islamic Development Department.
Outcome of Pasir Putih polls petition never in doubt
By Zubaidah Abu Bakar | NST 24 June 2004
Available from http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Thursday
/Columns/20040624083518/Article/indexb_html
ONE more parliamentary seat to add to the already overwhelming majority the Barisan Nasional has in Parliament. No difference to Pas’ wafer-thin control of the Kelantan State Government.
And finally, peace of mind for Pas that it can continue to rule the State without fears it may lose control through a court decision.
In a nutshell, this is what the decision by the High Court to nullify the election of Pas’ Kalthom Othman as the Pasir Putih MP and also to strike out nine other petitions filed by the BN and Pas involving both state and parliamentary constituencies means.
There are no more petitions challenging either state or parliamentary results which means with Pasir Putih being added on to the BN’s scoreboard, there will be no other changes to the March election results.
There was never any doubt that the BN would be declared the winner for Pasir Putih because from the beginning, all parties agreed that Kalthom had been wrongly declared the winner when the votes were really in favour of the BN’s Che Min Che Ahmad, the former deputy director-general of the Malaysian Islamic Development Department.
Wednesday 23 June 2004
First venture
My first blog entry after all these while being a passive observer. My first email was back in 1995 and until now, I am still using it. Recently registered for a Yahoo! email account.
Haven't got any clear direction for this blog, but probably I will use it as an archive for things which I read daily.
Got to run.
Haven't got any clear direction for this blog, but probably I will use it as an archive for things which I read daily.
Got to run.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)