The Straits Times | JULY 5, 2004
C-word gives Umno leaders the jitters
The word 'contest' is on many lips but any bid to challenge incumbents for top party posts is being nipped in the bud
By Reme Ahmad
KUALA LUMPUR - One word causes much nervousness among Umno leaders these days: contest.
It's a word that has been on many lips as the party's 191 divisions hunker down for key elections and nominations from next weekend onwards.
The process culminates in a General Assembly where delegates will vote in the senior rungs of party leadership.
Datuk Rafidah Aziz, the chief of the Umno women's division (Wanita), precipitated the debate on contests when she said those who had just joined the wing should not contest for posts until three years later.
Her comments were aimed at former members of the young women's division (Puteri Unmo) clamouring to challenge her leadership.
The Wanita and Puteri wings have not seen eye to eye for several years. Puteri members have no option but to join Wanita once they turn 35.
Datuk Rafidah's point was that bitter fights could split Malaysia's biggest party.
But that did not sit well with party elders, who said contests were healthy proof that democracy was alive in Umno.
That view prevailed until former finance minister Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah shattered the calm once again with the C-word.
The Kelantan prince hinted last Thursday that if he mustered enough support, he was ready to stand against the party president, Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi, or the No. 2, Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak.
This caused a stir because the Umno Supreme Council, the party's highest decision-making body, had ruled that Datuk Seri Abdullah and his deputy would not be challenged for their seats.
'If there are those who feel that I can still serve and contribute to the party, why not? If there are nominations, I will offer myself for a post that suits me,' Tengku Razaleigh said.
Almost always enigmatic in his political aspirations in the last few years, he declined to say which post he was aiming for. But to many, the hint was clear enough.
He uttered another political blasphemy in these days of party amity and unity bolstered by the massive win in March general election.
He said it was time to kill a 17-year-old rule that blocks a leader from contesting key party posts unless he gets nominated by many divisions.
This rule sets a quota of divisional nominations that candidates for different posts must obtain before they can enter the ring.
Those aiming to be president must get at least 30 per cent of nominations, those standing for the post of deputy president must secure 20 per cent and finally those wanting the vice-president posts must secure 10 per cent of the nominations.
But this time, party elders who had cheered for democracy and forced Datuk Seri Rafidah to back down turned against Tengku Razaleigh.
Free-for-all contests could split the party, they declared.
'There is no reason and justification to change leaders at this point because the people have given a big mandate to the leadership,' said incumbent Umno vice-president Muhammad Muhammad Taib.
These leaders have long memories.
They pointed to the 1987 Umno presidential fight between Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Tengku Razaleigh which split the party into two.
The prince bolted with thousands to form a splinter party, Semangat 46, that helped Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS) wrest Kelantan away from Umno in 1990.
It was this bitter Mahathir-Razaleigh fight that led to the party's quota rule.
The prince has since rejoined Umno and Semangat 46 has been shut down.
Both Datuk Seri Abdullah and his deputy said members could decide if they wanted to scrap the quota system.
To some, the nervousness about contests showed that Umno was less than democratic as it blocked challenges even from a 66-year-old prince - described in a New Straits Times column as 'yesterday's man'.
Said a grassroots leader: 'Datuk Seri Abdullah will win hands down even if there is a contest. So why is everyone so worried about a fight?'
To this, a columnist in government-friendly Berita Minggu said: 'Even with the quota system, those who are qualified would not be stopped. Only aspiring candidates who are doubtful in their capabilities in getting nominations would feel uneasy and worried.'
The debate continues.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright @ 2004 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.
Monday, 5 July 2004
Up north
Am at Sg 2 outside Universiti Sains Malaysia. Was in KL over the weekend to visit my friends. Will be going to Gurun on Wednesday to visit friend in Modenas before proceeding to Padang Besar. Will be back to KL for the weekend before taking the bus to Singapore on Monday.
Nice to be back in USM ...
Nice to be back in USM ...
Impressive Indonesia
Today the entire nation of Indonesia goes to polls to select their president. Wish them the best of luck, as Indonesia's stability are important to this region.
_______________
The Straits Times | JULY 5, 2004
Polls not a clear-cut affair?
Just months ago, there was a clear front runner; now the fear is that Indonesia's direct presidential polls could get messy
By Derwin Pereira
JAKARTA - Makeshift bamboo shelters and grand marquees in cheerful colours of red, blue, green and yellow have sprouted all over Indonesia.
The 582,000 polling stations that dot the archipelago will open this morning for Indonesians to vote in the country's first direct presidential election. The electorate runs the gamut from illiterate tribesman in Irian Jaya and Kalimantan to farmers in Java and Sumatra and the young rich in the capital, Jakarta.
About 150 million voters across the 17,000 islands that sprawl 4,800km from west to east - the distance from London to Mecca - will decide who will be the next head of state in the one-day ballot.
But any hope for an early resolution to the protracted election saga is fast dimming. The prospect of a September run-off looms large as the country edges perilously towards an uncertain three-month hiatus.
With no constitutional provision for a smooth transfer of power if President Megawati Sukarnoputri loses this week, Indonesia faces the prospect of an outgoing administration digging in its heels for a bitter fight to the end of its term on Oct 20.
Intensive horse-trading will be needed to forge coalitions aimed at producing an electoral outcome or giving the incumbent and her loyalists ironclad guarantees against recrimination if they are ousted.
At the worst, it could lead to what some believe could be a 'scorched earth' strategy in which the remaining elements of the regime would blur their tracks by destroying important state documents, moving millions of dollars worth of national assets and sealing last-minute business deals.
Against this backdrop, violence could rear its ugly head. Clashes between rival supporters could erupt, especially if the President faces a leadership challenge from members of her own party.
Golkar deputy chairman Marzuki Darusman described the next 90 days as 'a muddling transition' that would be messy and painful for the loser, the winner and all Indonesians.
'With the benefit of hindsight, legislators should have come out with clear guidelines,' he said.
'But can you blame them? When the laws were drawn up last year, no one expected the incumbent to lose. She was a clear front runner. The assumption then was that it would all end in the first round with her winning a majority.'
Unfortunately, the past five months have seen Ms Megawati's political star waning. Following the disastrous defeat of her Indonesian Democratic Party-Struggle (PDI-P) in the April parliamentary elections, she has fallen further in the popularity charts.
But some argue she still has a good chance of getting into the second round. In that scenario, observers like Mr Marzuki believe the palace will 'go for the kill' to stay in power.
'She will step up into higher gear, drawing on the entire state machinery to do her bidding. It will be a period of heightened activism and coalition-building where getting re-elected will be the only preoccupation of the government,' he said.
Of greater concern, however, would be a scenario in which Mega crashes out in the first round.
Her failure to get into the second phase could force those in power to make things difficult for the president-in-waiting.
Dr Joyo Winoto, a senior adviser to presidential front runner Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, told The Straits Times: 'Our concern is that there might be three months of lame-duck government where the focus will be on its own survival.'
He listed a number of outcomes that could occur during such a period, such as:
International confidence in Indonesia could ebb as the government adopts policies aimed at protecting vested interests;
National assets and state documents could be 'misplaced'; and
There could be moves to engineer political instability.
Some speculate that if Mr Bambang and another former general, Wiranto, face off against each other, it could trigger mass student demonstrations.
Others say there could be violence on the scale of the May 1998 riots that would allow the palace to reassert control or pave the way for hawkish elements in the Indonesian military to step in.
But palace loyalists brush aside such talk as 'rubbish' spread by Ms Megawati's rivals to discredit her.
A senior PDI-P legislator said: 'Losing power will be a personal blow for Ibu Mega but she will not take revenge by burning down the country. That is not her style.'
But he conceded that there could be 'uncontrollable elements' in the government and the party who could take matters into their own hands.
If Ms Megawati is beaten, the blame game could start within the PDI-P, leading to attempts by rival factions to oust her from the chairmanship.
The source said: 'There could be skirmishes around the country pitting those supporting her against those plotting to throw her out. They could also turn on rival supporters but it will be localised violence, not on a mass scale.'
It has happened before.
In 1999, PDI-P supporters went on the rampage in parts of Indonesia when Ms Megawati failed to clinch the presidency.
At the tactical level, however, the focus of the Megawati administration in the last throes of its power would be to build crucial alliances that could serve a number of aims in its evacuation plans.
In the event of a failure to make it to the run-off, Mr Marzuki believes Ms Megawati and the PDI-P would push all the state resources towards backing one of the contenders.
At the core, in any scenario, are concerns that a new government would mount a campaign to target ministers and senior officials of the past regime for corruption.
Rumours are making the rounds in the capital that vast amounts of money are being transferred to Switzerland and the Cayman Islands.
Besides a scramble for political coalitions, government-linked businesses will be gingerly realigning themselves with emerging economic forces. There could be an 11th-hour surge to get government concessions such as bank credit and lucrative tenders or contracts.
How could a new president counter, at its most extreme, a 'scorched earth' policy implemented by those on their way out?
A transition blueprint that Dr Joyo helped to draw up for Mr Bambang, if he is elected, offers some insights.
If the retired general clinches the presidency in Round One, he will be able to initiate negotiations with the palace, the Attorney-General's Office, the Supreme Court and Bank Indonesia to ensure a smooth power transfer.
Running parallel with this will be moves to build a limited coalition with broad support from both political parties and NGOs. This will help to secure a guarantee from the government that it will stay the course.
Dr Joyo is also contemplating a plan to create an interim 'shadow government' in which key members of the Bambang team will be deployed across ministries and state bodies during the period.
The critical issue here is whether the Megawati camp will give in so easily. If it is knocked out in the first round, it has little choice but to deal with the incoming administration. But it is likely to be a bruising encounter.
To register their political clout, Ms Megawati and the PDI-P would most likely gravitate towards Golkar - if it loses the race - to form a grand coalition in Parliament.
The Van Zorge report, a bi-weekly analysis on Indonesian politics, notes that if the race enters a second phase and the results are close, there could be another worst-case scenario in which the election process is burdened by disputes.
If the constitutional courts cannot resolve these problems in the very short time available, there may not be an elected president by Oct 20. The Indonesian Constitution makes no provision for this.
There is an article that allows for power to be handed to a triumvirate comprising the ministers of defence, interior and foreign affairs but the triumvirate would lose legitimacy once the government's official mandate ends.
It would leave an electorate already suffering from political fatigue with the prospect of greater uncertainty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright @ 2004 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.
_______________
The Straits Times | JULY 5, 2004
Polls not a clear-cut affair?
Just months ago, there was a clear front runner; now the fear is that Indonesia's direct presidential polls could get messy
By Derwin Pereira
JAKARTA - Makeshift bamboo shelters and grand marquees in cheerful colours of red, blue, green and yellow have sprouted all over Indonesia.
The 582,000 polling stations that dot the archipelago will open this morning for Indonesians to vote in the country's first direct presidential election. The electorate runs the gamut from illiterate tribesman in Irian Jaya and Kalimantan to farmers in Java and Sumatra and the young rich in the capital, Jakarta.
About 150 million voters across the 17,000 islands that sprawl 4,800km from west to east - the distance from London to Mecca - will decide who will be the next head of state in the one-day ballot.
But any hope for an early resolution to the protracted election saga is fast dimming. The prospect of a September run-off looms large as the country edges perilously towards an uncertain three-month hiatus.
With no constitutional provision for a smooth transfer of power if President Megawati Sukarnoputri loses this week, Indonesia faces the prospect of an outgoing administration digging in its heels for a bitter fight to the end of its term on Oct 20.
Intensive horse-trading will be needed to forge coalitions aimed at producing an electoral outcome or giving the incumbent and her loyalists ironclad guarantees against recrimination if they are ousted.
At the worst, it could lead to what some believe could be a 'scorched earth' strategy in which the remaining elements of the regime would blur their tracks by destroying important state documents, moving millions of dollars worth of national assets and sealing last-minute business deals.
Against this backdrop, violence could rear its ugly head. Clashes between rival supporters could erupt, especially if the President faces a leadership challenge from members of her own party.
Golkar deputy chairman Marzuki Darusman described the next 90 days as 'a muddling transition' that would be messy and painful for the loser, the winner and all Indonesians.
'With the benefit of hindsight, legislators should have come out with clear guidelines,' he said.
'But can you blame them? When the laws were drawn up last year, no one expected the incumbent to lose. She was a clear front runner. The assumption then was that it would all end in the first round with her winning a majority.'
Unfortunately, the past five months have seen Ms Megawati's political star waning. Following the disastrous defeat of her Indonesian Democratic Party-Struggle (PDI-P) in the April parliamentary elections, she has fallen further in the popularity charts.
But some argue she still has a good chance of getting into the second round. In that scenario, observers like Mr Marzuki believe the palace will 'go for the kill' to stay in power.
'She will step up into higher gear, drawing on the entire state machinery to do her bidding. It will be a period of heightened activism and coalition-building where getting re-elected will be the only preoccupation of the government,' he said.
Of greater concern, however, would be a scenario in which Mega crashes out in the first round.
Her failure to get into the second phase could force those in power to make things difficult for the president-in-waiting.
Dr Joyo Winoto, a senior adviser to presidential front runner Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, told The Straits Times: 'Our concern is that there might be three months of lame-duck government where the focus will be on its own survival.'
He listed a number of outcomes that could occur during such a period, such as:
International confidence in Indonesia could ebb as the government adopts policies aimed at protecting vested interests;
National assets and state documents could be 'misplaced'; and
There could be moves to engineer political instability.
Some speculate that if Mr Bambang and another former general, Wiranto, face off against each other, it could trigger mass student demonstrations.
Others say there could be violence on the scale of the May 1998 riots that would allow the palace to reassert control or pave the way for hawkish elements in the Indonesian military to step in.
But palace loyalists brush aside such talk as 'rubbish' spread by Ms Megawati's rivals to discredit her.
A senior PDI-P legislator said: 'Losing power will be a personal blow for Ibu Mega but she will not take revenge by burning down the country. That is not her style.'
But he conceded that there could be 'uncontrollable elements' in the government and the party who could take matters into their own hands.
If Ms Megawati is beaten, the blame game could start within the PDI-P, leading to attempts by rival factions to oust her from the chairmanship.
The source said: 'There could be skirmishes around the country pitting those supporting her against those plotting to throw her out. They could also turn on rival supporters but it will be localised violence, not on a mass scale.'
It has happened before.
In 1999, PDI-P supporters went on the rampage in parts of Indonesia when Ms Megawati failed to clinch the presidency.
At the tactical level, however, the focus of the Megawati administration in the last throes of its power would be to build crucial alliances that could serve a number of aims in its evacuation plans.
In the event of a failure to make it to the run-off, Mr Marzuki believes Ms Megawati and the PDI-P would push all the state resources towards backing one of the contenders.
At the core, in any scenario, are concerns that a new government would mount a campaign to target ministers and senior officials of the past regime for corruption.
Rumours are making the rounds in the capital that vast amounts of money are being transferred to Switzerland and the Cayman Islands.
Besides a scramble for political coalitions, government-linked businesses will be gingerly realigning themselves with emerging economic forces. There could be an 11th-hour surge to get government concessions such as bank credit and lucrative tenders or contracts.
How could a new president counter, at its most extreme, a 'scorched earth' policy implemented by those on their way out?
A transition blueprint that Dr Joyo helped to draw up for Mr Bambang, if he is elected, offers some insights.
If the retired general clinches the presidency in Round One, he will be able to initiate negotiations with the palace, the Attorney-General's Office, the Supreme Court and Bank Indonesia to ensure a smooth power transfer.
Running parallel with this will be moves to build a limited coalition with broad support from both political parties and NGOs. This will help to secure a guarantee from the government that it will stay the course.
Dr Joyo is also contemplating a plan to create an interim 'shadow government' in which key members of the Bambang team will be deployed across ministries and state bodies during the period.
The critical issue here is whether the Megawati camp will give in so easily. If it is knocked out in the first round, it has little choice but to deal with the incoming administration. But it is likely to be a bruising encounter.
To register their political clout, Ms Megawati and the PDI-P would most likely gravitate towards Golkar - if it loses the race - to form a grand coalition in Parliament.
The Van Zorge report, a bi-weekly analysis on Indonesian politics, notes that if the race enters a second phase and the results are close, there could be another worst-case scenario in which the election process is burdened by disputes.
If the constitutional courts cannot resolve these problems in the very short time available, there may not be an elected president by Oct 20. The Indonesian Constitution makes no provision for this.
There is an article that allows for power to be handed to a triumvirate comprising the ministers of defence, interior and foreign affairs but the triumvirate would lose legitimacy once the government's official mandate ends.
It would leave an electorate already suffering from political fatigue with the prospect of greater uncertainty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright @ 2004 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)