Fukushima nuclear meltdown - one year later

GLOBAL TRENDS By MARTIN KHOR
 
As the world marks the first anniversary of Japan’s triple tragedy, lessons are still being drawn from the Fukushima nuclear accident and the dangers of nuclear power plants.

 IT’S been a full year since Japan’s triple disaster of earthquake, tsunami and nuclear meltdown, and the reverberations are still being felt.

The tsunami on March 11, 2011, caused around 19,000 deaths (16,000 known dead, 3,000 missing) and 320,000 were made homeless.

The nuclear disaster alone created 100,000 nuclear evacuees.

The lesson, only partially learnt in Japan itself and hardly learnt in other countries, is that natural disasters can come in many unexpected forms and governments must put aside considerable resources and facilities to prepare for and manage them.



The lesson usually becomes obvious when a disaster occurs.

After that, a pledge is made to be better prepared and much of that is not implemented until the next disaster and the cycle begins again.

While the tsunami caused the most immediate damage, it was the nuclear incidents at the Fukushima power plant that were the most shocking and may have the most long-term repercussions.

The nuclear disaster blew away a lot of myths.We now know, again, that nuclear power plants are not safe.

The claim by Tepco – the Japanese company operating the Fukushima plant – that the reactors were fail-safe and could withstand earthquakes, was proven to be wrong.

The ability of the regulatory autho­rities to monitor and check for risks and ensure safety was near absent.
An independent commission, which was set up by the Rebuild Japan Initiative Foundation to investigate the nuclear incident, shows how close Japan came to a catastrophe.

Its chairman Yoichi Funabashi, in an article in last Saturday’s Financial Times, said that Japan was on the edge of an “existential crisis”.

As the tsunami knocked out the Fukushima plant’s cooling systems, the Tepco president indicated his company’s intention to abandon the plant and evacuate its workers.

Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan personally intervened, ordering the company not to abandon ship and form a “death squad” to continue the battle and inject water into the reactor vessels.

A worst case scenario, prepared for the prime minister by the Japan Atomic Energy Commission, envisioned a hydrogen explosion, a succession of meltdowns and such extensive radiation that the whole of Tokyo would have to be evacuated.

Funabashi said: “The truth is that the imagined ‘worst-case scenario’ was closer than anyone would wish to admit; but for the direction of the wind (towards the Pacific, not inland, in the four days after the earthquake); but for the manner in which the gate separating the reactor-well and the spent-fuel pool in Unit 4 broke (presumably facilitating the transfusion of water into the pool). Luck was undeniably on our side.”

Funabashi’s commission found that the nuclear industry had become ensnared in its twisted myth of “absolute safety”, propagated by interest groups seeking to gain broad acceptance of nuclear power.

He also found that “Japan’s nuclear safety regulatory regime was phoney. Regulators pretended to regulate; utilities pretended to be regulated. In reality, the latter were far more powerful in expertise and clout”. He offers two lessons to be learnt.

First, is the need to overcome the myth of “absolute safety”, shatter the taboo that surrounds the concept of risks in the nuclear energy business and the need to prepare for the unthinkable and unanticipated.

Second, is the need for an independent regulatory body.

A major fallout from the Fuku­shima accident is the blow it has dealt to the nuclear industry.

It highlighted the danger a country faces when something goes wrong.

Of its 52 nuclear plants, Japan has now shut down 50 plants. The remaining two may also be shut down next month.

Although the government may try to reopen some of them, the public revulsion against nuclear plants could mean that their days are numbered.

There has also been a global backlash, with Germany, Italy, Belgium and Switzerland declaring that they will phase out their nuclear plants.

The situation in Asia, however, is mixed. China has suspended the building of new nuclear plants pending changes in safety standards.
India, Vietnam and Korea are going ahead with their nuclear power programmes.

“If more nuclear power plants are built in developing countries with little experience of operating a reactor, or bordering a region where terrorism is a concern, or without sufficient financial resources to import state of the art technology, then the chance of a major nuclear accident hitting the developing world will loom large in the coming decades,” said Kevin Tu, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Meanwhile The Economist magazine, in its latest cover story, “Nuclear Energy: The dream that failed” is pessimistic about the future of the nuclear industry.

Nuclear plants are costly to build and operate. British studies put the overnight cost of new power plants at US$2,233 (RM6,720) for every kilowatt of capacity in 2004 and US$3,000 (RM9,028)/kw in 2008, according to The Economist.

Capacity fired by gas turbines cost less than one-fifth of that. The cost of renewable energy (wind and solar, in particular) is, however, getting cheaper every year.

Perhaps, the most intractable problem is nuclear waste. As The Economist noted, building a nuclear plant that can last 100 years is one thing, but creating waste that will be dangerous for 100 times as long is another.

So far, countries have failed to create a long-term repository for nuclear waste.

As the public has become intensely more aware of the dangers of radiation, the resistance to locating nuclear plants in their neighbourhood has grown fiercer.

No doubt the Fukushima meltdowns and its aftermath have contributed to increased awareness and to the bad name that nuclear power has acquired.

P/S:  We sympathize with Japan's sufferings from earthquake, tsunami caused by nature that resulted in Fukushima nuclear meltdown a year ago.

How Japan feels when we remember the victims of its Nanjing Massacre committed and occupied by Japanese troops on Dec 13, 1937, China's former capital city suffered a six-week massacre in which more than  300,000 Chinese were Killed, 20,000 Women Raped ... ?


Related posts:
Major nuclear accidents around the world, What ...

Japan's Nuclear Reactors threaten nuclear power's future!
World Energy Market Adjusting to Japan Nuclear Crisis    
New power line could cool Japanese reactors
Major nuclear accidents around the world,What relationship & causes earthquakes & Tsunamis? Water to cool reactor in Japan!
Nanjing Massacre remembered!  
Chinese Outraged by Denial of Nanjing Massacre by ... 
Japanese Occupation survivors tell their stories

Challenging the State-Capitalism?

Clash of capitalist systems

GLOBAL TRENDS  By MARTIN KHOR

The Year of the Dragon may symbolise the struggle for prosperity for some, but others may use this year to challenge what they call state-capitalism being practised by developing countries, especially in Asia.



IT’S the first day of the Year of the Dragon. Like others around the world, Malaysians hope it will be an auspicious year.

Certainly it will be an interesting one. Perhaps that’s the only certainty about this coming year of uncertainty.

The new Dragon Year will usher in even more intense debate about the role and the rise of China and of other “emerging economies”.

As the Western countries face gloomy economic prospects, some of their political elite and intellectuals seem to be seized by fears that some developing countries, especially China, will be steaming ahead.

Used to centuries of global economic dominance, these advanced countries are fearful that their leadership will be challenged and even overturned.

This may be the reason for the obsession about China. These days, there are new books almost every month about the rise of China. Some deal with its high growth and prospects or with its complex political developments.

Quite a number, like the book Death by China: Confronting the Dragon, are of the view that China is destroying not only the American economy but the whole world and its environment.

But the fears go beyond China, and incorporate other emerging countries as well, as seen in the latest issue of The Economist, with its cover stories on “The rise of state capitalism: the emerging world’s new model.”



The magazine describes the 88-storey Petronas Towers soaring above Kuala Lumpur, as well as the China Central TV building in Beijing and the VTB bank office in Moscow, as monuments to the new hybrid corporation – backed by the state but behaving like private-sector multinationals.

The Economist’s editorial admits that for emerging countries wanting to make their mark on the world, state capitalism has an obvious appeal, giving them the clout that private-sector companies would take years to build.

But its dangers outweigh its advantages, says the magazine. For their own sake and in the interests of world trade, the huge holdings should be unwound and handed over to private investors.

The Economist however also admits that this hybrid form of “state-directed capitalism” company is not new, and cites the East India Company.

This was the huge conglomeration that took over many Asian countries’ economies, while the English government made use of its gunboats and colonial rule to back up the EIC but other British companies.

The magazine also cites the United States after its war of independence, Germany in the 1870s, and Japan and South Korea in the 1950s as examples of rising powers using the state to kick-start growth.

There is thus recognition that the rise of today’s advanced countries was based on the state’s strong support in their companies’ emergence.

These companies have dominated the global economy for decades and in some cases centuries, backed up not only by subsidies, cheap credit and other policy measures but also by their governments’ political and military force.

In the past three decades, most developing countries have been told, through IMF-World Bank structural adjustment programmes, to give up the role of the state to direct their economies and instead rely entirely on the private sector.

These policies did not succeed as the domestic private sector is weak or even non-existent in many countries. In poor countries, foreign companies were not interested in coming in except in the mining or plantation sectors.

However, several other developing countries, mostly in Asia, took on a different model. Their governments believed in playing an important or even dominant role in the development process.

At first these governments owned companies that they ran like government departments, and this was not efficient. This model was changed in some countries to one where the state can own or partly own companies that are then run on a commercial basis. The state can also assist private companies to grow.

Government investment holding institutions like Khazanah and PNB in Malaysia or Temasek in Singapore have been set up as crucial components of this framework.

The increasing criticism by Western intellectuals and politicians of “state capitalism” is not confined to academic observations.

The US administration and Congress are contemplating legislation and action to place extra tariffs on Chinese products not only on anti-dumping grounds but also that they have been subsidised and that China is not a market economy.

The Congress is also discussing whether to slap tariffs on Chinese products on the ground that China’s currency is manipulated and under-valued.

While the focus now may be on China, other developing countries may be faced with the same actions based on the same reasoning, that these countries are unfairly helping their companies through policy measures that represent state-capitalism and industrial policy.

Moreover, the US and Europe and now negotiating free trade agreements with developing countries that contain clauses or even chapters that seek to prohibit or restrict the practices of government-linked companies, or the provision of subsidies and preferences by government to local companies.

Korean economist Ha Joon-chang wrote a famous book Kicking Away the Ladder to describe how developed countries made use of policies that made them rich, and now want to prevent developing countries from doing the same and thus are seeking to prohibit these same policies.

The clash of capitalist systems and the clash between developed and developing countries over what policies are legitimate and which should be banned will intensify in this Year of the Dragon.

Related articles

• The Rise of State Capitalism. (isellerfinance.wordpress.com)

Learning From The Masters of Management

Tweet

Dan Schawbel, Contributor

Adrian Wooldridge

I recently spoke with Adrian Wooldridge, who is the author of Masters of Management: How the Business Gurus and Their Ideas Have Changed the World – for Better and for Worse. Wooldridge is the management editor and “Schumpeter” columnist of The Economist. He was educated at Balliol College, Oxford, and All Souls College, Oxford, where he held a Prize Fellowship. He was formerly The Economist’s Washington bureau chief and “Lexington” columnist. In this interview, he talks about how the field of management has changed over the past decade, the difference between management and leadership, and more.

How has the field of management changed in the past decade?

Management has been revolutionised by two great changes over the past decade. The first is the rise of the internet. A decade ago the internet was still a fancy reference tool and Google was still a start up. Today the internet is reorganising the world. The internet is not only spawning an entire ecosystem of new businesses. It is reshaping the way that even the most conservative companies organise their business.

The second is the rise of emerging markets. A decade ago we still referred (often pityingly) to the underdeveloped world. Today we regard the emerging world as a hotbed of growth and innovation. Investment houses are pouring money into the BRICs even as they despair about stagnating Europe. Multinationals are ‘offshoring’ research and development as well as manufacturing to India and Brazil.

Are all managers leaders? What’s the difference between management and leadership?

No: not all managers are leaders (and not all leaders are managers: some great leaders such as Winston Churchill have been hopeless everyday managers).

The great distinction between the two lies in the choice of direction: leadership is about choosing where to go while management is about choosing how to get there. Jack Welch was a great business leader because he changed General Electric’s strategic direction with his emphasis on being number one or number two in a business or getting out. A secondary distinction lies in inspiration: the best leaders not only set a direction but inspire their followers to strain every sinew in reaching their new destination. There is nothing second-rate about management: great leaders mean nothing without the nuts-and-bolts men and women who put their visions into practice and make sure that the trains run on time. Incremental changes can sometimes add up to big changes. But given the uncertainty of the current business world—the sudden gusts of change that blow from unexpected directions—leadership is more important now than it was say fifty years ago when ‘organisation man’ ruled the roost.



Can you name a few management gurus that you’ve been observing and explain how they have helped make change?

These astonishing changes of the past decade—the world remade by the internet and turned upside down by emerging markets—have changed the pecking order among business thinkers. You are probably more likely to find a mind-changing article in Wired than in the Harvard Business Review or from an Indian than from an American-first mid-westerner.

The business gurus that I pay most attention to come in two guises: geeks or third-world firstists. Christopher Anderson made waves with his book on The Long Tale (which argued that the world of niches is replacing the world of mass markets). The book has had a huge influence not only with high-tech companies but with other organisations (retailers for example) that are seeing their markets redefined by the internet.

I suspect that his work-in-progress on 3-D printing will also have a big influence (though there is a lot of work in this area). V.G. Govindirajan of Tuck Business Shool has produced exemplary work on ‘frugal innovation’ (the idea that the most interesting form of innovation in the emerging world is about radically reducing costs rather than adding more bells and whistles. This has had a huge impact on General Electric which is producing a new generation of ‘frugal’ medical products. John Hagel and John Seely Brown have produced equally fasinating work on how these ‘frugal products’ will send a wave of disruption through rich countries, as traditional producers are forced to cut costs dramatically or see their markets eaten up by emerging-market giants.

What will the new management gurus of the future look like?

The management gurus of the future will look more like the class of 2010 at CEIBS or the Indian Business School than the class of 2010 at Harvard Business School or Wharton. They will also look more like the class of 2010 at the Stanford School of Engineering than the class of 2010 at the Stanford Business School: white faces will give way to ‘faces of colour’ and classic business school types will give way to engineers and other sorts of geeks.

Masters of Management

For the past century business thinking has been dominated by the United States. The bulk of the business cases have been about American companies. The bulk of the tools and techniques have been dreampt up by American managers. The driving assumption has been that if you don’t measure up to American standards—about how you organise your company or measure your performance—you are doing something wrong. That model was shaken by the rise of Japan but reasserted itself in the 1990s. It is now being shaken up even more thoroughly by the rise of a huge variety of emerging world companies. The business gurus of the future will come from emerging world—not just from India (which has cornered the market for the moment) but also from China, Indonesia, Turkey and Nigeria.

For the past century technology gurus have played second fiddle to strategy gurus (or even marketing gurus). Peter Drucker was less interested in technology than in the sociology of organisations. Tom Peters made little use of his training as an engineer in his voluminous writing. Technology is now at the heart of business thinking rather than an optional add on. Technology gurus are rewiring our thinking about organisations. And gurus from other disciplines face a stark choice: think deeply about what is happening in the world of the internet or face irrelevance.

Dan Schawbel, recognized as a “personal branding guru” by The New York Times, is the Managing Partner of Millennial Branding, LLC, a full-service personal branding agency. Dan is the author of Me 2.0: 4 Steps to Building Your Future, the founder of the Personal Branding Blog, and publisher of Personal Branding Magazine. He has worked with companies such as Google, Time Warner, Symantec, IBM, EMC, and CitiGroup.

 Newscribe : get free news in real time 

Inflation in Malaysia: Myths and perceptions!

Tweet

By PRISCILLA LIM 

The general view on the street is that Malaysia suffers from rising inflation. Do the statistics back the claim?

RECENT headlines in the Malaysian media have highlighted the issue of the unholy alliance of rising inflation, stagnant wages and subsidies rationalisation.

It is an “unholy” alliance simply because subsidies rationalisation and imported inflation result in rapidly rising price levels. Coupled with the problem of slow rising wages, it implies that our buying power as consumers is decreasing.

Certain quarters would have us believe that Malaysia is a ship headed for an iceberg and a Titanic-style tragedy could happen any time now. To add salt to the wound, they argue that those at the helm, like the captain on the Titanic, are sleeping and that like the passengers on the Titanic, we will not survive this tragedy. But is this gospel truth or an urban myth?

Is our purchasing power shrinking?

In a recent article, it was claimed that Malaysians have been suffocated in recent months by rising prices of food and necessities as well as a wage rate that is as difficult to move as a buffalo on a padi field.

It was implied that Malaysians are incapable and not resilient enough to cope with the price hikes as their purchasing power is relatively lower than in many countries.

A quick check with the industry standards on price levels and wage data, the Swiss bank, UBS, Price and Earnings Report, indicates that residents in Kuala Lumpur have similar purchasing power with their counterparts in Singapore. Their purchasing power also tops that of Shanghai, Beijing and nearby Bangkok and Jakarta. We are also not far behind Taipei and Seoul in terms of purchasing power (see Chart 1).

Absence of subsidies in these countries has led to rapidly increasing price levels. As a result, employers have had to compensate workers with a higher wage which then increases the costs of production. This increase is passed on to consumers, causing prices to increase again and thus begins the vicious cycle economists call wage-push inflation.

To put it simply, wages have risen in tandem with the rapidly rising costs of living in those countries.

Is inflation on the rise?

The general perception on the street is that Malaysia suffers from rising inflation, at a level much higher than what the common Malaysian can cope with. Anecdotal evidence suggests that price levels have been rising at a much faster pace than what is officially reported. Many recount stories of how our much favoured teh tarik cost only 80 sen five years ago but today, it is between RM1.50 and RM1.80.

In pure MythBusters ingenuity, The Economist has created a rough method to test whether the statisticians have been toying with the inflation figures. It makes use of its famous Big Mac Index, which attempts to roughly measure inflation by tracking the increase in price of a McDonald's Big Mac over the years.

To achieve an accurate measure of inflation, one requires a basket of goods that is identical and commonly available across many countries. The McDonald's Big Mac was chosen because it is produced to a common specification in 120 countries around the world.

In order to determine the reliability of official inflation figures, The Economist compared the difference in the 10-year average of the Big Mac Index and the official reported inflation. A positive figure would indicate that the government has been under-reporting inflation and a negative figure implies otherwise, i.e. the government has been over-reporting inflation.

The Economist (The McFlation Index, Jan 27, 2011), in reporting its findings, accepted an error margin of +/- 2%. It expects the Big Mac inflation to exceed overall inflation as food prices have escalated much faster in recent years. Furthermore, the Big Mac basket of goods (food, materials, wages and rent) differs only slightly from the common basket of goods for overall inflation (food, fuel, rent, healthcare and transport, among other things). To compare how Malaysia fares against other countries, see Chart 2.

Malaysia scored a “positive” 2% point difference between the Big Mac Index and the official inflation rate. While the “positive” 2% may mean that Malaysia's reported official inflation rate is under reported, the inflation rate of the US and Japan is also marginally under reported, where the quantum is similar to Malaysia.

Thus, compared with other countries, Malaysia can be considered as faring rather well. We are on par with China and the US while just slightly above Japan and the European region. Considering that we are just under the +2% threshold with an error margin of +/- 2%, we can definitely conclude that our inflation figures are rather reliable.

Why then is the price of teh tarik increasing faster than the reported inflation? The main culprits of such inflation are unscrupulous traders who take advantage of the situation to earn a hefty profit. Tales have been told of how the price of a cup of coffee at the kopitiam increased by 20 sen when the price of 1kg of sugar was increased by 20 sen. Such price increases often go unreported, hence resulting in the disparity between the popular anecdotes and the official inflation rate.

Is the captain steering this ship sleeping?

The reported inflation rate in May 2011 increased 3.3% from May last year. The biggest increase came from the alcohol and tobacco group (6.3%), followed by transportation and hotels and restaurants (6%). Food and non-alcoholic beverages is third at 4.5%.

Economists, and politicians on both sides of the divide, concur that inflation has been rapidly increasing in recent months, sparked by the wave of subsidy rationalisations.

The argument for cutting subsidies is a logical and rational one. Malaysians have been enjoying artificially low food and fuel prices compared with regional peers so much so that we have grown reliant on these subsidies to maintain the lifestyle that we now enjoy.

Our reliance on these low food and fuel prices has rendered Malaysia's economy vulnerable to price shocks happening internationally. World prices of essential items such as sugar, fuel, cooking oil and flour have been increasing rapidly due to shortages in world supply.

How so? Prices are signals given by the economy-at-large regarding the supply and demand of the products we want. An artificially low price will cause us to consume more than what is available, thus leading to a misallocation of scarce resources.

In order to mitigate the effects of subsidy rationalisations, the government increased the price of petrol systematically so as to cushion the impact of the price hike on consumers. RON95 was introduced in December 2009 at the price of RM1.75 per litre as an alternative to RON97 after the government announced plans to fully remove the subsidy from RON97. All subsidies for RON97 were removed from July 2010.

The increase in food prices has also been limited to sugar, cooking oil and flour. The government has explained that this is due to the escalating prices of these products in the world market. The price increases, however, have been gradual rather than immediate.

Subsidies for other produce such as rice and fish, which are locally produced, remain. The subsidies for these sectors also remain as those that will be most affected should these subsidies be removed are the hardcore poor and low-income families. Table 1 and Table 2 outline the various subsidies provided and the amounts allocated by the government to fund these subsidies.

For the hardcore poor, the Agriculture and Agro-based Ministry has the Rice Subsidy Programme for the People (Subur) programme. It issues coupons to the hardcore poor and other targeted low-income groups three times a month to purchase 10kg of ST15% grade rice at a discounted price of RM14 rather than the retail price of RM24.

Stagnating wages?

Much to the disappointment of economists around the world, the Democratic Capitalist view that market forces alone are efficient enough to determine fair wages is no longer valid. Employers today no longer play the passive role of adopting the market wage rate. They are instead active participants and key players in the wage determination.

Researchers at the Federal Reserve of Cleveland found that standard factors such as type of occupation, human capital, demographics and industry characteristics only accounted for half of the wage variation between employees. The other half has been attributed to employer characteristics.

This implies that the bargaining power of workers today has declined not only in Malaysia but across the world as well. The imbalance of power and control at the bargaining table has caused the Malaysian labour market to become uncompetitive and inefficient, resulting in stagnating wage levels.



Here, I would like to suggest two reasons why wage levels in Malaysia have been stagnating over the years.

1. Over-supply of labour 

According to basic economics, employers will not have the incentive to offer higher wages should there be a large number of employees who are first able and then willing to work at the offered wage.

The logic is similar to the goods market where oversupply of a product causes prices to drop since the demand for the product can be easily fulfilled. This scenario is relevant to two large groups of Malaysians the low-skilled workers and fresh graduates or junior executives.

Low-skilled workers are often in jobs labelled as 3D dirty, dangerous and demeaning. We have foreign workers who are eager to perform these jobs at wages that are lower than what Malaysians would accept. This undermines the job opportunities for many of the “low-income to hardcore poor” Malaysians who do not mind taking on these jobs as it may be their only opportunity to earn a living.

Included in this category of workers are domestic maids, cleaners, construction workers, odd-job labourers, and coffee shop waiters.

As such, it is highly relevant that the government has taken its first step to a minimum wage for workers with the passing of the National Wages Consultative Council Bill in the Dewan Rakyat last week.

A mandatory minimum wage for low-skilled workers will ensure that they are not exploited by unethical employers and will not be vulnerable to the tides of change that are common in today's globalised economy.

With most of these jobs being performed by foreign workers, millions if not billions of ringgit are transferred out of Malaysia in remittances, and the country loses out in foreign exchange. When the Minimum Wage regulations kick in, there should be no wage differential for the same job, eliminating the advantages of having foreign workers instead of local Malaysians.

More low income Malaysians would have more job opportunities.

In the case of fresh graduates/junior executives, a simple survey of Salary Guides available in the market showed that their wages have not increased by much. Salaries for non-executives, however, showed the largest increase of between 6% and 12% across the industries in the last five years.

Industry experts suggest that there is an oversupply of graduates with similar skill levels. Employers often lament the inability to hire good quality graduates that are not just head-smart but have the initiative and relevant soft skills to bring value to the company.

A study done by the National Higher Education Research Institute (IPPTN) revealed that most Malaysian graduates are not aware of the realities of the working environment as well as employer expectations. Most are caught up in their own world and have an apathetic attitude towards the world around them.

2. Price levels of commodities/basket of goods and services

Wage increases are motivated by increasing price levels. The employment of labour in economics is described as a derived demand.

This suggests that increases in the demand, hence price, of goods and services generate employment and increase in wages.

Domestic price adjustments in Malaysia to world prices have been slow due to the many subsidies that are provided by the government. As such, many private sector employers do not find the need to increase basic wages in order to keep their employees. Instead, they provide other forms of compensation such as better healthcare coverage, share options, higher EPF contributions, etc. While some doomsday soothsayers only compare the wage and purchasing powers, how does Malaysia's rate of EPF contributions compare with those in other countries?

Wage adjustments have also been known to lag behind inflation as wages are more difficult to change compared with the price of a cup of teh tarik at your favourite coffee shop. Employment contracts and company budget allocations come only once a year compared with the menu that can be reprinted overnight. With the subsidy rationalisations, it would be a matter of time before the pressure mounts on employers to increase wages.

Gospel truth or urban myth?

Gone is the era where unity among Malaysians is not just about racial harmony and living peacefully together but also encouraging one another in the spirit of muhibbah to be resilient and brave the troubled times that challenge our path as a young nation. Fifty-four years down the thorny road, a much expressed opinion is that the younger generation today is either apathetic to nation building or unpatriotic.

As a member of this young “Y” Generation, I would like to believe that we are not unpatriotic. Instead, I believe we lack the understanding of what it means to build a nation together as one community with “blood, toil and tears”.

Building a nation is not just about building its economy. It's also about building its people. We are the heartbeat of the Malaysian economy. It is not the government nor the Opposition that is steering this ship and selecting the course that this ship takes. It is people like you and me, the Malaysian rakyat.

> The writer is a Gen-Y Malaysian who is currently pursuing her PhD with the University of Nottingham (Malaysian campus) in Economics. She graduated with a First Class Honours in Economics from the same university and hopes to become a person in high demand without the prescribed side effects of permanent head damage.