Paying For A Basic Need

By Natalie Shobana Ambrose           
theSun, Malaysia
September 23rd, 2010

We all love our food. Malaysians all over the world, have the foodie gene in them. It is just part of who we are. We had gone to a fancy restaurant for lunch in Bangsar. The décor was exquisite and the food came highly recommended. Naturally, it was going to be an expensive meal, but it was a treat, a special occasion that warranted this excursion.

As we perused the menu, I nearly gagged at the price of water that came in a little bottle. Maybe my eyes were playing tricks on me. See, on principle I disagree on being charged an exorbitant fee for drinking water. So I opted for a nice meal and tap water.

“We don’t serve tap water Ma’am”, replied the waiting staff …. “Only bottled water” with a smile.

For some reason, this restaurant only served water from the Swiss Alps or somewhere far far away that has better quality drinking water than we do in Malaysia. Therefore it was justified that I be charged its carbon footprint to fly all the way to this snazzy restaurant.

I was having none of that.

Drinking water cannot be free but it also cannot come with an inflated price tag. Admittedly we are not as privileged to having drinking water flow from our pipes and so, water filter companies profit by demonstrating how polluted our unfiltered water is.

Paying this much for water made no sense to me. It was daylight robbery, kind of like window tax in the 1600’s when William III who was short of money decided that he had the right to charge people for daylight by taxing a household based on the number of windows the house had. It sounds absurd, but so did the thought of bottled water thirty years ago.

There are some things in life that are a necessity. Access to safe drinking water is not a privilege, but a right. An expectation we should have like the right to life, the right to be treated equally and to be born free.

There is an immense need to protect our ground water and catchment areas. The cost of having to import water is unimaginable especially since we have high rainfall in most parts of the country.

So why do so many households have to invest in water filters and why are restaurants allowed to overcharge for this basic commodity?

With the lack of education coupled with greed, rivers are polluted while our tropical rainforests are being culled for their heritage.

Who suffers?

The people who do not have access to clean drinking water. One day that might be you and me.

What then when there is a disease outbreak? Wouldn’t that cost more to manage? Preventing and ensuring that water resources are managed well is vital.

There needs to better protection mechanisms in place, legislation that actually deals with the issues and an overarching agency that manages water concerns within the country.

Recently the Semenyih water treatment plant was contaminated by leachate used in a nearby landfill that polluted Sungai Kembong. Not only are the clean up costs high, there isn’t an institution or legislation that attempts to protect water resources from such errant and greedy behaviour. If allowed to continue without reprimand, only the people who cannot afford water filters and bottled water suffer and lets not forget how rapidly prices will increasing for such basic need.

Charging higher water rates can only be warranted if there is accountability something which we as a country greatly lack making it unjustifiable and really daylight robbery. Water treatment, catchment areas, education, privatization matters need to be addressed before we our demand overtakes the supply.

Parched from my meal, and still refusing to pay for water, I asked for a cup of hot water and some ice on the side.

Natalie doesn’t mind being labelled “penny-pinching” especially when having to pay for a basic human right.

Comments: letters@thesundaily.com

Cast In The Right Light

By Natalie Shobana Ambrose
theSun, Malaysia
September 9th, 2010

The camera used to be something that only the adults had and could use. I remember wishing when I was younger that our family camera would be a Polaroid camera. Instant! Who could wait months, weeks until a roll of 36 exposures colour film could be used up and then a second wait to when the roll would be taken to the shop by which time when the photos came out, we’d all have grown a few inches.

But everyone’s a photographer these days thanks to technology, from little kids with camera phones to the so-called “camwhores’ and “photogs” who are perpetually glued to their camera.

I have a few friends who actually exercise veto power in deleting photos as soon as they are taken just because they don’t look so good in it. I’m guilty of that too. Though some have even requested photos be deleted once on the web because on second thought, they only approve of two of the 50 taken.

I on the other hand think it’s important to fully represent even when people take photos of me chomping down my food and I look like I’ve just put a whole hamster in my mouth, because some days- that’s what I look like!

On the other hand, the first thing I look at in a photo that has me in it, is me… and how good I look, then I start looking at the other people. I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s guilty.

There are many theories to this. Some say it’s because we are not constantly looking at ourselves, so we want to see what we look like to others. Others subscribe to the opinion that we’re just vain. The people who shy away from the camera are equally vain I believe – just masked in modesty but really vain- because they think they don’t look too great.

Oh lets admit it we’re all vain and like to be cast in the right light.

Some celebrities have clauses- photos from the waist up only or from certain angles, anything else must be destroyed. Some take it further and in interviews or magazine articles prohibit certain topics from being brought up, so they are cast in a better light.

Imagine only permitted to ask questions on their philanthropy efforts and not being allowed to ask Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan about their drug habit or non-habit after their arrests. That would be a form misrepresentation but it does happen.

That interview wouldn’t sell many magazines because it’s been ‘photoshopped.’ But then again that is public relations.

The media has been asked to cast reports in a positive light and the people urged to trust only mainstream papers. You have to wonder, if reporting is controlled are the people really getting the truth?

Of course reporting is also biased based on the stance of the writer and his background and motives and who runs the paper. Though should people not be allowed to make up our own minds and refute, dispute, agree and approve what is true to the individual?

There was a time when I had to read eight newspapers a day for many years as part of my job. Much to my amusement the same article would sound so different depending on which newspaper was reporting it.

I had the advantage of deciding for myself what I believed after reading a few versions of the story and which mainstream media regularly tried to sensationalize or create a divide. Then I’d also read some of the online news portals take on the same story and after piecing everything together, it actually read as if each media outfit was reporting a different story.

Sometimes, the facts of a story change as the days go by. So unless there is someone actually monitoring each story daily, the undiscerning reader would be taken on a joyride.

What I’m saying is nothing new, all you have to do is just get a few mainstream dailies and see how different the truth sounds and don’t forget the online news media.

At the end of the day, we decide what we really want to believe, after all, today’s paper will be tomorrow’s nasi lemak wrapping.

Natalie thought it be nice to be cast in a different light and change the column photo after two years. Selamat Hari Raya, Maaf Zahir Batin.

Comments: letters@thesundaily.com