Dream That Became A Nightmare

By Natalie Shobana Ambrose
theSun, Malaysia (page 15)
December 29th, 2011
http://www.thesundaily.my/news/251497

Yale law professor and writer Amy Chua, midfielder Yossi Benayoun, singer Rihanna, designer John Galliano, football coach John Terry and student Alexandra Wallace, to name a few, have either been chastised as racist or have had to bear the brunt of derogatory remarks in the past year.

It seems that the overarching theme of 2011 besides the obvious economic uncertainty, multiple global protests and natural disasters has been race relations. It’s been a rather racial year not just globally but also locally and we in Malaysia take it further to include religion in this prickly mix. It’s such a contested topic that clearly divides, yet not a day goes by when race or religion is not discussed in the public sphere.

A simple example. My Christmas shopping this year included multiple purchases at bookstores, so much so I ended up with free loyalty cards. This process included filling up an intrusive form that not only required details of my income bracket but in true Malaysian fashion – provided a list of ethnicities to choose from. I abstained and wrote a note on the form which the customer relations officer refuted saying that the information was merely for the company’s database. Yet I found my Christmas buzz interrupted by the topic of race by a silly form and the backwardness of these bookstores.

How do we move forward when even our social lives and what books we purchase are analysed through the sieve of which race box is ticked or not ticked? To take it further, we are revisiting the Race Relations Act.

Britain, Hongkong, Australia and Canada are among the few countries that have anti-discrimination laws to prevent hate speech and hate crimes. Ours is said to follow that of the British. However the question remains, with local legal frameworks including our Constitution (the much debated Article 153), the NEP and the Sedition Act to name a few, will this Race Relations Act truly champion anti-discriminatory practices or will it protect those who discriminate under the guise of protecting national interests?

It’s a pity that the biggest problem of a country that boasts about being one, is the issue of race. Yet what is happening is that our politicians are having one-way conversations and patting themselves on the back in a false sense of victory. Not only are they inciting racial disharmony, they are also the ones making up the laws with little consultation with the people most affected – the rakyat. Fortunately, Malaysians have drawn a line in the sand, something Mark Mykleby calls the “democratisation of expectations”, highlighted in a recent New York Times article by Thomas Friedman. He describes it as “the expectation that all individuals should be able to participate in shaping their own career, citizenship and future, and not be constricted”.

For a year filled with racist remarks from politicians, is the proposed Race Relations Act one that will punish the real perpetrators and instigators? Or will it go against the democratisation of expectations and feed off the discriminating comments of our politicians?

The past year alone has shown that we have not matured, rather we are doing a Benjamin Button and becoming dangerously juvenile. Instead of growing up to face the real challenges of corruption, urban and rural poverty, brain drain (it is a long list), the focus is on perceived and imagined threats. So instead of addressing real problems, race is attached to every issue, causing us to digress and lose focus.

There is no doubt that tempers flare and voices rise when we speak of race. However when the discussion is about discrimination, there is no grey matter – it is just wrong and should not have place in a country such as ours. Yet if anything, this year has proven to be one of missed opportunities for our leaders to ensure just that. Their silence and condoning of discriminatory events and bigoted statements from various factions have proven an inherent insincerity when speaking about a united Malaysia – a 1Malaysia.

There comes a point when you have to hold politicians accountable and the ballot box has always been the place where the rakyat read the riot act to errant politicians.

This year started as a year of dreams and hopes but quickly turned out to be a spiralling nightmare and a telltale of what 2012 will be, especially with the possibility of an election. On my wish list for 2012 is the hope that solidarity between the races is enhanced because without it we cannot call ourselves Malaysia.

Natalie is hoping for a better 2012 - perhaps after the election. 

Happy New Year Malaysia!

Comments: letters@thesundaily.com

Wisdom of Foresight

By Natalie Shobana Ambrose
theSun, Malaysia (page 14)
December 15th, 2011
http://www.thesundaily.my/news/239158

A few years ago there was a landslide along Jalan Duta after a downpour. For weeks it was covered with tarpaulin and sealed off with cautionary tape. It was alarming and personally worrying. Each year there are mini landslides, erosion and siltation around the Damansara Heights-Jalan Duta area. Fast forward to today and a short distance from the said landslide area, acres of land have been cleared for development – development in an area already highly congested and clearly prone to landslides. It’s considered prime land today, but what will it be in years to come?

Certainly when the Honda factor in Rojuna Industrial district, Ayutthaya in Thailand was built, no one could foresee the whole factory sinking in flood waters – or could they? We cannot change the weather or confidently predict swelling rivers and the breaking of riverbanks, but the wisdom of foresight might caution against building in a low-lying area or on a hillside that is already unstable.

Foresight is necessary in development and in the progress of every country. Post independence, our leaders made a calculated decision to shift from an agriculture based economy to an industrial one, not foreseeing the need to be able to self-sufficiently feed ourselves. Of course that shift has made us the third largest Asean economy and ranked 30th in the world, but what good is it if food supply is low and people cannot feed themselves because floods in neighbouring countries have affected not only the supply of electronic goods but basic daily foods – fruit, vegetables and even chillies?

When we talk about foresight, it doesn’t just stop at predicting what may happen but the courage to make painful yet necessary decisions to forfeit immediate gain for long-term collective stability. Such great foresight can be found in country constitutions and certain UN declarations – the blueprints of society.

I have always wondered in admiration of those who wrote these documents and the wisdom they possessed to include sections that perhaps at the point of writing were not needed but for the future may be extremely necessary. If we look at the Malaysian Constitution, one has to wonder why the founding fathers included a whole second section to protect Fundamental Liberties. Perhaps they had a “crystal ball” or the pure genius foresight to imagine its imperative need in today’s Malaysia where civil liberties are being taken away.

Sadly, instead of safeguarding the sanctity of the Constitution, today’s politicians have made it a scapegoat to promote their own personal agendas and beliefs. They have been allowed to do so also because we the people do not know our own Constitution as we should nor do we confidently know our rights and exert them. We choose to be ignorant and let a handful contest, thanks to scaremongering, yet with every new bill passed, our freedom net gets pulled in, further limiting our constitutional liberties.

Not only do our government and policy makers need foresight – we the people do too. When new laws and bills are deliberated, it is our business to know them well because they affect us, our children and our children’s children. Maybe today the Peaceful Assembly Bill does not affect you personally, but some day it will, just like the impending Computing Professionals Bill 2011. We have to remember that tomorrow is built on what we allow to happen today.

We can tell ourselves that laws enacted will not be enforced; they are just there because they need to be – but some day someone will dig them up and use them. What then can we do when we are bound by the law – all because years past we didn’t have foresight.

Natalie believes that the Constitution may be an “elastic compilation of rules” easily manipulated; yet those who pervert it should rightly be deposed.

Comments: letters@thesundaily.com

Reading The Tea Leaves

By Natalie Shobana Ambrose

theSun, Malaysia (page 13)

December 1st, 2011

http://www.thesundaily.my/news/225812

A change in the political system, the release of 230 political prisoners, the halting of a US$3.6 billion (RM11.6 billion) Chinese-funded dam project, silence in the face of criticism, and extending an olive branch to Aung Suu Kyi all add up to an equation of reform and change for Myanmar. These “flickers of progress” for some come across as a laundry list of things to do for a desired outcome and it is not just the short-term 2014 Asean chairmanship seal of approval that is the prize – more is at stake and more will be done, but based on the tea leaves of the past, one wonders if this is real reform.

Every country has a laundry list of righting past wrongs to make amends for a desired outcome and we too have been ticking off a transformation to-do list.

If we read the tea leaves in advance of things to come in Malaysia, the outcome is clear – an election is looming and politicians are upping their game. So if you want anything done – expedite your requests before the general election as politicians do their utmost to grant wishes oh, so quickly.

Political analysts are speculating on election dates – it was thought at the end of this year, but after the 11 reasons news piece published on 11-11-11, some say March next year even though technically, a general election in Malaysia is held every five years, and can be held as late as even May 2013.

The real test, however, is not who wins but what happens afterwards. Are we able to progress beyond the 13th general election and even beyond 2020? It seems for now our vision is short, blurred and inward looking.

At the core of it, the people are not concerned with how well our economy is doing, if growth rate targets are being met and how we fare in world rankings – that is what the suits and those in the corridors of power are concerned with and not what the majority deems critical. Their two main concerns are whether there is enough to eat and how free we are to carry on with our beliefs and “business”. Who wins the election is secondary – how our daily lives are affected is at the core.

So when floods in Thailand drastically spiked food prices on our shores, questions arose concerning the RM5.6 billion allocated to agricultural development between 2008 and last year under the National Food Security Policy. These questions are set against the backdrop of a national beef production project awarded to a politician’s family who used some of the RM250 million loan for other purposes. This has left the lingering bitter taste of a recurring theme in the country’s record books – abuse of public funds with little consequence for those involved.

In the past year alone, we have witnessed wastage and mismanagement of public funds and the creation of new enemies playing on our sensitivities and leveraging on our short attention spans. From issues of sexuality to harmful statements demonising the universality of human rights; subsidies to hudud laws; Christianity and the teaching and learning of science and mathematics in English to the highly sensitive issue of racial and customary rights and clean and free elections. This week’s enemy limits our freedom further – the 2011 Peaceful Assembly Bill that was passed in three hours.

We need to elect politicians with foresight who can see past the next election and who have in mind the best interest of the people who gave them the mandate.

Instead, what we have now are either those who vote based on party interest or politicians who think that walking out solves issues. The very reason bills are to be debated extensively before they become acts is that one day the very people who voted-in the bill will be at the mercy of it.

Governments around the world are implementing reforms and transforming policies; however, questions remain with regard to how these paper reforms reflect what is actually happening on the ground.

In the case of Malaysia, two important issues – the increased cost of living and the right to freedom in all spheres – have been carelessly toyed with too often to garner political support, not realising the extensive damage done. The divide and rule agenda is a selfish one and sadly it seems to be at the thrust of Malaysian politics. Clearly the people have made a mistake by blindly giving up our power. Only time will tell once the tea leaves have settled, but hopefully our politicians realise their folly before it’s too late.

Natalie wonders if our politicians voted with the wisdom of knowing that the laws created to protect them today can turn against them so quickly and easily. 

Feedback: letters@thesundaily.com

Humanising Development

By Natalie Shobana Ambrose

theSun, Malaysia (page 12)

November 17th, 2011

http://www.thesundaily.my/news/211066 


During the Rugby World Cup, a major highlight was Te Rauparaha's war chant – more popularly know as the All Blacks Haka. This pre-game tradition has been in place since 1905 and belongs to the Ngati Toa tribe. What is most interesting though about the All Blacks performing thehaka is how well the culture of the first peoples to the land of the long white cloud has been integrated into New Zealand culture, something not many countries have been as successful at doing.

In many countries, these indigenous minorities are subjected to poverty and social exclusion and are marginalised. The development of many countries has not taken into account the rights of the original peoples. At best when we look at tribal culture, what we experience is surface awareness – that of traditional dance, food and clothing; but deeper questions such as land rights, natural integration and the right to self-determination need to be addressed and not just dialogued about.

Tribal sovereignty is an extremely sensitive issue, but what more important an issue for those who have seen their land taken away from them by the “new comers” and colonisers. Globally there are about 300 million indigenous people, according to the World Bank. A relatively small number compared to the now 7 billion world population; yet 4.5 % of the global population is a significant number and important part of our humanity. These distinct communities are not homogenous, even if from the same country. Their identities and cultures are inextricably linked to natural resources – their land. So when their land is taken away or given to middlemen to manage, not only does it cause a loss of identity, it also threatens their cultural survival and is a failure on our part to look after our heritage.

Indigenous people make up 10% of the world’s poor and in Malaysia they account for 20% of the nation’s hardcore poor. When we speak about the orang asli in Malaysia, many sensitivities surface. We have come from a thinking that development has one framework – it deals with ecological and economic perspectives. However, a social structure needs to be in place – a humanising factor in development efforts.

Successful development efforts occur when real dialogues takes place. When the needs of the people affected spearhead the discussions. Borrowing from a speech made by Colin Nicholas, coordinator of the Centre for Orang Asli Concerns, the nature of development has to be decided by the ones affected the most – on their own terms and on their own land. But what happens when their land is taken away or there is no security tenure to their lands, and concerns brought up with the government go unaddressed for years? Instead of valuing the heritage of our multiethnic country, we promote social disintegration of the original people of this land.

When we discuss social structures of sustainable societies, there is a great emphasis on social equity, justice and liberation. Societies that are unjust are not sustainable, and so how we treat the first peoples of our country determines how sustainable we are as a country. Social, economic and ecological development have to move forward simultaneously to include participation of the communities that are being “developed”. As such, the orang asli have to be the primary participants in the development process rather than objects that an external body pawns for projects or charitable purposes. Not only is participation necessary, but tools of empowerment crucial. Those marginalised need to be given decision-making positions so that they are empowered, know their rights and know how to assert these rights. Empowerment is the journey and the outcome of development. So how well are we doing?

Indigenous peoples rights is a sensitive issue in many parts of the world because the majority fail to acknowledge that we have played the role of colonisers too. According to our prime minister’s budget speech in October, Malaysia has 190,00 orang asli – the question is: what have we done for them, is it enough and is it fast enough? There may not be a social contract, but there sure is a moral obligation at the very least.

Natalie is humbled by the good work of the Centre for Orang Asli Concerns and congratulates them on being awarded the United Nations Organisation of the Year award 2011.                                                             Comments: letters@thesundaily.com

Universality Of Human Rights: Challenges

By Natalie Shobana Ambrose                                                                                         theSun, Malaysia (page 14)                                                                                           November 3^rd, 2011                                                                                           http://www.thesundaily.my/news/196906

The issue of human rights is very much contested and everyone from former prime ministers and IGPs to migrant workers, civil society and even you have opinions on the issue not just in terms of what freedoms you should have but what others should too. So I tread carefully as an advocate for the universality of human rights, acknowledging that there are real challenges and realities of it becoming a certainty for every human being including myself. 

Having presented a paper in Kyoto University last week discussing various perspectives of human rights within Asean, I feel it most apt to share the following story in light of recent statements made on the issue.

Anna served as associate professor in the largest local university for over 30 years and yet her children were never allowed admission into that university on the basis that they were considered migrants, though many foreigners call this university their alma mater. If Anna’s children wanted to attend local university, it meant two extra years in high school which wasn’t a guarantee of university or degree choice. Bella, her daughter, had aspired to be an architect since young and with great effort went through those two extra years. After doing well and fulfilling the requirements for architecture school, Bella was told instead that the only spot available for her was in interior design – the quota system had failed her. Now not only did Bella have to start university two years later, she was two years behind many other students in a course the system chose because she was considered a migrant. It didn’t matter that her parents are citizens, her grandparents citizens and her great grandparents citizens – Anna and Bella were both born with a generational debt that they can never repay no matter how hard they tried.

This story narrates the reality of an age old dilemma of cultural diversity and universal human rights coexisting. Now one can argue that when it comes to human rights, one size does not fit all and that culture, philosophy, belief and history should be taken into consideration and the margin of appreciation apply when implementing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). To take the point further, many governments in this region in particular attest that such universality of human rights is a western precept and does not resonate with the values of the east; but are not all of Adam’s decendents born equal regardless of race, doctrine and creed? Most religions subscribe to this fundamental belief and many developed minds do too.

Some believe that fundamental rights are the outcome of a developed economy, yet there is no evidence of countries that progress economically automatically according all their citizens basics rights. Neither is there a prescribed level of development to be achieved before fundamental rights can be accorded.

It’s a dangerous line to tread when trying to make a convincing argument on the merits of blatant discrimination for the preservation of human rights for some. The simple equation of continual oppression, as we have witnessed around the world in the last year alone, has the potential to equal a real threat – for some the threat is violence, but in the case of Anna and Bella, the threat is brain drain and mass migration which are extremely detrimental to any economy.

Countries in which the four fundamental freedoms (Roosevelt) – freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from fear and freedom from want – are violated do not develop evenly and breed deep insecurities. An analysis of countries that did not fare well in the United Nations Human Development Index, showed them tending to have a weakened state of human security and human rights.

Hence, in order to have a positive functioning economy, achieving human rights for all (not relative human rights) is necessary as there are no substitutes for good governance and the rule of law to make a functioning state.

The reality is there are many variations when discussing human rights. Some prescribe to it being a gift based on descent, religion and cultural relativism. Then there are the generations of extremists, moderates, liberalists, absolutists, progressives and contextualists with varying intensities of conviction. However, there are no half rights or half truths.

Rights should not exclude groups of people but include rights of the aged, minorities, the displaced and so forth which are all embodied in the UDHR.

Anna’s story is not uncommon but closer to home. Anna’s story is my story, Anna my mother and Bella my sister; a Malaysian family who have lived and served this country for generations and for generations have never had equal rights to education, employment, land and the full privileges of being a citizen.

If the debate in Malaysia today is still against universality, I guess then the question should be is there such a thing as half torture and half discrimination? I’m still not convinced.

Natalie believes that the protection of human rights is a unifying ethic and should not be misused to cause divide.                                   Comments: letters@thesundaily.com

Our 99%

By Natalie Shobana Ambrose

theSun, Malaysia (page 14)

October 20th, 2011

http://www.thesundaily.my/news/183434

Many in the US have taken to the streets asserting that they are the 99% of America who are not pleased at the power and influence of the financial sector and corporations. Protesting against corporate greed and inequality both social and economic, the battle cry of the growing number of protesters is that the spoils of the top percent are obscene and that something needs to be done about the disparity in salary packages which is extremely wide. Similar cries are being heard around the world and the Occupy Wall Street protests have expanded into many forms of “Occupy”, from a sit-in outside St. Paul’s Cathedral in Bank, London to one outside 101 Tower in Taiwan.

What echoes clearly is that growing income inequalities and the rising cost of living have affected the 99% around the world and people are past weary and not afraid to say so. In the US, the richest 20% of Americans own 84% of all wealth. Picking up our jaws from the floor, the disconnect between value placed on the financial sector and what is generated to society is too large. This cannot be healthy for any economy. Yet in 2010, corporate America profits were at an all-time high as was Wall Street compensation. All this fresh out of a financial crisis caused by errant bankers who did not face criminal charges, with CEO salaries instead rebounding strongly (Sachs, 2011). Surely things do not tally especially when unemployment is high for the rest of America.

In his book Price of Civilisation, Jeffery Sachs points out the importance of governments to do better. Decoding major government failures in the largest democracy that have not only shattered American confidence in the country’s leaders but have also left most of the world wondering why such careless government decisions continue to ruin not just America but the global economy as well, he listed ways in which an effective government should function. Sachs’ lists his Seven Habits of Highly Effective Government, after Stephen Covey’s famous self-help book of a similar title – set clear goals, mobilise expertise, make multi-layer plans, be mindful of the far future, end corporatocracy, restore public management, and decentralise.

These habits should be the essence of all governments, but that’s being idealistic. The recent people-friendly 2012 Budget was announced with a lot of oohs and ahhs from the crowd but it certainly lacked foresight. It felt like Christmas came early with various gifts distributed to the different societal layers. It’s easy to give away money, but what about long-term solutions? Of course a budget is not the place to announce structural reforms, just opposition potshots. However such reforms need to be made beyond the next election in order for us to achieve our collective aim of efficiency, equity and sustainability.

Certain policies such as an inheritance tax need to be imposed in order to narrow the rising wealth inequality gap. Furthermore, RM500 in assistance for households earning less than RM3000 is positive, but a one-off ang pow has a limited shelf life – and a quick one at that with the rising cost of living.

The question that needs to be asked though is why are 53% of households or rather 3.4 million Malaysians earning so little and how is RM500 going to help in the long run. Our long-term economic goals need to be clearly defined especially since inflation has persisted at over 3% since the beginning of the year.

Indeed RM1.8 billion is a lot of money to give away, but what is that compared to the large sums for individual bailouts borne by the government. Each year when the Attorney-General’s Report is made public, one thing resonates clearly – that our public administration system needs to be reformed, not just with better window dressing but real reforms and unyielding anti-corruption penalties so that we are equipped for the greater complexities of the future.

Competent public administration structures and great foresight are necessary foundations of a respectable government. We want to be a high-income nation, one that is developed, yet we are still debating the details of a minimum wage. Indonesia, Mongolia, Vietnam, China and Cambodia have either introduced a national minimum wage standard or stipulated an industry or region-based minimum wage. Thailand just increased its minimum wage by 40%, while we play catch up when we should be setting the bar.

The 99% started their sit-in because they believe their government can do better. Ours needs to do better too.

Natalie hopes that the concerns of the 99% don’t just stay on placards but turn into a platform for sustainable and meaningful change.

Comment: letters@thesundaily.com

Can You Afford It?

By Natalie Shobana Ambrose

theSun, Malaysia (page 11)

October 6th, 2011

http://www.thesundaily.my/news/167775

Internationally acclaimed Suzie Ormon’s interactive TV segment Can I afford it? is hard hitting. A woman who doesn’t mince words, Suzie will tell participants who have been dreaming of doing or owning something if they can afford it or not. Expenses detailed, savings listed, the dream stated – and within minutes Suzie will scream DENIED, tell you off for lousy budgeting habits or reward you accordingly.

So in Suzie Ormon fashion and in view of tomorrow’s budget revelation, let’s see if Adam, a 25-year-old engineer living at home with his parents, can afford to live independently in Kuala Lumpur.

Adam earns RM5,000 a month. Once he is done with the basic contributions – tax and EPF – our version of superannuation, Adam’s take-home pay a month is slightly more than RM4,000. Now out of that, he needs to eat, clothe and house himself before he sorts out his wheels – just the bare necessities. Will Adam make ends meet?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Food RM25 a day:                                                            RM 750 (RM8 per meal, three meals a day)

Clothes:                                                                                  RM 200

Rent and Gym:                                                                   RM1,000 (for a master bedroom) 

Car Instalments:                                                              RM 500  (Proton Saga)

Petrol and Car Service:                                                RM350 (city driving consumption)

Amenities:                                                                            RM 400 (Electricity, broadband, phonebills)

Toiletries and Household necessities:            RM100  

Insurance:                                                                           RM250 (Automobile and life)

Contribution to parents:                                          RM200

Groceries:                                                                            RM200

Social Activities:                                                            RM100

Appliances/ Gadgets:                                                  RM200

                                                                                                  _______

                                                                                                    RM4250

Savings:                                                                                RM 0000

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now this is a modest budget for someone like Adam who grew up in a middle-class family, enjoyed meals at restaurants, satellite TV, the comforts of living in a house with a small garden and not just room. On his salary and based on this modest budget, Adam lives in continual rising debt each month and has zero savings – nor can he afford a holiday, buy a computer or meet with any accident – hospital bills and car repairs would cost too much.

Furthermore, in order to afford property and the mortgage, he would not be able to eat in order to save for the 10% down payment and lawyer’s fees. With banks offering 30-40 year loans, Adam at 25 should already have a home loan with a 35-year tenure, meaning he would have to work until he was 60 to pay off that loan.

It’s proven that single people end up paying substantially more proportionally towards basic living costs compared to married people. So what happens if Adam gets married, has a child and his wife becomes a homemaker? How will he afford to feed two more mouths, milk formula, diapers, baby clothes, insurance, save for the child’s education, maternity care and the list does go on.

The face of Malaysia’s urban poor has evolved and now includes different segments of society. Imagine if Adam were on a tight budget, what other Malaysians earning less are living without. The experts and politicians say we need to live within our means and save 30% of our income. In Adam’s case, saving RM1,500 is next to impossible unless we cook the books and he stops eating. We can argue that he should take public transport – but our public transport system is not very reliable nor does it connect well – so Adam will be spending more time waiting for the bus that is either too packed or has missed a stop, then heading to the train station, and then taking a cab to work – all of which will cost quite a bit in time also. If Adam works late, or if torrential rains hit, he will be stuck.

Adam should live closer to his office, but the cost of real estate in the city is not at all affordable. We haven’t even discussed issues of safety, work-life balance and the occasional splurge, or say McDonalds.

If we do basic calculations – the cost of a Double Cheeseburger in Malaysia is RM6.55, while it costs US$1 (RM3) in the States. The cost of a whole uncooked chicken in England is £4 (RM20) compared to RM15 here. Now if we take the percentage of wage earned to cost of living, Malaysians bear a very high cost of living. The 2010 Prices and Wages report by Swiss Bank UBS AG states that Malaysians have 33.8% purchasing power compared to New York, and 42% that of London, 31.6% that of Zurich and 33.7% of Sydney. Imagine how much better Adam’s classmates working overseas are doing – and we wonder why the brain drain figures are so high in this country.

Now, how much more can Adam tighten his belt and live within his means if his salary doesn’t allow him to live independently. In the words of Suzie Ormon, Adam has been DENIED living on his own.

Who knows when Adam will be able to afford to live independently, provide for a family and look after his parents. Instead his aging parents who paid for his education so that he wouldn’t have a study loan to service, will have to continue supporting him if the cost of living continues to head upwards and salaries remain as they are.

In view of tomorrow’s budget, I’m glad it’s touted to be one that cares for the people. I would also hope that instead of just pumping more and more money from a deficit budget, greater efforts are concentrated on curbing corruption and frivolous spending, so that the real benefactors of the budget would be the people.

Natalie hopes this budget will live up to its promises and that Adam’s generation will be able to provide like their parents did.

Comments: letters@thesundaily.com