The old adage that we learn as children is "look before you leap". It implies think, or fikir, before you do anything. Apparently, Fikiran Syndicate forgot about it.What was initially promised as one of the greatest jumps on earth has eventually fallen flat on the faces of the organizers and participants of the South Pole Jump. As we all know, the Malaysia Boleh group put together by Fikiran missed the coveted spot by some 1,800 km. Of course it was not their fault. The foreigners, the Russians and the Americans, had "misled" the group. This blaming of foreigners usually works. But not this time. For a rival team of Malaysian jumpers cried "foul". Although aware that they had not jumped over the geographical South Pole, the Fikiran team, apparently, according to their rivals, still claimed that they had done so. The rivals further revealed that Fikiran had been loaned RM780,000 by the Ministry of Youth and Sports. At which point, the Fikiran leader even had the gall to say that other Malaysians should mind their own business and something else about critics being unpatriotic. He even threatened to sue ! Is this fikir or tak fikir ? And despite the fact that the deputy minister of Youth and Sports Ong Tee Keat has announced that the Ministry will be getting to the bottom of the matter, the Ministry, too, should have fikir carefully before loaning the people’s RM780,000 to the Syndicate (hmm).

There is an important lesson here. For everything and anything has become Malaysia Boleh these days. Petronas Twin Towers – Malaysia Boleh ! KLIA – i ! Commonwealth Games – Malaysia Boleh ! Conquering Mt Everest – Malaysia Boleh ! Circumnavigating the Earth solo on a new route with a stop to replace a mast with the help of the RMAF – Malaysia Boleh ! Tongkat Ali – Malaysia Boleh ! Anna and the King of Siam – Malaysia Boleh ! Michelle Yeoh – Malaysia Boleh.! There is a real danger that the syndicates out there will begin to think that they can even lay claims to deeds which they didn’t achieve. Tak Boleh ! Really, we should specify apa boleh and apa tak boleh (what’s alright and what isn’t). Then perhaps we will hear cries of Malaysia Boleh for rule of law, justice, transparency, protecting the environment and eliminating poverty. And tak boleh for corruption, nepotism, ISA, and leaps into fantasy.

But there was a praiseworthy aspect to this entire episode. Thanks to a particular Malaysian journalist details about the whole episode have come to light. She interviewed the Fikiran group, the rival team and members of the Ministry. Via the email clarifications were sought and obtained from the Russian organisers and other foreign third parties, some of whom jumped, as well as those who did not, and are trying to get their money back. Yes, the Malaysian media is wired to the rest of the world. And there are journalists who are capable of investigative journalism. Now, let us see more of this kind of Malaysia Boleh journalism. How about investigating the kickbacks that Mitsui has admitted to the Japanese tax office that it paid to a Malaysian company in order to gain a Telecoms contract ? For all you know the foreigners, in this case the Japanese, might be trying to do us in again. And since the Telecoms and Anti-Corruption Agency have announced that they are investigating the issue, the Malaysian mass media would be performing a patriotic duty, in more than one sense, by lending them a helping hand.

Instead of six, we now have ten anchor banks. All the other banks and finance companies (except Bank Rakyat) will be merging with them. Predictably, this is considered by some experts to be the correct number of banks a country the size of Malaysia ought to have. Such consolidation, it is argued, will enhance efficiency and allow Malaysian banks to compete effectively in the international financial system. But wait a minute. Didn’t Tun Diam insist, just some six or so months ago that six was just the right number of banks? We will recall that there occurred much protest then, at least behind the scenes. What seems to be the criteria used for determining whether it ought to be ten, or six banks? Or eight or nine for that matter. Whatever the criteria, the withdrawal of the initial order for the banks and finance companies to merge into six major groupings helped the KLSE to come to life again. For just prior to the recent bull run focused on IT and communications-related counters, the banking and finance counters were themselves being traded heavily as a result of speculation on their future status – anchor banks or otherwise. True or not true ? Some more investigative and analytical business journalism needed here.

This thing about efficiency is a bit of a red herring. If, really, efficiency is the goal, the size of a bank has little direct bearing. Those of us who have studied or lived in the UK for instance might recall that many Brits banked, not even with banks, but with savings and loans societies or housing mortgage cooperatives. Or if one spent some time in the US, one usually banked with the local bank, say First Idaho, or a savings and trust company with its headquarters in the county itself. Invariably they were as efficient, and usually more friendly, than the big banks. Transfers of foreign funds posed some delays but not a problem. For these local banks, cooperatives and trust companies were twinned to the big banks. At any rate, most ordinary folk did not need to engage in foreign transactions on a regular basis. No doubt there were some scams and scandals involving some trust companies. But many others were not involved. And they are alive and well today, open borders or no. Besides, several big banks throughout the globe were involved in scandals. Remember Barings ? Granted, Malaysia must have a few banks with considerable assets to compete against the rest. Say, three or four. Being a trading country, our business people will need to depend on efficient and strong Malaysian banks. Hence why couldn’t the smaller, friendlier banks, often the result of true entrepreneurship, be allowed to play a role in Malaysia’s financial system ? Why did they have to merge too ? In fact, some of them had been more efficient than the big banks which amassed the bulk of bad debts. Were there political considerations involved ? That apart, I suspect that it has something to do with our, not to mention our leader’s fetish for mega projects. Hence mega banks too.

She describes her decision to contest the top post of Wanita UMNO as a healthy sign for democracy in the party. She insists that it would be " very undemocratic" to prevent a contest for the post of Wanita chief. She does not, at the same time, apply the same conviction to the Supreme Council’s "no-contest" decision for the party presidency and deputy presidency. She, of course, adds that the Council’s "no-contest" stand "serves only as a guideline and is not a directive"…albeit a "very undemocratic" guideline? Rafidah Aziz is 56. She was the Wanita chief for 12 years before she lost by a small margin of 27 votes in the 1996 party elections. In an interview with the New Straits Times (30 Jan 2000) she declared "I don’t want to be going on and on"…then immediately went on to explain why she wanted to become the chief once again.

Speaking of "going on", The Star quoted Rafidah recently as saying that the Anwar Ibrahim issue had no impact on foreign investments in the country. She believed "genuine investors know the real story…They know that people come and go, prime ministers come and go and deputy prime ministers come and go.... "Sometimes in their countries, they see six prime ministers in 10 years and they don’t even recognise their deputy prime minister, let alone idol-worship him."

It must be quite a big surprise to them though that in Malaysia, after 19 years, we still see one prime minister! And little wonder that there are those like Rafidah who idol-worship him. (But to be fair, she did complain in a note to Anwar about Daim and that "Mahathir had better shape up on his judgment of people...") Rafidah also said that foreign investors knew that the stability of politics in their country was "much, much, much, much less" than that in Malaysia…where it takes "much, much, much, much less" than a rumour of the PM falling from a horse to send the stock market diving? Much, much, much humbug here.

Rafidah claims that Wanita UMNO is divided. She is going to unite everyone by joining in the fray! We are all expected to believe that a contest in the Wanita wing will bring about much-needed unity, whilst a contest for the presidency and the vice-presidency would create greater division. And when suggested that she vie for a vice-president’s post, she replies: "I am not ghairah (overly eager) to do anything more. Nak tanding vice-president? Forget it." (Star, 15 Jan 2000). Yet, very strangely there seems to be ample place on her plate for the UMNO Wanita’s crown – a position (as one of her supporters had highlighted) that will demand even greater responsibility than being a vice-president!

Post-election Penang was jolted when the two Lims declared their intention to leave Gerakan and, subsequently, did leave the party for the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA). There were some unpleasant exchanges between leaders of the two Chinese-majority parties in the ruling coalition. Apparently the Gerakan still don’t quite understand why the two Lims quit. A bit out of time, a bit out of tune the Gerakan leaders are now singing (more like whingeing actually) the Village People’s, "Why MCA?" these days. No such confusion in Kelantan and Terengganu. Apparently, the Carpenters’ tune "We’ve Only Just Begun" is a big hit in the two states, among PAS members, of course.

The latest twist to the Bahasa Baku controversy leaves many concerned Malaysians agape: pronounce it the standardised way only when you teach Bahasa Melayu, but not when teaching history, geography, etc.

A policy spelt out in this manner paves the way for Bahasa Baku to be transformed into Bahasa Beku because the standardised Malay is "frozen" within the confines of Malay-language teaching. Such a restriction obviously denies it room to grow and survive.

This neither-here-nor-there policy will certainly cause unnecessary confusion among schoolchildren whose shoulders have already been burdened by heavy bags full of textbooks. How are we to tell them that history, for example, doesn’t qualify to be taught in Bahasa Baku? Moreover, how does one teach in this particular situation where language is put in its historical context: "Dalam sejarah bahasa Melayu di negara kita, suatu kacau bilau tercetus akibat dari perubahan polisi bahasa secara mendadak. (In our nation’s history of the Malay language, a conundrum broke out of a drastic policy shift.)"

What the government in general and the Education Ministry in particular sorely requires is a standardisation of inconsistencies that would earn them an ISO 9000 award.