Bank Indonesia’s 2007 economic-prognosis meeting last week concluded the country would grow at only 5.5 percent this year, lower than the government target of 5.9 percent and slightly below last year’s expansion of 5.6 percent. The central bank did chart out a brighter outlook for 2007, predicting growth at between 5.7 and 6 percent. But this projection is contingent upon tough preconditions and is vulnerable to high downside risks. The most probable outcome is likely to be the lower estimate, of 5.7 percent.

The reasons for this year’s lackadaisical economic performance are familiar. The dramatic fiscal measure of slashing fuel subsidies in October 2005 required an equally drastic tightening of monetary policy, while bureaucratic inertia foiled the government’s pump-priming program. The devastating earthquake in Yogyakarta, and another tsunami in the western part of Java all added to the economic slowdown. Bank lending grew only by 7.3 percent in the first nine months of this year

The macroeconomic conditions did, however, improve during the past three months, with year-on-year inflation down to 6.3 percent in October, the rupiah remaining stable and the central bank easing money policy by cutting its benchmark rate to 10.25 percent. Some revival in investment could also be noted from the significant increase in the imports of capital goods, to more than US$850 million in August.

The challenges, nevertheless, remain daunting if the country is to achieve 6 percent economic growth next year.

One of the conditions, set by the central bank, is that public spending should run according to schedule. Meanwhile, in the first eight months of this year, this bureaucratic “inertia” combined with high interest rates, prompted many local administrations to simply invest budget money in banks and bonds; money that should have been spent on local development.

The other conditions are no less challenging; the acceleration of infrastructure development, especially in energy and transportation, larger non-oil exports, better distribution systems for goods, an increase in production capacity and stability in administered prices — not another shock like the 126 percent fuel price hike last year.

These conditions require an increased pace of private investment and a significant improvement in public sector governance, neither of which are not likely to take place in the first half of next year because of the long delays in badly needed reforms. The problem is that the executive branch of the government does not have total control over these reforms; they are also in the hands of the House of Representatives.

Unfortunately, the House does not have any sense of urgency or crisis, although more than 11 million people are unemployed, 30 million others are underemployed and almost 40 million are living below the poverty line.

Bills on tax and investment have already been delayed for more than three years and are not likely to be completed this year. These laws could be enacted in the first semester of next year but there will likely be some time lag before they are fully enforced.

Likewise, the reform of labor regulations has been in limbo without a clear time table as the government has succumbed to pressures from trade union leaders, who are opposed to the amendments of the 2003 labor law. All these reforms are vital for businesses.

Easing inflation does provide room for Bank Indonesia to lower interest rates but persistently high business risks will not likely allow for the expansion in bank lending of at least 18 percent, which Bank Indonesia says is needed to support 6 percent growth.

Then there is the absence of any real progress in the reform of the public sector. Almost nothing has been done to fix state companies and the civil service, when it is this very bureaucratic machinery that must execute the reform measures already introduced early this year.

No wonder that the appointment of highly respected economist and policy-maker Boediono to the Yudhoyono Cabinet last December has not helped the government deliver on policy.

Concerted efforts are also needed to improve regional administrations’ fiscal management skills, as they are now in charge of managing more than 50 percent of the government’s budget.

The government should not be lulled into complacency by the brighter outlook foreseen by the central bank.

The preconditions for these rosy prospects will be tough to meet.

 The Jakarta Post, November 29, 2006

Israel’s olive branch is an opportunity for the Palestinians — if they can accept the facts of life in the Mideast.

–

WHETHER THE impetus was a shaky cease-fire in the Gaza Strip or President Bush’s visit to the Middle East, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Monday unexpectedly extended an olive branch to the Palestinians. If the Palestinian Authority — including the Islamic party Hamas — doesn’t respond in kind, it will be yet another golden opportunity for Mideast peace squandered.

Speaking against the backdrop of a truce designed to end months of violence in Gaza, Olmert offered to engage Palestinians in new talks to create something even many liberal Israelis once considered unthinkable: an independent Palestinian state.

Declaring that “I hold out my hand in peace to our Palestinian neighbors in the hope that it won’t be returned empty,” Olmert offered to uproot Jewish settlements in the West Bank, reduce the number of checkpoints, unfreeze funds withheld from the cash-strapped Palestinian Authority and release “numerous Palestinian prisoners, including ones who are sentenced to lengthy prison terms.”

In exchange, the nascent state of Palestine, and its Hamas-led Cabinet, would have to recognize Israel’s right to exist, and Hamas would have to return Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, who was captured in June. The stage would then be set for negotiations toward the two-state solution envisioned in the “road map” for peace endorsed in 2002 by the United States, the United Nations, Russia and the European Union.

The timing of Olmert’s initiative could cause him political problems at home. Given Israel’s unsatisfying war against Hezbollah in Lebanon last summer, continued violence in the Gaza Strip and disarray in the Palestinian Authority, Olmert was expected to shy away not just from negotiations but from his own proposal for unilateral Israeli withdrawal from some occupied territories.

Especially delicate is Olmert’s willingness to trade captured Palestinian prisoners for Shalit, considering that when Hezbollah guerrillas from Lebanon kidnapped two Israeli soldiers in July for the express purpose of forcing a prisoner swap, Israel responded with a retaliatory attack that eventually killed 1,200 Lebanese (most of them civilians) and 157 Israelis.

It would be a tragedy, most of all for the Palestinians, if Olmert’s initiative were rebuffed. Hamas is not being asked to approve of the creation of Israel half a century ago, only to recognize that the modern Jewish state is a legal government endorsed by the United Nations and deserving of security. It’s not enough for Hamas to enter into a hudna, or 10-year truce — a scenario floated by Ahmed Yousef, an advisor to Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Ismail Haniya. Hamas’ recognition should be a nonnegotiable issue both for Israel and the United States.

The late Yasser Arafat dawdled and dissembled for years before finally accepting Israel’s existence, a belated accommodation to reality that led to a White House invitation for the erstwhile terrorist and the creation of the Palestinian Authority. If Hamas is willing to recognize the same fact of life, the benefits for the Palestinians could be even more dramatic.

Los Angeles Times, November 28, 2006

Suddenly, surprisingly, Israeli and Palestinian leaders reached a truce in the Gaza Strip over the weekend. There’s dramatic, but still tentative, talk of a new peace initiative. “We cannot change the past, and we will not be able to bring back the victims on both sides of the borders,” said Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. “All that we can do today is stop additional tragedies.”

The Middle East has heard such hopeful rhetoric over and over again in the past decades. It has amounted, unfortunately, to very little.

Nevertheless, it is welcome.

But just as there may be no regional resolution without Iran and Syria, there’s little chance that enough pressure can be exerted in any of these conflicts without action from the rest of the Arab world. Terrorists and insurgents can’t flourish if Arab states take strong steps to stanch the flow of money and arms–much of it from Iran and Syria–to sectarian militias and terrorist groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah. If the leaders in countries like Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia want peace in the region, they’re going to have to do a lot more than talk about it. 

Chicago Tribune, Published November 28, 2006

In just eight days’ time, Turkey’s 25-year bid to become a full member of the European Union may be over. Accession talks with the EU broke down yesterday over Ankara’s refusal to open its ports to Cypriot vessels. If, by Dec. 8, this refusal has not been revoked, it is highly likely that for the first time in its history, Brussels will completely abandon negotiations for the accession of a new member. Such a development would bring quiet satisfaction in those European capitals, particularly Paris and Berlin, which have opposed Turkish membership on fundamentally racist grounds. Only the avowedly free-market Irish and British remain committed to Turkey’s dynamic 73 million population joining the 456 million in the 25 EU member countries.

Ankara has consistently failed to anticipate or counter the subtle maneuverings against it in many European chancelleries. Though some economic and social reforms have been made, its human rights record and its slow-moving and dubious civil courts have continued to offer ammunition to its opponents. Its Achilles heel, however, has always been Cyprus. Turkey’s long and dogged support for the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, (TRNC), created when Turkish troops intervened in 1974 after a pro-Greek Cypriot coup, has been an object lesson in diplomatic inflexibility. Only when the Turkish Cypriot population voted to rejoin the Greek part of the island did Ankara and Raul Dentktash, the veteran TRNC leader, accept reunion. But it was too late. On the eve of joining the EU in their own right, the Greek Cypriots in their own referendum overwhelmingly rejected reunification.

Actual negotiations for EU accession only began in 2005 but Turkey had been knocking on the door of Europe since the first government of Turgut ضzal in 1980. The formal application was first made in 1987. Turkish patience is legendary but so perhaps is ultimately its anger when that patience is exhausted. If this is the end of its EU ambitions, what is the country to do next? Europe may well remain its most important trading partner and in fact, a large proportion of the billions of dollars of inward investment in recent years was predicated upon EU membership. Will that money now remain in the country?

In the last decade Ankara has tried with mixed success to expand its relations and trade with the Turkic states of the former Soviet Union. Its relations with the Arab world have been cordial but sometimes clouded by suspicions that the Turkish military has a close relationship with their Israeli counterparts. The truce with the Kurds in the east may be breaking down. Ankara remains deeply disturbed by the de facto emergence of an autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq.

For almost 50 years after the creation of the Republic, Turkey lived largely by its own choice in relative economic and political isolation. Its return to the world economy 25 years ago was welcomed by both Europeans and Americans. Now the Europeans at least seem poised to withdraw the welcome mat. Does that mean that Turkey will turn in upon itself once again?

Arab News, 28 November 2006

Where to now, Becks? With Becks’ bum having an intimate relationship with the Real Madrid bench, rumours circulated this week that the former England captain is packing his bags in readiness for a move. But where to, Becks? Inter Milan, Tottenham and Israeli side Maccabi Netanya have all expressed an interest, as have Celtic. But Celtic’s manager, Wee Gordon Strachan, has been quick to suggest that Celtic might not be the Beckham’s final destination.

“We shipped him off to Marseille sharpish,” we’re presuming was the reply.

–By Surdid Simon Burgess

The Malay Mail,  27 November, 2006

The New Straits Times Press (Malaysia) Bhd (NSTP) and Utusan Melayu (Malaysia) Bhd may be on the verge of a merger to create the country’s largest media group.

Sources said the proposals, which were first initiated about six months ago, had been set into motion and it was learnt that Utusan’s board will meet today to discuss the matter.

Under the proposed merger, NSTP and Utusan will be de-listed and their current shareholders will be offered new shares in a new entity, based on the companies’ book value.

It is learnt that due to the higher value of NSTP’s net tangible assets (NTA), its shareholders may also benefit from a cash payout from the new company.

This will pave the way for Media Prima Bhd, which holds 32.94% of NSTP, and Umno, which owns 50.46% of Utusan, to jointly control the new entity.

When contacted, Media Prima chief executive officer Abdul Rahman Ahmad declined to deny or confirm the speculation.

“We can’t comment at this juncture; we are always looking for ways to create shareholder value in NSTP.

“There has been a lot of speculation. At this point, it is just rumour,” he told FinancialDaily on Nov 27.

NSTP’s NTA per share at Sept 30, 2006 was RM4.12 and Utusan Melayu’s amounted to RM2.06 at end-July 2006. NSTP and Utusan have a paid-up capital of RM217.23 million and RM109.22 million respectively.

Yesterday, NSTP’s share price rallied 24 sen or 10.67% to close at RM2.49, its highest in nine months. A total of 2.59 million shares were transacted at prices ranging from RM2.28 to RM2.49.

Utusan added 16 sen or 14.68% to RM1.25, the highest since May, with 2.87 million shares done at between RM1.12 and RM1.26.

Citing executives close to the proposed merger, a foreign newspaper report on Nov 27 said the proposal had obtained the green light from Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

The report said editorially, the two entities would remain independent of each other and would maximise resources in non-editorial matters such as marketing, advertising and utilisation of printing plants, particularly NSTP’s Shah Alam plant.

A local research house said such a merger would mark the largest print media consolidation ever under the Malay print industry in Malaysia.

“Total industry advertising expenditure (adex) is in a slowdown now, which calls for consolidation to reap the benefits of economies of scale.

“We note that both companies are now making losses, which we believe, however, is not the main concern for this potential move. The deal could pull NSTP under direct UMNO control,” it said.

Other analysts said among the factors to determine the merger would be the advertising revenue.

“We have to look at the cashflow, which is the advertising revenue, and not only at NTA since they are not manufacturing plants,” said an analyst.

NSTP posted a net profit of RM6.4 million in the third quarter ended Sept 30, 2006. It has RM14.29 million cash.

Analysts said NSTP continued to face an uphill battle to arrest the decline in its English adex newspaper share, with a circulation of about 150,000 copies per day.

Consensus net loss was RM4.6 million for financial year (FY) ending Dec 31, 2006. However, NSTP was forecast to turn around in FY07 with a RM17.3 million net profit, following cost-cutting measures.

Utusan reported a net profit of RM2.37 million for the second quarter ended June 2006. It has RM42.15 million cash.

The Edge Daily, Malaysia, 27-11-2006

Bahrain went to the polls amid fears of vote rigging and violence on Saturday. Late yesterday, Islamists had the last laugh by registering a comfortable victory in the parliamentary elections held in the kingdom for the second time in four years. The election results sent shock waves across the pro-government Sunni camp. The Islamists literally drove a wedge between the warring Shi’ites and Sunnis and turned the votes in their favour, leaving the liberal candidates far behind. Some 300,000 Bahrainis exercised their franchise in the polls to elect 40 MPs and 40 municipal councillors with 206 candidates vying for the parliament and 165 for the municipal council. The island witnessed violent scenes and sordid campaign as electioneering exceeded limits of decency. However, no untoward incident happened, thanks to a mature behaviour of the Bahrainis beginning to enjoy the first fruits of nascent democracy.

However, the main Shi’ite opposition had questioned the mode of conduct of the poll, which according to them was orchestrated to favour of the minority Sunnis. They had the apprehension that the government wanted to crush down the majority community of Shi’ites, who make up 60 per cent of the island’s 700,000 population. Shi’ites won 16 seats in the poll – three seats more than they expected. This result would certainly force the government to ponder twice before making a strategic move on course to fulfilling the promises of democracy. The Shi’ites, who represent the Al Wefaq Islamic Society, had boycotted the 2002 election because of the strife between the government and the opposition and have sympathy for Islamists whose triumph was not a stray situation typical of Bahrain.

Other Arabs states, especially Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon and Palestine, too were closely monitoring developments in Bahrain in the face of sizeable Shi’ite presence in their respective countries. All these countries are being faced with external problems from Israel and internal issues vis-à-vis Islamists. Hezbollah has already become a force to be reckoned with in Lebanon and the confidence of Islamic hardliners is on the rise following Iran’s achievements in nuclear enrichment. This is an area of concern for Arab Gulf countries too because their Iranian neighbour is slowly emerging as an influential political force in the region and is backing the Islamists. Iran’s latest overtures to hold tripartite talks with Syria and Iraq must be seen as a move in this direction. The poll results in Bahrain, indeed, embolden the clout of Islamists.
The Peninsula, November 27, 2006

Social Security reform may be back on the agenda.

–

THE BUSH administration has signaled that it wants to discuss Social Security reform with the incoming Democratic majority in Congress. This may sound quixotic: President Bush failed to secure reform when his own party controlled the legislature, so what hope does he have now? But the president’s top economic advisers, including his Treasury secretary, his chief of staff and his budget director, appear ready to drop what Democrats call privatization — the diversion of payroll tax revenue into personal retirement accounts. Unless they want to define themselves as unbendingly partisan, the Democrats should accept the administration’s invitation to discuss reform.

Democrats who want to avoid such talks will assert that the administration is not acting in good faith. In a news story in Wednesday’s Post, Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.), the incoming chairman of a House subcommittee on Social Security, cited the nomination of Andrew G. Biggs, a proponent of personal accounts, to the No. 2 slot at the Social Security Administration. “The president is sending signals that what he’s really after is privatization,” Mr. Levin asserted. “And that’s just a non-starter.” But Mr. Biggs is respected and liked by Democratic economists, who have no trouble discussing reform ideas with him. The administration has recently acquired a pragmatic, deal-oriented Treasury chief. Refusing even to discuss reform with him would be to pass up an opportunity to fix a pressing problem.

Some Democrats dispute the urgency of the problem, arguing that the notional assets in the Social Security trust fund are sufficient to pay all the benefits promised to retirees for the next 40 years. But a retirement system needs to make credible promises that last longer than that: A worker who is 30 can’t entrust her retirement to a program that will run short of money as she turns 70. Moreover, a solvency fix for Social Security requires a long lead time. Cuts in benefits must be signaled years ahead so that workers have time to plan for them. Any increase in the payroll tax needs to be implemented soon in order to keep the size of the increase to an acceptable level.

Another argument against addressing Social Security is that health care is more pressing. It’s true that the budget challenge Social Security presents, which is the result of the retirement of the baby boomers plus rising life expectancy, pales next to the budget challenge Medicare presents, which is the result of those two factors multiplied by galloping inflation in health-care costs. But it makes sense to start with whichever part of the entitlement problem can be tackled most readily, and that is likely to mean Social Security. The administration has indicated that it is ready to do a deal on the retirement system, and much of the technical groundwork has been done. There is nothing to stop Democratic leaders from advancing health proposals too, but for the moment neither they nor the administration have a plausible blueprint for reining in Medicare costs.

If the Democrats engage on Social Security, they may find themselves discussing some form of personal retirement accounts. This should not be confused with “privatization”: Personal accounts that are added to the Social Security system are different from ones that are funded with money carved out from existing payroll revenue. Creating such add-on accounts could boost national savings, allow workers to build nest eggs and cushion them from the benefit cuts that are inevitably part of a reform. As they respond to the administration’s overtures, Democrats should not foreclose this option.

The Washington Post, Monday, November 27, 2006

TORONTO: Just who fatally poisoned former Russian intelligence agent Alexander Litvinenko in London remains unknown. The victim had no doubt. He accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of giving the order to kill him. ‘Those bastards have got me’ he said on his deathbed. The favoured weapons of Soviet “wet affairs” assassination units were undetectable poisons developed by Moscow’s top secret “Lab X” that made victims appear to have died from natural causes.

Ukraine’s nationalist leader Viktor Yushchenko, Chechen independence fighter Khattab and now Litvinenko were all victims of untraceable poisons. PLO leader Yasser Arafat may also have been victim of a similar toxin.

Bulgarian dissident, Georgi Markov was poisoned in London in 1978. In 2004, exiled Chechen president Salim Yandarbiyev was murdered by Russian agents in Qatar.

Archives of Bulgaria’s intelligence service – which often performed “wet affairs” for the KGB are due to be opened shortly. Three senior archivists of these files have “committed suicide”, two recently.

The Litvinenko affair is incredibly murky and just as fascinating. To understand it, go back to 1989.

As the Soviet Union began crumbling, I was the first western journalist given access to KGB’s top brass, headquarters, and archives. “KGB is a powerful force behind modernisation and reform”, I reported from Moscow that year, adding that KGB’s brightest officers from the elite First Chief Directorate had decided to abandon the communists and seize control of business and government.

The First Directorate’s agents, including up-and-comer Vladimir Putin, were Russia’s best-educated, most sophisticated citizens. They knew communism had wrecked Russia. KGB chiefs told me in 1989 they wanted a “Russian Pinochet” – a strongman who would bring in capitalism and make Russia and Russians work.

Today, two decades later, former KGB officers run the Kremlin, Russia’s government, and much of its industry.

As the USSR collapsed, a group of financial opportunists now known as the “oligarchs” grabbed control of its industries and resources. Led by Boris Berezhovsky, they formed the core support for Boris Yeltsin’s stumbling regime – with huge amounts of covert US finance.

The KGB – which divided in 1991 into the foreign SVR and internal FSB – viewed Berezovsky and other oligarchs as traitors and foreign agents

In 1991, the Chechens, who had battled Russian colonial rule for 300 years, demanded independence from Russia like its other former republics. Berezovsky backed their calls.

In 1994, Yelstin provoked a war and sent his army to crush Chechen independence. Savage Russian bombing and shelling killed up to 100,000 Chechens.

In a military miracle, Chechen fighters defeated Russian forces and drove them out. In 1997, Yeltsin signed a peace treaty granting Chechnya independence.

But the “siloviki” – Russia’s security and military apparatus – were outraged and vowed revenge. They discredited Yeltsin as a drunken buffoon.

During 1999, Moscow and a provincial city were hit by a wave of apartment building bombings that killed 300 people. Panic swept Russia. The bombings were blamed on “Chechen Islamic terrorists”. But Moscow police caught a team of SVR agents red handed planting explosives in a residential building.

This awkward fact was hushed up. Then Prime Minister Putin called for total war “to wipe out Chechen terrorism”. Outraged Russians rallied behind him. Yeltsin was subsequently replaced by then little-known prime minister.

Putin used the bombings as a pretext to send his army to invade and re-conquer Chechnya. Russians gave him a huge electoral mandate in 2000 effectively endorsing one-man rule.

The parallels to the 9/11 attacks on American a year later were uncanny.

Lt Col Alexander Litvinenko wrote a book claiming his own agency, FSB, staged the apartment bombings, and allied himself to Berezhovsky, who had emerged as Putin’s principal rival for power. In 1998, Litvinenko publicly claimed the secret police planned to kill Berezovsky.

Litvinenko was jailed, then fled into exile in Britain. Berezovsky, charged with fraud, later followed him to exile in London where he continues plotting to overthrow Putin.

Shortly before Litvinenko was poisoned, he was investigating last month’s murder in Moscow of crusading Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya. She had courageously exposed Russian criminality and rights abuses in Chechnya. Politkovskaya told me she was marked for death by ‘silovoki’ and Russian gangsters. Litvinenko and Berezovsky accused Putin of authoring Politkovskaya’s murder. The Kremlin strongly denied it.

Both crimes have further damaged Russia’s image, and tarnished President Putin’s image as a strong but law-abiding leader. Yet one wonders why the Kremlin would risk igniting such a storm just to silence a minor figure whose accusations went largely unheeded.

Perhaps some thin-skinned ‘siloviki’ in Moscow reverted to old Soviet ways. The Kremlin blames a feud among Russian exiles. But the blood spots connect right to Moscow. One feels a chilly breeze from the days of the Cold War.

–By Eric S Margolis Special for the Gulf Times

Gulf Times, Sunday,26 November, 2006

THE tourism industry has become a massive revenue earner for many countries. For some, it is the number one source of government revenue.  In a world that’s “shrinking” with easier and faster modes of travelling, many people are willing to spend to see other parts of the world.

The direct and indirect benefits derived from focusing on this trade are immense, to say the least. The spin-offs are a major source of national and transnational investment, which help to a great extent in providing employment at all levels and keep several large and small industries ticking.

No one can deny that Visit Malaysia Year 2007 could not have been better timed, with it coinciding with the 50th National Day celebrations next year.

The Tourism Ministry has already started its push through our missions abroad and Tourism Malaysia offices in several parts of the world. We have spent millions of ringgit to announce to the world that we are ready for the influx. The target: about 20 million arrivals.

But the big question is: “Are all Malaysians ready to help make the visitors’ stay a pleasant experience so that they will carry happy tales to tell their relatives and friends back home?”

If you may recall, the first question you ask your friend or relative when they return from a trip abroad is “How’s the country? Did you enjoy your stay?”

Just like when we are overseas for a holiday, those who come here, especially budget travellers, want fairly clean hotels that are not over-priced. We do not want complaints of bug-infested bed and breakfast lodges with filthy toilets in the cities to be a subject of discussions over the Internet.

With five weeks left before 2007, the licensing and enforcement authorities have a task on their hands to flush out these dirty toilets.

And beware of zealots who, in the name of religion and morality, could chase potential tourists away.

Let us also make it easy and safe for tourists to travel here. The touts at the airports and unscrupulous cabbies must be taken off the road or we will pay dearly for this.

Some time ago, The Star reporters on an undercover assignment proved that some of them charge as high as RM400 for a trip to Kuala Lumpur from KLIA. Although action is being taken, such activities are still going on. It has to be instilled on everyone that VMY 2007 is not about making a fast buck. It’s about getting tourists to come back to Malaysia a second time, or even more.

The last thing anyone wants to experience during a holiday is being mugged or becoming a snatch theft victim.

In this regard, perhaps the police should have a special VMY 2007 team to ensure security is adequate in popular tourist destinations.

VMY 2007 is going to be a 12-month affair, so let us show the nicer side of ourselves. Our show of hospitality at all levels will determine where we stand in the eyes of the world. This will be the finer touch to the tangible achievements that we so proudly shout about.

Are you ready?

The Star, Sunday November 26, 2006