Wednesday, February 29, 2012

"Karachi is Doomed, Karachi is Indestructible" by Andrew Marshall

TIME - Karachi is doomed. Karachi is indestructible. Drink tea with Hussein Hazari at his tiny shop in the city’s old quarter, and both statements feel true. Hazari is a neat, guarded man who wears a spotless white robe and a gold-laced skullcap. He sits with his constantly beeping BlackBerry, amid shelves stacked with spray paint, car polish and adhesives. Recently, Hazari began selling another product: gun lubricant. “I thought it was worth a try, because weapons are so readily available here,” he says.

That’s an understatement. More than a thousand people died last year in ethnic turf wars fuelled by heavily armed supporters of Karachi’s main political parties, perishing in street battles fought with assault rifles, machine guns and grenades. Some victims were decapitated. An official likened a Cabinet briefing on the violence to “watching the trailer of a horror movie.”
There could be a sequel. Despite the heavy presence of Rangers, there are fears the city is entering an even more dangerous era. This is worrying, because what happens in Karachi has global implications. “You cannot destroy Pakistan by destroying cities like Islamabad, Lahore and Peshawar,” says Mustafa Kamal, the city’s fast-talking former mayor. “You have to destabilise Karachi first, because it is Pakistan’s economic backbone, its oxygen provider.”

Karachi is a fractured city in a nuclear-armed and perhaps failing state, and its problems are Pakistan’s – and Pakistan’s belong to us all. The city’s port has been part of a vital supply line to US and coalition troops in landlocked Afghanistan. That route was closed in late November after NATO air strikes killed 25 Pakistani soldiers and pushed US relations with the country – already in free fall since the Navy SEAL operation that killed Osama bin Laden in May – to an all-time low.

Internally, Pakistan is dangerously divided. The ongoing “memogate” scandal has exposed tensions between the country’s powerful military and the weak civilian administration of President Asif Ali Zardari. The leak of the unsigned memo, in which Islamabad apparently asks for the Pentagon’s help to divert a feared military coup, forced the resignation of Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington and could ultimately topple Zardari himself.

Unsurprisingly, British author, academic and terrorism analyst Anatol Lieven calls Pakistan “perhaps the biggest and wobbliest domino on the world stage.” And the most dramatic symbol of that instability is Karachi. A recent surge in violence has sealed its reputation as life-threatening and unlivable. In November, global consulting firm Mercer ranked it 216th out of 221 cities in a personal-safety survey that took into account not just sectarian and ethnic unrest, but also terrorist attacks.

Of those, there have been plenty. On May 22, 2011, militants from the Pakistani Taliban seized the Mehran naval air base in Karachi to avenge bin Laden’s death. The base was retaken only after a 12-hour battle involving hundreds of Pakistani troops. Four months later, a Taliban suicide bomber killed eight people outside the home of Chaudhry Muhammad Aslam, Karachi’s senior superintendent of police. In 2010, the Taliban’s military chief, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, was captured not in some stifling mountain hideout, but in Karachi.

Take away political violence, and Karachi is still plagued by the common variety – armed robbery, kidnappings for ransom, murder – with only 30,000 underpaid police to tackle it all. And the city is still afflicted by the problems of a fast-growing metropolis: pollution, bad sanitation, slums and a transport system so overburdened that thousands of Karachiites commute to work on bus roofs. Chronic power shortages routinely plunge the “City of Lights” – as it was known in a bygone era – into darkness. In September, monsoon rains caused floods that brought the city to a halt. “It is perhaps Asia’s worst-governed megacity,” says Arif Hasan, an eminent Karachi architect and town planner.

When it comes to buying weapons, however, Karachi is king. That Karachi traders must sell gun lubricant to make ends meet shows just how far the city has sunk. Or it could be interpreted another way: as an example of the indomitable entrepreneurial spirit that makes this filthy, frenetic place a magnet for so many Pakistanis. For as well as representing Pakistan’s dysfunction, Karachi embodies its resilience. Wander Hazari’s bustling neighbourhood and you realise that what energises Karachi is not religion or ethnicity or politics, but commerce and its universal corollary: the dream of a better life.

A PLAGUE ON ALL THEIR HOUSES: War, trade and migration shaped modern Karachi, and shape it still. Its natural harbour and accessibility to interior Sindh and Central Asia ensured its rapid expansion during British colonial times. By the early 1940s, it was a predominantly Sindhi-speaking city of fewer than 500,000 people, half of them Hindus. Then came the bloody partition of India, in 1947. Most of Karachi’s Hindus fled to India, while huge numbers of India’s Urdu-speaking Muslims sought refuge in Karachi. By the 1950s, this influx had tripled the city’s population, which continues to multiply. According to a projection by the Asian Development Bank, Karachi could be home to at least 26 million by 2020.
Karachi’s Urdu-speakers called themselves Mohajirs, and in the 1980s, formed the political party that dominates the city today. The Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) owes its rise to “efficient organisation and willingness to use violence and intimidation to achieve its goals,” according to the US State Department. But Karachi’s ethnic makeup is changing, and this is challenging MQM’s traditional dominance.

The city’s relative prosperity has long lured people from across the country. However, military operations against the Taliban in northwest Pakistan have accelerated the influx of ethnic Pashtun and boosted the influence of the Awami National Party (ANP), which claims to represent them. The ANP won two seats in Sindh’s 168-seat provincial assembly in the 2008 polls – an electoral first for the party.

MQM’s main rival – and also its partner in Pakistan’s shaky ruling coalition – is the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP). In Karachi, the PPP traditionally represents the interests of ethnic Sindhis, whose numbers have been boosted by refugees from last year’s devastating floods. Many Sindhis accuse the MQM of attempting to separate Karachi from the rest of the province and turn it into a Mohajir enclave.

In short, Karachi is riven by complex ethnic and political fault lines, which intersect bafflingly with local criminal interests and national affairs. And when every resource – every job, house or bucket of clean water – is scarce, and every vote coveted, it is no surprise that the prospect of civic harmony feels remote.

The first battle in Karachi’s current turf war erupted in May 2007. After General Pervez Musharraf suspended Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, anti-Musharraf lawyers sponsored Chaudhry’s visit to Karachi. The MQM, which supported Musharraf, was blamed for fomenting what followed: deadly clashes with the lawyers, and PPP and ANP loyalists. Karachi burned and corpses choked the streets.

The MQM’s headquarters lie in a middle-class neighbourhood, guarded by young men in baseball caps and aviator shades. It was there that I met ex-mayor Kamal, who is credited with improving the city’s decrepit infrastructure, and embodies what Lieven has called “the dream ... of Karachi as a Muslim Singapore on the Arabian Sea.” As an MQM politician, however, Kamal is bitter about the partisanship that is tearing his home city apart.
Kamal blames the city’s descent into lawlessness on Zulfiqar Mirza who, as the home minister, controlled the Karachi police. The police, it is universally agreed, did nothing to stop this year’s violence. Mirza has railed publicly against the MQM: “For your own sake, for Pakistan’s sake, for Karachi’s sake, stand up and rid us of these wretched people,” he fumed in July 2011. At least a dozen people were killed in the hours that followed. Mirza later resigned, saying, “I have raised my voice against violence in this city, and will continue to do so.”

DOVES AND HAWKS: That the MQM, PPP and ANP have militant armed wings is one of Karachi’s worst-kept secrets. Their leaders deny this (although Kamal concedes that many MQM supporters own licensed weapons “for self-defence”) and, in strikingly similar terms, portray themselves not as perpetrators of violence, but as its peace-loving victims. Kamal gave me a VCD titled ‘Genocide of Mohajir Nation’. Over footage of mutilated corpses, a narrator accused ANP “mercenaries” of joining forces with PPP “terrorists” to slaughter MQM supporters last year. A sign at the entrance to the MQM’s headquarters reads ‘STREET OF LOVE AND PEACE’.

Across town, at the ANP’s office – situated in a mansion in Karachi’s poshest district – are a white dove and a sign reading ‘PEACE ON EARTH’. Not that Shahi Syed is much of a dove. He is a hulking, square-jawed Pashtun who accuses the MQM of ethnic cleansing, extortion and vote rigging. Ordinary Mohajirs are “good, educated, helpful people,” he says. “But MQM is a terrorist group that won’t allow us to make peace with the Urdu-speaking community.” Hundreds of ANP activists and ordinary Pashtun died in this year’s violence, claims Syed.

The gulf between Karachi’s political leaders is mirrored on the streets. “Employers only give jobs to members of their own ethnic group,” says Abdul Ahad, a Kashmiri resident of the Mohajir-dominated district of Nazimabad. “People have stopped trusting one another.” That’s also true in Qasba Colony, where some of the worst bloodshed recently occurred. The neighbourhood clings to a dusty ridge in northern Karachi. Hanging from the rebar that sprout from rooftops are tattered ANP and MQM flags. Party initials are graffitied on the walls like gangland tags.

Muhammad Kashif, 18, showed off three bullet holes in his family’s tea shop. Fighting broke out after a neighbour was killed and “cut to pieces” while buying bread in a Pashtun area, he says. Kashif hid in his house for three days until the Rangers arrived to enforce a fragile truce. “There’s still a lot of uncertainty,” says Kashif. “The situation could get bad again.”

Achieving peace is not the only critical issue dividing Karachi’s politicians. For the past two years, this megacity has been in an administrative limbo, while the PPP and MQM squabble over how it should be run: by a locally elected government or centrally appointed bureaucrats. “Nobody is talking about how essential services will be provided to the citizens,” says Noman Ahmed, an architect and town planner with the NED University of Engineering and Technology. “That appears to be a sideline.” Karachi remains a maximum city with minimum governance.

The MQM’s decline is inevitable, believes Shahnawaz Farooqi, because, despite its political stranglehold, the party has done little to improve city life. For Farooqi – a Mohajir who writes for a newspaper owned by Jamaat-e-Islami – Karachi is proof that “secular forces are failing in every respect” and that “religious parties will emerge as a strong political force on their own merit.” He points to post-Mubarak Egypt, where Islamic parties won at least two-thirds of the seats in recent parliamentary elections.

However, Pakistan’s religious parties fared poorly in the last national elections, in 2008. The religious coalition known as the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal lost 50 out of 272 seats in the assembly, falling to a total of just six. Even if they were to establish a presence in provincial assemblies like Sindh’s, there is no guarantee religious parties would run Karachi any better. A December report by Crisis Group, the Brussels-based think tank, says that they are “committed to a narrow partisan agenda and willing to defend it through violence” – a description that could apply equally to Karachi’s secular parties.

SALVATION IN GROWTH: So, is there any good news? Ghazi Salahuddin, a member of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) who investigated the recent violence, has mixed feelings. On one hand, he takes heart in Karachi’s growing civic-mindedness, pointing to successful local nonprofits such as the Citizens Foundation or Shehri. On the other, he wonders whether such efforts will be “overwhelmed by the darkness.” By that, he means continued political bloodshed. “While gangs of land-grabbers and mafias have tried to exploit the breakdown of law and order,” reported the HRCP in September, “they do not appear to be the main directors of the horrible game of death and destruction; that distinction belongs to more powerful political groups.”

If Karachi’s future depends upon its politicians, then it’s hard to be optimistic. “None of the parties negotiate on principles,” says town planner Hasan. “They negotiate on the basis of guarding their turf, then consolidating and expanding it.”

Yet, Hasan finds cause for hope in an unusual place: urbanisation. The same rapid expansion that has crippled the city might also liberate it by throwing people together, he says, raising expectations and creating “a new world with new freedoms [and] aspirations that are changing the feudal relations and mindset of Pakistani society.”

At Karachi’s universities, for example, women students often outnumber men, even in traditionally male-dominated subjects. “I taught a batch of 35 students in which 34 were girls,” recalls the architect Ahmed. These young women also seem to be marrying much later, as are the men. “For the first time in the history of this city, you have an overwhelming majority of unmarried adolescents, which is enough to change family structures and gender relations,” says Hasan. “Project these figures 10 years from now, and you will have a totally different Karachi.”

The forces of urbanisation benefit not only Karachi’s middle-classes, but also its new arrivals. In the past, says Ahmed, Pashtun men worked in Karachi and remitted their earnings to families in the conservative hinterlands. Now, they are bringing their families with them – not to “Talibanise” the city, as MQM propagandists put it, but to gain access to jobs, healthcare and education. “They even send their girls to school, which is not something they’d do back in their hometowns.”

Karachi is doomed. Karachi is indestructible. Meet students on the NED campus, and you sense they are battling with the same contradiction. They despair of ever dislodging the politicians they unanimously blame for the city’s dysfunction. But they still have hope for their hyperkinetic hometown. When I asked Fariha Sajid, a 21-year-old architecture student, which part of Karachi was her favourite, she shot me a challenging look. “All of it,” she replied.

15 comments:

  1. Are we to comment on this article or the reply to this article?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm assuming we were supposed to comment on the reply so this is mine. If needed I will also comment on this article.

    ________________________________________________________________
    The thing that strikes me most about Mr. Lazaros’s reply is that he seems to miss the key point of the article in question. What the original author meant to say was basically that Karachi is a troubled place and that he wanted to highlight the problems that occur. What he (Mr. Lazaro) is doing is to promote the gems that are found in the rough terrains of Pakistan, which is a noble effort on his part but at the very same time, does not really engage with the fact that Karachi is in fact troubled, which after reading the original article, I feel to be extremely relevant. His response to this is to, and I quote “Please show me a city in this world that is free from political fighting and unrest.” which to me feels very childish. This shows him to be dismissive of the idea that Karachi is indeed troubled and that he only wishes to go on a more ‘happy’ path. But I indeed agree with Mr. Lazaro when he pointed out how everyone else gets a break every once in a while in that with many other countries people do lay off their bad qualities and shine the spotlight on its attractions. This is by far the only redeeming factor to his reply in which he hits exactly the right note in pointing out how everyone seems to paint a dark, war-torn picture of Pakistan without ever including a rainbow inside. The next part of his essay though is a bit harder to swallow. When he brings up examples of how some people were doing well (the towel company, the universities, etc.) he tries to distract people from the fact that this is not what the whole of Pakistan is like. He focuses too much on the good things without exposing to us what it is really like for the masses in Pakistan, which I can assume he doesn’t want to talk about because it could actually harm his credibility. In conclusion, Mr. Lazaro’s reply is very shortsighted but with one excellent piece of observation which warrants a commendation but the rest of his article should be taken with a pinch of salt.

    Signed,
    Amir.

    ReplyDelete
  3. According to what I have seen and read from both articles, Mr. Tony Lazaro is being a wee bit bias in his rebuttal. He wrote more about the good and positive side of Karachi, which is almost the total opposite of what the original author has to say in the original article. He described Karachi almost as if Karachi is way better than the reality but the fact is Karachi is not. Mr. Tony should have included the reality of Karachi in his rebuttal and by doing so the reader can understand both the good and the bad side of Karachi. However, it cannot be denied that Mr. Tony gives good facts in his piece and this shows that the article can be trusted by the reader. One thing that I have to agree with Mr. Tony is that the role of the media is very important. The media can tear down a country but it can also promote a country to a new light to the whole world. In conclusion, Mr. Tony should have put his emotion aside and not being bias. He should have written about the both sides of Karachi, not just the positive but also the negative side of the country.

    By,
    Grace LJ

    ReplyDelete
  4. As said in Mr. Tony Lazaro's article, this is a rebuttal to the original TIME article, of course he will be writing on the good of Karachi. Yes, I admit he is being a wee bit bias in the article, but since the first piece has given the readers such a negative image on Karachi, Mr. Tony is merely trying to project a more positive side of Karachi to the readers. As a reader, the first article would have made me think that Karachi is really doomed, but the Mr. Tony's rebuttal did change my point of view towards the country. I agree with Grace's point saying that the media plays an essential role in promoting or destroying a country's image in words. Therefore, I would say that Mr. Tony's piece of article gave some new light towards Karachi.

    By,
    Ee Lyn

    ReplyDelete
  5. In my opinion, Mr Lazaro is being bias to the positive side of Karachi. This might be based on his experiences and what he had seen from the trip as different people had different point of views. Andrew's article has clearly portrayed the hardship that the resident has to bear with in order to stay alive but obviously Mr Lazaro does not able to feel the sufferings of these people. Even though, he admitted karachi's problems but insisted on defending it as he believed that the same goes to other countries, but , he should rather aware that other countries do not experience the problems as bad as what has been described in Andrew's article. However, Mr. Lazaro stands on the good sides of Karachi has changed my views towards Karachi.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The article written by Andrew Marshall truly highlighted the devastating issues happened at Karachi. Reading it made me imagine how tremendous and shaky experience that the people faced in such a doomed and paralyzed city. However, after reading the article by Tony Lorenzo, those bad impressions quickly subsidized and turned out to be impressive. What Tony was trying to convey was his unsatisfaction towards Andrew’s report that seemed really exaggerating on the dark side of Pakistan. Yes, he admitted all the problems happening there, but due to his feeling of responsibilities and humanity after the charitable trip, he made the article sounds biased towards Pakistan. Although the examples given may seem impropriate and not fair to other countries, he was trying to make the situation faced by the people at Karachi fair enough if it is viewed in other perspective. Comparisons and concrete evidence that he gave truly open my eyes wide and really change my perceptions on Pakistan. Basically, Tony was not only complained and critiqued about the chaoses that were reported continuously, but he provided alternatives and reasons so that readers would view Pakistan in a better way and a chance to be seen in a brighter side. I agree with Grace that writing plays an important role in changing the world’s perception and even can make a big change. The proverb ‘a pen is mightier than a sword’ is indeed true.

    by,
    Anis

    ReplyDelete
  7. From my point of view, Mr Lazaro is overbiased. He only looks at the good things happening in Pakistan and he tries to brush off the negative issues by saying that it happens everywhere. Sure, bad things do occur anywhere and everywhere regardless of place or time but isn't that the same for good things? Furthermore, the negative issues in Pakistan far outnumber the positive issues there and it's only natural that people focus of the bad things. Why would people talk about all the good things in the 1st world countries and not much about the bad things? It is because relatively, there is not really much bad things to be said about them (1st world countries). Lastly, I've read quite a few articles from Times Magazine and most of the time, I do find them to be quite biased towards the west, typical capitalist propaganda, so the author is partially right.

    ReplyDelete
  8. City wide ethnic and turf wars,suicide bombs,political violence and armed robberies......Are these phenomena the only representatives of Karachi?A heartfelt appreciation to Mr Tony Lazaro for his dedicated effort to portray the positive sides of Karachi in its article entitled 'Unique Pakistan',which has always been neglected by many of us,especially the media.It's very true that none of the cities in the world are free from political,economical and social problems.However,in the article' Karachi is Doomed,Karachi is Indestructible' by Andrew Marshall,Karachi is promoted in such a way that this city is only the mixture of chaos and problems.Not even a single positive view was pointed out by the author,despite all those great people and achievements which Mr Tony Lazaro has highlighted in his article- the Alkaram Towels,cutting edge technology in developing APPS and unbelievably intelligent university students.I admire the way Mr Tony Lazaro delivered his idea.He started off in a well manner by saying that he enjoys reading the TIME magazine to show his respect to the editor,then only proceeded to his rebuttal.True evidences are given to support his arguments.At the same time,he did not forget to clarify that he has never denied the existence of those problems mentioned by Andrew Marshall.His intention is mainly to remind the readers not to conform slavishly on those bad qualities spotlighted by the media but stay wise and fair by looking further into Pakistan and see the true and complete story of it.Lastly,Mr Tony Lazaro ended his article by urging the media to offer a helping hand by exposing the public to the bright aspects of Pakistan,which would most probably assist in building Pakistan a more positive image to be shown to the world.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Reading what Mr. Lazaro have to say for Pakistan really changed my impression on that country. I never knew of or interested enough in Pakistan to find such impressive facts from the chaotic place .i.e. intelligent students “who spend their spare time creating APPS for android and apple” and tens of thousands of students competing with each other to get a seat for the medicine course there. So I assume we are all well aware of the potential these Pakistanis, who got accepted to be the only 83,have in them. I believe that Mr. Lazaro was not being biased but writing nothing but the truth having to be there himself. No one knows better about a situation than the one who experiences them. The magazine writer must have really do so much injustice to Pakistan for Mr. Lazaro to voice out his inner thoughts even though as an outsider(an Australian). Of course, I do not deny that there are possibilities that Mr. Lazaro has not mentioned the entire truth about Pakistan as in Pakistan has yet to calm down. I see that he is only hoping the world will give Pakistan a chance to rise once again, the reason he has been there, for a charitable trip. He tried to open our eyes to that country and to look in a different perspective. If that does not work for you, at the very least, it does, for me.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. In my opinion, Mr Tony's rebuttal clearly reflects his oversensitivity to the article. It is without doubt that the original piece mostly centered on the political instability of Pakistan but what Andrew Marshall did was just merely reporting the reality in Pakistan. However, in the latter part of the article, the author also revealed the struggle of Pakistani which aimed to bring back hope to their nation through education. Based on this fact, the author was trying to project a bright picture that hope is still available for Pakistani to salvage their country from irreversible devastation. In contrast, Mr Tony is being biased towards Pakistan where positive examples were given to support his stand on Pakistan and turns a blind eye on the negative parts, suggesting that it can be found elsewhere. In view of this, Mr Lazaro's critical response sounds irrational and defensive.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I agree with Mr Marshall about the problem faced by Pakistan and being labelled “perhaps the biggest and wobbliest domino on the world stage” but I don't think that doomed and indestructible is all there is of Karachi. Hence, I think Mr Lazaro did a good job on writing 'Unique Pakistan' as a rebuttal to Mr. Marshall's article. Mr Lazaro gives me a better impression of Pakistan with his straightforward but easy to understand article. He does not deny the problems faced by Pakistan but his main points was to highlight on the good of Pakistan. He mentioned about the towel manufacturing company and the work done by the university students which was impressive and shows the positive side of Pakistan. He also wrote based on his experience so it gives a stronger impact. I feel that Mr Lazaro was unbiased towards Pakistan since he did not deny or negate what Mr Marshall wrote but he feels very strongly towards Pakistan when he mention about how Pakistan do not need help, just moral support. I think it would be better if he could mention something about the beauty of Karachi such as the historical building or places to visit to make the article more sound. But overall, I feel that this is a good article that can be seen as an eyeopener to the public on Pakistan.

    Melissa

    ReplyDelete
  13. I truly enjoyed Andrew Marshall’s article for what it was; a comprehensive review of Karachi’s problems through the eyes of a foreigner. Mr. Lazaro’s reply however is confounding, albeit positive. I find Mr. Lazaro’s reply to be tinkering towards irrelevance at times. He appears to be highlighting fact after fact regarding Pakistan’s accomplishments, yet he does nothing to address the original issue at hand, which is Karachi’s abundance of problems, both political and religious. I get the feeling that he's saying 'Sure, there are problems in Pakistan, but as long as other countries face the same issues, it isn't relevant.' The author’s overtly positive view is unbalanced and it is this quality that damages the credibility of his rebuttal. I also sense a bit of contradiction on Mr. Lazaro's part. This is especially evident when he vehemently reprimands the media of other countries when they cover up the problems they face with good news and accomplishments, and then in the end unabashedly states that the media should do the same for Pakistan. He does however, shed some light on the issue at hand, which is the bias towards Pakistan, especially by western countries. The media's critical role in all this is highlighted as well. I also agree with the fact that certain capitalist countries exploit Pakistan’s weaknesses, which in turn promulgates prejudice. This is especially true with recent propaganda campaigns such as America’s war against terrorism. What truly baffles me is the lack of response from the Pakistanis themselves. Where are their voices? If they do not speak up, who will vouch for them? While Mr. Lazaro's efforts are commendable, I find his relative evaluation of Pakistan to be fundamentally flawed. His response exhibits bias as well as contradiction. It leaves me wondering.. Is Pakistan truly beginning to move on a road to reform? Or is the author merely trying to cover its flaws with flowery notions? While the author does provide substantial facts concerning the brighter side of Pakistan, the presentation and form of his rebuttal leaves much to be desired, and it leaves me with a bittersweet aftertaste.

    Jonathan

    ReplyDelete
  14. Salam and hi,

    I hope everyone has responded on this issue on Karachi.

    Attached is for Online Critique to be read and critique on.
    http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/11/13/columnists/contradictheory/9879783&sec=contradictheory

    TQ Madam Faridah

    ReplyDelete
  15. From Tony's point of view,is that the original article was totally one sided in which is undeniably not fair towards the country. If talking about weapon lubricants,black market dealings and political corruption,each and every country inhabited by human beings are possible susceptible towards this "bad culture". It is catastrophic to assume that they are safeguards towards bad outcomes,because they aren't! What I'm trying to point out is instead of focusing on the problem and bombarding with negative comments,we might as well focus on the positive and bombard it with encouragement. This might cause a vice-versa effect. Trying to magnify a country's negative build up will only cause negative accumulation therefore the media has neglected the positive vibe and accumulated enough negative residue for their own benefit for far too long. This is what Tony Lazaro was trying to achieve,a situation or opportunity for the country to shine.

    T Muhhammad Aliff

    ReplyDelete