That's why we fought so hard in this deal for copyright enforcement, to protect the fruits of the new economy. Technology, invention, ideas, the stuff where America can't be beat. Where they can't do it in Malaysia for a dollar a day.

Indonesia's president called on households to plant food in their gardens in an effort to head off inflation, with the country's trade minister leading the way by chilli farming at home.

'I have 200 chilli plants in flower pots,' said Mari Pangestu at a briefing today. 'The agriculture ministry is informing farmers how to take care of the plant, and also encouraging consumers to plant chilli in their own yard.'

Chilli prices surged five-fold in Indonesia in the past year to around 100,000 rupiah (US$11) a kilo, more than beef, hurting households fond of spicy cuisine in an archipelago where logistical problems and wet weather often add to costs.

Together with rising rice prices, red chillies helped lead annual inflation to a 20-month high in December near 7 percent.

'Households should be creative to plant plants,' said President Susilo Yudhoyono Bambang at a Cabinet meeting today to discuss stabilising food prices.

Global food prices hit a record last month, outstripping levels that prompted riots in 2008, and key grains could climb even further as weather patterns give cause for concern, the United Nations food agency said on Wednesday.

The Indonesian government has already decided to import 1.3 million tonnes of rice from Thailand and Vietnam ahead of the local harvest in February, after not importing it in the past two years, but policymakers fret about the cost of spicing up the staple.

'You can't eat without fresh ground chillies,' said Rusman Heriawan, the head of the state's statistics agency that measures monthly inflation. 'We need to improve the supply.'

I refer to the letter from James Gonzales, 'Do something to stop mass exodus of Malaysians' (The Star, Dec 28).

I do not know of what sources Mr Gonzales speaks when he states that the Malaysians who have left are from 'all races'. In 2007, Datuk Seri Mohd Radzi Sheikh Ahmad, who was then Home Minister, stated that only 10,411 Malays - out of a total of 106,003 Malaysians - had given up their citizenship in the 50 years since independence. Ethnic Chinese and Indian renunciations, on the other hand, stood at 86,078 and 8,667 respectively.

While I applaud Mr Gonzales's desire to understand our brain drain problem, I suspect his inquiries will be less than fruitful until he recognises that his implied premise - that Malaysians of all ethnicities are leaving in demographically proportionate numbers - is faulty.

I disagree with the points brought up by James Gonzales in his letter, 'Encourage wearing of batik' (The Star, Jan 14). The statement that, in many countries, officials are accoutred in national dress, while true, is nothing more than an observation. It would be equally true to say that there are just as many countries whose officials are not attired so. A statement does not an argument make.

What one wears, whether or not one works in the civil service, should be left to each individual to decide. Sure, the choice of apparel has to be in line with socially agreed upon norms of decency but that is a negative injunction rather than a positive one. To demand that civil servants wear batik is no different from making it mandatory for them to eat satay, say, every Tuesday.

As for the contention that the batik industry needs support, that again should be left to individuals (or, in this case, an aggregate thereof) to decide. If this vaunted fabric cannot even survive in the local market, where demand for it is ostensibly the greatest, it is probably for good reason. Artificially propping it up will only delay what may well be necessary innovation in terms of design and production.

Finally, and most worryingly, the letter casually employs a false dichotomy throughout by claiming that the act of wearing batik demonstrates self-respect while not wearing batik demonstrates the opposite. Self-respect is more a function of comportment than sartorial discretion. One could very well wear batik and not project an iota of self-respect, and vice versa.

Mumbai vehicles operate by sound. Like bats they flit through the city navigating aurally, resorting to eyes only to confirm what the mind already knows is there.

Like bats, too, motorised Bambaiyyas frequently stun unwary creatures that cross their path by emitting a sustained, high-pitched burst from their horns. Nary a day goes by that a careless walker is not chastised in such manner, accompanied invariably by additional vocalizations ('Bhenchod, marneka hai kya?', 'Jaldi upar jana hai kya, salaa?').

Sound is also used in communication between cars, with various types of honking representing different signals—beep ('I'm here'), honk honk ('You should drive faster'), hooooonk ('Surely we can create one more lane next to you'), HOOOOONK ('The light doesn’t look that red') and so on—although they frequently coalesce into a general purpose, all-weather, plain honk.

In fact, there is no reason to believe that a local would not be able to drive through the city blindfolded and not hit anything, guided only by the toots emitted by other drivers and gauging distances with his own. Should he, by some unlucky chance, hit another vehicle it would probably be because the other driver was miserly with his honking and did not make his presence known well enough. And were he to hit a pedestrian, it would likewise be the fault of the latter for not heeding his signals.

Of course, horns are sometimes sounded even when there is no clear reason for such action. Perhaps this is done for purely for social purposes or in the belief that, like muscles, horns only get stronger with more use. But with so much depending on the horn it seems unwise not to take such precautions.

Your comments just pretty much show what politics is all about. It's not about principles, it's about pragmatism. Well the government's position during the 60s onwards was one of neutrality, although still West-leaning, so it would be logical to recognise and establish relations with the Communist powers. This is so that our government's position would be reflected in reality and not just the dogma of politicians. And mind you, I don't believe the USSR cared about our little Commie problem, due to the Sino-Soviet split, as the CPM was allied with the PRC.

Considering this, you're right that the govt's animosity towards Chin Peng and gang is not because of their ideology but because of their violent acts. Indeed the government position should reflect this rather than just say that communism is 'evil', period.

I would say however that your analogy with the Communist Party of the US is somewhat flawed. The CPUSA did not mount an armed struggle against the government, so in a way the American government would have had no reasonable excuse to outlaw them. A better analogy is with South Korea that still continues to outlaw Communism and this is in direct response to the armed struggle mounted by Commie guerrillas prior to the Korean War and of course the association of Communist ideology to the atrocities committed by the North Koreans during the Korean War. Indeed the South Korean military continues to have a largely anti-Communist outlook. Therefore, since the CPM mounted an armed struggle against the legitimate government, it's understandable why there is some remaining stigma against the Communist ideology and refusal to critically analyse it. There is however no need to establish a Malaysian version of House Committee on Un-American Activities, as Communism, at least in its true form, is a dead ideology.