Can pigs and cows fly? This question arises from the two explosive issues, one in Kedah and another in Penang.

In Kedah, the one and only pig abattoir was bulldozed. Was it demolished because it was an illegal one? If so, the authorities had acted correctly. Is it because pork is the common diet of the Chinese people; and not theirs? What people like to eat is their business; even if they are not afraid of swine flu (or 'babi flu ' as one minister wants it to be called while WHO dubs it as influenza H1N1) assuming it originates from it.

This thorny issue could have been solved amicably. Regrettably, the authorities felt that they could ignore the interests of others. Literally mowing down the interests of the people would have far-reaching consequences; and the party would pay a very heavy price for their foolhardiness and brash actions at the next polls. Had they any grain of wisdom, they would have found an alternative site for the pig abattoir, and they would not have ruffled feathers and angered the people. Was it so difficult to defer action and find a suitable site for the pig farmers? It was not to be. This bravado would not go down well with the people; and a heavy price would be paid in terms of votes. A short-term show of power would spell a long-term loss of power.

So, now that there is no place in Kedah for pig farmers to get their pigs slaughtered, they have to incur great expenses in 'flying in' pigs from out of state - Perak, Penang or Perlis. Pigs need to fly now! Since pigs are ferried from outstation, the price of pork would rise in tandem with the transportation and slaughtering costs. Obviously, the price of ba kut teh, a favourite delicacy of the Chinese, would also shoot up.

You do not throw sand into the rice-bowl of others ( in this case, the pig farmers, the pork sellers and the pork eaters ) with impunity. The voters will also throw sand into your rice-bowls, thereby depriving you of your seat of power and also your salaries and perks. Have you ever thought deeply of the consequences of your action ? No? Sorry, no vote for you. Could you solve this knotty problem quickly so as to salvage some political points? Damage control is the order of the day.

Now, let us look at High Chaparral in Penang where the village is well-known for its herd of cows. It had been aired in public that the land where the village sits was trustee land. The land, as reported, was entrusted to the Penang government by the former white owners of the land, some centuries ago. If it was trustee land, then it was trustee land. Period. And the trustee should ensure that the land stayed with the villagers. Nobody could touch it. But it was not to be: it was sold off and cheaply, to boot.

Now, those who sold it off should be held responsible for the chaotic situation that has arisen. Some leaders like to stir it up for their political mileage. They are barking up the wrong tree! They should bark at those who sold it off; and definitely not the present government. While Emperor Nero sits coolly at Putrajaya ('no comments, please'), Rome burns.

‘Flying cows’ to the chief minister's office would stink the atmosphere, without finding a solution, and an amicable solution is badly needed. Will demonstration and shouts and threats solve the problem? You need cool heads and calm demeanour to come to a win-win solution.

If the land does not belong to the villagers, then they stand on slippery ground. The Federal Court had given a ruling that the land now belongs to the developer. With such a court decision, what else could the present government do?

Some leaders think they are smart: acquire the land! How do you acquire the land without paying compensation to the owners? And what market price should the government pay to acquire the land? The government simply cannot afford to pay a hefty price, the needs of all the people of Penang must be of paramount importance. Some suggested caveating the land. You cannot simply caveat the land. You must show strong grounds why you wish to caveat the land. Any good reasons?

It was stated that the developer was willing to pay compensation so as to alleviate the hardship of the villagers as they move on to another area of abode.If this is a solution, then they should grab it.While we wish to hold tight to sentiments, reality must be faced squarely and dispassionately. If the land belongs to us, we could fight tooth and nail to retain it. If, on the other hand, the land does not belong to us, sentiment alone cannot save the day.

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's" suits this situation.

Strong words and burning of effigies cannot erase what is right and proper. Did they have their day in court at the highest level? If not, do they envisage going to the International Court of Justice? Strong grounds must be presented, devoid of highly-charged emotions.

Calm nerves and cool heads must prevail. Emotions cannot make pigs and cows fly. Or can they?