I was in a certain part of Kuala Lumpur the day before yesterday; Cheras to be exact. I am quite sure why I was out and about there while the day seemed way hotter than Ann Arbor’s. For the first time in many years, I sweated like crazy by doing almost nothing. I miss the day when I go out under the summer sun and barely sweat.

While walking around, I saw what four years of progress could do to a place. Currently, constructions are almost everywhere and I barely recognize several places that I’m supposed to be familiar with. All the time I was marveling at the changes, then I saw a huge sewer - it’s called Klang River, or was it Gombak. Whatever it is, both suffer the same problem and really, the word river is a misnomer.

It’s disheartening knowing that rivers in Kuala Lumpur are been treated with such disregard. Seeing the current state of the rivers, I wouldn’t be too surprise to know if the wastes that flow into the rivers are untreated. For goodness sake, there were even solid wastes toiling to go somewhere in the water.

I’m sure the Huron River that flows through Ann Arbor is not as clean as it should be but at least, the only solid wastes there are ducks poo and occasionally, dead Republicans! Alright, that’s purely exaggeration and comparing Ann Arbor’s Huron with Kuala Lumpur’s Klang or Gombak is a trifle unfair. Still, the administrator and more importantly, the citizens of Kuala Lumpur need to treat the rivers way better than as it is presently.

Apart from having all kind of trashes imaginable traveling with the water, freeway is built above and along the river. Yes, above and along the river. Practically, if one is to watch Kuala Lumpur from the sky, one would see the freeway instead of river. However, it might be an efficient land usage given that constructing freeways above the river doesn’t eat up much valuable land. Still, I’d prefer if they built small parks along the bank to grey dull freeways.

Also, most buildings don’t face the river. In fact, the ugly backsides of buildings face the river instead. It’s as if the planners of Kuala Lumpur see the river as a disgusting object. Well, I’d suppose given that Kuala Lumpur’s rivers are sewer-like, the city planners’ notion is justified to some extent.

And the wall by the bank. Yes, the wall. I do know that the purpose of the wall is to keep erosion in check. However, that wall somehow strengthens the notion of rivers as sewers.

I remember that when I was small, the city administrator, or was it the government at large, ran a “love our river” campaign. I have a hunch that a sizable sum of good money was thrown into the sewers without much to celebrate.

I think, in order to save the river, the people in Kuala Lumpur really need to see the rivers not as monster sewers, but rather, really, just rivers. Our mindset needs to change and to change that, we need more green area by the banks. I do think that if we perceive rivers as rivers that is part of green area and not as liquid dump yard, other moves to improve the state of rivers in Kuala Lumpur will be done with relative ease.

So, we need to elect the city mayor instead of having somebody up above there, somewhere, choosing it for us. Who does democratically electing a mayor relate to the state of the river? Simple; when it comes to election time, all we need to do is to drill the candidates. This of course assuming we don’t run Saddam-style election. With the current system, I doubt the mayor gives a damn about the river and lots of other issues.

I might be wrong about the mayor but I bet my friends’ heads that I’m not wrong.