Ideotique

Anwar Ibrahim Case: Making An Appeal Unappealing

2012-01-20T19:04:00.000-08:00

When the popular movement broke into celebration over the acquittal of Anwar, one can still feel an undercurrent of apprehension in Anwar and the leadership of the opposition, whether the whole thing is over, finally and absolutely. The defense, as well as the opposition, has not quite rested, even with the acquittal.

Almost immediately upon the acquittal, Karpal Singh, lead counsel, called upon the AG not to file an appeal. This was shortly followed by the Bar Council of Malaysia recommending the AG not to file an appeal, a move seen by many as going against the grain of professional ethics or impartiality, indeed against the principle of justice itself.

Right from the beginning the opposition stubbornly clung to the ‘conspiracy theory’, refusing to draw the line between legal and the political. To the opposition, the trial of Anwar is a trial against the opposition. The acquittal was greeted with a triumphant mood signifying a victory for the opposition and a disgrace for UMNO. All indications point this way, the banners, the chanting, the celebrative congratulatory messages among opposition supporters. It was as if the opposition had won the election and UMNO had been vanquished.

The point is the trial was never perceived and projected by the opposition as the trial of an individual, not even as leader of the opposition, but as the trial of the opposition itself. It was consistently billed as ‘ opposition versus state’, only that it was personified as ‘Anwar versus Najib the Prime Minister’.

Immediately after his acquittal, Anwar was interviewed by Al Jazeera outside the court complex, amidst a jubilant crowd of supporters. He was asked if his acquittal had somewhat given a lie to the conspiracy theory, he responded in the negative. After railing against aspects of the trial, he said it is to be seen if the judiciary is really independent, almost as if anticipating an appeal. He was not yet willing to put to rest the charge of conspiracy.

As the deadline for the AG to file an appeal draws near, Lim Kit Siang called upon the AG not to appeal, in an intonation characteristic of political intimidation. He said an appeal would destroy whatever ‘little faith’ the public has in the independence of the judiciary. Such statement clearly reflects the political framing of the trial beyond the legal.

Hours ago I read the AG has filed an appeal (according to the media). The defense has already responded I think. Sankara Nair is quick to frame the AG's move as 'persecution' rather than 'prosecution' of a political leader.

Clearly, even as the AG contemplates his move whether to appeal, the defense and the opposition had already launched its defense. By all indications we know in which direction this will take. An appeal had been anticipated right from the point of acquittal and preemptive move had been taken to make it appear unsavory and unappealing to the public. If this is something to go by, clearly the trial is going to be conducted well beyond the court and the legal. Perhaps the opposition will fight it more in the political arena, both local and international, in the street, the media, through the embassies and the foreign press.

Anwar Ibrahim vs Saiful: Victor's justice?

2012-01-11T06:49:00.000-08:00

We know of the verdict in favour of Anwar Ibrahim. We read how it brought tears of joy to many, to close family members, followers, party supporters, sympathetic members of the public, and those with political interests in the turn of events.

Fanatical supporters danced in the street, like an intoxicated mob (of power), chanted ‘we shall conquer Putrajaya!,’ , ‘ go die UMNO’(mampus UMNO)

Foreign press and media, completely sold and bought into the cliches of the Anwar’s saga, of near template-like motifs of a former Deputy Prime Minister being victimized by the evil machination of a ruling party, bent on clinging to power (dubbed as the theory of conspiracy); the formerly brilliant Minister of Finance, the man who headed the wave of reforms and democracy in Malaysia, once charged and convicted, vindicated by an overturn of conviction by the court (often not mentioning it was on technicality), went to town toasting the ‘justice had been served ‘ theme of a happy ending.

And yet if we look at the whole coverage of ‘the saga’ more objectively, beyond partisanship, we have a sense of gross one -sidedness, a skewed picture of the whole. Perhaps foreign (international?) press coverage of the episode would go into history as one of the major chapters of ideological distortion and falsification ever committed by the press (ironically all in the name of freedom of the press and democracy!)

I give a few illustrations to convey the point. While exaggerating the heroic picture of an ‘ex DPM and Minister of Finance battling UMNO', it was almost never mentioned that he was DPM and Minister of Finance within the UMNO setup nevertheless, and was very much true to the UMNO ethos then. Anwar is constantly drummed up as the beacon of reforms and democracy, but it is rarely mentioned it was an overnight metamorphosis from ‘UMNO' to 'Reformasi’ for Anwar, immediately after his sacking from UMNO, and at a rather late stage in his life (in terms of ideological evolution)

Saiful must be one of the loneliest human being on earth right now. He started as an underdog in the opening of the case, was an underdog during its course (in the sense all publicity and media coverage were generally devoted to Anwar’s politically charged defense and ‘antics’), and ended up perhaps worse than underdog. After the verdict, abuses and profanities had been hurled at him. The youth leader of PKR demanded Saiful be charged and sentenced under the syariah court for 'slandering' Anwar. Not much international coverage was accorded to Saiful's response to the verdict (have you seen his statement?) He was only supported by the solitary figure of his devoted father who swore to stand by his son.

In the meantime the influential Bar Council of Malaysia had issued a statement recommending the Attorney General not to file an appeal against the verdict. Saiful’s father had issued a simple statement that in doing so the Bar Council is denying Saiful justice and due process of law, perhaps because Saiful is a small man, a non VIPand a non politician of no consequence(have you seen his statement?)

Perhaps this could be a reason why Saiful insisted on seeing PM Najib before deciding to file the case ( the occassion of which was exploited to the hilt by the defense in alleging the conspiracy theory) Perhaps the reason too why he hesitated and vacillated before deciding (which worked against him in the DNA evidence due to the time lag). He must have had a daunting sense of taking on a powerful, skillful and shrewd politician. Just a small man looking for support in confronting an awesome public figure with a powerful political machinery, both local and international.

So what’s next? Had history been finally sealed on this infamous case? Is it just a turn in a yet long winding road, a continuing saga the ending of which is yet to be written (who writes it? Historians, UMNO, Pakatan, the foreign press?) Meanwhile I hear ‘joy flooded the Tweeters’ over the verdict. PAS goes on chanting ‘Putrajaya we shall conquer’. When a TV3 newsreader slipped in referring to 'Anwar' (instead of Prime Minister Najib) visiting Johannesburg , Anwar was fast to quip in public ‘she knows, except she is mentioning it a bit early…would like to meet her’, greeted by the laughter of an adulating crowd!

Certainly for now everything seems to be going the way of Anwar and his powerful supporters, local and abroad. Saiful and his devoted father would have to endure the rough edges of victor’s justice, for now?

Anwar Ibrahim verdict: Justice or conspiracy, or both?

2012-01-08T22:09:00.000-08:00

Congratulations to Anwar Ibrahim and his defence team. As we all know the court had returned a 'not guilty' verdict on the case, which must have surprised many, most of all I feel the Pakatan.

The opposition, the Pakatan, had braced itself for a 'guilty' verdict. All the posters reflected that, playing on the main theme of 'reject the lies, slander' and ' resist conspiracy'. Besides the posters, the stancing around 'the number game' (which normally suggests just a show of strength) of mobilising 100,000 for the verdict also indicated gloom anticipating an unfavourable verdict.

The actions of Anwar Ibrahim themselves seemed to expect an unfavourable outcome. His public statements, confined to the antithesis of ' not guilty' and ' conspiracy', placed greater possiblity on the later. There was much talk of 'never fleeing', ' possibility of accident', 'shot', ' whether I am in or out of prison' and the like.

On the whole, given their determinism of either 'not guilty' or 'conspiracy', how would the Pakatan interprete the 'not guilty' verdict?Will it say that our judiciary is one with integrity? After all Anwar himself had responded with a 'justice had been served' statement. Given the verdict, will the Pakatan now accord a modicum of respect for our judiciary and other vital institutions?

Concerning UMNO, is the Pakatan capable of saying this case shows the inadequacy of the conspiracy theory, or will it simply say with an even greater tenacity that UMNO's idiocy pervades all areas, even that of conspiracy.

KEMPEN 901: HUKUM HAKIM MAKI MAHKAMAH

2012-01-05T06:51:00.000-08:00

Dua hari yang lepas, Pakatan mengadakan satu kenyataan media yang amat menyedehkan mereka yang cintakan demokrasi dan keluhuran undang undang negara kita. Kenyataan Azmin Ali, Timbalan Presiden PKR, sebagai jurucakap kumpulan, dengan lantang dan cabul menolak prinsip kebebasan kehakiman , sambil mengugut dan mengancam mahkamah menjalankan tugas tugasnya ‘tanpa takut dan memihak’. Beliau mengugut akan menurunkan 100,000 penyokong Kempen ‘Bebaskan Anwar 901’ pada hari Isnin ini, yakni hari mahkamah memutuskan kes Anwar Ibrahim.

Dalam video kenyataan media itu, Azmin Ali menegaskan butir butir berikut:

Pertamanya perbicaraan kes liwat berkenaan didakwa ‘bermotif politik’ yang ‘berniat jahat’ untuk menjatuhkan Anwar Ibrahim. Jelas ini merupakan satu kenyataan yang terlalu umum yang sendiri ‘bermotif politik’ yang mungkin ‘berniat jahat’. Saya kira dalam politik setiap pihak ada kepentingan melihat lawannya jatuh. Dalam pengertian yang seumum ini, setiap gerakan Pakatan untuk menjatuhkan UMNO dan Barisan juga boleh kita anggap ‘bermotif politik’ serta ‘berniat jahat’. Tapi kenyataan umum seumpama ini tidak mempunyai kaitan langsung dengan ‘fakta’ dan ‘ hukum’ dalam kes.

Kedua, Azmin menuduh perbicaraan sebagai rencana kepimpinan UMNO menghalang Anwar Ibrahim menjadi perdana menteri. Bersabit ini semua orang yang berlaku adil dan bersikap terbuka tahu ini merupakan satu dakwaan yang kurang matang. Mereka tahu perjalanan undang undang atau ‘ due process of law’ itu ada prinsip prinsip, prosedur, dan kesatuannya tersendiri. Ianya bukan dapat diatur dengan sewenang wenang mengikut ‘rencana’ mana mana parti, baik UMNO atau Pakatan sekali pun. Justeru kenyataan umum sedemikian itu yang sebenarnya ‘bermotif politik’ dengan niat yang agak menyangsikan. Cuma sekadar menyauk dan memalit pihak pihak lain dengan kes untuk tujuan politik.

Ketiga, Azmin Ali memberi 'amaran keras' sekiranya ada ‘konspirasi’ memenjara Anwar Ibrahim pada hari Isnin ini, mereka akan bangkit merobohkan tembuk kezaliman UMNO. Wow! Jelas sekali disini terdapat ‘motif politik’ dengan ‘niat jahat’. Mengikut pilihan dan susunan kata kata, sekiranya mahkamah mendapati Anwar bersalah, keputusan itu sudah sediakala dicap ‘konspirasi’ yang didalangi UMNO!

Mengikut kenyataan, Kempen 901 akan menolak keputusan Anwar bersalah, dan menerima hanya keputusan Anwar tidak bersalah. Maknanya hakim sudah sediakala dituntun,digiring, diugut dan diberi ‘amaran keras’ kearah sesuatu keputusan yang dituntut.

Keempat, Azmin, mewakili Pakatan, ‘melantik’ dan ‘ mengisytiharkan’ Anwar Ibrahim sebagai perdana menteri yang ke 7. Ini agak janggal, memandangkan keadaan dan konteks kenyataan media. Adakah terserah kepada Pakatan untuk melantik perdana menteri dan bukan pengundi? Tambahan, apa kena mengena dengan pengadilan mahkamah kelak? Kenyataan ini dapat kita fahami hanya dengan membaca ‘motif politik’ dan ‘ niat’ yang mencurigakan.

Mungkin PKR kini sedang cuba menerapkan prinsip prinsip shi'ah ke politik Malaysia, di mana kumpulan menentukan imamnya sendiri dan bermati matian mempertahankannya? Lebih lebih lagi memandangkan akhir akhir ini banyak gelaran yang telah dikurniakan kepada Anwar, termasuk 'imam besar silat gayung' dan 'Imam Mahdi'? (yang amat berpengaruh dalam kepercayaan shi'ah)Secara ini orang ramai dikondisi berfikir yang 'dizalimi' mahkamah kelak adalah 'perdana menteri ke 7', mengikut 'rencana UMNO' dan 'perdana menteri yang bertahan'.

Pada keseluruhanya kenyataan Pakatan yang disampaikan Azmin Ali menerusi video yang tersebar luas itu tidak dapat menaikkan martabat dan perwajahan Pakatan dan Kempen 901. Niat politiknya amat menonjol dan mungkin mengaibkan. Kenyataan media ini bukan sahaja melanggar undang undang tetapi juga kesusilaan kita, sediakala menghukum hakim (sebelum hari keputusan lagi), menyeranah, mentohmah mahkamah , sambil mengugut menurunkan 100,000 penyokong buat mencabar prinsip keluhuran undang undang.

Dalam keseluruhan kenyataannya, Azmin Ali tepat hanya dalam satu hal, yakni keputusan mahkamah tidak hanya menyentuh ‘batang tubuh Anwar’ tetapi melibatkan orang ramai. Kami setuju walaupun kes ini melibatkan ‘batang tubuh’ Anwar, ia jauh lebih dari itu!

Dr Rani sebagai wakil Pas mengingatkan semua penyokong PAS, PKR dan DAP jangan membawa 'senjata tajam'. Mungkin 'senjata tumpul' boleh dibawa?

Demonstrasi UPSI: Mahasiswa bebas atau terbabas?

2012-01-01T20:06:00.000-08:00

Pada fajar tahun baru 2012, segerombolan mahasiswa mahasiswi berusaha ‘menaklok’ UPSI dengan kekerasan. Saya katakan dengan ‘kekerasan’kerana terdapat unsur unsur paksaan, desakan, tuntutan, kedegilan, yang kesemuanya menunjukan gejala gejala mengganas dan rusuhan. Apatah lagi dengan bibit bibit terpekik, terlolong,mendabik dada, menguji ketabahan pihak polis.

Kesemuanya sejajar dengan gaya ‘politik baru’ yang dicorak oleh pihak pembangkang. Sesunggohnya kebuasan yang merasuk sekumpulan mahasiswa mahasiswi di kampus kampus akhir akhir ini mencerminkan ‘angin perubahan’ dengan ‘trademark’ berikut: tuntutan, desakan, jalanan, tentangan,hasutan, tanpa arah dan persoalan pokok yang jelas dan rasional. Yang penting bukan persoalan, tetapi tangkal ‘lawan tetap lawan’. Persoalan tak penting, asalkan menimbulkan ketegangan dan keghairahan menggila.

Sebenarnya apakan ‘kebebasan akademik’? Kebebasan yang dimaksudkan adalah kebebasan mengasah otak, belajar, meluaskan ufuk pemikiran dan wawasan, tanpa berperangsaka, tanpa di pengaruhi politik memihak dan berkepentingan mana mana pihak. Idealismenya itu ialah melengkapkan diri untuk memberi kepimpinan kepada masyarakat kelak. Ditinjau dari segi ini, tidak mengira batasan AUKU, mahasiswa mahasiswi maseh banyak ruang untuk mendidik dan meluaskan ufuk idea idea mereka.

Selalunya mahasiswa mahasiswi jalanan, tiduran (atas jalan), pekikan, lebih mempertikaikan batasan atau sempadan, tapi selalunya tidak sepenuhnya, malah sedikit pun, mengguna ruang yang maseh diberi. Sebenarnya undang undang dan akta akta berkenaan adalah bertujuan menjamin kebebasan akademik sebenarnya, yang justeru perlu ditentukan batasan dan sempadannya. Mahasiswa jalanan dapat diibaratkan pemain bola sepak yang tidak bermain dipadang tetapi menghabiskan masa dan tenaga membantah sempadan padang dan peraturan permainan. Yang lucu mereka menumpukan masa dan tenaga menuntut dimansuhkan peraturan permainan, agar mereka ‘bebas’ bermain!

Dinilai dari segi ‘kebebasan akademik’ tulen, mahasiswa mahasiswi jalanan ini sudah jauh terpesong dan songsang. Kalau kita amati tindak tanduk dan perilaku mereka, kita lihat ciri ciri berikut: a)mereka mengaku sohor, tetapi sebenarnya tohor, b) konon mahu ‘membebas’ tetapi mereka sendiri terbabas dari landasan kebebasan akademik, c) menganggap diri ‘bebas’ tetapi sebenarnya kebas minda dan jiwa, dibelenggui, ditandu pihak pihak berkepentingan, d) mahu memupuk mahasiswa mahasiswi jalanan yang ‘bebas’, umpama lalang yang patut ditebas demi keutuhan kampus dan kebebasannya.

Saya harap 'mahasiswa bebas' memandu 'mahasiswa terbabas' ini pulang ke pangkal jalan!

Judging the Judge, Courting the Kangaroos

2011-12-23T10:42:00.000-08:00

There is a sense ofimpending chaos leading up to 9 January 2012. There is tension in theair, so thick one can actually slice it with a knife. Is it the calm before the storm? Why and who orwhich group is behind it?

Recently a group ofuniversity students went on a rampage, protesting against the AUKU,so it seemed. A closer examination however shows the action to bedirected to UMNO, as symbolised by the act of contemptuouslylowering UMNO's flags carrying the images of its leaders, replacingthem with the students own. Video clippings of the studentsprotesting showed excessive defiance, more abuse of UMNO than theissue of AUKU as such. This suggests UMNO is the target, AUKU merely the camouflage. The student protest seemed an act of conditioning public sentiment, a prelude for the real thing. What's the real intent behind the pretext? Could itbe related to other development, a bigger picture or scheme ofthings?

At the conclusion ofhis trial, Anwar Ibrahim was asked by the press as to his chances ofa favourable verdict. He gave an interesting reply to the followingeffect: If the judge goes by the facts and the law, he has no optionbut to acquit, unless he wants to take instruction from higherup...then we will deal with it politically later. Such statement hasthe consequence of putting the judge on trial, judging him. Thelogic runs: if the judge acquits, a pat on theback for applying the law, while a conviction can only evidence puppet of a judge colluding with UMNO. Putting itdifferently, the ambit of the law runs only in acquittal, while aconviction lies outside or runs counter to it. A tough call indeed for the judge.

In the meantime, abouta month ago, at the PKR party convention, the youth leader had vouchedshould they be pushed to the corner ( alluding to an unfavourablejudgment in the trial), they would topple the government from thestreet. The same group had a few days ago launched a 'Free Anwar'movement (901) The Deputy President of PKR, Azmin Ali likewise had separately vouched to break prison wall and free Anwar if convicted.Incidentally, the student protest and demands over AUKU exploded a fewdays after the conclusion of the trial, led by universitystudents closely linked to Anwar Ibrahim, according to recent mediadisclosures.

It seems the 'Free Anwar Movement' has for its rallying call the slogan ' RakyatHakim Negara'. Of course this has been politically crafted for the maximumeffect of undermining the government (taken as synonym with UMNO) and the law. The term 'hakimnegara' signifies both the Attorney General, as well as 'judge thenation'. Hence the slogan cuts both ways, either ' Rakyat theAttorney General' or ' Rakyat Judge the Nation'. All of which hasthe import, in the event of a conviction, 'the people reject thelaw', 'the people judge instead'. There is this simple deterministic formula: acquittal means the working of the law, conviction means the evil machination of UMNO!

Well, there had beenmuch aspersions against our vital institutions, the judiciary and the court included. The 'yellow shirts' had always denounced ourcourt as 'kangaroo court'. Now the question is who is the oneundermining the rule of law, judging the judge and mobilizing kangaroos to subvert and cower the court or the law?

I have a foreboding feeling, there will be many protests and street walking leading up to judgement day, on many seemingly unrelated issues, all of which are however united in demonising UMNO. I am sure the public is not so credulous or gullible as not to see where all of this is heading!

The Fool's Election Manifesto: We Are Wiser Now!

2011-12-16T22:32:00.000-08:00

I am deeply concerned, so should you! The nation is in crisis. The ballot box had been transformed into feedlots. Everyone had been told they can now fly kite. Vital institutions such as the court, Parliament and house of worship had been violated by street walkers, soliciting and touting support. Vulgar banners replaced good manners. Speeches and statements of leaders no longer moral, merely preaching and screeching. Truth become excuse, muse, crafted to confuse. Ideals become idle talks. In public life there is no conviction, only misdeeds worthy of conviction. Not many leaders amidst the political divides, only office holders on the leash, manipulating and manipulated. The insane posing as saints, playing ascetics with antics. Lying about laying (in bed) has consumed and wasted national energy , both accused and accuser. What is to become of us! There is no more clean, serious, purposeful politics, there is only poly-ticks ( involving an infinite varieties of opportunists, materially, spiritually, sensually, or whatever)

We need genuine options, a new vision. Transformation has not penetrated enough into our crisis,what more resolving it. Reformation has been wanting too. Both Transformasi and Reformasii are indeed an integral part of our crisis. I shall not detail specific issues here, as this manifesto is not meant to be a comprehensive political critique of political parties, but merely to outline a new vision for our nation. Suffice to say that they are both locked in a deadly power struggle, driven by the will to power, which is not our game. We are about setting the nation on a new foundation, new chapter, new direction, new consciousness and conscience!

Given the depth of our crisis, we cannot be content with TRANSFORMATION or REFORMATION, since both confine themselves only to repairs and patchwork of existing conditions. We need to work on basic principles and values, we need to rebuild our future bottom up, from the ground. We need to rehabilitate our wounded and compromised institutions. We need to heal our spirit and material conditions. It is basic reconstruction that is needed. We need to erect, brick by brick, fibre by fibre, a better future. We need ERECTION!

Part of this vision is our quest for truth, not power. We demand leaders who do not balk in the face of it. They boast of courage in exposing falsehood and baring the truth. We resist leaders who excel only in deceptions, spins and cover ups. We expect and respect leaders who crusade the naked truth, in full revelation, no frills and smoke screens. They are uncompromising in stripping the truth off falsehood, shedding externals,going to the essence.We demand militant FLASHERS!

Our vision resents deeply the inefficiency and red tape bogging down development. We oppose leaders who are fast in the mouth but drag their feet in moving things. We abhor the *ucker sort of leader whose expertise is only in messing things up. Neither do we need suckers. We demand dynamic leaders who are capable of ridding dead woods and motivating lethargic politicians and public servants.They excel in shaking things up, bucking up our civic life. We don't want shirkers, what we need are committed SHAKERS. We rejcct leaders who suck up, and elect only those who BUCK UP!

Going by our vision, we are deeply concerned at the deterioration of morality and integrity in public life. The rate at which public morality and integrity is being eroded and subverted is phenomenal and epoch making . Instead of leaders on both sides of political divide living by those values and code of conduct, those very values had been relativised and undermined to accommodate their misdeeds or misconduct. Consequentially, the line between right and wrong had been blurred. In the ensuing moral crisis, right is denounced while wrong assumes the garb of truth. Immorality has become the norm while integrity and principles reduced to the status of the abnormal, the deviant. Unscrupulous leaders are fast winning converts and gaining the moral ground, becoming the dominant influence. In such situation, we need courageous leaders who dare sail against the current. Yes, we need PERVERTS!

Our vision requires leaders who are free from our major moral afflictions. You name it, we have such afflictions. One major affliction is schizophrenia, leaders with split personality. There are too many examples to fit into a political manifesto. We have leaders who are paranoiac over conspiracies at home but work tirelessly in spawning conspiracies abroad. There are those who chant the slogan of freedom and autonomy at home, but invite foreign domination and interference in our domestic affairs. There are many among our leaders and activists who confuse the cause of freedom with that of free condom. And then there are those habitual kleptomaniacs plundering public funds. There are those mega shopaholics of epic proportion, maybe of ill- gotten wealth. We need leaders capable of counselling and rehabilitating such lost souls. In order to heal our wounds, restore our spiritual values and mental health, we need leaders with certain expertise, THE-RAPISTS!

Let our petty politicians jostle and squabble over Putrajaya, the seat of power. On our part we shall reclaim our countrysides, our cities and our vital institutions. We shall restore decency and conscience in our politics and civic life. We shall erect and reconstruct a new foundation for our nation . As an option to Transformation and Reformation, we humbly offer a new vision, Erection!

Fool's guide to instant politics: Election Survival Kit

2011-12-09T22:58:00.000-08:00

The various 'perhimpunan agung' of recent dates (or should I say ' perhimpunan gaung' by virtue of the great echo and noises generated?) are over, be it PKR Johor skid, or UMNO's KL bonanza. While the one sent delegates into enemy's traditional stronghold, the other invited and entertained delegates to the capital for, politicking, as well as for the usual 'distractions' and' indulgences' of the city, a change from the province. But both lived up to the 'gaung' aspect, by way of fiery, theatrical and millennial packaging of speeches.

Judging by the tempo and temper of both, they were bracing for the major cockfight around the corner ( I am serious in my term 'cockfight', for it represents accurately the essence of election in this country, where it is mainly a question of winning or losing, never mind the issues)

One thing is clear, the war drums had been commanded and judging by post-gaung events, preparations for the election had been intensified or put on the highest alert to 'war'. The clear signs are there: the quarrels over candidature and seat allocation, and the intensification of mud slinging between parties as well as internally, and the intensification of servility, cringing and pledging of loyalty to the 'great leader', 'supremo', 'the sheikhul' the king maker, who decide which cock to feature in the pits.

In such moments, I truly feel sorry for the innocent clueless uninitiated, dreaming of becoming politicians, who stand absolutely no chance against the adept, the 'old hand', the invincible 'veteran', the well connected, those boasting of 'pedigree', or simply 'polticians'. So to even things up somewhat, I decided to share some of my scanty notes on politics, that they may fare better than me ( my notes are yellow (papers) due to the years, never succeeding even to nudge me into 'politics')

If you hope to be a candidate in the coming election or cockfight, which is around the corner, learn the following principles mighty fast. Your 'political' survival may depend on this.

Don't try to learn or deepen your grasp of politics and politicking. Above all else, politics is 'play', a 'play acting'. Pick up tips on theatre art or acting. Before you can dream of being a politician, you must brace up your acting. For instance you must know how to 'dress'. Actually it is not 'dress' , but more familiarising yourself with the art of 'costume'. For the Malay audience of a perhimpunan gaung, with a strong nationalistic and religious bent, dawn the bajung kurung and the tall deep songkok. For court sessions, with the more westernised audience, international media, dawn the stylish and posh western suit, saving the more flamboyant and striking graphic or batik wear for evening 'indulgences' or 'escapades'. Learn to pitch your 'scripts' and ' delivery' to the right crowd or audience. It is not about being 'sincere', 'being who you are', ' to be of 'conviction', it is really getting into role playing, into the script ' convincingly', to the point that the audience forget they are watching a play acting.

Those who miss this point, are usually confused as to Malaysian politics. They lament the inconsistency of principles, the lack of unity of vision and the almost schizhoprenic nature of our politicians. They are confused or disappointed because of their wrong expectation. They are looking for a 'leader' of a politician when there is none really, for most of our politicians are merely actors reading different scripts, on different stages, in different theatres, before different audiences. I am not here referring to contextualisation of speeches, with same principles or values of a leader with an integrated personality, which is of course necessary or unavoidable in politics.

For heaven sake, don't be stiff! Learn how to use you body language. Use you hand gestures. Watch the master actor-cum-politicians. Practice on that sharp downward double thrust of the elbows, followed by the double clenching fist, give it several shakes or twang reflecting intensity, and with boisterous voice and extreme emotionalism say your script, ala Hitler, or Soekarno.

Learn the proper diction and the voice control. Know when to go soft and seductive, boisterous and commanding, secretive and slimy, glib and gossipy. But above all never, never neglect to cultivate the deadly 'nasal'. This is particularly potent and hypnotising. Pick up some points from yoga manuals on breathing control and practise. You must be able to switch from normal to 'nasal' at will. The 'nasal' represents many things, among others learning, profundity, depth, piety, saintliness, eroticism, exoticism. Based on my observations of our actor-cum-politicians, including the most adept, I recommend that the nasal be reserved for the fatal blow, involving key words like ' corruption', 'cronyism', 'akhlak', or arabic based etymology with roots in Islamic history. All in all the 'nasal' works wonders for your political 'telo' or 'lingo'.

And lastly, don't learn only from dictators, great leaders and orators, learn from fine actors too.! If you study closely many of our prominent leaders, they incorporate many elements from no less than characters played by the late P.Ramlee himself. Pick old videos, whether of UMNO days or post-UMNO era, note the smug, the rolling of the eyes, the hand gesture, the disguised naughty eroticism, the 'boyish', 'cutish' 'shy' quality (malu-malu kucing), faked humility, feigned lurking behind flamboyance and craftiness. Learn to use smattering of dialects or multilingual expressions, which is nothing more than popular racial stereotypes really, for effects. The late P.Ramlee was a master at this. He could swith smatterings from Javanese, Arabic, English, Tamil, Chinese, German and many more, in slang in not the actual language. In this respect observe and learn how a prominent contemporary opposition politician avail himself of bollywood materials and javanese. Don't forget also that P.Ramlee was himself a great 'nasalist', who used it deadly for effects.

In tight corners learn how to take the fight to the street. Learn how to roll up your sleeves in public to indicate readiness to brawl . It is a refined art. The rolling of street brawlers is quite different from that motivated by fashion style. There must be strength to it, with clenched fist packing mighty punches. This seemed to be very effective for ladies and lady audience, as evident in the last perhimpunan gaung Wanita UMNO when it worked a frenzy. It was most effective in hand-offs and in deflecting issues at hand.

Always takes lesson from history. Take the example of PKR AMK during the last perhimpunan gaung ( or was it AMUK?) The youth leader has learned well from his French history perhaps, that bit on the storming of the Bastille. In high drama, he solemnly vouched to break prison wall or topple the goverment from the street if they have to! ( is this constitutional or in accordance with the law?)

And by the way, if ever you are caught with your pants down (metaphorically or otherwise) in any compromising situation, deny, deny and deny to the hilt. If confronted by strong evidences, deny that you were' you', attributing the act to a double acting as' you', put up to it by others. To pull this off successfully, your acting as you will have to be better than the double playing' you', for in all probability the double would be a splitting image of you.

I have to stop now. My warranty ends here. This manual is only for aspiring members of parliament.I hope these notes are of some help to you. Those aspiring for more, perhaps an MB or PM, are well advised to learn or understudy elsewhere. Anyway, good luck in the coming general election, or shall I say the cockfight!

P.s I am posting this unedited in view of the fact that the election in around the corner, hence time is of the essence!I absolve myself of liability over any loss of deposit for the advice tendered in this manual.

Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011: The Rule of Law or the Rise of Mob Rule?

2011-11-26T18:42:00.000-08:00

Parliament is deliberating on the Peaceful Assembly Bill, the essence of which is what is best for the nation in terms of balancing freedom of expression with regulating anarchic tendencies in the garb of it. As predictable, the opposition and anti-establishment elements have gone to town to oppose the proposed law, which recommends in principle that demonstration and assemblies be better regulated and channeled with the view of ensuring public order.

What is the bone of contention between the opposition and the legislators behind the move? Again as predictable anti-establishment elements wish to preserve the anarchic and emotive elements, while the advocates work towards neutralising them. The opposition rejects the proposal to ban street demonstration, to restrict assemblies to specific and confined avenues such as the stadium, and the stipulation of longer notice of intention and application to the authority. Those advocating the change in the law of course insist on those very things.

If the public chose to be partisan over the issue, it is clear how the alignment would polarise or gravitate.Basically the PR elements would oppose the proposed change, seeing it as 'draconian', out to neutralise their basic weapon or modus operandi, while BN elements would be in vehement support, seeing it as 'disarming' or putting the straight jacket on the opposition.

But then this is a serious issue involving public order, security and perhaps the very survival of our democracy. I propose we the public look beyond partisanship and the 'prankish' stances of both political divides.

The fact is that our democracy depends on public order and the rule of law.In our history in sombre moments, we admit our democracy cannot be of the puristic western type which can afford greater leeway to racial and ethnic sensitivities. Our democracy cannot!

Reflect upon our dark moments in history of ethnic relations, and you would know what I mean. Yes, some will be accusing me of raising the dark spectre of racial riots. But no, this is not 'raising the scare', 'the spectre of bloodshed' for ideological reasons, but facing history in its cold brute facts and learning instructively from it. We imperil our democracy in failing to distinguish between these different approaches to history. Machiavellian abuse of history should be distinguished from sincere learning from it.

Which brings to mind the recent scathing but historically accurate attack on the DAP and its leadership in Parliament by YB Zulkifli Nordin. Actually far worse abuses had been hurled at the Malays, besides those cited by YB Zulkifli Nordin, which had been left out perhaps due to sensitivities. There were abuses even to the effect of compelling the Malays and Muslims to consume pork during the heated campaign of 1969. Incidentally, the remarks of YB Zulkifli Nordin should be taken together with his blog recounting his PKR or youth movement days as able lieutenant to Anwar Ibrahim. In the language of a direct participant and eye witness, he recounted the planning and deliberations that transpired in organising a street demonstration (peppered by emphatic 'I was there' ) . By his account, it was planned by the organisers which street to block, where to congregate in case of police action, at what stage cars were to be torched for maximum effect! These are disclosures not to be taken lightly.

Actually street demonstration is by nature violent. There is no such thing as ' peaceful' street demonstration. In this matter, it would be foolish for us to go by the pledge or pronouncement of organisers themselves. No sponsors or organisers of street demonstration would ever say they wish to organise a violent or anarchic one. It is axiomatic that all would say their intention is 'peaceful demonstration' in the name of 'freedom of expression' and 'democracy'.

A close examination of the structure and contents of street demonstration shows the following elements, regardless of the pronouncement of sponsors: a) defiance towards the law and authority, b) militancy and aggression in its style of political mobilisation, c) limited room for genuine dialogue or reasoning, despite its surface appearance to the contrary, d) confrontational and antagonistic towards authority and other views e) heavy reliance on sensationalism or emotionalism, f)) anarchic psychology of the mob, g) authoritarian and oppressive towards the public in the sense of an 'imposition', 'loud', ' indoctrinating', and 'forced down their throat' , h) nihilistic, relativistic and Machiavellian contesting of social norms and limits, i) highly propagandist and manipulative of public opinion and mass medias, k) show of strength, brute power through sheer numbers, l) highly provocative (towards the law and authority), with latent intention of sparking conflict, m) dangerous play of bravado and populist 'heroism', secretly wishing for an iconic 'martyrdom', to be manipulated for escalating open violence, n) and many others.

All of which enable me to say indeed street demonstration is by nature and structure a violent process. Of course I say so with the caveat that street demonstration is to be distinguished from the 'Salt March' or 'Spinning Wheel Movement' of Ghandi or 'We Shall Overcome' of Martin Luther King. These pacifist and civil right protests are by content and structure a different phenomenon altogether. They have nothing to do with the 'street demonstration' of Adolf Hitler towards seizing power, and its variations we are witnessing in many Southeast Asia countries. .

Setting aside partisanship, I wonder just what are we witnessing before us? Where do we stand? How do we best preserve our democracy? How do we build a nation? What do we want really, transcending partisanship, populist tendencies, abstract liberalism and 'human right', bourgeoisie rhetoric, dangerous and convenient Machiavellian politics and uncritical personality cult? Of course by the' rule of law' we do not mean either a rubber ruler, pliable and malliable to vested interests. Such abuses should not be admitted into the conception of 'rule of law', nor compounded with it.

What is our choice effectively speaking, one we are willing to back morally or politically. The rule of law or mob rule?

Why the public lost: ‘shifting goalposts’ and ‘good intention’ of bad goalkeepers

2011-11-24T09:06:00.000-08:00

A few days ago Datuk Seri Azmi Khalid the Chairman of PAC, perhaps the most powerful parliamentary committee, charged with overseeing government spending, gave a press conference in connection with the National Feedlot Corporation (NFC) debacle. On specific issues pertaining to NFC, he explained that so far the committee had invited only the Ministry of Agriculture. As he would be meeting the Ministry of Finance and NFC in January 2012, he refrained from commenting on the specific issues of NFC until then. On this front, fair enough.

However, while not commenting much on NFC, he said many other interesting things on the state of our government spending. He spoke of recurring patterns of poor management, bad planning and cripling delays in all ministries, departments, affecting not just NFC but ‘many many’ other projects across the board. His intonation is interesting enough, as well as his line of reasoning. I find it interesting to reflect upon as a discourse. While lashing out at the general pattern of mismanagement and bad planning, he sounded almost like softening the gravity of the individual case of NFC by pleading a general malady affecting many, if not all ministries and government departments. In other words, thus run his line of reasoning: ‘do not single out NFC as bad, for generally they are all bad’. Since they are all bad, NFC is not that bad after all since it conforms to the general and recurring pattern! Hence it is all quite normal really, in ‘the nature of things’.

From this line of reduction, converting the individual case of NFC into the general, Datuk Seri Azmi Khalid then launched into denouncing the general malady, pledging to look into the problem, for the reason the public has had enough of the spinning and the twisting, so much so they do not believe the government even when it is telling the truth! This line of reasoning in a way conditions the ground for more spinning and twisting, implicitly suggesting that even as ministries and government department spin and manoeuvre in tight corners, they could well be telling the truth It is only public disgust and exasperation that’s blinding them from seeing truth! After morphing the individual case into the general, the gravity of the general is then ‘sanitize’ by insisting a ‘relook’ into the way the government manages and spends fund. In this manner, ‘action’ is seen or felt to be taken towards redressing the general problem of mismanagement, bad planning and paralysing delays affecting many projects.

While steps are being taken to ‘relook’ into the problem , the current mismanagement and misspending are absolved by Datuk Seri Azmi Khalid’s emphatic statement that ‘all done with good intention’. In other words the mismanagement, misspending and bad planning are all the doings of honest but alas incompetent idiots. Well it all sounds like a fatal combination for the nation. On the one hand we have 'honest' idiots running ministries and the public sector, on the other hand we have dishonest clever people plundering the nation. Given this scenario can our nation survive in the long run! Nevertheless it explains a lot. It explains why public fund is readily depleted and wasted by the billions, while financial wizards, great industrialists and entrepreneurs seem always to end up with great fortunes. Perhaps there is much truth in Mahatma Gandhi's saying: 'Behind any great fortune there is always a crime'. Excuse me.. perhaps I should say: 'Behind any great fortune there is always an honest idiot'!

The kind of ‘delay’ Datuk Seri Azmi speaks of is not of the usual kind. Ordinarily what we understand by 'delay' is the kind that holds things up, hampers development or progress of a whole process. The kind of ‘delay’ he speaks of is of a special kind. It holds things up only partially, while expediting other elements in the same process or transaction. He gives an example, reflective he said of a general pattern! In the case of the NFC, all the money for the project had been withdrawn by 2009, but due to ‘delay’ the contract or agreement was signed only in 2010. There you have it! In this form of ‘delay’ it expedited payment and withdrawal, completed even before the agreement. Simultaneously the ‘delay’ holds up the agreement, effecting 'spedious' payment.

This peculiar form of ‘delay’, which upsets the normal sequence of agreement and payment, gives rise to an associated malady. Datuk Seri Azmi refered to the problem of ‘shifting goalpost’. He explains the problem as one in which obligations and things to be done keep changing. If before the deal was to do such and such, in the end they become different things altogether! Wow…this is dead serious for the nation. Small wonder why many mega projects went haywire and down the drain. It explains the ‘blunders’, ‘bad planning’ and the whole complex of ‘bad management’, ‘misspending’, or ‘non- deliveries’. Once payment had been secured prior to agreement, of course obligations and accountability would be weakened or subjected to renegotiation. Hence the ‘shifting goalpost’ and ‘changing targets’ lamented by the Chairman of PAC.

Given the vicious cycle of ‘shifting goalposts’, where honest idiots are confronted by clever crooks, can the public ever win? A small comfort though to learn that the problem is being ‘relooked’ into by PAC!

The Confession in the Charge of Conspiracy

2011-11-18T15:56:00.000-08:00

Let’s face it. Many of us are very gullible when leaders defend their interests by charging ‘conspiracy’ on the part of others. This phenomenon says many things. For one it shows we are becoming more suspicious of the conduct and thinking of our leaders. We are also growing more cynical and skeptical of politics and public life. In everyday expressions, we feel ‘pissed off’, ‘fed up’, ‘disgusted’, ‘disillusioned’ over their antics and pronouncements. In many ways this is healthy, in the sense we are now more predisposed to be critical, cautious and discriminating in our public or civic life. We are no longer that credulous or naive as to accept everything at face value in our relations with leaders. We tend now to examine their doings and views from more angles, for hidden motifs or vested interests lurking under or behind their stance.

But then, many of us tend to fall into another form of credulity or gullibility under the very same charges of conspiracy kicked up as a smoke screen by our leaders or public figures. In short we are no less naive, credulous or gullible than before, only that our taste and menu has changed somewhat. Errant and incorrigible leaders has now smart up to our blind spots or rather soft spot for conspiracy theories. Hence in our politics and civic life, ‘conspiracy’ has grown to be the first weapon of choice in the arsenal of leaders in crisis.

This is by no means confined to particular parties, organizations or affiliations. The utility of conspiracy theory has not been missed by any groupings worth their salt. The potency of the conspiracy theory is availed of by the ruling party, as well as the opposition. Just for example, at the very beginning of the National Feedlot Corporation issue, the Minister at the center of the issue proclaimed this is a move ‘ out to destroy Wanita UMNO’ . This is quickly chorused and echoed by many. This pattern represents many of the responses of the ruling party to scores of other issues as well.

As for the opposition, we know they thrive on it. In fact Anwar Ibrahim built a whole personal platform on this charge of conspiracy. Very early in the beginning of the sodomy case, when his supporters were earnestly defending him along legalistic and logical grounds, he had expressed the view that the charge of sodomy ‘is politically motivated and hence must be fought politically’. In gist, he attributed it all to ‘conspiracy’ as genesis as well as his defense to it.

While we are more than aware of the currency or prevalence of ‘conspiracy’ as a tendency, we need to understand it’s psychological, moral and political effects on us in a more in depth manner. Otherwise we would be deluded and made prey of, all the while thinking we are being ‘critical’, ‘ aware’, ‘discriminating’, ‘conscious’, ‘politically matured’, ‘ liberated’, ‘emancipated’, ‘just’ and the like.

‘Conspiracy’ as technique or political tactic works in the following way, with its corollary effects:

a) It deflects from issues at hand. Hence in the case of the National Feedlot Corporation, it serves its cause to deflect public gaze by pointing to the machination of others out to destroy or undermine Wanita UMNO. This deflective function explains too why Anwar Ibrahim has not sued over his sex video, challenged the authenticity of the video, has not been forthcoming with DNA samples, has avoided the ritual of religious oath and the like, all of which are directly connected with the issue. On the contrary, he has been most vociferous in denouncing ‘conspiracy’ out to destroy his political career. Maximum deflection is usually accomplished by errant leaders by identifying their personal self with bigger cause or mission. Thus an individual problem becomes the fate of ' Wanita UMNO' or a leader with personal issues becomes 'the survival of the opposition' or ' the very embodiment of opposition cause' .

b) the conspiracy theory is most effective in dividing people over issues, making for partisanship
and sectarian views. Once unfolded, the theory begins to influence people to gravitate around partisanship, regardless of the issues at hand. Hence people begin to collude and conspire themselves to divert, deflect, to cover up the real issue at hand, be it corruption or sexual videos and the like. This explains the gross and jarring inconsistencies and contradictions in our political life. Parties or groups which are normally fast in denouncing the corruption of adversaries all of a sudden become vehement protectors and apologists of corrupt parties. Likewise, groups and public members who are never wanting in censuring leaders for sexual misconduct overnight turn into apologists for promiscuity. This is particular schizophrenic when it comes to generally orthodox PAS , with its rather stringent sexual mores, ever zealous over khalwat (close proximity), adultery, or sexual segregation. Only the theory of conspiracy could explain and reconcile Nik Aziz’s views that beautiful women should not be allowed to work with his view that those who oppose Anwar Ibrahim (in the heat the sex video controversy) can never go to paradise!

c) the conspiracy theory also acts in a devious manner to relativise our values or to blur our sense of right and wrong, that is to compromise our principles. Because the theory deflects from issues, and divide us along partisanship regardless of issues, it forces us to compromise our principles and values too in the process. In this regards, even as we try to infuse public life with higher morality or conscience, under the spell of conspiracy theory, unknowingly we conclude with errand leaders in making our politics and civic life unscrupulous or immoral. Deluded by conspiracy theory, we collude or conspire along with errant leaders,

d) conspiracy theory develops a form of ‘false consciousness’ among the public duped in its sway. It undermines proper appreciation and understanding of the real issues and in this manner prevents them from the right course of action in politics, be it pertaining to ‘ reformasi’ or ‘transformasi’ .

As stated above we need to understand the working of the theory of conspiracy frequently resorted to by leaders in crisis situation. It is very useful for them whenever cornered or held to account. As we outlined, the theory of conspiracy deflects from real issues, it divides people into partisanship or sectarianism away from moral principles, it compromises public conscience or relativise it, and it clouds public understanding of the real issues or situation. While the theory of conspiracy effects all the above, if we examine our errant leaders closely, we can infer their confession of sort in their very theory of conspiracy. As they deflect, we know what they are really hiding. As they divide, we know what public opinion they fear. As they relativise values and principles, we know what principle they fear the public would judge them by. As they whip up smoke screen to confuse and cloud understanding, we know what they fear the public understand.

In other words, it may serve their cause in the short term to resort to conspiracy charges. Unknowing to them though, as they do so, they may be signing their very own confession. As they try to cover their tracks, they leave even more telling signs!

The Creative Corrupt

2011-11-17T07:28:00.000-08:00

I have always been impressed by the fact that there are levels of corruption as indicated by its degree of ‘sophistication’. It ranges from the cheap direct ‘give’ and ‘take’ at face to face level, say at the counters of immigration, custom, utilities board, land office, licensing authorities or at traffic checkpoints and the like, to the super efficient and sophisticated corporate wizardry, capable of transforming billions from one form to another, from cattle to condos , from one airline to another, from agricultural to premium freehold land bank, from Malay reserve to freehold, from worthless shares at one point to those rocketing through the price ceiling. All it takes really is just a matter of ‘swapping’, ‘conversion’, ‘ reinvesting idle capital’, ‘rebranding’, ‘repackaging’, ‘rezoning’, and all manner of ‘tricks of the trade’, ‘ professionalism’, ‘ legal advice’, and of course ‘ vision’, ‘flair’, ‘entrepreneurship’.

At the highest or sophisticated level, corruption is hardly that, because it assumes the garb of legality. It achieves the perfect combination of abuse, opportunism, indecency, vulgarism with invulnerability against the law. At this level, corruption can even be transformed into saga of success, epitome of financial wizardry, the acts and doing of capitalist prophets. Failing banks can be turned around into the most dominant or premier bank, due to brilliant ‘merger’, ‘take over’ and ‘corporate make over’, ‘bail out’. At this level, great bankers, industrialists are mythologize as Midas whose touch can only turn ugly duckling corporations into gold. With their touch, or the mere grace of their name, boasting of great parentage or siblings, penny shares become punters favorite overnight, appreciating five times or more with the batting of an eye.

If you study and reflect on all the happenings of sophisticated and legal form of corruption, which we cannot even call it by its name due to its legal guise and seamless metamorphosis, we are bound to acknowledge one truth, that is its perpetrators and practitioners are creative people with a special bend of mind. Study this scourge hitting our nation closely and you will be amazed at the spinning, wheeling and dealing going on. As some sociologist had observed corruption ‘greases’ things. It makes things moves smoothly in a devious way. For example, a hypothetical corporation, let’s say ‘National Fed A Lot Corporation’ or ‘ Anyone Can Fly With Easy Subsidy’ , can justify its purchase of premium real estate, or share swap, in terms of 'sound investments' with figures to boot, under dubious circumstances. When pressed for an explanation our hypothetical company is not obliged to divulge all the complex of vested interests involved in this transaction, the various kickbacks, the commissions, the profits, the trade offs, and the like, suffice with a mere ‘ sound investment’.

To handle corruption effectively, we need a higher level of public morality and a higher level of legal standards pertaining to corruption. We need this because vested interests would always work towards a low standard of legality that they can easily outwit or slither out of. We need to be as creative morally and legally as the creative corrupt in our midst!

National Feedlot Corporation: Meditation on the Cow

2011-11-11T08:15:00.000-08:00

When it comes to leadership, the standard for integrity in office or governance should go beyond quibbles over legality. This is because everyone knows there can be many phenomena which may pass for 'legal' which nevertheless violate or at least compromise the principle of integrity in office. This is usually the case in the issue of cronyism. Usually practitioners are intelligent enough to 'fix' things in such a manner to satisfy legality, yet accommodating of vested or conflicting interests. In Malaysia there are only too many of such examples, which is a major bane for our nation. The basic issue is just where do we fix the standards for integrity in office, good governance or scrupulous leadership? If we just reflect on all our past issues involving fiscal policies, developmental planning or the implementation of mega projects, there is always this problem of 'legal vested interests' costing the public.

We will also note that whenever we have a relatively clean government in the world, it will be one which is prepared to set the standards of integrity in office higher and beyond minimal 'legality', into scruples and old fashioned morality or honesty. We will also note that in any major case of corruption in court, the defence will invariably be that of 'legal though interested',therefore 'not quite corrupt'. That is is why a good government will set its standards at the legal-moral level, stretching the limit of the law towards this end. On the other hand, a less principled government or leadership would instead use the 'legal' argument narrowly as to exclude all considerations of scruples, morality and decency. That is why at the end of the day, morality and decency should guide politics (tempered by the law of course!). Otherwise, many of the issues of 'corruption' or 'cronyism' could be a subject of polemics till the cows come home!

A capable and principled government should reflect serious commitment to weed out corruption and vested interests, regardless of party affiliation or partisanship. Without such resolve, a government would soon be riddled with corruption, for the simple reason that those of its inner circle would feel secure from action, on the understanding that only outsiders risk it. Also, corruption then becomes a sort of privilege for the ruling group. This is far from saying that a change of government necessarily ends this problem. The weakness would continue even with a change of government, as the incoming ruling group would simply avail itself of ' the privilege'. In fact, an opposition would always decry the 'corruption' of ruling group usually because it relishes its 'privelege' and opportunities for corruption. This is why a good government, or one which endeavour to go down in history as one, would combat corruption seriously, taking the bull by its horn! It aims directly for a bull's eye, instead of making excuses and side stepping into many irrelevant issues, or bull...!

An honest and people-oriented government would think of the national good and the interests of the citizens in general.The prime motivation in politics is not personal interests or gains. It doesn't see the nation as a cow to be milked dry. It would endeavour to secure and advance national interests , never to plunder or blunder deliberately for gains, exposing the nation to ruination as would a cow in a china shop!

The very little that I read of the Auditor's-Report, is already too much by way of dubious practices and abuses. It sets me wondering would there by any measure of the proverbial 'heads shall roll', or merely the usual 'let the good times roll'! Holy cow!!

Seksualiti Merdeka 2011: The Thrill in the Drill

2011-11-08T18:42:00.001-08:00

The public outcry on both sides, whether in support or opposition to Seksualiti Merdeka 2011, has been at cross-purpose to each other. In this respect, the issue has given rise to an atmosphere of exasperation to partisans and 'confusion' to members of the public. Those who object or criticise, see Seksualiti Merdeka 2011 as advocating 'free sex' in the form of LGBT. They see the event as a threat to the norms or values of the majority. They question the right of the sponsors and advocates to 'freedom of expressions' and 'human rights' in championing their cause, explicitly or latently. On the other hand the supporters or sympathisers of Seksualiti Merdeka 2011 seem to compound many issues in their stand, thereby creating a general mood of ' unsaid things' , 'latent support', or even 'streaks of opportunism' among them. The basic approach is essentially ' we like it, minus the liability', a kind of ' expediency or convenience ' if you like.

The stand of PAS, PKR or PR in general is interesting to ponder. Although giving a semblance of non-committal stand on the issue directly championed by Seksualiti Merdeka, their stance clearly reflects the modus operandi of PAS, PKR and PR. On the whole they like the idea of street demonstration, the exercise in mobilizing, the networking, the organizing, the populistic stancing, the whetting of defiance, the conditioning of international opinion, cultivation of anarchic and anti-establishment psychology, and the subtle undermining of the legitimacy of authority and the establishment. Seeing street demonstration as a basic principle to its modus operandi, the opposition strives for its maintenance or preservation.

While keeping the practice of street demonstration alive and intact, PKR, PR and PR carefully dissociates themselves from the issue of LGBT as such . This is carefully done in several ways.One way is to avoid official statement on the issue of LGBT directly. So as not to appear too glaring, members are allowed to speak up ' as individuals'. If pushed to the wall in making an official stand, they would sidestep into general diffused and abstract issues like 'human rights', 'freedom of expression', 'freedom from persecution', and of course the usual ' draconian establishment', ' authoritarian police' and 'protection of minority rights'.

In opposition to what PAS, PKR and PR see as 'heavy-handedness' or 'intolerance' of the authority, they advocate a general approach of 'social education', ' dialogue', 'forum', 'engagement' or ' moral persuasion' towards LGBT. While such approaches have their objective values, coming from PAS, PKR and PR they represent a glaring departure, even a stark contradiction to their general political disposition. All of a sudden we note the generally orthodox PAS and segments of PKR, noted for their preoccupation with attire, rituals , 'westernisation', sexual segregation and the like, prescribing rather unconvincingly the 'social education' approach or 'tolerance' towards alternative sexual mores or norms. The jarring contradiction suggests political expediency rather than political conviction or principle.

Although the opposition has 'dissociated' itself from LGBT as an issue, it has has vested interests in the polemics over the Seksualiti Merdeka 2011 event, politically speaking. The General Election is around the corner. It is clear that sex videos of wayward leaders would be one of the major arsenal of adversaries. If such videos promise to be a major political liability to the opposition, it would serve their cause to tamper sexual norm or values of society. If the paradigm of public sexual norm or values could be conditioned somewhat towards greater 'liberality' or 'permissiveness', then the errant sexual conduct of key oppositional leaders could be made more acceptable or palatable. In this way it is hoped the public would be more accommodating, ' forgiving', 'understanding' of deviant leaders. Shifting the paradigm of sexual mores and values, or at least relativising it, would be an imperative of 'damage control' in the face of serial exposure of leaders in the mass media.

As evident in the Sensualiti Merdeka 2011 issue, the opposition is not really interested in the issues as such when it comes to street demonstration. It merely wants to ride the practice of street demonstration to its full advantages. Hence the public can expect the practice of street demonstration to continue or intensify. From the perspective of the opposition, street demonstration is to be eventually transformed into an opposition tradition. This explains why the practice is of increasing frequency, assuming a serial nature. It explains too why leadership and sponsorship is always the same for several incidents. As far as I can see, the interests is to move politics from parliament, the mass media, into the street. To shift politics from discussion and dialogue to 'direct action', regardless of what sponsors claim or declare to the contrary. Who knows, one day Malaysia can go the way of 'people's power' in the Middle East. Until then, never mind the issues. What matters is the drill must go on, the thrill must be whetted. To be prepared for any eventuality, 'the thrill of the drill' must be sustained at all cost!

The Fool's Guide To Public Finance and Avoidance of Bankruptcy

2011-11-05T00:43:00.000-07:00

Having read the horrors in the Auditor-General's Report and Minister Idris Jala's speech on finance and bankruptcy, I feel a huge gap in my grasp of financial matters. It is my impression that keeping and managing money is by no means matter. It is elusive, slippery and can simply evaporate or disappear into thin air. It is very vulnerable to plundering and blundering. It is very amenable to sleight -of- hand, falling readily into the pocket, easily concealed up the sleeve, or made a subject of illusion.

Just to help my own understanding of the mystical subject of finance, I decided to make some notes of my own, sharing them with those equally perplexed.

Firstly, there is the concept of 'operating cost'. This should normally refer to the regular or recurring cost of keeping things running, such as salaries and other overheads. Normally 'operating cost' should exclude subsidies, unless subsidies is part of your operational calculation, like for instance for winning votes, in the case of which subsidies is certainly part of 'operational cost'. In any case I think we need to distinguish 'operating cost' from 'operation cost'. 'Operation cost' is the huge burden of correcting, restoring, salvaging, bailing after the plundering and blunderings that we read of. If you like, 'operation cost' is analogous to the cost of restoring our health, say for instance after we go for a heart bypass. Putting it simply , 'operation cost' is the expenses of cleaning up the mess left by someone, which nevertheless continue to drain even more public funds. To recapitulate: We need to distinguish 'operational cost' from ' operation cost' .

I always note that 'subsidy' seems to be a dirty word for many leaders and some diehard of bourgeoisie thinking, normally of those in the private sector. It is taken to signify ' reliance', 'dependence', 'fatalism' of the lower classes, commonly designated as ' subsidy mentality' or 'crutch mentality' by the more affluent. The truth is all classes are usually the beneficiaries of 'subsidy' in one form or another as reflected in the economic or financial policies. Only the form and terminology differs. For the affluent', we don' t call it 'subsidy' but 'perks', 'tax reliefs', 'infrastructural developmental cost' , 'incentives', various form be of licenses like 'AP's', and many more.

Actually 'subsidy' can be either constructive or parasitic. Subsidies in the right places could be a vital developmental tool, like the encouragement of education or development of skills. Subsidy can be a vital mechanic of social and economic equality, and a dispenser of social justice. But there is the other kind of subsidy, which is parasitic in nature, which lives off public fund without accruing much benefits for national development. This can take many forms, wether we call it 'subsidy' or by any other term. Nevertheless subsidy of this kind acts as a drain of public fund. This phenomenon is best categorised as 'subsides', as it merely eats into public fund, depleting it.. To recapitulate: we need to distinguish clearly between ' subsidies' and 'subsides'.

I always have problems with this term ' investment', as in the case someone saying 'investment' must be prioritised over all else. As I understand, 'investment' is putting money to good use, accruing many other benefits, financially or otherwise. 'Investment' is foregoing present use of capital for long term profits or benefits. Within our context, normally 'investment' refers to huge projects costing billions, or big businesses and the like. But for some strange reasons, our 'investments' seems to mean many other things, essentially plundering and disguised blunderings. Public funds seems to have vanished with no benefits accruing, for example a highway project costing billions which is unfit for public use. To make sense of this, even if it is only for myself, I would called such spending ' investiture', because it merely allows some to wax riches, often instantaneously without accountability. To recapitulate: we need to distinguish clearly between 'investment' and 'investiture'.

And then we have this dumbfounding subject of 'loan'. Now 'loan' to my understanding means the money the government needs to 'borrow' to run the country and finance its development. In this respect I do see the need to 'borrow' or take a 'loan'. If well managed, it can certainly be an important factor for our national well being. However, now I read our 'loan' has significantly escalated, jumping by 12.3 percent from the previous year to RM407 billion. With the horrors of the Auditor-General's Report still fresh in mind, I realise something must be wrong with my earlier understanding of 'loan'. 'Loan' seems to be something dangerous, threatening of bankruptcy. For greater clarity , I would call this ever escalating and threatening factor not 'loan' but 'moan'. We should be worrying now that our 'moan' has greatly skyrocketed. As a corollary, we should not speak now of 'borrow' but 'sorrow', allowing for the verb form as in ' googling' or ' fingering'. In short our leaders and bureaucrats should stop 'sorrowing' more and more 'moan', bringing us to the brink of bankruptcy!To recapitulate: we need to distinguish between 'loan' and 'moan', between 'borrow' and 'sorrow'.

I hope to share my personal notes with those equally lost in comprehending recent issues and development in public finance, who are nevertheless anxious over the prospect of our nation falling prey to bankruptcy. Admittedly the notes are too rudimentary or crude for government leaders and top civil servants holding the rein of public finance or the national economy in their hand, vowing 'never to let this (bankruptcy) to happen' -Minister', to cite Minister Idris Jala.

Auditing audacious greed or costly fool?

2011-10-29T10:06:00.000-07:00

In a persistent pattern, easily anticipated and predicted like clockwork, the recent auditor's report recounts the usual blatant and outrageous plunder of public fund by way of 'deliberate' waste and ridiculously inflated spending. Thin indeed is the line between 'bad planning', 'careless spending' and probable vested interests that underline them. Where the procedures and supervision over vested interests are weak or lax, there would for sure be widespread 'bad planning', 'human errors', 'overspending', 'misspending', 'ill conceived projects', 'bad decisions', 'bad purchases' and everything else suggesting all manner of 'mistakes', 'blunders' and 'bad judgement' which nevertheless drained billions from public funds.

In such a situation, from the point of view of vested interests, the trick is to pass 'vested interests' for 'silliness', 'inaptness' or 'inefficiency', which no matter how costly will still remain 'innocent' of questionable motives. What! ... the Marine Department paid RM 56,350 for binoculars worth about RM 1,940? Paying RM192,694 for laptops, printers. LCD monitors and DVD players which should cost only RM20,193 ? And the Tourism Ministry paying RM1.95 million for pamphlet racks done without the Ministry's approval? The same ministry spending RM270 million on advertisement by direct booking instead of following the procedure of tendering which could cost only RM 75.38 million?Ministries overspending on items such as ovens and folding beds by RM306 million? All of which naturally drove the federal government's public debt up to RM407.1 billion, up 12.3 percent over the previous year.

There are many too many of such 'blunders' and ' costly mistakes ' in the Auditor-General's Report, so many as to make the report almost a compendium on a management style dominated by fools. The phenomenon is so prevalent, so usual in our situation as to make it 'normal' and 'common knowledge' ,that it no longer shock or surprised us, merely exciting disgust and indignation among a few, and acquiescence or resignation among many others. Such recounting of administrative 'blunders' and 'bad judgement' has attained a kind of ritual status, no different from the past and would be repeated in the coming years. Initially it would be met by pious pronouncement to bring people to book to appease the public, which would then quietly fizzle out as the issue fades in public attention.

The fact that the phenomena of 'blunders' and ' innocent oversights', notwithstanding how silly or costly, are persistently continuing testifies to the lack of will in checking them on the part of leaders. Either it testifies to their lack of seriousness or willingness in checking them or to their ineffectiveness in doing so .Either way, it casts doubt on their leadership of society and nation.

What leaders should understand, however, is that public indignation or revulsion would be eventually translated into the ballot box.This is because the issue of ' blundering bureaucracy' is of such nature as to constitute the very stuff of life and reality for the voting public. It would take many many speeches promising 'high income society' or ' public spirited budget' to erase inner public revulsion towards such 'errors' or 'bad judgments', if at all rhetoric can counter life experience. Even when the public are handed out little goodies, or direct handouts, these would be nullified by public resentment that they are being made to pay RM 56, 000 for RM1,900 binoculars. Though they hear the promise of higher income, they nevertheless resent being made to pay over RM190,000 for gadgets worth only RM20,000. And so will they feel over the overspending and wasteful ways of Ministries in general.

The purpose of this posting is not to lament the fact of a 'blundering' and 'erroneous' bureaucracy and leadership, examples of which are replete in the Auditor-General's Report. What is important is to draw wider implications and observations relevant for our society and nation. From the widespread phenomenon of ' blundering bureaucracy' can be deduced the following: a) there is vested interests in initiating or implementing 'bad planning' and 'inefficiency', with considerable cost to the people, both financially and in terms of development, b) there is an unhealthy symbiosis between the bureaucracy and the private sector, which then thrives parasitically on society and the nation, c) for the 'blundering bureaucrats', the bureaucracy and national administration is seen basically as the cow to be milked perpetually, d) for the participating representatives of the private sector, good business skill and acumen is the art of networking and cultivating certain 'blundering bureaucrats', on which their business success vitally depends.

All the above does not auger well for the nation and society. The revolting examples mentioned in Auditor-General's Report do not represent simply isolated examples of deviation or corruption against a background of an otherwise efficient administration. Rather they represent a whole fundamental attitude towards what being a part of the national administration means for certain type of bureaucrats, and what is really going on between the bureaucracy and the private sector in some powerful and well connected circles on both sides.

Hudud: Hide your cake and hype it too

2011-09-30T09:47:00.000-07:00

I learn from today's Star that the PR had a big pow-wow, chaired by Dato Seri Anwar on the issue of hudud, which had been causing an uproar within their ranks, threatening to split open the tradional fault lines between component parties.At the end of it, PR in a show of solidarity rejected the implementation of hudud, on one of the grounds being it is against the Federal Constitution.

Only a few days ago, I read that Nik Aziz was adamant on implementing hudud, with or without the agreement of the BN,or anybody else, and to the surprise of many Dato Seri Anwar gave him his full support, which of course angered and stumped many DAP leaders. I remembered Karpal Singh reacted strongly against hudud laws, enumerating what he deemed some of its rather gruesome punishment, like stoning to death and beheading for adulterous couples. The public would have noted the punishments would apply to some of the PR leaders themselves who seem to be head over heel on the implementation of hudud.

In todays Star alongside the news of PR's rejection of hudud,Nik Aziz affirmed his resolve to push on for the implementation of hudud, which of course set the public wondering just what is going on with the issue.

Earlier on we read of Anwar's full support for Nik Aziz and his hudud resolve, but now we read of the meeting chaired by Anwar rejecting the implementation. Was it a misreporting that Anwar fully backed the hudud, or is it an about-turn on his part under the pressure by the DAP?

Anyway, the official rejection by the PR, has the effect of making the hudud intention solely the idiosyncrasy of Nik Aziz,and a localised issue of Kelantan, while component parties of PR are quite clear in their opposition. In this respect, it can be said to be a good damage control by PR. In this manner the disquietude among non-Malays is somewhat placated and their support and votes are maintained. On the other had, Nik Aziz resolve is good for winning back some of the Malay Muslim ground which may have been alienated over the use of 'Allah' affair, and the abandonment of PAS principle of championing the formation of an Islamic state.

On the side of Nik Aziz's insistence on hudud, it is still a win-win situation for PAS and PR. I think everyone knows, including Nik Aziz and his supporters, that the hudud would never ever be implemented since it violates the Federal Constitution. What is gainful for them is that, the failure to have hudud can be conveniently blamed on the 'infidel' and 'obstructionist' BN. The hudud advocates would then be casted in the image of wronged champions of Islam.

But still the divergence between the official stand of PR, as the outcome of the pow-wow, and Nik Aziz's chosen path, is so jarring, crying out for explanation for the public. Now this is taken care of by a useful and convenient 'democratic' device, 'respect for differing views'. Accordingly Nik Aziz's camp had thank the PR component parties, especially DAP, for their understanding and 'respect for their stand'. Likewise the PR in unanimity had thanked Nik Aziz camp for their understanding and 'respect' for their stand and view in rejecting the hudud implementation. Accordingly Dato Seri Anwar had also underscored his willingness to discuss the hudud idea anytime it is aired, out of respect for differing views. All seems to auger well for 'democracy'.

Well the way it's going the PR, and its component, seems to strike a good balance in availing itself of the hudud question. It gives something to the Malay Muslim ground that had been alienated, while 'out-Islamising' the BN at no cos At the same time it had smoothly and formally distant itself from the issue, so as not to alienate non-Malays and non-Muslims on the same wavelength as Karpal Singh.

In this manner the PR can hide its cake and hype it too, all to its advantages!

PM Najib's Malaysia Day Speech: What freedom and for what? A query for both divides

2011-09-20T09:20:00.000-07:00

PM Najib’s Malaysia Day Speech recently is worthy of note and response. This is reflected in the fact that it had evoked varieties of responses from the public , or more explicitly, from the mass media representing various interests. The speech had been hailed as ‘courageous’, ‘reflecting political will’, ‘a man of his words’, ‘ stunning of oppositions’, ‘ a wonderful gift to freedom lovers’ and many more positive accolades of various shades on both sides of the divides. Then there are the cautious and cynical ones viewing it as ‘election sweeteners’, ‘election ploy’, ‘ sleight of hand’, ‘ making virtue of necessity’ ,‘ ‘condescending’ , ‘theatrics for gullible Malaysians’ or even downright ‘ making idiots of the Malaysian public’ .

With a view of personal assessment, keeping in mind the above responses, trying to see the truth in them, while carefully guarding against interested partisanship, I went through the text of the speech. I have the following comments to make, fleeting thoughts (and not learned legal scrutiny) crossing my mind in my cursory survey.

The discourse on our history and background to the nation’s development and progress is merely a backdrop to the point that the context was different then, necessitating those laws or acts being reviewed or removed. Those were terrible times, with many enemies of the people and nation, hence those laws had been promulgated. But as the argument goes, times has changed, so must our laws.

They had been rendered obsolete, irrelevant, meaningless, dysfunctional. Good times had been ushered in too, development and progress had been good if not spectacular, making those laws sort of less necessary now. Malaysians are better educated, with the assumption then they are now more matured politically.

Are all the assumptions made therein correct or accurate in relation to the place of those laws in our history? Are the ISA, the various emergencies, the checks on freedom of the press and publishing, freedom of assembly etc relevant only in times of under-development and in times when the people are less educated? This is a dangerous assumption to make in my opinion. The simple truth is that a well to do person, of the highest class, excellently educated or superbly qualified, can well nigh be a chauvinist, religious bigot, racist, terrorist or slimy rabble rouser of various moulds. Furthermore the very assumption that we had ‘developed’ and ‘progressed’ due to diligent ‘planning’ is an assumption which we should carefully scrutinized. Had we resolved all our developmental problems which had been our ‘fault lines’ in terms of ethnic relations continually?

Its rather stark that the only personality mentioned in the speech was the late Tun Abdul Razak, father of the speech maker. Tun Abdul Razak was caste in the mould of a freedom lover who had by circumstances to preside over the suspension of freedom. But the love of freedom prevailed at the first opportunity to restore democracy, when the late Tun chose to give up power when he could well cling to it.

When only one solitary personality is cited, and conveniently, concerning a crucial period in our history, when scores of personality, social groups, various parties, all had their role, were silently passed over, it raises questions or even suspicion. It gives a sense that this is the ‘crafted’ part of the speech which links to the role and script PM Najib has cast for himself in the speech. It conjures the picture of a ‘dynastic’ love of freedom and zeal for reforms and transformation. It gives a sort of ‘tradition’, ‘roots’ to what PM Najib is about to announce in the later of the speech. It evokes the image of a ‘great son’ continuing the great work of a 'grea father'. Is it effective in profiling great leadership with tradition, roots and national history behind it? I leave it to the Malaysian public for their assessment in this respect.

The speech and the political intents it foreshadowed raises many other reflections, queries. If the drift of the speech is that laws like ISA is irrelevant , obsolete or dysfunctional, why abolish it, and replace it with two other laws in due course. Does not this in a way indicate it continues to be relevant in some respect? Why not tweak the ISA to constitute necessary adaptation and contextualizing? Incidentally Singapore is maintaining its ISA, but has long modified it to smoothen some of its alleged ‘draconian’ aspects, like shortening the period of emergency detention, and instituting reviews and checks, involving legal opinions, advice and presidential decision. Frequent objections to our own ISA had been over its abuse or potentials for it. Why not then check abuses or opportunities for it, rather than abolishing the law and then having new ones in its place. If the concern is over abuses, laws are always open to abuses, old or new.

Concerning the law pertaining to freedom of assembly, the speech promised review, presumably towards greater leeway. But almost in the same breadth it emphasized strong principle against street demonstrations. Now we all know, this is precisely the context of recent contention on the issues of freedom of assembly. Given this fact, it does look like the issue would remain contentious even after the new law is put in place. Clearly the public seems to clamor for greater freedom to demonstrate (always professed to be peaceful in intention by them). Anyway, will the’ new freedom’ soon to be ushered in under PM Najib’s watch make street demonstrations an integral aspect of our Malay way of life?

Concerning the law on freedom of the press and mass media, on the circulation of ideas and publication, some formal changes would be ushered in, the essence of which is really quite strong in continuity rather than radical transformation. Annual renewal of license is no longer required. License is to be deemed granted, in force until revoked. Hence administratively it has been tidied, no annual work required or necessary, but the control is still in force, in place. The difference is really between the possibility of ‘license being denied’ and ‘lincense being revoked’ As to the substantive change between the two, it is for the public to assess.

The PM’s speech is heavily laden with liberal rhetorics, as many of his speeches are. As for their contextual relevance to today’s situation, especially our own nation, much had been said and written about by critics of classical liberalism as to their contextual or historical inadequacies for contemporary situation. ‘Philosophy of the people, by the people, , for the people’? Who are ‘ the people’ within the particular context of the speech? What is ‘will of the people’ functionally and operationally speaking? What is ‘development’ or ‘progress’ ? What is ‘developed ‘ and ‘modern’ nation aspired for? What is ‘freedom’ ? Checking carefully for the overall justification for ‘reforms’ in the speech, I discover that the ‘reforms’ of the laws is really meant to be in harmony with the change in economic policies announced years ago. The change in law is intended as ‘political change’ that ‘completes the economic changes’ announced. In other works it is all towards the declaration of Transformation, twinning political and economic changes really under the ambit of Transformation.

One notable feature of the speech to me seems to be the lack of personal conviction, or even party conviction in the speech and its ‘vision’ of Transformation and Change. The speaker adopts the voice of the compromising or accommodating personality. It is in the voice ‘this is what the people want’, ‘this what the nation desires’ and the like. The speaker speaks of ‘risks’ he is willing or has to take for ‘survival’ . The speaker touches on the question of ‘trust’ in people as the motivation for accommodating them? There is little to indicate the speaker's position or conviction on the issue of freedom, liberty, change. The speaker does not argue for freedom but 'grants'it to the people, puts the burden on the people or citizens to rise up to the occasion in uniting and forging a nation based on freedom granted.

I think it is this lack of personal conviction, combined with the tenor and style of thinking of the speech, peppered with rhetorical liberal concept of progress, development, people’s will, freedom, of unity, transformation and change, which colored the responses of the public. They sense the speech as an electioneering one, on both sides of the divide. They see the speech as either scoring points for BN or taking the wind of the opposition’s sail. But the issues raised is more vital to our nation and its survival, beyond election.I hope both the ruling party and the opposition see and understand this clearly. Freedom, its institutionalisation, checks and balances is by no means to be treated as dices in a political gamble.

PAS Passage to Paradise

2011-05-16T20:16:00.000-07:00

Recently, in connection with the sex-video 'exposure', PAS leader Nik Aziz made a declaration to the effect that those out to 'mengaibkan'( to shame, disgrace) Anwar Ibrahim will have the gate of paradise closed to them, not unless they kiss the feet of Anwar and beg for pardon. I think this is the height of arrogance on his part to appoint himself the gate keeper to the door of paradise. Given his party position, which fuses theology with politics, he is virtually saying he has the authority and power to determine who should be the dwellers of heaven or hell. What is worse, his pronouncement is tantamount to abusing religion for a crude political ploy to safeguard PR vested interests. Such political move really exposes our public life and politics to dangerous trends. We all know that the approach of narrow and partisan orthodoxy and religious extremism is quite basic to PAS politics, and that Nik Aziz's pronouncement is by no means a departure from the past. However, the latest attempt to wield his theological influence over the sex-video issue takes it to a new level altogether, which I believe would violate the feelings of many PAS members and supporters.

Incidently, it should be noted that the issue of the sex-video is by no means confined to a question of the personal weakness of an individual. This is what distingushes the position of a public figure and the man on the street. When the man on the street indulges himself in this respect, we tend to view it as a personal weakness, or moral failing. In the case of a public figure, or a leader, it assumes a different meaning and significance altogether for us.

Now besides the issues of authenticity or the identity of the perpetrators, the sex-video raises many other crucial and significant questions. Going by the facts revealed surrounding the exposure, there are issues of concern. In all the cases accusing Anwar, a pattern seems to emerge. There has always been a middle man, a functionary of sort, who takes care of his sexual needs. Someone who makes the arrangement, who fixes things, who picks up and delivers so to speak In short, who acts as the pimp. We had someone in the first sodomy trial or in his other liasons. In a revealing video, Nurlia ( if I am not mistaken) with whom Anwar had had sexual relations, in a recorded conversation with Anwar, referred to ' your friend who always picks me up and bring me to you'. I think in the latest scandal, Eskay performs this function too. The question is this. Has this been going on for a long time, from the time when he was the Deputy PM to being the leader of the opposition.? It does conjure an image of an influential leader set in his ways and lifestyle, who seems to be predispose to using his resources to this end. I leave it to your imagination the consequence of such a figure leading the nation.

Then there are many other questions. Consider for instance the queries raised by Eskay for public consideration. How many times Anwar visits Thailand in a year? Who greets him and see to all his needs? In whose house does he stay? What does he do in the house? Who pays for all these facilities and comforts? These questions do suggest a poser who is in the know. And the questions are of very serious charges. It raises the question is Anwar a leader with a particular life style of decadence? And such weakness seems to place him under the control and manipulation of certain vested interests.

Putting it all together, we have a disturbing picture of Anwar Ibrahim ( of course subject to further public introspection) On the one hand we have the image of a leader with a powerful hold on a credulous and fanatical supporters, and on the other hand a leader who has personal weaknesses, very much in contrast to his messianic public image, and who on that account is easily controlled or manipulated by vested interests.

I am not naive not to know that many other politicians are similar. Neither am I saying that Anwar would be an exception in this regard. All I am saying is that the public be vigilant and subject all our leaders to the same scrutiny and critical examination, and not be blinded by theatrics and antics of all shades, including the theological and the millenial kind. This posting is nothing more than an earnest plea that we preserve and maintain the dignity of our democracy and defend it against its enemies

Politics and magic

2011-04-30T02:28:00.000-07:00

Ordinarily, politics is roughly defined and understood as the determination of power for decision making and the distribution of values in society. Hence politics is also perceived as the process of choosing or selecting leaders. In this regard therefore, the political domain is very much part of the natural world, anchored in the pragmatic domain of living.

What is magic as commonly understood and believed in from primordial time till today? Magic refers to a belief system and a general world view. Magic has its own ways of perceiving nature, the world and life. It has its own structure of mind, certain characteristic ways of functioning or 'thinking'. Basically magic operates on principles 'off' the natural world, oblivious of scientific or objective facts, always referring to the 'supernatural', 'invisible', extra-logical world ( not in the religious sense but in forces such as ghosts, demons, witches, black magic etc.) Basically magic is incapable of objectifying the world, seeing things naturally or scientifically. Hence facts matter little to it, for the mind is bent upon brushing facts aside in preference for some other arbitrary and unverified explanation. For example, when a road accident happens, magical thinking is not interested in the facts of the case, such as the conditions of the road, the vehicle, the actual circumstances or material facts leading to the accidents, but instinctively turns to the notions that the location is haunted or jinxed, divine retribution befalling the victims, or that someone had effected black magic or witchcraft on the casualties.

Given the above, politics and magic would appear to be structurally different, the one very much anchored in the natural world, the domain of facts (though it can be disputatious), while magic is off the natural world and oblivious, or at least indifferent, to facts and empirical evidences. But are politics and magic all that different, at least in our Malaysian context? Observing the development of some of the major issues today and the various political responses of the public, I do not think the distinction between magic and politics is all that clear. It would seem that there are strong parallels, structurally speaking, between magic and politics.

Where political responses run along the structure of magic, we note the type of unshakeable conviction or illogical faith which runs counter to all manner of hard evidences or empirical facts. No measure of rational or logical discourse, scientific facts, technological arsenal like biometric, photographic and forensic scrutiny can make a dent on such outlook concerning matters which otherwise would be easily resolved by these approaches. Hence it is rather futile to appeal to such inclined members of the public on the basis of rational, empirical or scientific discourse. This phenomenon has led to the frustration of a great many who presume that politics simply runs on the basis of the rational, logic and the scientific, judging by the discourse on the internet. They soon discover that whatever evidences they advance, there will always be groups who have no use for such evidences, who instead will look for some anonymous, mysterious forces behind the facts, in an arbitrary fashion with no regards to the chain of cause and effects, or requirement of meaningful discourse pertaining to the matter.

What needs to be understood is this. It is not really a question of having enough or more evidences, but more the question of the nature and value of evidence itself. To those magically inclined in politics, they are not looking for evidences to establish the truth or the fact of a case, but merely to feed their emotion, faith and conviction. Hence anything that shakes or threatens their stand would be readily set aside, in favour of more satisfying elements which feed and reinforce their unshakeable belief. Instead of giving due consideration to the hard evidences, the magically structured would rather look for mysterious forces behind the evidences, very much like magical beliefs looking for wizards and witches whenever confronted by misfortune or life adversities. It is an integral aspect of magical culture to look for sinister forces lurking in the dark, working evil on individuals or groups in the society concerned. In short the idea of conspiracy in an all-embracing manner in disregard of natural or rational evidences is a basic element in the structure of magic.

Rational politics and magic run on different premises and appeal to different idea of ‘evidence’ and ‘truth’. Confusing the discourse of one for the other is to fail in distinguishing between differences of opinion and the difference between two diagonally opposed mental structure altogether. These two different minds or mental structures run parallel in politics, but will never ever have a meeting point anywhere. For this is the truth concerning magic. If indeed magical beliefs can be persuaded otherwise by rational discourse and hard evidences, both sharing the same premises in discourse, sharing the same idea of truth and measure of contradiction, magic would have disappeared long ago. Magic have survived for thousands of years, and will survive for thousands more, simply because it is a belief or faith which is impervious to the evidences of rationality and the objective world, and runs on its own premises or ‘logic’ (illogical or irrational to those outside of it)

RCI: DAP DIP ala DEB

2011-04-21T22:14:00.000-07:00

The Star 21 April 2011 reports a rather interesting development in the Royal Commission of Inquiry on the death of Teoh Beng Hock. The gists of the report include: 'the business man told..his company WSK Services used bumiputra companies as fronts to facilitate claims for projects and programmes carried out in the Seri Kembangan constituency'; businessman acknowledges that 'the bumiputra companies received between five and 10% of the contract sum as payment'; he admitted 'most of the contracts to carry out small projects and programmes in the constituency were awarded to the company'; he disclosed 'Teoh was the conduit between him (businessman) and Seri Kembangan state assemblyman Ean Yong Hian Wah with regards to discussions related to pricing of projects in the constituency''. As we know Teoh was Ean Yong's political aide.

Now this is very serious, raising many questions concerning the DAP's integrity. The DAP gained much ground in the last General Election riding the anti-Dasar Ekonomi Baru or the New Economic Policy. The much maligned aspect of the DEB was of course its so-called 'affirmative action' perceived as favouring the Malays or bumiputras, and discriminating against the non-bumiputras. One of the earliest act of the PR Penang State Goverment upon coming to power was declaring that it would not adhere or implement the DEB or NEP, sparking much political controversies. Now it is rather ironic, going by the disclosure in the RCI, that the PR Selangor state goverment would seem to be practicing a principle of the DEB, that is giving consideration to bumiputra companies in the award of projects.

It is even more ironic, if we reflect on some of the main causes of the failure of the DEB to restructure the economy meaningfully or justly ( we won't go into the issues over the policy aspects of DEB here) One of the main cause was certainly the farming out of business licences, contracts, tenders etc to non -Malays by bumiputras who then become 'sleeping partners' in the classic 'Ali-Baba' practice, or even the earlier ' Pembesar-Kapitan Cina' tradition. It is rather significant to note that the DAP seems to pay homage to this practice. Hence the DAP seems to be caught in not only 'implementing' the DEB, which it denounces as a major platform, but also its abuses of the past, which corrupted and sabotaged it. So plain speaking: what's this about! The DAP has a lot of explaining to do!

It is even more mind boggling, bordering on comedy, if we add to all this the fact that the BN has abrogated the DEP and ushered in the NEM, with much fanfare and political fireworks. Will the BN , like the DAP, make a distinction between pronouncement and practice, between 'policy'and ' implementation'? Will it also revert to the croony- ridden practice of the past?

Coming back to the RCI and the DAP, the disclosure raises many questions. In the first place, is it true?If so, is it a case of the corruption of an individual assemblyman, or is it 'systemic'? Is it a deviation of one, or a party mechanism, an institutionalisation of a practice, a tradition in the making, so to speak? If it is a case of an individual's corruption, the DAP would have to come clean in appropriate measure. Silence would be construed by the public as conspiracy or complicity.

The disclosure also prompts some reflection on our part. What with all the slogans and rhetoric in our politics! I hope it is not simply in obeisance to the imperative of power for the sole purpose of getting a piece of the action in corruption, regardless of public pronouncements and solemn promises. It is meaningless to the public if politics merely come to mean a change of syndicate commanding corruption and its beneficiaries. Politics would then degenerate into the quest for power and the monopoly to dip into the till at the expense of the public!

Anugerah atau Anu-ghairah? ( Saint or Sensous? )

2011-04-09T01:03:00.000-07:00

Thought I would have a quiet weekend and forget for awhile (at least for the weekend) so many matters troubling our nation, what with a second death under mysterious circumstances concerning MACC, corruption cases (the arrests and court cases are good news, auguring well for our nation, but as indications of the prevalence of corruption they are most disturbing) involving the Immigration and the Customs, the Bible or religious issues, and many many other ethnic relation, issues portentous of serious conflicts in our nation. But no!...no way of shutting them out. It's all over in the news, as they say there is no escaping them. Might as well make some notes and impressions.

There is now this 'quest for truth',the identity of a man in a now infamous video clipping. If anyone can have the copyright or even just the physical master copy, he could make millions. It is that hot! But then we all know, that is not to be, right..given the circumstances. The circumstances and the development of the issue is as interesting, instructive as it is baffling in its twist and turn. As I had argued in an earlier posting, perspectives would greatly differ depending on how we defined the video basically, pornography or political document. As it turned out, even this basic starting point is not as simple or clear cut. Like everything else in our Malaysian politics, the lines are drawn by partisan views or political divides. The development is clear now, the opposition would define it as pornography, while for the establishment it is a political document on the action of a political leader , caught in 'the act'.

The basic definition held by the opposition, crying foul of 'porno', allowed it to use the law against those behind the video (away from the one 'in' the video), and to check the circulation of the video, or even public discussion of it, in short to will the video out of public consciousness, all under 'production', 'posession', 'disemination' under the law. This would make it much easier for categorical denial of the content. How is the public to judge then? What will come through is just plain, pure denial, appealing to faith or dogmatism, with no recourse to materials for verification or authentication. Of course this opens the way to the usual political stand simply based on ' he is not capable of such act', 'out of character' or ' yet another conspiracy'. Such faith has been somewhat dented lately when the 'abridged version' of the video had been circulated or publicised, taking care of the 'pornograhic' character of the document, omitting ' the act' as such, merely showing the build up, the preparation before the act proper. While disappointing many interested in 'the act', those interested in identification have enough to go by, towel or no towel.

But still the opposition remains steadfast in its charge of 'porno', denial of identity of main cast, with a political counter charge of the usual 'conspiracy'. The position taken, like all other issues, may be summed up in the maxim ' your word against mine' and ' your words are however lacking credibility, legitimacy or moral authority'. Hence if the public expects 'truth' in the form of admission or confession, or acknowledgement of facts, they are somewhat naive, I have to say. Given its basic formula, this is never forthcoming of the opposition.Even if there had been four live witnesses to the issue, it will be maintained that 'somehow' the person is 'not him'. Hence the public should reconsider its notion of truth, or their expectation of it, in this case. With or without RCI, their basic 'formula' will not change, neither would be 'the truth' entertained.

What about the BN or the establishment? Initially it was caught by 'porno' argument. Now it has wised up to the distinction of 'porno' and 'political'. It is on the counter charge. Minister Hishamuddin as custodian of the integrity of the police force is suing those crying 'conspiracy'. Minister Nazri Aziz is pushing for RCI, regretfully for the wrong reason to the effect: ' since they deny the truth, and blame the BN, the BN has to defend itself'. Now this would have the effect of making the issue of RCI a partisan one, a BN initiative or 'project', and an interested one. Wouldn't this feeding or playing into the hand of the opposition? Wouldn't it gives credibility to the accusation that the proposed RCI is 'politically motivated'? There are so many, much more credible reasons from the national perspective for so constituting an RCI, but the BN seems to be too 'BN centric ' to see or advance them. What about the rational of public accountability, national security, public interests, public right to know, and many more?

The issue is clearly taking a partisan view, hence the notion of truth, and the nature of the quest for it, expressed in the debate between 'anugerah' and 'anu-ghairah'. How will it end? Will the aura and near-saint cult survived the BN endeavor to transform 'anugerah' into 'anu-ghairah'? Will the RCI be instituted and will it change anything? I guess we the public will have to keep an open mind and see if indeed Truth will prevail!

Bibles: Stamping out the holy and the devil must pay!

2011-04-02T20:51:00.000-07:00

We all know how sensitive religious issues can be within the context of our multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious nation. Although in terms of abstraction and conceptual analysis we can differentiate between these categories, in reality they are part and parcel of one reality of our daily lives simultaneously. This is especially so within the context of our Malaysian nation where racial, cultural and religious denomination greatly coincide or overlap. Hence it is seldom the case where a particular issue is exclusively 'racial', 'cultural' or 'religious', with no wider implications beyond the immediate and particular definition of the situation, spilling over into the general complex of the racial, the cultural and the religious.

I realise I am merely stating 'the obvious', which however needs restating, given the discourse even among our politicians or public figures on important and touchy matters. For example, take the usual polemics of politicians themselves on various occasions, consciously or unconsciously stirring controversies: 'Are you Malay (Indian or Chinese) first, or Malaysians first?'; ' Are you Muslim( Christian, Buddhist, Hindu) first, or Malay, Indian, Chinese or others) first?; 'Are you of your faith (whatever), ethnicity (whatever) first, or your political party (whatever)?

This'obvious' multi-dimensional aspect of our nation, can work out to be indeed a blessing or a dangerous curse, depending on our wisdom, tack and sensitivity of the collective life. Our stand on issues can readily either integrate or unravel the nation, as they normally affect deeply our innermost sentiments or feelings. One unfortunate effect of this is that someone with a Machiavellian outlook has a powerful tool at his disposal. Any medium he chooses, be it 'ethnic', 'racial', 'religious', 'linguistic', 'party line', can easily amplify right across the board into other areas of life as well.

I read with interest and concern a news item in the Star, 1 April 2011, carrying the caption ' The Gideons not ready to collect ''stamped' Bibles'. The facts are as follows: 30,000 copies of the Bibles are awaiting collection in Kucing. The importer the Gideon says it has not decided the course of action and would inform donors and Church leaders in Sarawak when it decides. The terms of their deliberation suggest strong identification, sympathy and cross referencing with the experience of the Bible Society of Malaysia in Peninsula Malaysia over another batch of imported Bibles in bahasa Malaysia

The facts are as follows: Last Wednesday, the Bible Society of Malaysia (BMS) collected 5,100 copies of the Bible in bahasa Malaysia, previously impounded by the Malaysian government.BMS collected the copies for the reason; ' to prevent the possibility of further acts of desecration or disrespect being committed against the holy books of the Christians by the ministry and its officers'. Here the BMS is referring to the ministry's act of stamping and serialising the copies. Well, is it an act of 'desecrating' or being ' disrespectful' towards 'the holy book of the Christians? I think it is somewhat overstating it.

It was the ministry's way of giving effect to the spirit of the law. The court had decided that Christians have the right to the use of 'Allah' internally, within their circle, under the principle of the right to practice their own religion( a court appeal is pending). From the ministry's point of view, I suppose, stamping and serialising serves the purpose of identifying copies and ensuring its legitimate area of circulation. The act of stamping and serialising does not go into the content and message of the Bible to be deemed 'desecrating' or 'disrespecting the holy book of Christians'. The holy or divine message of the scriptures had not been diminished or stamped out in any way.

Now the BMS had decided not to sell the stamped and serialised copies but instead 'to preserve them as museum pieces'. Is it figuratively speaking when BMS speaks of 'museum pieces'? Figuratively or otherwise, BMS intention of polemicizing or politicising the matter is clear. It has every intention to exploit the 'defaced copies' in some manner to incite religious sentiments, turning an administrative act into the mark of the devil, 'desecrating, defacing the holy book'.

Now there is the question of who should pay? The Home Minister Hishamuddin and Minister Idris Jala have made efforts to get 'Christian donors' and 'friends' to pay for the stamped and serialised copies (deemed 'desecrated' and ' defaced' by BMS) BMS has rejected these offers in strong terms: 'BMS wishes to make its stand clear that we will only accept a cheque from the Home Ministry and will not accept any money from so called “Christian donors”.Now all of this makes it interesting, though intriguing. Why should the government try to pay for the copies? Is it pang of guilt? Does the Home-Ministry feel it has wronged? Does it regret its action? If in the affirmative, it should of course resort to some restitution of cost, not otherwise.

BMS's stand raises questions too. Obviously BMS is not concerned about money, otherwise it should matter little what is the source of payment. BMS meant payment to be a symbolic act, an admission of guilt, hence it can only accept payment from the Ministry. This is holding to its charge that the copies had been desecrated and defaced, hence the devil should pay.Hence we are back to the earlier question. Does the Home Ministry feel it has done wrong? If so, it should pay and not get someone else to pick the tab, which will make it even more intriguing: how are we to interpret this from the responsibility or accountability point of view?

The latest response of the government with regards to the whole Bible issue seems to suggest that the goverment assume full responsibility for the act of impounding, stamping and serialising, perceived by organisations the like of BMS as 'desecration' and 'defacement'. This is indicated in the policy to allow the free import and printing of Bibles in all languages, including in bahasa Malaysia. In Sabah and Sarawak, the importation and printing of Bibles are allowed without the necessity of any form of categorisation or serialisation.In Peninsula Malaysia Bibles in bahasa Malaysia need to be categorised as Christian publication, with a clear sign of the cross on the cover. Some elements of an admission of guilt are also indicated on the part of the goverment in the strongly worded instructions issued to officials on procedures concerning Bibles. But the clearest form of admission of guilt and apology is expressed in Minister Idris Jala's imploration for Christians to forgive the goverment over the action, whom he says are not perfect, as all human beings are only 'beautifully imperfect'.

It is instructive to reflect over the whole incident.I am confident that the issue is by no means entirely resolved, going by the tendencies and sentiments of parties in the whole incident. For now I can only say, let us not lose sight of both the secular and the divine in our lives, and let us vigilantly keep the devil of bigotry at bay at all times!

'Anwar sex video': A matter of depth and penetration (of meaning)

2011-03-25T20:56:00.000-07:00

The Malaysian nation had been rocked yet once again with the politics of sex, this time involving the opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim. As usual it evokes the usual range of responses or reaction from various quarters. Seeing the whole episode as 'a phenomenon', we can categorize or typify the responses into standard or characteristic forms,which operate almost automatically whatever the 'issues', 'exposure', 'sensation', 'scourge', 'lie' maybe, without being bogged into 'partisan' or 'interested' views, consciously or unconsciously obliged 'to believe' or' not to believe' soundly.

The opposition of course had taken the most natural course of responding. Instinctively it has dissociated, denied the authenticity of the video, and then capitalise. Hence the denial that the main character is indeed the person alleged. Then the issue of content is sidelined or marginalised to become that of the depravity of those behind the whole incident. The issue is redefined as the immoral act of some to 'shame' (mengaibkan), 'disgrace', 'humiliate', linking the issue with past precedence which had somewhat won some public sympathy, in this case the Elizabeth Wong affair. In this manner it is hoped that public attention is deflected from 'content' and 'authenticity' (actual content of video) to 'disqualification' and ' admissibility' (the right of the video to exist is called into question), Strictly speaking this charge of 'mengaibkan' (to shame) refers to the doer and his action, but not to those out to expose it. The pornography is 'shameful' and 'shaming' but not the act of political exposure. By analogy, if a corrupt politician is caught on tape negotiating a shady deal, it is not for him, once exposed, to complain that the exposure is 'embarassing' him. Or at most, the motivation and the morality of those responsible for the exposure should be viewed quite independently of the authenticity and content of the video.

Then the whole video affair is overblown to fit into 'the dogma of conspiracy'. Almost over nothing, the involvement of the PM, Home Affairs Minister, the Police force were insinuated, the whole affair pronounced as being orchestrated at ' the highest level', all calculated to 'fix' one man . Of course by now this dogma of conspiracy is wearing thin, becoming like a national cliche to those non-doctrinaire. Now the actual meaning of this 'dogma of conspiracy' is interesting and intriguing. Firstly there is a limit to its efficacy. As we know, it is not easy to fabricate truth or lie, even at the lowest level of everyday life. We may succeed in lying to one person, it gets more difficult to lie to two, even more so with three and so on. As the circle of victims gets wider it gets more and more difficult. What more at the national and historical level. You cannot simply fix and arrange a whole complex of cultural or historical phenomena to support or reinforce your lie or 'conspiracy'. I am sure we realise it is not easy to fix a whole bureaucary, police force, members of public, journalists, battery of witnesses, judges, whole court machinery etc. As the popular expression goes, one may be able to lie to some people all the time, to all the people sometime, but not to all the people all the time.

I am not as naive as to deny that there can be vested interests or political motives influencing political views or leanings. I am aware too that the nature of politics can involve plots or conspiracy in the conventional sense. But I am certainly sceptic towards ' conspiracy' as dogma: a blanket, instinctive,mechanical, emotional response to whatever political issues of the day. At the bottom of it,' conspiracy' as dogma simply functions as unthinking or fanatical anti-establishment ideology.

As we know the law speaks its own language, but the meaning of life is not entirely represented or monopolised by the legal meaning. For instance the sex video in question do have other meanings, at different depth and penetration. It admits of other angles and perspectives. Depending on positions taken, the video can assume other significance or meaning, deserving our consideration. For example, is it a 'porno'? The content maybe that, but if we consider the circumstances it may not be. Was it shot with a view of the porno market? Is it really meant to arouse, to stimulate, to cater to lust, or is it meant really to record the doing of a politician, with a view of exposure? Is it meant as a product for the porno market or not? Our answer to these questions will make it either a 'porno' or a 'political document'

. And then there is the question of 'dissemination'. Was it really disseminated? Were copies made and widely distributed in the media, or made public? Actually it was shown not as porno to a sleazy market, but to selected invited senior editors, journalists, public figures with specific relevance. Not quite 'public' or ' porno market'. So was it a porno item and pornographic dissemination, or simply the preview of a political document in the wider sense? Whatever we may say about 'gutter politics' etc, the sexual behaviour of top politician or public figures is part and parcel of their public image and political standing, East or West, and history can easily bear this out (Consider Clinton or Christine Keeler?) We still remember the case of the US senator who had to resign over gay solicitation in a public loo.

In the meantime, we note other responses. Wan Azizah had commented why she refuse to watch the video because it is ' haram dan berdosa' (forbidden and sinful). Obvously she is going by the strict or direct meaning of the content. and not as a political document. Some parties are demanding the Trio be arrested for 'possession' and 'disseminating', obviously seeing it as basically 'porno'. Others are advising the public to stop being obsessed with 'sex' again seeing it essentially as 'porno'. Ustaz Hadi Awang uses the Islamic card, arguing that Islam insists on having four witnesses, missing the point, that is the whole design of the video and modern digital recording, in part playing the role of 'witness'. Or that it can be part of the intention of the Trio in calling the selected niche pre-viewers, not to arouse them but more in the capacity of ' to bear witnesses'

The purpose of this posting is not arrogate myself the truth of the matter, as most of us don't know many details as yet, but merely to share other perspectives, worthy of our attention. Like I say, it is not simply a legal matter, but perhaps more importantly a matter of penetration and depth (of meaning) beyond the legal. Having said that, I have faith that truth will prevail if we do not pre-determined the matter prematurely either way. After all who is the person in the video is a question of fact which can be diligently or scrupulously established by proper procedures.

Cat Out of the Bag

2011-03-15T19:44:00.000-07:00

I read the news in yesterday’s Malay Mail(15 March 2011) over the demands of 20 animal rights activists that the DAP takes action against its assemblyman and member of parliament, alleged to be siding and protecting ‘cat killer’ Chao Xiao Wei.

The news vividly brought to mind the video. Objectively speaking, it would be an understatement to describe the incident as simply ‘killing a cat’. The recording shows it to be a far more serious or disturbing than this. I must say that it was an act of utter cruelty.

It was a despicable sadistic act. When the perpetrator rained the blows on the poor helpless kitten, she would taunt the mother cat, looking her way after each blow, assessing and relishing the pain she must be causing to the desperate and anguished mother. The whole episode was not simply to ‘kill the cat’ but really a performance calculated to cause maximum pain not to the kitten but more to the mother cat, to torment and torture her against her maternal instinct. The elements of cruelty is greatly enhanced or heightened considering she was then acting against helpless creatures, which must have given her a sense of absolute power over life and death, clearly evidenced by her mannerism and gestures. When the desperate mother cat courageously tried to save her young ones, she would be intimidated and menacingly drove away by Chao Xiao Wei. We see this happening twice in the video. Why was there a need to deny the mother retrieving and rescuing her kittens?

Then consider the actual act of slowly killing the kitten. She rained a series of blows over the poor helpless kitten, who tried pitifully to crawl away. And once cornered in a sort of pit, Chao Xiao Wei bludgeoned the kitten half dead with her deadly umbrella.

And the way she wielded that umbrella is noteworthy. It reminds one of Reihana’s ‘My Umbrella’, albeit the difference. The one uses the umbrella in a seductive artistic dance, while the other in a dance of death, to torture and snuff life. Chao Xiao Wei actually prances to and fro with her weapon in the recording, to bludgeon the kitten and to menace the mother cat. Watch how she would support herself with her umbrella, one foot neatly tucked slightly behind the other, as if in a dance movement ala Reihana.

She would take the half dead kitten, cast it down before the mother cat, and then most sadistically stamped on it twice, with all the force of her full weight. She kicked the kitten, a full keeper’s goal kick, in the direction of the mother.

I read in the newspaper, she explained her behavior as follows. She could not control her depression over her parent’s divorce. Frankly speaking, while I normally sympathize with those experiencing depression over personal problems, in this case I failed to see the explanation corresponding with the sadistic nature of the offence perpetrated.

Serdang MP Teo Nie Ching (DAP) said that she and her colleague were not siding or protecting Teo Xiao Wei but merely providing her with a channel to apologize. She added that Teo Xiao Wei has the right to apologize while it is up to the animal right’s activist to accept her apology or not. All this set me wondering. Is the issue of the cat killing merely an issue of animal rights and the concern of only animal rights activists? I don’t think so. In my opinion the nature of the act should outrage our sense of human decency, not necessarily confined to the smaller cycle of animal rights activists.

I am also wondering to whom should the apology be directed? In normal circumstances, if we feel remorseful over our action, it would be ideal if we apologize and make amends to the victims or aggrieved party directly. But then just how do you apologize to a dead kitten and to its grieving mother for sure? Rights and nine lives notwithstanding, animals still depend on the sense of human decency that militates against cruelty.

Race: Substance Over Form

2011-03-04T16:15:00.000-08:00

For sometime now, there has been a move to erase 'race' from some official and public forms, both in public and private sector. Yesterday the Star reported the move had been given a new push by the 1Malaysia foundation. The pronouncements of various public figures seem to recognise that the endeavour is wrought with difficulties but justified the move as 'the beginning' and little steps in the realisation of a long-term idealism. In other words, going by their statements, they seem to claim a vision of Malaysia without 'race' as a sense of identification.At the same time I sense many contradictions in their trepidations and a certain awkwardness. They do not seem to be comfortable in their stand, and seemed lacking in confidence and conviction.There is apologetic tone to their admission that 'it won't be easy', ' would be difficult' and its just a beginning. There is also the device of ' erase only in some forms, while it may be necessary to retain in some forms'. The overall intonation conjures an image of people caught in the promises and pronouncements of their own campaign and the demand of consistency, rather than those speaking with the power of their conviction.

I have some comments to share in this connection. I think the question is far more complicated than realised by those in the headlong race to erase 'race' from the forms, even given their trepidations and admission of 'difficulties'.

Within the Malaysian context, the term 'race' and 'ethnicity' is by no means as clean as understood in the academic or scientific sense, where the biological, 'the blood' is distinguished from 'ethnic', the cultural identity. This is particularly so in the case of the Malays, where historically speaking 'race' , 'bangsa' has always been held to be 'cultural' and not ' blood', where self-identity is based on factors like language, religion and way of life. Hence it is valid to raise the question, is the 'race' in the forms asking of one's 'blood', 'biology' or one's cultural roots or socio-historical identity? If it is asking of one's cultural self-identity, which is the case in my assessment, it begs some questions in the light of the suggestion to erase race. What is wrong with it? Is it really possible for people of various denominations to overnight forget and shed their sense of cultural identity? Can the Malays simply trade in their religious identity and cultural history for a clean Malaysian tag? Likewise can the Chinese and Indians and others simply trade in their long cultural history and sense of identity for a Malaysian identity?

Well those naive enough would object that we need to cultivate the national identity in substitute of other forms of cultural identity. But then we all know, human self -identity is always complex, plural, manifolds and multiple. It is not like a matter of changing one's shirt or the process of branding in the consumer market, where one has only one facet and monolithic at any one time. This is the reality of human sense of the self and there is nothing wrong in this.

Of course I am distinguishing here between 'race' or 'ethnic' as self-identification and 'racism' . They are by no means the same. To have a cultural sense of identity is not being a racist. Racism is more a question of fanaticism and bigotry over one's ' blood', 'biology', and attributing values to it. An extreme example familiar to all of us is nazism, where the self-identification is based on the purity of the Aryan stock, which is claimed to have the monopoly of all the positive human attributes , as against all other 'races', of non-Aryan stock. Now this is racism. To be proud of or to acknowledge one's cultural identity does not presupposes such bigotry. To treat them as the same is not only naive, but very dangerous and of great consequences. For one, such naivety may be camouflaging and championing actual racism of some against the valid sense of cultural-identity of others.

Such moves like removing 'race' from official forms ( even when it is supposed to include the private sector) in the Malaysian context has a hidden danger. It operates on the implicit assumption that 'racism' is the vice of officialdom of the establishment. This is why the moves usually invites the support of 'the public'. Now given the fact that officialdom, the bureaucracy, the civil service, the public sector, the establishment, the status-quo, the 'dominant' is often seen as 'Malay', invariably the 'erase race' movement becomes a one-sided, lopsided, and grossly distorted quest of eradicating 'Malay racism', as if all the other ethnic groups are free of the problem. Now we know the truth is that there is communalism and communalists in all camps and denomination, if we have the courage and honesty to admit it.

Our ethnic identities (often slurred or stigmatised as 'race') run very deep indeed, culturally and historically speaking) As such there is a great deal of naivety in the argument of the 'erase movement', in that 'we do not want the people focus too much on 'race'. Come on! Within the Malaysian context in general the names on the forms itself will announce one's 'race'. In most cases the names would indicate very clearly one's 'race', 'religion', and cultural background. Are they then to standardise the names of Malaysians too, befitting the intention of the 'erase race' move?

There are other realities of our Malaysian nation which represent the deeper roots of our ethnic identities. In the first place ours is a pluralistic society. All the major ethnic groups have their own cultural history, of deeper and older tradition than the Malaysian identity. And there is nothing wrong with this, as I had argued in the above. What is wrong is not ethnic self-identity but communalism, racism, or chauvinism.

Secondly, our ethnic consciousness is deeply rooted and structural in origin and nature. The economic structure is still divided along 'racial' (ethnic) line. The following economic categories still conform closely to ethnic lines. Rural versus urban, agricultural versus commercial and industrial, professional versus working class etc. The religious denominations still conforms closely to ethnic lines in general. Linguistically, we are still divided. Just consider the attitudes and valuation towards the national language and English or other languages. The political structure is essentially rooted and determined by the various history of 'ethnic' groups. Hence the origin and basis of the national language, official religion, certain provisions of the constitution ( I do not mean only the Malay position, but of the others too). In other words the origin and nature of the nation itself had been the outcome or the synthesis of 'racial' , 'ethnic' proce of bargaining. Take for example the origin and nature of the Malaysian monarchy itself and the sultanates. Are these to be 'erased' too, along with the change of form in the form

Given these deeper roots and the above considerations, I think the move to 'erase' is assuming in saying ' we do not want the people to be conscious of 'race'. Given the deeper roots of ethnic identities, it may well work in the opposite direction. In denying the external expression of such identities, the inner, the emotional, the mental process of chauvinism may well be reinforced. When articulation of legitimate self-identification is denied and stigmatised in naive idealism, it may well lend support for the inner and usually covert, sinister chauvinism among us.

Time to declare my own position as to the 'erase race' move. I think it is quite non-consequential, to leave or erase it. The issue of this posting is not to lend support or objection to it. I just want to provide the bigger picture and the true value of it. Quite independent of the form, ethnic self-identification will continue, given its deeper roots. It is not about to be affected by the forms. Having said this, I do concede as an election move, 'erase race' may prove to be a popular move. It is gimmicky, sensational, of media value and it is quite simply to do because it is essentially a bureaucratic move. And above all, it is just a question of 'form', paper or otherwise, and yet of great political mileage. Is this a safe assumption?

Who is minding the Nation?

2011-02-27T02:29:00.000-08:00

There is a kind of dilemma facing certain kind of blogger. It is keenly felt each time the nation becomes engrossed in what is commonly dubbed ' election fever'. When the nation is gripped by this fever, all things become extremely partisan and dogmatic. Perspectives in the mass media become rather skewed, lopsided, inflexible, stereotyped, predictable and distorted as colored by political affiliation and the will to power. In such atmosphere the non-partisan, issue-based sort of blogger is crowded out, stifled, sidelined, marginalized, or simply rendered irrelevant. The universe of discourse comes only in black and white, with no subtleties, details, shades in between. The ends of politics then is not the search for truth and the real value of things, but simply the question of 'win' or 'lose'. In this situation, the public is not very interested in ideas but in 'intuitively' labeling blogger in terms of 'which side', 'whose sides', 'pro-establishment', 'anti-establishment', 'anti-Malay or Chinese or Indian', 'pro-Malay or Chinese or Indian', 'what badge', 'which banner ' and so forth.

As a result, the deeper and more meaningful discourse of ideas, necessary for nation building and national introspection, suffers because such discourse can only flourish outside such absolute, dogmatic and narrow categories and transcending all of them. This stifling malady of 'election fever' can be of epidemic proportion when it does strike, sparing neither the ruling coalition nor the opposition. While these are ideal conditions for the dogmatic and narrowly partisan blogger or journalists to thrive in, for they then become very relevant within the adversarial, combative, emotional, irrational atmosphere created, it is time for the issue-based and idea- driven blogger or journalists to concede for the moment and take a back seat.

The important question is once a nation is delirious with 'election fever', who is addressing the issues and challenges of nation building? The question becomes more pertinent when at times the process of electioneering and the associated 'election fever' consumes a substantial portion of the nation's life , what with the obsessive strategising and crystal gazing as to the auspicious date of election. Quite often the time and energy spent on 'election forecasting' is in itself most draining. More important issues are shelved, sidelined, marginalized, cool storage, neutralized, simply because they do not translate well into votes or square nicely with the ballot boxes. Even issues of nation building would be handled differently and at different depth when adapted to the process of electioneering and the power game. Consider the following examples: Nation building demands that we look at the problem of ethnic relations objectively and deeply, identifying its deeper causes, which cry out for honest and decisive solutions to the problems, both structurally and culturally; electioneering on the other hand would handle the issue in a more gimmicky, emotive, propagandist and superficial manner, crafting or spinning the issues to suit its political calculations. Just examine the manner in which the issues of ethnic relations are handled by both the ruling party or the opposition in this regards.

Another example is the issue of corruption. The task of nation building demands that we look at corruption as an issue of governance and institutional control, but the process electioneering would rather focus on the blame game, finger pointing, mud slinging, denial or damnation. Those afflicted and paralyzed by election fever often forget that those in power need checks because power tends to corrupt, while it is always easy for those who lack the opportunity for corruption to condemn the corrupt, while arrogating self-righteousness to themselves. Another example is the task of developing the national vision. While nation building demands that we look at this objectively and wisely, the election process tends to reduce the task to a question of dishing out what is popular, titillating and seductive in the short term, that is to say what is good for votes and the ballot box, in service of the will to power.

I can almost hear objections to the effect: 'But election is important and an integral part of democracy'. Yes that is true. Election is important but it is not everything! I also hear the objection: ' Election issues are national issues and it is the working out or the unfolding of the national vision'. Yes and no! While some of the election issues are pertinent and are manifestations of national concerns, not all significant and urgent issues of nation building manage to emerge as election issues. In our heart of heart we all know this. And then, even when nation building and electioneering seems to address themselves to the same issues, most time they would be handled at different depths and in very different ways, with different ends in mind.

Consider the following elements, differentiating nation building and electioneering. Nation building demands leadership, while electioneering favors showmanship. Nation building works with vision while electioneering runs on 'fads', moods and controversies of the day, popularly term 'issues'. Nation building educates, enlightens and cultivates the people, while electioneering merely excites, agitates, and indoctrinates them. Nation building appeals to the rationality and better judgment of the people, while electioneering to their impulses and basic sentiments. Nation building endeavors to convince the people regarding national vision and the better interests of the nation in the long run, while electioneering aims to manipulate, cajole and condition the people in the short-term.

If the election fever persists and deepens, electioneering may become a permanent feature or character of a nation. The nation then becomes what I term an 'election nation', devoid of any true vision whatsoever. The history and development of the nation then suffers as it is eternally condemned to the superficiality and myopia of electioneering. It would be very difficult indeed for such a nation to achieved the status of a genuine nation, let alone a great one at that.

The mood of the mass media is certainly shifting its gear in a major way towards electioneering and away from nation building. There are many indicators of this development. For one, more 'goodies' are being dished out, which are promptly discredited by the respective interested parties. The fervor of the mob, as well as their self-righteousness, are fast rising.The leaders of both sides of the divide have certainly dawned their electioneering garbs and perform the rituals. We as a nation is now in the full swing of the electioneering mode.

I am wondering, as the nation is in earnest electioneering, who is minding the nation? They who have not traded national vision for popular fancies and whims. They who have not abdicated the responsibility of leadership for the limelight of personality cult. They who have not bargained the destiny of the nation for their own unbridled will to power. They who aspire to contribute towards nation building and not merely and perpetually engaged in a life-long process of electioneering!

Elect the Select

2010-12-11T23:01:00.000-08:00

The public is wondering if the general election might be around the corner. This is understandable as some of the actions and manoeuvres of major political parties are indeed indicative of mobilisation, gearing up and the closing of rank.But still, even as they gear up for the election, whenever that maybe, all the parties or their coalition seem to faced many problems within and without. Some of these 'domestic' problems have been the center of public focus, in great part due to the action of parties denouncing and undermining each other in the political contest. In short, whatever the public gained by way of information is not so much due to democratic competition of ideas as the desire of parties to politically discredit or denounce their rival. Hence where the public gain by way of some information, they lose out in terms of depth of ideas or political philosophy offered by many of the political parties. It would seem that our political parties are primarily dictated by two tendencies. either to politically denounce or discredit rival parties or garner public support by appealing to emotion or populistic tendencies.

While politicians and political parties serve their interests, however they may define that to be, still the public reserve their democratic right to determine their leaders and future policies. This inalienable right assumed however some vigilance and alertness, some power of discrimination on their part to distinguish between genuine and propagandistic ideas, between the sensational and the realistic, between the democratic and the populistic. The public should discriminate between leaders and demagogues, or those aspiring to be such. The public should be true to themselves in distinguishing between leaders with constructive ideas for the national good and those who merely represent and confirm popular prejudices or selfishness.

I have been observing some of our recent political development. Definitely the sense of political gearing is unmistakable, regardless of the date of the next general election, be it on the part of the national ruling coalition or the opposition coalition. I would like to share some of my own impressions and 'perplexities' with readers.

The presidential speech at the last UMNO general assembly was clearly aimed at mobilisation and the closing of rank, obviously with the coming election in mind. Before this many of the speeches and action of the present party leadership tended to dissociate from the past. In a departure, the presidential speech for 2010 more than generously acknowledged the contribution and achievement of former premiers. In fact more than just acknowledging their contribution, in his speech the president sees his leadership more as a continuity of the past and building upon the foundation laid by his illustrious predecessors. Another sure sign of mobilisation and the closing of rank is the image entertained of the Malays. Instead of the usual slur and condescending attitude, the speech idealised the image and cultural identity of the Malays formally or 'nationalistically',in a manner clearly meant to be a crowd-pleaser. The usual derogatory reference to 'subsidy mentality', 'crutch dependence', 'free-loader syndrome' or 'lackadaisical mindset' is conspicuously absent. This raised the question might it not be an attempt to appease the mounting criticism against the leadership alleged 'insensitivity' of Malay feelings and sentiments in some of the newly inaugurated policies?

This idealisation of Malay image and cultural identity however was to some extent 'unravelled' when the speech urged the Malays not to 'squander' their rights and interests by their negative attitudes, complacency and attitudes of the past. Hence the image of the 'squandering' Malays' is still there albeit latently (whereas the issue really is who and which Malays had been squandering or abusing and how? )

Another sign of mobilisation and the closing of rank is of course the direct reference to the question of Malay rights. Putting the speech in a wider political context, it raises the question whether it wast meant to pacify Malay grouses and 'disillusionment' towards the party leadership for seemingly disregarding Malay interests in formulating new policies? This interpretation is plausible given the speech's assurance that Malay rights is safe and secure under the Constitution. The question remains though would a formal assurance by way of constitutional argument be enough to appease Malay concerns over actual policies and their consequences in the concrete texture of real politics?

BN partners are quarrelling among themselves. In whatever ways component party leaders try to minimize the damages of bickering in public, from the public point of view they still conjure a general picture of disunity and disarray. Component parties are still arguing on fundamental issues of bumiputra participation in the economy. We cannot go into the actual issue as such, given the present constraint. I merely wish to highlight the point of basic differences or tension within the coalition, marring a picture of unity and common political platform. Recently there are bickering on the procedural propriety or the political wisdom of individual parties announcing policies of national implications through party channels, in disregard of other coalition partners. Gerakan president spoke of the undesirability of 'big brother', 'small brother' attitude within the coalition. Regardless of his thinking or intention, in raising the issue the Gerakan president had implanted the image of disunity, conflict and strained relations within the BN rank in the mind of the public.

The opposition coalition is not faring any better either. It had been inflicted by droves of resignation and party defection. To make matters worse, each defection was usually accompanied by sensational disclosures of 'inner happenings', recounting internal weaknesses of the parties. A usual grouse tantamounts to disillusionment with party leadership and party policies. Many defectors question the moral integrity and right of leaders or the party to national leadership. I suppose the conflicts in the opposition coalition bears out one political reality, that once in power a former opposition party or coalition would be exposed as any other group to the corrupting effects of power and position of influence in various forms. A keen political observer would see that in some respects the PR coalition is sharing the same experience and challenges as the BN in matters of ruling and wielding power.

At the last party convention, the PKR president said something of a curiosity in her presidential speech. According to her Anwar Ibrahim is 'god-sent' and 'born' to lead the people. As evidence, she offered the political career of Anwar Ibrahim in being able to resist all 'political threats'. She contented that had he been ' an ordinary person like us' he would have succumbed. Now I cannot help wondering. Was it a personal opinion or reflective of party party thinking? Was it approved by Anwar Ibrahim,who is the party adviser? Did he approve of the assessment on himself? What prompted the president to say it? What motivated her? Was it a wife's loyalty to her husband? Was it an instinct of dynastic ambition, be it for her husband or daughter's long term political career? Or is it the feeling of PKR that Nik Aziz and PAS should not hold the monopoly of divine sanction? PKR should also avail itself of sacral political endorsement. Was it the resurfacing of the old ABIM credo with its inclination towards 'Islamic' symbolism and theocratic elements ? Was it a desperate attempt to ease over serious internal problems, serious enough to merit 'divine interference'? As strong as the problems were (Zaid's challenge towards leadership for example as one), the antidote had to be just as strong.

Nevertheless it raises the question: is the party now embarking towards personality cult as a formal ideological platform for the next general election, where 'divinely sanctioned' leaders are offered to voters? What might be confusing to the electorate is how would the party reconcile this platform with its other image of liberalism, pragmatism, neutral pluralism, or populistic democracy? The question is perplexing enough if it is a question of choice between theocratic inclinations or democracy as commonly understood: it is even more confusing if we have the liberal, secularist, pluralist and the sacral, all rolled in one supreme leader!

Like I said earlier, politicians will do what they are wont to do in the name of winning power and influence. Nevertheless the public have their inalienable right to choose their leaders and influence somewhat their future or destiny. It is up to them though to exercise this right wisely and discriminatingly, settling for nothing less than what's best for their future. They should see to it that by means of election, only those with genuine ideas, integrity and political will, invariably constituting the select few, should be entrusted with positions of leadership.

Words: wordy and worthy ones!

2010-11-07T01:25:00.000-07:00

During the last one or two years, the BN had launched many new policies, public campaigns,programmes, such as New Economic Model, 1Malaysia, Malaysian Plan 10, GTP, KPI and many more. I notice from its various discourses, much publicised through the mass media, the discourse is a mixed bag of modern day management jargon and catchphrases, as well as familiar socio-philosophical-political concepts from history of social movements, even revolution, including Marxism or Communism. Of course all parties and organisations are perfectly entitled to avail themselves of such use, if the words or concepts express or represent best their ideas or visions.

There are occasions, however, in the discourse of BN, I feel it is just a matter of words, more for sound effects or political-dramatic impact (I hesitate to say 'rhetoric', for that is not even what it is), I suppose we can say that some words are preferred for its 'ummph..' factor, to borrow from a popular lingo. For clarity, I think it is best that I furnish some simple illustrations.

Some words are expressed emphatically by leaders obviously with a relish and a reverence commonly reserved for high ideals, worthy cause, noble striving. Such words are normally expressed more deliberately, with some emotion or sentiment.One such word is 'transformation'. This has become a keyword in the arsenal of BN leaders of late, and of course it has percolated into the discourse of party supporters and bureaucrats as well. Yes, our national leaders and their supporters are indeed in love with this word Transformation..

I wonder what has happened to the world 'change' which used to be in vogue in the past decades. We would remember former usages like ' social economic political change', 'agent of change', 'attitudinal change', 'leadership change', and so forth. If we think about it, 'transformation' merely means 'change', albeit 'transformation' being a more total, complete and radical difference or form as the end product.In other words 'change' brings with it the connotation of a partial difference and not wholesome, not total. It also connotes a much slower and gradual process than 'transformation', which has the connotation of being more speedy, instantaneous, total. radical and hence desirable.

This prompts us to raise the question. which is being envisioned by the BN leaders, as concepts or philosophy, 'change' or 'transformation'? If they mean 'transformation' by way of concept and philosophy, that is heartening indeed. If they simply mean 'change' but like to use the world 'transformation' for it, then it is just a case of the promise and the word getting bigger, whereas the vision and operative targets remain the humbler or modest 'change'. I assure readers this is by no means a mere question of semantics. It is of practical import. Let me illustrate.

Once the PM went on a walkabout, a 'turun padang', inspecting our public transport system in Kuala Lumpur. There followed a media blitz how our public transport system is going to be 'transformed', as announced by the PM. Shortly after that it was announced that six new coaches had been purchased towards that end. The acquisition was again much publicised with the PM himself testing the new coaches. Now the question is: is the purchase of six new train coaches a 'change' or 'transformation' of the public transport system? I would say it is not a development accurately represented by 'tranformation' which demands much much more. I would hesitate to grant even a 'change' of the transport system, admitting probably a good administrative bureaucratic decision to add more coaches. Even this was later marred by news that there was a scandal in the purchasing of the six new coaches, which greatly appreciated the cost of such 'change'. Again I ponder, where and what is there to constitute a 'transformation'?

A few days ago, we sadly read of the bus accident in Genting Highland, with much casualties, both fatal and severe. Now we had learned that the bus driver concerned did not have a valid driving licence. In addition the bus was in a poor condition,including poor brakes, in part causing the accident. The reality that struck me upon reading the news is that: we are having great difficulties ensuring the competency of bus drivers, licensing, vehicle inspection and regulation, minimising road accidents and fatalism. Aren't we therefore still very much straggling with 'change', meaningful ones, with 'tranformation ' being too far fetched in terms of actual accomplishment and performance. If this is accurate, then we are merely using big words, conveying big promises, which do not in anyway commensurate with commitment and will.

There is another word that has of late been politically favoured, that is 'innovation'. In the past , we hear leaders and bureaucrats speaking of 'technological change', 'technological acquisiton', ' technological transfer', but now these had been replaced by 'innovation'. Now the term 'innovation' carries with it the components or elements like creativity, imaginativeness, effectiveness, to a limited level a certain inventiveness or inspiredness in doing things Again this raises the question: do the leaders concerned mean innovation, which the nation is certainly in dire need, or simply some bureaucratic decisions or simple acquisition of the latest technology and its routine application?

Again this is by no means simply a matter of inconsequential semantics. Here's one illustration. The DPM was the guest at a sort of the first Islamic innovation award ceremony. The DPM gave an inspiring speech on the need to cultivate the spirit of innovation, which had been pioneered by the Islamci civilisation in history, and of course enjoined by the religion of Islam. Then the recipients of the innovation awards were announced. Among the recipients were, according to the citation: a mosques committee for introducing modern management in the running of the mosque, including the use of computers; an organisation for offering online financial instruments conforming to Islamic guidelines or teaching; an academic who designed a device for identifying non-halal elements in foodstuff. Now I wonder which aspect of these citations did the judges deem as 'innovation', worthy of its true import and essence? I would submit that the mere use of technology in a routine manner and application certainly does not merit the accolade of 'innovation'.

There is yet another word, fast becoming the favourite of leaders and public figures , that is 'integrity'. An institute of integrity had been set up, which had been charged with educating the public on what is 'integrity'. The leadership of the institute had made public pronouncement to the effect that it's immediate challenge is to overcome public 'ignorance' of what integrity is! I suspect again here we have a problem engendered by the love of new and 'impressive' word, jettisoning old more familiar ones. I think the common man in the street knows the concept, which had been around since the beginning of time. He knows 'honesty', 'principle', 'morals', 'honour', 'self-respect', 'sin', 'virtue' and many many more, all of which connote 'integrity'. The problem is created by this love of new usage of words for political campaigns and maneuvering. But jettisoning all older words for the same thing, and using new ones in their place, such leaders derive a false sense self-righteousness in having 'introduced' a new moral phase in national life.In my opinion, the common man knows what a moral, honest, principled, incorruptible leader is, and he has no real need to be 'educated' on the meaning of 'integrity' as a political fad!

What is my point? Simply this: words convey meanings and concepts. Man has always struggle to express his concepts and meaning through words. But there are times when use big words, far too big words to convey much less than the usual import of words. They may do this for reasons. Sometimes to convey big promises and not real meanings ( which may really be much much less), and sometimes simply for the love of the dramatic effects the sounds of words may have!

9-11: Who's Burning What in Whose Memory?

2010-09-10T22:24:00.000-07:00

Well I am just sitting around having a quiet weekend, half listening to the news. President Obama had just made some statements pertaining to the intention of some Americans to burn copies of the Al_Quran in memory of the 9/11 Tragedy.

He is right in saying that such course of action would violate against 'the best in us', which I presume to mean not only as referring to Americans but 'us' as human beings. I am heartened to hear him isolate those concerned as a small group, not in any way representing the majority of Americans. Of course in line of duty, he had to add some utilitarian or pragmatic rational in so opposing such a plan. He pointed out how the act would put 'our boys in the armed forces in the harm's way', which is just another way of saying how the act would simply backfire to advance the cause of violence and terrorism in various ways.

As a consequence, the plan for this dangerous 'fire play' had been cancelled. Nevertheless, I think the affair is a very serious one, worthy of our serious reflection in a befitting memory of the tragedy of 9/11.

In history, the ascent of any form of bigotry had always been accompanied by book burning. Some notorious examples woud be the rise of Hitler and Nazism, the Cultural Revolution of Communist China, and the sacking of Baghdad by the Mongols. Consequently we had always considered the Ritual of Book Burning as uncivilised or anti-civilisational. This is even more so when it comes to the burning of Sacred Books, which had been a major force in civilising humanity. We all know, to a point of banality, that much wrong had been inflicted on mankind in the name of Religion and Sacred Books, but we know too that Religion and Sacred Books had been our civilising force, to which majority of us owe 'the best in us' and our civilisation. Some of us are inclined to blame Religion and Sacred Books for all the violence and inhumanity in the world. But just imagine the kind of world it would be without Religion and the Sacred Books!

Since it is the Al-Quran we are discussing, let me illustrate how erroneous our thinking would be in blaming the Al-Quran for the violent action of some who evoke its name in self-justification. Those who plan to burn the Al-Quran in protest of 9/11 would be blaming it for the 3,000 innocent lives lost to violence, while 'forgetting' that according to the Al-Quran to take one innocent life unjustly is to kill the whole of humanity. Imagine how the teachings of the Al-Quran condemn violence and senseless killing.Now whose cause would we be advancing by the Ritual of Book Burning, particularly of the Sacred Texts,that of the terrorists or that of peace and the innocent victims? The Al-Quran too teaches that to violate any House of Worship is to prevent the name of Allah being invoked. In addition, the Quran enjoins mankind to tolerance, understanding and peace by reminding us that different Tribes and Nations had been created by God that they may learn and understand each other.

Now within our present quest for a peaceful world, do we want to promote such teachings or weed them out from our humanity or civilisational memory? Our answer would influence our action, to distribute free copies of the Al-Quran or propagate the Ritual of Book Burning!

According to the news, there is plan to build a mosque, a House of Worship at Ground Zero, amids some protest. One argument advanced by the protesters is that such move would 'offend against the memory of the victims'. In my personal opinion, such a move, far from 'offending' against the memory of the victims, would truly serve their memory. It reminds all of us, Muslims in particular,that all Sacred Texts condemns violence and cruelty and how sacred Human LIfe is! Being at Ground Zero, such a House of Worship would be an eternal symbol of Man's Quest for Peace! As such, logically speaking, only terrorists and Prophets of Violence and discord would 'have reasons' in objecting.

If for every form of violence, bigotry, and inhumanity in the world we resort to the Ritual of Book Burning, to weeding out the Sacred Texts, the world world would be set ablaze and raging. If we were to resort to the maxim of 'an eye for an eye' the whole world would surely go blind!

GOD BLESS ALL!

DEB: 'Dasar Ekonomi Bastard'?

2010-08-21T09:33:00.000-07:00

It is a trend among Malay leaders and elite to denounce the DEB or NEP in its present form as ‘the bastardization of the original spirit of the DEB’. A recent example of this proclivity is a speech by Nazir Abdul Razak of CIMB at the bank’s function. According to press report, he also made the following points. The original spirit of the DEB was the eradication of poverty. The DEB is out of date, being decades old, and need to be revised since it is causing problems, ‘being everywhere’. He extolled the virtue of diversity and multi-racialism, being an important factor for economic growth. To give it emphasis, he quipped that after all CIMB has often been alluded to as ‘Chinese, Malay, Indian Bank’, bringing laughter to the audience. Such views had been aired before by national leaders, and I am sure Nazir Razak would not be the last, since such thinking had been ‘blessed’ by the national elite who are now preoccupied with ushering in the New Economic Model, to jettison the DEB unceremoniously.

Before I respond to the above, let me enter some caveat, lest I am misunderstood, deliberately or otherwise. I am not against multiracialism, nor against cultural diversity. Neither am I making an issue of the merit or demerit of the DEB or the NEM. This should require a separate treatment to do justice to the question. The subject of my present posting is a certain attitude of the elite concerning issues, which can only be described as flippant, superficial, and cannot be said responsible or accountable in a democratic sense.

Now what is wrong with such views as articulated by Nazir Razak? Firstly, it caricatures the DEB and misrepresented it. They speak of abuses and distortion of the DEB, dubbed as ‘bastardisation’, and championed the jettisoning of it on that score. Yet they do not acknowledge the real concerns and principles of the DEB that was ‘bastardised’. The DEB originally concerned with the eradication of rural poverty and the bridging of the rural-urban divide in the economy. The DEB was also concern about the restructuring of the economy to avoid the identification of economic activities along ethnic or racial lines. This has to be properly represented and discussed. Are these objectives still a national concern or has we as a nation adequately addressed this question. Our stand may differ on ways of addressing these problems, but we cannot afford to ignore the issues, ‘sweeping them under the carpet’. If we choose to ignore them, bury our head in the sand, confusing between avoidance of issues and resolving them, I am sure the problems would only revisit us one day, and with a vengeance.

By caricaturing the DEB, and oversimplifying it, they usually misrepresent it, in order to justify their new found policies or models. Let us move on with an understanding of our past. The DEB has been an integral part of our lives for so long. Should we move on, let it be based on understanding and not self-delusion, supported by the rhetoric and cliché of ‘pluralism’, ‘democracy’ or ‘equality’. I am not against these as ideals, but certainly as uninformed bravado and dilletantism. Before we move on, surely and maturely, we need to make peace with our past, ‘an accounting of our previous position’, for good or bad, and on the basis of that self-introspection, move on wisely.

When we caricature the DEB, thereby misrepresenting it, simply because we wish to justify our new path, we may be subverting the very cause of pluralism and democracy that we claim to champion. When we conveniently suppress the fact that the original concern of the DEB was to ensure racial harmony by ensuring social justice, alleviating rural poverty and restructuring the economy, we contribute to racial prejudice. By willfully suppressing this aspect, merely highlighting its abuses, we demonized the DEB, demonizing too the Malays on the whole, on account of the greed of a small group of their own kind. The impact of this ‘distortive perspective’ on ethnic relations had been disastrous and ever deepening.

From the looks of things, we may not have to wait long for the problems to revisit us. Even as the NEM or the RMK 10 is being ushered in, and undergoing much vacillation and revision, we see many signs of the ‘ghost’ of the DEB revisiting, with little indication of ever leaving. Allow me to furnish some recent examples. The president of MCA, Chua Soi Lek , as mouthpiece of his party, had demanded that the quota of 30% Malay equity be decreased and phased out eventually. Cabinet Minister Koh Tsu Koon has attacked Perkasa’s president for his ‘obsession with bumiputra quota’ and ‘telling other races to do this and that’. He suggested Perkasa to focus instead on the implementation of the DEB and upgrading Malay skills and know-how, which can be read as a snipe at Malay economic and technological lag. Minister Koh Tsu Koon makes no mention, however, of non-Malays ‘telling the Malays to do this and that’.

Other very senior UMNO politician had jumped into the fray, no less than the Deputy Prime Minister Mukhyuddin himself. Cabinet Minister Nazri had reacted rather strongly, characterizing MCA’s president comment on Malay quota as violating the spirit of 1Malaysia and Barisan Nasional solidarity. I am sure there are many non-Malays, probably Soi Lek himself, who beg to differ, seeing the phasing of Malay equity quota to be in keeping with the spirit of 1Malaysia. Cabinet Minister Rais Yatim reacted rather strongly against the MCA president for his criticism of Malay 30% equity, categorizing it as ‘challenging the constitution and Malay rulers’. There are many other examples of the ‘ghost revisiting’.

An important aspect of our ‘reconciling’ and ‘accounting’ with the DEB is understanding, giving full account of the following questions. What were the principles of the DEB and abuses of them, clearly distinguishing between the two? Are there positive aspects of it which need to be incorporated in 'new vision' or 'model'?What were the causes of the DEB being ‘bastardised’? Who were responsible for ‘bastardising’ it or should be held accountable for it? All this is important. Without such understanding, we may end up in the ridiculous situation where those responsible for ‘bastardising’ the DEB, now cry foul of it. Having ‘bastardised’ the DEB they now choose ‘to dump the baby’. Without understanding the DEB and ‘accounting’ for it, we may see the same cycle afflicting other new policies and models. They would all be ‘bastardized’ in time, and subjected to ‘baby dumping’, in vicious cycles! It is the psychology of having soiled one spot, move on to another place, soiling it in turn and so on and so forth. Should not they be taking responsibility, cleaning the mess at least, before moving on? To make it worse, they blame and scape goat on others for the mess they leave behind.This is certainly not the way to give leadership to a nation!

Corruption Creeps!

2010-08-14T07:55:00.000-07:00

I am moved to comment on recent news on incidents of corruption in our nation, with some reservation though. A blogger friend perceptively,no doubt moulded by experience, that a blog posting on corruption is always a 'turn-off' for readers.Although I know my friend is right to a great extent,from the point of view of readers approval or hits, I cannot let this consideration be the sole determinant of my blogging concerns.

This antipathy towards the issue of corruption itself is worth thinking about. I wonder why? Allow me to hazard some possible explanations. I think for a great many they are simply weary not so much of the 'issue' but of the persistence of corruption itself in their daily lives. This is reflected in their attitudes of being 'fed up', 'tired of it', 'weary', 'disillusioned', 'pissed off', 'revolted', 'disgusted','don't care anymore', and various other emotions or shades of them. In short it has hardened into public cynicism,scepticism and a demoralised sense, which we can perhaps be summed up as 'what's the use', 'what can we do about it', 'no point', 'why get worked up about it', 'its reality' and so forth. What is worrying about these responses is that they do suggest the 'normalisation' of corruption, a kind of reluctant acceptance of the inevitable. It is a kind of moral and psychological defeatism against the scourge of corruption.It is such fatalism or resignation which caused many to avoid the issue of corruption.

There can be other explanations why people are uncomfortable with the issue of corruption. It could be that corruption is really an integral part of their lives, not necessarily as perpetrator but as victims. I am sure readers can themselves think of examples from real life. For example stall operators who have to pay high rent to 'contractors' who managed to obtain cheap leases from town councils directly because of 'contacts', 'strings' etc. For such victims of corruption, they are not interested in the issue of corruption simply because it is a bitter and painful reminder of their lives.Such a response to corruption suggests the deepening dan widening spread of corruption, which had weaved itself into the fabric of our daily lives, assuming the status of 'reality'.

On the more sinister side, there are many others who 'shy' from the issue of corruption because they profit and gain from it operationally, either as 'taker'or 'giver'. Out of guilt conscience,, they avoid corruption as 'issue' but not as active participants.. To them corrup practices are merely part of daily business practices or modus operandi,expressed or manifested in normal practices like 'gift
making', 'entertaining','socialising', 'networking','recreational','courtesy', 'political support', and many other expressions.

Another unfortunate explanation can be a kind of 'sympathising', 'emphatising', even 'vicarious thrill' of some pertaining to corruption. This emotional or psychological state can be summed up as 'its normal', 'its human', 'I would too', 'who wouldn't'. 'you would too ,given half tthe chance', 'its everywhere', 'it can never be eradicated'. For this group,they do entertain perhaps the idea that their day may come, when they get their 'big break'. For some others, they know they may not have such chance, sufficing in mere sharing vicarious thrills with  some corrupt ones waxing riches, leading the fabulous life of the rich and famous as idolised by the media.

One thing has to be said about the development of corruption in our nation today. Once it used to be thought that corruption is merely the affliction of the BN, but it is no longer so. Corruption is very much a question of power and the opportunity for it. It is easier for the opposition to point a finger at the establishment when it is in the oppositon with not much opportunity or tempatation  for corruption. But once a former opposition is thrusted into positon of power, authority and influence, events suggest it is just as adapt to the affliction of corruption, as recent events and news indicated.. I refer readers to the phenomena of sand stealing,business or contract 'brokering' by means of misrepresenting councillor's letterhead, or the usual mundane direct acceptance of bribery in the granting of contracts etc. The reverse of this principle of 'power corrupts' while 'non-power limits ' is that corruption gets exposed and scandalised with the loss of power and position of authority. We note many examples of this in the news, an outstanding one being the PKFZ case with a former cabinet minister being charged in court.

To give readers some materials to cross-refer the above observation with, take the recent reports on corruption cases brought to public attention. Last week we learned that the purchase of six new coaches for Malayan Railway Ltd had been inflated by more than half a billion. Those responsible are being investigated. This case suggests that there will always be some officials or executive ever alert to 'opportunities'. The sad thing about our situation or condition is that whenever there is any big deal or mega project available, it never fails to attract the corrupt. This does not auger well for our future and well being. A simple direct consequence of this case would be Malayan Railway would have to make up for the 'extra cost' by passing it on to consumers, who would thus suffer, paying higher for the same service, or settle for shoddy services, to make up for the inflated cost of providing them.

Another interesting development is the General Manager of Sime Darby is being charged for accepting briberies for favouring some contractors. For the granting of one project, he accepted a bribe of $100,000, while for another he accepted $200,000. Going beyond the newspaper report, it is interesting for us to infer the impplications and mangnitude of the phenomenon. It reflects the decline of our corporate life. Sime Darby used to be a household name in the past, being a favourite of investors, a true blue chip. Recently Sime Darby annouced a loss of more than a billion ringgit. Is it a wonder how this could have happened? Now it is reasonable to infer that the case of the GM may not be the only one, neither is his 'collection' confined to just the two bribes that came to light. Interestingly as a footnote, he used the bribes as downpayment for luxury cars. Wow? He has  fine expensive taste, except he wanted it for free at public expense! I am reminded of a previous case of an assistant district officer who took bribe related to sand stealing, who also used the money for a new car . Doesn't that suggest a pattern or a certain corrupt way of life? Based on my observation, I can say that for some, opportunity for corruption may also be an integral part of their career planning, prefering jobs or career lines with great opportunities for corruption.

Yesterday we read of the corruption related to the 'sale' of titles or datukships in Johor. A distant member of the royal family had been arrested and charged for attempting to 'broker' a tille for a doctor. The case came to light when problems and complication developed.Putting this particular case aside, the talk of titles being 'marketed' and 'commercialised' had been going on for decades really.There was this much publicised case in Perak involving a close membeer of the royal family. We note that such cases get publicised only when 'complications' developed. I wonder if there are many cases or transactions that 'went smoothly' with the deals being closed? One thing I can say is that the public is somewhat cynical and sceptical about the titles of some being based on merit or meaningful contribution to state and nation.

What can be done to curb or at least minimise corruption ? A pertinent question indeed, but one that is too big to address in this posting. Perhaps in future posting I might venture to etxplore the matter. For now my intention is merely to jot down some personal reaction as I read the news. What's brewing certainly gives me the creep! It is plain to see that we are not going anywhere in terms of improving our lives as long as our progress is persistenly pulled back by this scourge of corruption. Whatever little we gain by way of advancement in the quality of life is soon erased or squandered by the greed of some, leaving our citizens high and dry

The PKR Packer and Pecker

2010-07-15T21:19:00.000-07:00

It is interesting to observe a phenomenon unfolding in our politics. More specifically it afflicts PKR, which bills itselfs as a ‘multiracial’ party. Quite a number of its leaders and prominent members had left the party, in great disillusionment going by their public statements. A significant feature in this abandonment of the party is that they had made it a mission to denounce and discredit PKR totally. Some of their statements pertain to the integrity of PKR’s leadership, while others impinged really on the question of the viability of multiracial politics in our nation. Of course here I am not talking of the desirabilty or the virtue of multiracial politics, but whether as a nation we are ready for it. For a fact, Malayan or Malaysian politics had always been inter-communal, where ethnic based parties negotiate their interests with other parties representing other ethnic groups. It is as if we still much prefer to articulate and negotiate our interests as good neighbours, nevertheless as separate and autonomous entities. We are not ready ye to live under one roof where we negotiate and articluate issues openly.

Within Malaysian political history, a multiracial tag always evokes a sense of novelty, adventurism, foolhardiness or boldness, an approach out of temper from an otherwise ethnically determined political tradition. This is not to say there is a lack of political parties putting on the badge of ‘multiracial party’, when in truth, in terms of membership and ideology, they are no exempt to the dictates and political exigency of enthnicity. There had been few historically noteworthy attempts at multiracial party, which however failed, eventually succumbing to the realism of ethnicity. I could mention the attempt of Dato Onn Jaafar, who after failing to open up the membership of UMNO to multiracialism, left UMNO to form the multi-racial IMP. The IMP experiment failed to the dismay of Dato Onn, who was deserted by the non-Malay leaders and their supporters, upon whom Dato Onn was counting upon. They chose to develop MCA, in coaliton with UMNO, forming a basis for the formation of the Alliance, running on the principle of inter-communl co-operation and articulation. Realising the reality of etnicity in Malayan or Malaysian politics, Dato Onn did a round-about turn and ended his political career in Parti Negara, essentially a Malay based party. Another multiracial experiment that quickly succumbed to etnicity was the original Gerakan. Born on multiracial platform and ideology, Gerakan very quickly mutated into an ethnic based political party, a far cry from its early days.

Ideologically, PKR cannot be said to have a strong foundation in multiracialism. The party was formed essentially around the personality, some will say ‘cult’, of Anwar Ibrahim and related issues. Anwar Ibrahim himself was a late bloomer in terms of multiracial politics. All his politics prior to his dismissal as DPM can only be described as ‘ethnic’, going back a long way to his campus days, ABIM movement, as well UMNO. At the point of its formation, the party could not boast of well known public figures or personalities noted collectively for their multiracial ideals or political ideology. The supporters of Parti Sosialis Rakyat and Anwar’s supporters of ABIM mould who swelled the ranks of PKR were likewise quite relatively new comers to multiracial politics or philosophies. There are grounds to suspect that the non-Malay component of PKR ‘s membership were also relatively lacking in multiracial tradition and experience, which is really the norm in Malaysian history and political tradition. The party organ too can be said to be sadly lacking in its pronouncement and propagation of its multiracial credo, beyond whipping discontent over ethnic or religiously sensitive issues. In sum, PKR cannot be said to have a credible multiracial ideology or profile.

Despite its lack of multiracial tradition or preparation, PKR gives itself the ominous task of balancing or neutralising political parties which have a long tradition of ethnic or communal politics, namely DAP and PAS. This is by no means an easy task when PKR itself lacks the power of conviction in terms of multiracial tradition and credo. This is akin to a weak pole balancing two weights beyond its capability, or an antidote being weaker than the counter venom. In the end the strain may prove too much and something has to give.

We know several prominent leaders and members of PKR had packed off and then pecked hard at their former party. It is as if the thinking had reverted to ethnic consideration as an imperative of Malaysian politics. It is as water finding its natural level. The interview given by MP Zainuddin Nordin several months ago was most illustrative. Pointedly he blamed the DAP for all the strains and frictions faced by Pakatan Rakyat. He accused the DAP of sabotaging by-election by withdrawing support whenever needed most. Openly he said that the PKR doesn’t need the DAP and its support. Neither do the support of non-Malay MP’s crucial. He rationalised that Muslim MP’s constitute the majority in parliament . They can rule the country if only they could unite, instead of being disunited. He underscored his differences with the party over the issue of the use of ‘Allah’ by non-Muslims. MP Zainuddin had also recounted his differences with PKR over its vaccilation in championing Islam as part of the party's official programme. When subjected to the disciplinary machinary of the party, he insisted to be judged only by an all Muslims disciplinary committee

Since leaving PKR, the packers and peckers have been accorded much publicity and airtime. As foes of PKR and Pakatan, collectively they are more formidable than even some BN cabinet members. Being insiders once and privy to many going-ons, their attacks on PKR are scathing and credible. One packer a least has turned main witness for the prosecution in the on going sodomy trial of Anwar Ibrahim. MP Zainuddin had been most vocal,while others like MP Zahrain had been no less lethal. At one point MP Zainuddin denounced the PKR and Pakatan leaders rather dismissively ‘ adakan orang macam ini yang kita hendak menubuh kerajaan!’( How can we expect such people to form the goverment!) . He had also dismissed Anwar's interview with international press, attacking the Malaysian judiciary, as unprincipled and conradictory, using the Malaysian judiaciary when it suits him fine to sue people, but denouncing the judiciary when he is on trial. He had criticised DAP’s and Pakatan’s tendency to regard all internal critics as ‘turncoats’ and ‘ bought overs by UMNO’ .

Several days ago I read in the press, a Selangor BN division is organising a lecture series for the PKR packers and peckers in Selangor, to convince the public why PKR is wrong for the state. Tacitly this is a recognition of sort of their effectiveness compared to some cabinet members or BN leaders in debunking or handling the opposition. Quite often it can be said that some statements of cabinet members are definite turn- off when marshalling support for the BN. Perhaps they should leave the campaingning to the packers and peckers?On my part. I find the phenomenon interesting.I wonder would there be more PKR packer-peckers in the future?

Kg Baru, Jangan Terburu-Buru!

2010-06-18T22:33:00.000-07:00

We all know the history of Kg Baru, how it was designated as Malay reserve land for agricultural purposes. We know too how in its century old history, urbanization and the so-called 'development' had enveloped Kg Baru, making it indeed a very valuable piece of real estate, I understand 222 hectares of it with individual owners, while about 80 hectares more owned by the goverment. There's a move now to 'develop' Kg Baru, part of which is to convert its agricultural status to 'commercial' one. The goverment, through the Federal Territory and Urban Well Being Ministry has broached its ideas and suggestions to We know of the history and background of Kg Baru. It was originally designated as spearhead this process.

I find some of the ideas thrown up by the goverment, mainly through the minister concerned, Raja Nong Chik, puzzling and not very assuring it terms of the future of Kg Baru, be it in economic or 'developmental' sense, as well in preserving its valuable historical heritage and tradition. Allow me to jot down some of my reservations. Initially in the earlier phase of the move, the Minister seemed bent upon the following plan,its main aspects being: the magic formula was to be a division of Malay and non-Malay ownership on the basis of 60%-40% respectively. The reasons given for the arrangement were that it is necessary to make it possible for non-Malays to own properties in Kg Baru. This is to assure the ‘viability’ of the idea of developing and commercialising Kg Baru. It was also emphasised that the involvement of the non-Malays and the private sector is important since the government ‘does not have the expertise’or to this effect. The minister also opined that without non-Malay ownership and involvement, the development of Kg Baru would not be feasible. The minister underscored that the value of Kg Baru would not be high if ownership is confined only to the Malays.

In my opinion, the governments thinking and approach to the ‘development’ of Kg Baru is erroneous on the following grounds. Firstly, the government has overlooked the fact that Kg Baru has become valuable today despite its agricultural and Malay reservation status precisely because the spontaneous and ‘natural’ course of development had enveloped it. What had protected and insulated it from becoming part and parcel of ‘main stream’ capitalism or laissez affair sector sector is its agricultural and reservation status. Hence, it is clear that Kg Baru can be ‘developed’ and ‘commercialised’ without tampering with Malay ownership or reservation status. What is required is simply some imagination and creativity. There is really no magic in non-Malay ownership, or vice-versa there is no jinx or natural curse to be stigmatised on Malay ownership. The prospects and escalating value of Kg Baru derived from the spontaneous and natural dynamics of development and commercialisation of the surrounding area, and not to some immature ‘intervention’ or ill-conceived machination of government agencies arrogating itself the role ‘reformer’, ‘transformer’ or ‘developer’, ‘moderniser’, what have you.

In this respect, the development status of Kg Baru should not be conceived as a kind of ‘ghetto’, a pocket of ‘underdevelopment’, a resistant spot to development and commercialisation due to the ‘curse’ of Malay ownership. Instead of being credulous to this old obsolete idea which is tinted with racial stereotyping, the government should use its imagination to realise the great prospects of Kg Baru and its owners, conferred by a century of the nation’s ‘development’ and ‘commercialisation. In short focus on its prospects and strategic location, rather than entertain its grossly distorted image of a ‘ghetto’ to be ‘rescued’ or ‘salvaged’.

The least acceptable reason given by the minister of Federal Territory for its formula of 60%-40% is that ‘we don’t have the expertise’! Now to me this is something we should not hear from government leaders within the context of the issue. We are not talking of highly sophisticated technology like nuclear power or mega world class projects, but simply developing Kg Baru. To me it sounds like a pathetic admission of impotency. Of course we don’t expect our leaders or the public sector to know everything, but they have all the resources and expertise at their command. It is only leadership that is required of them to avail of these massive resources at their disposal and harness them well, managing and overseeing them rationall of course This is the path taken by all other progressive nations, instead of abrogating their role of leadership by simply pledging ‘we don’t have the expertise’. I am commenting on this because I sense that the motifs of ‘60%-40%’ and ‘we don’t have the expertise’ is becoming stock in the thinking of leaders, as evident in the Railway Land Deal with Singapore, and other projects.

Several days ago, there is another phase to the Kg Baru puzzle. Amid protests from land owners, Malay interests groups, NGO’s, meeting leaders apology of ‘nothing is cast in stone’, the Ministry concerned had made some statements. Now the formula 60%-40% formula is to be applied only by the government in handling its 80 hectares of land in Kg Baru. In this connection, all my comments in the above should apply. As for the land with individual owners, the Ministry said it is entirely up to them. There is also the ambivalent and unclear statement that the ‘tradition and heritage’ of Kg Baru would be maintained by the Ministry and those concerned. I think this can be problematic in the long run as we know once ‘development’ and ‘commercialisation’ has made inroads, it is a pledge that could prove to be elusive.

Has there been some back-pedalling or rethinking on its ideas as far as the Ministry is concerned? In the case of which, I hope the government would think through its ideas well before embarking on controversial pronouncements and campaign. It will save the nation much unnecessary conflicts and agitations, as we know issues of ethnic significance will invariably generate much ill will and misunderstanding. I might add too, I hope the whole idea of ‘commercialising’ or ‘developing’ Kg Baru has not been motivated or inspired by the vested interests of Malay corporate sector, oblivious to the wider interests of the Malay community. I must admit there is a familiar ring to the ‘60%-40%’ quota centric formula, as well as the pledge of ‘we don’t have the expertise’. It is reminiscence of the old Ali-Baba ethos of ill fated NEP, except the magic chant of ‘30%-70%’has now evolved into ’60%-40%’. I really hope it is not the old syndrome of taking the easy way out of passing the work to others, in the hope of making quick easy money, on the ground of being ‘owners but alas with no expertise’.

Concerning Kg Baru, considering its rich history and cultural heritage, we should move creatively and rationally. There is no need to tamper with variables unconnected with developmental pre-requisites, such as ownership etc Many of the problems being raised by leaders and planners seemed to be only their head.Focus on its prospects and great promises, rather than misconceived ‘problems’. Never give in to the short term interests of individuals, while sacrificing long term interests of the Malays at large and that of the nation. The pioneers and early settlers had steadfastly resisted the temptations and allurements of 'development', and maintained their rich heritage.It would be sad indeed to see the their later descendants succumbing,'selling out' for great, albeit short term gains.

The Parrot, Barisan Nasional and Sibu by-election

2010-05-18T06:29:00.000-07:00

The contest for Sibu has been decided in favour of the DAP prevailing over the BN.The response of the BN leaders as represented by the PM and the DPM was that of acceptance and self-introspection. Both the PM and the DPM in their capacity as Barisan's leaders had instructed the coalition to undertake a study of its defeat and probable causes, amid insinuation that the wrong choice of candidate could be an important factor, while criticisms are also levelled at the 'racial' and 'seditious' campaigning of the DAP.There is mounting unhappiness on the Malay ground against alleged communalism or even racism in the voting pattern at the by-election.

In its postmortem of the Sibu defeat, the BN would have to be very objective in identifying the problems for what they are. Self-denial and ideological blinkers should be set aside. A wrong diagnosis could set them astray in terms of strategising for future by-elections or even the next General Election.The distortive effects of self-denial and apology could obscure even the most glaring and obvious problems staring right in the eyes.The way politicians delude themselves sometimes remind me of a most instructive parable by Jalaluddin Rumi,the great Muslim mystic.

This is the story of the oil trader who had a parrot in his shop,where he stored many rare,exquisite and expensive oil. One day a stray cat wandered into the shop and broke many jars of very fine and valuable oil. On seeing the calamity, the oil trader was furious and besides himself.Thinking that the parrot was responsible, the oil trader gave the parrot such a pounding that it shed its feathers and became bald.One day a bald man came to the shop looking for some fine oil.On seeing the bald man, the parrot could not contain its curiousity. The parrot asked the man emphatically, 'pray tell me whose oil did you spill?'

Some statements by BN leaders in relation to the BN defeat in Sibu would impair the effectiveness of their proposed by-election postmortem.Take for instance how they had formulated the inquiry.The discussion seemed to have been framed whether the by-election was decided on 'local' or ' national' issues.It would appear to many objective observers and analists that we cannot dichotomise electoral issues in contemporary Malaysia in those terms.What seems to be more accurate is that both the national and local issues have had their impact on the poll.The nature of politic is more complex than a simple 'local' versus 'national'category. For instance the 'Allah' controversy raised by the DAP would be more correctly defined as a national issue albeit with local manifestation and dimension.The same thing goes for the hotly debated issue of national type Chinese schools.The many issues concerning development would similary reflect the concern of Malaysians at the national level.In addition to these, we have the whole gamut of issues like corruption,inaptitude in leadership, and of course that of pluralism, multiracialism and nation building.

And yet I have heard it said several times that the Sibu by-election was mainly decided by 'local' issues and not 'national', and therefore does not reflect on the PM's leadership or other national leaders.In my opinion such a stance is indeed a serious error, and a dangerous one for the BN. While it is erroneous in the sense of sidestepping and trivialising the issues in Sibu, it would appear to be contradictory too. While the BN's leadership seems eager to define the decisive issues in Sibu as 'local politics',it also faulted the DAP for bringing 'national' or 'national style' issues to Sibu.So in the BN perspective, what is the case in Sibu, , 'national' or ' local'? The view that the Sibu by-election was determined mainly by local politics is also contradicted by the DPM's statement that there is similarity or common pattern between the Sibu outcome with 'urban politics' or 'politik bandar' elsewhere in Malaysia.

Responding like Jalaluddin Rumi's parrot, confusing between cause and effect,seeing only form but not essence, would certainly cloud BN's understanding of its threats and challenges,and consequentially its political calculations and strategies.I hope the Barisan's study on the Sibu outcome would yield clear diagnosis, and hence more effective strategies for the future.

Of great man and liliputan

2010-05-09T06:34:00.000-07:00

It has been weeks since I last update my blog.I remember my last posting was on the New Economic Model. I must confess I felt the announcement of the NEM was somewhat an anti climax. After much posturing and hype, the announcement came finally as a non-descript statement of economic philosophy and planning. Frankly speaking I don’t think it can be considered as a significant turning point in our economic or developmental approach. I base my evaluation mainly on substance and creativity of development principles and approach, as well as innovativeness in tackling the nation’s basic problems and needs. We may have other more opportune times to go into this in greater details.

Since the promulgation of the NEM sometime at the end of March, I had contented myself with just watching events, trends and styles in our national life. In doing so, I am reminded of the Malay saying ‘hujan emas di negeri orang, hujan batu di negeri sendiri, baik lagi negeri sendiri’. For the benefit of those unfamiliar with the Malay language, roughly translated it would be something like ‘it may rain gold in foreign lands, it may rain stone in your own homeland, still your homeland is better’. I am sure this is the sentiment of all patriotic Malaysians. No matter how envious we are of the more progressive nations, east or west, we still love our homeland the greater. But at the same time, I am sure too many patriotic Malaysians would sigh, must it be ‘raining stone’ in our nation ? Must our patriotism be eternally put to the test? Are citizens of the more progressive nations less patriotic than we are, on account of their more developed status? Are we being less patriotic, loving our nation less, if we acknowledge the progress of other nations, while acknowledging our weaknesses and wrongs? Is out patriotism the greater if we deny the progress of other nations and exaggerate their defects, while exaggerating our accomplishments, simultaneously indulging in self-denial over our numerous problems?

Now back to our own backyard. There had been disturbing revelations in the last few weeks. While we laud the action taken to curb the wrongdoings, the facts of the cases are most disturbing. The police had cracked down a major car syndicate which had operated for more than a decade, with the complicity of corrupt officials in the transport departments of several states in the country. Basically the syndicate operated thus: steal luxury cars, have them ‘sanatized’( say wiping or changing the serial number of relevant parts of the car), re-register them ‘officially’ with the ‘help’ of corrupt officials, and put them back in the car market, raking millions. The massive network of corrupt government officials spreading over several states, and the fact that it had been going on for more than a decade,clearly suggests the depth, extent and resilience (perhaps ‘normalization’?) of corruption in our nation.

And then we have this exposure of illegal export of sand, which had been most damaging from the security point of view, as well as environmentally. This scam too had been going on for many years. I understand the export of sand had been done under the pretext of exporting silica and not sand. Doesn’t such scheme border on mockery, flying right in the face of the law? We learn to our dismay that such operation had raked in billions, while inflicting irreversible damage on our environment. Again, this evokes a grim picture of massive, resilient and blatant corruption. I am sure we still remember previous exposure on illegal logging going on for decades in the country. Couple this with the various court cases involving corrupt officials, with some being indicted while others acquitted. The overall picture conjured is not very reassuring of our national integrity, and therefore of leadership in general.

The saga of senseless loss of life continues among us. I note these two rather tragic or sad cases. One fifteen year old girl died when she failed to free her computer bag snagged to the bus door. She was dragged under and run over by the bus. I find the response of both the public and the authority rather regrettable. Although the tragedy was greeted with some public expression of sadness, there was also a sense of ‘normalcy’ though tinge with regret, about it. As if the response was ‘well that's part and parcel of KL and its transport system’. I admit there is a certain crudity or coarseness( kasar) in the services of the public transport system in our cities, but we don’t have to accept it as a ‘given’, normal or in the nature of things. I think her death was absolutely unnecessary and most regrettable, and similar cases should be avoided in the future. More stringent rules and procedures could and should be instituted by transport companies and the authorities. The tragedy certainly suggests we need more gracious and caring public services. At a more general level, we are certainly in need of leadership in developing a more gracious and caring Malaysian nation and society. It was rather ironic that news of her computer bag and her death was carried in the same radio broadcast on the distribution of 100 free computers to students in Selangor by the Barisan National.

In another case, a fifteen year boy was shot by the police. In a most contrasting picture, this case attracted much public attention and heated discussion. Leaders and police chiefs had been vocal in their comments or responses. A high profile board of inquiry had been commissioned to investigate and inquire into the case. Official media had been commenting actively too, understandably a certain bias in defense of the police can be detected. Much play had been made of the circumstances of the tragedy, linking the tragedy with the general issue of ‘delinquent youths’ of today, posing ‘what’s the victim doing out at 3 am, driving his sister's car and without a valid driving license at that?’, or ‘why did the sister allow the illegal use of her car?’ and so forth. Another line is ‘the police has the right to self-defense’ or ‘the police can't be too cautious these days with heavily armed criminals of today about’ and so forth. While all these views have their validity to an extent, the fact remains that it was a rather tragic ‘accident’ which ought to be avoided in the future. Better procedures, safeguards, or even training should be instituted towards this end. Again leadership is much needws here.

On a different note, there is the case of Limbang settlement with Brunei, costing Malaysia a rich oil field with a capacity of billion barrels. Apparently it was deemed a fair exchange during the premiership of Datuk Abdullah Badawi. Under the settlement, Malaysia handed over its ownership of the oil field. In return Brunei agreed to relinquish its claim to Limbang. Now, without going into the ‘fair value’ of the exchange or otherwise, it seems that the Malaysian decision and assent could have been an ill-informed one, without proper consultation and advice, neither with proper disclosure to Parliament or the public. I think the very idea that part of our Malaysian nation can be signed over to other nations without proper consultation, advice and public disclosure or accountability is most shocking and frightening.

Our nation is in dire need of leadership,that is leadership of great man. By ‘great man’ we mean statesman with vision and compassion , enough to identify his personal mission with the interests of our nation. By ‘great man’ of course we do not mean small man, a liliputan, occupying a big post. Too often we confuse between great man and high position. We are prone to think that the two are necessarily the same. In reality,a great man is great even without high position, while a small man remains such even with a big post. . A great leader has the interests of his nation and people at heart,is capable of looking above his narrow self-interests, while a liliputan of a leader can only think of how to use his high position for personal aggrandizement. As often emphasized in Chinese philosophy, a great man emphasized lofty ideals and mission as part of his self-esteem, while the small man cannot see beyond his self-interests and baser desires. Needless to say, this is one observation of all the major religions and great philosophies of mankind.

New Economic Model, Meddle, or Muddle?

2010-04-02T04:37:00.000-07:00

So the New Economic Model or Model Ekonomi Baru had been announced in installment by the PM Datuk Seri Najib Tun Abdul Razak. It was announced at an investment seminar held in a hotel organized by the private sector. The PM promised more details on the NEM would be forthcoming. I am given to understand a copy of the plan, 200 pages thick had been released to the public. I have not had the good fortune of laying my hand on a copy, so the privilege of digging through this document eludes me for the moment. In the following, I thought I would respond to the PM's speech in announcing and outlining the MEP.

The NEM seems to be more of a statement of good intentions, almost bordering on a wish list of what could be nice to have for our economy. Take for instance the reference to the 6 key transformation index, coupled with the goals of high income, sustainability, and inclusiveness with no groups being left out in partaking the fruits of development. There is not much to discuss, to disagree on all these tempting prospects. All sound minded citizens would like to have a higher income, what more doubling it in say ten years. All of us would love a good public transport system, the check of corruption, more vibrant private and public sector, better education system, work force training and upgrading, fair competition and equal opportunities for all, a better balance between good economy and good life for all, In short, the NEM promises everything to everybody.

Another notable feature of the NEM, at least as expounded by the PM in his speech, is the profusion of generalities, precepts and rather vague pronouncements, at least in the context of an economic model which ought to be clear, rational and pragmatic in terms of means and ends. I admit there are parts of the speech which are clear, but where the speech is clear, it merely touches on basic precepts or fundamentals of nation building which should be part and parcel of the nation's build up, regardless of ‘model’. Some examples should include higher income, better education, better quality workforce, national resilience and less ‘dependence’ on foreigners, transparency in economic development, people’s involvement in development process, equal opportunity for all, the need to be bold and courageous in adjusting to the contemporary challenges, and many more really! Again, of course we agree to all these, and yet we are left wondering as to the real import of these pronouncements, what are their contextual operational meaning, how would they be implemented and what form would it take when finally translated into reality.

Apart from the mere statement of good intention and generalities in many places, there are few aspects of the NEM I should like to highlight and comment on. Obviously the NEM sets a high priority on attracting foreign investments into the Malaysian economy. Many of the main features of the NEM had been put in place precisely to appease the demands of foreign capital. The liquid and free nature of foreign capital is of course part of the reality of the global economy. Foreign capital can be one of the major factor is spurring the economy of a developing nation. However, we need to be mindful that it is not the panacea to all economic ills, and history had shown that clearly.

There are nations and economies in which foreign capital had been a major contributor to development, while there are just as many where foreign capital merely led to parasitic relationships that simply drains and sapped the host nations or economies dry. There are many examples from the experience of South American nations and other parts of the world, constituting the developing nations. Ultimately, it is not the presence or absence of foreign capital that is crucial but the management of the relationship and the dynamics between host nation and foreign capitals. This would be the final determinant. Study the cases of successful Southeast Asian and Asian nations in this regards.

The NEM also places much faith and reliance on the private sector in spurring the Malaysian economy. I take it that the NEM proposed to corporatize MIDA in line with this spirit. Again it is a fact that in all capitalistic or liberal economy, it is the private sector which functions as one of the main engines of economic development and growth. Again it must be said that corporatizing public institutions is not by itself a panacea to all our problems. What is crucial in public agencies or corporations is good leadership and good management. Without this, all institutions, public or corporate, cannot function as effectively or dynamically as we hope. More importantly, public or corporate, all institutions would be crippled and paralyzed by corruption and vested interests. This is where the government should be more mindful of in overseeing its institutions and agencies, public and private. If at all, without this all important pre-requisite, corruption would even be more rampant in corporatized institutions, where there are greater opportunities for corruption and abuses with less public scrutiny and control.

Under the NEM, the EPF would be allowed to invest abroad or globally. I admit that many opportunities abroad beckon our investment, but so are the great risks associated with them. What with all the memories of the mega scandals that had sparked the present financial crisis globally. Are our fund managers and captain of industries, capable enough to overcome the hazards of a global player? Please don't misconstrue my point as lacking confidence in our financial experts and captain of industries. But we know how many Gulf States economies are in hot soup today due to inexperience and uninformed ‘ aggression’ in investment. I have not even discussed the scruple factor in ensuring good and profitable investment of our hard earned workers fund. Aren't there enough opportunities for local investment, ensuring save returns for our EPF? Are the current investments of the EPF proving to be profitable in all areas that we need to expand abroad and not consolidate locally? I would urge caution here because this idea does not involve just any fund but the hard-earned money of our workers and citizens.If the limitation is a question of law and enactment, these can be amended on good grounds.

Listening to the speech, there is the nagging feeling of irreconcilable principles and precepts. In the PMs speech inaugurating the NEM, there is the pledge of affirmative action, of ‘welfarism’ , in the same vein as meritocracy and corporate adventurism. There is admission on the part of the PM that the NEP had served the nation well, but he feels the need now to give it a new context. What could the new contextualisation of the NEP within the NEM? There are not many specifics and explanation. I tend to deduce the following from the whole spirit and tenor of the text of the speech. Can it be that the NEM is opting for something we might term as ‘ selective affirmative action’? In the past the NEP was inaugurated with objectives of eradicating poverty and restructuring the economy, but ended in the end as the ideology of Malay capitalists or corporate interests. Patronage of Malay businesses was a deviant and a departure from the original intent and goals of the NEP then. Has the NEM decided to legitimize and ‘formalise’ these departures and deviance of the NEP and make them integral part of its vision and mission? Putting it differently, the ‘contextualization’ of the NEP enunciated by the NEM could be the withdrawal of affirmative action for Malays in general and reaffirming it only for Malay capitalism and corporate interests. We got a hint of this scenario when it had been said in earlier speeches and announcements on 'liberalisation'of the economy that government help and fund would be available only for ‘capable Malays’, which would invariably mean Malays who had made it ‘big’ in the Malaysian corporate scene. Is this a fair assumption and inference on my part?

In the end, what matters for our economic growth is good leadership, good intention, good plan to realize it; honest management and implementation, the indomitable will to translate vision into reality, lots of scruples and compassion for national interests, of all citizens regardless of race and religion. Without these vital ingredients, any plan whatsoever is doomed to failure, in the end accumulating a host of bitter baggage, far from achieving better economy and better life for all.Without clear vision and principles, backed by resolve and scruples to see them through,any 'plan' would degenerate into just a question of medling and tinkering around with existing institutions, and mudling through under the guise of 'consulting and listening' to the people. It is clear goal,solid planning, political will and moral integrity that determine in the end whether the NEM is a good model, meddle or muddle. Shortcomings notwithstanding, I wish the NEM every success in realizing its various noble intentions enunciated therein.

Fool's guide to political economy and economic model-(post 2)

2010-03-20T16:21:00.000-07:00

In the previous posting, we had seen how an otherwise historically sound and necessary policy degenerated into a racial policy, which in turn generated great racial or communal tension in the nation. Malay elite with vested interests justified them in the name of all Malays along communal line, while non-Malay elite with vested interests denounced all legitimate Malay interests in the name of their community along communal line too. The sum total of it all is that the DEB or NEP emerged as one of the most contentious single issue in Malaysian history. It became so contentious that we Malaysians forgot some basic truths or our nation, namely: a) there are many fair and broadminded Malays arguing for legitimate Malay interests, b) there are many fair and broadminded non-Malays arguing for legitimate non-Malay interests, c) there are many Malay chauvinists seeing everything in racial terms, d) there are many non-Malay chauvinists seeing everything in racial terms. The sad thing is that we had closed our mind to category a) and b), while surrendering it to the conditioning and manipulation of category c) and d), with the dire consequence of surrendering our civic life to chauvinism.

We would soon witness the dawning of another ‘era’, the much anticipated and speculated New Economic Model or NEM. I should like to jot down some comments and response to the idea, as mental notes more for my own understanding.

The timing and circumstances of its introduction is unfortunate. It comes in the aftermath of an electoral debacle and with a strange ‘airing’. There was an announcement of a ‘ big thing ‘ coming, with scanty details, and definitely with little or no public involvement in its genesis. The general public mood created can be reasonably summed up as cynical and skeptical ‘what now?’

The choice of the name ‘New Economic Model’ too invites some reflection. I know many might justifiably argue what’s in a name. On my part I wonder. Is it a reflection of how it sees itself in relation to its predecessor the NEP? It merely changes a word, from ‘policy’ to ‘model’. Is it a case of mere dislike of the word ‘policy’ because of its bureaucratic tenor, while the word ‘model’ is more ‘management-like’, ‘academic’ or ‘sophisticated’?. In other words, is it simply a case of sophistries or an indication of commitment and continuities with the past in the NEP? Is it an indication of ambivalence or ‘dualism’ for the future, for easy and convenient maneuver between the ethos of the NEP and the NEM, depending on occasions and audiences?

The choice of name apart, there is the more substantive issue of principles and development philosophy. To begin with, the New Economic Model should indicate clearly how it sees itself in relation to the New Economic Policy. In some aspects, indeed not wholly, the New Economic Model seems antagonistic to its past. Its closely associated concept of ‘liberal’ and ‘liberalism’ connote this. Liberalism suggests a freeing of from past constraints or ‘shackle’. Does this mean that the NEM does not feel a commitment to the issues and concerns of the NEP? If indeed, the NEM dissociates itself completely from past issues and principles, what would these be? ‘Eradication of poverty’ and ‘restructuring the economy, these being the main objectives of the NEP? The new slogan of ‘meritocracy’, interlaced with condescending rhetoric on the Malay lack of competitive spirit, certainly doesn’t help in projecting the NEM as a multiracial policy. It is the old argument of Malay elite with vested interests under the NEP, as well as the all time favourite of non-Malay chauvinists.

The simple truth is that, while there is a self-serving elite that waxed riches from corruption and cronyism, most Malaysians of all races, Malays and non-Malays, have to and do ‘compete’ to earn a decent leaving. Sloganeering under ‘liberalisation’ and ‘meritocracy’ without genuine understanding and commitment to the principles will merely lends itself readily the wild swinging of the pendulum between ‘ pro-Malay’ NEP and the ‘pro-non-Malay NEM’. Before we know it, we are back to the basic discourse of chauvinism that continually haunts our nation.

The fool's guide to our political economy and economic model-(post 1)

2010-03-12T10:02:00.000-08:00

Today we are earnestly searching for an economic model. I presume then the existing model is deemed unsuitable and unacceptable by the people, or simply no longer relevant to our nation’s needs (depending on who define what these needs are).I have to presume this because the desire to change economic models can be due to many other considerations, such as political expedience, both internally (electoral votes?) and externally (foreign investments?), which does not necessarily mean the economic wellbeing of the citizens at large.

Before we discuss the new model, let us understand the old hag of an economic model, ordinarily referred to as the NEP( New Economic Policy). The best way to achieve this is to see the background and the rationale of it.

Once upon a time, before the dawning of the NEP, the economic model was ironically more ‘liberal’ in the sense ‘the market’ was given a free reign, without much state intervention in the present sense. The catch phrase or principle then was ‘Malay political power, Chinese economic power’. Check all the major writings and documents of the era and you will see the great influence of this formula on the thinking of the time. This principle of course had its origins in colonial times, when it was assumed that Malays are inherently rural folks, peasants, country bumpkins, who could not be otherwise. They are at best suitable as fishermen, padi planters, as food producers for the city, while the better off aspired only to be civil servants or penghulus. The pre-NEP era after independence continued this planning principle of ‘Malay political power, Chinese economic power’. Racial stereotypes reinforced this principle and vice-versa the principle engendered and reinforced the stereotypes that Malays ‘cannot compete’, while the Chinese are ‘money grabbers’ who are natural businessmen as fish in water, on whom the destiny of the nation’s economy should and must depend.

The inevitable consequence of this principle was an economic pattern and development along ethnic lines, which conformed to the lopsidedness that attends the gap between rural peasant economy and modern industrial, capitalistic sector, a notable feature of which is the glaring gap in income and economic standing, with all its social and political implications.

The 1969 General Election shocked the nation into realization that the social, political and economic gap among ethnic groups was unhealthy for nation building. The naivety of the principle ‘Malay political power, Chinese economic power’ was generally felt and understood. The reality was that the Malays wanted to be rich and have a piece of the pie in the industrial corporate sector, while the Chinese and non-Malays did not content themselves only with economic power. As citizens they had political power and understandably wanted a say in the running of the nation. There was introspection among Malaysians, Malay and non-Malays, that an imbalance economic development along racial or ethnic lines was a serious obstacle to nation building . The gap had to be corrected or redressed. Hence we had the declared objectives of the NEP, namely to eradicate poverty and restructure the economy so as to prevent the identification of economic activities along ethnic lines.

Few important points need to be highlighted here. The NEP then was really meant to be a plan for social and economic reconstruction to redress specific problems. It set out to correct colonial legacy and the economic imbalance it bequeathed. Some would correctly see it as a plan of social justice, to redress economic and social imbalance. In this respect the NEP did not have a racial or ethnic basis, its main concern being social justice and economic reform. It had racial or ethnic reference only by virtue of the nature of the problems it set out to redress, since economic disparity was in fact closely along ethnic lines. In spirit and principle, however, the NEP should and could have been implemented to eradicate poverty and stimulate economic growth regardless of race or ethnicity by a principled, enlightened and just elite.

The evolution of the NEP however took a sad turn. In the hand of an opportunistic and greedy elite, it quickly turned into a racket of sort, camouflaging and justifying itself in the name of the Malay masses. I do not have to dwell too much on this episode in this fool’s guide, for it is by now a common knowledge, even for a fool. It suffices for me to say that in the end, the 'metamorphosis' of NEP led to the following situations: a) The aim of eradicating poverty had been marginalised and not been significantly achieved, b) the target of restructuring the economy likewise had not been realised in a meaningful way, c) the Malay masses had not benefited much by the policy, while being stigmatized as being over dependent and ‘spoilt’ ( in countless versions and renderings like ‘subsidy mentality’, ‘ crutch mentality’, etc), d) due to the abuses in its name, the NEP developed a negative image and assumed a racial character, with its own unique ethos, in the name of which influential, rich and middle-class Malays justify their vested interests, e) the NEP engendered much resentment among the non-Malays, and understandably, as they see only the exploitative and acquisitive side of the NEP, most remote from its original aims and spirit, f) far from improving ethnic relations, the racketing image of NEP in fact deepened it.

The 2008 General Election, the result of which almost mirrored the results of 1969, spurred another bout of this ‘electoral conscience’ and introspection amongst our elite, just as it did in 1969. Once again the elite undertake a frantic hasty search for a new economic model purportedly to redress some ‘imbalance’.

This raises many pertinent questions. I should like to touch on these in my next posting as I think my posting shouldn’t be too long and imposing on reader’s time or attention. I leave you with one question for now: Shouldn’t we distinguish the NEP, the policy and its spirit, from the abuses of it? In this respect, do we change the policy or check the abuses of it and the vested interests therein? Is the goal of alleviating poverty, rural and urban, no longer relevant? Has the problem of economic imbalance along racial or ethnic line been resolved and no longer a concern? More importantly we should be mindful that with or without a new model, the same opportunism and greed that hijacked and derailed the NEP could only promise failure and disaster for the future. There is no model capable of weathering the rot and decline inflicted by corruption and vested interests. If I may put it in a different way, had the NEP been implemented in a scrupulous, just and enlightened way, regardless of race or ethnicity, we could be in a better stead today, be it economically or as a nation.

The fool’s guide is to be continued…

I never cease to wonder ...

2010-03-02T02:35:00.000-08:00

There had been many noteworthy news and events over the last one month or so in our public life. My own personal circumstances however do not permit me to respond to each of them separately, yet I feel compelled to respond in one form or another. So I figure some brief notes may suffice, lest these news and events pass me by without recording some response in my blog

Of course the public is following the case of Anwar Ibrahim on the sodomy charge with much interest, only to have their enthusiasm dampened somewhat by the technicalities raised by the defense over the judge’s impartiality or the lack of it. When the judge refused to cite Utusan Malaysia for contempt of court over its reporting of the case, the defense contended that was a measure of bias against the defense, rendering the judge unsuitable to preside over the case. The defense filed that the judge concerned should recuse himself. This stratagem seems to be very much favored by the defense, who had extended its application to the RM100m defamation suit brought by Anwar Ibrahim against Dr Mahathir Muhammad.

For my own mental note, I call this stratagem ‘judging the judge’. Law students and aspiring lawyers should note some of the possible effects of ‘judging the judge’. It is very effective as delaying tactics as it compels the court to sidetrack to other issues besides the main case. As a stratagem, ‘judging the judge’ is very effective also in bridging the gap between the legal and the political. Where political groups had alleged that a particular case is politically motivated, ‘judging the judge’ serves to reinforce the aspersions cast against the authority and the judiciary outside the court, within the framework of legality and the trial process itself. Another possible advantage of ‘judging the judge’ would be to exercise some degree of influence in the selection of a judge more favorable to its advocate.

Which reminds me of another issue generating much news and responses. 50 members of the Australian parliament had demanded that the sodomy case against Anwar Ibrahim be dropped. There are many other news in the opposition run media that certain groups and personalities the world over had made similar demands. While opposition affiliated groups are hyper sensitive to alleged interferences of the government in the case, they seemed to invite and welcome such ‘intervention’ by foreigners. Such intervention of foreigners had been publicized by them as being loft y and concern for justice. Clearly this is all orchestrated and is part of the move to politicize the sodomy case against Anwar. On my part, I see the contradiction on the part of the opposition. While ever picky on alleged government interferences, they don’t seem to feel the indignity of being patronized by foreigners in our own internal affairs. In fact such foreign meddling has gone much well beyond ‘interfering ‘to the point of demanding the case be dropped altogether!

Lately the management and administrative tool of ranking had been utilized in a rather bizarre way in politics. Opposition news work was in euphoria over a ranking which placed Nik Aziz of PAS in the top 500 Muslim thinkers in the world, while Anwar Ibrahim even higher up within the top 40. The opposition had been careful to point out, obviously tongue in cheek, that no BN leaders had been placed anywhere worthy of note. I think we should know better than to fall for this, hook and sinker. We know ranking is often abused as a tool to influence or condition public evaluation in a manipulative way. Just fix the questionnaires or the basis of evaluation in a way that gets you the result you want. Having achieved this, use the result itself to condition (or con) the public towards your own evaluation or conclusion. The term or appellate ‘thinker’ is by convention best reserved for great scholars or intellectuals who had bequeathed some great tradition or heritage to their society or humanity. Their works are generally acknowledged for their great depth or wisdom, capable standing the test of time. Normally the ‘greatness’of such thinkers are not amenable to ‘ranking’ in a mechanical and superficial manner, as in the case referred to above. The naivety of such ranking makes one wonder, is it a case of ‘thinker’ or ‘tinker’ that is being dished out to the public!

About a week ago, the Sun dated 23 February 2010 published an interesting case in the headline. This involved the case of Mr Lye Piang Yin, 71, a retiree who had been given back the title to his land in Hulu Langat, which was stolen from him in the words of the Sun ‘ through the hidden hands of government officers and individuals’. Here, I am not so much concerned with the legal aspects and the details of the case. For these, I refer readers to the copy of the Sun. But in other respects, the case should send shivers down our spine. Judging by this case, all property owners could very easily lose their properties.

This is how, in parallel to the shocking case of Mr Lye Piang Yin. Without your knowledge, some crooks register you as the director of Company X. Then by forgery of documents and signature, the fictitious director transfer the land to the company in exchange for the company shares. After that the fictitious director is ‘arranged’ to resign from the company ( of course leaving all his stakes and land in the company) , being replaced by some dishonest element as director. The new replacement director then sells the land to another party outside the Company X. The buyer or the new owner of the land is then quickly appointed as director in Company X. Hence, to cut a long story short, in this manner you can simply wake up one morning to discover that you are simply no longer the owner of your property! Mr. Lye Piang Yin was fortunate there had been a recent court decision which made the return of his land possible. Can you believe that until recently the position of the law actually favored the frauds. Before the legal loophole was plugged, had the buyer bought the land in good faith from the frauds with no inkling of the illegality, good title would have passed on to the buyer, depriving the original owner of his title. In this respect, to a certain extent, it can be said that a ‘good’ fraud who can convince his client that ‘ all is well’ would have been rewarded by the law and stood to gain by his crooked ways.

This reminds me of an interesting posting by Che Det. I read it as ‘how to pilfer a government linked company’. The details run as follows. Proton bought a motorcycle company for more than RM500m. Then somehow the company ‘became’ unprofitable and a huge liability. In response Proton sold it to a mysterious Italian for US1. The new owner sold the company to Harley Davidson for about RM628m. Hence from Proton’s point of view, theRM500m, the initial cost of buying the motorcycle company , simply vanished, evaporated, but somehow reappeared in somebody else’s coffer, with a further RM128m profit to boot! I am at a loss for words…

Grave matters and a sinking feeling

2010-02-13T00:28:00.000-08:00

Over the last few months, we had read news of corruption in the nation. I don’t mean only the mega scandals like the one involving PKFZ, but spate of it at a more modest and spectacular scale. Though definitely less sensational in terms of the losses and amount involved over a single saga compared to the mega-scandals, usually to the tune of billions, the humbler offenders are nevertheless equally damaging , if not more. In terms of dollars and cents, each case does not boast of staggering amount, but in total the ‘lesser’ corruption may even be more staggering.

But then, we are more than aware, this is not simply a matter of dollars and cents. For example, I remember reading cases involving police officers, immigration officials, port authority staff, custom officers, district administrators, education administrators, armed forces personnel and more. I am sure my list is far from being exhaustive.A complete list of all the cases of corruption in our courts across the range would certainly conjure a picture that corruption is all pervasive in our national administration, and more disturbingly in vital areas affecting our national or public interests. On second thought, this has to be the case. It is only the vital areas of national administration that are ‘marketable’ or of value to corrupt offers and dealings.

A closer look at some of the cases would make clearer the harm they inflict and the extent of the damage to our national interests. The cases involving policemen usually involved a few hundreds or thousands ringgit, and the favors sought are either to overlook offences or to influence the outcome of investigation. Obviously the damage inflicted on the nation is disastrous as this is tantamount to nullifying the law and breeding lawlessness. The cases involving immigration officials disclosed how for a few thousand dollars corrupt officials would be willing to ‘facilitate’ illegal entry permits or other instruments of access into the country, usually for dubious purposes. Just imagine the harm to the nation. Isn’t this analogous to leaving the house door ajar to dubious characters in the night, or opening wide the city gate to questionable elements?

There is this case concerning a young official of the port authority. He faced several charges of corruption, involving a few thousand dollars on each account. In return for the bribes, he overlooked the smugglings going on through the port of his charge. Just imagine how damaging this can be to the nation. If those charged with minding its interests instead enter the pay rolls of smugglers, the nation would certainly be at the mercy of undesirable and dangerous elements. Just about anything can be imported or exported from the country. The entire range of the multiplier effects on the nation economy and security is inconceivable.

We hear of a young assistant district officer charged with accepting about $10,000 as down payment for a new car. A developer’s company bribed her to overlook their stealing of sand in her administrative district. We know how influential the district officials are. Virtually all aspects of living would come into contact with the local administration at one point or another. If they are susceptible to corruption and bribery, we can be sure there is a great deal more than sand being offered for corrupt deals.

The last auditors report revealed that a laptop had cost a staggering $42,000 in the budget of an established educational institution. Though we have not heard of any action being taken for possible abuse, the staggering price tag certainly raise many questions. Could the laptop be a rare proto-type that comes in gold parts or trimmings?

Few of us would have missed the news on our missing jet-plane engines and how investigations is being conducted. The authority had declared that there is no involvement of high officials in this saga. But still the facts remain that some groups had been very resourceful and entrepreneurial in moving and marketing the engines in the international black market. Imagine the significance or implications of it all. It happened in the armed forces, an institution which is supposedly to be one of the most secured places in our nation, an institution charged with the very security of our nation. Though many statements had been made on the actual value of the engines, their status as items ‘condemned’ or designated for ‘repairs’,in part to ameliorate the issue, the fact remains they went missing and ended up in the international back-door market. This suggests either a gross neglect of duty or breach of trust.Besides there is still the lingering question, what else besides jet-plane engines could be for ‘sale’ in this manner?

A few days ago we learned from the Sun of the saga involving RapidKL and its ‘bus grave’. Of course Che Det and Rocky Bru had raised the issue months ago prior to The Sun. It seems that RapidKL operator bought 1,294 used buses for RM93m in 2003, only to consign most of them to the scrap yard two years later in 2005. Presently only RM6m had been recovered in terms of sales value of scrap parts. The Sun covered the visit of the Public Accounts Committee ( PAC) to one of the so-called bus ‘graveyard’ in Sungai Buaya, Rawang.We learn there is another ‘graveyard’ in Serendah.

Many revealing facts had been disclosed by Datuk Seri Azmi Khalid, chairman of the PAC. The buses were registered from 1992-1998, and yet were professionally evaluated only in 2007, In the evaluation, only ten buses were categorized as in good condition. On the whole, each of the buses was valued at RM60,000, requiring RM200,000 worth of repairs. To the question whether an evaluation was done prior to the purchase, Datuk Seri Azmi said yes but ‘we did not know the rational’ for the purchase. It was reported that Prasarana Negara, the company behind the purchase of the buses, incurred a loss of RM839.81million between 2005-2007, due to ‘poor management’.

I can only add the following comments. Well, to date no action had been taken officially suggesting any manner of improprieties. The facts as they stand definitely suggest at the very least gross-mismanagement of epic proportion. The magnitude of the problem is symbolized by the sad and surreal sight of the bus ‘graveyard’. The concept of ‘graveyard’ is indeed appropriate. The row and row of buses had been consigned there to rest in peace for good. Bought for RM93m, they are worth a pittance of that now. As we know, however, nature does not waste anything. The bulk of the purchase price of RM93 would have gone to someone or some accounts somewhere. The instant, rather than gradual, filling of the ‘graveyard’ suggests ‘mass-grave’ might be a more appropriate term. The term ‘mass-grave’ is suitable for another reason. Usually it is mass-graves that are meant to cover some unsavory details from public knowledge.

I am still reeling from the Malay Mail news of a few days ago, that our sole and brand new submarine, KD Tunku Abdul Rahman, costing RM1billion,is experiencing a technical fault. If I am of the superstitious type, I swear we are jinxed as a nation, at least when it comes to acquiring a submarine. Our quest for a submarine had been beset by ominous signs right from the beginning. There had been allegations of massive commissions and kickbacks. It had been linked to a murder case. But then I am not superstitious, so I will confine myself to the facts.

Right after its homecoming in September,2009, a technical fault was discovered in October, the following month. This is a bit too soon for me, considering that it is a brand new submarine. I hope proper and professional evaluation was done in the acquisition of the submarine, uncompromised by any extraneous considerations or vested interests.

The nature of the technical fault is most interesting. Our brand new submarine cannot submerge. A submarine that cannot submerge is akin to a duck that cannot swim. This is serious as it changes the nature of the thing, Although the warranty period had been extended from the end of January to May, I wonder if the repair would incur further huge cost? It is very worrying too to read in the Malay Mail that although the fault had been repaired, it may still be unsafe for the submarine to undergo submerging trials.

I certainly hope that our submarine would not follow the fate of the RapidKL buses, doomed for scrapping because of inhibitive and uneconomic repair cost. Being the sole submarine, however, we cannot speak or conceive of a submarine graveyard. A submarine mausoleum perhaps? Although KD Tunku Abdul Rahman is unable to submerge, the whole saga certainly gives me a sinking feeling!

Wild boar and mosque

2010-01-28T23:05:00.000-08:00

It is becoming more and more obvious there are groups bent on fuelling open religious conflicts in our Malaysian nation. Frustrated by the defusing of potential conflicts in the aftermath of the attacks on churches and Sikh temple, the groups concerned have decided to expand its mischief making to include mosques, in the hope that this could perhaps provide the flare to their earlier attempts. Such groups of anarchists, which thrive only in social and political conditions steep in discord and dissension, amid heightened tension and mutual suspicion, may not necessarily be the direct perpetrators of violent acts themselves, but are nevertheless active as ideational instigators, agitators and strategist at other levels.

The wild-boar head incidents involving mosques is most revealing in some respects and in that regard most worrying. Clearly the act is not calculated for maximum physical damage to the mosque, for we know for this purpose wild-boar head is not quite the best choice of missile or agent. The choice of wild-boar head is not to inflict maximum physical damage but more to desecrate. Through the manipulation of taboos and religious symbols, it is evident that the perpetrators meant the act to be extremely provocative, in the hope that the backlash would be highly emotive.

It is most important therefore that Malaysians resist the manipulation and machination of anarchic groups to sow the seeds of dissension or conflicts among us, be it religious or religiously camouflaged. Let us resolve not to allow our home to be the battle ground for domestic or international conflicts and violence. Knowing of the anarchists desire to provoke and manipulate us towards disunity and discord, we should resolve to move in the opposite direction, towards closing rank and the strengthening of bonds.

We must never take the peace and harmony we have been enjoying for granted. The bonds between us, fellow citizens, must be forged, nurtured and strengthened. We have to live and practice our ideal of peace and brotherhood, for only then can we believe and cherish it collectively. In this regard I must confess I am surprised and somewhat disappointed with the reaction of Malaysians over the wild-boar head incidents. While the incidents of church attacks drew many reaction from Muslim groups expressing condemnation and regret over the incidents, the wild-boar head seem to evoke a very different kind of response. While Muslims seem to choose to remain quiet and muted, rather restrained, there seem to be no widespread expression of regret or condemnation from other quarters. In the midst of social tension, there is a real danger of silence being misinterpreted as acquiescence or indifference, which is of course unhealthy for bonding and nurturing solidarity.

The response of the internet, both local and international, have been interesting and striking too. While the church attacks were quick to draw charges of Malaysian Muslims as’ zealots’, ‘extremists’, ‘racists’, ‘fanatics’, there is no equivalent charges on the perpetrators of the wild-boar incidents ( though we do not know who the perpetrators are, we can still condemn the act itself)

The purpose of this posting is merely to note a kind of distemper or imbalance in our response to issues and challenges of nation-building. We would be more effective in becoming a nation of common interests and destiny if such distemper or incongruence is minimized or significantly changed.

The stone hewer in our political psyche!

2010-01-26T19:23:00.000-08:00

Lately certain calm had set upon our public and political life. The ‘Allah’ usage controversy had abated somewhat, I suppose awaiting the appeal by the government. Of course some discussion are continuing with some social groups or NGO’s making representation to the government, either supporting or opposing the usage by all Malaysians. The specter of widespread violence breaking has been controlled by news of several persons or groups being arrested over incidents. There were some news on land law, with legal loopholes being plugged to check future frauds.

The public welcome news of reforms in public transportation. Some news too on 1Malaysia opening its chain of clinics in tune with its ‘people first’ pledge. The nation was saddened by the passing of several dignitaries and public figures of repute. The issue of missing plane engines had been somewhat muted of late, though there were news of liaison between the police and the AG’s office. A high profile case is just beginning, which is of course potentially controversial or contentious, but too early for us to comment. Indications seem to suggest a lull of some sort in an otherwise tumultuous times. Or is it the proverbial calm before the raging tempest?

In moment like this, I usually find refuge in stories and parables, even relishing fairy tales, which most people dismiss as childish, naïve and immature. To them fairy tales are suitable only for minors or those very much wanting in intellectual prowess, wisdom or philosophical depth. For some unclear reasons to me (I hate to think I fit into those categories), I adore fairy tales.

One charming parable from the pen of Multatuli comes to mind. I certainly think it worthwhile sharing with my esteemed readers. I can only recount from memory though, and only a thought gives me the audacity to do so. I am in a win-win situation. Should I succeed in rendering the original adequately, it would be a credit to my memory. Should I fail in rendering anything remotely close to the original, it would be a credit to my creativity. So this is how the parable goes.

There was once a weather-beaten stone hewer, who daily toiled at chipping and chiseling the huge boulders in his village, regardless of the scorching sun or unsympathetic weather, eking a living to support his simple life. One day the high and mighty king passed by, in all pomp and splendor. Beholding the king surrounded by the paraphernalia of power and privileges, resting beneath resplendent shades and canopies, while he suffered and toiled under the scorching sun, the stone hewer deeply regretted his station in life. In his lamentation, he wished he could be king. Lo and behold, he became the king!

As the king, he was happy and felt gratified. He relished his power and dispensed it as he liked. He enjoyed the pomp and grandeur it conferred him. In particular he cherished the idea that nothing was above him, questioning or challenging his eminence and might. One day, a severe draught fell on his country. All the crops, live stocks perished, leaving the earth parched and dry, while the people suffered. When the severe heat caused him much personal discomfort, it dawned upon him that he was not the most high and mighty after all. He began to grudge the sun over its power. He wished he could be the sun. Lo and behold, he became the sun!

As the sun, he felt happy and gratified. He could radiate or shut down, turning the earth brilliant or pitch black as the case may be. He could make the land green or parched dry, determining over the question of life and death. Yes, nothing could compete or equal his power, so he thought. One day a fleet of cloud passed beneath him cutting out his rays. The rain-bearing cloud brought torrential rain, even flooding the land. The flood did more than reversed the severe draught caused by the sun. This battered the self-esteem of the sun, feeling the clouds are indeed more powerful than himself. He wished to be the cloud. Lo and behold, he actually became the cloud!

He was actually happy as the cloud. It gave him a sense of omnipotence. He could either provide shade or expose others to the scorching sun. He could bring down torrential rain, flooding the land to demonstrate his power. One day, his sense of omnipotence was badly shaken. While enjoying the sight of his flood destroying everything in its path, uprooting trees, removing dwellings, he saw a huge boulder standing firm in its path, unperturbed by the rushing flood. Much as the clouds tried to step up the torrents, the rock stood its ground. In humiliation, the clouds admitted his impotency before the power of the boulder. It wished to become the boulder. Lo and behold! He became the huge powerful boulder.

One day, a humble stone hewer came along and with his simple tools began chipping the huge boulder….

To be sure, the above is a fairy tale, what with stone hewer becoming the king, the sun, the cloud and so forth. But the motifs and morals are real, part and parcel of our daily living and certainly an integral part of the Malaysian public life. If we reflect upon news of megalomaniac quest for power untempered by scruples, unsatiated greed fuelling corruption, or holding the rein of power without values and ideals, we begin to wonder which is fairy tale and which is real? Is there a stone hewer amongst us, or even within us? Indeed the dividing line between fairy tale and reality is then greatly blurred.

A grave wrong in His name

2010-01-08T18:32:00.000-08:00

I am saddened by news of the recent attacks on various churches in Kuala Lumpur. I am sure our morality and collective conscience find such violent act absolutely unacceptable. I am certain upon hearing the news, we deeply regret with remorse the loss of something we all cherish. Let us pray that the violent act had been a rare aberration or deviation. Though vital principle of peace and universal brotherhood had been compromised and put to jeopardy, let us dearly hope and pray that it is still very much the principle and value that guides and binds our lives.

Many of our bloggers had been most active and prolific over The Issue precisely in the hope of never witnessing such sad incidents in our midst. In general we understand and deeply appreciate how sacred and delicate is the religious harmony that binds us all in universal brotherhood. We had been judicious to the best of our ability to render to God what is His, to Caesar accordingly. The beauty of His name and the brilliance of His guiding light is certainly well beyond the law and constitutionality, what more of mundane politics.

In our sadness and deep regret, we shall not quote beautiful verses from our Sacred Books. They would be superfluous, for the gravity of the wrong done is as clear as daylight or the blazing sun. To marshal holy texts and divine verses would perhaps indicate we had not learn anything or much from His guiding light. Let us reject violence and reaffirm our universal brotherhood more as an act of conscience and deep faith, relying less on our religious or scriptural ‘manuals’.

Let us all pray this is not the beginning of a sad chapter in our history. Our religious harmony is something we cannot afford to take for granted. We need to be vigilant, sensitive and wise in handling religious issues as they touch the innermost of our being and existence. Let us not then trade His guiding light for other mundane and trivial considerations.

The‘Allah’ controversy- alamak don’t miss the contextlah!

2010-01-04T23:00:00.000-08:00

I watch in dismay the development of controversy over the usage of the term ‘Allah’. The issue is so high in public consciousness that I don’t need to give the facts and background of it, suffice for me to simply speak of ‘the controversy’. In my dismay, I am thankful though that Allah has blessed me with a simple mind, hence always seeing things in plain terms and uncomplicated manner. I have learnt much from the various posting of the subjects, though I confess most of the sophisticated arguments are quite beyond me.

Firstly, as I see it, the case is about ‘the usage’ of the term ‘Allah’ by the Herald, so to my mind the relevant questions would be do they have the right to the use? How have they been using it? What is their intention in so using? Is their usage or intention offensive to others, not only legally or constitutionally, but also by other standards of social or ethical propriety?

The court had decided on the question of right to the usage,favouring the Herald with the right albeit in limited context and for very specific ‘internal’ purpose. I must confess I don’t have enough information to judge on many of the other questions. I have not seen a copy of the Herald (has the Home Affairs been very effective in this respect?) to help me see what is the manner of usage. As for the many questions pertaining to intention, this belong to our own analysis and evaluation of past and future conduct of the group behind the Herald. Many perceptive analysis and observation had been posted in various blogs, as well as not so perceptive ones, and readers can avail themselves of their freedom of speech and expression, as well as freedom of religion, to peruse them.

Following the judgment, a controversy in now raging, though the PM and the government is appealing for restraint. The much welcome news to the Muslims that the government is appealing against the judgment has somewhat moderated their anger, though I believe only for the moment as they watch further development. Many blogs and comments therein had expressed concern that the legal wrangling of appeal and possible counter appeal and so forth may be costly for the religious harmony of our nation. I share deeply their concern.

I have followed the discourse on the matter and I am moved to jot down my own thoughts for sharing with readers. Firstly I notice that what started as a constitutional and legal case has now assume the nature of theological controversy, internally and externally to the various faith. Some Muslims for example had taken upon themselves to explain to Muslims that the usage of the term by non-Muslims had always been current in the Middle East and that it is commanded by Allah according to the Al-Quran, from which they quote profusely in support of their position. Somehow, this position seems to coincide generally with the response of PAS and PKR leaders, for whatever reasons. This position has the effect of trivializing or even derogating the anger and anxiety of concern Muslims in the region.

While sharing the ‘common use of Allah’ argument in other context, I beg to differ within the specific context of the current controversy. This ‘common use ’ argument pertains to mankind’s monotheistic quest for One Absolute God. Hence the common heritage of the term ‘Allah’ in the Middle East, being the cradle of the various Judaic-Christian and Islamic religion, all of them tracing their roots and origin to the monotheism of Abraham. Where they differ is in their testimony of their faithfulness to the original spirit of their source. This explains why the currency and commonality of the usage of ‘Allah’ within the context of the Middle East, a context which includes the raging and seemingly endless religious conflict in that region.

Now it is fair for me to say, I think, that the word and the concept of ‘Allah’ in Southeast Asia has been more closely associated with islamization or the spread of Islam in the region. To cite simply the common use of ‘Allah’ in the Middle East as an argument for Southeast Asia is to take the word out of its proper socio-historical or even religious context, and artificially transplant it on to our own situation. We cannot pretend Southeast Asia to be the cradle of the Judaic-Christian and Islamic faith. On the other hand to be sure, we can certainly import the conflicts of the Middle East, of the crusade, into Southeast Asia if we choose to ignore the Southeast Asian context and be a part of the Middle Eastern conflict. I for one think we should strive to maintain our religious harmony at all cost!

To insist on the common use of the term within our present controversy is to actually give it the very opposite meaning as used in the Middle East. Within the context ofthe Middle East the word ‘Allah’ refers to the belief in his Absoluteness and Oneness, which is the original source of the Judaic-Christian and Islamic religion. It is an argument for universalism against sectarianism.In this respect it is intended to be a unifying symbol. In contrast to this,the present controversy over the use of 'Allah'seems to be heading more in the direction of sectarianism, away from the meaning of 'Allah'as the One Absolute God.

Let’s be light-hearted and not get highly strung over the issue,though we certainly need to keep a cool head. The point I really want to make is that the meaning of words and symbols are contextual. We all know, the Indonesian words like ‘gampang’, ‘butuh’, ‘bisa’ are ordinary words, functional and useful words in the Indonesian context, but in Bahasa Malaysia or Bruneian Malay they would be offensive indeed ( check the different dictionaries if you miss my point). Words and symbols do have their contextual meaning. Hope we never lose sight of this in facing the current controversy in our midst.

Allah, Tuhan, Jesus - What's His name?

2010-01-02T06:02:00.000-08:00

Since yesterday, the press, the internet and the blogsphere had been abuzz with the issue over the right to use the word 'Allah' in the name of freedom of speech and expression and the freedom of religion as laid down by the Malaysian constitution.

Yesterday Justice Datuk Lau Bee Lan held that the Herald, a Catholic weekly magazine had the constitutional right to use the word 'Allah' in its publication to propagate the Christian religion but not Islam. She said that pursuant to Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution, it was an offence for non-Muslims to use the word 'Allah' to Muslims to propagate their religion

A brief background to the case is as follows:

On Jan 7, the Home Minister approved the Herald's publishing permit for the period Jan 1 to Dec 31, 2009, on condition that the word "Allah" was not used in it and the words "Restricted" must be printed on the weekly's front page whereby it could only be circulated to Christians and at churches only.

In response, Archbishop Tan Sri Murphy Pakiam filed for a judicial review on the usage of the word 'Allah' in the church's publicatons, naming the Home Ministry and the goverment as respondents.

Throughout the case, many arguments had been put put forth by involved parties to the issue, which make us realise how unique and complex our nation and its pluralism is. Suffice to say, this case certainly impressed upon my mind that the security, peace and harmony of the nation is well beyond the ambit of legal wranglings and cold letter of the law, even of the constitution. Beyond legal and constitutional quiblings, I dare say that we as a nation are in dire need of mutual respect, sensitivity and just plain old goodwill among the various segments of the population, of various cultural and religious traditions. The questions brought forth for judiciary review are very much part of our current political discourse even when divorced from their specific judicial setting.

It has been argued by non-Muslims mainly that the word 'Allah' is not exclusive to the Muslims and predate the birth of Islam. For the Muslims, this is just stating the obvious as it is the basic teaching of their religion to enjoin mankind to return to the older monetheism brought by Abraham, long before the coming of Islam. So in the evolution of religion then, it was the conception and idea of God that was debated and not just the plain word 'Allah' or his name. Such evolution is furthermore in line with the dynamics of cultural change, which does not involve a whole culture changing overnight, but proceeds by gradual adjustment and adaptation. So the argument that the word 'Allah' is not exclusive to Muslims and predate Islam is not quite to the point.

Within the specific context of Malaysia, however, the word 'Allah' has assumed its contextual and specific meaning as understood and held by the religion of Islam and the Muslims.Now, the formulation, understanding and interpretation of laws has always been everywhere,and in history, a matter of context in response to specific requirements. Therefore in my humble opinion, the argument that the word has an earlier meaning in history, and for other groups elsewhere, should not carry that much weight in the contextual interpretation of our own laws.

Now, there is the question of the freedom of speech and expression under our constitution. I think we all know and understand that such freedom is conditional and not without qualification It is almost a cliche to say that freedom of speech and expression carries with it responsibilities and due regards for the sensitivity of others.

In fact in this case, the Honorable Justice had given due regards to this requirement of the law. Bound by the wordings of Article 11( 4), she had made it clear that the word 'Allah' is permitted the Herald only for specific use of Christian congregation and for the teaching of Christianity to Christians. It would be an offence if the word 'Allah' is used to propagate religion to Muslims.

This is of course the contentious point raised by many. If it is of such limited 'freedom of speech and expression' , amounting to some sort of 'internal' Christian use, why is the Herald bent on using the word 'Allah'? Why not 'Tuhan', or 'Jesus'? This of course gives ground for suspicion among Muslims of intention to convert Muslims to Christianity.On this score, of course, we would be moving into areas quite beyond the immediate case before the court. As we know, beyond formal question of law and jurisprudence,there is a broad area of living which is not quite amenable to the court standards of what is right or wrong.

For now the law has made its declaration, giving literal meaning to the words of the law and the constitution. Judging by its declaration, the court had confined its role to defining the extent and limit of the freedom of speech and expression, and the freedom of religion in this case. It has been careful to exclude the issue of implementing and policing the law. While granting the Herald the right to use the word ' Allah', it has also clearly defined the extent and limit of that use. While it is a right for the Herald to use the word 'Allah' within their fold for their particular use, it is illegal beyond this.

As for the Home Affairs and the goverment, it remains for them to make a more convincing case in its appeal against the decision on the ground of national security and the confusion it might engender among Muslims by the use of the word 'Allah' by non-Muslims.It is their failure to make a convincing case that forced the court to fall back on the constitutional provision itself in the first instance. In addition, it is very much the responsibility of the Home Affairs and the goverment to implement, police and wisely manage what the court has decided. I suspect an inherent difficulty in its exercise of duty would be determining what constitutes 'propagation to Muslims' in this age of mass communication, including publishing,with its free flow of ideas, including religious ones.

Politics of the monkey-judge

2009-12-31T21:34:00.000-08:00

First of all let me wish all Malaysians a happy new year as we begin 2010. May 2010 be a wonderful chapter in our lives, happy, prosperous, meaningful and enriching as well.

Blogging on serious , high-brow subjects may be out of tune with readers' much deserved holiday and relaxation with family member s and loved ones. But perhaps light story telling would be okay, not too intrusive or much of a ‘card-spoiler’ (kacau daun)

On this very quite first day of 2010, I am reminded of the story of the monkey-judge, which is well represented in many cultural traditions, in various versions. It is a charming story with many insights to reflect upon.

For the benefit of those unfamiliar with the story, it runs such. Two parties are at loggerheads, in heated arguments on their respective rights and claims over a banana. Having exhausted their arguments and patience over the issue, they agree to refer the matter to the court, presided by the monkey-judge, presumably of high standing and great reputation in arbitrating between disputing parties. Both parties agree to abide by the decision of the illustrious monkey-judge.

In the midst of tension and hostility between the disputing parties, the monkey-judge decided to apportion the banana equally in the name of justice. He broke the fruit clumsily and regretfully into two rather unequal and disproportionate portions, with one much longer than the other.
The monkey-judge was however rather pleased with his decision, quite oblivious to his blunder and indiscretion.

Upon being presented with the court decision, the aggrieved party protested vehemently over the injustice of being awarded the smaller portion of the banana and made known to the monkey-judge their displeasure in no uncertain terms. The advantaged party of course welcome the decision , paying great tribute to the wisdom and justice of the monkey-judge.

Faced with the vehement protest of the aggrieved party, and the real prospect of losing their support, the monkey-judge makes amend. He bites the longer portion in the hope of making the two portions equal, but as is customary of a blunderer, he bites more than he can chew, now making the other portion longer and bigger in turn, which of course leads to the same protests all over, only this time with the parties changing their status as the aggrieved or the advantaged, either cursing or lauding the monkey-judge in superlative terms.

Thus the process repeated itself, over and over again, with the monkey-judge continually trying to please and win support, losing sight of his original goal of justice for all. The more he bites, and misjudges, the more discontent he creates overall, with the compliments coming only as a passing or ephemeral phase. In the end, the monkey-judge consumes the whole banana, leaving the disputing parties agape, in confusion and disillusionment…

In a plural society and nation like ours, our beloved Malaysia, leaders can learn a lot from the story of the monkey-judge and the banana, be it BN, PR, DAP, PAS, PKR and others. Politics is not a simple matter of pleasing the crowd or playing up to the gallery. Partisan politics devoid of absolute principles and values such as social justice, fair play, equality, can only make a ‘monkey-judge’ of leaders, taking them no where except a blind alley.

In evolving specific policies and campaigns, such as 1Malaysia or the education policy and education system, BN leaders would have to be mindful of the proper balance between the legitimate interests and rights of the both Malays and non-Malays. Half-baked and naive liberalism, insensitive to history, context and absolute principles and values, may only lead to deeper and new problems, far from solving existing ones.

For both BN and PR, the policy of pandering to one section of the population while alienating another, then wooing back the later, while alienating the former, in a vicious cycle all over again and again, would be counter productive for their politics. In the end it could spell their very downfall as the whole population wises up to their monkey game

PKR, DAP, PAS need to be sensitive and tactful. In our extremely complicated politics with delicate balance, rhetoric, populist tendencies, slogan churning, playing to the galleries will only lead us into blind alley in terms of nation building which improves our lives.

What about the common man in the street, any lesson from the light story? On my part I resolve not to entrust my destiny, that of my family, loved ones, my beloved nation, fellow citizens, to the monkey-judge.That would wreak havoc in our lives!

Wishing you a happy new year once again. I hope my monkey story did not spoil your holiday and merry making!

Mind your planes!

2009-12-22T02:52:00.000-08:00

The question of Malay participation in the Singapore Air Force had always been a touchy one, especially before one or two Malay-Muslim pilot had been appointed, presumably in part to address the issue. The official explanation in response to criticism was interesting: an explanation which seems to fuse both ethnic considerations with national security concern. A senior cabinet minister said in a much publicized speech that the Singapore government did not want to put a would-be Malay-Muslim pilot in a dilemma should Singapore be engaged in a conflict with the neighboring countries. The pilot concerned would then be torn between his loyalty to Singapore and his loyalty to his Muslim brothers of the opposite camp. Considering how expensive a jet fighter had cost Singapore, he explained the government simply cannot take the risk of a Malay-Muslim pilot flying a jet fighter over to the enemy camp. Now this suggest very stringent attitude towards national security and defense equipments, even spilling over into ethnic considerations!

Now on the Malaysian side of plane saga, a few days ago Malaysians are hit by the shocking news that two jet-fighter engines had been stolen, each engine worth about MR50 million. The details suggest that through massive and complicated local and international conspiracy, the engines were sold off to an international company based in South Africa. A brigadier-general and 40 armed forces personnel had been sacked last year over the scandal. It is also reported that the police had arrested 4 people, including air force officers. These are scanty details I read in today’s The Sun, front page, reporting on revelation by the prime minister and the minister of defence ( I seem always to be out of step with the Malay Mail mass distribution, finding only an empty kiosk when passing by)

Wow! The Malaysians seem to be much more at ease over the matter of national security and sensitive defence equipments. Kadir Jasin of the Scribe and Rocky Bru is quite right in saying, given the details, what is there to prevent elements like those who traded our jet engines from selling not only sensitive defence equipment but the very integrity of our national security system itself? They seem to be quite above all considerations of national loyalty, patriotism and ethnic loyalties. Only money and greed seem to motivate them.

This scandal should really worry us Malaysians, sweet music though to our enemies. To them, it does suggest Malaysia can be bought easily if you know where the weak link in the chain is, and work it to their advantages.

I find the prime minister’s statement in today’s paper perplexing. Though calculated to reassure the public there was no cover up in the matter, I remain to be persuaded. He said, according to the report: ‘Mindef took the position that we had to address this and take action, even criminal action, against those involved’ Was Mindef of two mind over the course of action to be taken upon discovering the debacle? So much so Mindef had to ‘take the position to address this and take action, even criminal action? Shouldn’t this be a matter of course, instead of being recounted as a process requiring mulling and great deliberation? Why ‘even criminal action’? Was there remote possibilities of it being non-criminal and innocent? Or was there reluctance and hesitation over the course of taking criminal action? The prime minister gives credit to the RMAF and Mindef for having ‘no intention of covering up at all. In fact, we went forward to the police. At that time I was minister in charge. I decided we should report it to the police’. Well..was it really a difficult decision on the part of a cabinet minister, worth recounting and taking credit for? Further more, excuse me for saying so, the issue really is how could it have happened and who should take the final responsibility for failing to prevent it in the first place, The issue is not whether to report it to the police or not or whether action should be taken or not! And lastly,reading the details given by the minister of defence, and the chief of the armed forces, on how investigation had to be conducted 'discretely', away from public attention, they do suggest in essence a 'cover up' of sort.

The above post does not pretend any analysis or evalutation over the issue. I am still in a state of disbelief as to the extent of degeneration in our national integrity and resilience. I am just stating the facts and relevant information.
.

.

KPI: a 1Malaysia original?

2009-12-19T13:29:00.000-08:00

Recently, with the change of premiership or leadership in Malaysia, the government had introduced in a big way the practice of KPI. The Prime Minister had announced to the public how he intends to vigorously evaluate the performance of his cabinet ministers and his administration through the use of the management inspired tool of KPI. The basic intention behind this move is of course to signal to the public his seriousness in ensuring good leadership for the nation, in line with the slogan of 1Malaysia ‘the people first, meritocracy emphasized’. This is all good of course, very laudable.

The idea of a prime minister vigorously evaluating his cabinet, or any leader evaluating members of his ruling clique under whatever political system, is of course natural, basic in politics and nothing new. This is because any leader worth his salt will know that the ineptitude or incompetency of his lieutenants could mean his very downfall, or at the very least undermine the credibility of his government or reign.

The Malaysian government has however introduced new elements in the use of KPI, all of its own. While the KPI has usually been a tool used internally in most institution to ensure efficient inner workings, with the view of ensuring group efficiency which could then be projected to the public, the Malaysian government had publicized the use of the KPI itself, presumably deeming it as a means of improving its image in the public’s eyes.

I find this move rather perplexing, raising questions why has it done so? Does the government think that the idea of leaders being evaluated is so alien to the Malaysian public that they need to be educated on this new life experience through publicizing the government’s use of the KPI? Or could it be because the practice of evaluating government leaders is something new for government leaders themselves, never properly instituted in their midst, hence the use of the KPI achieving the status of a great ‘reform’,’novelty’ among them, making them feel it is therefore of ‘public interest’ to be capitalized for political mileage? To be sure the Prime Minister had denied that the KPI publicity is merely rhetoric and that he is serious about implementing it. Still, this is beside the point why the government has chosen to publicise its use of KPI. The point is when what is for others a natural process, a matter of course, important but otherwise ordinary, is given the treatment of a ground breaking reform, it does suggest somewhat a recent discovery and novelty of practice.

And then there is the question of how is the public really involve in this KPI exercise? Presently, they are involved merely as spectators of the government’s use of the KPI. They are not really involved in the process of evaluating the leaders within this KPI exercise. This seems to remain the sole prerogative of the prime minister, which should be the case. But then why involve the public at all, albeit as spectators? If the argument is that the public is indeed involved because they are free to submit complaints, we would be missing the point. This facility or avenue has always been open and remains the public’s prerogative, even without the much publicized KPI.

Recently the public had really been cast as spectators to the government’s use of the KPI. Amid much fanfare, two ministerial posts had been created to oversee the government use of the KPI. The public is informed on the internal administrative details of the KPI. Few days ago, a cabinet minister had to correct the mass media in misreporting that only ten out of twenty government agencies had submitted their reports. The good minister had explained to the public that all twenty agencies had submitted their reports on time without exception, but the prime minister has had the opportunity to read only ten of them, given his busy schedule!

A few months ago, the two cabinet ministers had to explain to the public the line of reporting in the matter of KPI. To public inquiry as to which of the two cabinet ministers involved with KPI is to report to the other, one of them explained that he is solely in charge and all reporting are to him. All manner of administrative details are made public, but alas not the substance of the evaluation itself!

A few days ago, before flying off to Copenhagen, the Prime Minister announced to the public that he is satisfied with the performance of his government in the key performance areas. Indeed this is good news for us since the government, going by the prime minister, is in good working order. It raises some questions, however. Who is the KPI for? If it is just for the Prime Minister’s public exercise, isn’t there a conflict of interest here? Politically speaking it is a bit unrealistic for us to expect any Prime Minister to say he is unsatisfied with his own government? No Prime Minister would be willing to commit political suicide with the use of his very own KPI! Given this, perhaps it is best that the government keeps the KPI as a vital management tool for its internal use in upgrading the quality of governmental leadership.

I think it is fair for me to say that by and large the public is not too interested in the administrative details or the bureaucratic aspects of the goverment's use of the KPI. What the public is more interested in is not so much the mere use of the KPI but the actual honest and open evaluation of the leaders. And we can be sure too of one thing. With or without the KPI in its structured form as introduced and publicised by the government, the people will in their own way ‘KPI’ the government before casting their votes. I am sure in doing so they are quite indifferent as to whether the prime minister is satisfied or not with his own KPI on his government agencies!

Ethnic quota on Malay reserve land?

2009-12-08T22:02:00.000-08:00

While surfing, I chanced across a Bernama report dated 7 December 2009, posted on the Malaysiakini website. The caption ‘Dasar 50% kuota bumiputra ditangguh’ looks interesting and contentious enough I thought, given the current political development in Malaysia. Contentious I thought because it touches on some basic issues like the continuing tension between ‘liberalization’ or free enterprise and the question of Malay rights.

According to the Bernama report, the implementation of the new housing policy in Kedah which stipulates 50% allocation for bumiputra had been put off until a new clearer guideline is issued. This move was prompted by protests from NGOs and political parties of various races over the issue of Malay reserve land being converted to freehold land. The general policy of raising the housing allocation for bumiputra from 30% to 50% was announced by the Menteri Besar, Datuk Seri Azizan Abdul Razak, to be effective from 1 September 2008.

To my mind, merely deducing from the scanty facts in the Bernama report, the problem starts when the state government made a serious blunder. Thinking in terms of ethnic quotas in relation to land matters proves to be very problematic in Malaysia, given its history. Take for instance the matter of Malay reserve land. The Malay reserve land policy was formulated and implemented long before Independence, even longer before the New Economic Policy. Therefore it is really a political blunder for the PR state government to extend its hostility towards the NEP to the Malay reserve land policy, as if they are one and the same.

The Malay reserve land policy was promulgated between the British and the Malay States, even before the birth of independent Malaya or Malaysia. Hence to carry over their phobia of ethnic quota of the NEP into decisions over land matters, particularly of Malay reserve land, reflect either unconscious or conscious anti-Malay sentiments on their part or simply ignorance of history.

It is such characteristic blunder of PR that contributes to the murkiness of Malaysian politics today. Too much had been lumped under the boogey man ‘NEP’. Now the question of Malay reserve land had been laid at the door of ‘NEP’. They had taken it upon themselves to ‘correct’, ‘liberalize’, ‘democratize’, ‘reform’ or to ‘equalize’ the anomaly called Malay reserve land. In this way, all things ‘Malay’ can now be maligned under NEP. It is the same proclivity to over generalize and caricature on the part of PR that blames all ills of Malaysian society explicitly on UMNO and implicitly on the Malays. Obviously such trends are not conducive for the development of a democratic discourse in our political process.

It is to be expected that the new housing policy of the Kedah stated government would encounter problems. I wonder what would be some of the protests from the NGOs and the various political parties? The Malay position would find it difficult to endorse or support the proposed policy. From their point of view, why should Malay reserve land be converted to freehold with only a 50% allocation for them? Isn’t this giving up part of their land? Though in all probability the Malay reserve land had been compensated elsewhere, normally in a less valuable or desirable location, naturally they would resent the idea of giving up their claims on half of the converted land, especially when the land value had escalated in that particular area.

As for the non-Malay position, I suppose it would be the old continual resentment and protest against Malay rights and allocation, all of familiar ring to their resentment towards the NEP. I suppose in their understanding or expectation, it should be just like colonial times when the dichotomy was just that of either Malay reserve land or freehold, with the later free of any form of stipulation, especially in favor of the Malays.

Hence massaging the figure from the magic 30% of NEP to 50% would not really endear the state goverment to the people of Kedah, be it Malays or non-Malays.Many would simply see it as a sleight of hand to favour the other party against their own community.

One lesson I would draw from this episode on the new housing and land policy of the Kedah state government. It is not that easy to push aside or ignore the reality of the ethnic imperatives in our politics, given the history of the nation. Another lesson would be, politicians of both divide, be it the ruling party or the opposition, in all states, and at the national level, should never loose sight of our history and historical context when championing their cause.

Government of the individual, by the individual, for personal clients?

2009-12-06T05:42:00.001-08:00

The Star dated 4 December 2009 carried an interesting news report on the front page with the caption ‘Mother’s tears pays off with citizenship for girl’. It recounts how, Mrs Chong , a distraught mother waited for eight hours to meet Datuk Seri Hishamuddin personally at the UMNO generally assembly in October to plead the case of her daughter’s citizenship. Her persistence had paid off, with her 17 year old daughter being granted Malaysian citizenship on 3 December 2009.

Shedding tears of joy, the 45 year old mother recounted her story: ‘ I met the minister at 6 pm on that day and at 7 pm, I received a call from his press secretary to enquire about my daughter Vivien Wong’s application.’ She continues with evident and justified gratitude: ‘Her citizenship application was approved in less than a month, thanks to Hishamuddin”

I am happy for Mrs Chong and her daughter Vivien Wong on their success. Kudos to Datuk Seri Hishamuddin for his attention in clearing the matter. As human story, the episode is indeed touching and heartwarming. It portrays a mother’s love and devotion, the wonderful gift of precious citizenship to a young girl and the gallant act of a political leader while in office. It bespeaks of benevolent leadership and a caring government, augering well for the nation.

And yet the story strikes me precisely how our democratic Malaysian nation should not be! A democracy and its institutions should be about impartial laws and policies, accompanied by due process in their implementation. The doctrine of the rule of law ensures all parties are clear as to their responsibilities and rights, be it with the leaders as well as citizens. The laws and principles function objectively or justly, where the citizens can expect some measure of reliability and certainty as to their hope and expectation. Of course there are always some grey areas for judgment- call and discretion on the part of the executive, but in great measure the rule of law demands impartiality and objectivity in its operation based on clear principles.

In this regard, to my mind, the case of Mrs Chong and Vivien raises many questions as to the soundness of our democracy. Why did she had to beg and plead the case in those circumstances before being accorded the due attention and necessary action. It took more than a decade before she could make any headway and even then it was through her resolve and desperate act of which we read. Would Vivien’s citizenship application have been processed in not for the act of personal pleading or ‘begging’ on the part of Mrs Chong? Could there be many other similar cases pending for decades simply because other mothers had not seen the light to plead their case in similar fashion as Mrs Chong?

To me, the case should have been a straight forward one, to be decided on clearly defined laws, policies and principles. It is either Vivien was entitled to citizenship or she was not, to be decided impartially or objectively according to due process of the law or policy, leaving a minimal ground for personal arbitrariness. Accordingly, Mrs Chong pleading and desperation should not have been necessary, nor would the ‘gallantry’ of Hishamuddin in ‘bestowing’ citizenship. In other words, in my understanding the decision should have been arrived on ‘democratically’ and not ‘personally’.

Mrs Chong’s said something which does not auger well for our democracy. According to her she met Hishamuddin at 6 pm, and by 7pm she received a call from the Minister’s press secretary enquiring into her application and appeal. Wow! That’s immediate attention and service for you. But just what had happened throughout the decade that had gone by? Why should Mrs Chong desperate act make all the difference? The case should either be a legitimate one, which should have been given due attention and deliberation more than a decade ago, or it is not legitimate, in the case of which personal pleading or ‘begging’ should not radically alter the status and the merit of the case altogether. Which is which? Would the case have been buried for another decade had it been otherwise? As to the political secretary, would he have been equally concerned and diligent in his exercise of duty if the circumstances had been different?

This case and the surrounding human story touch on a major malady of our democratic Malaysian nation. Our leaders as well as citizens have the mistaken notion that power is personal and arbitrary, which can and ought to be wielded thus by the individual office bearer. The consequence of this mistaken notion is a weak notion of the rule of law, due process of law, the legitimate extend and limit of power, public accountability, citizens’ duties and rights, indeed of the democratic spirit itself in general.

I chose to highlight the case in the belief that has greater significance for our nation well beyond it. It reflects a serious flaw in the working of our nation. To those bold enough to admit, in Malaysia in many areas of life, a lot depends on personal networking, on whom you know, with whom one rubs shoulder with, on family ties, on ‘pulling strings’, ‘knowing lobang’, ‘golfing partners’, ‘kakis’, ‘drinking buddies’, and many other modes of personal ties and relationship forging patronage and client relationship between office bearers or power holders and the public. This has been the fountain spring of corruption, nepotism, cronyism, favoritism, highhandedness,arbitrariness,precariousness that scourge our national life. It has been the force that undermines our democratic spirit and understanding, and derails our democratic progress from its proper path.

I pray we can combat this malady together as Malaysian citizens, genuinely concerned for the restoration and advancement of our genuine democratic understanding and spirit. We need to do this because it is downright impossible to have a working democratic system while the spirit animating and guiding it runs counter to democracy and its guiding principles.

Whither our democratic culture?

2009-12-01T22:26:00.000-08:00

We have yet to evolve a democratic culture in Malaysia. Yes, we do take part in the election, but a democratic culture is much more than simply casting a vote once every four or five years. Apart from this hallmark of modern democracy, our political life doesn’t seem to reflect the other integral aspects of a truly or more matured democratic culture.

For instance we often hear of conflicts or feuds in political parties between factions and cliques, but, though occupying the centre stage in terms of media coverage and public consciousness, we cannot say really what are the major issues or contention between them. Is it a case of competing vision and philosophy for their parties, a significant difference in terms of policies, priorities and strategies, all in the name of the genuine interests of society and nation? Or can it be a debate on fundamental principles of leadership, devotion, commitment and idealism?

Invariable after following the news for a while, one gets bored and tired of it because it all boils down to the jostling for power and position between individuals, each backed by their hence men and supporters. A case in point would be the long drawn squabble in MCA. What are the issues really, of significance to society and nation? The same can be said of the going on in the MIC.

Of course cliques and faction would camouflage their bid for power and position by adopting the high moral ground, while stigmatizing rival groups as ‘immoral’, ‘unethical’ or any other labels that undermine their legitimacy to lead. But beyond this propagandistic idealization of personalities, and character assassination of rivals, what are the substantive issues reflecting a matured or developed democracy?

Right to this day, it would seem that the democratic spirit and tradition is still lacking in UMNO. This is clearly borne out by the last posting by Dr Mahathir Muhammad or Che Det. It would appear that far from developing a genuine democratic culture within its fold, UMNO is more inclined towards thwarting or stunting it, thus getting closer day by day to political suicide. According to Dr Mahathir, divisional leaders are blocking the entry into the party of younger, better educated, more capable people. These leaders feel more secure when they recruit instead yes men and those who condone and accept their corruption. As election candidates are normally nominated and chosen from this level of divisional leadership, it is such elements that invariably rise to prominence and national leadership in the course of time. Hence we have a vicious cycle of bad and corrupt leadership for the party, society and nation.

Can UMNO ever hope to survive, without breaking this vicious cycle? How can it ever hope to win back the mind and heart of the Malay masses without genuine democratic reforms against such self-sustaining and self-perpetuating force of corruption and decadence at the core of its power and leadership structure? I will emphatically say UMNO will perish into oblivion in no time!

I should like to note that though I have not made specific mention of the opposition parties, judging by the discussions and analysis in the media, I don't think the state of democratic culture within their folds is any different or better. Just casually survey the various commentaries on PAS, PKR and the DAP widely circulating in the media.

Our fundamental problem is that we still need to evolve and develop a truly democratic culture. Our elite and leaders still cling on to the old and undemocratic notion of power. According to this notion, reminiscence of feudalism really, power is personal, arbitrary, conferring of position, privileges, and personal gains or interests. Power is much coveted and keenly contested for these reasons. This is poles apart from the democratic notion of power, where power is defined and closely regulated by democratic rules and institutions, limited only to legitimate functions of serving the interests of the people and the nation. In a genuine democratic culture, power and authority are conferred only to enable and empower leaders to lead and serve the people and the nation, and not for personal aggrandizement by individuals, their families, hence men and loyalists.

It seems to me if our very conception of power is undemocratic, I am not wrong in saying that our ‘democracy’ has a long way to go before achieving the status of a more matured and responsible democracy, both on the part of leaders and citizens.

Playing cat and mouse with the law

2009-11-24T18:45:00.000-08:00

A few weeks ago, as I was passing, there was a surprise raid by city officials on the hawkers at the premises of the Masjid Jamek LRT station. Within minutes , the hawkers made their rushed ‘getaway’, clearing the area of their makeshift counters and culinary spreads.

Since then, I note the resilient hawkers and vendors are back, even in greater number, it would seem to me. Well…it kind of set me thinking. Not that most of us are unaware of this phenomenon, but I am curious as to its nature, dynamics and the rational of it all.

This is not to say, I am unsympathetic towards the small man trying the earn a living, for I would consider myself as one naturally inclined towards the underdog of society, rather than the spoilt and decadent of the upper class or ‘the big boys’ of business. But then the issue I am raising here is not of sectarian interests, but a point of law and governance, or concerning ‘mismanagement’ perhaps? It raises questions too on the effectiveness of the law and its enforcement.

Now I am sure the vendors are not unintelligent lot. They must and do calculate their risk, gain and losses Wouldn’t it be reasonable for me to conclude that somewhere in their reckoning, they find it still ‘worth it’ to persevere playing cat and mouse. How do they come to resolve thus? The penalty is not severe enough so as to deter, the trade is lucrative, the officials can be persuaded to be lenient, there are possible loopholes in the law and implementation that one can avail oneself of? Or simply, the law is really a farce and not to be taken seriously?

What make me curious rather is the stand of the law enforcement agency. Now given their goal of outlawing such businesses, as evident in their periodic raids, haven’t they come to the conclusion by now that their action had been ineffective? Or can it be this is not an issue altogether with them? The point to them is periodic demonstration of power or authority, a ritual of sort which needs to be performed?

I know this much. In places like Singapore, reputable for its law and order, law and enforcement had been diligently crafted to underscore one principle, that ‘it is not worth the risk doing it’. This message would be clearly signaled in the formulation of the law, as well in its implementation. When and if necessary, the penalty would be costly enough to deter would -be adventurous and high-risk takers. Don’t take my word for it, check out the relevant court cases. By and large, I think the law and enforcement work over the causeway because the law is strict in words and cannot be negotiated or compromised in enforcement. It has nothing to do with the natural law abiding instinct of Singaporeans. Well you can apply this to littering and driving offences as well.

Playing cat and mouse with the law is a well-known modus operandi in Malaysia. In parts of Kuala Lumpur city, it is public secret that illegal vendors, say of pornographic materials or pirated goods, can move in steps with raiding city officials, avoiding confrontation with much precision. Very much like the Filipino bamboo dancers, jumping in an out in time, avoiding being ‘cornered’. It is often alleged as soon as the officials turn into the next street, the vendors would be back, as a matter of routine really.

We can of course develop this phenomenon into an even wider picture, of greaer significance. Playing cat and mouse can get bigger with much higher stake. Hence we note with much regret, illegal logging goes on for decades in the country. Given the nature and scale of the business, this is not easy to manage without complex organization and nimbleness at playing cat and mouse. The government knows, the officials know, the laws are there, and yet the game continues. The same with corruption in high places, the laws are there, sometimes enforced with much fanfare. But somehow ‘the players’ have reasoned that ‘it is still worth the risk’. Is it a case of lenient law, or of lax enforcement, making the risk low enough as to be worth taking? Or putting it in other words, making corruption and wrong doings most tempting and still rewarding? After all they may reason, ‘ no risk no gain’? Could it be they find it to be not risky at all? So they continue playing.

What is wrong with our law and enforcement? Or is it more the case of our civic mindedness, public ethics? Is it purely a question of integrity and morality? I very much doubt it. I think if we all could be saints, there would be no need for the police, the court and even the law. But the reality is that all of us are not saints! Hence we still need good strict laws, diligently enforced, in addition to good incorruptible leadership paving the way.

To die over a leaking water pipe!

2009-11-18T20:11:00.000-08:00

On 28 October 2009 I posted on this blog a short article entitled ‘Our Little Sacrifices-The Tragedy of Kuala Dipang, Kampar’. Therein I criticized a certain callous mentality besetting our national life, characterized by the following traits: lacking maintenance mentality, the capacity of anticipating dangers and taking preventive measures, and lacking respect for the sanctity of human life, subverting it to other short term or immediate gain. In the particular context of my article, sloppiness led to the loss of three young lives.

Part of my article reads: ‘The tragedy of Kuala Dipang maybe unique in manifestation, but I believe the same principle is at work throughout our national life. Sloppiness reigns supreme everywhere, exacting heavy human costs. It is not necessarily a bridge the next time, could be a bridge, a building, a condominium, even a whole section of a road, just anything really’.

On the way to work today, I picked up a free copy of the Sun at the LRT station. The front page headline reds: ‘Landslide report declassified’. The article covers the findings of the technical committee report on the Bukit Antarabangsa landslide disaster on December 6, 2008, which claimed five lives and destroyed 14 bungalows. The Selangor state government had decided to make the report available to the public and interested parties, especially those affected.

My memory flashed back to the time of the disaster and the news coverage of the event. I remember distinctively the statements made by parties deemed responsible then, all seemingly leaning towards the natural disaster theory, sort of ‘an act of God’ kind of explanation and rationalization. On the whole the tenor was defensive, dismissive and rather evasive of responsibility or blame.

Now with the declassification of the report, we have the story. The main cause of the landslide was ‘a leaking water pipe along a row of abandoned houses’ which according to the analysis ‘caused moisture build-up and weakened the slope’. Other factors contributing to the disaster included the loosening of the soil during development, the lack of maintenance, damage and lack of maintenance of the drainage system in the areas surrounding the landslide’.

Wow! In short, sloppiness strike again then, costing lives, human suffering, as well as huge losses. Just imagine, people actually died because of ‘a leaking pipe’ as the main cause behind the tragedy! Then it was top by callous development, presumably driven by the profit motive, with no regards for safety and sanctity of human life. Make special note of the lack of maintenance for the drainage in the area mentioned, which says a lot on the attitude towards public accountability and social responsibility.

Few points strike me further on this episode. The area hit was an up-market residential area and not the cheaper public housing category. So it would seem to me, even the upper class of our society are not being spared falling prey, victim or even sacrifices to sloppiness. It makes me wonder also just how many more of such stories of sloppiness devouring human lives remaining buried. In this instance we get to know only because the report had been declassified by the Selangor state government.

Well, if even the rich or the affluent are not spared (one tend to assume their greater affordability perhaps could buy better service and quality of life), how can we be sure where sloppiness will strike next! And with the creepy thought of people actually dying due to a leaking water pipe, compounded by general sloppiness, how can anyone sleep peacefully at night or feel safe at any time for that matter!

PS: On page 5 of the same Sun edition referred to above, there is news of a landslide near the Cheras Awana Flats, with the caption ' Three cars, motorcycle buried in landslide'. There is a gruesome picture of a car 80% buried by landslide.

Soccer wrath, street demos and moral indignation

2009-11-11T19:51:00.000-08:00

I heard today’s news over the radio. The Kelantan Football Association had been slammed with a fine of $50, 000 over the behaviour of its fans in Kuala Lumpur after the finals between Kelantan and Negri Sembilan, when Kelantan lost 3-1.

So the Kelantanese fans swooped down on the capital, braving the flood water, and outwitting the disruption of public transport, determined to be there in support of their beloved soccer team. Their historic hope of bringing home the cup were soon dashed convincingly by the gallant knights of Negri Sembilan. High hopes quickly turned into extreme frustration, demanding outlet and venting. So they went on a rampage, throwing fireworks and missiles into the field, hitting even officials. The more agitated vented their wrath on the properties of the stadium, setting fire to plastic seats in the stadium.

Now I find that amazing! I kind of admire the intensity, passion, commitment, but how I wish such anger or wrath could be diverted to the betterment of our nation. If only we Malaysians, leaders and citizens, could transform such intensity of passion into a moral indignation against all forms of backwardness, sloppiness, wrong doings, injustice, I am confident Malaysia would be a formidable nation respected by the world.

By this, of course I do not mean it should take the form of our increasingly frequent street protests and demonstrations, despite the laudable messages on the placards and t-shirts, the militant headbands, and the rebel rousing rhetoric of its leaders. For quite beyond these icons and symbols of righteous cause, the soccer wrath and street demonstrations share many traits in common. They are both amenable under circumstances to get out of hand, both ephemeral explosion of frustrations and anger, quickly subsiding after the event, both are more in the nature of mob action, pliable to manipulation, and above all both are not really constructive of the cause they champion, neither improving soccer nor nation-building.

Our leaders should take heart. The Malaysian citizens are not without passion, intensity of purpose and commitment. The challenge for leaders is to transform and sublimate such passion into constructive nation-building. If leaders are creative and genuinely committed to nation-building, they should be able to do so, and in doing so they would have a formidable force in their hand to work with.

I am reminded (faintly though) of a teaching in Chinese philosophy, but universally shared by all great civilizations, particularly in Islamic philosophy. A nation may find itself in one of three possible situations in history. First, the people are bad, but the leaders are good. In this case there is hope for the nation, for the good leaders will educate and make the people good. Secondly, a nation may have good people but the leaders are bad. In this case there is still hope for the nation. The good people will throw out the bad leaders and appoint good ones in their place. Thirdly, we have a nation where the people are bad and the leaders are bad too. In this case there is no hope for the nation. In this case the people and the leaders simply deserve each other! I wonder how do we figure in this scheme, first, second or the third?

Of one thing I am certain though. With good leadership and citizens capable of moral indignation against all injustice and wrongdoings, frowning on all forms of backwardness, Malaysia would be a formidable nation. Malaysia would not only be world class, but truly a great nation deserving the respect and admiration of the world!

Comment on Dr Mahathir: We don't even have the minimum!

2009-11-03T20:11:00.000-08:00

I read with interest Dr Mahathir’s statement on the need for a single stream national education system in Malaysia., published by Bernama dated 4 Nov 2009. I am in complete agreement with his cold logic on the matter.

I have always considered it to be one huge gap in our efforts towards nation-building, a gap which makes all the other efforts seem like an exercise in social niceties or self-delusion, sweeping real problems under the carpet while mouthing pronouncements on nation building and the beauty of national unity.

Can a people be a nation, in the sense of one people sharing one common destiny, without crucial meeting points, education being a vital one? I note with interest, Dr Mahathir emphasized ‘at least’ we should have the people in their formative years going to the same school. Now, the plain logic is that currently we don’t have even the minimum prerequisite for nation building, yet we indulge ourselves in the rhetoric of it.

Dr Mahathir pointed out on the uniqueness of our situation, being the odd one out in the world without this one important pillar of a nation, one single stream education system based on the national language. Unfortunately this one ‘uniqueness’ does not speak of our originality or boldness, but simply of our serious omission and failure. We have not embark on this one fundamental step towards nation building.

I am in agreement with Dr Mahathir when he pointed out that Malaysia has always been deferential of cultural diversity in the country, and that the move towards a single stream schooling is really asking for the ‘least’, the minimum, that is if we care at all being a nation.

Well, I have been surfing the last few days following comments and responses on this issue. I find some of the remarks by those opposing the suggestion for one stream missing the point. One response from Dong Zong vehemently rejected the idea outright, zealously defending the multi-stream vernacular education with the argument that Malaysia is a ‘multi nation-state’ and not a single ‘nation-state’. The view considers Malaysia a ‘multi nation-state’ because of the presence of its various ethnic groups. Just pure cacophony of sound! There is no such thing as ‘multi nation-state’. A ‘multi nation-state’ would be many separate nations and not one single nation. That’s why a nation is of essence always associated with 'oneness' and ‘a common destiny’, never of multiplicity and divergence!

The same response also vehemently mobilized for all to oppose any attempt towards ‘assimilation’ of our citizens. Now, the process of nation-building demands a people to ‘assimilate’, at least in national sphere or space. National education is one of such vital space to be zealously and jealously guarded by us the Malaysian citizens. If we argue in a vague, unthinking manner against a blanket ‘assimilation’, we have to conclude there is no real understanding of what nation-building is really all about, or even worse what a nation is!

.

Deepening political crisis in Malaysia

2009-10-31T17:57:00.000-07:00

I observe with great concern the deepening political crisis in Malaysia. By 'political crisis' I do not mean the constant bickering and convenient patch-ups of factions within political parties, the hip-hopping of legislative members, in and out, or across party affiliations, nor do I mean the fluctuating fortunes of political parties at the polls, be it general or by-elections. Of these we have a plenty, of daily occurences, the staples of mass media, pundits, punters, speculators, adventurers, as well as long term investors. I do not mean the financial but the political kind.

Now I say a 'deepening' crisis. It might be legitimately asked, how do I know? Unfortunately there are measures to say perhaps I am not wrong. How I wish I am mistaken and perhaps just imagining

One measure is the extent of it. In the past, we use to have one main play occupying the centre stage. Be it one battle royal for UMNO presidency, or that of component party of ruling coalition, and perhaps on the side, one or two tid-bits on the scandals in the opposition ranks, just the usual kneedling of the 'small punks', the 'kuci rats' of an opposition. The political mood among the public then was the daily excitement and stimulant of watching a major 'cock-fight' in town, good for conversation at home, coffee shops and the office.No real contest based on serious issues, scandals, just contest between individuals and personalities, of warlords jockeying for party posts and positions.

But now, we have a more widespread and pervasive frictions and conflicts. So many and simultaneously. The press, the media and the internets have a frantic time covering them all. This is not the case of the camp fire in keeping with the nature and fun of politics. This is a general picture of conflagration, the uncontrollable situation of bush fire, fast spreading,consuming and destroying. UMNO, MCA, MIC, Gerakan, PAS, PKR, PR, just a quick listing, and I am sure I missed out a lot. The legislative assembly in Perak, Selangor, Trengganu, Kedah... and many many more. This is like 'durian runtuh' of a different kind. A big picture of attrition and crumbling. Now all this is matched with a picture of social (not to mention economical) deterioration. In a single newspaper page we have rape, murder, robbery, corruption, incest, sex and drug offences, not of the ordinary kind but outlandish in its blatant flouting of law and order. Two parallels running, the political and the social, conjuring the bigger picture of a country going down the drain.

There is another unmistakable measure of the depth of our political crisis. There is widespread cynicism and scepticism everywhere. There is mounting criticisms not only pertaining to abuses,scandals, wrong doings and irregularities, but those which go deeper into the legitimacy of our vital institutions themselves. The whole saga of Anwar Ibrahim from sacking, prosecution, to political meanderings, had been very damaging. Initially his politics criticised and challenged only the reputation of individual judges, but soon widened to undermining respect for the judiciary itself. In the beginning the opposition made issue of individual police abuses and indiscipline, but soon undermined the reputation and legitimacy of the police force, the instution itself. By now the police force has been so demonised that it is considered kind of heroic to have a scuffle with them, or to literally bite them!

There is now a big storm brewing on this score, this unhealthy trend of undermining the legitimacy of vital institutions. I am referring to the politics of Perak. It started when the opposition could not and did not get to appoint its candidate as the Mentri Besar of Perak, and had to settle for a compromised candidate of its own choice. As a result, the opposition saw the ruler and the state constitution as serious stumbling blocks to its design. When hip-hoping politics backfired and caused the opposition to lose the state of Perak to BN, and opposition manoevering to win the support of the ruler in reverting its fortune failed, the opposition decided to widen its criticism beyond that of individual ruler to the instution of monarchy itself. The relevant statements of opposition leaders over the Perak crisis bear testimony to this development.

This developing and deepening crisis is visibly demonstrated by the latest posting by RPK and the ensuing debate provoked, orchestrated perhaps, by it in the internet. While the content of RPK's posting pertain to alleged abuses or corruption, the crafting of it certainly points to casting aspersions on the monarcy itself. The effects are alreading showing in ensuing debates.

Like I say, the crisis is spreading and deepening. From isolated and far- in- between conflicts of the past to a conflagration. From cynicism and scepticism towards individual integrity to the legitimacy of vital institutions themselves. It is no longer a case of bad people running good institutions, but simply a case of evil institutions . Damn the police, the judiciary, the rulers, damn all except...In the history of social movements this points to anarchy and revolution, when all is scrapped and history starts afresh...if you are successful that is! Otherwise it is endless cycles of anarchy and chaos.

I am reminded of what Datuk Seri Najib, PM once said, on how extraordinary times require extraordinary solution. He said it in the limited context of ushering in Liberalisation, replacing the NEP. I think there is a dire need now for him to widen the context and application of his precept. More than ever, I would humbly submit, these are extraordinary times indeed!

Our Little Sacrifices- The tragedy of Kuala Dipang, Kampar

2009-10-28T17:55:00.000-07:00

Our deepest condolence to the families of Dina Deve Nathan (11 years) , Divya Shree Vasudevan (12 years) and M. Devatharshini (11years) in their bereavement.

More details emerged in yesterdays Malay Mail, 28 October 2009. Besides the moving stories on the pain suffered by bereaving families, other details are merging into a general picture. We learned that investigations and inquiries are being conducted on various aspects of the accident. Even possible corruption or irregularities are being looked into.

As investigations are going on, it is only proper we reserve judgement as to the exact cause or blame of the tragedy. Nevertheless, we refuse to attribute it simply to fate. At the very least, based on the scanty details at this juncture, a general picture is emerging, that of sloppiness: sloppiness of planning, of anticipation, of maintenance, of preparedness, the lack of care and due diligence, as well as callous disregard for the sanctity of human life. We reserve our judgement as yet on the role played by greed and self-aggrandisement.

A picture published in the Malay Mail seems to say much. Actually the bridge did not so much as 'collapse', suggesting a breakdown of parts of the bridge over the river. The picture indicates quite clearly the bridge simply 'came undone', with the foundation simply giving away, cleanly! Now that has got to be either irregularity or gross sloppiness.

The tragedy of Kuala Dipang may be unique in manifestation, but I believe the same principle is at work throughout our national life. Sloppiness reigns supreme everywhere, exacting heavy human costs. It is not necessarily a bridge the next time, could be a bridge, a building, a condominium, even a whole section of a road, just anything really.

Our only regret is that in Kuala Dipang, Kampar young children, ten eleven year old, had to experience a tragedy. We are relieved that many cheated death, which was possible only with the Grace of God. The danger they survived would have been formidable even for sporting or atheletic adults. See satdthinks.blogspot.com for an idea of the danger involved.

As for little Dina, Divya and M. Devatharshini, they had been our little sacrifices to sloppiness. Let us draw a lesson from the tragedy, to act and say no more, never ever again!

A pocketful of dreams, with holes!

2009-10-25T02:28:00.000-07:00

Read the newspaper today. So the 2010 Budget is out. I gather it has a three pronged goals of developing a high income economy, achieving a holistic and sustainable development and ensuring the well-being of the people. Then it sets out the priority areas on which it would spend to achieve the desired outcome. So as a budget, it is very much in character of one, about good intentions, and the money to be spent in support. Another universal characteristic of a budget seems to be in place: the goodies must be spread around, or to be seen as such, for the winning of hearts and minds.

So I would say, stripped to its barest elements and fundamentals, it is very much the usual budget. Only time will tell if good intentions and money allocated actually translate into the well-being of the people. Time will bear witness if a budget degenerates into a plundering, pilfering, squandering or cheating exercise.

Pray excuse my lack of exuberance. It is not altogether unfounded, for we have been down the road before. Experience of the past , and for countless times, dictate caution, vigilance and reserved judgment for the moment.

Take for instance the whole NEP saga. The Malays, bumiputras, in whose name it was promulgated, gained little in substance, but attracted much ill-will and stigma. The non-Malays, wrongly perceiving that all or most Malays waxed riches with little effort, felt denied. Both Malays and non-Malays see themselves as victims of injustice, while seeing the opposite camp as the perpetrators. In truth a small group of Malays and non-Malays gained hugely by playing heroes of their people and whipping the blame game. The NEP as implemented, or rather abused, did not usher in a ‘holistic and sustainable’ development but succeeded well in dividing the nation.

The particular context of the 2010 Budget makes it very crucial and important. Firstly it is the maiden budget of Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak as the Prime Minister. Hence the budget is an important indicator of the thinking of the man at the helm, which will set the direction for the years ahead. Secondly, it is a budget in times of heightened political wariness or cynicism in terms of ethnic relations. Thirdly, it is a time of serious economic downturn. The GDP growth for 2008 was 4.6%, while the projection for 2009 is -3%. It seems the private sector, on which the PM is relying upon heavily to pull off his budget, is also shrinking. The private sector used to contribute about 30% to the GDP in the 1997-98 prior to the Asian financial crises, but below 10% currently. To sum it all, this is a budget that cannot afford to miss, for this will spell disaster for the nation!

The best of plans, the noblest of intentions, would come to naught if hijacked, side tracked and subjected to greed and opportunism. I won’t make issue of krrrrruption or krrrrronism for populist propaganda. However, I would caution our leaders, planners, administrators to mind those ‘holes in your pockets!’ It upsets and saddened me to read of civil servants abusing claims, suppliers and contractors overcharging and over quoting, civil servants and businessmen colluding in false claims, billions disappearing in the black hole of ghost accounts, kickbacks and fake consultancies, and the whole complex of human ingenuity for self aggrandizement.

All these eat into the budget, undermining its ‘value for money’ aimed at by the Prime Minister in his speech. It seems to me that in the past the bigger the project, the bigger are the holes in the nation’s pockets.

Initially I intended to discuss the substantive aspects of the budget. On the question of setting priorities, niches and remodeling the economy. The advisability of cutting public spending by cutting subsidies. On boosting the financial sector, banks, the stock exchange and Islamic finance. The development of the regional corridors and the beefing of IT industry. The promotion of tourism and green companies. The support for medium size businesses and the granting of AP’s for stimulating the automobile industry. The boosting of Iskandar Development Region, the residents of which shall be paying less income tax than the rest of the country.

Easy visas for talented expatriates, and for the spouses of Malaysian women who may not be as talented. On attacking food and fuel subsidies , which may not be a good idea. On the suitability of the new sources of revenues. On the subject of spreading the goodies for students on broadband facilities, for the common man in the street, in the name of social justice.

And then I stopped in my track and changed my mind about discussing the budget substantively. It is not the main thrusts of the speech that did it, but the closing lines at the very end! The Prime Minister said: ‘Our recent success in Bagan Pinang has sparked our zeal to embark on this journey of transformation to lift our beloved nation to greater heights’. I wonder had BN lost the by-election of Bagan Pinang, would the budget be a very different one ? The Prime Minister then continues: 'Indeed, this budget touches the heart and soul of all Malaysians. Indeed, this is an earnest and sincere contribution from the government to the people’ Well, why the bipolarity of the ‘government’ and the ‘people’? Why is a budget a ‘contribution from the government to the people’? I have always thought of it as a duty and service of the government of the day in managing public fund.

According to the theories of the sub-conscious, it is the small slips that are most revealing of the real thinking. Maybe I am reading too much into this. I shall attribute these statements to a zealous speech writer with an overworked mind. Anyway the closing lines were received with thunderous applause from the government supporters in the Dewan Rakyat. The effects desired by the speech writer had been achieved!

A fool's guide to the history of the opposition

2009-10-18T23:14:00.000-07:00

Read the newspaper this morning, a bit on politics. There's this bit about someone from the opposition going on a half-year leave. The supernovas of Malaysian politics have done it again, they grabbed the headlines and generated much interests. Is it a 'leave', a prelude to 'exit', or as some party statements suggest, a 'sabbatical' of sort to will a magic formula of historical proportion that could inspire and unite the bickering and splaying coalition of the opposition. Well, six months is too long for 'leave', or run up to an exit. It may be too short though to sort out long standing problems of the opposition, that have long deep roots in the nations history, the solution of which had alluded a great many leaders and personalities. But then this could well be one of those rare and momentous chapter in history when a political genius and ideologue comes along and leaves his mark on the nation's destiny. Who knows?

To sort out some of my perplexities concerning our opposition and its strange ways, I thought I would hazard a simple history of Pakatan Rakyat just for my own understanding. Now I know this strange brew was concocted out of PAS, DAP and PKR. Each of very different genealogy and pedigree.

PAS was a scion of the old Malay Congress of the 40's and early UMNO. In its early days, its ideology was a blending of Malay nationalism and Islam. Over time it quickly shed its nationalistic flavor in order to distinguish itself from UMNO, and concentrated on its own brand of 'Islam'. Its basic character and orientation remains a very deep seated orthodoxy, symbolized by its staunch vision of an 'Islamic state', openly proclaiming or muting it according to political exigencies.It had tried in its evolution to shed the image of orthodoxy, tempering it with images of 'professional', 'democracy', 'flexibility', 'intellectual', 'inclusiveness', 'universalism', but overall had not been convincing enough to shed or temper its general image of orthodoxy and dogmatism.

DAP is a 'scion' of the pre-separation PAP, and in basic ideology a staunch proponent of the slogan 'Malaysian-Malaysia'. Its idea of what the Malaysian nation ought to be therefore tends to question the Malay roots or origins of Malaysia,with the corollary then of questioning some aspects of the constitution, and more specific provisions pertaining to the Malays. Like PAS, the DAP had attempted to temper its image of chauvinism with the branding of 'democracy', 'multiracialism', 'pluralism', 'inclusiveness', 'political pragmatism', but had not been all too convincing either. Its basic image to many Malaysians remains that of a chauvinistic Chinese party.

PKR has an interesting genealogy or pedigree. It used to be the lilliputian Parti Rakyat. In the past, it was so pathetic that it attracted more sympathy than empathy.Representing the left or socialism, it was burdened with Marxist slogans and terminologies. It was a common joke then that at the end of every fiery and spirited oratory on the campaign trail, party leaders would be asked by perplexed members of the audience pray tell us what is 'bourgeoisie', 'proletariat'. or 'dialectic materialism'? Parti Rakyat could not win a single seat in its entire history. Right to its last days, Parti Rakyat never officially recognised Malaysia.

Then came along an Adviser, who picked up the liliputian party, dusted it, changed its name from Parti Rakyat to Parti Keadilan Rakyat (never mind the 'rakyat' is still there), reoriented it from the historically broad struggle of the' proletariat', 'dialectical materialism', to sort out 'historical contradictions', to rehabilitate the ' bourgeoisie', to challenge capitalism and foreign investment, to a new cause of paving a single path for one individual to Putrajaya. This part of it certainly reminds me of the history of the National Socialist German Workers Party under the leadership of Hitler.

Now to pave the way to Putrajaya, PKR or the former PR ( Parti Rakyat) is too small. It was huge only in its revolutionary dream and historical struggle, and that had been 'bonsai' down. PAS and DAP, the irreconcilable forces and 'basic contradictions' of Malaysian history had to be brought into the act. Why not? They both boast of great resources, party machinery, and powerful emotive appeal. More importantly they were both trying to temper their image and appeal. Hence the convergence of interests and deal. The rest of it, as we all know, is history. Though not quite all the way to Putrajaya yet!

Sophisticated political theories are beyond me. I can only learn from the simple folks. There is this saying, 'gajah sama gajah bertempur, pelanduk mati ditengah-tengah'. A rough translation would be 'elephant and elephant clash, the mouse deer trampled in between'. Can this be a future scenario, when PAS and DAP clash in the long run, with PKR squashed in between? When all PKR's nimbleness and schemes avail naught?

These days I find great solace in one development though. Everyone seems to have gone 'rakyat', be it the opposition or the governing party or coalition. The recent UMNO General Assembly is a clear sign. All the major speeches have gone 'rakyat'. I must say never have the rakyat been this important. The Malay saying 'enggang sama enggang, pipit sama pipit' ( hornbills with hornbills, sparrows with sparrows) had been jettisoned! 'Enggangs' had been told to go to the 'pipits', to be 'pipit' minded. Let us see if indeed the 'enggangs' are capable of this!

The Curse of the New Broom

2009-10-17T05:06:00.001-07:00

A new regime always wishes to start afresh. It will herald its era with new symbolism, pronouncement and declaration. With this it hopes to distant itself from past liabilities or historical burden. In this respect, it has some parallels with the rituals of ‘exorcism’, ‘mandi bunga’ or‘ tolak bala’. It may share some elements in common with the use of talismans or ‘tangkal’ in warding off or keeping at bay evils and misfortunes.

With the new direction and resolve, it also hopes to make a mark, leave a stamp in history, to testify to its accomplishment and contribution. This is true of the new CEO who launches a new logo and corporate image, or the high-ranking bureaucrat who launches a new slogan and a public campaign, or even the new president of a NGO who introduces one of those vision and mission statements.

I suppose politicians and new regimes are no exempt. Perhaps in their case, the pressure and temptation to unload historical burden, and to make a mark of their own, is far greater for the simple reason the stakes are much higher.

To herald a new era or ethos with new slogan and campaign demands much discretion, judgment and wisdom. Without these, the loftiness of ideals alone cannot carry them through minefields along the way. Far from shedding historical burden of the past, a new symbolism or campaign creates and accumulates more. Though it may leave a mark of its own, a stamp in history, it is not of that intended. It may then be stigmatized as ‘new broom sweeps clean’ or as the Malays would have it ‘hangat-hangat tahi ayam’.

This is precisely what happened to Islam Hadhari heralded by the former Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi. Firstly it was launched at a time of contentious issues concerning religion. Hence it raised the guards of many non-Muslims, breeding suspicion. Neither did it win over the Muslims, who saw nothing much in it since in their reasoning Islam is sufficient to sustain their lives without a ‘new religion’ or version of it. Hence, in terms of simple credit and debit, Islam Hadhari did not gain much converts or support, but only alienated many people. Secondly, there was the matter of substance. It was so poorly conceived that people were at a loss. Few knew what Islam Hadhari was, many had their own version of it, and even more were confused by it. The confusion and haziness then allowed the opposition to have a field day picking at it, undermining and discrediting it.

The confusion was such, it was a common ridicule then that no one knew what Islam Hadhari meant because there were at least 40 versions of it circulating. This necessitated more explanation from leaders and officials, but the more they tried, the more versions of Islam Hadhari we had. In the end, Islam Hadhari simply fizzled away.

To me the tragedy of Islam Hadhari lies in this. If we care to see what the former Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi meant by it, according to the documents, it was simply some good values like integrity in the civil service, ideal of excellence, ideal of service, value of knowledge and innovation and many other laudable values( I have problems listing these because I must confess I was myself confused by Islam Hadhari , and find it hard to remember now) Now isn’t it tragic that Abdullah Badawi had to use a new slogan just for this, one that was equally contentious as it was befogging? His regime could have just implemented these ideals effectively without attracting all the liabilities for his regime. The values and ideals he sought to subsume under Islam Hadhari were universal values already existing in Islam and in all the great religions and traditions of Malaysians.

Now PM Datuk Sri Najib Abdul Razak had heralded his own regime with the new slogan of 1Malaysia. I sincerely hope the PM would avail himself of good advice in doing so. The paths of sloganeering and launching public campaigns are perilous. It is in cognizance of this truism that emperors and leaders of the past surrounded themselves with wise men, as well as magicians. These were supposed to guide their patrons safely by means of wise counsels, as well as efficacious rituals, help them dissociate from the past and make a mark of their own, not foundering on the way as the proverbial ‘new broom sweeps clean’.

Personally may I give an advice? Beware of the curse of a new broom. It makes the sweep short lived, sloppy, and even worse in the wrong direction!

Ibn Khaldun and Bagan Pinang

2009-10-13T03:43:00.000-07:00

Congratulations to BN on its by-election victory at Bagan Pinang! So BN had succeeded in checking the thrust of the PR horde southwards. It was indeed a significant by-election, a watershed so to speak. Apart from the question of the seat, Bagan Pinang have had a rather sombering effect on both the victor and the vanquished. I am referring here only to the result, and not to the actual psychological or moral effects on the victor and the vanquished. I think they can both draw vital lessons from Bagan Pinang and its people, if they have the moral courage and introspection to do so.

Ibn Khaldun, the medieaval Muslim thinker and founder of sociology, studied the rise and fall of dynasties in his monumental 'Muqadimmah', or 'Introduction to History'. In general terms he noted that more or less dynasties lasted about three generations. Now if we take approximately one generation to be about 30 years, this would make it about 90 years. He refers to the dynastic stages to be respectively that of 'the founder', 'the builder' and 'the destroyer'.

In the first stage, that of 'the founder', the dynasty is usually hardy, resourceful, disciplined,committed to the dynastic goal, and therefore is able to establish itself successfully. In the second stage of 'the builder', the dynasty works hard to consolidate and established itself further. This stage is usually associated with greater success than 'the founder' as the dynasty is more established with greater resources and authority at its command. The third stage of 'the destroyer' is the period of decline, and eventual fall, because of corruption, oppression,injustice and general decadence.

Now UMNO have had its corresponding or parallel stages. UMNO members always lament the days gone by when UMNO members and leaders used to be committed, capable of sacrifices and championed the cause of the rakyat in its early days, meaning the era of 'the founder'. Then UMNO had seen the heights of its power and influence, overseeing the path to development and nation-building, the stage of 'the builder'. Now it has been about 62 years or so from its founding in 1946/47. It should now be chronogically in the third stage of 'the destroyer'. And the early signs and symtoms are more than evident, I must say.

Is there something in the theory of Ibn Khaldun on the rise and fall of dynasties? Well, just to be sure, UMNO or its BN components should draw some moral lessons from Bagan Pinang, now that the voters had graciously given them the mandate. UMNO does not have to be fatalistic or historically determined. It should prove Ibn Khaldun wrong by fulfilling its oath of reforms and rejuvenation. For certainly if they are genuinely bent on reforms and renewal, their setbacks at the last General Election can be reversed. Otherwise, it would be just a question of 'the destroyer' fulfilling his historical destiny!

Bagan Pinang has vital lessons for PR too, all too many. Their decline can come to pass too. It doesn't have to be 3 generations. Rocky Bru's observation is accurate. Instead of sombering PR, the defeat at the by-election had made them feel even hollier and all -mighty.They blamed the voters, rather admonised and insulted them, for voting the BN. Their response to defeat is sneering and condescending to the rakyat. The rakyat is deemed 'immoral' for so voting. In fact not only immoral but stupid too!

One PR comment arrogantly recommends that PR abandons the southern states and its 'immoral' and 'stupid' people, concentrate instead on Penang, Kedah, Perak, Selangor, Kelantan, where the people are 'moral' and 'smart'. In short, voting PR is 'moral' and 'smart', while voting for the BN is 'immoral' and 'dumb'! What arrogance and condescension! and from a coalition arrogating itself to be the moral and spiritual champion of the people's cause. What a sad thing for Malaysian democracy!

If PR is capable of self and moral introspection, the messages are clear. Judging by the comments, the voters reject double moral standards, hollier than thou attitude and arrogance in victory at previous polls. Oh..one more important lesson. If you adopt the higher moral ground, you must live up to it. Should you fall short, the people would deem you even lower than those you accuse of 'immorality or corruption' since at least they do not make claims of saintliness!

Revelation and History: Comment on Che Det and Hukum Allah

2009-10-11T00:53:00.000-07:00

Over the weekend, I surfed Che Det and read this simply written yet profound article entitled 'Hukum Allah'. I find the article of great significance for Malaysians, both for Muslims and non-Muslims alike, as it raises very fundamental questions on the place of religion in our lives and the nature of our religious orientation against the backdrop of a fast changing world. Being struck by the significance of the questions raised, I tried to respond and comment, but alas failed. When it comes to IT, I am ashamed to say I am a kind of a dinosaur, still grappling with the rudiments of it. Admittedly I am of that old school more comfortable with pencil and the brown school exercise book for jotting down my thoughts. So excuse me if I merely jot down my response to Che Det's excellent and significant piece here, more in the way of personal note. I hope however people should visit Che Det and read the thought provoking article 'Hukum Allah' for yourself.

The specific example of fasting, its rituals, the permissible of it or otherwise aside, Che Det's basic argument runs as follows. These days there are many who are prone to prescribing religious precepts and rules of conduct, all in the name of 'Hukum Allah' or 'God's Law'.Yet, he noted, upon further investigation or reflection, there is nothing really in the teaching of Islam to suggest so. He extends his observation to other social practices like banning education for women, killing women deemed to have 'dishonored' the family by their indiscretions, and so on. Then Che Det raised the fundamental questions: Shouldn't we ascertain if indeed certain precepts prescribed by theologians are indeed 'God's Law'? Could there be misinterpretation or misrepresentation, deliberate or unintentional? If indeed the precepts decreed by them are 'God's Law', how do we account for the discrepancies among theologians? How do we account for the excesses? Doesn't Islam enjoin fairness and justice in its teaching and laws? Could there be vested interests hiding behind the veneer of religious authority and aura?

I find such probing to be significant as it raises the following fundamental points. There is a big gap between revealed religion and laws in the concrete texture of living.The gap is as wide as that between Revelation and human action in history. The one, truly of God, while the other of human will and human agency. While Revelation sets down basic broad guidelines and principles, the translation of these into laws, norms and values are undertaken by man acting and living in history. Now the compounding of the two, of God and human agency, of Revelation and history, is the root cause of many human conflicts in the past, as well as in contemporary societies.

Come to think of it, in our more mundane world of secular living, we do make such distinctions between legitimate authority and misrepresentation, between what's legitimate and what's fraudulent, of legitimate power and the usurpation or abuse of it. Sometimes I wonder, shouldn't we be even more discriminating and uncompromising when it comes to the fundamental question of God, Revelation and history? Failing to do so is to compromise God and Revelation, allowing some men to usurp and misrepresent, enabling them to 'play god' in society.

Now the kind of responses or comments evoked by Che Det's article is as interesting as the article. They are indeed very revealing of our religious orientation. To begin with, the voluminous response or comments clearly suggest that people are strongly attached and deeply rooted in religion, in this case Muslims and Malays. This is further confirmed by the intensity or vehemence of the comments, be it in support or objection to the article. Then the respective position taken by the commentators, broadly falling in three categories. Quite a significant number find the article objectionable, plainly telling Che Det to 'butt out' from the field of theology, bordering on charging him with blasphemy! He is disqualified from thinking on his religion on the following grounds: he is a medical doctor, not a theologian, of limited knowledge in religion, and delving in an exclusive area reserved for the divinely appointed few.

Then we have the more polite, diplomatic and word mincing kind of opposition, gently and kindly counselling Che Det to render to the Lord the things that are His, and to render to Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's, differing only in tenor, not in substance from the first category. Thirdly we have the occassional support and endorsement of the article. On the whole, the first and second category can be said to constitute the majority.

In other words, if we were to adopt the article as a sort of 'election platform', definitely it would not end in an election victory. Now isn't this a somewhat sad statement on the nature of our religious orientation, and the place of free will and legitimate human judgement in it?

A nation of strangers and aliens?

2009-10-07T22:40:00.000-07:00

In our recent push towards nation-building under the banner of 1Malaysia, it is often expressed and emphasised that we, the various communities of Malaysia, should respect and understand each other. Malaysians are enjoined not to merely tolerate but accept each other. Malaysians are persuaded to see their cultural diversity as a source of strength, making for unity, rather than a cause of political and social discord.

All this is well and good, even lofty and beautiful. But alas, all these wise and pious exhortations would remain ideational and little else ( I am chewing my words and relying heavily on euphemism), if they remain untranslated into meaningful policies, planning, pratice and institutionalisation. If they are merely confined to the sterile domain of rhetorics, they differ little from
idle talk and self-delusion.

Before Malaysians can understand and respect other communities than their own, there must be enough contact between them in the first place, contact of the kind that is meaningful, that bonds and builds consensus of values and ideals. It is idle talk to expect different communities of different cultural background to understand and respect each other, to see cultural diversity as a source of strength, if there is no sufficient contact and the sharing of common life experience in the first place! I would not be exaggerating if I say that presently we know so little of each other. so as to succumb ever so easily to prejudices, stereotyping and mutual-suspicion.

Now we all know that our Malaysian realities do not exactly afford many opportunities for such meaningful contact and relationship among the various communities. What with the divide-and-rule policy of old and new, economic activities along communal lines, rural-urban dichotomy, divergence of education process, diversity of background and cultural history and many more divisive factors.

All this conjures up a grim picture of a very divided nation, of strangers and aliens, of divergent paths and existence, doomed never to meet and know each other, what more to understand and respect: strangers and aliens, who would never cultivate any relationship of sufficient depth, to appreciate each other's history and culture, so as to see the diversity between them is indeed a source of strength, common and universal to each other.

It is within this context that I see the importance of a common national education system for young Malaysians. A national education system where our young can learn, understand and therefore appreciate each other. A common experience of growing, learning, discovering the self, in a truly Malaysian or national atmosphere at an early age and stage of their lives.

Such common experience, in meaningful relationship with each other, is crucial for the moulding of the future citizens of Malaysia. Only through such common experience of growing and learning can our young develop the mutual understanding, respect and appreciation of their common humanity, albeit their cultural diversity.

The issue of a common national education system is an important one for the survival of our Malaysian nation. This is not a quesion of 'ours' or 'theirs', of 'us' or 'them'. This is about our common identity and shared destiny. We have to give our young the historical opportunity to be in touch with one another, to bond, to share, to emphatise, to share dreams, in short to be a nation in the future.

The writings of KijangMas, raising the alarm against deepening polarisation merits our deep concern. Polarisation has encroached into many areas of common life, steadily reducing what should be our common 'national space'. The sadness of SatD over the dearth of our national identity and shared aspirations ("souless" nation) should alarm us. So should the many writings of our wonderful bloggers in the same vein (too many to mention here).

Polemics and discourses on nation-building is normally complicated, heated and long drawn. This is inevitable as we know that the task of nation-building is not an easy one. But at the end of the day , the real question is whether DO WE WANT to be a nation, or continue to be strangers and aliens the rest of our lives, as well as those of our future generations.

Poor Man's index to growth and national development

2009-10-03T20:11:00.000-07:00

I have a confession to make. All the learned and technical indexes of the economists, financiers, consultants, planners escape me. Being of simple mind and alien to the financial hubs pulling the strings of our national economy, I find them unfathomable. The maze of charts and the jargons accompanying them overwhelm me. Besides, the magnitude of interests represented are really enormous, beyond the imagination of the small man and the simpletons in the street. Just how many of them know, I wonder, how to write one billion or trillion!

I wonder if we were to pile up this amount in ringgit, piece by piece, bundle by bundle, would the height surpass the twin towers, or at least equals it. The Twin Towers is a measure comprehensible to me, it being iconic and highly visible from many places in Kuala Lumpur.

Being limited such, in mind and understanding, I have to resort to more digestible indexes of national growth and development. Indexes which are more amenable to the senses, those I can actually see, touch, smell, experience and access directly. Call it the Poor Man's Index, if you will.

One important index would be the state of one of our venerable institutions, the bus stop or terminal. If one has to que for more than 45 minutes, standing in discomfort, not quite in an environmentally friendly atmosphere, then the index should be pointing to backwardness. Then the citizens have to devote at least another 15 minutes just to get on board to head for home. The boarding at terminals are usually tedious and slow due to the policy of opening only half door as part of que management, ensuring the 40 queing citizens slip in one by one in a single file.

The process is greatly slowed down further by the ticketing system, by which a passenger slips in the fare into the slot, the bus driver presses the buttons on the ticket machine , which creaks out the ticket cm by cm, ticket by ticket for the queing passengers. So in the end lucky you got on board. Never mind even if just standing, huddled body to body, and jammed pack, for a seat is indeed a luxury and a lottery.

Now why am I resorting to such mundane matters as index to our national growth or backwardness?Now public transportation, the reliability or otherwise of it, is indeed a real index of the quality and standard of living for the masses. Never mind the index about Malaysia becoming 'high-income economy' or 'developed nation'. The state of our public transportation determines how soon you get home to be with the family, to rest and recuperate for a new day of work, to hazard some leisure, maybe indulge a bit in self-improvement, or plainly enjoy the evening with families over some entertainments, then be on time for work the next day with reasonable comfort and reliability. It is realistic and important index to our progress or backwardness because it impacts directly on the lives of the masses.

The stress and frustration of long queues, of being jammed pack, the tension of minding pickpockets, and of simply feeling the waste of precious life over a matter which in more 'developed' nation is a matter of routine. It shouldn't be too much to ask of our planners who are adapt at handling sophisticated indexes dealing with billions! But just look at our bus or train hubs. The conditions at peak hours or on the eves of festivals always remind me of the war times train station scenes in classic Second WW movies.

There is another powerful index in the arsenal of the Poor Man's measure of growth and backwardness. The state of the environment. In various areas of KL, not too far or well-hidden from the tourist spots, we have pure garbage a plenty dumped in the open. What abundance for the city crows, rats and cockroaches and other rodents. The system of garbage collection and disposal can certainly do with a bit of improvement.

Such index is easily fathomable to my simple mind, for it invades my senses and experience directly. One can see garbage piling, crows and rats having a field day, the stench invading the nostrils, the eyes can behold and wonder at the scene unfolding. Never mind about the index to 'national productivity' or ' GNP'. The Poor Man's index of environment is more sensate, direct and less confusing.

Why is such index relevant to the masses? Well, normally such pollution and neglect is in the areas they live in. They are the ones who have to live with the stench and co-exist with the crows and rats. The discomfort and affront to their health, aesthetic sense, and indeed human dignity, certainly strikes their consciousness directly. In other words, it is very much part and parcel of their quality or standard of living.

In this respect I don't think they differ radically from those fortunate to be living in more prosperous and environmentally pleasing areas. Never mind all those abstract theories, measures, concepts and sophistries on 'competitive edge' or ' rankings'. Simply enable us to live with dignity in an environment that is decent, aesthetically pleasant and garbage free.

There is another indicator of growth or backwardness according to the Poor Man's Index of national progress. It detects a pattern of development where progress is not national or universal, but confined to pockets of affluence and prosperity. In these pockets and islands of affluence and luxury, the elite, the super rich, the upper and middle class take shelter or refuge from the surrounding sea of backwardness. In this cocoon like existence, they insulate themselves from the conditions and encroachment of backwardness.

Within these cocoons, they demand and create high standards of living or quality of life surpassing even those of 'developed nations'. What's my point? It is neither covetousness or envy, but simply that backward national elite, who avail themselves of the cocoons, normally prefer to flee backwardness and insulate themselves, rather than tackling the problem head on , achieving meaningful development for all.

There is a part of reality well understood by the Poor Man's Index of national growth and stagnation. There comes a stage when a backward national elite is interest bound to maintain the backward status-quo. Why? Simply because they thrive in it. An inefficient bureaucracy is welcome, for it creates the idle conditions for corruption. Who would want to offer bribes or corruption with an efficient clean bureaucracy around, since all needs are being attended to fairly and hassle free?

A backward elite would deem a dynamic and socially just national planning threatening since it invariably upsets the massive networks of patronage, connections, tie-ups, kickbacks, fast-tracks, turn-keys deeply rooted in backwardness. As a consequence, the masses would have to content themselves with their dire conditions for sometime yet.

Come to think of it, the Poor Man's Index to National Growth and Stagnation can indeed be a powerful tool of social education for the masses. It teaches them this sophisticated process known as national development, albeit only in its rudiments, proper to the understanding of the simple minded. As for the more sophisticated, therefore the more mysterious and perplexing aspects of it, they are best left to the experts and the all knowing.

May one day the Poor Man's Index to national growth and stagnation be given some serious consideration!