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!
Friday, September 10, 2010
Saturday, August 21, 2010
DEB: 'Dasar Ekonomi Bastard'?
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!
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!
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Corruption Creeps!
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
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
Thursday, July 15, 2010
The PKR Packer and Pecker
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?
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?
Friday, June 18, 2010
Kg Baru, Jangan Terburu-Buru!
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
The Parrot, Barisan Nasional and Sibu by-election
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.
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.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Of great man and liliputan
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
