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.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Words: wordy and worthy ones!
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!
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!
Friday, September 10, 2010
9-11: Who's Burning What in Whose Memory?
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!
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!
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
