Cat Out of the Bag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   

    

Race: Substance Over Form

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who is minding the Nation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elect the Select

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Words: wordy and worthy ones!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GOD BLESS ALL!

DEB: 'Dasar Ekonomi Bastard'?

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!