Trust is dead – but miracle is still as alive as hope itself ...

This experiment in government we like to call democracy – which has lasted for half a century now – depends upon, among other things, a certain level of trust, not only of the government and its elected officials, but maybe more importantly among the people themselves.

After that many years trust has been under attack in our society, we can today confidently declare that it is definitely dead.

Sometimes it takes much more that a casual look at the state of our society in order to understand that there is something really wrong with it. A time like this – this season of blessings, compassion and goodwill – it is perhaps a good time to take a really profound and perceptive look at our society, to go beyond just its crass surface and glitters.

Trust was more common and easier to uphold when this nation was “founded”. With far fewer people then, it was possible to actually know those with whom you would have contact and in turn be aware of their biographies and idiosyncrasies. A liar or scoundrel was known for his work, but so is the person who lived by his word.

Remember the case of Education Minister in the 1960s, Abdul Rahman Talib, who failed to clear himself from an accusation of corruption – a small financial indiscretion that by today’s standards would be dismissed by the government as a non-issue – resigned from his job.

The case was raised in Parliament by the then member for Ipoh, the late D. R. Seenivisagam. The minister challenged the opposition MP to repeat his allegations outside the House so that he could institute a legal suit to clear his name and defend his honour.

DR (as the opposition member was affectionately known) repeated his allegations at the Chinese Assembly Hall. In the ensuing court case, the minister failed to clear his name and, as expected from an honourable person, resigned from his job – and bringing to a close a rather glorious political career.

The matter was big news then. But “trust” and “honour” were definitely still the operative words in peoples conduct. Ethnic, religious and political party affiliations were hardly invoked in order to discredit or maim a person. Social values and institutions – such as freedom of speech, the media, the judiciary – were trusted, and deservedly so because there was no attempt by the power that be to compromise or mutilate them.

Today our society has naturally become much more complex, that it is rare for many to even know who lives on their block or even in the same building. Our culture is segmented – all the more so because of our dismal intellectual failure to create a true “nation” out of the segmented communities of the colonial plural society.

With modernity and technological advancement things have indeed become worse for us sociologically. We have become even more isolated, so that we are but strangers passing by each other in the midst of individual self-awareness and self-preservation.

Today Malaysians have become even more mobile – and are less likely to live in extended families. In recent years the permanent, local and family-based jobs has all but disappeared and workers have increasingly been forced to move far from their roots to find and retain employment.

We are isolated as we drive to work, pushed to produce so hard while at work that co-workers become objects rather than compatriots, and spoken to and dealt with by the public sphere on the basis of what divides us, not what we share in common.

Merchants cannot be trusted to deliver what they promise, employers cannot be trusted to pay their obligatory EPF contributions, and even spouses cannot be trusted to keep their vows. We live in a “buyers beware” culture, where every person is on its own to make it through a jungle of real and perceived threats and attacks.

One cannot walk in one’s own street without fear of some idiots being tempted to snatch away ornaments dangling out of one’s body parts for show off, cannot book a flight on an airplane without fearing being bumped because the flight was oversold, cannot drive on the freeway without concern that the idiot racing to take your space will not pull a gun to prove his point, cannot give a toy to a child without fear of lead poisoning, and certainly cannot trust a politician on anything at all.

Trust is really dead.

To compensate, we have tried regulating the behaviour of commerce, finance and nearly every aspect of life. Some among the religious conservatives and fundamentalists want to force the faithfuls to keep to their faiths unthinkingly and some on the secular side of the divide want to write enough laws that trust would become unnecessary because it has been replaced by government control.

The truth is trust cannot be imposed, it cannot be brought into existence by faith alone – it is by its very nature a product of free and open communication and human interaction. Trust is not a lofty goal of perfection and honesty. Trust is the acceptance of a dominant shared value that has the common good as its ultimate goal – the goal that has necessitated the creation of human societies and nations themselves.

But it does require facing what is without blinders, being responsible to look and to ponder beyond the crass and superficial glitters of the day.

Trust requires that we stop calling each other names – whether they are based on racial prejudice, religious bigotry, or partisan political blinkers – as a substitute for mature discourse, debates and problem solving.

There is so much of our culture today that are pushing us away from those requirements of a “true” society built on trust toward a world of fast paced isolation and fantasy.

There is no institution or force on the horizon – including the leaders of the government (many are conspicuously intellectual imbeciles), their inadequately socialised and ill-schooled apparatchiks and the greatly debased social and government institutions – to pull us in the other direction. All have but become part of the vortex of self-serving insincerity and pretense, all under great pressure to conceal or defend their crippling intellectual and moral inadequacies.

Trust is definitely dead, but isn’t this the season that reminds us that miracles somehow are still possible? Season’s Greetings and Happy New Year to all.

Season’s Greetings from Rohani and Rustam

Perbincangan belakang tabir: Reaksi pemimpin PAS

Saya berasa sungguh terhormat kerana catatan ringkas saya baru-baru ini di laman blog ini telah mendapat reaksi daripada pemimpin PAS, khususnya Sdr Herman Samsudeen seorang pemimpin Pemuda PAS Wilayah Persekutuan.

Malah beliau telah menaikkan taraf catatan ringkas saya itu menjadi sebuah “teori”, meskipun sekadar teori “nakal”.

Sayang sekali, terlalu banyak yang tidak difahami Sdr Herman dalam catatan saya itu – sehingga dia seringkali terpaksa membuat kesimpulan-kesimpulannya sendiri.

Dia menyimpulkan, umpamanya, tanggapan yang melihat kerjasama mesra antara PAS dan Umno itu sebagai usaha ke arah tercapainya “kesepaduan Melayu-Islam” itu sebagai harapan saya.

Dalam catatan itu, saya menyatakan bahawa harapan yang demikian itu merupakan harapan orang Melayu yang pemikirannya jenis perkauman – jadi pada asasnya tidak terlalau berbeza daripada jalur pemikiran orang-orang Hindraf, hanya kaumnya sahaja yang berlainan.

Yang pasti ialah Umno mempunyai pemikiran politik dari jaluran ini, dan dalam keadaan penasarannya kerana tidak dapat mempertahankan sokongan Melayu berdasarkan ideologi perkauman itu Umno kadangkala terpaksa mencuba memperalatkan PAS demi memantapkan citra “pembela Melayu”nya sendiri.

Dengan kata-kata lain, Umno memperalatkan gagasan “kesepaduan Melayu-Islam” demi menjebak PAS untuk menolong memperteguh citra dirinya sendiri sebagai “pembela Melayu”. Dan hakikat ini telah terjadi berulang kali dalam sejarah polititk semasa negara ini.

Namun jika Sdr Herman, sebagai seorang pemimpin muda PAS, masih dapat melihat segala risikan Dr Mahathir Mohamad terhadap Sdr Fadzil Noor dari 1999 hingga 2003, misalnya, sebagai percambahan pemikiran yang tulus semata-mata – meskipun terdapat bukti sebaliknya berdasarkan imbas kembali (hindsight) – maka siapalah saya untuk membetulkan persepsinya itu?

Catatan ringkas saya itu tidakpun mengemukakan sebarang bukti konkrit tentang terdapatnya “kerjasama” Umno-PAS sejak akhir-akhir ini. Kerjasama itu malah sudah pun dinafikan sendiri oleh Sdr Nasharuddin Mat Isa, Timbalan Presiden PAS.

Yang cuba saya analisis ialah implikasinya jika kabar-kabar angin tentang perbincangan dan kerjasama PAS-Umno itu benar berlaku – demi membela nasib Melayu-Islam? Tidakkah implikasinya kurang menyenangkan bagi masa depan politik bukan perkauman di negara ini?

Dalam kerangka itulah saya bertanya tentang implikasinya jika kelompok-kelompok perlbagai parti perkauman lainnya di negara ini turut membuat pakatan bersama di kalangan mereka, juga berasaskan kepentingan kaum masing-masing.

Dalam konteks yang sama juga saya bertanya apa akan terjadi terhadap kerjasama PAS-PKR? Apa pula yang akan terjadi kepada slogan yang sejak akhir-akhir ini sering saya dengar dilaungkan dari sudut PAS: Keadilan untuk semua?

Demikianlah, saya sekadar bertanya – saya bukan mengajukan sebarang teori “nakal.”

Yang bisa menjawab soalan-soalan itu hanyalah pimpinan PAS. Yang bisa memberi jaminan tentang iman dan kejituan intelek mereka dalam menghadapi (dan menepis) godaan dan risikan Umno yang amat licik itu juga hanyalah pimpinan PAS.

Saya sekadar pemerhati yang berasa khawatir!

Perundingan belakang tabir PAS-Umno?

Berita tentang berlakunya perundingan-perundingan belakang tabir antara PAS dan Umno sungguh menarik perhatian – dan cukup mengasyikkan.

Dalam kerangka pemikiran politik perkauman (atau tawar menawar antara kaum) yang dominan di negara ini kini, saya kira tentulah banyak di kalangan mereka yang berfikir dalam kerangka gagasan “hegemoni Melayu” yang berasa sungguh senang dengan perkembangan ini.

Hubungan yang mesra di antara PAS dan Umno, dalam kerangka pemikiran mereka, hanya munkin bererti bertambah mantapnya “kesepaduan Melayu.” Dan mantapnya kesepaduan Melayu hanya mungkin bererti suatu kelebihan, suatu advantage, dalam percaturan politik tawar menawar antara kaum yang mencirikan politik negara ini.

Namun dalam sejarah semasa politik negara, ini bukanlah kali pertama perundingan PAS-Umno seperti ini pernah diusahakan.

Namun selalunya perundingan yang demikian itu telah diusahakan bukan demi gagasan-gagasan muluk dan jangka panjang sehubungan isu “perpaduan” Melayu-Islam, apa lagi kemantapan masa depan negara, tetapi demi kepentingan jangka pendek pihak-pihak yang terlibat, khususnya tujuan memperoleh sokongan dalam pilihanraya.

Sejak kemerosotan sokongan Melayu yang dialami Umno dalam pilihanraya tahun 1999 lagi, Mahathir Mohamad dengan gigihnya telah berusaha untuk merapatkan hubungan PAS-Umno itu dan telah membuat pelbagai overtures terhadap Fadzil Noor, Presiden PAS ketika itu.

Agak menarik juga dicatatkan bahawa pada waktu itu tokoh PAS yang kelihatannya paling giat terlibat dalam merundingkan usaha merapatkan dua parti itu ialah Nasharuddin Mat Isa (Setiausaha Agung), dan kini orang yang tampaknya paling terlibat adalah juga orang yang sama (Timbalan Presiden).

Kemuncak kejayaan inisiatif mengadakan kerjasama PAS-Umno itu adalah suatu perhimpunan “kesepaduan Melayu” yang berlangsung di Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka (DBP) (yang menganjurkannya secara bersama dengan ABIM) dengan “masalah Palestin” sebagai temanya.

Dalam perhimpunan itu Presiden PAS, Fadzil Noor, bertindak sebagai “penyampai ceramah” tentang sejarah perjuangan rakyat Palestin dan Presiden Umno, Mahathir Mohamad, berceramah tentang isu-isu yang lebih semasa sifatnya tentang perjuangan Islam sejagat dan hubungan peribadinya sendiri yang mesra dengan Yasser Arafat.

Dan kini, berdasarkan imbasan kembali, kita lebih mengerti bahawa tujuan Mahathir yang sebenarnya mengusahakan perhimpunan itu ialah untuk mempertingkatkan citra kepimpinannya sendiri sebagai kepimpinan yang mendapat sokongan padu Melayu-Islam di Malaysia menjelang pertemuannya dengan Presiden Bush di Washington D.C.

Kepada orang Melayu yang menanggap Bush sebagai memusuhi Islam pertemuan itu ingin digambarkannya sebagai suatu usaha berani mengemukakan keresahan umat Islam sedunia tentang isu Palestin, sedangkan kepada Bush pula Mahathir ingin mengemukakan citra dirinya sebagai pemimpin yang mendapat sokongan padu dari umat Islam yang sederhana (yakni bukan pengganas).

Dari imbasan kembali juga, kita kini tahu bahawa pertemuan dengan Bush itu amat penting, merupakan semacan pengiktirafan yang diperlukan bagi kepimpinannya yang masih meluas dipersoalkan di seluruh dunia, dan di kalangan orang Melayu sendiri, berikutan dengan tindakannya terhadap Anwar Ibrahim pada tahun 1998.

Begitu pentingnya pertemuan dengan Bush itu sehingga kita tahu kini bahawa kerajaan Malaysia, atau agennya, telah sanggup membayar berjuta-juta dolar kepada sebuah badan tangki pemikiran (think tank) dan badan lobi bagi mengaturkannya.

Nanun ternyata bahawa segala usaha Mahathir itu tidak berhasil menyelamatkan kepimpinannya, sehingga dia terpaksa menarik diri daripada terus memimpin BN untuk pilihanraya tahun 2004 – dan Abdullah Badawi menang besar atas tiket penyimpangannya daripada kepimpinan Mahathir dan janji-janjinya untuk menyelesaikan pelbagai kebobrokan sosial yang telah dihasilkan oleh Mahathir.

Secara umumnya, hubungan PAS-Umno telah menjadi semakin renggang berikutan naiknya Abdullah Badawi ke puncak kuasa negara ini. Selain kemenangan Abdullah telah menyebabkan kemerosotan besar terhadap PAS dari segi politik pilihanraya, inisiatif Abdullah memperkenalkan konsep “Islam hadhari”nya juga dilihat sebagai suatu cabaran terhadap kredential PAS sebagai parti Islam.

Namun demikian, dengan pelbagai poll, survey dan analisis, sejak akhir-akhir ini menyatakan terdapatnya kemerosotan besar dalam sokongan rakyat terhadap pemerintahan BN pimpinan Abdullah (khususnya di kalangan bukan Melayu), mungkinkah usaha Umno merapati PAS ini merupakan langkah desperate untuk menyelamatkan dirinya – seperti yang pernah dilakukan Mahathir dulu?

Dengan sokongan PAS, apakah Umno berharap akan dapat terus memperkukuh kedudukannya meskipun para penyokong parti-parti perkauman temannya (khususnya MCA dan MIC) telah berbondong-bondong lari meninggalkan parti-parti itu?

Jika itulah tujuan Umno, maka bagaimana pula sikap “hati terbuka” PAS terhadap overtures Umno itu dapat dihuraikan? Apakah usaha ini dikira akan menyelamatkan kuasanya di Kelantan yang kini dapat dipertahankannya hanya dengan bergantung pada kelebihan satu kerusi cuma?

Jika itulah tujuannya, maka bagaimanakah kini kedudukan cita-citanya terhadap beberapa negeri lain – Terengganu, Kedah, Perlis, Pahang, dan mungkin Selangor juga? Bagaimana pula “status” kerjasamanya dengan Anwar Ibrahim dan PKR?

Saya tidak begitu yakin gerak geri politik jenis ini ada hubungannya dengan cita-cita muluk jangka panjang – demi kepentingan masa depan masyarakat Melayu-Islam, misalnya.

Namun, jika sekalipun kerjasama ini memang mempunyai natijah muluk yang demikian itu maka dari segi masanya pelaksanaan inisiatif ini cukup menarik kerana kita sekarang berada pada tahap percaturan politik perkauman yang sedang memuncak dan semarak.

Dengan inisiatif Hindraf baru-baru ini yang begitu tebal unsur dan nada perkaumannya, reaksi kelompok Melayu terhadap inisiatif itu juga kelihatannya bukanlah sekadar bertambah lantang tetapi bertambah nyaring juga nada perkaumannya – sebahagiannya kerana didorong dengan sedar oleh jentera spin Umno sendiri.

Apakah inisiatif PAS-Umno ini merupakan suatu gambaran tentang ciri dan citra percaturan politik perkauman negara ini untuk masa depan terdekat kita? Setelah ini apakah akan berlaku pula nanti inisiatif menyatukan orang Cina yang melibatkan kerjasama MCA, DAP dan Gerakan?

Setelah itu, terdapatkah pula kemungkinan untuk MIC, MIUP (parti Nallakaruppan) dan Hindraf sendiri untuk duduk semeja bagi membincangkan masa depan politik kaum India di Malaysia?

Demikianlah, saya berpendapat bahawa inisiatif ke arah hubungan yang lebih rapat dan lebih mesra antara PAS dan Umno ini merupakan suatu perkembangan yang amat menarik. Selalu timbul persoalan tentang kesannya terhadap suasana dan struktur politik negara ini, selain persoalan apakah tujuan tersirat dan natijah tersuratnya.

Selain itu, terdapat juga persoalan siapakah yang memperalatkan siapa dalam inisiatif tersebut – dan untuk tujuan apa inisiatif itu sebenarnya diusahakan?

Don’t just get angry, PM, get cracking – intellectually that is!

PM Abdullah is obviously very angry with Hindraf. “I rarely get angry,” he told the national news agency Bernama recently, “but this blatant lie cannot be tolerated at all.”

He denounced the Indian Malaysian activists’ claims that they (the Indians) are being mistreated, and accused them of trying to stir up racial conflict.

I am no fan of Hindraf myself – and in my own postings on the pages of this and other blogsites I have expressed my ambivalence over their struggle, their strategy, and perception, of the social (indeed national) issue at hand.

By framing their communal grievances in the exclusively racist and religious terms that they have done, I predicted that through their initiative Hindraf had simply played into the equally (if not more) racist hands of the all-powerful Umno.

And I reckon this “angry” reaction of the PM is proof that my prediction was right. And racist interactions of this sort simply cannot be good for this nation of ours.

The PM simply cannot be right when he claims that: “In our 50 years of independence we never had any problems with the Indians.”

The truth of the matter is that in our 50 years of independence we had had problems with everyone. We already had one “May 13” incident and a number of near misses. No ethnic group seems to be satisfied with their share of the “national cake” as purportedly assigned to it by the ill-defined, ill-conceived, and ill-perceived so-called “social contract”.

It takes only the flimsiest of infliction from somewhere – such as a careless statement by an aging mentor minister of a foreign country or an arrogant and unthinking decision by a local official to flatten a locally revered temple – for racial tempers to flare up and the notion of being second class citizens to be resurrected in some quarters of our society.

To my mind, the PM had demonstrated his failure to grasp the inherent problem in the currently dominant racist political structure of this country when he simply reduced the issue to one of just dispensing financial assistance to some Indians. Said the PM:

“I’ve helped them … in many ways. They want money to repair their temples, I help because we respect other religion and they are not our enemies …”

Even the co called “dominant racial group” – the purported beneficiary of the racialist unjust rule – are not totally happy and secure with the lot that it enjoys. Its leaders are still prowling around defiantly, with drawn krises in their hands, ever ready to soak them in the blood of those who try to challenge their “hegemony”.

There is no doubt in my mind that the sociological mess that we as a nation are in now can be traced to the plural society bequeathed upon us by our past colonial history. But Hindraf is also not totally right in taking their complaints and grievances back to their former master, the “British Raj”.

The mess we are in is our own doing, the “social construct” that we have created for ourselves – and it is but a function of our own intellectual laziness (or should I say incompetence) in perceiving and formulating an alternative notion of a “society of intent” for ourselves since the departure of the colonial masters from our shores.

All we did was took over the structure and form of the colonial “plural society” as it was and let it proceed on, through our own method of muddling through, towards its post-colonial form that we have today.

The Malay nationalistic ideology from the days of anti-colonial movement was never recast nor reformulated to be the basis of our post-colonial nation building or nation creating process to cope with the new social and political environment.

The former British subjects in our midst (i.e. the non-Malays) indeed continued to oppose any notion of an emerging and reformulated Malaysian nationalism – and continued to look back rather longingly towards a colonial past of “cultural laissez faire”.

To me, analytically, both the Hindraf initiative and the Abdullah Badawi (and Umno) reaction to it is but the product of the same intellectual laziness and our inclination towards just “muddling through”, the process that have characterized the political and social development of our nation during the last half century of its recent history.

Being a person who had been an administrator all his life, I cannot expect too much by way of meaningful intellectual input from Abdullah into the thinking process and discourse on the nation’s future. But, given the power that he wields, even getting the debate and discourse started by the right thinking – I repeat thinking – people would have been a great service in itself.

It is not that such an alternative intellectual contribution has not been attempted before in the history of our nation. The multi-ethnic PUTERA-AMCJA and its “People’s Constitution” initiative of 1947, for example, was certainly such a contribution, although it was never even given a chance to be heard.

Now that the Hindraf initiative has brought us that much closer to a national crisis or confusion in our attempt to formulate an alternative and non-racist idea of nationhood, the least Abdullah can do is prevent the situation from deteriorating any further by not letting the discourse to be dominated (or hijacked) by the thoughts of such “leaders” as Ali Rustam, Nazri Aziz, Hishamuddin Hussein, Khairy Jamaluddin, Zainuddin Maidin, and Muhammad Muhd. Taib.

With their contributions and interventions things can only get worse!

>Perhimpunan Hindraf terjebak dalam politik perkauman BN

>A time for Malaysian nationalism?

MB Pahang dan nombor kereta berharga RM48,000.00

Kita berterima kasih kepada laman-laman blog Squeak.Speak.Roar dan Rocky’s Bru kerana menarik perhatian kita terhadap sesuatu yang menarik (atau meloyakan) yang baru-baru ini terjadi di Pahang.

Menteri Besar Pahang, Adnan Yaakob, baru-baru ini memberi amaran bahawa mana-mana Anggota Exco Kerajaan Negeri itu yang didapati membuat bidaan bagi nombor kereta dengan harga yang melebihi RM 10,000 akan disingkirkan dari jawatannya.

Amaran itu dibuat berikutan dengan hebohnya diperkatakan “kisah” kerajaan negeri membelanjakan wang rakyat sebanyak RM48,000 untuk membida plat nombor CCC 9 bagi kereta rasmi Menteri Besar.

Menteri Besar itu menjelaskan bahawa nombor itu bukanlah untuk kereta rasminya tetapi untuk kereta rasmi bagi para tamu istimewa Negeri. Nombor satu angka itu penting, katanya, kerana nombor kereta pelawat yang ada sekarang tidak dari jenis satu angka – “dan ini menimbulkan banyak masalah.”

Selain itu nombor 9 itu penting sebagai nombor yang terbesar di kalangan nombor-nombor satu angka. Angka-angka lain (1 hingga 8) semuanya sudah dibida, tiap satunya dengan harga antara RM30,000 hingga 80,000, oleh orang-orang kenamaan negeri – dari sultan hinggalah ke ahli exco, dan ahli DUN biasa.

Selain itu, MB tersebut mendakwa bahawa langkahnya itu akan menguntungkan negeri – kerana nombor itu nanti boleh dijual dengan harga yang lebih mahal.

Pada hemat saya, apa yang terjadi di Pahang sehubungan dengan pembidaan nombor kereta rasmi ini menggambarkan suatu keghairahan dan keasyikan yang amat jelek yang berleluasa di kalangan orang-orang berkuasa kita, bukan sahaja di Pahang malah di negara ini pada keseluruhannya.

Orang-orang besar negera ini cenderung untuk membazirkan wang rakyat untuk memperoleh alat-alat dan benda-benda yang mampu mengembangkan ego peribadi mereka – yakni item-item seperti jenis pengangkutan (kereta, kapal layar atau kapalterbang), kelengkapan rumah rasmi yang canggih-canggih (seperti pinggan mangkuk dan langsir), nombor kereka yang perlu dibida dengan harga tinggi, cuti luar negara sekeluarga yang ditanggung negara, dan sebagainya.

Tabii ini, bagi saya, lebih menyerupai tabii raja-raja berkuasa mutlak zaman feudal dan bukannya tabii ahli politik moden yang dipilih rakyat dalam sebuah sistem demokrasi.

Dengan sikap dan mentaliti raja feudal itu, maka tidak hairanlah jika ada orang yang bersyak wasangka bahawa orang-orang berkuasa di negara ini tidak akan teragak-agak menggunakan sebarang “cara” untuk menghapuskan musuh-musuh peribadi mereka – termasuklah menikam dengan keris, menyula, meracun, memukul dengan menggunakan Ketua Polis, meletupkan dengan bahan letupan yang canggih, memanipulasi hakim dan mahkamah, dan sebagainya dan seterusnya.

Selagi segala pembaziran dan kekejaman ini tidak dibongkar maka tiada siapa yang akan tahu. Bila terbongkar, maka segala macam helah, spin, dan alasan bodoh akan digunakan untuk menghalalkannya.

Dalam hal pembidaan nombor kereta rasmi ini, Menteri Besar Adnan berhujah bahawa dia tidak melihat sebarang unsur pembaziran dalam langkah tersebut. Manurutnya wang itu sekadar berpindah dari kerajaan negeri kepada sebuah jabatan kerajaan yang lain, dan boleh digunakan jabatan itu untuk membayar gaji para pekerjanya.

Soalnya ialah: Mengapakah wang sebanyak itu perlu dipindahkan semata-mata untuk mengurut ego seorang menteri besar atau para tamunya – kecualilah jika jabatan kerajaan tersebut memang kehabisan wang dan memerlukan bantuan wang untuk membayar gaji pekerjanya?

Jika wang itu tidak dipindahkan, sekurang-kurangnya kerajaan negeri akan dapat menggunakannya untuk sebarang keperluan segera atau tiba-tiba demi kebajikan dan keperluan rakyat – seperti memperbaiki prasarana perbandaran di Kuantan atau Temerloh, misalnya.

Alasan menteri besar ini lebih-lebih lagi terasa dungunya memandangkan hakikat bahawa kerajaan negeri Pahang sedang menuju ke arah akaun defisit sebesar RM 50 juta.

Oleh itu, saya dengan segala rendah diri, mohon memulangkan sentimen yang tersirat di sebalik tingkah laku dan gerak geri MB Adnan dalam gambarnya di atas kepada diri beliau sendiri!!

Zainuddin Maidin masih bernafas …

Saya berasa agak hairan – tetapi agak gembira juga – bila Menteri Penerangan Zainuddin Maidin tidak kedengaran suara dan komennya selepas berakhirnya demonstrasi Hindraf di Kuala Lumpur baru-baru ini.

Mungkinkah benar spekulasi Syed Imran dalam laman blognya baru-baru ini bahawa Zainuddin mungkin telah tiba di hujung kerjayanya, saya bertanya pada diri sendiri.

Syed Imran melaporkan bahawa menteri itu pada waktu itu sedang bercuti di United Kingdom.

Menurut spekulasi yang kencang beredar di kalangan para wartawan di Kuala Lumpur pada waktu itu, Zainuddin mungkin telah diarahkan PM supaya pergi bercuti, berikutan dengan gelagat dan gerak-gerinya yang “memalukan” sewaktu dia ditemuramah oleh Al-Jazeera pada waktu berlangsungnya perhimpunan Bersih pada 10 November lalu.

Suatu laporan Bernama baru-baru ini menunjukkan bahawa menteri itu baru-baru ini berada di Kaherah (Mesir). Oleh kerana PM juga pada waktu itu berada di Mesir maka bolehlah dibuat kesimpulan bahawa Zainuddin ke sana untuk bertugas – yakni mengiringi PM.

Setelah suratnya yang disiarkan oleh New Straits Times baru-baru ini, Zainuddin tampaknya mengambil kesempatan untuk bercakap secara langsung kepada rakyat Malaysia melalui temuramahnya dengan Bernama untuk meyakinkan mereka supaya tidak mempercayai Al-Jazeera.

Menurutnya, sentimennya itu disokong sendiri oleh Menteri Penerangan Mesir, Anas Ahmed Nabeeh El-Feky. Mesir dan beberapa negara Arab sendiri katanya mengambil sikap yang sama dengannya terhadap Al-Jazeera.

Saya sebenarnya sedikitpun tidak terpengaruh dengan penjelasan Zainuddin ini. Jika Zainuddin ingin memperoleh tempat bersandar dan berpaut untuk sikap facist dan anti-kebebasan bersuaranya, maka memanglah dia boleh memperolehnya dari “Mesir dan beberapa negara Arab” itu.

Rejim Hosni Mubarak dan beberapa pemerintahan “raja purba” di negara-negara Arab memanglah sejak lama – malah jauh lebih dulu dari Zainuddin – memusuhi Al-Jazeera. Malah jika Zainuddin memerlukan lebih banyak teman seiring di dunia ini, saya dapat menamakan berpuluh-puluh orang lagi untuknya, antaranya Mugabe, Musharraf …

Sekurang-kurangnya para pemimpin penindas itu dapat mempertahankan sikap dan pendirian secara yang agak teratur dan dengan bahasa yang tidak lintang pukang (seperti ucapan Mugabe di PBB baru-baru ini, misalnya).

Zainuddin menasihati rakyat Malaysia supaya jangan terpedaya oleh Al-Jazeera. Jika kita tidak boleh mempercayai Al-Jazeera maka siapakah yang boleh kita percayai? RTM yang secara langsung dikuasai Zainuddin?

Berdasarkan, pengalaman dan pemerhatian saya, RTM bukan sekadar merupakan alat propaganda murahan malah para pemberitanya tidak tahu menghitung dan tidak pandai berkata benar.

Untuk lebih memahami dan mengenali sahsiah Zainuddin, silalah baca tulisan Fudzail di klpos.com (Dubai Online 2.0).

Wan Hashim dan Firdaus Abdullah: Gajah Putih lawan Macan Kertas?

Ketua Pengarah Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka (DBP), Dr Firdaus Abdullah, tampaknya benar-benar marah dan kecewa.

Sebab kemarahannya: DBP didakwa di Parlimen sebagai sedang mengalami sindrom “kemandulan minda” kerana gagal membuat penyelidikan untuk mencari istilah baru dalam bahasa Melayu.

Yang membuat dakwaan: Dr Wan Hashim Wan Teh, Ahli Parlimen Grik, Pengerusi Eksekutif Institut Terjemahan Negara Malaysia (ITNM), dan mantan Timbalan Naib-Canselor (HEP), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

Dakwaannya: DBP, khususnya Jawatankuasa Istilahnya, cenderung meminjam sahaja perkataan bahasa Inggeris dan menjadikannya istilah Melayu sehingga menjadikan Kamus Dewan kini tidak lebih daripada “gedung bahasa rojak.”

Saya tidaklah berminat untuk mempertahankan peranan DBP sebagai sebuah institusi awam yang dibiayai pemerintah untuk memantapkan dan memperkembang Bahasa Melayu/Malaysia sebagai bahasa kebangsaan, bahasa ilmu dan bahasa moden.

Saya telah menulis sebuah buku tentang ini, dan beberapa bulan lalu telah menulis lagi beberapa rencana tentang “kegagalan” DBP sebagai institusi rasmi permbinaan bahasa kebangsaan.

Dari sudut pandangan saya, sebagai sebuah institusi pelaksana cita-cita pembinaan negara bagi pertumbuhan bahasa kebangsaan, DBP tidak ubahnya bagai “macan kertas” – masih kelihatan seperti harimau tetapi kerana dibuat dari kertas tidak dapat bergerak dan bertindak seperti harimau sebenarnya.

Namun kelemahan ini, bagi saya, bukanlah hasil kelemahan dan kemandulan DBP sendiri. Kelemahan itu merupakan hasil ketergantungan DBP kepada pihak pemerintah yang kepekaan dan iltizamnya akan kedudukan bahasa kebangsaan itu amat diragukan.

DBP sebagai badan pemerintah dan para pemimpinnya sebagai “pegawai” pemerintah tidak mempunyai kemampuan maupun kecekalan untuk bergerak melewati kelembaman iltizam pemerintah itu – maka lahirlah DBP yang mandul bagaikan “macan kertas” itu.

Bagi saya, isu yang ditimbulkan oleh Dr Wan Hashim itu bukanlah isu yang begitu penting dalam memahami kelemahan dan kemerosotan kedudukan bahasa kebangsaan hari ini.

Data yang ada sejak satu dasawarsa yang lalu malah telah menunjukkan bahawa lebih setengah juta istilah telah dihasilkan oleh puluhan jawatankuasa istilah DBP. Ini bererti bahawa prasarana kebahasaan sudah lebih dari mencukupi untuk melancarkan bahasa kebangsaan kita hidup sebagai sebuah bahasa moden yang dinamis.

Dalam semua bahasa moden di dunia yang hidup secara dinamis, istilah-istilah (yang biasa maupun teknis sifatnya) bukanlah terus menerus perlu dihasilkan oleh jawatankuasa-jawatankuasa rasmi tetapi dihasilkan oleh para pengguna bahasa itu sendiri dalam proses menggunakan bahasa itu dalam kegiatan mereka seharian.

Sebagai contoh, “istilah-istilah” yang disebut Dr Firdaus dalam jawapannya kepada Dr Wan Hashim – seperti mouse dan web – sebenarnya baru masuk ke dalam perbendaharaan kata bahasa Inggeris sejak beberapa tahun yang lalu sahaja, yakni selaras dengan pertumbuhan bidang sains komputer dan maklumat.

Tidak ada badan maupun jawatankuasa yang berperanan dalam mencipta atau menyebarkan istilah-istilah tersebut dalam bahasa Inggeris.

Oleh yang demikian, yang amat diperlukan dalam bahasa kebangsaan kita bukanlah sebuah badan seperti DBP yang tidak mandul cendekianya. Yang amat kita perlukan ialah sebuah dasar pemerintah yang dinamis lagi jelas dalam bidang-bidang cendekia, sosial dan budaya, dan yang mendorongkan pertumbuhan dinamis bahasa tersebut.

Namun di negara ini hari ini terdapat situasi yang sebaliknya – pertumbuhan bahasa itu tidak mendapat dukungan rasmi yang diperlukannya dalam bidang-bidang kehidupan moden yang strategis seperti perdagangan, pentadbiran dan malah pendidikan pada segala peringkatnya (khususnya dalam pengajaran ilmu-ilmu moden seperti matematik dan sains di sekolah).

Dalam keadaan bahasa itu terabai kerana tidak terdapatnya dukungan dan iltizam untuk membelanya, maka hairankah kita jika badan-badan seperti DBP itu menjadi mandul dari segala seginya – yakni menjadi sekadar “macan kertas.”

Dalam suasana kebahasaan yang sama, hairankah kita jika ITNM – yang kebetulan diketuai oleh Dr Wan Hashim sendiri – tidaklah lebih daripada sebuah “gajah putih” yang tidak melaksanakan apa-apa yang signifikan dan sekadar membazirkan wang rakyat.

Siapakah yang akan merasa perlu membaca dalam Bahasa Malaysia (baik asli mupun terjemahan dari bahasa asing) jika perkembangan ilmu dalam bahasa itu sebenarnya tidak didorongkan?

Sebagai seorang pemerhati cuma, saya hanya mampu tersenyum melihat “pertikaman lidah” antara dua orang mantan Timbalan Naib Canselor (HEP) dari dua universiti utama di negara ini.

Namun saya tidaklah menyimpan harapan untuk melihat perdebatan itu berkembang menjadi wacana cendekia yang mantap – tetapi hanya sekadar merupakan pertembungan antara seekor “gajah putih” dan seekor “macan kertas”.

Namun Bahasa Malaysia sebagai bahasa kebangsaan, bahasa ilmu dan bahasa moden tidak juga ke mana-mana - kerana pihak yang berwewenang tidak mempunyai keyakinan terhadapnya.

The Hindraf demos – and my ambivalence

I am very glad that the organisers of the Hindraf massive demonstrations in Kuala Lumpur on Sunday, November 25, managed to get the number of people they wanted in order to put across their grievances to the government rather effectively.

The crowd that they managed to garner, it appeared, was almost as large as that of the Bersih demonstrations on November 10.

The fact that that substantive number of people collected their courage that day to be on the streets in Kuala Lumpur – despite legal hurdles that have been erected against them, despite ridiculous accusations leveled against them by such highly placed leaders as Abdullah Badawi, Najib Razak, and Sammy Vellu, despite threats by the Malaysian Royal Police who had time and again proven their capability and capacity for great brutality – can only mean one thing: that there is still hope that true justice can still be won by the people in future in this country.

The demonstration itself may be regarded illegal and unlawful by the government, but one has to be both totally blind and dumb to reject the existence of the issues that the demonstrators are trying to highlight – the plight and humiliation of the sidelined and downtrodden ethnic Indian community in this country.

Politically, I would throw my support to any one or group that intends to defend the rights of any ethnic group. But I would be very reluctant to participate in any movement that is based on racist and/or religious exclusivist approach – and that would include movements and struggles on behalf of my own religion and ethnic group.

That was basically my problem with the Hindraf movement – and with their “successful” initiative last Sunday. The fact that they still present the plight of their own ethnic group in the form that it was presented in this particular instance had made it very difficult for me to “march with them” – as Nathaniel Tan had declared in his blogsite.

To me the fact that the plight of the Malaysian Indians still needed to be framed in those stark racist and exclusivist terms – which remind me exactly the same way that Khairy Jamaluddin had framed the issue of Malay “neglect” in Pulau Pinang – only points to bigger failures that we still have to live with in this “nation” of ours (which, by the way, is already more than half a century old).

Our failure is indeed a failure of nationhood, of freeing all and every group within it from its own exclusive and insulated existence, of propelling the birth of a common identity, of our ability to perceive sectional issues within it not as sectional issues but as our common concerns.

In a “true” nation, the plight of the ethnic Indians – just as the plight of the Malays of Pulau Pinang – need not be dealt with purely as an ethnic Indian issue but as an issue of injustice and uneven development that all Malaysians (irrespective of race and religion) could together register their protest and disgust.

To my mind, the plight of ethnic Indians that spurred the angry demonstration of November 25 was indeed legitimate issue of contention – but what was wrong about it was its continued expression in its racist and exclusive terms within the framework of the dominant – indeed by now already codified – form of political framework and discourse put in place by the racist Alliance/BN rulers for the past 50 years of our existence as a nation.

What makes it even more sad is the fact that there had been very little, and only feeble, attempts even by political leaders from the Malaysian Indian community itself to recast the issue of the Indian neglect, to rethink the issue of the Indian integration into a non-racist Malaysian nation, and to reformulate the forms of Indian political organisations and movements, and also their participation in the country’s political terrain.

The Indians in this country, just like the rest of us, are simply trapped within the maze of ethnic political culture that we are incapable of escaping from – in fact making its impact on the Indians even more dire because of their position as a minority group within an ethnically based political system.

Lots of dissatisfaction have been expressed before against the representation of the Indian interests as played out by the MIC within the system of bargaining among the races and race-based parties within the Alliance/BN formula.

There have been capable and influential “alternative” Indian leaders, too – leaders such as Pandhitan, Utthayakumar (besides having his own party also a leader of Hindraf), and Nallakaruppan. But, despite their good intentions to work for social justice, their exclusively Indian perspective of the issues and approach in political maneuverings has naturally rendered their struggles ineffective.

During the days leading to the November 25 demonstrations, and even during the height of the demonstrations itself, S. Sammy Vellu and his like-minded colleagues in the MIC have initially accused the Hindraf of being a tool of the opposition and later appealed to the demonstrators themselves that street demonstrations are “not our way”.

In an interview on Al-Jazeera while the demonstrations were still raging, Sammy Vellu reiterated his claims that the racist BN formula of ethnic bargainings does work and that no one but him has done so much for ethnic Indians in this country through his efforts and effective representation of the Indian “interests” in the BN political structure.

The claims, of course, begged the obvious question: If the existing system and Sammy Vellu/MIC’s role within it had been so effective, why was there so much bottled-up dissatisfaction and indignation during last Sunday’s demonstration that people were willing to risk their personal safety and face the infamous Malaysian police capability for brutality?

Now that the demonstrations are over, it is perhaps time to invite again our Malaysian Indian friends – as we would our other (non-Indian) compatriots – to rethink the bogus racist “social contract” perspective that we have been duped with for the last 50 years history of our “nation” – and to start to rethink anew our national problems in terms of a more acceptable concept of national unity and social justice.

Malaysian leaders of Indian ethnic origin have indeed played important roles in past efforts to establish an alternative political and social system for our nation – whether it was the 1940’s PUTERA-AMCJA ‘People’s Constitution’ or the 1960’s Socialist Front coalition.

It was indeed heartening to note that during the run-up to the Hindraf demonstration there were Malaysian political leaders of Indian ethnic origin – such as Sivarasa Rasiah (Vice President PKR) and S Arutchelvam (Secretary General PSM) – who offered different perspective and suggested different solutions to the issue of the Indian problem from the ones offered by Hindraf itself.

On watching images of last Sunday’s massive demonstration on international television news bulletins I cannot but wistfully thought about what a historic day it could have been had the energy, resolve and imagination of the people involved in both the Bersih and Hindraf rallies be united to oppose social injustice in this country.

As soon as the debris caused by the police chemical-laced water jets settled down on the streets in central Kuala Lumpur, I was glad to read a very analytical and thoughtful statement by my friend Arutchelvam (PSM) on the demonstrations. The statement is reproduced below in its entirety:

A Day to Reflect: Racism and 50 Years of Merdeka


S.Arutchelvan

Setiausaha Agung
Parti Sosialis Malaysia

25 November 2007 will be seen as a day when thousands of Malaysian Indians defied police orders and other high handed intimidation to express their anger and frustration against the ruling party and poured into the streets of Kuala Lumpur.

The crowd of mostly agitated Indian youths put up a fight against the heavy machinery and arsenal of the police force. The result was bloody with hundreds of people arrested, brutalized and injured.

The police went on all the way, with all they had to suppress the people whose intentions were merely to hand a memorandum to the British Embassy. If the State had used its wisdom, it could have evaded this confrontation by simply allowing the assembled to proceed. The scene became unruly as always, not because of the assembled but because of the police action against a very determined, highly charged and frustrated community. A community who has been deprived by the divide and rule politics of Malaysia and economic policies which are designed to make race politics dominant.

When thousands of people take to the street, definitely something is wrong. The controlled media is trying to paint a picture that the people were misled but once again one cannot deny that the show of force by the people are real indication that something is really wrong.

How do we march from here after the aftermath of what happened today? Is this nation going to recognise the problem of racism and unite the people or would it create further divisions to split the already fragile and false unity, which has dominated our lives in the last 50 years?

The answers to resolve this problem of racism and ethnicity can only be resolved when Ethnic based structures are destroyed and this task cannot be carried by any ethnic based or religious based movements. The working class and the common people of Malaysia from all walks of life have to unite and built a multi-racial movement to fight racism and bring back the spirit of 1947 to build a class based people’s movement.

Only a class based movement not based on ethnicity and religion can truly built a nation without discrimination, race based corruption and race based politics. The ruling party would be able to rule and would continue to rule as long as the people are divided. The ruling party is not going to build a united Malaysian Nation, as it is not going to work to its advantage. The Opposition too have at many occasions being sucked into the same mode to win support of the people.

The future of Malaysia can go two ways – Race and Religious Politics which is the rule of the day versus Class based politics – cutting across race and religion lines. It is a serious question as race and religious politics with its history and conditioning remain the most effective way to mobilise the racially divided people. It is a question every person has to ask and ponder. It is a question which is going to continue to haunt us.

Today the capitalist controlled UMNO and its coalition partners, using race and religion have won every election but failed to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor.

Income disparity between the rich and poor has widens and among the highest in Asia and the rich of all races continue to prosper while the poor of all races continue to suffer.

The Socialist Party of Malaysia (PSM) is determined to continue to mobilise the masses using class politics and find the unity among the people especially the working masses to bring benefit for the majority of the working class irrespective of race and religion because we believe ultimately- wealth has to be shared based on justice and equality.

Just how 'gila' is Thirunama?

There is no doubt in my mind that Anwar Ibrahim’s expose of V K Lingam-initiated corruption within our Judiciary is a great success. The whole nation is now abuzz with the sound of “Correct, Correct, Correct!”

An “independent panel” set up to investigate the tape has been virtually abandoned without really completing its task.

But continued demands and pressures from the public – no less from the legal profession fraternity itself – has caused even the Prime Minister to cave in and to back down from the claims made by his own in-house great legal mind, Nazri Aziz, that nothing is wrong with the Judiciary.

The government has now agreed to institute a Royal Commission. The only thing for the rakyat to watch now is the membership and terms of reference to be submitted for approval by the Cabinet – lest the Royal Commission would be just another device for yet another political spin.

Anwar’s claim to being the first revealer of evidence concerning the corrupt practices of judges, lawyers, businessmen and politicians, and perhaps of the judicial rot itself, has now been challenged, however.

Although Anwar made his revelation in September, VK Thirunama Karasu (the brother of the infamous VK Lingam himself) claims that he had launched two police reports on matters of Lingam’s corrupt dealings with people in high positions, including judges and police officers, in March.

Copies of those reports have been produced by his lawyer for public scrutiny.

Thirunama first filed a report at the Kelana Jaya Police Station on March 16, but because the investigating officer there refused to record the details of his report properly, he filed yet another report three days later in Brickfields.

Indeed, VK Lingam in his first statement since the Anwar expose has claimed that his brother had already filed ACA and police reports against him as early as 1998 – but all investigations have been dropped because of Thirunama’s “mental condition”.

Lingam has described his brother’s mental condition as unstable, given to suicidal tendencies and aggressive behaviours. The claim has been denied by Thirunama who says he is pursuing legal actions against Lingam for aspersions on his character.

Interestingly enough, since the media conference organised by his lawyer on the subject recently, Thirunama has been summoned to answer questions at the ACA headquarters in Kuala Lumpur. Indeed, his lawyer has protested against the ACA for the protracted interview that lasted for seven hours.

To me, the twists and turns of this episode of the VK Lingam drama raise a number of disturbing questions:

• Why have both the ACA and the police not investigated Thirunama’s reports and serious allegations which were filed since as early as 1998?

• Is it just the normal police and ACA’s reaction of ignoring such reports – unless the report is filed by Umno or Umno Youth on even more trivial matters – or is it really because of Thirunama’s mental state?

• If Thirunama’s mental state was the reason for dropping investigations on the matter, how was his psychological profile determined? Did the police actually speak to his doctors and shrinks (if any), or was it based just on opinion offered by his loving brother?

• If he was considered so mentally deranged then for his serious allegations to be ignored, how is that he is now considered mentally healthy to withstand a seven-hour protracted grilling by ACA investigating officers?

Thirunama deserves answers to these questions – and so are the people. “Korek, korek, korek!” (Dig, dig, dig – Investigate, investigate, investigate).

How the 2007 Umno AGA sank into obscurity

The Umno Annual General Assembly (Perhimpunan Agung Tahunan) is normally considered the most important political event in Malaysia, especially in a year when there is a party leadership election.

Analysts would usually use the event as a barometer to detect and measure the political pulse of the nation.

The “perhimpunan” for this year was held in early November, but this is not an election year for Umno.

Observers and analysts alike, however, still consider this year’s AGA an important event, as it may be the last Umno AGA before the next general elections – expected to be held at the end of this year or early next year.

For the last few months, a number of surveys and polls seem to indicate that the Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition government (led by Umno as its “big-brother” party) is said to be currently suffering from a support withdrawal syndrome, especially from the non-Malay section of the electorate.

Such indications, analysts believe, must have rattled the confidence of the Umno leadership somewhat – at least on behalf of the coalition in general, if not for Umno itself. People were therefore wandering how the party leadership was going to handle the situation, and what policy concessions it was going to make in order to regain the confidence of the non-Malays.

It is only at an Umno AGA that such political initiatives could be gleaned, as it was the political antics and gestures of the Umno leaders that have caused the disaffection in the first place – such as Khairy Jamaluddin’s arrogant attacks of non-Malay coalition partner parties, Hishamuddin’s menacing draw of the crooked dagger, and Mohd Ali Rustam’s unceremonious “dismissal” of the PPP.

In a political atmosphere increasingly characterised by intense racist discourse, Umno’s inevitable shrill voice to enhance its own racist posture – in order to retain its own traditional racist constituency and support – cannot possible help to endear Umno to those on the other side of the racist divide.

It is this reformulation of the Umno political posture – at least in its “spin” terms if not in its real terms – that people hope to see at the last AGA. But, alas, it was a reformulation that Umno has proven to be politically and intellectually incapable of producing.

Yes, Umno was quite conspicuously rattled by the flight of non-Malay support away from the BN coalition. Experience gained from past elections, however, has shown that even though the non-Malay section of the electorate withdraws their support for the non-Malay coalition parties, all is still not lost as long as Umno can retain its own Malay constituency.

Therefore, at this year’s AGA Umno leaders and delegates, if at all, made only slight adjustments to its usual and normal racist posturing. The kris is not menacingly drawn this year but just arrogantly and defiantly paraded into the assembly.

The party leaders did not offer any apology for the party’s racist approach and posturing, but simply reminded others that the Malays (read Umno) have a right to defend their rights. Other delegates went as far to “politely” tell others to move to other countries (such as Singapore) if they are unhappy with whatever they get here.

The more “intellectually inclined” among the party leaders (such as Khairy) continued to defend Umno’s pro-Malay posturing by arguing that they are not meant to deprive non-Malays of their rights. Umno policies, they argue, in the end would benefit everyone, including non-Malays.

To my mind, these miniscule, almost meaningless changes, in policy posturing, can be explained thus:

To Umno, within the larger racist politics scheme of things, retaining the support of its racist Malay constituency is much more important than trying to win the support of the non-Malays for its non-Malay partner parties within the BN.

Therefore, while the Umno leadership was somewhat rattled by the withdrawal of support by the non-Malays, much more attention is given to creating a posture of confidence in winning the relatively “rural” Malay heartland – especially of retaining Terengganu and wresting away Kelantan.

Basing on the same logic that Khairy used to warn Malays about non-Malay parties making “ridiculous demands” should Umno become weak through internal strife and disunity, a weak non-Malay component of the BN can also mean strength for Umno.

Not only can non-Malay demands be confined and contained, but indeed they can easily be rejected or ignored as “opposition” demands are normally treated in this country. The non-Malay “partners” within the BN, too, would lose much of their leverage against the might of Umno.

But Umno was unfortunate that its lackluster AGA this year was immediately followed by a massive popular demonstration in Kuala Lumpur on November 10. The fact that the “racial composition” of the wave of demonstrators showed significant participation of Malays appeared to have dashed the Umno “illusion” that it is still able to retain its Malay support.

The day after the end of the Umno AGA, people have already forgotten about it and have already shifted their attention to the Bersih demonstration and the ensuing controversies it created. Even the judicial crisis issue immediately made a comeback into the parlance of public discourse with a vengeance – with bigger rallies and shocking fresh exposes.

The 2007 Umno AGA, therefore, failed to make any significant public impact and very quickly simply sank into obscurity.

And Umno leaders appear not to have any answer to the unfortunate situation, other than offering some illogical and incoherent arguments expressed in unstructured and ungrammatical language (both Bahasa Malaysia and English).

The people have prevailed !!

Letter from Aliran

Well, it looks that the information Minister will have to eat his own words. He will have to believe what he sees. His eyes are not playing tricks. It is indeed true that concerned Malaysians did turn up in their thousands to demand for clean and fair elections.

They were not intimidated by the heavy presence of the police and the FRU; they were not discouraged by the water cannons or the riot police with their shields and batons. These are brave Malaysians who have had enough of the arrogance of the powers-that-be. They are here to demonstrate to the democratic world that there are Malaysians who are prepared to stand up and march for justice.

In his arrogance, the Minister of Information sneered, “Do you believe thousands of people will be coming for the rally? Don’t be so silly as to be taken in by them,” he said, adding that even the Umno annual meeting could not gather such a number of people.

Well Zam, what have you to say now? These are ordinary people who don’t need to be enticed with pocket money, transport and nasi bungkus. When you genuinely walk for justice, you are driven by noble ideals and propelled by sincerity. It is this commitment to the values that we hold dearly that has brought out people in solidarity to raise an issue and to state a point.

What has Nazri to say about this mammoth crowd who braved the rain and faced the risks involved and displayed an indomitable spirit to seek justice and right the wrong? He had haughtily dismissed the crowd of 2,000 odd lawyers who also had marched in an attempt to stop the rot in the judiciary as being in the minority.

Well, Nazri if you had dared to persuade the police to allow the proposed march to proceed unhindered, then you would have witnessed a crowd that would have been bigger than the Kesas Highway gathering.

It is because the Barisan government does not want the people of Malaysia to witness how upset and unhappy many Malaysians are, that is the sole reason that they had brought in their mighty strength represented by the police and the FRU with the sole purpose of disrupting the gathering. In this way they had hoped that Malaysians will not get to witness the truth that exposed their lies and distortions.

What took place today was a peaceful, democratic and legitimate exercise undertaken by concerned Malaysians to seek a remedy for our tainted, lopsided elections. Whatever may be said in defence of the Election Commission or the manner in which elections take place in our country, the truth is that there has never been equal opportunity to fight clean and fair in the general elections. It has been always tilted in favour of the Barisan Nasional which abuses the state facilities and state coffers to entice the electorate that must be seen by any impartial observer as clearly constituting corruption.


P. Ramakrishnan
President

10 November 2007


For a full report of the massive demonstaration, read here.

Mohd. Ali’s folly

The Melaka chief minister, Mohd Ali Rustam, may just be in political hot soup right now. It appears that he is being investigated by officials of the Prime Minister Department for the speech he made when officiating a convention of a BN component party, the Peoples Progressive Party (PPP), in Melaka recently.

According to reports, the chief minister was being rather discourteous to his hosts at the gathering. He expressed displeasure at PPP for demanding bigger allocations of seats at the next general elections. As the state Umno chief, he also announced that the PPP would not be allocated seats in Melaka.

Furthermore, he told the "small" component party to leave the ruling coalition if it is unhappy with its share of power – and leave right now!

Mohd. Ali did not just cause hurt feelings among the delegates. Indeed he generated anger and disgust as well, and a number of them staged a walk out during the speech.

Viewed in the context of the racist politics of BN (especially of Umno), Mohd. Ali must have thought that it was a brave and popular gesture that he was making with the speech. Under normal circumstances, it would indeed be so. It would constitute the type of gestures that Khairy Jamaluddin or Hishamuddin Hussein would approve.

To put a small non-Malay component BN party in its “proper” place, to teach it a lesson for its audacity to make demands about their share of power, must indeed be a heroic deed in terms of the Umno political maneuverings.

But Mohd. Ali must have also been too dense to realise that these are not “normal” times in terms of BN electoral politics. While the coalition may still entertain some hope to retain the support of its Malay constituents (to enable it to dream about retaining power in Trengganu and to wrest Kelantan away from PAS), all respectable polls seems to point out to a massive shift of non-Malay support away from the BN.

Flogging a weak non-Malay horse as the PPP cannot in itself be considered a risky political act. But it was the sense of sympathy that it created for the victim (PPP) and enhanced sense of injustice it generated among the non-Malays in the context of the dominant racist politics of this country that the unthinking and insensitive speech by the Melaka chief minister could pose a grave danger to the ruling coalition – especially at a time when the general elections could be just round the corner.

No wonder the Chairman of BN and President of Umno, Abdullah Badawi, himself had to carry out an immediate “damage control” exercise over the impertinent speech at a later stage during the PPP general assembly. He had to pacify the delegates by promising them that within the BN structure “no demand is beyond negotiation and consultation.”

No wonder, too, even “traditional” enemies of the PPP within the BN structure, such as the MIC and the Gerakan – parties that most likely to lose out should the PPP’s demands for extra seats be entertained – had refrained from even mildly supporting the Melaka chief minister’s impertinent and rude remarks.

And now it seems that Mohd. Ali himself is being placed in a very awkward position of having to carry our damage control exercise for himself – now that he in being probed, and things could actually be done to debase his position at the next Umno general assembly for disregarding the coalition’s organisational disciplines.

Already an unnamed senior officer in the Melaka chief minister’s office had issued a statement to deny that Mohd. Ali had ever made those nasty remarks about the PPP. “It is unthinkable that the chief minister, the most senior vice-president of Umno, would say such things about a BN component party,” the statement said.

But the statement did not offer any suggestion concerning what the chief minister did actually say.

I find the explanation by the official to be totally unconvincing. Mohd. Ali is not the first ever political leader with questionable general intellectual and strategic thinking capabilities that had attained high positions in Umno – some have even, at later stages in their careers, made it to being DPM and PM!

The only relevant question at this juncture is: How is Mohd. Ali going to wriggle out of the messy situation he finds himself in. He made his speech in the presence of hundreds of PPP members and scores of journalists (both friendly and hostile) who later reported the event in a number of news reports, some complete with by lines.

No, we do not need to have another “independent panel” in order to establish the authenticity of the chief minister’s indiscretion and impertinence.

Lee Kuan Yew as extension of Malaysia’s racist political discourse

Somehow, anything that Singapore Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew says about Malaysian politics or about Malaysia-Singapore relations never fails to excite public opinion both here and in Singapore – indeed the world over (because even the West seems to accept him as the true wise man of Asia).

To some quarters Lee Kuan Yew is simply a larger than life reality that can never be wrong – and therefore his opinions would have to be taken very seriously indeed. It is not surprising therefore that we have all showered him with that kind of respect for decades now. We have also, without fail, excessively poured our love or our hatred on the old man, depending of which side of the racial divide we find ourselves in.

Recently the minister mentor has once again pricked everyone’s sense of excitement with references he made about (a) Malaysiakini being an icon of the new form of media freedom that no one can put a lid on, and (b) Singapore’s willingness to rejoin Malaysia if and when Malaysia’s economic development can surpass that of Singapore.

I do not, however, partake in any of the excitement induced by Lee Kuan Yew via his statements on Malaysia-Singapore relations and political conditions. In fact, in an article in Straits Times (Singapore) (18 July 1998), I have already predicted that such statements (and the excitement that follows) would continue to made by leaders on both sides of the causeway in intervals of every few years – as long as each side still need the other side as a “foreign” bogey in order to shore up political support at home.

Interestingly enough, at that time my prediction had generated some reactions from Singapore leaders. The then Prime Minister of Singapore, Goh Chok Tong, had to reserve quite a chunk of his official National Day speech in 1998 to comment on the article.

The crux of my perspective then was this: To the racist political leaders in Singapore – exactly as it was to the equally racist leaders in Malaysia – the neighbour country was being utilised as the Israeli state would the Holocaust: to justify its own existence and to create a bogey of foreign danger to that existence.

Indeed, the pattern of reactions of both sides to each other over the years since that prediction was made had not changed much. Some examples:

• The Pemuda Umno accusation of Lee Kuan Yew being in state of “nyanyuk” for describing southern Johor as a crime-infested area.

• The continuous reference from Singapore of the Chinese being suppressed and treated as second class citizens in Malaysia – and similar accusation from Malaysia about the similar fate of the Malays in Singapore.

I do detect some changes in the reactions though to some of the latest remarks by Lee Kuan Yew. A Kadir Jasin, however, do still find some use for the reference to the minister mentor’s state of psychological health – accusing him of suffering from “gila talak” (the psychological state of longing for a reunion with one’s divorced spouse).

But Kadir Jassin appears to have gone beyond just psychological explanation, and began to see the significance of the political device of emphasising the neighbour’s negative aspects as a means of shoring one’s home support. Kadir was making references to the fact that the PAP’s control 45 out of 47 seat in Parliament, while it obtained only 66 % of popular votes in the last general elections.

Deputy PM Najib Razak, too, simply refused to be drawn into an extended political polemic with the minister mentor by saying that such a polemic would only prove to be counter-productive, as political realities of Singapore and Malaysia are so different in the essence.

One wonders, however, to what extend this refusal to hazard a comment or rebuttal to the minister mentor’s backhand and tongue-in-cheek reference to Malaysia’s lagging behind in economic development in comparison to Singapore is also caused by the fact that the empirical evidence is so glaringly clear – and simply impossible to debunk.

Josh Hong’s friendly reminder to the defenders of media freedom in Malaysia not to be taken in by the minister mentor’s mention of Malaysiakini as an icon of a new form of media freedom, to me, is indeed a rare voice of reason. Lest we forget, he reminded us that Lee Kuan Yew is no less suppressive of media freedom in his own country compared to the government in Malaysia.

It is little wonder therefore that our own very repressive Minister of Information, Zainuddin Maidin, finds in Lee Kuan Yew a kindred spirit in this matter – and notice how elated he was to learn that the Singapore mentor minister’s family had just won millions of dollars in legal compensations from the western press that they would both love to suppress?

Another interesting reminder that I find Josh Hong made was for the Malaysian Chinese not to consider Lee Kuan Yew a hero and liberator of the Chinese race just because of the way he plays his game in the context the racialist political discourse currently dominant in both Malaysia and Singapore – or just because he is an ethnic Chinese himself. His policies on matters Chinese – issues that are held dear by Chinese in Malaysia – must also be examined.

There is no denying of the fact that there is noticeable change, at least in terms of the degree of violence and vehemence, in the reaction to Lee Kuan Yew’s sentiments in the recent statements he made. There was neither hate statements nor call for a nation-wide demonstration from Pemuda Umno, for example. But, to me, the change has been too small and too negligible to be of any significance.

One thing is clear, though: that the form of political discourse in Malaysia and Singapore has not changed significantly, and that the form of political perspective and sentiment held by our founding fathers (that have now reached the levels of “mentors” and “senior statements” if they are still alive) have codified and hardened to a level beyond change – despite the changing times.

What is even more unfortunate is the fact that our current and future leaders have not shown any great inclination towards reformulating our form of political discourse away from the codified form that we have learned to live dangerously with, all these years.

As long as this trend continues, I see no reason whatsoever to revise the prediction I made in my 1998 article: that the Malaysia-Singapore relation will remain volatile for a long time to come.

As long as leaders of the earlier generation still have commanding influence on the way we perceive our political realities of today, it is safe to predict that we will continue to be trapped within the same forms of political thinking and discourse that the earlier generation had put in place for us.