WHAT A MESS!

It has been many days since I wrote anything in my blog.

The truth is, probably like many others, I have been trying to make some sense of what is happening in the country. Clearly the political situation has not quite settled down yet despite the dizzying roller-coaster immediate post-elections phase we just went through. I honestly wonder what the final scenario would be like. I wonder if this new “uncertain” political climate would be a permanent feature. I wonder if the country would end up better off or less so. I wonder if, as a citizen, I should actually be somewhat concerned and perhaps even feel a little afraid!

Probably like many others too, I just don’t know what to make of it all. There are just too many seeming loose ends, sudden turns, delayed response, new demands, surprise moves, unexpected bumps, and rabid speculations. Suddenly we have so many strident voices, interest groups, and power brokers, each with very strong and telling leverage. And there are also some obvious and deep-seated biases and animosities in between some significant key players and factions to further add to the complications.

All these elements tugging in different directions need to be accommodated by the ruling party and the government within the overall game-plan, whatever that is. This is the key to the speedy and positive resolution of the protracted uncertain climate – an overall game-plan executed with statesmanship-like skill and adroitness. This is what is now needed for the healing process. This is what is now needed of the person who is overall in-charge, the incumbent Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister has to provide the needed strategic maneuvering, firm leadership, and statesmanship-like skill untrammeled by any considerations other than the pure interest of the nation and its people within legal and ethical framework – and nothing else. And only he can develop the game-plan for this. Does he have one? Judging by the several about turns, recycled decisions, blatant rebuffs, and thwarted moves he had to submit to recently, it appears as if he does not; at least not a reassuringly reliable one! So far we have neither seen the “statesman-like skill and adroitness” nor the overall “game-plan” coming from him.

To recap the run-up to the general elections, the BN clearly was not able to read the electorate’s sentiments despite the machinery at its disposal. Right up to the polling day, the BN was unaware of the real situations on the ground and the catastrophe waiting. How could something so vigourously speculated by the numerous “teh-tarik stall pundits and panelists” not be effectively captured by the BN’s sophisticated intelligence machinery?

The BN lost five states to the opposition, while at the Federal level it limped home on a Sabah-Sarawak crutch with a hitherto unheard of simple majority – a scenario entirely unthinkable for the BN in its entire history! Pak Lah, the BN Supremo, repeatedly said he was “in charge” but without taking responsibility through any proffered gesture of atonement – not even the most hesitant. In fact the “man-in-charge” kept stoically harping on his party’s “strong majority”; in his words “just eight shy of two-thirds”. How it is possible that the “man-in-charge” can see the same thing so differently from the rest of the country? Or could it be, like Nero, he was busy fiddling?

Then came the cabinet announcement – a team put together to accommodate the many considerations, although seemingly uppermost was ensuring that some trusted stalwarts of the party leader were elevated to this supreme executive grouping. Clearly, it would also seem there was no prior tentative sounding or consultations with other component party leaders or key supporters in naming the cabinet, resulting in several immediate resignations of the appointees, and a growing undercurrent of unhappiness in several quarters.

Soon after, Mukhriz, Tun Mahathir’s son and an UMNO youth committee member, wrote a letter to Pak Lah asking him to resign for the party’s disastrous showing at the general elections. While this action was taken in a purely personal capacity, it was obviously not done in total isolation. Clearly, Mukhriz must have made his calculations, and very likely had some substantial number of party members backing him. After formally reviewing what he did, the UMNO youth decided not to take any action against him. This was certainly a far cry from the party members’ punitive belligerence against the slightest aspersion towards their leader during the Tun Mahathir bashing period! Perhaps the writing on the wall was becoming clearer.

In the meantime the appointments of the Menteri Besar for Perlis and Trengganu ran into unexpected opposition from the respective rulers. Despite the initial firm position of the party leadership in naming its party appointees to the posts, in each case the decision was reversed and a different candidate was appointed. What were the reasons for the sudden ready acceptance of the revised arrangement (especially in the case of Trengganu) when the party leadership’s every pronouncement and every move strongly emphasized its position as legally correct and proper right up to the palace gate? What had caused the sudden capitulation? Would this unchallenged outcome serve to mire the roles of party and palace? Would it actually create a dangerous and uncertain precedent?

On the heels of these disconcerting happenings, a growing unhappiness is surfacing in Sabah, and to a lesser degree in Sarawak, over the allocation of ministerial posts to the two states. And the thinly veiled threat of the opposition to “win over a sufficient number of elected representatives from the two states” roundly serves to make this unhappiness a “potentially fatal challenge” to the BN government. If not immediately and satisfactorily handled BN may no longer even have a Federal government to lead... ... Why was the leadership so callous when naming its cabinet that this factor was not properly given its due emphasis?

Another respected senior party member, Tengku Razaleigh, recently announced his readiness to vie for the party President’ post in order to “save the party” – a clear vote of no confidence in Pak Lah’s continued leadership. Can he muster the needed 58 nominations to challenge the President? At last count, it is rumoured, he has already secured 60! Should he indeed be able to challenge Pak Lah, my guess is that Ku Li would pull through. If Najib, at that point, decides to join the fray and make it a three cornered fight, I think he just might be the winner. Then again who knows what he is really thinking given the very sensitive and difficult position he is in.

Against this backdrop and a growing restlessness among party members and concerned citizens, the former Prime Minister, Tun Mahathir, continued to call for Pak Lah to take responsibility for the BN disastrous performance at the general elections and step down. It is understood that Tun Mahathir is now embarking on a state-by-state call starting with Selangor, Kelantan, and Johore. Assuming this effort was sincerely motivated and made in the interest of the nation, it could still be a totally wasted effort. Going by Pak Lah’s recent past tendency, it would seem more likely that he would dig in his heels against Tun Mahathir’s every wish and advice, no matter if they make sense!

While stridently calling for Pak Lah’s resignation Tun Mahathir also decided to change his mind about his support for Najib to succeed Pak Lah. In the latest development he seemed to think the decision as to who is best to succeed Pak Lah should be left to the party; and the person could be Najib, Ku Li, or Muhyiddin. Why this sudden about turn? Has he found out something about Najib he didn’t know before? Or was it simply a rebuff for Najib’s silence and almost robot-like support for Pak Lah? Or could it be a belated gesture to ease the awkward tension he had created for Najib vis a vis Pak Lah as a result of his undisguised flattering support for Najib and his brutal criticisms of Pak Lah up to now? Who knows!

Amidst all these, the just-appointed minister in charge of “Law” has called for an apology for a twenty year old purported “wrong”. Whatever the merit of this suggestion – moral, legal, or personal – without doubt there will be very strong proponents on both sides of the divide. Without doubt too this sudden “revisit” proposal will create fresh debates and tensions anew. Even if the proposal is sincere and necessary, the timing is certainly lousy. But then who knows what mandate and priorities had actually been given to this hand-picked minister from Kelantan who did not even have to risk contesting the general elections? Perhaps it could even be a part of the yet unseen game-plan.

And there are still many other simmering issues!

The real concern for me is that there seems to be no indication of a clear and credible plan to get the country out of this uncertain political climate. UMNO, the backbone of BN seems to be in abject limbo with no clear direction within it’s heavily factionalised following. Getting UMNO on a firm footing with clear strategic directions and fully aligned behind one clearly accepted and acknowledged leader is the needed first step. Simultaneously, a comprehensive plan to lead the country back to a more settled climate would need to be developed and executed with the earlier mentioned “statesman-like skill and adroitness”.

It will be a long and difficult road back to its pre-2008 general elections pre-eminence and political stability for the BN, and by extension, in the medium term, the country. And Pak Lah has not demonstrated in any way the ability to manage the very difficult leadership role needed to navigate the BN ship out of its troubles – troubles many actually attribute to his doing in the first place.

Too many party members have taken too many opposing positions and said too many intractable words creating severely polarised interest groups within the party, making it difficult for members to genuinely close ranks under the current status-quo. A change in leadership is needed to offer a better chance for realignment within the party. This is the unfortunate reality of the current UMNO situation – and however painful, the issues of personalities, personal interests, pride and preferences will need to be forced aside.

If Pak Lah can bring himself to be totally objective in appraising this current situation he would see that he is already too mired and severely handicapped to effectively continue with any effort to shore up BN’s ignominious slide and to redeem its lost standing and pride. The best thing he can do for UMNO, BN, and the country is to step down and let someone else somewhat less central to the present problems try his hands at salvaging the situation and getting out of this mess!

THE NEW CABINET - HOW GOOD IS IT?

"The new cabinet line-up is good". Or so I had thought upon it being announced, although there were a few immediate question marks.

Why were those not chosen to stand for elections brought into the cabinet? While this makes perfect sense in the case of “technocrats”, it is a real puzzle in the case of full time politicians. Even if the candidates well merit the appointments, the process made it seem like a sudden about-turn somewhere along the line, making one wonder if the whole planning and selection basis for both the elections and cabinet formation had been well planned and fully thought through.

Why was Tan Sri Mohamad Taib included in the cabinet? Although a giant of an UMNO stalwart no doubt, he is also someone who had had his share of adverse publicities and controversies, even well beyond the country’s borders. He cannot be that indispensable to the new cabinet (no one is, including Pak Lah) that he had to be included despite the risk of the stigma of his unfortunate past controversies. His services could have been used and recognised in some other less than such an obvious and almost “I don’t give a damn what the people may say” manner.

Why is it necessary to have an Advisor (of ministerial status) for the Women, Family and Community Development Ministry? How will this “Advisor with ministerial status” operate? Given that the named Advisor, Dato’ Sri Sharizat, was the previous minister in this ministry, her appointment will most likely make it very awkward for Dato’ Dr Ng Yen Yen as a first-time full minister – and might create unnecessary conjectures on the reasons for this unprecedented move, including the trust in Dato’ Ng to do a “fair” job particularly in the area of “race interests”. Is it fair to Dato' Ng? Or is this simply a back-door ministerial appointment to salvage a much regretted “innocent casualty” of the general elections while bypassing the so loudly brandished ruling of “no losing candidate to be appointed”?

These are a few of the more obvious question marks. Then there are perhaps the less obvious, which would probably become more apparent as the days go by.

I sense that apart from the so-called “balance”, “integrity”, “lean” and “giving what the people want” considerations, one other element strongly influencing the selection of the cabinet was the “personal loyalty and trust” consideration. But then perhaps this is only to be expected, especially under the present circumstances when the services of the “Hang Tuahs” might be needed. The problem I see though is that not all the “Hang Tuahs” could be included and satisfied. And those left out, especially those who worked so hard for the general elections and felt they had defended the leadership strongly during some difficult times might feel abandoned – and there’s no telling what they might do.

The other likely problem source is the recognition of the contributions of Sabah and Sarawak in the recent general elections. I sense this cabinet line-up might not be seen as sufficient recognition by the two states, although Tan Sri Taib Mahmood might be satisfied especially when his son was made deputy minister. As for the rest – even Dato’ Shafie Apdal might be seen as having been moved to a lesser ministry. What about the very high representation from Johore? And what about the under-representation of Wanita UMNO? Let's not forget they make up more than 50% of UMNO membership!

Thus, while the new cabinet might seem tentatively "lean and mean" and make us somewhat hopeful, its formation might actually cause some complications for the BN. In the worst case scenario it could trigger a further downward spiral of the BN into uncharted territories. If this were to happen, no BN cabinet could really be effective.

.

So, in the final analysis, what do I think of the new cabinet? What a mess!

SARIKEI REVISITED

I just realized that my last many postings have all been related to the recent general elections. I really should try to take my mind off that even if the debris in its aftermath have not settled down, and are not showing any sign they will any time soon, making the post-general elections scenario somewhat uncertain. But, enough, no more general elections talk for this posting …

At some late stage when friends get together to reminisce, often we hear laments of how “children today are not like when we were children” or “the present students are no longer the same as when we were students” or “today’s generation is so unlike ours” or “how very different the place was then” or “things are not what they used to be”, and many, many more!

All, of course, are true. After all everything changes and with time everything becomes a little, if not altogether different. The thing about the past, though, is that everything always seems to be better and nicer compared to today; and seemingly the farther back the more so. Somehow things of the distant past seem to exude such magic making them seem so appealing and interesting – well, mostly.

Perhaps this appeal of the past has really little to do with the present. Perhaps the mind has a way of filtering out the negative emotions retaining only the beautiful memories and warm nostalgia, magnified over time making the past more attractive than it actually was. Perhaps too, the increasing blank spots would need to be filled to create recall – and filling them with joyous emotions is probably the most logical thing for the mind to do.

I think that was what happened to me some weeks back when I visited Sarikei after so long. Today, the town is four times bigger, the shops better stocked and freshly painted, and the decrepit police station I knew is now a modern beautiful building with its entrance now facing the river. The river-front itself has been nicely spruced up with partial embankment and rows of palm trees, and no longer just a dangerous untidy steep bank plunging into the swirling yellow water. All the roads are well surfaced, very different from the narrow potholed and dusty stretches they once were; and there are no more stray dogs running loose in the streets – and the public toilets are clean.

All in all Sarikei has been transformed into a beautiful, thriving, and really neat town that is way better than the one I knew and briefly lived in a long time back. Yet as I stood there looking at the neat empty lot where the mess once stood, I actually longed for the old Sarikei!

By the way, the BN won in Sarikei – but by a mere whisker of a majority of just over 50 votes or so! This can mean trouble for the BN the next time around. I wonder how many spoilt votes there were… ... oops!

"TAKING RESPONSIBILITY"

What is “taking responsibility”?

The overall credit for success or the overall blame for failure goes to the one with the overall responsibility. In success, this is the person who receives the accolades. The rest of the organisation can only directly take credit for the specific individual, unit, or sub-unit responsibilities. Similarly, in the case of a reversal, the overall blame must remain with the overall leader and decision maker, the person who is overall in charge; the Supremo. The leader cannot bask in the glory of success and reap the accolades but decline the needed atonement in failure!

That is what “taking responsibility” involves – or at least a big underlying part of it.

Tan Sri Dr. Koh Soo Koon, who himself lost the elections, had offered to resign as Acting President of Gerakan, although the offer was subsequently rejected by the Party. Dato’ Sri Ong Kah Ting, who actually managed to win his seat although his party was thoroughly decimated, had declined to be appointed to the new Cabinet in order to focus on strengthening the MCA – and in atonement for the poor showing of the party he leads.

In both cases, the party presidents clearly demonstrated their readiness to “take responsibility” and to atone for the overall poor showing of their respective parties.

Dato’ Seri Samyvellu and Dato’ Keyveas seem unlikely to do anything of the sort. Keyveas, in fact, having lost Taiping and having caused much irritations and dissensions within not a few component parties on the road to securing the Taiping nomination, I understand, is even eyeing a cabinet post, the senator route. How totally different and wide-ranging the responses are between the four BN component party leaders in reaction to virtually the exact same reversal – from offering to resign the party leadership to eyeing a promotion!

And what about the response of the leader of the most senior BN component party, UMNO – the one who is overall in charge, the supremo of both UMNO and BN, the one person who is supposed to set the example for the rest of the component parties and indeed the whole nation itself, of what is correct and ethical conduct?

Certainly he has repeatedly said he is "in charge"! So, what can I say? Perhaps the full drama is yet to unfold, but as of now it certainly does not look like Pak Lah is ready to, in any way, atone for the BN disaster which, by the way, he has not actually recognized as such, preferring to term the BN performance over the week-end as “still having secured a good majority”.

If I were to compare his response to those of the four BN component party leaders above, it would seem he has chosen to go the Samyvellu way. He has not offered to resign either his party or government post like Koh Soo Koon or Ong Kah Ting – and he cannot possibly go the Keyveas way since, unlike the Keyveas case, there is no higher position than the Prime Minister!

PETRONAS TO FUND SECOND PENANG BRIDGE?

If the new Penang Chief Minister’s first press statement immediately after taking office is any indication of what is to come, perhaps we should be worried – at least mildly for now.

Among other things, he asked the Federal Government to ensure that the construction of the second Penang Bridge proceeds as planned and that PETRONAS could fund the project.

The piling work on the mainland side is already in progress. That’s how advance the project is – already way beyond the financing planning phase. So what was the PETRONAS bit all about? Was it an early try at taking an oblique swipe at PETRONAS to draw it into some future topic for debate or what? What connection is there between the second bridge and PETRONAS?

Was he simply ignorant (after all he is from Melaka and not Penang) of the status of this project and was merely and sincerely proposing a way out for the Federal Government? Or was there some mischief intended?

Perhaps it is too early to tell with one press conference – still, at best, it could just be pure ignorance, or perhaps well-intentioned but very poorly considered try at advising the Federal Government. Neither is reassuring!

.

As for his comments on the NEP, let's first see where he's planning to take it...

THE REMBAU SLEIGHT-OF-HAND

I didn’t actually see it but I’m told by those who did, that Khairy Jamaluddin had actually conceded defeat in the Rembau elections, on TV, only to be officially declared the winner some 25 minutes later.

How could this happen? More perplexing still – why is there not even a single chirp up to now from any quarter? Why is there not even a query over this, to say the very least, unbelievably strange episode – and to happen to none other than one who is arguably the next-most central figure in the BN’s week-end disaster? Could there be a much wider conspiracy actually in play involving even the opposition that they should so accommodatingly accept this “sleight-of-hand” show by this young upstart and his team, and whoever else involved?

What is happening? I thought only Pak Lah had been put under this young man’s spell, but now it would seem that the whole country is totally hypnotized by this “anointed son-in-law and his associates” that no one, not even the opposition, would challenge this ridiculous wayang kulit. Surely we are all not this dumb!

Even if the whole very strange episode was indeed a genuine error (although logic tells us the probability of it happening to this particular person in such circumstances is extremely unlikely) we, the electorate, deserve some explanation.

BEING ETHICAL IS MORE THAN JUST BEING LEGALLY CORRECT

.

Yesterday, 8th March 2008, was polling day.

Unlike any previous elections this one had left in its wake many in a state of shock. The outcome was seemingly so unexpected that it surprised everyone – those from the ruling coalition did not expect to do so miserably while the opposition parties, despite their claims, probably did not think they could have done that well.

However, come to think of it, the trio I overheard discussing the elections at the teh tarik stall under the ketapang tree at Medan Tuanku some days earlier had actually speculated on the possibility of such a result (previous posting). Perhaps, unlike the main political protagonists who were thoroughly absorbed in their things and guided by their own many surveys, the man in the street might have had some inkling of the possibility of such an outcome after all. Even the stock market began trending down before the week-end!

The elections had now come and gone. Over the last 24 hours I must have endlessly listened to half a dozen panel discussions and analysis on the subject since the election results started coming in early yesterday evening.

I thought the discussions were, firstly, too academic and repetitive. Secondly, everyone seemed to be tip-toeing around the real issues as seen on the ground – the sins of the BN in general, and the perceived weakness of its leadership (the top-most and those he had surrounded himself with). The outcome of the elections was more a rejection of the BN rather than support for the opposition – a rejection triggered by loss of trust, respect and confidence in the BN leadership and unhappiness and disgust with the performance of the ruling party since the electorate’s high hopes of 2004.

In many constituencies the spoilt votes were more than the majority won, representing perhaps disillusioned supporters denying their support but yet not willing to endorse the opposition outright. Similarly the low turn-out in many areas, some in the low 50plus percent, could also represent the “abstaining” supporters. Clearly the rejection of the BN was not so much because of any real preference, love, or affections for the opposition or any real hope and trust in them, but more because of the unhappiness and in many cases disgust for the ruling party!

How else could we possibly explain what happened? Unlike political party members the majority non-party independent voters (who were responsible for the massive swing) could not possibly vote in concert in the absence of an obvious and shared cause – a cause that must be triggered by commonly perceived, serious, and unacceptable major failings. Only such a phenomenon can create the degree of emotional alignment within millions of independent voters to achieve such a concerted swing.

Clearly the general elections over the week-end was not just a loss for the BN. In many ways and possibly in many cases, it was also a loss for the electorate. It was probably a very difficult choice and a sacrifice for many among them. Some felt forced to vote against their better judgment because of loyalty; some voted with their heads to make a statement and did what was perceived at this point of time as a “painful necessity” despite the warring conscience. And many even decided to abandon their voting right and stayed home!

What happens next would be interesting to see.

Dr Koh Soo Koon, the hard-working and very able former Chief Minister of Penang, and Acting Party President of Gerakan, had taken full responsibility for the state defeat and had indicated his readiness to resign from the post of Acting Party President. This is the expected conduct of a responsible and ethical leader. Samyvellu, it seemed, had not at all even considered resigning; neither had Keyveas; or Ong Kah Ting – and neither had Pak Lah, the key and central figure in the eye of the BN debacle.

Legally of course they do not have to resign unless told to do so by the party – and our political parties are so cowed by the leadership there is small hope in that. But then what is ethical is not just what is legally correct. And although we have to accept that everyone might have different standards for what is ethical and acceptable, we expect our leaders in high positions to also subscribe to high ethics. Perhaps the Rakyat might again have to voice their common take on this!

Whatever happened and whatever the fall-out of the 2008 general elections, I sincerely hope the lessons that came with it would not be wasted. Sadly though, judging by the words and tone of several BN leaders immediately after the results were known, it would seem as if the lessons had not as yet been recognised, or acknowledged.

Perhaps they just need some space to grieve first!

AS I WAS HAVING MY TEH TARIK

All I wanted was a glass of teh tarik.

The stall under the ketapang tree on the sidewalk at Medan Tuanku was nice and shady in the late afternoon sun, and looked clean and tidy too. There were three other customers who obviously had been there for quite a bit judging by the several empty glasses and plates.

Having ordered my teh tarik, I settled down to wait. The three gentlemen were in earnest discussion over something, with their hands freely and actively helping to drive home their points. And they were seated just two tables away, close enough for me to hear everything they were saying even without trying, given the high excitement. “This is going to be really interesting” I thought to myself – embarrassingly nosy, I know!

As I had strongly suspected they were talking politics – centered heavily, it would seem on the likely outcome of the forthcoming elections. I was starting to get really plugged-in into the discussion, which at that point was about the sins of the ruling party, and why they should be given their performance evaluation through the ballots this time around.

To my disappointment, it was at that point that they had to break up – perhaps, come to think of it, I might just have caught the final summing up of their total discussion. As they were getting up to go, I heard the smallest of the three asking the fat one, who was doing most of the performance analysis, that since he had identified so many major sins of the ruling party how he was going to vote. The fat one laughed out loud, adding “Itu hang tak boleh tanya – hang sendiri kena pikiak habis-habis apa yang betui, apa yang tak betui – apa kita kena buat. Hang tak boleh Tanya aku sapa aku nak pangkah!”

I wished I had arrived much earlier – it sounded like a really lively discussion, with some really interesting perspectives of this coming week-end elections. Made me wonder if we might actually be in for some really big surprises.

And all I wanted was a glass of teh tarik!

A SOLDIER'S SIGH

It is Army Day today.

I scanned The New Straits Times papers this morning thinking that among the big early-page stories might be some prominent mention of this very significant event for our Army and its members, both past and present.

Except for a brief mention in passing under the caption “Army out-sources non-essential products, services to trim costs” way on page 24, there was nothing about Army Day. Perhaps there were just too many other far more juicy and important stories to fill the pages. Perhaps, Army Day, however significant it might be to the Army and its approximately one hundred thousand serving and many more past members, just could not compete with the other more attention-grabbing topics.

Perhaps, also, as reflected in the poem below, it is just in the nature of things that we have different emphasis and priorities under different circumstances.


A SOLDIER’S SIGH

When time is good and banners proudly fly
When fortunes soar high in clear blue sky
Who is there to exhort and sigh
To caution vigilance but I?
The soldier in company yet lonely
Sans comfort sans family
Fulfilling his duty willing to die
In hostile waters, or freezing mountain high

When success abounds and failures at bay
When only wealth and profits hold sway
Who is there to lament and cry
For guarded caution but I?
Always alert ever prepared be
In good and bad, in triumph, in adversity

When all is well and everything seems right
When the stars shine ever so bright –
Night after night ……
I would still be there mind and body
Forgoing comfort, luxury, and bounty,
To give my all for King and Country

Though now buoyed by peace and plenty
My vigil may seem to most so trivial be
Yet fair weather will not forever endure
For dark clouds will some day appear
When my vigilance will then hold the key
Ensuring our future, the nation’s safety

Thus when the battle drums be sounded
Eager and proud I shall step forward
And as compatriots fall dead and wounded
I shall be there with them to be counted
– A willing warrior, the nation’s defender
Fighting off threats willing and ready
To sacrifice my all – my sworn duty

Yet I wonder……
When I have given my all and all is over
When dark clouds are gone, skies brighter
When I am done and can soldier no longer
Will the country my sacrifice remember?
I wonder… truly I wonder


Oh well, I’m sure there will be some extensive coverage in tomorrow’s papers of the events taking place in Port Dickson today, and possibly some other feature stories too about the Army. Then again, as in the poem, I wonder…

I wish all serving and past-serving members of the Malaysian Army who have given us so much “Selamat menyambut Hari Tentera Darat”.

ROYAL MALAY REGIMENT DAY

Tomorrow, 1st March, is Army Day.

Actually it is the birthday of the Royal Malay Regiment, which has been declared as Army Day. It was on this day, in Port Dickson, in 1933 that the experimental unit was formed, when a group of 25 Malay youths were selected as recruits to form the first platoon and nucleus of what was to grow to two battalions by the time of the Japanese invasion. Both battalions fought in the defence of Malaya right up to the fall of Singapore.

During the Regiment’s final defence of Pasir Panjang, the platoon at Bukit Chandu, beleaguered and out of ammunition refused to surrender and chose to go down fighting a hand-to-hand combat with fixed bayonets. The platoon was commanded by Lieutenant Adnan who, when finally captured, still refused to surrender and was said to have been subsequently tied to a tree and bayoneted to death by the Japanese.

The courage and fighting spirit displayed by Lieutenant Adnan and his men reflected and epitomized in every way the spirit of the Royal Malay Regiment to this day, true to its motto “Taat Setia” or “Loyalty and Devotion to Duty” in safeguarding the nation.

The island he defended to his death today recognizes Lieutenant Adnan as a hero in a fairly big way – and his courageous deeds are enshrined in a colonial building turned into a museum on Bukit Chandu itself. I also understand the story of Bukit Chandu is today included in their school curriculum. And yet sadly, for whatever reasons, Lieutenant Adnan is yet to be officially recognized as a national hero in his own country.

Could it be perhaps that we are looking for heroes from the ranks of politicians only?

A PERSONAL CRUSADE?

“The thing is I don’t have a choice but to stand. The candidates from Barisan Nasional and PAS never really had the interest of the people in their hearts and only think about themselves”. These were words uttered by a widow, 89 years old, who finally succeeded, on her fifth attempt, to register herself as a candidate for the coming elections as an independent in the Kuala Trengganu parliamentary constituency.

Of the many interesting stories in today’s The New Straits Times (25 February) the above was the one that really grabbed me – not only my attention but emotion as well. It was a story that really got me thinking and wondering for some time. Was this merely the antic of a person of unsound mind; or the inevitable and telling fall-out of the decadence of our elected representatives and our political conscience?

My initial conclusion, made with a dismissive light chuckle, was the first.

I just could not imagine anyone of sound mind in her position in life, looked at from any angle, would even contemplate, let alone actually embark on, such an unimaginable and futile task. I could not imagine a sober widow 89 years old, and in her words “just a simple woman trying to make ends meet each month, selling things door to door” would be willing to spend her hard-earned savings on election deposit which she most likely stands to lose. I cannot imagine what sane and logical motivation could sustain such persistence to make her try for a fifth time after failing in four previous attempts – not failing in the elections but failing to even register herself as a candidate. I just could not believe that such guts and determination, sacrifice, and single-mindedness could possibly thrive in a sane mind.

I could be very wrong; at best I was hastily judgmental.

I overlooked the power of virtues – the virtues of honesty, integrity, responsibility, fairness, and righteousness.

My mistake was the fleeting assumption that such virtues can only exist in those of high standing and in leadership positions. My sin was unthinkingly assuming this lady could not be that virtuous, or had the tenacity to stand by her principle and pursue what she feels is conscionably right all the way, no matter the odds. My error was using my own standards and experience in judging the extent of fairness, justice, and rights denied this lady as seen from her modest station in life. And my most unforgivable inadvertence was to judge her all too summarily.

I shall probably never know for certain her true and compelling motivation for doing and undertaking what she did. But I must not again make the mistake I made in judging her by my own lesser standards and lesser virtues tempered by my own logic and, perhaps, my more fortunate experience.

Her close friend who accompanied her to the nomination centre said “Maimun did not want to change the world. She just needs to have her voice, and others like hers, heard”. This, and her comment quoted earlier "I don't have a choice but to stand” would seem to suggest that, for her, the undertaking was a personal and inevitable crusade for righteousness and what is right, that she simply had to embark on however expensive and ridiculous in the eyes of others.

Good luck Puan Maimun – whatever your motivation, you have shown us what “action is louder than words” means. The bedil you fired (perhaps even louder than the one at sunset for berbuka puasa in Kuala Trengganu) was thunderously loud and clear. Perhaps the words in the song Vincent, “they did not listen, they did not know how – perhaps they’ll listen now” might still come true for you. Then again, you might just end up with the last lyric, “they did not listen, they did not know how – perhaps they never will”!

I can only say that whatever the outcome of your undertaking I think you have won your battle. You would have been true to your conscience – which is more than I can say for many of us in more privileged positions.

OF BLOG AND BLOGGER-BASHING

Of late, bloggers seem to attract increasing flacks from government officials and ruling party members. There have been numerous criticisms and disparaging comments, including one that branded bloggers as “berok” although some good brains and distinguished individuals, some from their own ranks, are also regular bloggers. Of course the slur could have been deliberately aimed at some of them too but conveniently disguised as broadside for all bloggers.

In The Malay Mail, February 20, the Minister of Culture, Arts and Heritage, Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim, commented on the current blogging trend in the country. This was followed by the Minister of Youth and Sports, Datuk Seri Azalina Othman, voicing her opinions on the same topic two days later.

In both cases the remarks seemed to be intended specifically at some opposition members or certain anti ruling-party individuals relating to their use (or misuse and abuse) of blogs for purposes of campaigning for the forthcoming general elections.

Among other things, Datuk Seri Rais said that “blog-bashing is not our culture – and that bloggers should evaluate themselves before indulging in an unhealthy culture of bashing others, including the prime minister, ministers, and other government leaders. This was a challenge to the Barisan Nasional brought about by the general election, but it’s not the nature of BN leaders to resort to using blogsites in their campaigns”. The gist of what Datuk Seri Azalina said was that “rumour-mongering bloggers are cowards and a nuisance to UMNO. They may think they can get away with it but they don’t realise that they are actually being monitored”.

I do not generally disagree too much with what either of them said. I sympathise with those being targeted in the blogs. I agree fully that using the blog to bash others is an unhealthy culture, no matter who is being bashed – be he or she a wayward minor official or the Prime Minister. And I also agree that rumour-mongering, whatever the motivations and regardless of the medium, is just wrong and immoral.

However, I must add that as much as blog-bashing is wrong, so is blogger-bashing!

The downsides associated with blogging must never take away the overall merit and usefulness of blogs in general. Certainly these drawbacks must never be used as excuse for the blanket debunking or rejection of everything coming through the blogs. Abuse aside, the information, views, thoughts, ideas, and critiques can be very useful feedback for the government, its leaders and public officials, provided they are willing to sincerely listen with an open mind.

And we must be able to differentiate between bashing and legitimate criticisms; and between half-truths and total falsehood. And as for rumours, although they can include everything from half-truths to colourful exaggerations and to total fabrications, their believability still essentially depends to a large extent on perception outside the blog. It is unlikely, for example, that any unsubstantiated rumours can really hurt one who is truly honest, fair, responsible, and genuinely committed to serving the people; and perceived to be so.

As I see it, legitimate criticism is one that the person making it genuinely and sincerely believes to be true (having thought through the issue and possibly widely discussed it with many others) and appropriately made. The term “appropriately made” is significant. For example, a blatantly wrong practice conveniently overlooked or quietly blessed, or legitimate criticisms arrogantly dismissed or repeatedly ignored will justify being bluntly, repeatedly, and perhaps even sarcastically and cynically highlighted. This is not bashing.

On the other hand, a concerted condemnation and an overdose of criticism that is unfair and unjustified, taken out of proportion may constitute bashing, although the criticisms may not necessarily be based on total untruth. The real injustice and unfairness in this case is the more-than-fair hurt possibly caused to the individual being unfairly criticized. As I said at the beginning, this is not right – but a “challenge” to the Barisan Nasional Government? With the BN’s ready access to the more powerful print, radio and TV media, etc., calling this a “challenge” actually makes it sound almost insulting to the BN juggernaut.

The blog, in effect, is really still quite limited in its reach for the purpose of mass domestic information dissemination. Its access may be global but it is still generally less-readily and conveniently available to all. Its local readership volume would still be very modest compared to, say, the newspapers or television, which may not always be willing to accommodate some of the more critical if sincere and non-partisan views of the men in the street. The blog provides a means for this purpose. And this should be something to be welcomed!

It is also not too different from the other communication media, including its operations under the law. If a “killing” (to use Rais Yatim’s term) had been made based on absolute falsehood, it would not really matter whether it was done verbally, through a blog, TV, or the mainstream newspapers. The remedy is the same.

The difficulty only arises when the comments or criticisms might not be total falsehood, making pursuing the available remedy inconvenient, awkward, and possibly risky for the supposedly aggrieved party. The blogger on the other hand is always aware that he or she can at anytime be called to account for what he or she writes if the line is crossed – clearly what Azalina’s veiled threat and reminder was all about, when she said “they may think they can get away with it but they are actually being monitored”. This interesting balance can only make all parties more responsible, honest, and truthful – again, something to be welcomed!

I sincerely hope and believe the blogs can serve a bigger and higher purpose in spite of its abuse by some as a tool of deceit, hatred, and selfish ambition. The government, its ministers, and other leaders should be enlightened and farsighted enough to see this, and not be unwittingly frustrated into unwisely and shortsightedly attacking the blogs and all bloggers – grudgingly and uncaringly throwing out the baby with the bath!

As I had said earlier on, I agree totally with the Culture, Arts and Heritage Minister that blog-bashing should not be a culture; but I would repeat, neither should blogger-bashing. The Minister, in his comments, also cautioned those who blog for condemning everybody but themselves, quoting the Malay adage “when the forefinger points to the front the thumb points to your chest”.

I agree with this too – although he himself seems to be doing some lively pointing!

ORANG UTANS?

I could not believe Nik Aziz would publicly call UMNO members (or for that matter anyone at all) orang utan – and this after having advised his party members not to be insulting to their adversaries. Perhaps he was exempted from his own advice.

His utterance was just so reminiscent of the quarrelsome words of wet-nosed five-year olds in my kampung during my childhood days only that we insulted one another using the more familiar word “kera”. I wonder if Nik Aziz’s “inadvertence” (although he arrogantly claims his action was deliberate and his words aptly chosen) was innocently prompted by such nostalgic recall of his childhood days, which can increase with age!

Despite my lack of respect for his administrative ability in running Kelantan, I sincerely believed that he was reasonably wise, decent, respectable, and devoutly religious. Yet he certainly could not have been any of those if he could resort to such blatant crudeness. Clearly his actions, including his totally unrepentant, unhesitating, and patronising claim of righteousness after such crude and derogatory utterances, were just too much out of character from that of a person of wisdom, decency, respect, or religion.

But then I really should not be too surprised. After all he was the same person who said “Tuhan mencarut”, that “it’s ok to befriend Satan”, and a few more such “gems” that I cannot offhand exactly recall. So much for the examples this “man of religion” sets and the religious edicts he stands by.

No matter what he might have thought or intended, or how hard he tried to justify the arrogant blunder, his actions were just pathetic, and inexcusable. He should have realised, before saying what he did, that of the four million plus UMNO members there must be many who were far better than him, in whatever respect – which would sadly make him by his own analogy very much an inferior orang utan!

It’s amazing what politics, especially at election time, can do. To quote Obama, “We’re up against the idea that it’s acceptable to say anything and do anything to win an election. But we know that this is exactly what's wrong with our politics. This is why people don't believe what their leaders say anymore.”

It sounds like they are not too different – only that they don’t openly call one another “monkeys” even when they have one in the White House so compellingly deserving of the comparison.

NEW-LOOK KHIR TOYO

The Star, 5th February, under its Other News & Views column reported “Selangor Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Mohd Khir Toyo’s looks caught the media’s attention again, when Utusan Malaysia reported on his denial that he underwent facial surgery or Botox injections. Dr Mohd Khir was speaking…… on Sunday, when he said his youthful looks were mainly due to his diet of tempe or fried soyabeans, a Javanese delicacy.”

I have met Datuk Seri Dr Mohd Khir Toyo close up many, many times before. When I first saw his picture with the new looks I couldn’t tell it was him. There was admittedly a faint resemblance, but the same Dr Khir Toyo? Impossible – unless he did what some had done. And so after much staring at the new looks and some hard recall of the earlier looks I had simply assumed, probably like many others, that the Datuk Seri had felt he needed the new looks, and duly availed himself of the wonder of facial surgery or Botox injection!

And yet he had denied either of these. While I do not think this subject deserves discussions, I do want to say that attributing his new looks to tempe diet seems preposterous beyond belief. But then we hear that those who will be standing at the next election (and I presume he will) must be honest and capable leaders. So He could not be telling an untruth could he? Well, unless of course that’s only for the new upcoming term onwards – or that he is not planning to run…

Anyway I am so glad I will not be voting in his constituency. I cannot imagine what to believe. How can I really know the truth – start eating tempe and see what happens? That might take forever (I will most likely die first) although it seemed to work instantly for him. And yet the truth is critical in determining if he is worthy of my vote, or of anyone’s vote for that matter. If he could lie blatantly over such a “super-facial” issue imagine what can happen!

This is not therefore about the new looks but more about whether Khir Toyo lied blatantly or if he had actuallly discovered a dietry miracle. Well, enough said – after all I’m not in his constituency and shouldn’t really worry if I am being directly lied to despite the fresh promise.

MY UNPUBLISHED LETTER

Over the last few years I have sent several letters to different mainstream newspapers – none was ever published! While respecting their right to not publish my letters, I honestly believe they were not doing the public any favours by denying them some home truth, however unpalatable to some. Is it not their duty to present the views of all sides, of all shades and colours, as long as they are not total untruth or slanderous?

To make my point, I would like to share with the readers one of the letters that I had sent in to all the mainstream papers but was never published. The letter is now, of course, somewhat outdated and will have to be read against the background of events that were taking place when it was written – at the height of the Tun Mahathir bashing. The following is the main extract of the letter:

.

“I’m getting very confused with all the goings-on in the country of late – when elders, and just about every notable political personality or rising aspirant, squabble in public without restraint; when condemnations are heaped on an elder all because he insists on exercising his right. In this case he also happens to be a “very well informed elder” who wants to see (some claim, unreasonably and destructively) something wrong being put right.

Is that not something to be welcomed? Is that not, in fact, the right of all citizens? So why the seeming vendetta?

All these are very confusing to me, not having access to the “inner” thinking. Like many others I can only try to make sense of it all from the street level. I thought I would put my layman observations and views, confused as they are, in a poem to be shared with your readers.

MY LAYMAN QUANDARY

He had achieved so much – way much more than many had ever thought possible
He made us believe the feats we can do – and gave such confidence to our people
He was tireless and determined when fighting for issues that were of importance
Just as he was uncompromising and fearless in pursuing the interest of our nation

Had he really been all these? I had thought so, like so many others in the millions
When they asked him to remain in the position; chanted his virtues, his brilliance
Yet it would seem he had become so different, spewing venom at every utterance
And drawing such condemnations even from those he had tutored and championed

How could I have been so wrong to believe in him for all the great things he did?
How could he be this irresponsible and outright traitorous as the many have said?
The cheek of him to criticize with such arrogance; what right did he think he had?
He ought to be muzzled, his rights removed, expelled from the team he recently led!

It is hard for me the uninformed and unconnected to fathom all these intelligently
To feel indebted to someone so deeply only to be told he is such knave suddenly
Yet such seems to be the views of the informed, spouted with such fierce emotion
As if competing with one another to come up with the most scathing condemnation

Such strong words and emotion in our culture must come from strong motivation
For we do not lash out with blatant rudeness to elders regardless of the situation
And more so if that someone had our dizzy approval during his impressive tenure
Who had our respect, who toiled and worked endlessly to make the country better

Yet today they say he is bent on attacking and destroying our newly added edifice
Out of sheer jealousy, missing the glory, whatever, since voluntarily leaving office
All not making sense, but the competing gladiators must know what they’re saying
For like Anthony said “…Brutus is a wise man, and so are they all, all wise men”

Yet I worry when too much righteousness is assumed by wise men such as them
When logic and fairness are smothered silent with such intense and fiery emotion
When wanton condemnations are readily made without sober fair considerations
When everything is just black or white and nothing in between, allowing no options

And so I remain in this quandary – to trust these wise men or my modest instinct
Join this feeding frenzy or perhaps use my God-given faculty and for myself think
For I remember a recent poem that might have bearing on this unhappy, sad state
Strongly urging the silent many to start thinking for themselves before it’s too late”

.

There you are – that was one of the letters that never got published. Now I ask you, what was so unacceptable in the letter that it deserved to be silenced – the truth?

We, the Rakyat, need to make our voices heard on matters of concern to sometime help the leaders make better decisions and do the right thing. This is a key role of the people. And we should be able to have access to facilities for such communication, and not be shut out simply because what we say differ from the prevailing “popular” views. In any case, such a move will really not stop us from thinking. And surely we do not want to create an unthinking nation in the first place, do we? Or do we?

Shutting out my letters and not letting me share my thoughts seems to say “indeed we do”!

ONLY CREDIBLE LEADERS WILL BE ACCEPTED ...... REALLY?

In my last article (posted just a few hours ago) related to the leadership’s call to “vote only for capable leaders” I said “what might have been reassuring to hear as well was the commitment to a step-up effort in ensuring all Coalition candidates will meet these expectations.” And since there was no assurance I simply ended up with asking, “Am I missing something here?”

Today’s The New Straits Times, 23rd January, carried an article “Abdullah: Only Credible Ones Will Be Accepted”. During a two-hour closed door meeting with aspiring UMNO leaders, the UMNO President and Prime Minister, among other things, purportedly told the delegates that “the BN candidates in the coming general election would be those who were willing to work for the people, regardless of their race, and were not self-serving and corrupt”.

This was seemingly the kind of assurance that I said was missing with the leadership’s earlier call to “vote only for capable leaders” – thus the need for this immediate chaser. What should now be determined is how credible an assurance was that report and how much it might actually allay the concern, disappointment, and sense of being let-down enumerated in my previous article. Offhand, I can make three points for deliberations.

Firstly, this report was made at a closed-door meeting and only picked up by the papers based on what was said by the delegates. It was, as such, not a first-hand report. So, why does it matter as long as the report was accurate? Why it matters is that it was basically an “internal procedural clarification” clearly designed to achieve some internal party objectives (repositioning the mind-set and managing expectations of party members most likely). It was therefore neither an assurance given to the electorate, nor a declared commitment towards ensuring the achievement of this stated new standards.

Secondly, this “new standards” was needed because “research by three organisations showed voters were more discerning about the quality of candidates fielded by a political party”. The move, as such, was primarily motivated by the need to win votes – not because of a genuine realisation of the need for it or the sincere motivation to better serve the interest of the electorate. If at all, perhaps only secondarily. A severe conclusion to arrive at perhaps, but the logic stands – why else was this move (be it just mere statement at this stage) not triggered earlier?

Thirdly, this is a statement of intent the realisation of which will be a real challenge – the challenge to ensure that all BN candidates are completely honest and sincere, ethical and capable, trustworthy and reliable, putting the interest of the Rakyat and the country above everything else always in each and every case. What a challenge this is; make no mistake. And if we are really serious, the effort will need to be grounded on, and supported by, a massive process and procedural redesign and internal policies revamp. And it will take time to develop and implement!

Anything short of a concerted effort will not even scratch the surface of what is now an ingrained culture, and the promise of bringing about the much hoped-for change will remain yet another unfulfilled promise. Given that the election is around the corner, and there is nothing to suggest any such effort to bring about this new performance culture is in place, is it realistic to even remotely assume it can come about?

Am I missing something here too?

VOTE ONLY FOR CAPABLE LEADERS

The Deputy Prime Minister called on the electorates (The New Straits Times, Saturday 11th January) to vote only for “capable leaders” who can do the job. This is very sound advice – as sound as the Prime Minister’s appeal to “not allow any form of extremism to destroy our nation and to speak up and make our voices heard and fight against all excesses”. Both comments basically lead to the same exhortation – for the Rakyat to think carefully and do what is right.

I suggested (see my previous story on “MODERATES MUST LEAD”) that Pak Lah’s comment be taken in its totality and in the widest possible context, ensuring always of course, they are in the interest of the nation. Similarly I would also suggest that Dato’ Seri Najib’s statement be likewise received, especially the interpretation of the phrase “capable leaders”.

When it comes to “Wakil Rakyat” the need to interpret the phrase “capable leaders” in its broadest sense becomes all the more necessary given the more all-embracing role they have to play. After all, they are the representatives of the people. The confidence and sincere respect of the people for them must be their most important Key Performance Indicator, if not one of the objectives itself.

The word “capable” must therefore be defined to not just reflect efficiency and effectiveness in getting the job done (all too often conveniently and narrowly interpreted as bringing about development) but also the way they go about it – the honesty and sincerity, the trustworthiness and reliability, moral integrity, ethics, values, the wisdom and humility etc., etc. in the individuals elected and entrusted by the people to do the job. The word “leaders” reflects the leadership positions, emphasizing the need for these attributes, and whatever else expected of leaders. I’m sure this was what was actually intended by the Deputy Prime Minister when he used the phrase “capable leaders”.

If that was the case, what might have been reassuring to hear as well was the commitment to a step-up effort in ensuring all Coalition candidates will meet these expectations. Without that assurance, it can only mean it is very much “business as usual”; meaning the Coalition is satisfied that all their candidates are already at that level. The question then is whether the electorates really believe that – have all the elected representatives been what they should be? Have they all been completely honest and sincere, ethical, trustworthy and reliable, putting the interest of the Rakyat and the country above everything else always, in each and every case”? Have they all indeed been the “capable leaders” as defined above?

In the absence of any commitment to bring about a real change in the performance culture of these elected candidates, it means we are expected to accept and be satisfied with the Coalition candidates’ quality and performance continuing as they are today – evidently being their benchmark of “capable leaders”. In effect, therefore, when we are asked to “vote only for capable leaders”, we are being asked to vote for the same-mould candidates (with the majority even likely to be current incumbents) and the promise of the continuing exact same culture, performance, and scenario!

Am I missing something here?

OF YOUTHFUL IDEALISM AND IMPOSSIBLE DREAM

The young man, looking like he was still in his late teens, seemed to know exactly what he wanted to be and do in life – not doctor, or lawyer, or accountant, or architect, but a politician, and God-willing, the Prime Minister no less. His motivation was simple – he believed many things were not as they should be in the country and that he could do a better job of handling it.

I was impressed, very impressed – impressed by the calm confidence, his matter-of-fact demeanour, the certainty in his voice, and most of all by what he articulated.

“I would ensure all the races are at the same performance level with about similar performance capacity, strong work ethics, and a common value system. I want to make sure corruption is wiped out and there is a blossoming of trust and goodwill all round. I would assume direct responsibility for the effort and the entire machinery myself to ensure that everything is run fairly, efficiently, and effectively. I would work to get the support and trust of the entire nation and use our total wisdom and energy for the effort, while ensuring everyone understands, adheres to, and works within the existing established ground rules until the objective is fully achieved”

Wow, I said to myself, all that sounded so, so good!

I was so tempted to believe in him and all that he planned to do but, understandably, my mind almost immediately dismissed all that as mere fancy words and youthful idealism. After all we have had many noble-intentioned, high-flying, well-positioned, capable, young party aspirants with such all-fired idealism who have sidetracked along the way. And, of course, the real question is “Is it possible to achieve all that?”

As if in a "fast-foward" and as if reading my mind, he calmly said, “Of course – don’t you realise that we have actually achieved most of them since I actually took over? We have become more efficient as a nation; corruption is way down and on its way out; our delivery system is one of the best in the world; our leaders are the very epitome of what is honourable, fair, honest, sincere, wise, knowledgeable, and committed, with the interests of the people and the nation at heart and above everything else, always – and the Wakil Rakyat are all now behaving and performing in Parliament the way Wakil Rakyat should. See for yourself!”

And, somehow, we were suddenly at the Parliament House (at the visitors’ gallery in the Dewan Rakyat, in fact), and I could actually see what he meant – the House was full; the Wakil Rakyat were virtually in full attendance with everyone properly and impressively dressed; and they were conducting themselves with such decorum and dignity; and the lively debate was civil and dignified, truly impressive and of such high quality… I just could not believe what I saw and heard! They were conducting themselves exactly as in my poem “Trust and Expectation” (see my first posting).

“How did you manage to do all these?” I turned to him and asked. He smiled and replied, “I’m the Prime Minister and I only have to sincerely and honestly …” but just at that instant the alarm clock went off and I woke up – ending what was really a wonderful, wonderful dream. I couldn’t help being impressed by the articulate teenager who believed and calmly argued he could run the country better than it is being run today. Not only was I convinced, I actually saw what could possibly be achieved and I actually felt reassured.

The trouble with dreams is that we cannot count on them – at least not for certain. And not unless we do the necessary to make them happen!

INFORM US FIRST......

I started with being mildly amused by the suggestion that we should first inform the Indonesian authority every time we want to use anything associated with culture purportedly originating from what is today Indonesia. Thinking about it a bit more, I became quite annoyed – and then actually worked myself into a real state of utter disgust, feeling thoroughly incensed at the sheer audacity of the suggestion. And we talk about being “serumpun”! What BS. What double BS!

Can Malaysians of Bugis, Javanese, Sumatran etc. ancestries not claim their heritage and continue to practice them here? If they can, why can we not acknowledge that as part of the country’s many and varied cultural practices, no matter where they originate from? What if, say, a substantial number of Kadazans were to emigrate and settle down in, say, Tarakan or Pulau Bunyu (although I cannot imagine for a moment why they would want to do that) and bring along their Sumazau? Is Indonesia saying it cannot acknowledge this as one of the cultural practices of their people? And that if, in some way, they wish to do so, they will have to first inform the Malaysian government each time?

Stupid doesn’t even begin to describe the suggestion!

If we agree to this ridiculous and pompous suggestion, I suggest we also inform India, China, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Philippines, the Middle East countries, etc., etc. whenever we want to publicly perform anything originating from those countries. And once we get on to this slippery slope we might as well also inform the Portuguese Government whenever we want to have a Ronggeng display.

Kekwa oh Kekwa – what have we done that we should be so unflatteringly accused of stealing other people’s “flowers”? We have not, in our exuberance, tried to rename them all Kekwas on the quiet have we?

WHY DO I BLOG?

Hi Tok & Nek ... I miiiiiissssshhhhh you ...

.

.

After visiting my blog, a close and dear friend asked, “What do you really think you can achieve – do you think anyone will care? Will whatever you write serve any purpose? What do you actually hope to get out of it?”

I knew that the questions and the way they were asked were not meant to be unkind, or to ridicule me or my blog in any way. Perhaps he was just trying to be empathetic believing (and most likely rightly) my effort would not make an iota of difference to anything. Perhaps they were also an extension of his frustrations and disgust, and possibly a sense of helplessness, arising from that conviction. And then again, perhaps he was sincerely and simply trying to find out what I really might be thinking.

These were questions that I had not seriously thought about, and his very dismissive tone had actually caught me by surprise. Going more by instinct, I said to him, “What I know I have achieved is that I have made me feel good in voicing, for what they might be worth, my sincere views on some issues in the country – as for anyone caring, some might, I hope. Does it serve a purpose? It does for me – I feel as if I am offering a tiny little something to share with my fellow Malaysians, with the hope that some might feel as I do and begin sharing their thoughts as well”.

And for completeness I added, “... it really started as a means of keeping in virtual touch with my 2 year-old cucu in Toronto!” That obviously could have no possible argument, and definitely satisfied him. Thanks Sasha – I miiiiissshhh you too!

FREEDOM WITHOUT REAL EXPRESSIONS

Contrary to some opinions, I sincerely believe the freedom of expressions in this country is more than adequate. In fact, I think it is under-utilised.

When it comes to public expressions, there is really no such thing as freedom without limit. There must always be limit. The disagreement, very often, is really about where the limit ought to be – and it should not be a global one-size-fits-all application. The answer should be where it provides the most benefit to the country allowing for healthy and meaningful majority feedback but not too liberal giving unnecessary space for creation of wasteful distractions. In other words, the limit at any point of time should be where it can best serve the interest of the majority and the nation.

In a sense it is quite analogous to managing a meeting – ensuring enough opportunity for everyone to contribute and generate ideas while effectively managing those who overly dwell on issues beyond what is necessary. The meeting must have constructive and meaningful input but not unnecessary distractions.

Sticking with this analogy, this is how our meeting goes – a large number are dutifully nodding and agreeing with everything said by the Chairman; another group actively and energetically muttering issues under their breath among themselves but not putting them on the table; and a small group saying anything and everything all too passionately while insisting they should even be allowed “to dance on the table”.

Clearly we are not managing our meeting well at all.

Those dutifully nodding should be asked what exactly they were vigourously nodding their heads for, what exactly they were agreeing with, why, and what further added-value ideas they can contribute. Those muttering under their breath should be asked what they were busy muttering about and have their views or ideas openly discussed. Those saying anything and everything and still insisting on being allowed to “dance on the table” should be quickly put in their place and “made to be more reasonable” – clearly their conduct had become too much of a distraction undermining whatever good ideas they might have tried to put forth.

How would they view their “freedom to express themselves” at this table?

Those dutifully nodding their heads most likely felt they had complete and total freedom – to agree with anything and everything the Chairman said. Those muttering under their breath had something to say but did not (probably unsure or had not adequately thought through the issues and were consequently hesitant) but grudgingly felt the Chairman was to blame for not being more encouraging. Those saying anything and everything and insisting they even be allowed to “dance on the table” felt they had no freedom to express themselves (their views, thoughts, feelings, emotions, personal interests – and dance skills).

I said at the beginning that freedom of expressions in this country is “under-utilised”. I say so because I think the majority of us in this country fall under the first two categories at the table. We have not really become fully engaged – contributing only, at best, to a modest and still unclear majority views (although many quarters claim their views are the majority views). The extent of running space and limit on freedom of expressions in this country has thus never been fully tested by a truly responsible majority voice.

To a certain extent, this situation can be blamed on the haughtiness and dismissive stance of those in authority and their limited tolerance for differing viewpoints, and the very partisan nature of our communication media. But these are only derivative causes and minor ones – the real reason, I sincerely believe, is that the majority of us have chosen to adopt the more convenient role of “cheerleaders”.

We pick sides on practically every issue based on emotions, self interests, and affiliations – and on immediate or short term considerations. Whichever side has our support (the many interest groups, agitators, opposition, disgruntled politicians, those in authority, the government) we readily and energetically cheer them on – and often also skillfully add our own spin to make the cheering more colourful. The much needed value-add step (thorough, impartial, and sincere scrutiny of their ideas, actions, and conduct; and equally sincere and constructive feedback) is seldom, if ever, carried out.

Freedom of expressions must support the majority interest and must be exercised by a thinking and responsible majority. Until we learn to become fully and constructively engaged in the interest of the nation on a non-partisan basis, a meaningful majority voice cannot emerge. And our freedom of expressions will remain “freedom without real expressions”.

WE CAN DISAGREE WITHOUT BEING DISAGREEABLE

I briefly watched both Obama and Clinton give their respective speeches immediately after the New Hampshire primary a short while back.

Obama was looking young and fresh, Clinton slightly less so; one made his speech to look off-the-cuff, the other referred off-and-on to a prepared text; one upbeat and rousing and filled with catch phrases, the other slightly more subdued and measured – but both said they wanted to bring change while assuring the American people a bigger role in running the country. Obama repeated his stand on the key issue of US troops in Iraq while I didn’t hear Clinton touch on it. Otherwise, and apart from personality and style, the message were not too different.

What I did find really interesting though was that both picked on a slogan that we Malaysians have made our unique rallying call for almost two decades – “Malaysia Boleh”. Both Obama and Clinton used the phrase “we can”. In the case of Obama, he repeated it over and over, seemingly making it another of his rallying catch phrases for the rest of the campaign. He also talked about making the moon the frontier, and conquering the highest mountains. We have been pushing our young people to conquer the poles and Everest, sail the high seas, and recently sent someone into space. I wonder if both, especially Obama, have been eavesdropping and watching what we have been doing!

To be fair, we must therefore also pick a few learning for our own from them. Both asked the people to be more involved with the affairs of the nation, as Obama said (perhaps somewhat clichéd) “what you, the people, can do to change America”. Perhaps we, all Malaysians, should also ask ourselves and honestly examine what we collectively can do to make this country a better Malaysia.

Obama also said “we can disagree without being disagreeable”. This is a great phrase underlying so much common sense wisdom yet so difficult to sincerely practice.

For us in Malaysia, given some of our peculiar and unique features, it can only become that much more difficult, but we need to start working towards making that our culture and the accepted norm. We need to learn to disagree and yet not be disagreeable. This is the only way for us to bring about a truly genuine and meaningful majority voice and gain from the potential richness of ideas and contributions – even within our existing framework and structures.

Hey, let’s not let Obama and Clinton copy from us without us getting something back!

STATING THE NEGLECTED OBVIOUS

I thought Dato’ Dr. Mohd Tap gave an extremely good and interesting interview on the subject of the standards of conduct expected of leaders (The New Straits Times, Sunday 6th January). He was articulate, forthright, and totally honest – every bit true to the trust he holds in his position as the President of Integrity Institute Malaysia.

I sent him a note (SMS) saying as much. He responded by saying that he was just stating the obvious. My reply to that was “which is needed since we are very good at ignoring the obvious”, which I sincerely think we are – starting from the little everyday things to matters of national importance; from the men in the street to leaders in high positions.

I found the many points made by Dato' Dr. Mohd Tap, especially his strong reiteration that leaders must lead by examples and must be beyond reproach, a real welcome reminder. A fundamental test of leadership is understanding oneself and one's own capacity - does one have the ability and sincere willingness to do what one is supposed to do, to act the way one is supposed to act, to live by the values and principles one is supposed to live by? If at all one is a leader (no matter how big or small, as supposed to being something else) these are the honest qustions one should sincerely ask oneself in deciding whether to offer one's service to be a leader or not.

What Dato' Dr. Mohd Tap did not say, and did not have to, was that for those who cannot live up to that principle then they really have no business occupying their high positions, or fighting so hard to get there in the first place.

NATIONAL SERVICE AND MY DAUGHTER

Our youngest daughter left last Sunday for her three-month national service training – at Junaco Park Camp in Sibu, Sarawak.

When she received the notice of her selection for the training she was devastated, and desperately tried to sweet-talk us into finding ways to get her out of it. We made it clear to her that we were extremely happy and thankful that she got selected – we also made it equally clear that once she was selected she had to go, that’s it, period.

Of course we didn’t quite leave it at that – we needed to make sure she would go to Sibu a happy and reasonably motivated trainee, not a sulking unhappy teenager with a closed mind. So we quickly embarked on an aggressive national service promotion in-house. I was very confident that our effort would make her come round to accepting it more positively before the training start-date. I was wrong – the bias must have been more deep-seated than I had thought. Izadeana was unconvinced right up to the time we waved her goodbye as she sat teary-eyed on the bus at Bukit Jalil on her way to KLIA for her flight to Sibu.

Her last SMS to us before surrendering her mobile phone to the camp on arrival that night was “I want to go home”.

The thing of it is, ED (as we usually call her), is very much an outdoor person with a lot of friends – the kind of teenager that I thought would have really looked forward to the National Service experience. She had gone for a two-week camping on a farm in Perth with her class-mates (organized by her former kindergarten) when she was 11, camped at an Orang Asli settlement at 14, climbed Mount Kinabalu (picture) and did white-water rafting in Jeram Besu at 15. She had always been ready to try new things, and had always enjoyed herself at our modest farm in Behrang. So, what had caused this very strong aversion for the National Service training?

And if the number of no-shows at Bukit Jalil on that Sunday was any indication, this reluctance was not just confined to the like of my daughter. Of the 97 scheduled to leave for Sibu from the Klang Valley, only 52 turned up, a no-show of over 46%. This might only be for the Klang Valley-Sibu group and the overall percentage could be less alarming – but still such a waste!

I sincerely believe our National Service Programme is an excellent project. Could it have been better planned and managed? Most definitely – but it is now in place and moving on. As it is, the programme is already in its fifth year and functioning smoothly compared to when it was first hurriedly implemented. We have to keep on working at it until we have the perfect product. Given positive and genuine support of the whole country, it can become a very powerful integration and nationalism nurturing tool – but the people must truly believe that first.

We clearly need to “sell” the National Service Programme more effectively to really win the “hearts and minds” of the whole country (parents and children) convincingly once and for all. I suspect it is currently more a case of “grudging acceptance” with most parents praying really hard for their children not to be selected – and the children shouting “Amen” at the top of their voice!

I hope ED will come back in March a total advocate of the National Service Training and prove me right.

DAMNED IF YOU DO, DAMNED IF YOU DON'T

Have you noticed how many more blind beggars are working the public places these days? Only recently, at a SriHartamas open eating joint, I counted five begging teams, the last pair working the round at 2am just before my group left. Obviously they work till very late – I’ll give them that. And very diligently too (my brother-in-law said on one occasion he was approached by the same pair of blind gentleman and his lady assistant twice in one night at the same table, an hour apart).

To be fair, it is not totally correct to say they are out-and-out begging because nearly all of them also offer reciprocal “gift” items of sort – small packets of tissue, book markers, tiny note-books, wise-word stickers, or the like, in return for the “donations”. This arrangement, I’m sure, makes them feel somewhat less of a beggar and gives them a greater sense of legitimacy for what they do.

Clearly, quite a lot of preparations would have gone into getting to that stage – to decide on the areas to work on and the time-table and routine (different places on different days), the routes to take, the needed logistics to get to the target operating areas (they probably don’t live anywhere near SriHartamas, for example), to select and acquire the products (in bulk to get them at the cheapest possible), to arrange for an assistant to accompany the principle player, and possibly quite a few other things.

It doesn’t take much to figure out that what we have here is a slick “business” – planned, organized, and managed by those who are clearly willing to trade in the misfortune of the less fortunate and the compassion of the public. Although this realisation can only undermine the goodwill and compassion of many would-be donors yet, somehow, this does not seem to impact the “collection”. The public continue to give, but probably with less “keikhlasan”, including me!

So, what’s the point I’m trying to make? I really don’t know. I do know I get irritated (from mildly to immensely) whenever I’m approached by these “sponsored” teams. I quietly rebel inside yet reluctant to be judged by the neighbouring tables or my children, or risk starting my wife’s “aaah…biar lah………………”, and being made to seem petty and small!

The closest I can equate my quandary in such situation is to leaving the mosque after Friday prayer making haste to catch a particularly urgent meeting, only to find the car blocked by another car, double-parked, and whose owner decided to have an extra lengthy wirid. Do I make an issue of it when he finally arrived or do I just ignore it? I still have not quite worked out the better approach – I still feel damned either way!