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?