Do it, even though you may not get the credit

I really like this video, even though it is in Thai, and not English. The short midget in the video is the embodiment of the "never say die" attitude that we need among the citizens, and his selfless efforts are enjoyed by all.

It is true that in life, we sometimes sacrifice for others without them even knowing. And other people, who may know it or not, often take credit for the work that we do. But if you want to do something for the good of the people, do it, even though you may not get the credit.

Too often, we hear others grumble that this isn't good enough, or that isn't as it should be. And if you should catch them in that moment when they grumble in response to something that has just happened, it is the right time to ask, "What will you do about it?" And you shouldn't be surprised to hear the response, "I will not do anything...."

Why do some people insist on doing nothing?

Because it's easier to do nothing, than to do something. Just stay put.

Because doing nothing costs nothing. And you don't believe in being generous.

Because when you do something, you risk doing it wrong. And getting criticised for it.

Because there are just too many things that need doing. And so it's easier to leave it all aside and let it sort itself out.

And because doing nothing frees up time for doing something. Because when you decide to do something, you cannot do nothing.

But there's a misconception there.

Because by doing nothing, it costs you nothing today. But that doesn't mean that it will not affect you tomorrow.

Because what you do (or don't do) today will affect you, tomorrow.

And because doing nothing when you could have done something means having forfeited your right to take positive action to save yourself.

So do something.

Save the country. Save yourselves. Don't just stand there....

1 Malaysia and the new Malaysian equation

Malaysia's sixth Prime Minister, Dato Seri Najib Tun Abdul Razak, has taken the helm of the nation and has just completed the first 100 days of his ascent to office. Along with it, he has promoted the slogan, "1 Malaysia", in order to unite the variegated communities in this nation and encourage nation building. The slogan has, however, been quite ambiguous in its interpretation, no thanks to the vagueness of what it means. It has not been spelt out in full. What do my fellow Malaysians make of this slogan? What does it mean? Malaysia has always been one and the same. Yet we all have our own views of what Malaysia means. East and West Malaysia? Rich and poor Malaysia? Privileged and unprivileged Malaysia? Modern and backward Malaysia? Malay and non-Malay Malaysia? Bumiputra and non-Bumiputra Malaysia? Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat Malaysia? What does it mean?

As a nation which aspires to walk together to mutual prosperity in the new millenium, we have faced setback after setback since the turn of the millenium. We now approach the end of the first decade of the millenium: what can we do to achieve unity amongst our children, and grandchildren? My personal opinion is that efforts should be made to recognise, and incorporate, the various communities. They who are backward, no matter where they are, no matter what race and no matter what religion, should be given equal opportunity to progress. If a prime minister is sincere, he must give equal opportunity to all people, and not institutionalize the segregation and victimization of minority communities. Indeed an equation for a multi-racial country can be considered fair only if the majority consider it acceptable and fair to switch places with the minority. If it were otherwise, all talk by representatives of the majority is only word of mouth, and unrepresentative of anything significant.

What do you think?

**************

Further reading:

• Our Prime Minister's blog at www.1Malaysia.com.my (English section)
• NST: They criticise 1Malaysia but, horrors, they want Najib to succeed (25-6-2009) Extract: "The ‘People First, Performance Now’ enunciation last week in the Dewan Rakyat was the first time he pitched it inside the House before the meanest horde of cynical sceptics from PKR, DAP and Pas, whose MPs’ hearts may agree with the basic precepts of 1Malaysia but predictably, whose political heads went with beastly instincts - rip the concept at its infancy before it can grow some legs."
• The Malaysian Insider: The malaise of 1Malaysia (24-6-2009) Extract: "But what about the rest of the country? What about the Chinese, Indians, Kadazandusuns, Dayaks, Sikhs, Eurasians and others? What role will they play in a Malay unity government? Who will look after the interests of non-Malays? Will crumbs be tossed their way?"
• Khairy Jamaluddin: 1Malaysia vs 3Malaysia (3-7-2009) Extract: "In BN, there clearly exists a working understanding between the component parties - this system has been the foundation of our leadership and the harmony within the coalition."
• Bernama: Islam Hadhari has similarity to 1Malaysia (30-6-2009) Extract: "Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Maj-Gen (R) Datuk Jamil Khir Baharom said the Opposition claim that Islam Hadhari had failed and not linked to 1Malaysia was untrue."
• Bernama: Najib confident BN, UMNO and Malaysia will support liberalisation measures (3-7-2009) Extract: "Times have changed, old instruments have not really worked, not delivered. But this whole notion of having a fair and equitable society is a dream and I think all Malaysians share that dream. It is just that it must be fair in the way we implement it, we must ensure that no ethnic group is marginalised and disincentivised as well. So, within the premise of what I have mentioned, I came up with the tag line of 1Malaysia, and I am interpreting 1Malaysia of specific policies but we must work together as one people, one nation and above all one dream."

I sincerely hope that the implementation of the 1Malaysia policy will be equitable to all. Again, I would like to say that an equation will be considered fair to all concerned if all players in the equation do not mind changing places. Although it is a hypothetical test, it will show you whether a certain party is only talking nonsense or trying to make a genuine effort.

Limited Success and Limited Failure

That’s why there was March 8, 2008. That’s why race-based politics will fade and die. Anyone who ignores them – opposition or government – does so at his own peril.

(Source: The Star, 15th May 2009. Forgetting May 13 by P. Gunasegaram)

Recently P Gunasegaram, managing editor of the Star, wrote about his perceptions of May 13. In his opinion, many of the younger generation were yet to be born when May 13 occurred. As a consequence, many younger Malaysians think of themselves as simply Malaysians, rather than Malay, Indian and Chinese. He gauged his opinion based on a sample of three persons (as evidenced by his article). Perhaps it was meant to be light-hearted. He does have a point, however. The question should be asked, why should May 13th continue to cast a shadow over the younger generation, who were born many years after it had passed -- with no memory of it? It would not be fair for the younger generation of Malaysians, who played no part in the events leading up to May 13.

Yet the remnants of this event continue to follow us. Everywhere, it is reflected in policies, and arcane legislation. Preferential practices and phobia of "the other", continue to plague our society. Inevitably, every generation of Malaysians, born post-May 13, comes round to asking the fundamental questions: Why? How? And for how much longer? Inevitably the youngsters of each succeeding wave get "educated" in the realities of Malaysian life. It would seem that May 13 has become part of the unspoken history, meant to be accepted without question.

In the wake of May 13, it was found immediately that the sharing of wealth was the main solution. Yet that is not all that we share. We share, as fellow citizens, our common history and our common struggles. We face economic problems and political unrest together. Even apolitical problems are experienced by one and all -- water shortages, badly paved roads, corruption, et cetera. As the population of this country continues to boom, it will become obvious that not all who are born in certain privileged classes, will get to enjoy those privileges. In the book Connected 24 Hours In The Gobal Economy by Daniel Altman, its author makes the shrewd observation that by 2050, China may have the world's biggest economy, but there is a huge possibility that its average income would only be half that of the United States. (Ref: Page 69-70). In similar vein, our country may become more and more wealthy, but not everybody will enjoy a raise in material living standards. Observe, for instance, the states controlled by the Opposition, and the remote areas in Sabah and Sarawak where indigenous peoples have lived for generations. Where is their progress?

My two sens opinion is that those in Barisan Nasional need to be more consistent, more receptive to the needs of its constituent parties, and reflect the composition of the coalition in the exco of the coalition. There is a high probablity that the latter will not happen. The coalition was born of a conglomeration of post-Independence parties, encompassing then members of the ruling coalition (comprising UMNO, MIC, and MCA) and those other opposition parties which held considerable sway over the voting public. Thus at the core of the coalition there remains a seething racial composition. Whereas countries with many races aspire to become melting pots, the very definition of the core three parties of the coalition aspire towards purity. By definition of their race-based struggles, they have set up themselves for limited success, and limited failure. By appealing to the struggles of a group, defined by its genetic composition, the core members of the coalition have identified a ready target. There will always be people who care about the fate of their race, enough to join these parties. But the drawback of this approach is that those in the other races may be excluded from the struggles of such a party. The criteria of race necessarily includes, and alienates, at the same time. Thus, to remain relevant, struggles of the core three continue along racial lines. One cannot help but wonder if the words of P Gunasegaram are prophetic in foretelling the future of the coalition.

When one considers the effect of lumping together the core three members of the ruling coalition, together with the diverse, motley group of other members of the coalition, one is struck by the dissimilarity of thinking. Struggles, which should encompass the fate and benefits of all citizens, become, in the hands of certain parties, struggles which should first benefit certain groups before gaining their approval. "I need to champion the needs of my people first", we are often told by our partners in the coalition, "so that I can gain their support in the party. You understand, don't you?" But the fact is that it is a sorry state of affairs when the struggles of a component in the ruling coalition, trumps and surpasses the aims and goals of the coalition, eventually become part of the goals of the coalition. In this, it has often been said that MCA's main partner in politics, is often its biggest hurdle. It must be admitted that there cannot be a majority unless those in the coalition work together, and MCA must work with its big brother to form the ruling coalition. Yet as a consequence, the bloc vote according to the Westminster model means that MCA must support its big brother -- whether they support the motion or not. All problems, if any, are to be solved by closed door, internal discussions. Nobody really knows what takes place in those chambers, except for those personally involved in the discussion. The good doctor, now aged 85, can be seen as the originator of this practice.

It would be preferable if the outcome of closed door discussions become entrenched into the annals of the ruling coalition. In fact with every change in leadership, there also begins a change in direction. The last lineup of the coalition leadership pursued as its rallying cry, Islam Hadhari. This new lineup promotes 1 Malaysia. It does not need to be said that these two campaigns were different from that of the good doctor, who prudently lined up programmes such as privatizing the nation, looking to the East, industrialization, et cetera. Yet the good doctor has had no qualms of mentioning that his successor is a man of flip flops -- "the flip, after the flop." Contrast this with our rivals in the opposition, one is struck by the consistency of their campaigns, which are launched and fought on simple platforms. It is only in recent years that the opposition has begun to squirm and mutate itself in a metamorphosis which reconciles the irreconciliable, and disparate ideas of its founders. One knows not how long the opposition can last. It is also clear that the opposition, rather than having any concrete plans, arising out of their ideologies, continue to gain mileage by bashing the ruling coalition.

Of course, the ruling coalition is not without its faults. Allegations of corruption, misgivings of deprivation, et cetera, can only dent its reputation further. But those present forget that it was this coalition that gained our independence from the British. Along the way, some bad apples may have become mixed in the same basket as the good. What is needed is a retooling, a rescheming, a rethinking, a rebranding, and the reformulation of the joint thrust of the coalition. The needs, and aims, of the coalition must be given first priority. The needs, and aims, of component parties must be subjugated to the aims and needs of the coalition. Unfortunately this means that those in the majority will continue to dominate proceedings. Perhaps this can be solved by giving every party an equal say, irregardless of the number of its members. One should acknowledge the reality that in politics, it is the vote of the general public that ultimately counts -- not the number of members. But then again, detractors will often chide you by saying that without respecting the members, you lose support from that quarter of the voting public.

The racial component in the ruling coalition will continue to be relevant, inasmuch as part of the opposition coalition continues to fight on grounds of religion. By their genetic make-up, there will always be members of the public that identify with the parties. At the same time the opposition must also acknowledge that it appeals to those in the target religious group as well. But this is where they begin to differ. What that component of the opposition coalition is offering, is a system that can regulate the affairs of the state, irregardless of whether you practise that religion. In short, if it can be accepted by all, if this proposed system of governance can be reconciled with the ideals of its partners, then it may well become part of a winning formula. On the other hand, the core three members of the coalition need not fear that they will run out of supporters. There will always be a racial consciousness in this nation. Unless one day everybody decides of one accord to formulate a new race, one not tied to the races of old, this will continue to be the case. As an aside, the formulation of a new race will mean birthing pains, as the ties with the past are cut and put aside. One is reminded of efforts elsewhere to set up a nation state, where the homogeneity of race, language and religion is a uniting factor. Further consideration will show that it is not possible, because human rights will be violated, because the ties to the past are too precious to severe, and because it is our past which defines us. Even in Indonesia, where the Chinese have adopted Indonesian names, they continued to be regarded as a different race. (Ref: Asia Times Online, 2nd October 2008. Sinophobia Smoulders in Malaysia by Hui Yew-Foong.) Further, the old Fuehrer's ambitions to create a nation-state in Germany has been frustrated by the influx of a large immigration population.

Perhaps that is the solution, to ease immigration guidelines. In America immigration policies are carried out with, amongst others, the aim of increasing diversity. If Malaysia were to allow more foreign nationals to make this their home, perhaps a new diversity of thought would begin to flourish. Perhaps, they who have no link to the past, would begin by seeing the system with alien eyes. And perhaps they would have some idea of what might work, from their own experiences. Perhaps this suggestion might be rubbished by some quarters, especially those coming from the core three members of the ruling coalition. It would not be surprising. Whatever it is, it must be admitted that the ruling coalition needs teeth and not become a platform for only one of its component members, switching between champion of a certain quarter and the champion of all citizens with more ease than switching on/off a bathroom light.

Text of Terrorism

Today I stumbled across some texts that had motivated grown men to acts of violence. Terrorism is an ugly thing and scars us all for the worse. Those of us who have been affected by it will forever remember it. Those amongst us who are tainted by its murky tinge will be affected by it for a long time. It is difficult to change the mind of one who has been convinced by the arguments of terrorism. How can acts of physical violence ultimately bring about peace? Should not peace be commenced by negotiations and laws?

Terrorist can be defined simply as the act of compelling compliance with demands by means of inducing fear or terror. It usually applies to groups, not to individuals. These groups must be ideologically motivated -- there is no meaning in terrorism if there is no underlying ideology. And finally the fear or terror is induced by physical violence. The definition may be unnecessarily long but imagine the confusion if an innocent organization such as PETA is to be labelled a terrorist group, having induced fear and/or terror to compel compliance with their demands. 

The texts which have caught my eye are the manual of the Al-Qaeda. You can view them directly at the following:

• http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/aqmanual.pdf
• http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/manualpart1.pdf

Basically the first link is for the "clean" version (2 mb) and the second link is for the scanned version (8 mb). They are one and the same text. The text was found in a computer file in Manchester, England, during the search / raid of a house. It was an exhibit in a trial in New York. 

You can access the rest of the list at the webpage known as Para-States - Liberation Movements, Terrorist Organizations, and Others. You can access the main site at the Federation of American Scientists website.

Redefining the Struggle

It has been more than half a century since this great nation declared its independence and its freedom from the shackles of colonization. In the course of achieving independence, the Alliance was formed through the thoughtful co-operation between the original team of UMNO, MCA and MIC. The Alliance was a dominant force in emerging Malayan politics. In 1957 Independence was achieved with resounding applause from all citizens of the then-nascent Malaya. In 1963 the addition of Singapore and the states of Borneo increased the multiculturism and multiracism of this great land. Despite being divided by a forbidding sea, our two halves were joined by the desire to unite with a view of celebrating our shared past, and our shared struggles. No doubt, the racial composition of the two lands were very much different. Malaya was populated by a mix of Malay, Chinese and Indian. Singapore was populated by a majority Chinese population. Sabah and Sarawak were populated by indigenous tribes with a smattering of Chinese, Indian and Malays. It was a happy existence.

In due course of time, however, the happy halcyon days that this newlyborn nation was used to, soon faded into the past. In 1965 Singapore was seceded. The May 13 tragedy of 1969 cast a dark pall on the future of this land. Many leaders became cowed and afraid of the repeat of another May 13. In 1974, Barisan Nasional was formed, in part to incorporate the opposition parties at the time into a coalition government. Then, as now, there was a sense of urgency to unite and strengthen the ties of solidarity. The National Front, or Barisan Nasional as it was known, had a noble goal of representing both pro-government and opposition parties. Its use of weighing scales was meant to show the balance between the members of the Alliance, and the other member parties of the National Front.

Today the National Front, or Barisan Nasional, seems to be lost. It is seeking a direction. What was originally intended to be a balance between the voices of the Alliance, and their detractors, has become a tool to subsume the voices of opposition. In the end, the opposition political parties which joined the BN became one with the other members of the BN. They lost their voice, and with that voice, their bite. In short, they lost their power to convince the Malaysian voting public, that they were still effective. Instead the National Front of today seems to be steered by its chairman: UMNO. UMNO has become the predominant voice within the Barisan. Indeed the lineup of the Barisan Nasional has evolved to reflect the lineup of UMNO's top exco members.

Today the question that must be asked is: Where is the Barisan Nasional government headed? What are its aims? How will it remain relevant, and therefore elected, for the next 50 years? There must begin to emerge from the morass of conflicting ideas and convoluted politicking, some coherent direction, acceptable to all and shared by all. It will be easier to start with common aspirations: better economics, free education, free healthcare, better immigration policies, boosted microlending and microfinancing, fair competition laws, abolition of oppressive and archaic laws, allowing greater freedom of expression, whistleblower laws, implementing consumption taxes, establishing a human rights court, etc. A declaration of Barisan's aims and goals, with corresponding target dates for achievement, can be drafted up by the architects of our nation's bright future. Let this declaration be not racial nor religious in tones. It is easier to identify the lacking elements in our laws and policies, and implement measures that can aid in achieving our nation's lofty goals, rather than to dwell on past achievements.

Society is changing. Politicians must change, along with the changes that take place around them. If politicians and policy makers insist on getting things done "their way" without regard for the ordinary man in the street -- and, ultimately, the man with the vote -- then they are seeking to lose in the next elections, and can only be considered as an unsuitable choice as a partner. When will these changes take place? If you imagine that change will come if we wait long enough, you are mistaken. Change will not take place unless we initiate that change. Let us be the agents of change. Yet despite our recognition that change is necessary, let us be not so quick to jump ship. Can we change the direction of our vessel? Let us consider this question. Unless we try, we will never know. Therefore, it must be acknowledged that efforts to bring about material changes in our circumstances -- law, politics, and policies -- must not only work outward, but also inward. An organization, unless it is in tune with the desires of the members of the public, will quickly fall into obscurity, or even worse -- become ignored.

The question is, what will the content of the new agenda be? And is the revamp of an age old political body possible? As I have earlier stated, it is possible. Even an old dog can learn new tricks. It just takes a little more effort, and a little more desire.

A More Candid Post

Dear Reader,

Thank you for dropping by my blog to read. I have made it a policy to write verse, rather than to air my personal thoughts, because I have thought that it would be better to say less, rather than antagonize certain parties who may be slighted by my views.

In this rare mood, I find that it may be a good time to start over, by writing more candidly -- and speaking out my mind. I will not be deleting the older posts that I have in the archives -- those serve to remind me, one day, of my journey. When I first started this blog, I did not put any personal details and wrote only fiction or verse. I felt that it was an outlet for me to experiment with my writing skills, but at the same time I did not wish to expose my identity.

In recent months much has been happening. Momentuous events, both personal and around me, have been taking place. I have become convinced that a blog is an extension of one's self -- one that serves to show the world, if it only cares to see, what a person is like. It is an opportunity to examine and understand a person's mind.

In recent months, events which have impressed me, are as follows:

1. The astounding rise and fall in the price of petrol. I was moved to record the events that shook the world, because I too was affected. Food prices, and prices of everyday commodities, also rose in tandem with the rise of petrol prices. However, the recent fall in the prices of petrol has not been reflected in the price of everything else. The price of petrol leads to a pinch in the pocket, which also translates to lesser spending  capacities for the average wage earner. This in turn, leads to a disgruntled population.
2. The political tsunami of March 8th. In what can only be described as a clear message to the Government of the day, voters throughout the nation upset the assumptions that our incumbents have had -- that the ruling coalition, which has had a two-thirds majority in Parliament, would give a commendable (and predictable) repeat performance. Instead, outcry after growing outcry has led to many, including those whose outward allegiances lie with the ruling coalition, to secretly cast their vote for an opposition candidate. Both the state legislature and the Parliamentary elections were held at the same time, taking all spectators and all those who voted, by surprise. 
3. MCA party elections. In October, I was involved in the internal party elections and successfully campaigned for a place in the youth wing. There is an uphill struggle for the party to rejuvenate itself amidst a bleak future. Every elections, there is an influx of a new generation of voters. These younger generation voters are not caught up with the politics of yesteryears. Instead, their concern is that we should progress forward. The younger generation wants change. They do not need politicians who sit there, aeon after aeon, recounting moments from their glorious history. Much less, do they need bigoted politicians who pass unsavoury remarks and discount the basic worth of a human being. And most of all, the younger generation does not need a pack of leaders, whose sole purpose in Parliament is to prop up the earlier mentioned group of bigoted leaders.
4. Prime Minister's suggestions for opening up Barisan Nasional. In a bold move, Prime Minister YAB Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, to allow membership in Barisan Nasional without actually joining any particular party. (source: The Star Online, Let People Join Barisan Directly, says PM, 11th Oct 2008) However, various persons, including Pokok Sena UMNO division secretary, Ramli Mohd Yunus, were quoted saying that the suggestion was not the right way to rejuvenate UMNO or Barisan. (Source: Malaysiakini, Direct BN Membership "A Political Gimmick", 14th Oct 2008) Malaysian Voters Union coordinator BK Ong was also quoted by Malaysiakini saying that Gerakan president Koh Tsu Koon had made the same suggestion 20 years ago, but nothing came of it. It is a pity that there has been no further remarks from the PM on the issue. It is also a pity that he will resign on March 2009 and thus fail to implement his suggestion.
5. Liow Tiong Lai proposes second deputy PM's post for MCA. In another bold move, outgoing youth chief Datuk Liow Tiong Lai proposed that a second deputy Prime Minister's post be created, and it be allocated to MCA. (source: The Star Online, Liow proposes one more Barisan deputy chairman, 17th Oct 2008) This is an idea that I have supported for some time now, and I was very pleased to see it come from the outgoing youth chairman. The fact is that there is no requirement for a deputy prime minister in the Federal Constitution. But it is also a fact that Malaysia has had a deputy prime minister for every prime minister that has served this nation. (Source: Wikipedia, Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, accessed 7th Nov 2008) Datuk Liow's suggestion is workable. In Singapore, it has been quite common to see two Deputy Prime Ministers in office at the same time. For example, in 1985 both Goh Chok Tong and Ong Teng Cheong became Deputy Prime Ministers. DPM Goh was replaced by Lee Hsien Loong in 1990 whereas Tan Keng Yam Tony took over DPM Ong's place in 1993. S. Jeyakumar took over (then) DPM Lee's place in 2004 whereas Wong Kan Seng took over DPM Tony Tan's place in 2005. (source: Wikipedia, Prime Minister of Singapore, accessed 7th Nov 2008)
6. Barack Obama became president of the USA. This momentuous event has everybody amazed. America has proven to the world that it is a land where things are possible. In this nation, however, as jubilant as we are that a "person of colour" can ascend to the seat of president, it is highly unlikely that a person other than that of the dominant party, will be nominated by the ruling coalition. This, it can be safely said, will be the case due to a healthy dose of Ketuanan Melayu rhetorics from the dominant party in the Barisan Nasional coalition. (Caution: The above link to "Ketuanan Melayu" on Wikipedia, accessed on 7th Nov 2008, appears to contain "misinformation", planted by its supporters, as evidenced by seriously bad spelling.) Malaysians must ask themselves, in cheering the successful election of a black president for America, should they not also cheer the appointment of a non-Malay to temporarily head the PKNS (ref: Malaysiakini, Chinese heads PKNS: Staff say "No", 28th Oct 2008) or a non-Malay who contests for the post of Prime Minister (ref: Aliran, Unconvincing claim that "anyone can be PM", 6th Nov 2008)?

There are surely more events that are worth examining in-depth. We are living in times which will be looked upon by future generations as defining moments, and crucial junctures, of Malaysian history. We are nearing the close of our first decade in this bold new millenium. Fifty years have passed since independence, and Malaysians have walked a long journey together. How will the next fifty years play out? That largely depends on the choices that we make today. I recall one statement from my years at Universiti Malaya, where I studied my LLM. "After fifty years of independence, it is sad that we still have to play racial politics."

The future is here, and it is what we do now that defines the tone of tomorrow. If we hope that the future will be one of peace and mutual prosperity, then all stakeholders in this nation must come together, and tear down the walls between us. We must build the future together. We cannot have tiers of rights and tiers of obligations. A stratified society will breed unhappiness. It is ridiculous when a certain segment of society expects itself to be the master class, and that other classes are its servants. In an age where slavery has been abolished and article 6 of the Federal Constitution outlaws slavery, it must be realised that talk of lordship only creates suspicion and hate. Instead we must choose to live together, and respect one another.

I hesitate to say (or type) integrate, because that may be misinterpreted as a positive stand on assimilation. But, when you come to think of it, what is wrong with assimilation? It only becomes wrong when assimilation (or inter-marriage) is only able to go one way, and not the other. Historical facts have shown that inter-marriage in this land is nothing new, leading to the establishment of various communities. The Baba Nyonya community is an example of intermarriage between Malays and Chinese. The Chitty community is an example of intermarriage between Tamils and Malays. Inter-marriage should not be frowned upon by society but accepted as the valid choice of two discerning adults.

In conclusion, let me just say that we need to move forward. We need to work together for our shared future. While it is easy to blame a particular community (not our own) for economic and political problems, it is easier to start by changing ourselves. Therefore let us start the change by changing ourselves. Let us change Barisan Nasional for the better. If we don't start somewhere, it will never happen. So let us start the change.

Thank you for reading.

A Few Hours Before The Big Day

A few hours before the big day:
Who knows how the vote will sway?
I hope, and I pray
I'll make it through the fray;
But only God can tell
If there will be hell.

News of note: New MCA national youth chief, Datuk Wee Ka Siong, has stated that he will strive to lower the age limit for the youth wing from 45 to 40. He also plans to woo young women to join the youth wing. (Ref: The New Straits Online, 16-October-2008, Wee Wants To Lower Age, Bring In Women.)

A Parlour Trick Explained, and An Interesting Development

Dear reader,

Not very long ago, I received an email forward from a good friend. It was an email which challenged you to take a quiz, follow the instructions, and if you were truthful, the questions (posed by a waiter, presumably) would figure out what your age is, and not only that, but also the integer that you selected. The thing is that the email claimed that the quiz (and its magic) would work only this year -- 2008.

Now, I know how to make it work in 2009 (with some small adjustments). Or, if you still remember by then, it can also work in 2010, 2011, 2012.... Or even in 1989 if you can go back in time. Well, here is the email:

This is too cool.
YOUR AGE BY EATING OUT

Don't tell me your age; you probably would tell a falsehood anyway-but your waiter may know!

YOUR AGE BY DINER & RESTAURANT MATH

DON'T CHEAT BY SCROLLING DOWN FIRST!

It takes less than a minute. Work this out as you read

Be sure you don't read the bottom until you've worked it out!

This is not one of those waste of time things, it's fun.

1. First of all, pick the number of times a week that you would like to go out to eat. (more than once but less than 10)

2. Multiply this number by 2 (just to be bold)

3. Add 5

4. Multiply it by 50

5. If you have already had your birthday this year add 1758... If you haven't, add 1757.

6. Now subtract the four digit year that you were born.


You should have a three digit number

The first digit of this was your original number. (I.e., How many times you want to go out to restaurants in a week.)

The next two numbers are YOUR AGE ! ------ (Oh YES, it is!)

THIS IS THE ONLY YEAR (2008) IT WILL EVER WORK, SO SPREAD IT AROUND WHILE IT LASTS

So, I gave it a sample run.

For starters, a week has only 7 days. So I selected "4" as my magic number. (In fact, eating out 4 times a week can put a strain on your finances, if you ain't careful). Then I ran it through the various steps. Boom boom dang dang.... I came up with the following number: 429. Whoa! It works! But of course, I would like to know why it works. And how it works. So, I pulled up metapad (I use it all the time) and typed out some notes.

Here's what I came up with.

[2A+5](50) + B - C = 100A + D

A=arbitrary number between 1 to 9
B=arbitrary number (1757 if you haven't had your birthday, 1758 if you have)
C=year of birth
D=age


50(2A+5) = 100A + 250

Which means that
250 + B - C = D

Which means....
250 + B = C + D

And B = 1758,
meaning
C + D = 2008 (the present year)


Let's see.... Your age plus the year of your birth adds up to 2008.
Is that a fact? It may be. But it would not be that magical, yes?
Whereas, the above little "parlour trick" would get you a nice opening line.

Why does this trick work? Would it work in another year? The way I see it, you would need to change the value of "B".

B = (C + D) - 250
and (C + D) is the present year -- whatever that number may be.

In 2009, (C+D) will be 2009, and B will be 1759.

So, now you see how *you*, dear reader, can go ahead and pull the same trick? Next year, change that magic number "1758" to "1759" and it will work.


++++++ End Of Post About Parlour Trick ++++++

Actually there's more relevant material for you to read. In the newspapers, they usually append such "related developments" to news stories by such devices: "In an unrelated development..." or "In a related development...." or even "In Kedah...." But today there seems to be quite a hot matter brewing up.

Ahmad Ismail (Encik or Datuk? I'm not sure), Division Chairman of UMNO Bukit Bendera has issued his response to the "hot coverage" that the media had been giving him recently, following his purportedly seditious statement. The division chairman had recently been quoted in a Chinese language daily as having uttered seditious words, prompting various quarters from MCA and Gerakan to lodge police reports. Members of opposition party DAP also lodged police reports.

As a result, Deputy Prime Minister YAB Dato' Seri Mohd Najib bin Tun Abdul Razak (also deputy president of UMNO) apologised for his fellow party member's faux pas. In a surprising turn of events, the embattled UMNO division chairman issued a statement that he had been quoted out of context, and that he does not owe anyone an apology.

Here is your reading assignment for today:

• Penang Umno backs Ahmad, snubs Pak Lah - Malaysiakini.com, 5th September 2008
• Ahmad Ismail's statement - Malaysiakini.com, 5th September 2008
• Najib: Umno apologises - The Star Online, 3rd September 2008
• 周連瓊：堅持不悔改‧法辦阿末起警惕作用 - Sin Chiew Online, 4th September 2008

To sum up the matter, Ahmad Ismail states that his earlier statement must be looked at in context. He was addressing a crowd which profile was mostly Malay. (page 4) His statement referred to the Chinese in pre-Independence context. (page 10) The reporter twisted his words. (page 11) "The reporter is racist, not me." (page 11) He maintains that the Chinese were "penumpang" (passengers) before Independence. (page 12) He says Tan Sri Koh Tsu Koon is using the issue to explain Barisan Nasional's recent loss in Permatang Pauh. (page 13) He asks UMNO leaders not to apologise and hurt the Malay community's feelings. (page 15)

If there was one sentence that needed to be edited in that statement of his, I think it would be: "Dalam perlembagaan parti kita tidak ada termaktub bahawa kita kena berjuang untuk orang Cina." (Translation: "In our party constitution, it is not stated that we have to fight for Chinese people.")

To be fair, UMNO is a race-based party. There is no way I can be a member and change its constitution. It was founded out of a race-based struggle. The major partners in the ruling coalition are to a large extent, also race-based. MCA is the Malaysian Chinese Association while MIC is the Malaysian Indian Congress. Yet it is clear that we are all one nation.

Fifty years down the road after Merdeka, and yet we are racially aligned. Many have suggested that we should move away from race-based politics to one that addresses the issues that all communities face: poverty, education, human rights, economic, cultural and social right, etc. Yet, as long as the "Big Brother" in the ruling coalition insists on playing the racial card, can you blame the other parties for responding to that tack? Why is it, the chairman of our ruling coalition said "Don't Be Racial" and yet his underlings in his party insist on being racial? (Reference: Pak Lah: Don't Be Racial, The Star Online, 12th February 2008)

Talk is cheap. The ruling government would do well to institute measures to prevent racial slurs and encourage fair competition, for example setting in place: a non-discrimination statute; a fair competition law; and entrenching the above in the Federal Constitution. In Barisan Nasional itself, there should be a Code of Conduct for its various politicians, to ensure that they do not run out of line. A supreme committee comprising the chairmen of all component parties should be formed to deal with transgressions against such a Code (if ever they do set up such a Code). Every member of that committee should have one (1) equal vote. There should never be any veto rights otherwise you will have problems, just like those faced by the Security Council of United Nations.

SAPP's 14 points

Read it at this page.

About That Keris Incident....

How many years has a certain national leader been raising and waving the wavy dagger? For a stretch of time, it seemed that every year, the wavy dagger (known as a "keris" or a "kris") was sure to make its appearance at a certain political body's general assembly, and some people in the cheering crowd would make insensitive remarks, encouraging the national leader to use it. The question was, who were these people encouraging him to use it against? He rose from the "M" group (conveniently referred to as "M" after this) which seemed that, they were encouraging him to use the dagger against the non-M's.

Of course, the "non-M's" that make up part of the fabric of this great nation became afraid. Yet it seemed there was nothing that could be done about it. The raising of the dagger continued every year, leading many to think that: (1) It is acceptable in the eyes of the law to taunt and threaten the non-M's; and (2) The non-M leaders were not protesting against this threatening act. The non-M's in this great nation became abuzz with disdain for the dagger; it seemed that it would only be a matter of time before the dagger became bathed in crimson liquid.

This raising of the dagger continued as part of an illustrious ceremony, enshrined and sanctified with divine blessing from above; no one could squeak a peep in protest. Eventually it was televised. To the non-M's, it was unknown whether the M's in general were all in approval of it; but it did seem to reduce the idea of this great nation, born out of shared adversity and great hardship, to a laughing joke. The idea that many peoples, from different creeds and breeds, could be inspired to unite under one umbrella, and in unity free themselves from colonialism, was one that inspired many to believe that there was a future in this land. In the year of liberation, 1957, many proudly called themselves patriots and citizens, after the long and arduous journey fraught with many pitfalls. Many sacrificed their savings, pledging all they had, to support a cause that they believed in. A great many people pawned their jewelry to buy passage for national leaders to make their way to the land of the colonial master. Finally, hand in hand, the M's and the non-M's together, liberation was won! Unjoined states became joined under one banner. This land was born out of a shared struggle, one that envisaged a future where diverse peoples of various creeds and breeds would be united and forging a brighter future together.

Over time, untoward incidents, planned, provoked and performed by certain selfish perpetrators, have served to slice up, and destroy, the fragile bonds of that original society. Over time, we have become accustomed to living a life of segregation, discrimination, and polarization. The same people who were living at the time of liberation (1957, or 1963, depending on his/her geographic location) may still be alive, yet their views of what is possible for this great nation today may be less ideal, and less hopeful, than the views that they held in their youth. With the passing of time, painful experiences become dulled, and eventually, acceptance of unacceptable matters, becomes the norm. While it is true that certain incidents and certain policies may have benefitted this nation as a whole, but the Machiavellian manner in which things were executed have caused a great many families (and individuals) to suffer needlessly, to the extent of which the scars which remain to this day still manage to evince a sense of loss and bitterness.

What is amazing is that, in a bid to play up his persona, this national leader could raise the wavy dagger, to shouts of approval, forgetting that those who had lived through those darker days surely tremble with fear to look upon the aggressive manner in his campaigning. I am sure that violence is not the solution to our present day problems. M or non-M, we share many problems. It is no longer true that the C-community lives in urban areas, the I-community in the rubber estate, and the M-community in the rural areas. Many of us are now urbanized. M's should realize that they are statistically speaking, numerically superior to non-M's. If anything, the M's should realise that whether they succeed or fail, is ultimately up to themselves. Can vanquishing a non-M make the price of petrol go down? Or the price of trust investments go up? Or stem corruption and create a better, cleaner, and more transparent government? Is it possible, that by extirpating non-M's, societal woes can be solved? Will the police be able to solve long-unsolved robbery and fraud cases? Will "wanted" dangerous criminals be suddenly caught? Will the authorities suddenly protect whistleblowers, prevent unfair competition, magically reduce inflation, and dramatically decrease unemployment? These are real problems that should be addressed.

Our learned DPM (courtesy of Agenda Daily) said:

"Sebenarnya maruah orang Melayu tidak bersangkut pada soal keris, maruah orang Melayu hanya akan terbela kalau sekiranya orang Melayu berjaya dalam pelbagai bidang, politik, penguasaan ilmu, ekonomi dan sosial, segala-galanya mesti memperlihatkan kemajuan orang Melayu pada tahap kecemerlangan.

"Kita boleh bersaing bukan sahaja di persada negara tapi antarabangsa, pada masa itu orang Melayu akan dilihat sebagai bangsa berjaya. Jadi keris ini semata-mata soal simbol sahaja, tidak dikaitkan dengan soal kecemerlangan, kecemerlangan dalam realiti dunia ini bergantung kepada kejayaan kita dalam bidang strategik."

A rough translation would be:

"Actually, the honour of the Malays does not depend on the keris, [and] the honour of the Malays would be upheld only if the Malays succeed in various fields, politics, excelling in knowledge, economics and society, everything must see the progress of the Malays at the stage of excellence.

"[If] we can compete not only in this nation but also internationally, at that time Malays will be seen as a successful race. This keris is merely about the question of symbols, not relating to the question of excellence, excellence in the realities of this world depends on our success in strategic fields."

The use of the word "terbela" (upheld) regrettably implies that there is an "other", one that needs upholding against. Again, the implication (from the context) is that success must be measured by comparison against the non-M's. But if this is the case, then in the long run it is harmful to the M's and the non-M's. Firstly, in this nation, M's must work with non-M's, and vice versa, to succeed. Yet at the same time, M's are encouraged to compete with non-M's. Is it possible to both compete (sometimes harmfully) and at the same time co-operate with our potential business partners? That is a tall order. Things have to change. The M-community should realise that non-M's are their partners. A destructive relationship can only cause unhappiness. M's and non-M's should co-operate, and communal politics should change to take into account the aspirations and hopes of all communities. Issues like poverty, health, national policies, etc. should be tackled as problems that pervade all levels and sectors of society. Every one, no matter whether an M or a non-M, should be given equal opportunity and benefit. And most importantly, M and non-M relationship should be nurtured.

Further reading

• Wikipedia, "Kris" - link
• Agenda Daily, "Maruah Melayu Bukan Pada Keris" (26.4.2008) - link
  
• Malaysia Today, "Kerismuddin Apologises" (27.4.2008) - link
• Malaysia Kini, "Najib: Keris Apology Won't Derogate Malay Unity" (26.4.2008) - link
• The Star, "Hishammuddin Urged To Quit Over Keris Issue" (27.4.2008) - link
• The Star, "It Takes A Big Man To Apologise" (27.4.2008) - link
  

Number Two (Or Three ... Or Four)

They say they want to be our voice!
To vocalise our thoughts;
Will they dare to walk the talk
And speak on our behalf?

This is a time for men, not boys!
To lead us from our woes;
Now they roar behind closed doors
But will they peter out?

They say they must protect our rights!
Why now? Not earlier?
Why were things so strained before:
Were we accomplices?

I say to them, now raise your voice!
Despite your inner fears;
Ask for number two! (or three)
Instead of none at all.

Number two: shared by rotation!
(We give you number one)
Don't you say you care for us?
Then prove it by your deeds.

The coalition stands for all:
Inclusive of the non's?
So you say, and still I doubt;
I see things otherwise.

From top to toe, its exco team
Is controlled by one group;
Great leaders! Where do you sit
And what posts do you hold?

You have nothing, this I'll wager:
Not two, or three, or four;
Shouldn't you sit on the group
To represent us all?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Not too long ago, I had a discussion with a friend.

Here's a paradoxical question.

If our ruling coalition is inclusive of all races, why are the minority shareholders in the coalition not given number two, three or four? The problem is that number one, two, and three are from the same group. A fair solution is to rotate the number two position among the "other" groups, which form part of the coalition. The alternative is to appoint more number two's.

What is important is that number one remains with the "main" member of the coalition.

Who Is Geert Wilders?

An interesting person to know about. A Dutch politician, he has caused a furore in the Muslim world with many people demanding for his death and denouncing him for a recent film called "Fitna". The film is interesting and it worth watching, but bear in mind that it is purely for personal knowledge and is bound to stir up controversy if you raise it as a topic of discussion.

Found via the (A)berração blog.

According to many texts that I have read, Islam is a religion of peace. Most Muslims agree that Islam is a beautiful religion and it is the few bad apples that tarnish the name of Islam. Terrorism is a long-standing issue that gives a bad image to a peaceful religion, and this needs to be resolved.

In the meantime, while surfing about on the Net, I found the trailer for a nice Portuguese language movie. It's called "Os Desafinados". I don't suppose it will come to Malaysia anytime soon, but it's worth a watch... I know many Malaysians would rather avoid "thorny" topics, as I have many friends who would rather talk about trivial topics... like movies. "Os Desafinados" seems to be "quite a good movie", so it's quite a pity that I don't speak Portuguese.



Found via Jacare Banguela's blog.

Perak MB Conversation Starter

Dear Reader,

Elections is still hot on everybody's mind. Undoubtedly the opposition (Barisan Rakyat) has won big. But can they sustain? Or are they merely a marriage of convenience as averred by Barisan Nasional candidates during the 2008 elections?

You'll be interested to know that DAP man Lim Kit Siang objected to Perak's Menteri Besar being selected from PAS. Interesting. Here is the link:

http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2008/03/12/no-dap-cec-mandate-for-pas-menteri-besar-in-perak/

It's covered on Malaysiakini as well.

http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/79733

Hope this makes an interesting conversation starter for the next few days. In any case, most of the comments on Mr. Lim's post seem to call for a show of genuine co-operation amongst the parties forming the new Perak state government.

It might be worthy to note that the PAS man to be elected as MB, Ir. Mohd. Nizar Jamaludin, seems to have good credentials:

• Early education at Sekolah Rendah Anglo-Chinese School(ACS) Kampar
• Continued at Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Anglo-Chinese School Kampar
• Finished secondary school at Sekolah Menengah Teknik Ipoh
• A-levels at England
• Obtained degree at Aston University of Science & Technology at Birmingham, England

Personally, I wonder whether PAS's announcement that they plan to introduce hudud law in Kedah had anything to do with it?

elections are coming

elections are coming--
politicians will rise
to seek your vote:
make sure they heed your cries

for tax relief
and lowered inflation
a ceiling price of sugar
and rice and other rations...

but how do you gauge
the performance of the man
unless you vote him in
and let him show he can?