Merdeka 曖昧

! مرديك

anwar penang hill railway polis istana negara petronas twin towerz klcc masjid negara siti nurhaliza nurul hana bangunan parlimen jalur gemilang keadilan dap… Merdeka !

calling all the shweet girls and macho guys, whoever haven’t participated in the Wawancara Hari Kebangsaan 2005, hurry up, grab the chance now !

YB Ipoh Timur, Penasihat and Datin President in Kota Kuala Muda, visiting the Tsunami victims. One of them have set up a blog. Guess who ? Hopefully it’s more than just a palace for kenyataan akhbars.

Yeah, I just checked, it’s like a blog. Welcome, Yang Berhormat !~

We’ve come to the of the second last instalment of Wawancara Hari Kebangsaan, David Teoh, Sharizal Sharaani, Elfie, Politics 101, Zukri Aksah, Emmanuel Joseph, Tauke Fooji, Zulhabri Supian, Rajan Rishyakaran, Ong Boon Keong and Fathi Aris Omar discuss the relevance of Sabah / Sarawak 20 Points.

Shin : Are the “20 Points” which was meant to protect Sabahans and Sarawakians interest still relevant ? What are the effects to national integration, politics, economics and society, if it is maintained, reviewed or abolished ?

(more…)

Episode 6 of the Wawancara Hari Kebangsaan, David Teoh, Sharizal Sharaani, Elfie, Politics 101, Zukri Aksah, Emmanuel Joseph, Tauke Fooji, Zulhabri Supian, Rajan Rishyakaran, Ong Boon Keong and Fathi Aris Omar talk about the role Commies had played in shaping the history of Malaysia.

Shin : Can the Communists be considered as surrenderred, after the signing of Haadyai Peace Accord ? It was stated that the Communist members would be allowed to return, but many victims of their violent and terror acts opposed to it. How should the government decide ? Did the Communist play any role in gaining independence and national building ? If yes, please state.

Fathi Aris : It has been a sentimental and emotional issue – though I am not suggesting it is not valid one. The Government should allow the CPM veterans to return and there must be some of sort ‘national reconciliation’ process.

Some countries form ‘national truth and reconciliation commission’, for instance East Timor, South Africa and Indonesia. So we should practice this one. The English colonialist power, just like the Japanese, has to bear their mistakes too – they should not have run away.

The 1985 Memali incident (the brutal killings and the subsequent arrest of villagers) must be included too. The Government has to compensate the loss in the incident. I agree, and strongly support, what our National Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) is doing – inquiry over human rights abuses.

Human rights violations and cruelties of the past are our national tragedies and we must admit it openly and correct it. We can not ignore it. People say “time heals” but we should facilitate the process of national healing, don’t let the time alone decide.

BK Ong : The Haadyai peace accord never mentioned the Communists to have `surrendered’. The PKM agreed by the accord to stop armed struggle -and to dissolve their organization. The deal is the government allow them to return -so they should fulfil their legal obligations. The opposition by certain groups should be seen as normal disagreements
which exist on various issues. The government did not stop Genting casino just because many religious people oppose it.

The PKM did play an important role to fight the British and the Japanese on the way of Malaya’s struggle for Independence. However the Cold War pitted them against the other nationalists and conservatives factions in Alliance who was granted Independence by the British. If not for the Cold War their contributions would be acknowledged. But it not too late to do it later, in the spirit of being objective and inclusive in understanding Malaysia’s common history.

Rajan : They experienced the terror of the Communist insurgency, yes. But
why aren’t many UMNO leaders aren’t in exile, but on the contrary, leading/led Malaysia after the 13th May incident?

Commies should be allowed back into Malaysia. They’re old man, what could they possibly do? Re-enact Bukit Kepong?

Habri : Ya, tetapi itu tidak pula bermakna peranan kerajaan Perikatan yang boleh bekerjasama dengan penjajah di perlekehkan begitu sahaja. Dalam masa kita mengakui sumbangan komunis di dalam mempercepatkan proses kemerdekaan, kita jangan pula menganggap kecil jasa dan sumbangan UMNO, MCA dan MIC.

Kerajaan seharusnya membenarkan bekas ahli-ahli komunis yang sudah insaf ini pulang ke tanah air dengan membuat proses rekonsilasasi seperti yang dilakukan di Timor Timur dan sebagainya, sedangkan nabi maafkan umat, takkan kita tidak boleh?

Tauke Fooji : I think the Communist have been punished enough. They should be allowed to return. Did the Japanese bar anyone from US to enter their land, and vice-versa? Why are we holding on to past grudges. The Communist fought bravely for their stand, no matter how it contradicted with us, they fought out of love for the country, not to take over this country for another nation. I think in a war, terror acts are made against each other. The British were terrorists too towards the communist. Anyway, it is a long forgotten story. Whether the Communist played a role is up to how we interpret the history.
]
From my reading, I think they played a significant role. First of all, they were the brave ones to fight against the Japanese, no one should deny that. They also fought against the British. This is a form of significant resistance against them, which must have demotivated their imperialistic aims. Furthermore, it could also accelerated the success of the Alliance to achieve Merdeka.

Emmanuel : Yes. The Communists gave us a reason to be united.It should be same way now, except instead of fighting Communists, we should be fighting people fromoutside trying to eat our country whole, economically and not ourselves. That would be a great binding factor.

Zukri : Perjanjian itu sendiri adalah perjanjian damai, bukan perjanjian menyerah diri, tiada istilah menyerah diri di sini. Dalam perjanjian damai ini, pihak Parti Komunis Malaya bersetuju untuk meletak senjata, dan mereka akan dibenarkan pulang ke tanahair. Memang kita lihat banyak tentangan bila timbul isu bekas pemimpin PKM seperti Chin Peng dan Shamsiah Fakeh mahu pulang ke sini, saya tidak salahkan rakyat, memang sengaja dibuat sebegitu, pensejarahan negara kita sentiasa berat sebelah, sentiasa mengherokan Umno dan BN, sedang pejuang-pejuang dari aliran lain, apalagi yang tidak sebulu dengan mereka sentiasa dianggap bangsat dan pengkhianat.

Apapun kesalahan yang pernah dibuat oleh PKM, rekod membuktikan bahawa mereka konsisten dalam mempertahankan prinsip menentang imperialis, mereka mengangkat senjata menentang dua penjajah, Jepun dan British, itu jasa mereka yang tidak boleh kita nafikan. Saudara boleh baca artikel saya yang bertajuk “Chin Peng dan Patriotisme Yang Kabur” untuk penerangan yang lebih lanjut.

Elfie : The Communists have been defeated in 1990 and beyond: they are an ideological history which has no relevance in the 21st century.

Poli : The communists’ “fight” for our independence is over-rated. The main objective of their fight was to turn Malaya, then Malaysia, into a communist state. The commies also knew how to paly divide-and-conquer and that was exactly what they tried to do. If the Haadyai Accord granted ex-commies the right to return, so be it. For the record, I won’t be attending any Welcome Home parade

Sharizal : The government should decide what is best for the majority.

The communist played a role as the common enemy then, and any nation will stand united to fight a common enemy.

David : The current government should do what is in the best interests of the people they serve and not be bogged down by history.

In this 5th installation of the Wawancara Hari Kebangsaan, David Teoh, Nurul Izzah, Politics 101, Sharizal Sharaani, Emmanuel Joseph, Tauke Fooji, Zulhabri Supian, Rajan Rishyakaran, Ong Boon Keong and Fathi Aris Omar discuss the role of Islam in the administration, as well as if Hudud should be seen as part of freedom of religion.

Shin : Liberals and fundamentalists have different interpretations on the role of Islam in the Constitution, in which its role was not clearly defined. Does Islam as the religion of the federation is only ceremonial and symbolic, or it should be the basis for all laws and policies ? In some countries for example Pakistan, it is stipulated in the Constitution that any article in the Constitution will be automatically invalid if it clashes with Al-Quran or Sunnah. Do you think we need to include this in our Constitution too ?

Between Constitution and Al-Quran, as well as human rights and Al-Quran, which is superior ? Constitution and human rights safeguard freedom of religion. Instead of being just a way of thoughts and rituals, Islam is also a way of life (ad-deen) and has its own legal system. Is the National Front (BN) government, which continues to forbid the enforcement of Hudud, Qisas and Takzir while claiming that Malaysia is a “Negara Islam”, infringing its citizens’ constitutional rights and human rights by restricting them from practising their religion ?

Fathi : The Federal Constitution or Perlembagaan Persekutuan (there is no Malaysian Constitution, only the Federal Constitution) is vague. Islam, according to our first Prime Minister, is ceremonial only but the practice of the religious hegemony (Islam over other religions) is so extensive and tight.

The constitution protects Islam and allows privilleges of Islam over other religions. I don’t think it is fair. If we value religion, we should treat all religion equally. We can’t - for example - obstruct the teachings of other religions to Malays and Muslims.

Without further ado, please refer to this book Malaysia: An Islamic State? Secularism and Theocracy: A Study of the Malaysian Constitution (edited by Abdul Razak Baginda and Peter Schier).

I basically believe, religious or not a state is, when corruption or abuse of power (like Pakistan) is rampant, when there is no sense of justice and fair play, let us topple such governments. Let us throw it over, not only the leaders, the ruling parties but also the religious ideologies.

Any religion can be manipulated, so can Islam. What is so special about Islamic ideology? Tell me, what? Do you think PAS in Kelantan and Terengganu (1999-2004) do not practice corruption, nepotism and cronyism (KKN)?

See my analyses here ‘KKN Kelantan T’ganu macam Umno‘ (22 August 2002) and ‘Media bebas sorok KKN PAS?‘ (15 November 2002).

Ideology, whatever it is, can be manipulated. Idealism is good on paper (in theoritical persuasion) but once it is politically practised, it will have some problems. Let us deal with ideology or political idealism that give freedom (that is democracy) and stop propagating ideas, ideology and idealism that will benefit some people only.

BN’s ‘Negara Islam’ - like ‘Islam Hadhari’ - is a window-dresser for the stupids. Why should we bother to think about that? Let us get to the crux of the matter, not the labelling. When there are no democracy, freedom and human rights, then the state is not fully “legitimate” (according to Jurgen Habermas’s Legitimation Crisis, 1975).

BK : Actually the Constitution foresaw only a ceremonial role for Islam, apart from some specific areas reserved to the States. But this is different from the demand to introduce religious values into government - I think this demand is the same as Christians
conservatives who oppose abortion in the US, for instance. It is out of religious values, not necessarily from the Constitution. They may incidentally invoke the Constitution to support their case.

In Malaysia of course it is unwise to arrange the different authorities in any order. Problems : 1. There are many different interpretations in Islam for example some African Muslims perform genital mutilations on females. But not other Muslims. Even in Pakistan I heard there are so many differences that the implementations are problematic for instance allow many male-prejudices to creep into the religious laws. Not wise to bring the chaos into Malaysia.

2. The holy books are not legal documents - they impart knowledge on numerous areas - so they should be respected as such. Where there are areas the holy book can be useful to strengthen such as social justice, the holy book can be helpfully utilized by people who are into it, to promote the concept of social justice. Since their roles are different it is not a good idea to incorporate any religious document into or over the Constitution.

Since they are different none is superior to the other - just like a swimming manual is not comparable to a football rules book ! There is no need to compare them with possible undesirable results of undermining the values of each. Not enforcing certain Islamic laws does not equate to infringing on the citizens’ constitutional laws because even in Koran there are instances where Islamic laws are suspended or superceded.

So the laws should be seen as laws which need to suit historical circumstances. This is different from the religious requirement (kewajipan) of praying 5 times a day etc. In fact even praying 5 times a day can have some acceptable excuses. So Islamic laws cannot be implemented mechanistically. However the government do infringe on citizens’ constitutional rights in many areas such as lack of social justice in many areas and corruptions are rampant - when this is against all religious values !

Rajan : The Medina Compact made no mention of the state religion. Neither should our’s.

Human rights.

And practicing religion doesn’t entail haven’t a separate legal system, in the same manner freedom of religion doesn’t mean you can rob, murder, and rape in the name of religion.

Habri : Tidak, selagi mana negara ini ditadbir dengan adil dan saksama serta dijaga kebajikan rakyatnya, saya berpendapat ia sudah cukup Islam.

Inilah yang menjadi masalah bila mana agama begitu dipolitikkan, bercelaru jadinya. Sebagai umat Islam sudah tentulah Al-Quran yang lebih tinggi namun di dalam negara yang berbilang kaum dan agama, umat Islam harus lebih berhikmah dan meletakkan prioriti pada perkara yang lebih utama.

Fooji : Of course no. The Muslims in this country already have the Syariah court. During the forging of Malaysia, no one fought hard and cried for such Islamic penetration to our laws and policies, and it should stay that way.

I think we cannot blame BN entirely here. If they regard us as a Negara Islam because the majority are Muslims and we have a Muslim Sultanate, then so be it, but God forbid, never because we are going to be Islamic in very thing that we do, even for the non-Muslims. I think Badawi administration is clear about this.

However, there are many Muslims holding administrative positions in various government agencies that seemed to be zealous in their Islam thinking that many regulations and rules are made that could restricted other from practising their religion. For example, it is always difficult for Christian groups to organise meeting in the campus, as compared to their Muslim friends. This is not Badawi’s policy, but the biased policy of the university’s HEP (Office of Student Affairs).

Emmanuel : No.If we have that, you are directly infringing upon the rights of other people who do not believe in Islam. I would say, Islamic law should be used to govern its people, on matters pertaining to religion. An acceptable secular law, one governed by common values should be used to govern the rest of us.And both parties should adhere to the common law as a higher law, lest there be a double standard.

Sharizal : It all depends on that type of Malaysia you want. I believe we need to be flexible enough to allow for any type of government that is elected by the majority. However the constitution needs to safeguard the basic rights and

Freedoms of ALL no matter what political party we vote in.

Poli : When there’s a need to have a legal interpretation of the constitution, it’s for the court, not the executive or Attorney General, to interprete it. In Che Omar bin Che Soh vs Public Prosecutor (1988), five-man Federal Court panel, headed by the then Lord President Tun Salleh Abas held that the Constitution and the legal system are “secular” and held that the meaning of the expression “Islam” or “Islamic religion” in Article 3 “means only such acts as relate to rituals and ceremonies“.

During negotiations for the formation of Malaysia in 1963, Sabahans and Sarawakians were assured that Article 3 of the Constitution “does not imply that Malaysia is not a secular state.” (Cobbold Commission Report).

There’s got to be give-and-take. We are a plural society and it’s not right that one community should live under a different set of laws as that will lead to polarisation, which is what we are facing now.

Countries like Turkey and Iraq have 95% or more Muslim majority and yet they are still governed by secular laws. There must be clear separation of church and state. That’s the cornerstone of our forefathers’ social deal.

Nurul Izzah : Of course as a Muslim, I will try my best to live up with the responsibilities that are expected of me, and I also recognize that it does not contradict my support for the constitution.We have to accept and work within the main constraints of our society and common aspirations.

The main teachings of Islam which promote tolerance, peace and the importance of safeguarding justice and upholding human dignity is very relevant to our constitution. We should formulate policies using the framework of our constitution and in eradicating existing laws that contradict the spirit of the constitution and work towards maintaining the basic tenets of safeguarding democratic rights for each citizen.

David : No. We have a constitution that has worked for 48 years. If it ain’t broke, why fix it?

Everyone is free to practice their religion. Faith is a communication between each soul and God. It need not be legislated. Faith directed towards God is each individual’s journey, and should not be a subject of enforcement.

Here comes Episode 4 of the Wawancara Hari Kebangsaan, in which Nurul Izzah and David Teoh has joined the bandwagon. Together with Fathi Aris Omar, Ong Boon Keong, Rajan Rishyakaran, Zulhabri Supian, Tauke Fooji, Emmanuel Joseph, Sharizal Sharaani and Politics 101, they tell Shin the relevance of the much talked about “Social Contract” in our society today.

Shin : Social Contract which was created prior to independence has become the buzzword in town again. Unfortunately most of them wish to interpret it according to own preferences, for instance, Umno emphasis on the Special Malay Positions, while DAP emphasis on Malaysia being a secular state. In your opinion, is this Social Contract going to be relevant forever ? Would the thoughts of future generations be different ? If yes, which way ?

Fathi Aris : Frankly speaking, my friend, I don’t like at all the way you say and put the issue as such: “Unfortunately most of them wish to interpret it according to [their] own preferences, …”

What do you expect them to do — to scream as loud as possible in one voice, one chorus, “Yessssss”? It is politics, people have different (or, diverse) interests, values, jugdments, ideals and analyses.

We prefer democracy and freedom (over authoritarianism, dictatorship or undemocratic control) not because we want unity or to eliminate differences.

We want to exercise a more open, democratic, peaceful, equal and intelligent debates over our differences. We would like to appreciate the diversity and plurality of voices. We want to form consensus via the deliberative or discursive democracy.

It is an ongoing process, we don’t limit the discourse and criticism even after some agreement (or, consensus) is achieved. Previous generation agreement is not conclusive; it must be subjected to criticism on our current understanding and thinking.

We want democracy, independence (Merdeka) and freedom because we want to challenge the dominant (so that the dominant, the majority, can not and should not do whatever their whims and fancy are). We want our voices of concern heard, we want to say something without being seen as anti- the State, anti-Government or anti-majority.

The State, Government, majority, policy, tradition, culture, ulama, guidelines, social contract, knowledge or religion — so what? There is nothing holy in them, all is human creation to suit certain needs (especially the dominant ones, the winner’s, the majority’s) in certain spatial-temporal context.

Shin : In fact, by phrasing my question that way, all I wanted to emphasis is, they are telling us to stick to Social Contract, while they themselves have problem in accepting part of it. For example, Umnois shying away from upholding the agreement on secular state. However, by all means, I don’t mean they cannot have dispute.

Fathi : Social contract is totally relevant at any given time. The contract is another word or concept of setting fair ‘rules of the game.’ Let eveybody contest in the game with sense of justice and fairness. Life is competitive; politics is a competition. Social contract lets everybody live and play in this game with sense of justice and fairness.

The thoughts of future generations? Let us struggle to achieve and shape it. I don’t believe in miracle and prediction. We may discuss it, better, at another forum. Sometimes it seems optimistic, sometimes not. So, I repeat, let us struggle to achieve and shape generations to come. We have to prepare more fertile ground so that our seeds will be more democratic.

BK : Actually the Social Contract was not seen to be lasting for ever -many references are available to prove this point eg the Reid Report. It should be regularly reviewed -but unfortunately the government never do it. So it open the contract to different interpretations -and abuses eg by UMNO Youth to justify perpetuating special treatments. Future generations will have different opinions -but the recipients of benefits may resist giving up the benefits. And in a country where ethnic politics is strong it will be even more difficult to do so. But perpetuation of such special treatment will be problematic for the competitiveness of the recipients, besides open to abuse by ethnic elites.

Rajan : he constitution was hashed out in a hurry by Lord Reid - hardly a local - so that they would get rid of the Malayan Union faster in 1948. If anything, it was meant as a temporary compromise in 1948 before our eventual independence where we would get to write another constitution if we liked to.

Habri : Sama ada ia akan bertahan lama atau tidak, ia amat bergantung kepada kita semua rakyat Malaysia. Kontrak sosial yang ada sehingga hari ini digubal menurut konteks waktu itu yakni sebelum merdeka (tujuan untuk mencapai kemerdekaan) yang mana berlaku proses bargaining sehingga lahirnya kedudukan istimewa orang Melayu sebagai tukar ganti kerakyatan jus soli dan sebagainya dan kontrak ini bukanlah sesuatu yang suci dan boleh digubal dan dinilai semula jika rakyat mengkehendakinya.

Sama ada generasi akan datang akan memilih untuk menilai semula kontrak ini tidaklah mahir untuk saya ramalkan. Apa yang lebih penting proses dialog dan diskusi ilmiah tentang hal ini harus ditingkatkan dan dilakukan secara jujur dan di dalam proses menilai semula jangan dilupa dua prinsip utama yang wajib menjadi teras iaitu prinsip kebebasan dan keadilan.

Fooji : If we are a progressive nation, the constitution should be reviewed dynamically from time to time, to see if it is still relevant to the needs of the nation. It is unfortunately true the constitution has given provision to the Malay Positions, but it has also stated that it is a secular state. Certain parties are doing selective adherence to the constitution. The current education system and with the invasion of racial politics by UMNO and MCA into the minds of our youth, it is not surprising if our future generations have the same backward communal thinking. Just look at UMNO Youth and you’ll know what I mean.

Emmanuel : The Social Contract upon which Malaysia was founded upon will eventually be a non issue unless we choose to make it one.Even the US’ founding fathers’ ideals became a point to ponder recently,with the whole God and state issue.On whether or not future minds think differently, I will not be able to answer you, but only say this- we shape their minds.So if we feed them poison, they will be poisonous.

Sharizal : I think everyone in Malaysia agrees that the Social Contract won’t be relevant forever. The only difference is their level of readiness to part with the social contract.

Poli : The social contract is an unofficial understanding among our forefathers on the necessity of give-and-take among the various communities and along what path the country should proceed along the road to maturity. The phrase “social contract” only became a buzzword when the DAP objected to Mahathir declaring the country was already an Islamic State. The DAP keeps harping on the fact that we should defend the 1957 constitution. I don’t think that’s a very good idea because the original constitution was flawed in many ways and it’s because these flaws were exploited by, first, The Alliance, and now the BN, that there is still distrust among Malaysians.

Nurul Izzah : It is a buzz word in the sense that it binds the fabric of society together. I cannot predict what the future generation will decide on but I will decide on a more meaningful, equitable meaning of the social contract which basically destroys any grandeur thoughts on any race being superior to the other.

David Teoh : Martin Luther King said “I have a dream, that one day my four little children will live in a world where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character”. The social contract will eventually collapse if the race UMNO intends to protect as a whole does not develop the richness in character.

In this Episode 3 of the Wawancara Hari Kebangsaan 2005 series, Shin talks to Fathi Aris Omar, Ong Boon Keong, Rajan Rishyakaran, Zulhabri Supian, Tauke Fooji, Emmanuel Joseph, Sharizal Sharaani, Politics 101, Nurul Izzah and David Teoh on the issue of Racial Politics, Education and National Unity.

Shin : Many blame the racial politics and racist policies as main culprits for national disunity. However, even without these, the national schools do not necessarily become the premier choice. Does this mean national unity is difficult to achieve ?

Fathi : I would like to say this way, after paraphrasing the above sentence
of yours a bit, “many blame the racial politics and racist policies as main culprits for less and less democratic space and the seeds of our national problems now, one of them is national disunity.”

Shin : Hey, so funny lah you, we should bersyukur a bit so I thought it’s a good idea to save BN some face…

Fathi : Racial integration or racial unity? I don’t understand this issue and I think that arguing along these words “racial unity” is limited. We are trapped into thinking along “old” pair of glasses. “Old” here means “the dominant, the obsolete, the 1970s, the dying” language of analysing our national politics.

The real issue is — to my understanding — communal politics (or, communalism), where people voice their concern and rally public issues (or see themselves vis a vis the others) through race-based languages.

When you vote your wakil rakyats from your own ethnicity; when you prefer (without rational calculation) sale representatives, bureaucrates, editors or managers from your own race; when you prefer to form a race-based political parties and student groups (though, later you merge or form alliances); when you feel more secure and comfortable with your own race regardless of issues and contexts.

Race is the paradigm of politics. Just like when religion (in this case, Islam) becomes the political paradigm. They are like scientism or positivism, that is, the cognitive process of narrowing the realities (or, ‘truth’ or ‘objectivities’) via a single or mono-perspective.

The paradigm (race, religion or scientific school of thought) defines everything and shapes your priorities, taste (likes and dislikes), social values (the good, the bad, the ugly and the wicked) and other preferences. It breeds discrimination, exclusivity and stupidity (too!). The paradigm is the sole, the main or the most dominant criterion on your minds to see the world

The word “race” (and the derivatives, “racial”, “racism”, “racist” or “racialist”) has been made a politics of identity, a category of perception. But it is limited, constrained, distorted form of analysing national issues.

I am not saying it is not real; it is. But it is also hallucionary — something which is fluid, unstable and unfinished, yet has been made otherwise and unchallengeable.

The very ideas of the politics of control and propaganda are to change this relation (something fluid, unstable and unfinished so that it is seen [cognitively], concrete, stable and ‘finished’). See Roland Barthes’s Mythologies (1973).

Race, however you define it, is always hegemonic. It is always a form of control. Do you like to submit to and submerge under a Chinese community’s control? I don’t like a Malay (or an Islamic) community’s control over me. I am always suspicious of the majority.

I prefer Christopher Hitchens’s comment: “Well, no, I don’t think that the solidarity of belonging is much of a prize. I appreciate that it can bestow some pride, and that it can lead to mutual aid and even brother- and sisterhood, but it has too many suffocating qualities, and many if not most of the benefits can be acquired in other ways.” (see his book, Letters to a Young Contrarian, 2001).

BK : Agree. Yes education wise the schools were segregated before Independence. After Independence UMNO try to unify all schools under national schools -but met resistance from Chinese, Tamil and English schools who see it as worse imposition than by Colonial government. The monolingual policy imposed on multi-lingual schools with their own history was a failed policy till now.

Politicians could do a better job if mono-lingual policy was not so stressed - and diversity respected. But national unity is not identical with language uniformisation : there could be more inter-schools program to bring the students together - which was agreed to by the Chinese and Tamil schools. But the government so far has not been happy to do it.

Rajan : Again, we should leave it to the people to find unity. Nothing the government can do would create a semblance of unity. Especially with disequality.

Habri : selagi mana politik dan kita individu bersikap komunal selagi itulah
hasrat perpaduan kaum sukar untuk dicapai !

Fooji : Of course, national unity is difficult to achieve. But we should know by now that the racial policies is not helping the effort towards unity at all.

Emmanuel : Yes and no. Racial politics should be partially responsible, but the sole blame is not its alone. The fact of the matter is, national unity is easy to achieve. Sun Tzu once said, to motivate the people, the people must have a common cause, a rallying factor. Here Malaysians are too busy fighting each other that they are not fighting other countries for economic opportunities.

Look at Japanese companies, Matsushita, Toyota, Honda….all these companies are relatively new to the world, post war. Compared to the likes of Standard Chartered, Barclays and Llyods. See how far they’ve come.Their people have a common goal - beat everyone else. Where else our people are busy attacking each other and protecting their own cake. I think we should start looking outward rather than inward - and national unity would be ours.

Sharizal : As in with anything, it is difficult to achieve. But we must stay focus on the real issue where it should be what EVERYBODY wants.

Poli : I won’t go as far as to say there isn’t national unity because there is, in many ways. What we have is distrust among the communities. It doesn’t really matter whether it’s the BN or opposition because behind closed doors there are still more than a handful of senior politicians who consciously or subconciously refer to another community in terms that are less than honourable.

In many ways opposition parties were forced to compete along racial lines because if they didn’t, they won’t win. And in politics, the bottom line is still about winning seats to get a platform in parliament. Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM) was often touted as a non race-based party. Very good on them, but when after so many elections and it still couldn’t get anyone elected on its ticket, what’s the use? The public will decide to look elsewhere. This is realpolitik.

Nurul Izzah : I think society reflects the way its leaders behave and the policies that are being practiced in our society have a bearing on how everything progresses. But at the same time, if policies are not based on clear and altruistic intentions and implemented with the will for a true change, it will remain an empty tool of propagandastic intent.

David : What do you mean even without these?

We start with the premise that racial-issues being politicised leads to division. Therefore national schools are not the schools of choice.

National unity can be achieved only when politicians understand what education means. Education is not about imparting knowledge. It is about imparting wisdom. Knowledge and academic results based education creates well qualified people who do stupid things.

Our schools teach tolerance. Wise people practice acceptance, not tolerance.

In this Episode 2 of the Wawancara Hari Kebangsaan 2005 series, Shin consults bloggers Fathi Aris Omar, Ong Boon Keong, Rajan Rishyakaran, Zulhabri Supian, Tauke Fooji, Emmanuel Joseph, Sharizal Sharaani, Politics 101, Nurul Izzah Anwar and David Teoh of David the Katana on the issue of National Language and National Unity.

Shin : Many including former teachers in Malay College Kuala Kangar (MCKK) hold the opinion that, the level of national unity and academic results were much better when the medium of instruction was English. Once it was switched to Bahasa, it’s downhill all the way. Does this mean the national language cannot unite the citizens efficiently ?

Fathi : I don’t think the issue is language, bahasa Malaysia or English. I
prefer to say the pivotal issue here is democratic freedom. Read George Orwell’s brief comment on this issue, ‘Politics and the English Language‘ (1946).

For the New Order’s Indonesian control of language and thoughts, we may refer to this latest book, Social Science and Power in Indonesia (2005).

If you can’t express many things, if you cannot explore your creative freedom freely (literature, for example), if you have some ideas but no effective medium of public expression and exchange (no free press or academic freedom), if our society kills debate and critical thinking, if intellectuals fails (or refused) to challenge the powers-that-be (that is, no serious debates on matters of public importance), what is happening to our language?

I tend not to agree with the former teachers in MCKK. I guess they perceive these issues wrongly or narrowly. I notice bahasa Malaysia can be a medium of excellence too.

But when our freedom and democracy is slowly eroded, a decade after another (see this important dates: post-May 13, 1969, the 22-year rule under Dr Mahathir Mohamad and post-1998 political crises), what has happened to our language use and our thoughts?

Even English-speaking Malays and Malaysians, urbanites and professionals, are ’stupid’ (or: shallow, conservative, less critical and ignorant)!

Do you read ‘letters section’ of Malaysiakini.com – and do you think these English-speaking letter writers are ‘good’? Have you noticed how people express and argue in The Star, The New Straits Times and even Kakiseni.com?

Even those who study overseas (Malays or non-Malays) are more or less inflicted with this Malaysian disease of mediocrity! Language use is not about words and vocabulary. It is about ideas and how you relate, analyse, what’s is happening around you (societal realities).

Language and excellence are not spontatenous. People, here, assume (repeat: assume) English is more superior to bahasa Malaysia because the former language is more developed intellectually and internationally recognised.

But when you try to transmit the intellectuality of English to a less democratic environment (when you are subject to unfair, conservative, undemocractic constraints) – it may have different impact. It is the context of intellectuality (or intellectual development) in a certain
political climate that provides the excellence of language use (and, thoughts).

But language can be a good (and very effective, too!) tool for thought-control, propaganda and misinformation. See Murray Edelman’s The Politics of Misinformation (2001, 2004) and Pierre Bourdieu’s Language and Symbolic Power (1991, 2001).

If you ask some Malay intellectuals, who can use equally well bahasa Malaysia and English, e.g. Rustam A Sani, Hishamuddin Rais or Khalid Jaafar — they will agree with me. That is, nothing is special in English-speaking Malays’ (or, non-Malays’) discourse and understanding.

What I try to conclude is simple indeed — it is democratic freedom, not the language use, which hinders excellence.

You said: “Once it was switched to Bahasa, it’s downhill all the way.” But can you also notice the downhill of our democratic space?

Shin : Yes, definately…

Fathi : So, I believe there is strong correlation between political authoritarism (especially the 22-year rule of Dr Mahathir’s) plus religious fundamentalism and thought-control and language use.

I try to explain, though still simple and inadequate, in some of my pieces in my Malaysiakini.com column, e.g. ‘Akar Umbi Pembodohan Umno’ (23 August 2003), ‘Politik dan Kejahatan Berbahasa’ (8 August 2005) and the most recent one ‘Kebodohan Umum di Indonesia’ (22 August 2005).

If you read my book Patah Balek: Catatan Terpenting Reformasi (Feb 2005), link , you will notice that the issues are dealt with quite extensively.

I still believe, none the less, that my analyses are still superficial. I try to remind people that we have to deal with these issues (i.e. language, public discourse and thought control) because they are equally important in our democratic struggle; not cases of human rights violations only (for instance).

BK : Historically it was true -but need not be so. In the past only very few get educated -so the academic excellence and unity was limited. Now with more people being educated the task for national unity is larger and heavier. Unfortunately the government chosed to level down educational standards in the haste to widen education access - thus the lowering of standards. They could have taken care to maintain standards. So it is not necessarily linked with national language.

Rajan : Cuba has no national language - it is one of the remaining few countries that successfully united many ethnic groups within one national identity. Same goes for Puerto Rico . Another good example is America itself. While white-coloured relations are only begining to pick up, integration between various races occured while their counterparts in Europe were killing each other. Interestingly, German-Americans form a plurarity of whites, yet German isn’t America’s national language.

We should let the people decide on their own. If they want to use Malay as their language? So be it. English? Go ahead. If half of Malaysia adopts Esperanto, be my guess. The government should accomodate to our language and not the other way around.

Habri : Saya tidak dapat menjawab soalan ini dengan baik kerana tidak berpeluang untuk merasai sistem pendidikan di dalam Bahasa English. Namun saya akan cuba memberi pandangan saya tentang isu perpaduan kaum. Bagi saya faktor uatama yang menyebabkan perpaduan kaum di Malaysia gagal dicapai adalah bermula di pihak kerajaan dengan polisi-polisi yang bersikap diskriminasi (respon kepada tragedi 13 Mei, timbul soal lain pula adakah kaum Cina begitu tamak ketika itu dan tidak berpijak pada realiti sosial ?) kepada kaum bukan Bumupitera di dalam pelbagai bidang seperti ekonomi, pendidikan termasuk juga
hiburan yang sekaligus menyebabkan unit penting di dalam masyarakat iaitu keluarga (bukan bumi, lazimnya akan turut mempengaruhi ahli keluarga yang lain seperti anak dan isteri) bersikap anti atau prejudis kepada kaum Bumi (terutama Melayu).

Sikap prejudis ini telah menjadi kelaziman di dalam keluarga bukan bumi dan juga bumi dan cara terbaik untuk mengatasi sekaligus meningkatkan tahap perpaduan di negara ini adalah bermula melalui usaha individu itu sendiri. Mereka wajib keluar dari kepompong prejudis yang merosakkan ini dan sebaliknya berusaha untuk ‘engage’. Bahasa dalam soal ini bagi saya bukanlah punca utama dan jika benar maka betullah sikap prejudis telah bersarang. Mereka yang pandai berbahasa English memperkecil-kecilkan dan menjauhkan diri mereka dengan mereka yang berbahasa kebangsaan dan juga sebaliknya.

Namun ingin saya beri penekanan bahawa semua rakyat Malaysia harus mahir berbahasa kebangsaan kerana ia adalah bahasa rasmi negara ini. Walaupun BM bukan milik mutlak kaum Melayu sahaja di negara ini tetapi kaum bukan bumi harus sedar bahawa dengan tidak mahir berbahasa kebangsaan akan menyebabkan kaum majoriti di Malaysia iaitu Melayu (BM berasal dari bahasa kaum ini) berasa kecil hati. Jadi menjadi tanggungjawab kita semua rakyat Malaysia untuk memahirkan diri dengan bahasa kebangsaan dan di dalam masa yang sama terus mempertingkatkan penguasaan Bahasa English, bahasa ibunda dan bahasa-bahasa lain

Bagi soalan keputusan akademik, saya tidak mempunyai data-data komparatif untuk membuat penilaian.

Fooji : Let us be realistic and not idealistic. Idealistically, if the Japanese and Chinese can rise so strongly with their own language, why can’t we Malaysians? However, we have to realise that Bahasa Melayu is not the mother tongue of all the ethnic groups. (The Chinese, especially, are too protective of their language, to adopt a new mother tongue). I think BM has failed to an intellectual language, a business language that can bring us forward, because besides being a fairly young unestablished language, it is also not popular among those who have a different mother tongue. However, I think BM, just like any other language would have, has succeeded to be the language of daily conversations between races in the marketplace, in the office. (But sadly not in the business world, or even the medical world). Therefore, the BM, because every Malaysian has to learn it, is effective in becoming the common language for all, and thus, as a form of machinery to drive towards unity. But of course, deep down in my heart, English, would have played a more effective role.

Emmanuel : In my humble opinion, BM should be maintained, but the focus should be towards English.Reason being, though BM seemed like a good idea at that time, where nationalism was high and singular countries were highly individualistic, international tendencies now run deeper towards globalization, regardless what opinions we may have of it, or lack thereof, or however we resent it, or how little we know of it.As such, English should be the way to go.Not just for advancement, but for survival.Of course BM must survive, as is a heritage language.In fact all these mother tongues should have institutes set up for its preservement.Perhaps in one of the universities.

Sharizal : I disagree. The level of education and national unity are too loosely correlated to each other to comment on. But to directly answer your question national unity does not solely depend on the national language. Although it is one of the major components but to solely use it as a scapegoat is bad form.

Poli : It wasn’t really due to a shift in medium of instruction. It’s just that along the same path came the Malay Agenda and it’s this agenda that divided the communities, crippled the education system and retarded critical thinking among younger Malaysians. That agenda created many useful robots programmed to say “Yes sir” without first engaging their brains !

Nurul Izzah : It goes back to implementation, as a lot of things in Malaysia are linked to well meaning agendas, unfortunately not corresponding to proper implementation.

I do not think you can pinpoint the blame of the lacking unity to the policy of maintaining Bahasa Malaysia as a medium of teaching in local universities.

Of course we will need to maintain the importance of Bahasa Malaysia as our national language, but at the same time, there needs to be an equal amount of effort in improving the level of English education taught in our schools.

I studied in the English medium as an undergraduate, and I still felt there was an obvious lack of unity between us students, butto me personally,that was more due to the existing Acts that further remind each and one of us of the importance of keeping mum, careful and distant, rather than the medium of education itself.

David : I am not from the generation when the switch occurred. It was an attempt to foster nation building yet, the reality was that as a trading nation, we were at an advantage because we could converse well in English. It was a noble move to encourage a national identity which in the end was used as a political tool for race-based politics. I think the original intention to build a national identity became distorted by politics to encourage further divisiveness within the different language groups. It is a pity. We are now a nation which can’t speak Malay or English well.

This is the first episode of the Wawancara Hari Kebangsaan 2005 series. Amongst the bloggers and activists who blog, replies from Fathi Aris Omar of Patah Balek, Ong Boon Keong of Malaysia Voters Union, Rajan Rishyakaran of the self-titled blog Rajan Rishyakaran, Zulhabri Supian of Komentar Rakyat Biasa, Tauke Fooji of Warung Ikan Bakar, Emmanuel Joseph of My Daily Dread, Sharizal Sharaani of Perpetual Permutating Perceptions, Poli of Politics Malaysia 101, Nurul Izzah Anwar and David Teoh of David the Katana have been received. Therefore, the everyone’s reply will be compiled alongside each question, and be published here from today.

Tunku Abdul Rahman mengisytiharkan kemerdekaan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu di Stadium Merdeka pada 31 Ogos 1957.

Shin : The British have left the country for 48 years, but many of their policies including the notorious Internal Security Act (ISA), divide and rule, restrictions on mother tongue education are still largely intact. In the aspects of press freedom and local election, it’s much worse than it was 48 years ago. In your opinion, are we truly independent ?

Fathi : I guess the issue is becoming cliché, almost every year we ask and argue the same question – for instance, “are we independent”? [laughing] We have to recognise a simple fact that a democracy (or, politics in any country) is a complex, dynamic process. So if you have already achieved a comparatively freer political setting, it does not necessarily last long.

If you study the history of post-colonial Burma and the Philippines, you can see such dynamics. If you look at Indonesia’s post-Soeharto democracy, it will appear to you that a democracy is relative.

I am not an apologetic to Malaysian current state of political affairs now, but we can say that freedom has to be fought for over and over. It is not static, ‘given’ once and for all! Democracy, even when it is practised democratically, can have paradoxes, problems and contradictions. See Frank Cunningham’s The Theories of Democracy: A Critical Introduction (2003).

BK : Actually the ISA, divide and rule, restrictions on mother tongue education are worse now than before -after eg ISA had been amended 20 time over ! Just like press freedom and local government election. The people are not independent -but the state -in terms of political force running the country, is formally independent. The people need to win independence in our own name.

Rajan : No. But don’t blame the British. The Americans got rid of the British to establish the longest-lasting constitution with a democratic republican government that improves by year. We?

Habri : Berhubung persoalan sama ada kita sudah merdeka sepenuhnya atau tidak, jawapan saya sudah pastilah belum walaupun kita sudah merasai sebahagian nikmat kemerdekaan. Namun bagi saya definasi merdeka ini sangat berbeza pada setiap rakyat negara kita, bergantung kepada mana pemahaman dan lingkungan persekitaran mereka.

Namun saya juga ingin menegaskan bahawa kita wajib menghargai nikmat kemerdekaan ini walaupun ianya masih belum cukup sempurna. Bayangkan jika nikmat yang tidak sempurna langsung tidak ada? Tetapi itu bukan bermakna perjuangan untuk menuntut kemerdekaan yang tulen diketepikan dan saya ingin tegaskan di sini bahawa usaha mencapai ‘kemerdekaan kedua’ seperti matlamat meluaskan proses demokrasi ini amat penting untuk difahami dan diperjuangkan oleh rakyat Malaysia. Itu juga tidak bermakna jika sudah dicapai ia akan berakhir di situ kerana proses demokrasi itu tidak statik sifatnya.

Fooji : Can we say that Tanah Melayu, without the intervention via the colonisation, would have ended up much worse in terms of social rights and distribution of wealth? I think we are truly independent from British rule, but not yet independent from regressive views and blind loyalty, and disrespect towards human rights.

Emmanuel : No, we are not.The only way we can truly be independent are if minds are liberated and ALL barriers posed by colonial rule is broken.This includes poverty, uneducation, malnourishment, racial/religious extremism, and any other form of people-herding.

Sharizal : This is a double edged question. In one hand we have achieved so much during the first 48 years many of us do question why can’t we achieve more especially with regards to the question that you have just asked.

On the other hand, as a country of 48 years we are still young in our formative years and it is during such times is where we face ups and downs of joys and tribulations like any growing country.

But we must not loose direction or faith to what we believe that is right for our country and equally important to fight for it within the limits that is present in this country.

Sometimes when we fight for something that we believe what is right we forget that we do trample on the other rights of many other people who have a different preference to what is important. In order to be fair to this bigger, silent majority, one must be fair…

Poli : Over the years I have heard a few non-Malays saying we may be better off if we were still a British colony. I can never subscribe to that line of thought. I think many have mistaken merdeka for freedom. Being independent does not equate to being more free. Malaysia isn’t the only victim of continued divide-and-rule policies. Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) and the Middle East are very good examples of how the fallout from such policies are still impacting on society.

I cannot really fault the government for keeping intact laws like the ISA, and putting together more oppressive ones like the Official Secrets Act and Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 because the BN takes each new mandate it gets at every election as a thumbs-up by the public for a job well done. In many ways that’s absolutely true because many of those who grumble are also those who either didn’t bother to vote or they voted for the BN. I believe it’s well documented that one of the govt’s fiercest critics in the “intellectual” world admitted he didn’t bothered to cast a vote until 1999!

Nurul Izzah : There are of course many facets to the meaning of Malaysian
independence. I would not disagree with the fact that we have been physically freed from our former British counterparts. But yes, with the continuing implementation of their outdated and archaic policies and laws, we are truly at a loss.

The slow erosion of the Election Commission, which was more independent in the late 60s compared to this moment in time helped to deny our rights for a more credible, fair and free election. Of course an ombudsman always acts to ensure there is greater representation from the locals, hence empowering each citizen even more. We have a long way from being truly independent. It has a lot to do with a battle in our minds, as much as the realization of a true democratic nation. I think Azly Rahman’s article, entitled “Merdeka! But are we totally free“, sums it pretty well.

David : When we look at the original intention of laws like the ISA, we see it was established in good faith and not an instrument to ‘curb’ independence. Every once in a while, we must look back and see if some of the archaic laws we made are still relevant today. Independence should not be equated with freedom. Independence means the people of this country taking the lead in determining the course of the nation’s future. However it seems to be an Asian thing where preservation of the peace takes precedence over the freedom of expression. We need time to grow out of it. We are very much a 3rd world country, regardless of what the politicians may say. A maturity that goes along with freedom of expression is not present in our society as yet.

It is a brand new Monday morning. My better half just text-messaged me that she would be spending this pretty sunny day shopping and lepak in malls, eventhough she has a test today, because she was not well-prepared for it.

We can’t blame her, how can we ? It’s holiday mood now. Yes, Persekutuan Tanah Melayu’s 48th big day is approaching. Come this Wednesday in Boulevard Putrajaya, 32,825 dudes clad in colourful hillarious custome, either marching like monkeys or riding floats, will take part in the biggest ever NDP in the country in terms of participants so far.

Also in the pipeline is a National Day Interview which all of you are invited to take part in. It aims to establish a platform where Malaysians of all walks of life may exchange and share opinions on independence and independe-related issues. Copies of it has been e-mailed to some bloggers and Keadilan leaders but those who didn’t received it are encouraged to participate too. Please send your reply to preferably by National Day, Aug 31 or latest by 16 Sept 2005, the day Malaysia turns 42.

So, have you Google talked ?

It’s the latest instant messenger (IM) developed by Google. It’s so plain, so basic. But the most important function you need from a messenger is to send message. In a way, it’s sufficient.

No emoticons, no choice of fonts or color. Just a messenger. Anyway, have you heard of people complaining that you cannot change the font or font color of your SMS message in your phone ?

If that’s not enough, the icing ice cream of the cake is voice chat. So from today on you can kick Skype into the dustbin of historical garbage the way you kick Umno away.

It’s very nice for Rajan to discover that typing *alamak* will turn the word “alamak” bold. I bet he’s still cracking his head to see how to turn words italic.

If you haven’t Google talked, download it here, sign in with your Gmail id and password, and add me… My email addie is … Anyone who needs a Gmail account is also welcome to get it from me

p/s : f.y.i, he has stopped cracking his head after realising that you can turn a word italic by typing _mwah_ …

In a dinner in Kelab Golf Perkhidmatan Awam on Sunday night together with my significant other, fellow blogger Nik Nazmi and his significant other Imaan, Faisal Mustaffa and his significant other Azizah the e-commerce lectuerer, we have met Datin Seri Dr. Wan Azizah, who was also invited.

I mentioned to her that some months ago, someone told me Azizah was quite unhappy because I emailed her, asking her about some party stuff. This fler told me, that Azizah was furious because she had no idea where did this Shin come from and how could my email land in her inbox from middle of nowhere.

“Party got hierarki one. Everyone must follow protochol maa…”

Owh, agaknya…

But when Azizah was asked about this, she was quick to clarify,

“No no no, it’s so untrue. Why should I…. See, it’s email, so we do get bunches of emails even from those we don’t know. Don’t worry “

Thank you Azizah. I know you aren’t like what they describe. But we are kind enough not to go after those who tried to trap us. Moral of the story, we forgive, but we don’t forget.

Shin kan hiatus sebentar hujung minggu nie… Nak balek KL. Ade antara kitorang blogger-blogger Kelate yang nak kawin, yeay ! Entahlah klu Anwar dan Azizah kan hadir tak…. Ehh, ko dah jemput diorang kan ?

See ya next week

No, not through our independent judiciary this time, but right here in the blogosphere.

Yes, the supporters of Kerajaan Langit have finally set up a blog, simply named Ayahpin, to explain what actually happened. Things that were purposely blacked out by Umno.

It’s heartbreaking to see my fellow citizens suffer just because they choose their own belief which was deemed a deviant teaching by the powers-that-be.

Contrary to the evil mainstream press reports, Ayah Pink has never forced anyone follower of him, regardless of his religion, to renounce their religion. Therefore, the Sky Kingdom is a place where believers of different religions come together to appreciate each the beauty of other’s religions.

The current administration, in order to look good under the threat of Pas, has danced along the Pas music by introducing many superficial yet lunatic so-called “Islamic” policies. Puppeting Muftis, religious authorities, moral police, even land office and Umno mobsters, they hand down judgement after judgements to destroy whoever thinks freely, creating charges for each and every through whim and fancy.

They have forgotten that the Prophet embraced diversity and inclusiveness. Perhaps, it’s time Malaysians give them a lesson so they won’t disturb our thoughts further. But first, Malaysians need to learn how to use the minds awarded by God to think of themselves freely. Will they ?

YAB DPM DS Najib Razak was reported to have said in Langkawi that, “No hugging please, we are Muslims”. He was commenting on the so-called reality show Akademi Fantasia where the students hug each other passionately especially when someone is to be kicked out doesn’t have sufficient votes to stay in the competition.

According to DS Najib, instead of showing “indecent” acts, they should sing decent songs and dress up properly, and by capitalising in such programmes that enjoy skycrapering popularity, government can instil so-called “good values” among the couch potatoes, as government-sponsored pro-Umno shows can never rake in such big bunch of bananas audiences.

AF is a stupid show. Look at their champs since season 1, Vince, Zahid and now Mawi, I could only say, it’s bad getting badder. Compare to Malaysian Idol or Astro Talent Quest, which don’t cash in in audiences’ tears but produce gooder singing talents, AF should just gulung tikar. But that’s story for another day.

Okay, now, it goes back to whether Muslims should follow strictly what’s said in the book more than a millennium ago without judging its relevance with their free will and wisdom awarded by God. Many have spoken up. As usual, you have the liberals vs the hardliners. It’s a matter of whether we are free to believe and think. We should not blame those who can’t think for themselves, should we ?

The catch here being, does Islam only regulate petty stuff such as no drinking, no hugging, wear tudung etc ? Now that since guys would look like Pas mullahs if they too wear tudung, they’ve come out with proposals asking police officers to wear kain lampin sampin instead.

Okay my point here. Didn’t holy Quran say a word on corruption or money politics ? Didn’t it tell us to be fair and just but why are you still suppressing our freedom of expression and freedom of information ? Would you please say, “No corruption please, we are Muslims” ? Or perhaps for all the money you have siphooned to your pocket from the treasury, your hands please, Sir. They should be chopped off, as “We are Muslims”.

My two sens Visit Malaysian Medical Resources and Politics 101 for more info…

Great news for all of you Malaysians, who have been suffering under the glorious collaboration joint venture between the Royal Malaysian Police and the gangsters.

Michael Soosai, who was said to have faked his death then went exile into the sub-continent is one that had extensive dealings with the men and women in blue. Two websites chronicling his adventures, www.michaelsoosai.org and www.msmalaysia.org, have surfaced in June. I was lucky to be one of the earliest readers, as my little bird in KeadilanRakyat.org told me that someone tipped them off in an email.

As expected, the police went against YAB PM DS Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s wish to listen to truth, and instead asked the two hosts, in India and Nepal respectively, to shut the websites down.

On the other hand, the Youth wing of Keadilan have lodged reports with Anti Corruption Agency against the police personnels mentioned in the websites, in order to help Pak Lah clean up the police force.

Now, thanks to Politics 101, he has resurrected part of contents from the websites. It was contributed by a reader who was brilliant enough to save the pages earlier. As wished by YAB DS, we should not let the truth dissappear in the thick hazy air.

Enjoy the introduction story and the resurrected contents of the mysterious website. Bravo Politics 101 !

It’s the Republic of China that emerged as one of the 5 winners in World War II, alongside Britain, USA, France and USSR, exactly 60 years ago. It’s not the commies or their so-called crappy People’s Republic of Cheena.

See the flag ? It’s these five that became the founders of United Nations, bestowed with veto power.

Click on the above picture for a complete picture.

I should have blogged about last week, but I was out of town.

Finally, Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) has launched an herstoric political podcast. For those who are still in the dark about what a podcast is, read what does the Wikipedia have for you please.

Hmm… I am not sure if it can be categorised as a podcast. There’s no RSS feed for us to subscribe to. Lacking this very crucial automated delivery system, it’s just simply an mp3 file sitting in their website waiting for people to come and download.

But it doesn’t matter for SDP Sec-Gen Dr. Chee Soon Juan, who spoke passionately in his American accent. I wouldn’t term it funny but it’s just very alient for us. If it’s in The Apprentice or Survivor, it wouldn’t be as hillarious. After all, he’s a product of Republican’s National Endowment for Democracy isn’t he ?

Hmm, I still missed my sweet Jojo Struys, her voice, her accent and her landmark show, Pillow Talk, used to be on ntv7 every Monday night at a quite flexible time (meaning it’s 12:10 am on TV listings but might appear as early as 11:45 pm the previous night…)

Anyway, back to Radio SDP. In his inaugural address, Dr. Chee comments on the current issues, stipulates SDP’s aims and platforms, the need to have a genuine democracy, the importance of freedoms of information and expression and the consequences of lacking it, as well as why the people shouldn’t be apathetic anymore, among others.

Radio SDP has received mixed but encouraging response from the blogging world. There are those who criticized it for still knowing nothing except attacking PAP, for example, Justina :

I really wish for once, that SDP will just concentrate in running a good campaign, and having interesting solutions, and stop attacking PAP. You don’t have to attack PAP to run a good campaign. Neither will attacking PAP make your agenda good. It’s useless statements like that that really puts me off.

There are also the others, for example Merv, who feared that SDP’s proclamation that podcasting is the only way for oppositions to voice out in a country where press are controlled, TV are censored, cables are dictated and satellite dishes completely banned, will only result in PAP enacting new legislation or amending existing ones to “regulate” political podcasts by outlawing them.

Will the government move to stop it? I hope not. Think about it, podcasting is blogging, with sound.

Yes, I totally agree with you Merv, that podcasting is just blogging with sound. However, it’s not as if the PAP have never move moved on a blogger previously. Look at what happened to chemical physics PhD student at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Chen Jiahao.

For more negative commentaries on Radio SDP, visit e pur si muove or Wannabe Lawyer. Don’t you think it’s exactly these dudes who don’t give a chance to opposition that are helping PAP to stay in throne ?

For neutral commentaries, go to Omeka Na Huria, Singaporeist or Mr. Brown…

The democracy is earned and not given. Power concedes nothing without a demand. Despite its shortcomings and weaknesses, I still applaud SDP’s effort in trying to reach out. It’s time for Parti Keadilan to set up our own podcast too, one with RSS feed

For the time being, Shin’s sonique will be dominated by Jessica Simpson and Natalie Imbruglia.