‘I Choose Malaysia’ – selling a feel-good image

Clive Kessler

Malaysiakini

Jul 25, 2012

Congratulations on noticing and commenting upon this new promotional exercise by “the old national management team”.

I noticed it some days ago, and wrote to some friends about it.

I said: I saw an amazing new political ad on TV yesterday: an ad, I suppose, for the government, its re-election.

But interestingly, it provided no sight, sign or mention of Umno or BN or the “government” or “kerajaan”, no sight or mention of PM Najib Abdul Razak, nor of any of his cabinet ministers.

And no sign, sight, or mention either of any specific national government projects, no mention of government transformation plans, KRA, KPI.

None of that.

Instead just faces, most speaking rapidly, earnestly, with apparent conviction and quite authoritatively, even demandingly.

All set against a plain white background.

All those talking faces saying “I am going to vote”, “the power is in my hands”, “security” “peace”, etc, etc.

But at the beginning and end – framing and “anchoring” the whole collage of visages and earnest assertions – is the face of none other than Dr Mahathir Mohamad, with his best, familiar smile.

Some people call it his likeable little boy smile, the smile of a boy who knows he’s been naughty but also knows that you’ll forgive him – because he is likeable, charming, has a winning way.

In other words, through this ad the “old Umno/BN national management firm” seems to be signalling that it knows that it hasn’t got much to say for itself  these days, much that people are ready to listen to, hear, and very little goodwill to call upon.

Instead, it is now trying to get people to vote for its re-election in the same way that KFC uses the face, the image and icon, of their likeable, quite mythical, old colonel to get you to buy their fried chicken.

There are a number of implications of this, all worth thinking about.

Among them are:

First, have the Lords of Umno  given up on thinking that any Najib “feel-good” or popularity factor can win the election for his/their party?

Second, is it the case that they have now recognised their key dilemma: how do you sell a product when everybody feels that your product is “on the nose”, going rotten?

Well, you sell instead a “feel-good” image, a persuasive or seductive mood, and just don’t mention the dubious product.

You hide it.

And, here, you just don’t mention the party or its current leaders!

It’s an amazing ad.

You should all watch out for it, and think about it.

Floating in the ether

Some further thoughts about that interesting TV ad.

It works on a strategy and aesthetic of “radical decontextualisation”.

What it offers is not connected to anything outside of itself.

It floats in the ether, hovers above the political reality that it speaks to, that it seeks to influence and shape.

In other words, its strategy is to sell and promote, to market, Umno/BN purely as a “brand”, not as a product, as anything directly grounded in the current facts and issues of national political life.

I see the logic of it, and it’s not a stupid strategy.

In the face of the present situation, its disquieting problems, what is “the old team” to say and do?

But I doubt that it can really work, “deliver”.

I suppose that they will start by “trialling” it, just to see how it goes, whether it is effective, especially in urban areas and with the young.

Perhaps there is even more to that new ad.

Is it perhaps being prepared and held “on hand”, “in the can”, “on stand-by”, just in case it is needed for a non- or post-Najib campaign?

Is somebody perhaps using this ad to test the waters, trying to gauge how an alternative (non-Najib) campaign would fare in comparison with what is now in prospect?

Are some people in the Umno/BN “engine room” already planning a second, alternative campaign: one to run just in case they decide that they have to replace Najib before the election is held?

Definitely worth thinking about, watching.

——————————————————————————–

CLIVE KESSLER is Emeritus Professor of Sociology & Anthropology, The University of New South Wales, Sydney.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 26 July 2012, 1:48 am and is filed under
Elections
,
Media
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib should summon an emergency Cabinet meeting to change the divisive National Day/Malaysia Day theme and the ghastly Merdeka Day logo

How much are Malaysian taxpayers being milked for the ghastly 55th Merdeka Day logo and the most divisive National Day/Malaysia Day theme ever conceived in the nation’s history?

Is the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak so desperate about his electoral prospects and those of UMNO/Barisan Nasional in the next general election that the 55th Merdeka Day/49th Malaysia Day have to be hijacked to advance UMNO/Barisan Nasional interests by the elevation of the UMNO/BN election campaign theme of “Janji Ditepati” as the official National Day/Malaysia Day theme?

If the National Day logo and theme are not changed, both will become laughing stocks for Malaysians and the world by the time of Merdeka Day on August 31 and Malaysia Day on Sept. 16.

It is sad and shocking that this year’s National Day/Malaysia Day are no more conceived as national celebrations as they have been hijacked by UMNO/BN, blatantly using the UMNO/BN slogan which will divide rather than unite Malaysians, and yet nobody in Cabinet or government could see that this is just wrong and anti-national.

I can confirm that when Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Sheikh Fadzir was the Information Minister and chairman for Merdeka celebrations, he took pains to  invite Opposition leaders to participate by ensuring that the celebrations were truly national events, rising above political parties.

With the National Day/Malaysia Day hijacked by the imposition of UMNO/BN slogan of “Janji Ditepati” as the national theme, UMNO/BN are only ensuring that the 55th Merdeka Day and 49th Malaysia Day will be the most divisive one in the nation’s history, completely at variance and in contradiction with Najib’s signature policy slogan of 1Malaysia, where every Malaysian is to regard himself or herself as a Malaysian first and his race, religion, region and socio-economic status (and of course political affiliation) second.

In fact, the hijacking of the National Day/Malaysia Day this year through the imposition of the UMNO/BN slogan is the latest and most potent example that the Najib’s 1Malaysia slogan is being undermined and  violated – a living example of “Janji Ditepikan” instead of “Janji Ditepati”!

The hideous 55th Merdeka Day logo is a real disgrace. This is a comment by one of the readers of the news portal, The Malaysian Insider:

“Why is this logo hideous? Let me break it down for you.

“1. Too many elements making it overly complex. When printed in small sizes, a complex design will lose detail or worse, look like a printing mistake.

“2. Poor choice of font. Every typeface has a personality, and in this case, the designer did not even give this an afterthought.

“3. Has too many fonts. The maximum should be two, anything more would cause confusion.

“4. It was designed by an amateur with no proper design training.

“5. The Malaysian flag is stock art, so it’s no longer unique. Any tom dick or harry can just download the stock art and use it too.

“It is an insult to everyone when the government passes off this unbearably disgusting powerpoint screenshot as a logo.Now come on guys, we can do much better than this!

“K.I.S.S. (Keep it Simple, Stupid)”

The Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak should summon an emergency Cabinet meeting to change the divisive National Day/Malaysia Day theme and the horrendous Merdeka Day logo, if both and the Najib premiership are not to end up as butts of national jokes.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 26 July 2012, 4:00 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Online, the 2012 National Day logo gets a drubbing

By
Irwan Ismail
 | July 26, 2012

The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, July 26 — The 2012 National Day logo has received wide criticism since it was released this week, with cyber citizens and graphic designers saying it is the worst they have seen and not suitable for the celebration that stretches from August 31 to September 16 which is Malaysia Day.

The government eschewed the traditional logo designing competition this year, leaving the Information Department to come out with the logo which comprises words in different fonts, the Jalur Gemilang, the 1 Malaysia logo and theme “Janji Ditepati” (Promises Fulfilled), all using the four colours of the national flag.

“It’s not even a logo from designer’s point of view. Too many things going on in one piece — logo in a logo, so many fonts, no strong visual message, no hierarchy in typography,” said Imran Abdul Jabar, the founder of sifoo.com, a website dedicated to multimedia design.

He said a logo should be able to stand on its own without the addition of images, illustrations, effects and colours.

“That ‘logo’, or whatever name it is, is not even close to reflecting the spirit of our National or Independence Day. Such a disgrace to the pride of our nation, let alone our creative industry,” Imran said.

Graphic designer Muhammad Azizi agreed with Imran, saying that this year’s logo was an outdated design and lacked creativity.

“There are too many fonts for a logo design and a lack of meaning to relate to the theme. Those in charge need to consider opinions from experts in the design industry,” he told The Malaysian Insider.

To add to the diatribe against the logo, many also made fun of the explanation for the logo, which is available here.

In social networking websites such as Twitter and Facebook, many queried Putrajaya for not having a competition as done previously.

There is even a Facebook group named “Kami Bantah Logo Kemerdekaan Malaysia Ke 55” that questions the tagline “Janji Ditepati”, saying it does not make sense and appears political. The Facebook page has 2,600 members and is growing since it started on July 24.

Activist Datuk Paduka Marina Mahathir also weighed in on the furore, writing in her Facebook page that “obviously our Ministry of Information’s graphic designer just discovered all the fun of Photoshop and decided to bung everything it all at once…”

According to those in the commercial design industry, it is common for clients to make changes although initial designs are good enough but they are not sure what happened with this year’s logo.

“Local designers and design practitioners in Malaysia hope that the logo can be changed for the better,” said one designer, who declined to be named.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 26 July 2012, 11:40 am and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Najib Razak
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Strength in pluralism

— Tariq Ramadan

The Malaysian Insider

Jul 26, 2012

JULY 26 — Malaysia is a country unlike any other: full of promise and fragility. Its history, cultural and religious diversity make it a rich, compelling and surprising land. Chinese, Indian, Malay and, in a broader sense, Indonesian cultures live side by side, while Buddhism, Christianity and Islam all partake of its multi-layered heritage.

Moreover, Malaysia possesses a first-rate economic and geostrategic potential. In the coming years, it can be expected to assume increasingly greater regional and international importance alongside its neighbour, Indonesia — two emerging countries that have often been neglected to the advantage of China and India, which, we are told, represent the only two Asiatic powers.

Today, as the centre of gravity of the new world economic order shifts eastward, the two countries will play significant and critical roles. Malaysia will be a force to reckon with.

But substantial difficulties and obstacles remain to be overcome. Nothing is, or will be, easy. With every passing day, Malaysia reveals the many facets of the challenges facing it and of its doubts. Sixty per cent of the population is Muslim; Islam has emerged as a permanent reference in political debate. Between the ruling party (Umno), which has held power for more than 50 years, and the coalition of opposition parties, conflicting slogans, symbols and controversies arising from the Islamic reference are a fact of life.

There is talk of an Islamic state, of the Sharia, of an Islamic criminal code, of reform, of change. The Arab uprisings and the Islamist victories have already blazed the trail. The Malaysians look on intently, analyse and hope for a better future with less corruption, true freedom, democratic transparency and free media. The road ahead is long and fraught with obstacles.

The country’s Hindu, Buddhist, Christian or atheist citizens often feel that they are captives in a debate that marginalises or exploits them. Like the mirror image of many Muslim citizens in the West, they may be perfectly respectful of the constitution, of the laws and prerogatives of the civil state, but it is as if they are slightly excluded from the shared narrative upon which the Malaysia nation is founded. It has proved difficult for them to achieve the fully equal status that would establish their sense of belonging to a pluralist society.

It is striking to note the same dynamic of social, cultural and religious fragmentation that we find in the pluralist societies of the West (but here, for non-Muslim religious minorities). Moreover, there exists a similar immigration problem, primarily of Indonesian origin, that feeds political tensions (including a frequently hostile policy towards the very immigrants the country needs).

A populist rhetoric has surfaced and is attempting to exploit these tensions (religion, culture, immigration, etc): the politics of emotion and of identity threatens Malaysia’s social cohesion. The fault-lines are visible, especially on the eve of anticipated elections.

Development has not been without costs. For more than a generation, the country has attempted to reconcile American-style modernism with respect for tradition. The contrast between the capital, Kuala Lumpur, and other cities is striking. Here, looming skyscrapers surround the celebrated twin towers that challenge America’s tallest. Political strategy has often consisted of “Islamising” modernism, capitalism, even consumerism — a strange mixture indeed.

Then, just around a corner, on a visit to the state of Perlis, a sudden glimpse of a creative spirit that seeks to unite tradition, aesthetics and ethics at the heart of the modern world. There, a superb structure built on supporting piers, known as the “floating mosque,” reflects the extraordinary maritime landscape. Fifty per cent of its electricity consumption is generated by wind turbines and, when completed, solar panels will account for its remaining energy needs: a “green” mosque beneath whose dome Islamic scriptural references are inscribed in the five national languages, to signify that Islam is not the property of one language and one culture.

This mosque is ultimately far more “modern” than all the blind mimicry of American models. Our task, after all, is to consider the ethical principles and the technical capacity available to us in our day, while not for an instant forgetting the ethical principles that underlie diversity and the environment itself. Our task is to provide modernity with a soul, to breathe life into spiritual and humanist creativity. What a pleasure to pray in such a mosque: one senses the encounter of intelligence and creative imagination.

From Perlis, far from the skyscrapers of Kuala Lumpur, flows the intuition that the “floating mosque” may well be the symbol of Muslims’ greatest contribution to an era in search of meaning: to express its specificity in universal terms, in full respect of pluralism and to respond in full awareness and with all necessary expertise, to the challenges of our time. — Gulf News

* Tariq Ramadan is professor of Contemporary Islamic Studies in the Faculty of Oriental Studies at Oxford University and a visiting professor at the Faculty of Islamic Studies in Qatar. He is the author of “Islam and the Arab Awakening”.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 26 July 2012, 5:17 pm and is filed under
Islam
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Bersih decision, refreshing and reaffirming

 — Proham

The Malaysian Insider

Jul 26, 2012

JULY 26 — Proham notes that it is refreshing to see a High Court decision re-affirming the time honoured principle that an executive decision must be based on a proper interpretation of the law and the application of reasonable and rational consideration of relevant facts.

On July 24, 2012, Justice Datuk Rohana Yusof  allowed an application for certiorari to quash the Minister’s order made on July 1, 2001 under section 5 of the Societies Act where he had declared the Coalition for Clear and Fair Elections (Bersih) as a unlawful movement.

The decision illustrates the pitfalls of administrative decisions which are not consonant with provisions of the law and the Constitution but are made relying on faulty appreciation of the law and on unreasonable and irrational considerations of unverified or irrelevant facts supplied normally by aides.

Another important aspect of the case is the re-affirmation of another principle that in a democratic system of governance under the Constitution, the intervention of an independent judiciary able to make judicial decisions affecting aggrieved parties without fear and favour is of paramount importance bearing in mind too, that in our court system the right of appeal is not shut to parties dissatisfied with the decisions.

Proham hopes that the 30 page decision will be published in the papers; it will be seen as a judgment where it would not be appropriate to pursue an appeal as the grounds are comprehensive and full of common sense and logic.

* This statement was issued for the Association for the Promotion of Human Rights (Proham) by Tan Sri Simon Sipaun (Proham Chair), Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam, Tan Sri Michael Yeoh and Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria (Proham Secretary-General).

                This entry was posted on Friday, 27 July 2012, 12:28 am and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Hishammuddin
,
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Kedah: Losers and victors

— Sakmongkol AK47

The Malaysian Insider

Jul 26, 2012

JULY 26 — The Umno strategists in its war room deserved to get Oscars for their clowning performance. We are kept hilariously amused. A few years ago, it was the 1 finger in everything — 1 Malaysia, 1 Klinik, Kedai 1 Malaysia, etc. Earlier on, Malaysians puked at the alphabet soup — NKRA, ETP, PDP, GTP. Then it was one million dreams, one thousand hopes leading to “Janji ditepati”.

A few days ago, I wrote, the PM doesn’t have to play hide and seek whether a bonus for civil servants is expected. I said it will definitely come. So it did, but when I heard the PM say “kita nak bonus raya ketidak”, expecting a rapturous response like a cheerleader does. That shows he has no class at all.

But then that is expected of someone who solves problems by paying his way through. Can we stomach his indulgent ways? After announcing the bonus, he says, expectedly, this is proof of the government’s sincerity. Then, likewise the Selangor government proves its sincerity by giving water free up to a certain level, is more sincere in refusing to let Syabas fleece the people, sincere in also giving Selangor civil servants bonuses. That is also further proof that if you manage the finances carefully, state governments can give bonuses. Let’s see if any BN-managed states can give its civil servants bonuses.

We can go on. The ability of the Penang state government in allocating RM62 million a year for Islam in that state must be proof of the state government’s sincerity. Correspondingly, the Negri Sembilan’s ability to provide only RM10 million a year proves its insincerity. The Kedah government’s ability to increase revenue from the timber and forestry sector must be proof of its efficiency and corruption-free government. The Kelantan government’s achievement in repaying all federal debts must be proof of its financial probity as opposed to Umno’s profligacy.

After pulling all the stops, scare mongering and other alarming and ominous stories what do they resort to? Got to have some intellectual respectability to its now fast disappearing legitimacy. It has called in some academicians to bolster its standing. On one fine day, the professors are assembled and directed to give good accreditations to Umno. What a pathetic move.

One associate professor says BN has a chance to recapture Kedah and among three research subjects, Mukhriz son of Mahathir is the preferred choice as Kedah MB. Who are the research subjects? All three are Umno personalities — Mukhriz who can’t even compete with a lamp-post in terms of personality, Ahmad Bashah whose highest qualification is that he is an old friend of Najib and one who doesn’t even have MCE qualifications, and the former MB of Kedah who forfeited much larger revenue from the state’s timber industry when he led the state. Hello, you confine your choice among the three and ask respondents to identify whom they liked. Of course they will prefer Mukhriz who is young.

We must congratulate BN for its unbounded optimism. How did they come to that spurious conclusion?

It seems the Umno held a roundtable discussion or forum and to arrive at that conclusion, they called in tenured professors from public universities. One professor, reported as a distinguished media practitioner (how come we never get to read professors write blogs so that maybe we can spar with them?), produced the conclusion that BN will recapture these two states. He said that BN has carried so many initiatives under the exemplar leadership of the bodek-days-are-over PM.

Before we go on, can Malaysians believe bodek days are over? Najib can’t sleep if he doesn’t get adulations and ululations. He is an aristocrat for God sake; bodeking is his nectar of life.

Obviously, this professor has never been a member of any political organisation and by the way he came out with his prognosis has never indulged directly in the thrust and parry of real world politics. So we can only attach some academic curiosity as to his conclusions.

Since Kedah was mentioned as one of the two states BN is said to be able to recapture, let’s humour this good professor. Inadvertently, BN has resigned to the fact that it can never capture Penang and Kelantan. There goes the PM’s boast of making it a 14-0 win.

When Dr Mahathir went to Kedah a few months back, the good doctor invited Kedah Umno chiefs to attend. He was asking the chiefs to support his son’s bid to become the next MB. Not all came and those who didn’t come were furious, demanding to know who is this guy Mahathir trying to throw his weight around? That indicates the likelihood of internal strife that can only weaken Umno. The PM’s man in Kedah, his old friend Datuk Basah, wasn’t amused at being bypassed and so we can expect the usual backstabbing and betrayals from Umno cliques in the state.

Where will Mukhriz stand as ADUN? It does not matter as he will have to vacate his parliamentary seat of Jerlun and a new person will stand as parliamentary candidate. Once he vacates his seat, Umno will lose that seat. Mukhriz won in 2008 because the father came along and the PAS people held back from unleashing everything they got out of respect for a former PM. Umno? They didn’t respect Mahathir as he was not able to even become a delegate in his Umno division. That’s how the cookie crumbles in Umno.

If either Mahfuz or PKR’s Saifudin stand in Pokok Sena, Umno is doomed. In Kuala Kedah, Umno is likely to offer the affable Lat Shahriman as candidate. He had better watch out for the Umno Brutuses in the division. Umno’s hold in that seat is tenuous and a five per cent vote swing is all that is needed to ensure defeat for Lat Shahriman. Umno’s only remaining stronghold is Langkawi.

What was Kedah’s vote swing to the opposition in 2008? It was around 12 per cent. Let’s grant Umno a regain of 5 per cent. That still leaves Pakatan with a 7 per cent credit. Umno is left most probably with one singe parliamentary seat and maybe that’s in Langkawi.

Why should the good people of Kedah give the state to BN only to be faced with the prospects of battling a new government in Putrajaya? They are more practical than the simpletons Umno sees them as. — sakmongkol.blogspot.com

* Sakmongkol AK47 is the nom de plume of Datuk Mohd Ariff Sabri Abdul Aziz. He was Pulau Manis assemblyman (2004-2008).

                This entry was posted on Friday, 27 July 2012, 12:49 am and is filed under
Elections
,
Mahathir
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


National Day theme “Janji Ditepati”  wrong and inappropriate as it is anti-national, divisive rather than unifying the people,  presenting Najib as Prime Minister for  UMNO/BN only and not all Malaysians!

The Information Minister, Datuk Seri Dr. Rais Yatim is defending the indefensible when he takes to Twitter to ask why “Janji Ditepati” cannot be used as this year’s National Day/Malaysia Day theme.

Firstly, Rais’ claim that “Malaysia has truly arrived as an achieving nation after 55 years of independence” is highly controversial and debatable, for if this is true, the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak would not gain the reputation of being the  most indecisive Prime Minister in the nation’s history who keeps postponing his plan to hold the next general election to win a personal mandate for his premiership for fear of ending up in the Opposition benches or toppled within UMNO like his predecessor Tun Abdullah.

In fact, probably more could be written about how the slogan of “Janji Ditepati” had failed rather than succeeded in 55 years after Merdeka and 49 years after Malaysia – whether in building a united, harmonious, democratic, progressive and competitive Malaysia; or in fulfilling Najib’s three-year promises of 1Malaysia Government Transformation Programme (GTP) whether in reducing crime, fighting corruption or carrying out meaningful government, economic and political transformation for Malaysia to take her rightful place in international society and achieve the status of a normal democratic country.

I remember when I visited Sabah in 1978, I had warned that Sabah faced three grave problems – the illegal immigrant problem which I had cited had reached 140,000, the crime situation and grave problem of corruption.

All these three problems have gone from bad to worse in the past four decades, with the illegal immigrant problem mushrooming to 1.5 million to 1.9 million making native  Sabahans foreigners in their own land, while crime and corruption have worsened by leaps and bounds.

And Sabahans are still waiting for the next step in the establishment of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into illegal immigrants in Sabah although they have grave reservations that it could really resolve the long-standing problem in the state.

 Is this “Janji Ditepati”?

However, the most fatal objection to the use of the “Janji Ditepati” slogan as the National Day/Malaysia Day theme is not whether it is factually correct or otherwise, but because of two strong reasons: firstly, it is wrong and inappropriate  to use a UMNO/Barisan Nasional slogan for a National Day/Malaysia Day theme and secondly,  it is anti-national, divisive rather than unifying the people,  presenting Najib as Prime Minister for  UMNO/BN only and not all Malaysians!

National Day/Malaysia Day should be national occasions for all Malaysians, regardless of race, religion, region or politics to come together as one people, and no Malaysian or group should be  alienated or marginalized because it has been hijacked by  UMNO/Barisan and turned into an  exclusive UMNO/BN affair.

If UMNO/BN is allowed to hijack National Day/Malaysia Day, is Rais then admitting that  Najib is only Prime Minister for UMNO/BN and not all Malaysians?

No wonder there is overwhelming public support for the Pakatan Rakyat call for a change of the National Day/Malaysia Day theme (as well as the horrendous rojak National Day logo), which is reflected in the Sinar Harian online poll where in less than 48 hours,  2,359 or 84% out of 2,811 respondents supported the change of theme with only 452 or 16% opposing it.

This is an important distinction which even school children would understand.  It really baffles me, and I am sure thinking patriotic Malaysians, why it eludes  Rais and the UMNO/BN Ministers and leaders who are unable to grasp such simple issues of  right and wrong, national and anti-national?

No wonder Malaysia under the continued UMNO/BN rule is in such a mess, whether in nation-building, politically, economically, educationally or  socially.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 27 July 2012, 2:26 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Corruption
,
Crime
,
Elections
,
Najib Razak
,
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Penghapusan duti eksais kereta: Sekali lagi BN kata tak wajar

— Aspan Alias

The Malaysian Insider

Jul 25, 2012

25 JULAI — Niat Pakatan Rakyat untuk menghapuskan duti eksais dan berbagai cukai terhadap kereta-kereta adalah usaha yang patut mendapat sokongan. Ini adalah kerana kereta adalah perkara keperluan oleh rakyat negara ini yang masih terlalu jauh ketinggalan dalam menyediakan kemudahan pengangkutan awam. Sesungguhnya rakyat telah terlalu terbeban dengan kos pembelian kereta kerana sebahagian besar dari harga jualan kereta di negara ini adalah disebabkan oleh elemen cukai-cukai seperti duti eksais yang tinggi yang dikenakan oleh pihak kerajaan kita.

Jika duti eksais diturunkan ketahap minima maka kereta import yang berharga sebanyak RM150,000 itu akan boleh didapati dengan harga RM120,000 misalnya. Malahan kalau kita kaji harga kereta di banyak negara maju ia adalah jauh lebih rendah dari harga kereta yang rakyat kita terpaksa bayar. Harga kereta di negara ini terlalu tinggi dan kita adalah bersamaan dengan negara-negara seperti Singapura dan segelintiran negara di-rantau ini.

Itulah sebabnya ramai di antara rakyat negara ini, apabila kembali ke Malaysia kereta adalah salah satu ‘item’ penting yang dibawa mereka kembali kerana mereka telah membeli kereta-kereta tersebut dengan harga yang amat murah di luar negara. tetapi cadangan ini jangan kita harapkan mendapat sokongan dari pihak parti yang memerintah sekarang kerana mereka tidak akan bersetuju untuk memberikan sokongan dan alasan ‘standard’ yang diberikan mereka ialah tindakan itu akan mengbangkrapkan negara.

Pihak BN telah memberikan reaksi yang negatif terhadap isu ini dan Ketua Pemudanya Encik Khairy Jamaluddin telah menyatakan jika ini terlaksana maka ia akan mengurangkan pendapatan negara dalam jumlah yang berbillion ringgit setahun. Kita tidak boleh melayani pandangan ini kerana beliau (Khairy) adalah di pihak pimpinan dan kerajaan yang tidak mempunyai cukup imiginasi untuk mencari pendapatan alternatif terhadap kekurangan pendapatan dari tindakan mengurangkan duti eksais dan cukai-cukai yang berkaitan dengan harga kereta ini.

Kalau kita mengambil ‘pot’ terhadap alasan Khairy ini semuanya tidak boleh kita lakukan. Memang menjadi ‘attribute’ pimpinan pada hari ini untuk tidak mahu melakukan apa-apa yang ‘innovative’ untuk kepentingan rakyat dan jika mereka hendak lakukan pun, mereka tidak akan mampu melakukannya. Pihak pimpinan sekarang hanya berfikir yang memberikan RM500 itu sebagai bantuan untuk mengurangkan beban itu adalah yang terbaik kerana mereka tidak mempunyai daya ‘innovation’ yang tinggi. Lepas ini mungkin penjawat awam akan mendapat bonus raya pula dan ini mereka anggap akan dapat meringankan kehidupan mereka sampai bila-bila.

Yang penting bagi kita ambil ingatan, iaitu Pihak BN khususnya Umno tidak mempunyai kewibawaan untuk menggubal dasar yang baik untuk rakyat. Oleh kerana terlalu biasa dengan keuntungan kroni-kroni apabila menggubal dasar, lama kelamaan pemikiran pimpinan itu menjadi tumpul dan menganggap apa sahaja yang pihak pembangkang buat itu merupakan satu perkara yang tidak boleh dilaksanakan. Pimpinan BN melakukan terhadap pihak pembangkang itu berdasarkan kepada tahap kemampuan mereka. Oleh kerana mereka tidak terfikir dan tidak mampu melakukannya maka pihak pembangkang pun dianggapnya tidak berkemampuan seperti mereka.

Dalam isu penghapusan duti eksais kereta-kereta ini Khairy menyatakan yang ia akan merugikan kerajaan berbillion ringgit, tetapi Khairy tidak pula mengakui yang kerajaan yang didukungnya bertanggungjawab di atas ketirisan sebanyak RM28 billion setahun. Jika PR menjaga ketirisan ini dari berlaku, maka kita boleh menjimatkan wang rakyat sebanyak RM28 billion setahun dan angka ini lebih rendah dari kehilangan pendapatan jika cukai dan duti eksais dihapuskan.

Menghapuskan cukai dan duti eksais itu akan menambahkan ‘disposable income’ rakyat dan ia bermakna kehilangan pendapatan kerajaan itu dipindahkan kepada penambahan ‘disposable income’ rakyat yang ramai. Saya tidak tergamak hendak memberikan ‘markah’ kepada Khairy sebagai pemimpin tertinggi Pemuda Umno tetapi yang menyedihkan saya, sepandai mana seseorang itu dan berkelulusan dari mana sekali pun seseorang itu, apabila menjadi ahli Umno dan pegang pula jawatan yang tinggi-tinggi dalam parti itu dengan secara ‘automatic’ seseorang itu akan menjadi jumud pemikirannya. Yang pandai akan menjadi tidak pandai jika bersama Umno dan itulah sebabnya Umno sudah tidak lagi dihormati oleh rakyat seperti dahulu.

Kenapa pemimpin seperti Khairy tidak pernah menyentuh tentang harga-harga projek yang menjadi terlalu tinggi jika Umno yang mengendalikannya. Khairy tidak pula mahu menyentuh yang pembelian Scorpene merupakan pembelian yang terlalu mahal sedangkan negara lain membeli kapal selam yang spectnya sama dengan kapal selam yang kita beli itu dengan membayar harga yang jauh lebih rendah dari apa yang kita bayar.

Sekarang sudah menjadi persepsi biasa yang apa-apa projek yang diusahakan oleh Umno itu jauh lebih tinggi harganya dengan harga yang sepatut dan sebenarnya. Kalau hendak menjual sesuatu kepada Umno kita boleh jual dengan harga yang berlipat kali ganda asalkan sahaja sanggup memulangkan sebahagian besarnya kepada pemimpin-pemimpin mereka yang lahap dengan rasuah dan ketagih dengan wang ringgit haram itu.

Berbalik kepada usaha Pakatan Rakyat untuk memansuhkan isu duti eksais ini ke dalam manifesto bersama PR itu merupakan perkara yang amat dinanti-nantikan oleh semua pihak kerana pemansuhan itu akan memberikan faedah kepada keseluruhan rakyat. Ia akan lebih bernilai dari BRIM sebanyak RM500 sekali sejak merdeka 55 tahun yang lalu.

Dengan pemansuhan ini rakyat akan mendapat faedahnya tanpa bersusah payah untuk mendapatkan sokongan Ketua Umno bahagian dan kelulusan Jabatan Hasil Dalam Negeri untuk mendapatkan sejemput bantuan dari BRIM yang menjadi isu kebanggaan Najib dan Muhyiddin ke hulu ke hilir untuk mengungkit-ngungkit tentang bantuan itu dan memaksa semua memberikan undi dalam PRU yang akan datang.

Kita elok berfikir sejenak sebelum kita membuang undi kita kali ini, kerana berfikir sejenak itu adalah lebih baik dari beramal sepanjang malam. — aspanaliasnet.blogspot.com

                This entry was posted on Friday, 27 July 2012, 1:01 am and is filed under
Finance
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Transport
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Reporting rising crime in the city

by Eric Loo

Malaysiakini

Jul 26, 2012

After a week’s work in the slums of Chennai, I stopped over in Petaling Jaya for the weekend en route to Sydney. I heard from friends alarming stories of abductions and killings, assaults and robberies in Malaysia.

A week earlier a decomposed torso was found washed up by heavy rains in Jalan SS22/21 in Damansara Jaya – less than five minutes’ walk from where I lived. One might feel safer navigating the urban chaos and mass human traffic in the capital city of Tamil Nadu than wandering in the shopping mall car park and streets of PJ and KL. With each bloodier crime reported in the media, community fear goes up a notch.

Pemandu had urged for more “balanced reporting” to allay the public fear. Crime reporting, however, is fraught with difficulties when headlines are driven by blood and gore. The more frequently crime stories are highlighted, and sensationalised, by the tabloids – the more we feel unsafe. Anxiety and insecurity then breeds distrust of strangers and neighbours, stereotyping of criminality by ethnicity and fear stoking by right-wing populist parties.

Should the media restrain and sanitise its crime reporting? Certainly not. Crime stories follow the crime rates. The higher the crime rates, the more the crime stories. But, journalists should know that for every crime story written, there could be many that go unreported. Pemandu’s statement of a 40 percent decline in street crime from January to May this year doesn’t explain the community anxiety over ‘rising’ crime in the city.

I received an email from a BFM89.9 Radio journalist when I arrived in Sydney. Referring to my article ‘Reporting crime in context’, the journalist, Lee Jian Chung, asked “why are Malaysian media organisations not pursuing critical and contextual stories about crime?”

The plausible factors are – short turnaround of breaking news, ‘if it bleeds it leads’ news value in commercial media, prevalence of ‘cue journalism’ (as termed by a colleague, Mustafa K. Anuar from Universiti Sains Malaysia), journalists who see crime incidents as events rather than as symptoms of broader socio-economic issues and woefully inadequate policing, journalists who uncritically assume that what the authorities say are true without verifying its factual and contextual accuracy.

The real question is how can Malaysian journalists do better in their crime reporting?

Go beyond traditional sources

My suggestion is simple – delve into the context, and go beyond the traditional sources for explanation – police, NGOs, government departments. Saying that sources are not willing to speak is a cop-out. Good journalists persist. They should go with their instincts, put on their critical thinking caps, tenaciously research and consult with alternative sources to make sense of the perceived rise in crime in the city.

Journalists should crunch the numbers released by the authorities, study the crime patterns, time and where they’re committed, the hot spots, the demographics of the perpetrators. Based on available evidence and a clear understanding of the context, work out a theory.

Indeed, journalists routinely work on assumptions. But good journalists test their assumptions on available evidence to form a theory. Then, they approach expert sources for reactions. Herein lies the essence of critical purposive reporting – which takes self-belief to investigate, time to write, and dedication to follow through.

Purposive journalism could be guided by having SMART goals in mind (acronym borrowed from the field of counseling that refers to goals that are specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-limited).

Applied to purposive SMART crime reporting, it would mean the stories should aim to stir public discussion that will lead to identifying the specific improvements badly needed in the policing system; publicising the measurable achievements or otherwise by the authorities in tackling the rising crime in specific communities; in collaboration with the stakeholders, develop achievable anti-crime community action plans;  responsive reporting and monitoring of criminal activities; and truthful account of what’s going on in the community, what’s lacking in the law and enforcement sector.

Good journalists don’t just report what the authorities and experts say. Good journalists go beyond ‘he said this’ and ‘she said that’. Good journalists check it out for themselves and test their theories with independent sources and the people on the streets.

Thus, when the home minister and his underlings say the crime rate has declined, that should set off crime reporters’ crap detector to ask why doesn’t it feel like it when you walk the streets after dark or withdraw money from the ATM machine?

——————————————————————————–

ERIC LOO left Malaysia for Australia in 1986 to work as a journalist. He currently lectures at University of Wollongong, Australia, and also mentors international journalism students via UPIU.com, run by United Press International. He edits a refereed journal Asia Pacific Media Educator published by SAGE Publications (New Delhi) and conducts journalism training workshops in Asia. Email:
[email protected]

                This entry was posted on Friday, 27 July 2012, 12:38 am and is filed under
Crime
,
Hishammuddin
,
Media
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The bitterness of a financial conservative

by Hafiz Noor Shams

The Malaysiann Insider

Jul 26, 2012

JULY 26 — I handle my finances conservatively. I spend very little for someone my age and my profile. In fact, I impose a sort of limit on my spending. I am conscious of it and get mildly nervous if my total spending grows too fast even when I can more than afford it.

I probably do buy too much insurance and I do save or invest a large part of my earnings. My credit card service provider probably hates me for having to finance me without getting the chance to charge me interest too often too much.

I can afford to save a lot partly because I do not have too many financial responsibilities.

The other factor behind my saving habit has a lot to do with my upbringing and education.

As a very young school kid, I never really needed to spend too much. Canteen food was clearly subsidised. I rarely asked my parents for expensive items.

The more important thing was that my parents did not give me a generous allowance when I was in primary school. My pocket money was very little. Not that I needed too much anyway but at that age, the limited pocket money effectively curbed any spending impulse I might have then. I was always mindful of my limits. It trained me to be financially prudent.

The same was true as I attended a boarding school in Kuala Kangsar; I rarely had expensive lunches or dinners. Meals were again subsidised and there was rarely a need to spend lavishly in a small rural royal town in Perak. While my allowance did increase, it was definitely less than that of my more well-off peers. I lived spartanly then. This continued during my undergraduate years in America. Formal lessons in economics further solidified my attitude towards personal finance.

During my time living abroad, I did learn to enjoy the finer things in life, but I rarely, if ever, overspent. I rarely overspend still.

So, I can say with certainty that I live by the morality of a financial conservative very strictly.

I think I can say without too much pretension that I am an economist. I understand the various reasons for fiscal deficits. Some of the causes for deficit are justifiable, and some are not. I do understand how the government is not a household in a way that the government can do certain things beyond typical household economics, the point which many defenders of the roles of government in society rush to in deflecting criticism against many facets of government spending. After six years of education in economics, I do not think I need too much schooling in that matter excessively.

Rather, put the economics aside and understand the psychology instead. Understand the worldview of a financially conservative taxpayer.

The state of federal government finance does not impress a person like me. Deep inside, I do feel something along the lines of “if I can do it, why can’t Putrajaya?” It is a dismissive attitude towards the federal government. It is a damning judgment against a failure to adhere to certain brands of secular morality.

It is a kind of sentiment that is almost always never brought forward. It is the ever-present demand for financial discipline. Putrajaya violates this conservative morality so blatantly. Each violation accumulates further moral condemnation.

What further justifies the dismissive attitude is the inevitability that the indiscipline — add in the irresponsible economic populism that has happened throughout the year and earlier — will one day, one way or another, result in higher tax on the conservative, and everybody else, sooner or later. Whether I like it or not, I, will have to finance the fiscal indiscipline of Putrajaya.

That fuels my bitterness towards Putrajaya.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 27 July 2012, 12:20 am and is filed under
Economics
,
Finance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia and the Perfect Storm

By
Thomas B. Pepinsky
 | July 27, 2012

blogs.cornell.edu/indolaysia

Let’s say that you’re a pessimist about global growth prospects. If so, you’re not alone: Q2 GDP growth in the U.S. is weak, the U.K. is in a double-dip recession, and there’s no end to the Eurozone crisis in sight. Growth in China is softening too, and the rest of the BRICs aren’t registering the growth that we have come to expect over the past five years. If you also think that global financial markets remain fragile, then you’d be right to worry about a perfect storm in the global economy.

This is bad news all around for the big economies. But we should also pay attention to how global economic conditions will affect small open economies. By definition, these are economies that are dependent on trade and investment, and which therefore have harnessed themselves to the global economy as a basic engine for growth and development. This gives them access to markets for their exports and to investment, but by the same token, it makes them vulnerable to whatever ups and downs the global economy experiences.

Malaysia is a classic example of a small open economy. And a new report (unfortunately behind a paywall) from Roubini Global Economics argues that Malaysia is not only the Asian country whose economy is most vulnerable to a perfect storm, but also the country which is perhaps least able to do anything about it. Take note of the following:

Malaysia’s bank claims to the U.S. or the Eurozone are almost 30% of GDP (highest in Asia)

Malaysia’s exports to China, the Eurozone, and the U.S. are over 20% of  GDP (2nd highest in Asia)

Malaysia has room for monetary easing, but deficits are already pretty high—and there’s an election coming too, meaning that we can expect that the government is already primed to spend

Take all of this together, and we have cause to worry about Malaysia’s economy over the next year. This may have political consequences too. I have recently argued that in 2008-10, emerging economies like Malaysia were able to escape the worst of the political turmoil that frequently accompanies global economic crises because they were able to explain to their citizens that their own economic troubles were not their own fault. Lula put it best: “this is a crisis that was caused by white people with blue eyes.” I don’t think that this will continue to work, in Malaysia or anywhere else.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 28 July 2012, 9:04 pm and is filed under
Economics
,
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia water “crisis” signals fierce fight for richest state

By
Siva Sithraputhran

KUALA LUMPUR, July 29 | Sun Jul 29, 2012 11:03am IST

(Reuters) – The surprise statement came during a rainy spell and when the seven dams in Malaysia’s richest, most populous state were full.

Reserves of treated water in the opposition-controlled state of Selangor were perilously low, said the water company supplying a population of 7 million in the country’s main industrial base. It was seeking approval to start immediate rationing.

For many it looked like politics, not water, was behind the problem – a measure of how high tensions are running ahead of national elections that must be called by early next year and which may be the closest in Malaysia’s history.

“Of course, it’s a political conspiracy,” said Teresa Kok, a member of the Selangor state executive council and opposition member of parliament.

The July 14 announcement has set off an ill-tempered battle between the opposition-run state and the federal government that foreshadows an intense election struggle for the crucial swing state that is a base for multinationals including Panasonic Corp and British American Tobacco.

The state leadership says the ruling coalition is using water supplier Syabas to manufacture a water crisis and sow doubts in voters’ minds over the opposition’s competence.

Syabas, a unit of Puncak Niaga Bhd, has links with the Malaysia’s ruling United Malays National Organization (UMNO). Rozali Ismail, the chairman of Puncak Niaga and executive chairman of Syabas, is treasurer for the party’s Selangor branch and was dubbed Malaysia’s “water king” by Forbes, which ranks him as the country’s 37th richest person.

The federal government says the state has jeopardised its water supply by blocking the construction of a 3.8 billion ringgit ($1.2 billion) treatment plant.

“If we can make Malaysia the global centre for IPOs, how can it be that we can’t resolve water issues,” Prime Minister Najib Razak was quoted as saying this week by The Star newspaper, referring to several big stock debuts in Malaysia this year.

The problem could be resolved, he said, once the people of Selangor “choose a government that can do it.”

As Malaysia’s traditional engine of growth, the west-coast state was a prized, unprecedented win for the opposition in the last election in 2008, and the most potent symbol of the ruling coalition’s worst election performance.

Wresting back the state would help lay to rest doubts about Najib’s leadership within his own party and help the coalition rebound nationwide. For the opposition, retaining Selangor is crucial if it is to have any chance of winning a parliamentary majority and forming a government for the first time.

The state has been at the centre of concerns over voter fraud, with the opposition accusing the government of handing out voting rights to thousands of illegal immigrants.

“The stakes are the highest in Selangor. The prime minister really needs to win it back,” said Ong Kian Ming, a political analyst and lecturer at Kuala Lumpur’s private UCSI university.

TEST OF OPPOSITION COMPETENCE

The perceived performance of the four opposition-controlled states will be a crucial campaign issue as the three-party opposition alliance tries to convince voters it is capable of running the country.

Penang, another opposition-held state, has set an enviable record, attracting the country’s highest level of investment in the manufacturing sector for two years running and slashing public debt levels by over 90 percent in three years.

Selangor’s record is less spectacular. The state government has been dogged by talk of infighting and Malaysia’s ruling coalition is presenting the water issue as exhibit A to show the state is being mismanaged.

“They want to influence the course of the elections. They have a monopoly over water resources and are holding the people to ransom,” said opposition MP Tony Pua, adding that uncertainty over water supply was endangering investment in the state.

Syabas’ shock warning of water rationing this month prompted i n dignant state officials to pose for pictures in front of dams brimming with water to show there was no shortage. Syabas hit back with images showing treatment plants at low reserve capacity, bolstering its case for the new plant.

“The responsibility for ensuring that Selangor has enough water treatment plants lies with the Selangor state government,” it said in a statement released on Thursday.

Selangor has threatened to take over the water company’s operations, a bid that was rejected by the government. The state government remains set on a takeover and is going ahead with plans to sack Rozali, aiming to use its 30 percent stake in Syabas to trigger a vote of no-confidence.

The federal government wants to open tenders for the new plant in a month, but it needs Selangor’s permission to proceed.

The state government says the plant would lead to a steep rise in water tariffs and that projections for water consumption and population growth used to justify its construction are too high. Instead, it wants 225 million ringgit from the federal government to upgrade two existing plants and is prepared to add 200-300 million ringgit of its own funds.

Selangor state sources say the level of non-revenue water — the volume lost before it reaches the customer — at Syabas is above 33 percent. That measure of efficiency compares with Singapore’s 5 percent, Denmark’s 6 percent, and even falls short of Bangladesh’s 29 percent, they say.

Campaigners against Syabas are urging the company to open its books to show if there really is a shortage.

“Failing to do so would only prove that the water crisis is manufactured,” said Charles Santiago, an opposition member of parliament and coordinator of the Coalition Against Water Privatisation group.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 29 July 2012, 8:03 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Selangor
,
Water
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Formation of 1 Malaysia national culture in the ‘new regime’

— Norani Abu Bakar

The Malaysian Insider

Jul 30, 2012

JULY 30 — As we conceive of a new regime in Malaysia, there are various ideas for a new political structure which must be articulated further. One of these, that of a two-party political system having great potential for transforming Malaysia’s current democracy into a means to national character and human flourishing.

Malaysians are the nation’s stakeholders, and thus this maturation of this new regime has the potential to define their national culture in terms of holistic values. This national culture is a powerful “soft force” that can form, support and move a nation — building and rebuilding it especially in severe conditions such as war, epidemic, natural disaster, collapse of governance, and regional economic melt-down. Can the two-party regime support their  collective aspirations for a holistic, rich and cohesive 1 Malaysia culture or will the regime further fragment this community, leaving any newly developed or reformed policies on paper only?

The post-colonial governance, in all of its strengths and weaknesses since 1957, has persevered to secure the physiological needs of Malaysians. However, as Professor AR Embong wrote in “The Role of Social Sciences in Malaysian National Development,” the implementation of Vision 2020 was, as Joseph Stiglitz called the roaring 1990s, “a decade of clutching over wealth and profit.” There is some truth in this, and so for good reason, some Malaysians doubt the efficacy of this new vision. Hence, progressive efforts to revitalise the nation’s soul and identity through 1 Malaysia, and its reorientation towards the higher levels of Maslow’s hierarchy, are perceived with great suspicion.

Unfortunately, as political scientists like Dr Farish A. Noor have articulately explained, there is a gap between the vision and the reality. The state’s narrative of 1 Malaysia is incompatible with the reality at the grassroots levels. Of course some of the barriers also arise from collective memories and psychology against the “other”. This gap cannot be simply narrowed down by policies but must be addressed with a genuine determination to champion sustainable human values as the economy develops. Whose responsibility is this?

The answer is obvious: all Malaysians — especially political and religious leaders, scholars and civil activists, media and parents. If the new regime fervently advocates that every citizen at private and public spaces be responsible for living according to common principle such as, “Do unto others, what you want others to do unto you,” then the flourishing of 1 Malaysia’s culture is more hopeful. Shaping a national culture with engrained humanistic and ethical values will produce well-rounded citizens that can powerfully drive politics, economics and social performance. Values shape human progress, and Malaysia’s historical inability to grasp this foundational concept has hindered Malaysia from optimising its achievements.

Politics cannot enrich human souls but good values can. Politics cannot directly alter one’s ethnic or genetic makeup, but it can strategically transform a national culture by decoding self-image and by innovatively reshaping the citizens’ mental models and sentiment. This discussion will focus on the cultural dynamic of the new regime and political leaders’ roles in transforming Malaysia’s ethno-centric politics.

Many leaders fostered inclusivism in political parties, including Onn Jaafar, Lee Kuan Yew, Professor Hussein Alatas and Lim Kit Siang. Unfortunately, cross-cultural and faith engagement is still limited to macro-level collaboration. Thomas Pepinsky predicts that in the new regime, these features of racial and faith-based coalitions will remain. At the micro-level, all parties are still racially-based. None have the vibrant spirit of 1 Malaysia yet. Dr Diana Eck of Harvard University expounded that surface-level relationships in diverse communities amount to “mere tolerance,” a deceptive virtue and active hostility which enables co-existence but is not genuinely an “engaging relationship.”

Engagement happens when mutual, respectful and co-dependent relations are founded on common values that each faith tradition and/or cultural background cherish in order to produce cohesiveness, bonding, trust and deeper understanding with one another while maintaining some cultural and faith particularity. The regime will not be able to bring the 1 Malaysia vision to fruition if it fails to address this deeply rooted national problem. Ruling parties come and go, but good can continuously fuel healthy human progress if they are lived from generation to generation.

It is important to note that racially or faith-based political parties, regardless of which demographic they represent, too often end up with sovereign authority and discriminate against those ethnicities or faith traditions not in power. Relevant examples are apartheid in South Africa (1948-1994) and prejudice against the Kurds in Turkey. And although Singapore is rightly admired for its economic exponential growth during Lee Kuan Yew’s 50 years of leadership (from US$400/year per capita income to nearly US$40,000), there are worrisome reports that Singaporean Malays experience discrimination there. Xenophobia and xenophobic government policies further polarise ethnic populations which to further segregation or make segregation permanent. It is urgent and important, especially in the early stages of a regime, to create appropriate conditions and to develop strategies that can overcome these geographic and demographic difficulties.

Hopefully in the new regime, parties will avoid dividing Malaysians; e.g. Kaum Tua (the old faction), Kaum Muda (the new faction), Melayu Baru (the New Malays) and Melayu Lama (the Old Malays), or splintering their memberships according to economic status, education, culture, faith, gender and age. Engaging all Malaysians can lead to an unprecedented reformation that can put healthy pressure on all parties to liberalise beyond these boundaries. In advocating that Malaysians vote for Malaysian parties, irrespective of historical ethnic groupings, political leaders will have to persevere in the face of suspicion. At first, there may be some backlash as some people will feel that such unity entails “selling out” on their race’s or faith’s honour, but this sentiment will gradually diminish as trust is established. Changes take time and demand patience.

Just as a political system takes a long time to develop, so a holistic cultural and national identity only comes about through trial and adjustment. Dr John Keane in his book “The Life and Death of Democracy” writes that, since Athens, democracy has come a long way in shaping and reshaping itself. Australia itself used to be called a laboratory for democracy. In the US, racial segregation was the norm for a long time before the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People was founded, a full 133 years after the country’s independence from Britain in 1776. Rosa Park (1956), Martin Luther King Jr (1968), Ku Klux Klan and post-9/11 Sikh murders are among names and events that evidence that a fluidly democratic two-party country cannot eliminate racism. It should be no surprise, then, that multi-ethnic and multi-faith based political parties also struggle to accomplish this. However, they can reduce division by intentionally creating and wisely facilitating a secure space for coexistence. Do Malaysians have the ability to develop this secure space and to cultivate mutually respectful conversations and relations? Malaysians have assimilated and done well abroad in many various situations. Clearly, then, Malaysians’ pattern of ethnically-based political parties is not due to some low Cultural Quotient (CQ). Malaysians can be liberated from the “epistemological captivity” that colonial stereotypes often create — stereotypes in the vein of ‘Ali, Ah Chong and Ramasamy,’ and other reductionistic tropes of ethno-nationalist’s protectionist ideology. Malaysia’s struggle is not that some people groups have inherently inferior genes, but rather that Malaysia’s social science management and engineering that need greater emphasis in developing the citizens’ character and critical thinking. Failure to address these elements increases the possibility of democracy placing a tyranny ruler in power.

The good news is that the birth of a two-party regime indicates that a democratic system does exist in Malaysia. This is also an achievement of the past ruling party which prepared the nation to democratically vote out a less-performing party, even if that be the ruling party itself. Both the ruling and opposition parties deserve credit in toiling for decades to produce upper-middle-income citizens who can think so critically. Acknowledging the government’s strength, while diplomatically and objectively analysing its weaknesses, is the best way to encourage it to do better.

In evaluating any political regime, early thinker Syed Shaykh Al-Hady (1867-1934), who in his time found independence as unthinkable, set a good example on partiality by affirming the “genuine contributions of the Malay elites, and observed that it was these contributions, and not the luxurious lifestyle, that brought them honour”. This speaks to leaders of other ethnic backgrounds too. A new regime is not about, “sudah menyeberang, tongkat tidak berguna lagi” (having crossed over to the other side, the walking stick is discarded). It is about greater competitiveness, self-correction and adaptation to new challenges.

Every change of regime involves a reorganisation of power which is, for a time, chaotic.

As the old ruling party’s power declines, the institutions, organisations and individuals that it once supported also experience temporal disorder and disruption of performance. Slight ethnic tension could escalate until the dust settles. In the meantime, the citizens may critique the new ruling party’s inability to lead in harmony, their preference lingering nostalgically on the previous ruling party’s ability to keep Malaysia together since independence. This is the risk of undertaking a new regime.

A healthy democratic Malaysia lies in the hands of charismatic, courageous and competent leaders with integrity who can transform all political parties with a genuine 1 Malaysia spirit: embracing the values of reciprocity, love, care and respect for others. If the new regime fails to transform the underserved intellects that cling tightly onto the racially based political party model, then there isn’t much different between the old and the new. It is simply an old book with a new cover.

Since 1511, generations in the region called Malaysia today grieved under the ruling of colonial powers: the Portuguese, Dutch, Japanese and British. And yet they persevered in striving for 446 years towards independence in 1957. It is this bottomless spirit of hope and love for the motherland that inspires citizens to compromise, modify and adapt. This spirit holds people together throughout the continuous formation of their national culture, spirituality and style of modernity. This burning vision keeps a Malaysian a Malaysian. By this spirit of faith, the formation of 1 Malaysia is possible.

In conclusion, a ruling party that strives for cognitive empowerment and cultivation of ethical values, held dearly by all cultures and faiths, will not only remain competitive and relevant but also have a higher chance of continued public support. A national culture that is rich with good values sustains the enrichment of its human growth, which translates into strong national development. At the end of the day, it is the people — the citizens — whose desire for excellence drives a nation to develop, who enrich its soul, and select good leaders. — New Mandala

* Norani Abu Bakar is a post-graduate fellow at the Yale Center for Faith and Culture and is the Asia director for Pathways for Mutual Respect. She is the founder of Home Sweet Home — an organisation that cares for the unsheltered, parentless and differently-abled in Shanghai. A Malaysian, Norani is a process engineer. She blogs at Loving God and Loving Neighbors.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 30 July 2012, 7:56 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


What do the polls really tell us?

 — Clive Kessler

The Malaysian Insider

Jul 30, 2012

JULY 30 — You will perhaps allow me to provide a brief commentary on your story “Actual voter sentiment not shown in opinion poll, say analysts”, The Malaysian Insider, July 28.

As any knowledgeable person will tell you, it is pointless to argue about small variations, such as rises or falls of two or three per cent, in a leader’s popularity as indicated by polls such as that of the Merdeka Center.

National trends are assessed on the basis of carefully chosen samples of less than 2,000 respondents. The margin of error in such cases is usually around three per cent.

So it is pointless to argue about small variations.

What is significant about the Merdeka Center’s figures, what has been shown to be a consistent pattern for some time now, and what cannot be denied is this: that those polls show a dramatic gap “across the board” between popular support for (or positive perceptions of) the prime minister and support for his party.

If the PM consistently rates at around 60 per cent (three out of five) and the party at around 40 per cent (or two out of five expressing themselves as “satisfied”), something interesting may be happening. Some interesting forces and perceptions are likely to be “in play.”

“Interesting” perceptions here must mean perceptions that are complex, nuanced, differentiated, not simple or obvious.

This is another reason why it is pointless to attribute great significance to, and argue passionately about, small monthly variations in polling results.

Small differences, even if they are real, will simply not sustain major conclusions about rising or declining popularity. Small numerical fluctuations are not a basis for drawing dramatic quantitative inferences, for identifying major trends. The numbers simply cannot “bear the weight” when heavy, substantive conclusions are drawn from them.

So, what is going on? What might the figures be telling us?

My own theory is as follows.

Polls have documented a substantial decline in the “popularity” of, or positive popular perceptions and attitudes towards, Umno/BN in all major community sections of the electorate.

PM Najib, the party leader, is seemingly much more popular than his party.

Why?

The substantial, and now quite “tenacious” and entrenched, negative attitude towards the party is based upon the fact that it has been around for half a century, and is now quite widely seen as having underperformed, especially over the last decade or two.

The view is now quite strongly held by a significant part of the electorate that the last 20 years of Umno/BN rule have been disappointing.

That negative view and attitude have had time to “take hold.”  For that reason they are hard to change or replace. The figures here are consistent because many people’s adverse attitudes have hardened and now resist modification.

By contrast, although he has long been a familiar figure on the national scene, PM Najib has been in charge for barely three years.

To put the matter unkindly, he has not had enough time to make himself as unpopular as his party.

More than that, many people seem to be angry at Umno/BN because of the way that it has used its power. Some are convinced, no matter what fresh political messages are directed towards them, that it has abused its power.

For some that abuse involves great “sins of commission.” For them, the party and its government have used its great powers wrongly.

For others the abuse consists more of “sins of omission.”

They feel that the party has not used its great powers well. That it has wasted its great opportunities, that it has squandered Malaysia’s chance to do many of the great things that might have been achieved.

Whatever has been achieved, they feel — and however good that may be compared to what has happened in less fortunate countries — is far less than what might have been done. Than had been possible. Than they felt, and had been encouraged to feel, entitled to expect.

But PM Najib is not seen as solely or primarily responsible for these disappointments, this underperformance.

They know that, in his own often dour way, he has tried. That he keeps on trying.

But while they see him as a “tryer”, people don’t really see PM Najib as very powerful.

They see him as often beleaguered, even in his own party. Some even see him as hesitant, vacillating, uncertain, indecisive and even weak.

This is not a positive perception.

But it is not a perception that involves deep and powerful feelings of resentment.

In other words, the fact that he is not perceived as strong — here meaning strongly in charge of his party, and personally strong enough to impose his will upon it — to some significant degree “insulates” him from the adverse attitudes towards, or the quite widespread unpopularity in some quarters of, his party.

He is to some degree personally distanced and protected from the substantial partisan resentment that Umno/BN has earned on the basis of its long-standing strength. Of its taking for granted (as its detractors see the matter) its right to that strength and power. Of its being seen by them as not having put its strength and power to good, effective and appropriate use.

In this sense, his positive poll figures do not really suggest that he is himself a great political “positive”, only that he is a good “neutral”, that he is not personally associated with, or a powerful symbol of, what many people see as his party’s great political “negatives”.

One has to suspect that this is the view that the party’s own polling has suggested to the “brains trust” of strategic operatives in the Umno/BN political engine-room and powerhouse.

If PM Najib were really a very strong positive, then the election campaign should centre upon him personally.

But if that were the case why are the party’s “election wizards” now promoting their “generic” branding exercise, the “I Choose Malaysia” PR initiative — a strategy that does not mention PM Najib, or his ministers, or his party; that does not offer any background images of the Malaysia (past, present and future alike) that Umno/BN has spent its whole political life crafting?

One can only conclude that they see the personal popularity of PM Najib as being of a “shallow” type.

That is to say, it is not a deep “gut feeling” in the same way that political resentment (and also political adulation) are.

Though wide in quantitative reach, PM Najib’s popularity is not qualitatively deep. It is not itself powerful enough to be his party’s political salvation.

Or, to use the US expression, despite his popularity that the polls (including those of the Merdeka Center) have consistently demonstrated, PM Najib is seen even by his own party’s elections strategists as having “politically short coat-tails.”

Not many, that is, will ride to power behind him by hanging onto him.

Opinion polling is a powerful political instrument. The ability to read the figures, and also to look behind them, is an indispensable political skill. Even an art.

Those who read the numbers in a simple-minded way generally get things wrong. Often disastrously.

* Clive Kessler is Emeritus Professor of Sociology and Anthropology at The University of New South Wales, Sydney.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 30 July 2012, 3:59 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Are We Celebrating Barisan Nasional Day?

By
Kee Thuan Chye
 | Tuesday, 31 July 2012 09:53

Malaysian Digest

BARISAN Nasional (BN) has already started campaigning for the general election – even though it has not yet been called – and the Election Commission (EC) is doing nothing about it.

What’s more, BN is campaigning on a large scale and everyone can see it. It has done this by unabashedly hijacking the National Day celebrations and using it to promote its own propaganda.

The theme for the celebrations is Janji Ditepati (Promises Fulfilled) which does not sound at all like a National Day theme. It instead speaks for BN, which desperately wants to tell the rakyat that it is a government that delivers.

The National Day theme song is glaringly partisan – but for BN, not for the country. Also entitled ‘Janji Ditepati’, it highlights BN’s latest initiatives and hints that it’s time for the rakyat to show its gratitude to BN.

Look at some of the lyrics:

Janji sudah ditepati,

Kini masa balas budi.

(Promises have been fulfilled,

Now it’s time to return the favor.)

This is crass; it’s really asking the people to vote for BN. This is outright “I’ve helped you, now you help me”.

But why should it be for the rakyat to balas budi? BN was voted in to serve the rakyat. Why must the rakyat be grateful for that? In fact, if anyone should balas budi, it should be BN.

The song, however, is not about the rakyat. And the chorus that follows proves it:

Janji siapa? Janji kita.

Janji apa? Janji Satu Malaysia.

(Whose promises? Our promises.

What promises? The promises of One Malaysia.)

The song is clearly about BN. The “kita” in it refers to BN. And the mention of “Satu Malaysia” obviously connotes the slogan of the BN Government.

The worst is yet to come, in the final verse:

Ini janji kita, BR1M Satu Malaysia.

Ini janji Satu Malaysia, terima Satu Malaysia.

Kata kita dikota, Klinik Satu Malaysia.

Janji kita ditepati, Kedai Satu Malaysia.

(This is our promise, BR1M One Malaysia.

This is the promise of One Malaysia, accept One Malaysia.

We have kept our word, Klinik Satu Malaysia.

We have fulfilled our promise, Kedai Satu Malaysia.)

The BR1M 500-ringgit handout to households earning less than RM3,000 a month is mentioned. The 1Malaysia clinics set up to offer cheap medical services are mentioned. The Kedai 1Malaysia set up to offer lower prices for basic necessities is mentioned. What is this if not BN trumpeting its populist attempts to win the electorate’s votes?

These are lyrics for a song? If not for the fact that they are so crude and cheap, we should be rolling on the floor roaring with laughter.

How can such shameless propaganda be the stuff of our National Day theme song? It is even totally without style and subtlety. Not to mention substance.

Real songwriters would wince at hearing such lyrics. These are not lyrics, these are slogans.

The song is not celebrating National Day. It’s celebrating Barisan Nasional Day!

And it’s no wonder that the person who wrote this doggerel is Information, Communications and Culture Minister Rais Yatim. Not only is he not a real songwriter; he is also caught in a time warp. Even Nazi propaganda had better style than this.

Rais is out of his depth. He is in the wrong mode. Perhaps he could write the lyrics for BN’s elegy.

Our National Day has never been so blatantly perverted. That National Day is for promoting the country, not the government, is something any Malaysian should know, most of all BN. There is a clear distinction between “government” and “country”, so let’s make sure we get it right.

National Day is for consolidating unity among the people, taking stock of where we have come to as a people, instilling a sense of pride in the country. It is not for instilling gratitude for the ruling party and fishing for votes.

Deputy Education Minister Mohd Puad Zarkashi, however, doesn’t think that Janji Ditepati means janji BN. He gives it a bizarre twist: “It can be interpreted as ‘the people’s promise’ to maintain peace, stability, tolerance, unity and harmony.” What is this illogical rubbish? The onus is not on the people to do all that; it’s the Government’s responsibility. Why is he a deputy minister when he can’t even spin it right?

Obviously, BN has sunk to an all-time low in its desperation to cling on to power.

By right, the EC, as a supposedly independent body, should make a report against BN for transgressing election regulations. It is very clear that the campaign period permitted by law can start only from nomination day. As it is, the general election has not even been called.

And surely the fact that BN is exploiting for its own campaign something as wide-reaching and large-scale as National Day celebrations is not only unfair but criminal, even if such exploitation may not fall under the Election Offences Act 1954.

What BN could be hauled up for can be found in Part III of the Act that relates to corrupt practices. Article 10 covers the offence of giving or promising voters money, gifts, etc, to influence their vote. Isn’t BN influencing voters with its boast of promises fulfilled and its call for the people to “balas budi”? Aren’t BR1M, Klinik 1Malaysia and Kedai 1Malaysia among the money and gifts that BN has been giving to ensure a return of favours?

However you look at it, isn’t that pork barrelling, and if so, isn’t BN culpable for it?

If the EC won’t do anything, then the rakyat must consider this question: If a party entrusted with governing the country would hijack an event that is important to Malaysians for its own selfish purpose, how should the rakyat treat that party come the day of reckoning?

Oh, by the way, in case the EC hasn’t noticed, Janji Ditepati is also BN’s election campaign slogan. But then again, perhaps the EC considers that a mere coincidence.

*
Kee Thuan Chye is the author of the bestselling book No More Bullshit, Please, We’re All Malaysians, now available in major bookstores. The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the writer.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 3:52 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Kee Thuan Chye
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Letter from Tom Pepinsky

Dear Limkitsiangblog,

I want to thank you for including my
recent post
 on your blog. However, I would like to ask you to edit the post in a way that shows proper attribution of the source. I would be grateful if you could make a short editorial comment prior to the post that acknowledges that the text was originally posted at blogs.cornell.edu/indolaysia, and that what you are posting is a reproduction.

This is important for two reasons. First, as a foreign observer of Malaysian politics, it is important that I not be considered to be endorsing any Malaysian politician or political party. Second, it is good blog etiquette to be as clear as possible about the sources of your web links. You do this very well for other posts–for example, your post “Formation of 1 Malaysia national culture in the ‘new regime’” make it clear that that post was originally from The Malaysian Insider. I ask only that you extend the same courtesy to my humble blog.

Thank you for your attention,

Tom

[
Admin’s Note
:
In reproducing above the email from Tom Pepingsky, this blog extends fullest apologies to him for the oversight to provide the proper attribution to the source of the stated article, namely blog.cornell.edu/indolaysia. It is never our intention to claim or suggest  that Tom was writing for this blog or giving implicit endorsement of LKS or his party’s program. The oversight in the article “
Malaysia and the Perfect Storm
” has been rectified.
]

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 10:40 am and is filed under
Letters
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Like shooting fish in a barrel

By
Rom Nain
 | 10:40AM Jul 26, 2012

Malaysiakini

When it comes to public figures, mainly BN politicians and their families, making a quick and dirty buck or two  in this blessed land of 1Malaysia Boleh, evidently nothing, absolutely nothing, is sacred.

Sure, we could go back to the decades of pillage and plunder of the 1980s and 1990s for illustrations, for examples of ‘corruption’, ‘cronyism’ and ‘nepotism’  that appalled and galvanised civil society not only across the sea, in Indonesia, but also closer to home, leading to many thousands  marching on the streets of Kuala Lumpur demanding reformasi.

But, really, we don’t have to go that far.

Recent history quite simply is full of such disgraceful tales of greed and the betrayal of the rakyat.

Indeed, even before judgment has been delivered on the billion ringgit PFKZ scandal – where, amazingly, one senior ex-minister has denied knowledge of the documents signed by him and has reportedly ‘admitted that he normally did not read the annexes to letters addressed to him’ – we have had one new astounding revelation after another.

All illustrating in one way or another not only a total lack of accountability but also a total absence of shame by these public figures.

First, much as the BN parties, especially Umno, might wish us to, we haven’t forgotten, of course, the National Feedlot Corporation (NFC) fiasco. Often dubbed the ‘Cows, Cars and Condos’ scandal which thus far has cost the taxpayer RM250 million, this has seen one minister quit her post, one of her family members initially coming up with comments that demonstrated inanity and arrogance and, predictably, much foot-dragging since by the authorities.

Of course, as always, the scoundrels have felt the need to distract the people’s attention, to make them look elsewhere.

Hence, a quite old, pathetic script is dragged out. One that recycles all the equally wretched scripts that have been the stock in trade of a once-proud but now quite dismal coalition.

It is a script that invariably contains sex, more sex, dollops of potential racial conflict (propagated by the other side, of course), religious extremism and, of course, given that the scriptwriters are still stuck in the era of the Cold War, the threat of the dreaded reds under our beds.

So, we are urged to believe that the opposition leaders (and even their young ones) are, at one and the the same time, religious fundamentalists and sexual deviants, fornicators and, of course, serial adulterers.

All fine and good, of course.

Lowest group of ‘lanun’

But it would really, really help, though, if those pointing their fingers, even those coming up with the cheap, grainy videos from a bygone age, were themselves even half-upright citizens rather than the motley crew of paedophiles, exposed adulterers and, basically, the lowest group of lanun this side of Somalia.

All that these stupid, brainless schemes illustrate is the existence of a desperate pack devoid of ideas, devoid of culture. And devoid of class.

But even if they and their lackeys in the mainstream media think that all this silly, irritating distractions could help hush up all their wrongdoings long enough to become yesterday’s news, new disclosures have helped the people to remember and reiterate how truly rotten they – and the system they have created – are.

Like, second, the underhanded tactics now being employed to ‘create’ a water crisis in Selangor when there’s evidently ‘water, water everywhere’… and certainly more than a drop to drink.

Again, the underhanded tactic being employed to undermine the Selangor state government is one that is so obvious, base and shallow that, really, it’s only managed to rebound on the dolts who’d created this ‘water crisis’.

One is tempted to turn around to them and say, ‘Syabas indeed for yet again making utter ninnies of yourselves’.

But, evidently, there’s no escaping the ‘nature’ theme with these guys (and gals) and their outrageous schemes. So, following from their water fight, their latest escapade sees them harnessing the sun.

Where ‘National Feedlot Corporation’ or simply NFC seemed to be the swear word a couple months back, and Syabas is still the one on the lips of many Selangorians, it would appear that a new one, Seda, has been added to our lexicon of cuss words.

Seda is the acronym for the Sustainable Energy Development Authority. The outfit has now got itself embroiled in a controversy that, really, sounds all-too familiar.

The opposition claims that the daughter of the recently-retired chief secretary to the government, Mohd Sidek Hassan, has the “lion’s share” in the newly-introduced renewable alternative energy scheme.  Indeed, the allegation is that a large chunk of the allocation for solar energy via Seda’s Feed-in Tariff (FiT) mechanism went to companies without “a proven track record” in the energy field and owned by Mohd Sidek’s daughter Suzi Suliana.

Two things have been highlighted; first, that there seems to have been an unfair award of contracts by Seda, ‘laced with human manipulation/intervention’. Second,  that the solar licences were awarded to companies that have no solar experiences.

Comebacks not convincing

Thus far, the comebacks from Seda have not really been convincing. And it does sound very much like another case of the song remaining the same.

Meanwhile, up in Penang, dear mother nature appears once again to be  in the limelight. While the allegations of illegal hill clearing remain, two Penang Umno leaders accused of selling a plot of land in Balik Pulau and profiting from it have admitted they did so.

But they claim they were forced to do this because their company was ‘blacklisted’ by the state government. And don’t we just love these ‘claims’ which could be seen both as ‘valid’ and ‘lame’?

Of course there’s more. Indeed, it would seem that these exposes merely scratch the surface. There’s still Scorpene and the ongoing saga of Bersih, of course. And Talam certainly looks set to blow up in an ambitious young MCA politician’s face.

As aptly put by my English colleague, all these ongoing and newly-emerging scandals leading up to the 13th general election, makes commenting on dirty Malaysian politics as easy as is shooting fish in a barrel.

________

ROM NAIN is a media analyst and academic who is weary of incompetent, unethical leaders and their apologists and spin doctors in the media who try to get away with murder while professing to rub shoulders with God’s angels.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 11:05 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Olympics Opening Ceremony: Lessons for Malaysia

blog.nikicheong.com

Posted on Jul 30, 2012

Last night, I watched the opening ceremony of the London 2012 Olympic Games for the second time, in the solitude of my room. I had a great time watching it with friends at their place for the first time on the actual night, and in general really enjoyed it. That night, I posted this updated on my Facebook account:

I admit that I’m a sucker for all Olympic Opening Ceremonies but today’s was special. It was patchy as a production, didn’t necessarily like the video/live action stuff, but can Danny Boyle tell a story. The underlying narrative was genius and hats off to him for giving so much credit to those who would never usually get attention – from the NHS to the miners, construction workers who built the stadium to the seven young athletes who lit the gorgeous cauldron. Amazing.

I watched it again because I was still reeling from the show the night before. Plus, having spent the better part of the day reading commentaries and reviews about the event, I realised that there were so many little things I missed. Watching it alone again, and being able to listen to all the commentary, it really did feel like I was watching a different show.

And I still loved it.

Problem was that I got rather emotional watching it the second time – there were many goosebump moments, and a couple of times, I started welling up. It wasn’t just because I thought Danny Boyle had included so many wonderful tributes and thoughts that made it so very British.

At those moments, I started wondering what our show would look like if Malaysia ever got the opportunity to host the Olympic Games (I know we held the Commonwealth Games in 1998, but no one ever talks about the CG’s opening ceremonies). I cringed at the thought.

Now, before you accuse me of being unpatriotic, I think one of the biggest reasons I feel this way is because of all the buzz about the Merdeka Day logo and song that has been recently released (although, apparently, the Gov’t has denied that it is the official logo).

Never mind that the logo is, to put it mildly, ugly as hell, I took great offense to the tagline (and also theme for this year’s Merdeka Day): “Janji ditepati” (which, translated, means “Promises fulfilled”). There is already lots of criticism that has pointed out that it is a propaganda-laced tagline, particularly by the ruling Barisan Nasional party just a few months ahead of the General Elections.

But even if we wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume that it wasn’t talking about BN’s promises, it really sadden me that for the first time in many years, our Merdeka Day theme, was not about the country or its people. All my life, my understanding of Merdeka Day is to celebrate our independence from colonialisation.

To add salt into the wound, the official song – also titled Janji Ditepati – was all about promises the Government has made and what it has given the people. The focus was on the the 1Malaysia schemes – from BR1m to SK1M to Kedai 1Malaysia. Worse still, the song suggests that it was time for Malaysians to “pay back” – I don’t know about you, but hasn’t it always been the responsibility of the Government to take care of its people … especially when we’re all paying taxes?

But even all that didn’t get to me as much as a couple of the videos that have been created by some people (I can’t seem to find an official video, which makes me believe that it either doesn’t exist or hasn’t been released yet). I was extremely troubled by the representation of Malaysians in one of the videos (a friend suggested the video was more about 1Bangsa than 1Malaysia). The second one had images of “multi-racial” Malaysia that we have all become familiar with, yet they were mostly forced, posed photographs. The photos used from live events, unfortunately, showed how polarised we have become as a country.

Now, I understand that these two videos doesn’t necessarily reflect the Government’s official stand on the issue (although, it’s doing itself no favours in allowing these videos to circulate without an official one which is less troubling) but that these are the sort of mentality that some Malaysians have is, to me, extremely sad.

What do all these have to do with the Olympic Games opening ceremony?

Well, it’s just that I started thinking about how we would portray ourselves as a country to the world. Over the years, many attempts have been made to make our mark. The KLCC Twin Towers is still a global icon and shows that we are not just any other developing country. Our “moderate Muslim” policy has shown how we are (were?) more progressive than some other countries out there. Our national cars, world class facilities and more have shown that we have all the makings of a truly developed country.

Where, though, do we stand in history and culture? What stories will we tell if we get a stage like the opening ceremony of an event the scale of the Olympic Games?

Are we going to maintain the forced image of Malaysian multi-culturalism by portraying a few people of different races standing together smiling? Or do we stick to our long tradition of symbolism and maintain that we need to use the Tiger stripes at every sporting event (even if the rest of the world thinks it’s hideous)? What about the usual stereotype of food – is that our only way of showing our different cultures?

How do we show the diversity in our culture and tradition that really stems from the unique multi-culturalism that forms our social fabric? Or our unique history, well documented in Sejarah Melayu and the history of Malacca, one of the most important trading ports in Asian history?

Will we recognise the kapitan Yap Ah Loy? Or our war hero Sybil Karthigesu? Will we make the effort to distinguish the story of Hang Tuah and his friends between history and myth? How will we reflect the various “pelat” of Bahasa Malaysia in our many states, and will we recognise the orang asli as well as the natives of Sabah and Sarawak? What about the Chitty community? Can we tell people the difference between a peranakan and a Baba/Nyonya? How do our Serani communities fit in?

What about our dying Wayang Kulit and Mak Yong? Do we dare remember the time when rock dominated the Malaysian mediascape, when they were banned from television for having long hair yet we had music stars dubbed the queen (Ella) and princess of rock (Shima)? How about that famous stripper Rose Chan?

I ask because I feel all these (and much more that I haven’t mentioned, and don’t know about) are part of our culture and history – even if they are only understood, appreciated and familiar to certain segments of our community. The problem is, we seem to have forgotten about most of these, or have left them behind.

Granted, compared to Britain, our country is still very young. But if you look at how far we’ve come in a short 55 years, you’d be forgiven if you were frustrated that we haven’t truly figured out our identity as a nation and as countrymen.

I’m only 32 years old but in over three decades, I have seen how a strong, united country is quickly unravelling. It wasn’t that long ago that the late Yasmin Ahmad captured so beautifully our diversity. Yet, and sadly, these days, we are left to ponder if there is place for pluralism in our country.

Most of Britain – even the detractors – came together and celebrated the success of the opening ceremony that everyone felt was truly British.

What is it going to take for us all to come together as well?

In his review of the ceremony, famed Chinese artist Ai Weiwei said:

“There were historical elements in the Beijing opening ceremony, but the difference is that this was about individuals and humanity and true feelings; their passion, their hope, their struggle. That came through in their confidence and joy. It’s really about a civil society. Ours only reflected the party’s nationalism. It wasn’t a natural reflection of China.”

It may be a pessimistic view but the opening ceremony that I have in my head  that Malaysia would throw could probably be described the same way he did of his own country. If we don’t want that to happen, we need to take it into our own hands and demand the changes now.

Because I truly believe that we’re better than that.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 8:00 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
nation building
,
Sports
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Perilous in Perak

By
Sakmongkol AK47
 | July 31, 2012

The Malaysian Insider

JULY 31 — Perak has 24 parliamentary seats. In 2008, BN won 13 of those seats. Most of them were won on the slimmest of margins. So the argument goes, the opposition also won on slim margins. The counter argument is, the victory by the opposition was won on the courage of convictions while the victory of BN was won as a result of the erosion of confidence. These are two different things. One won as a result of convictions is hard to slip back while the one won as a result of erosion of convictions is extremely difficult to sustain.

Will the people of Perak forget that during the reign of Zamri, he has given out more land than Nizar did when the latter was MB? Many landless people who were without land titles and who have worked the land got it during Nizar’s stint as MB. What wasn’t told was that more Malays got their titles too during Nizar’s time.

During Umno’s time the grant of land was the hijacked prerogative of Umno divisional heads, Umno reps and merciless pengerusi JKKK. During Zamri’s time, more land was given to companies and cronies rather than people.

The people of Perak have never forgiven the manner in which a government of their choice has been usurped by Umno though extra legal means. Whatever the court says, the general perception was that their government of choice was snatched away from them by dirty means.

The people of Perak are not oblivious to the rampant corruption of BN leaders. The laundry list of corruption is too long to be repeated here and indeed much has been revealed in the alternative media.

Will the Perak people be swayed with the oft-repeated argument that if PR takes over they will do the same things like what Umno/BN does?

If Umno assumes this, they must be thinking that Perak people are dullards and impervious to the injustices and corruption. Umno assumes others are like them who are motivated by predatory instincts. No one can do any worse than Umno does.

People can see that every Pakatan administration has scored better than all other BN administrations on almost every measure. Balancing the budget, achieving budget surpluses, increasing state revenues, carrying out people friendly programmes. They do while Umno talks and talks. Doing and talking BS are like sky and earth.

With an allowance of five per cent regained by Umno and BN, PR should still have seven per cent reserve to win all but two of the parliamentary seats in Perak. — sakmongkol.blogspot.com

*
Sakmongkol AK47 is the nom de plume of Datuk Mohd Ariff Sabri Abdul Aziz. He was Pulau Manis assemblyman (2004-2008).

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 10:40 am and is filed under
Elections
,
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.