Tanda Putera – Filem sejarah atau fiksyen?

Oleh Mahdzir Ibrahim

Roketkini.com

31.8.13

Filem Tanda Putera telah pun saya tonton di pawagam. Selain mahu melihat sendiri gembar-gembur tentang filem ini, ia juga saya anggap sebagai sumbangan peribadi saya kepada penerbit filem tersebut demi menyokong kemajuan filem tempatan. Mudah-mudahan dengan wang tiket yang saya bayar itu, sedikit sebanyak akan dapat membantu memajukan lagi filem tempatan.

Saya sebagai penonton mempunyai pandangan sendiri, saya akan cuba berlaku adil menilai filem ini.

Menurut laporan media, kos filem ini sekitar RM 4.5 juta, ia dibiayai oleh Perbadanan Kemajuan Filem Nasional Malaysia (FINAS) sebanyak RM2.5 juta dan RM2 juta lagi daripada Perbadanan Kemajuan Multimedia (MDeC). Tidak termasuk penajaan dari syarikat kerajaan seperti syarikat penerbangan Malaysia (MAS).

Dengan kos tersebut, saya fikir hasil dari aspek teknikalnya tidaklah begitu memuaskan. Penggunaan teknik CGI atau Computer Generated Image yang digunakan tidak sempurna dan tidak kemas malah jika difikir-fikirkan, ianya tidak perlu bagi filem sebegini. Namun terpulanglah kepada pengarah kerana itu haknya.

Begitu juga dalam dalam aspek rekabentuk produksi, props dan costume. Ia tidak cukup sempurna untuk menggambarkan suasana di zaman tersebut sedangkan filem ini berlatarkan suasana diera 60/70an. Jauh bezanya dengan props dan costume filem Bukit Kepong atau Leftenan Adnan. Adakah kerana penerbitnya ingin berjimat, kita tidak pasti.

Selepas menonton, saya tertanya-tanya adakah filem ini mahu bercerita tentang sejarah 13 Mei atau apa?

Babak kencing tiang bendera Selangor ada dipaparkan. Tetapi tidak jelas adakah adegan ini benar-benar wujud dan bersumberkan dari fakta sejarah. Jika benar-benar bersumberkan dari sejarah, dimana dan apakah sumbernya? Samada dari laporan polis atau catatan sejarawan, saya ingin tahu.

Jika ia fiksyen, bendera Selangor itu bukan fiksyen. Malah, tiang bendera dalam babak tersebut tidak jelas berada dimana, didalam kawasan rumah Datuk Harunkah (Menteri Besar Selangor ketika itu) atau ditepi longkang pejabat kerajaankah atau disebelah warungkah?

Kita tak pasti sama sekali. Jika ada yang mengaitkan ianya dikawasan kediaman Menteri Besar Selangor, mungkin itu hanya tanggapan saja kerana bendera ditiang itu bendera Selangor atau banyak babak 13 Mei dalam filem itu berlaku disekitar Kampung Baru, Kuala Lumpur.

Atau, adakah babak kencing tiang bendera itu sebenarnya adalah imaginasi pengarah berdasarkan dengar cakap dari sumber yang tidak jelas?

Jika kita rujuk penjelasan Sdr. Ahmad Habib dalam temubual oleh roketkini di sini (http://www.roketkini.com/2012/09/14/kencing-tiang-bendera-kit-siang-difitnah-saksi-13-mei/) yang berada dilokasi rusuhan (Kampung Baru) pada ketika itu, jelas sekali bahawa hampir mustahil peristiwa kencing tiang bendera Selangor itu dilakukan di kediaman Menteri Besar Selangor pada ketika itu.

Jadi, jika bukan berlaku di kediaman Menteri Besar, maka ia berlaku dimana? Adegan ini bukan adegan lagak ngeri (stunt) yang boleh difiksyen-fiksyen sesuka hati. Adegan ini berkaitan langsung dengan sejarah 13 Mei.

Bagi saya, peristiwa 13 Mei yang digempakkan diawal babak dalam filem ini kelihatan hanya digunakan untuk memancing sentimen kemarahan dengan menggambarkan seolah-olah pembangkang dan komunis itu sama atau bekerjasama. Pembangkang dan komunis itu cuba digambarkan dengan imej satu kaum sahaja iaitu Cina disamping logo DAP terpampang disana-sini dalam babak tersebut.

Sedikit selingan buat pengarahnya – DAP bukan komunis apatah lagi menyokongnya, malah penubuhan DAP adalah bukti penolakan DAP akan perjuangan komunis yang menggunakan senjata.

Bertolak dari imej-imej ini, maka pada awalnya saya menyangka filem ini ingin menceritakan kembali peristiwa 13 Mei mengikut kronologi dan laporan saksi-saksi secara jelas. Ketika menontonnya saya cuba bersangka baik dan mencari lojik tentang paparan imej tersebut yang mungkin dapat memberi gambaran jelas kepada penonton tentang apa sebenarnya yang telah berlaku dalam peristiwa 13 Mei ini.

Tetapi ia tidak berlaku begitu. Pengarah mematikan peristiwa 13 Mei ini setengah jalan (tak sampai separuh sebenarnya). Tinggalah imej-imej logo DAP, Cina dan Komunis melekat dimemori penonton tanpa apa-apa penjelasan dan pertanggungjawaban. Permulaan yang mendebarkan tiba-tiba hilang lenyap tak berkesudahan.

Yang lain hanya drama hubungan keluarga dan persahabatan Tun Razak dengan Tun Dr. Ismail dan beberapa babak pendek tentang usaha beliau mewujudkan felda, usaha Tun dalam perlaksanaan Dasar Ekonomi Baru (DEB) dan kisah komunis yang diselitkan serba-sedikit.

Watak dan pemilihan pelakon (casting) Tun Razak dan Tun Dr Ismail agak berjaya, ia dilakonkan dengan baik dan berkesan, tahniah buat pelakonnya, Rusdi Ramli dan Zizan Nin.

Namun akhir semua ini, babak 13 Mei yang digempakkan itu terhenti, tergantung dan ghaib entah kemana. Filem sejarah apakah ini? Saya tidak nampak atau memahami signifikan antara babak-babak 13 Mei dengan sejarah ketokohan Tun Razak dalam filem ini.

Jika ini bukan filem sejarah 13 Mei, adakah ia filem sejarah mengenai ketokohan Tun Razak dan rakannya Tun Dr. Ismail? Jika benar, pasti sumbangan terpenting Tun seperti penubuhan Felda digarap dengan lebih jitu lagi berbanding garapan peristiwa 13 Mei. Tetapi tidak begitu.

Filem ini tidak mengangkat dengan jelas sumbangan Tun dalam penubuhan Felda atau pun usaha Tun dalam Dasar Ekonomi Baru (DEB). Maka kita keliru arah cerita ini.

Atau, adakah filem ini memang bukan filem sejarah langsung. Hanya filem fiksyen yang mencedok sedikit fakta sejarah dan ditempelkan ke atas susuk Tun Razak hingga menjadi filem fiksyen agar pengarah atau penerbitnya tidak perlu dipertanggungjawabkan oleh penghayat atau sesiapa.

Memang kita memahami bahawa adaptasi dari sumber pertama (asal) kepada medium lain akan diolah kembali dengan elemen-elemen fiksyen sebagai penyedap atau penarik. Ini kita bersetuju.

Namun demikian, nuansa antara fakta dan fiksyen seharusnya jelas. Dalam filem Tanda Putera ini, fiksyen dan fakta bercampur-baur dan berkecamuk, bagi yang tidak membaca atau menyelidiki sejarah 13 Mei ini, pasti akan menganggap semua babak dalam filem ini adalah seratus peratus berdasarkan fakta.

Akhirnya kita ingin sekali bertanya kepada pengarahnya, Datin Paduka Shuhaimi Baba, filem ini filem apa? Filem sejarah atau fiksyen?

Saya fikir saya berhak mendapat penjelasan daripadanya kerana filem beliau ini dibiayai dari wang cukai rakyat, bukan sedikit tetapi banyak. Wang cukai rakyat ini dikutip oleh kerajaan dari semua kaum, Melayu, Cina India, ahli DAP, ahli UMNO, PKR, orang Islam, bukan Islam, orang miskin dan kaya malah semuanya. Jika ia filem sejarah, maka ia milik rakyat dan rakyat berhak menuntut penjelasan. Jika fiksyen, maka penerbit harus bersedia bertanggungjawab atas paparan imej atau babak-babak dalam karyanya.

Saya mendukung prinsip kebebasan berkarya, berekspresi dan berkreativiti. Saya akan pertahankan hak saudari Shuhaimi Baba jika dia benar.

Disebalik semua ini, saya juga tertanya-tanya, bagaimana Finas menjustifikasikan filem ini hingga sanggup melabur jutaan ringgit dengan mempertaruhkan prinsip keharmonian kaum. Untuk apa? Kebenaran? – Roketkini.com

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 4 September 2013, 6:08 pm and is filed under
Media
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Citation for Indonesia’s Corruption Eradication Commission

– Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation

The Malaysian Insider

September 04, 2013

Corruption is a social cancer. It undermines development, erodes public trust in government, weakens the state, and infects the morals of society. It is an urgent concern, particularly in developing nations that can ill afford its cost. One such nation is Indonesia, for many years ranked among “the most corrupt countries in the world.” Today, however, Indonesia has embarked on one of the world’s most admired campaigns against corruption.

Rampant and systemic corruption has long been a festering issue in Indonesia. Since the 1950s, the Indonesian government formed different anti-corruption bodies, but these were mostly short-lived showcase pieces, sabotaged by the lack of serious political will.

Then, amid the collapse of the thirty-two year Soeharto regime, Indonesians decided they had had enough, and resolved to take the problem by the horns. With the initiative of civil society and pressure from international organizations, the Indonesian government passed a law in 2002 creating Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi (KPK), or the Corruption Eradication Commission.

An independent government body, KPK is enabled by a strongly-crafted law premised on the conviction that corruption is an extraordinary problem that needs to be tackled by extraordinary means.

Thus KPK has a far-reaching mandate, exercising exceptional powers that range from investigation and prosecution to prevention and the coordination of agencies authorized to combat corruption. It can conduct searches and seizures, freeze assets, impose travel bans, compel cooperation from government agencies, and even intercept communications without prior judicial approval. Its powers are such that a civic leader remarked, upon the law’s passage, that politicians were “inviting a tiger into their house.”

But KPK’s powers are not just prosecutorial; they are preventive as well.  It carries out audits on officials, undertakes public awareness campaigns, and studies government management systems to reduce the potential for corruption.

Collectively governed by five commissioners and with selected non-government representation, KPK has undergone a process of institutional strengthening that has produced a highly professional workforce, capacitated with cutting-edge technologies, and governed by a strong internal code of ethics.

Its accomplishments have been impressive. From 2003 to 2012, KPK has handled 332 high-profile cases involving top government officials; of these, 169 cases have been processed in court, and KPK has chalked up an amazing one-hundred per cent conviction rate.

From 2004 to 2010, KPK has returned to the state treasury recovered assets worth Rp.805.6 billion, or more than US$80 million. Less spectacular but exceedingly important are KPK’s preventive programmes.

It has undertaken civil service reforms for greater accountability and transparency, tightening rules on wealth reporting by public officials, closing opportunities for corruption through changes in management and operational systems, and setting up “integrity zones” in the bureaucracy as a way of monitoring and grading government agencies.

For the Indonesian public, anti-corruption education has been introduced at all educational levels, and innovative campaigns have been undertaken, such as the “honesty shops” — where customers pay for what they get by simply depositing the appropriate amount in a box.

KPK has had its crises, including harassment and intimidation, interagency feuds, slashed budgets—and it is subject to the higher powers of the president and the parliament. But KPK has also built up a formidable base of public support.

When it locked horns with the national police, thousands staged public demonstrations supporting KPK. When the parliament refused to allocate money for a much-needed KPK building, Indonesian citizens voluntarily donated money for the building construction.

Now on its tenth year, KPK has become a symbol of reform and hope for Indonesians, and is hailed as one of the few effective anti-corruption agencies in the world.

In electing Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi to receive the 2013 Ramon Magsaysay Award, the board of trustees recognises its fiercely independent and successful campaign against corruption in Indonesia, combining the uncompromising prosecution of erring powerful officials with farsighted reforms in governance systems, and the educative promotion of vigilance, honesty and active citizenship among all Indonesians. – www.rmaf.org.ph – September 4, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 5 September 2013, 10:18 am and is filed under
Corruption
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


East Malaysia: primus inter pares

By James Chin, Guest Contributor

New Mandala

4 September 2013

Last Saturday Malaysia celebrated her 56th year of independence in Dataran Merdeka in central Kuala Lumpur.

Many people in East Malaysia, however, may not be celebrating. Why? 31th August is the date of independence for Malaya but not the Malaysian federation.  The fact is, the federation of Malaysia was proclaimed on 16th September 1963, and the federation of Malaysia is 50 years old, not 56. This simple fact is often ignored by Putrajaya much to the annoyance of East Malaysians.

When Najib Tun Razak became Malaysia’s prime minister in 2009, he declared that 16thSeptember is be called “Malaysia Day” and added it as a public holiday in the country. Prime Minister Najib’s concession was no doubt linked to the 2008 general elections when voters from East Malaysia helped Barisan Nasional to retain power when voters in the peninsula abandoned the BN.

While recognition of 16th September is welcomed in East Malaysia, the bigger issues for most East Malaysians are the ‘20 Points’ and political recognition that East Malaysia should treated as an equal partner, not merely two of the 13 states in the federation.

Prior to the formation of the federation in 1963, Sabah (or North Borneo as it then called) and Sarawak wanted a set of guarantees before they would agree to form the proposed Malaysia Federation with Malaya, Singapore and Brunei (Brunei was to withdraw at the last minute). Four meeting were held under the Malaysian Solidarity Consultative Committee (MSCC), leading to the Commission of Enquiry, North Borneo and Sarawak (better  known as the Cobbold Commission) and a joint British-Malayan committee, the Inter-Governmental Committee (better known as the IGC Report), was established to ensure these concerns were reflected properly in the new Malaysia Constitution. These set of guarantees, commonly referred to as the 20 Points, gave Sabah and Sarawak a large degree of autonomy in areas like immigration, language, religion, Bornenisation of the civil service and representation in the Federal Parliament.

The autonomy was needed to allay fears of a takeover by Malayans and Singaporeans who were deemed more developed than East Malaysia. In terms of history, culture and demography, there was nothing in common between the peoples of the peninsula and Borneo, other than all were ruled by the British.

Since then, many East Malaysians, especially Sabahans think Putrajaya has not adhered to the 20 points and infact, has purposely breached the guarantees in order to forcelly impose politically on East Malaysia a political framework, essentially an UMNO-led Malay-first political system.

This is clear from the testimonies given at the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) in illegal immigration into Sabah for the past four decades. The RCI has been told numerous times that the highest levels in the federal government, during the Mahathir era, gave thousands of Muslim Filipinos and Indonesians Malaysian citizenship to ensure that Sabah became a Muslim-majority state in less than a decade. From 1970 to 2010, Sabah’s population increased by 390 percent! This was to guarantee Muslim political hegemony and ensured that the native Kadazandusun, previously the majority in Sabah, will never be able to politically challenge a Muslim-led leadership, both in Kota Kinabalu and Putrajaya. One witness, a civil servant who issued the Malaysian identity cards illegally, openly told the RCI he saw it as his duty to ensure Muslim dominance.

The same pattern is repeated in the civil service. Despite a promise that, when British expatriate left their positions in the public service after 1963 they would be filled by Sabahans and Sarawakians, it did not happened. Most of the current senior civil servant positions are filled by Malays from the peninsula.

The other big issue that annoys East Malaysians is Putrajaya’s refusal to acknowledge the special status of Sabah and Sarawak.  East Malaysia saw themselves as one of three different political entities (Borneo, Singapore, Malaya) that came together to form the Federation back in 1963. This means they were not equal to the states in Malaya, and this was acknowledged in the original first article of the federal constitution that was promulgated on 16th September 1963.  Later amendments were made which lump Sabah and Sarawak as the same category as other states.

The big fear among East Malaysians is that after 50 years of the federation, their entire socio-political environment is mirroring what is happening in Malaya.  Prior to independence, Sabah and Sarawak had one of the most plural population with little or no racial and religious tensions.

Today, there is intense political competition and constant tensions between the Muslim and non-Muslim population in both states, and racial tensions so prevalent in Malaya is starting to manifest in East Malaysia.  The younger Muslims from East Malaysia are starting to distance themselves from their non-Muslim neighbours and becoming super sensitive to all issues pertaining to Islam, mirroring the breakdown of racial relations in the peninsula.

A lot of this can be attributed to the current education system where large number of Malay teachers and civil servants are sent to serve in East Malaysia, bringing with them their ethnic and religious prejudices. Students are also not taught the true history of Sabah and Sarawak in the national curriculum.

Blame must also go to the non-Muslim state leadership in Sabah and Sarawak who are afraid to speak up. The indigenous leadership in both states, representing the non-Muslim bumiputera, are broadly more interested in keeping their positions than fighting for their communities, since 1963. In the past decade this has changed somewhat, especially among the younger educated Ibans and Kadazandusuns, who are now more vocal about the failed leadership in their communities and the need to protect their status as the majority indigenous peoples.

In reality, however, the boat has sailed and it is too late for the non-Muslim indigenous leadership to do anything substantial to slow down Muslim hegemony in both states.  The rise and rise of right-wing Islamic politics in the peninsula means that will use federal power to impose their will on East Malaysia. The tragedy is that the good ethnic relations experienced in East Malaysia for the past fifty years will be nothing more than a distant dream.

Professor James UH Chin teaches at Monash University (Malaysia campus) and is currently a Senior Visiting Research Fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (Singapore) .

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 5 September 2013, 4:59 pm and is filed under
Sabah
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Institutionalised racism?

KJ John

Malaysiakini

Sep 3, 2013

I also have a dream. Martin Luther King Jr had the original dream for the US of A from 50 years ago, which we all remembered recently together with CNN; it was the same year we also became Malaysia.

As we move into the second half century, after 50 years of nationhood; my dream is that we may yet become 1Bangsa of Malaysians.

In other words, I have a dream of One Nation, One People; a nation-state made of one single class and category of Malaysian citizens; wherein the sun shines equally on every Malaysian without ethnicity, religious or cultural considerations; including all who are citizens, even if by the backdoor as we already heard from the royal commission of inquiry (RCI) in Sabah.

But, who or what is our greatest current stumbling block. I agree totally with Brother Haris Ibrahim about his premise and thesis: that it is Umno’s agenda to realise a Ketuanan Melayu nation-state which remains the most important and detrimental factor in realising our one Bangsa of Malaysians dream. Why do I say also this?

Let me simply review how this misdirected but strategic intent was “evolved into what is now called the Biro Tatanegara or National Civics Bureau (BTN) by all promoters of that skewed agenda.” Some fringe groups supported by a former president of Umno today already sing the same tune today, every day.

Where did BTN and Ketuanan Melayu agenda start?

My literature search appears to lead me directly to Abdullah Ahmad Badawi (Pak Lah) when he was head of the Department of Culture, Youth, and Sports in the early 1970s, and later the secretary-general of the ministry by 1974.

He was also already an Umno member from as early as 1965, which is about the same time he joined the PTD service.  In 1978, he resigned from the Pegawai Tadbir Diplomatik (PTD) service and stood as Member of Parliament for the Kepala Batas constituency.

He then was appointed parliamentary secretary for the Federal Territory Ministry in 1978 and by 1980 became deputy minister in the same ministry. Then in 1981 he was appointed minister in Prime Minister’s Department and served under Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad. That appointment appears to have become the framework for the birth of the BTN.

Wikipedia records the following about the BTN:

Biro Tata Negara (National Civics Bureau, or simply BTN) is an agency of the Malaysian government in the Prime Minister’s Department. It was established in 1974 as the Youth Research Unit (Unit Penyelidikan Belia) under the Youth Ministry, but was renamed and transferred in 1981. BTN’s stated objective is to nurture the spirit of patriotism and commitment to excellence among Malaysians, and train leaders and future leaders to support the nation’s development efforts.

Do you see what I see? Pak Lah was the ministry’s secretary-general and the Youth Research Unit was in the Youth and Sports Ministry and then when he became minister in the PM’s Department (JPM), the division was then renamed and transferred to JPM when he became the minister in the PM’s Department under Mahathir.

He had already served under Abdul Razak Hussein as secretary to the Majlis Gerakan Negara, Mageran or the National Operations Council which was set up to help Malaysia tide over the May 13, 1969 riots, and under Emergency law conditions.

Therefore, I hereby propose that the agenda for Ketuanan Melayu was born and nurtured by the Umno team linked to the Mageran and then fostered and festered by Mahathir, the very man who was thrown out of the party by the late Tunku Abdul Rahman.

It therefore appears to me that the vision and agenda to create a psychology of subservience amongst the other ethnicities began within the NOC and it grew to become the agenda for evolving a Ketuanan Melayu mindset as an after-effect of the May 1969 general election when Umno nearly lost Selangor.
(1)

That also explains why the new Federal Territories Ministry was formed and later was moved out of the Selangor government to become a new electoral jurisdiction.

Tanda Putera – truth versus fiction

There are so many “flaws” being pointed about the movie that I am now not too open to see it any more. I enjoy watching historical movies like the life of Lincoln, which captures the struggles and translates the grand story about the life of such people. But there are two fundamental differences about all such historical narratives – they are not funded by the government and they do not toe a particular line in terms of the grand thesis.

From what I have read of reviews; it appears like Tanda Putera is really nothing about the true and real friendship between two of our former leaders.

Let me quote one true and real story to make my point. In the days of the National Operations Council chaired by the prime minister to monitor development in Malaysia, there was once a briefing by the Public Works Department (JKR) director-general about the progress of all projects under the department’s jurisdiction. At this point, all projects were under the JKR’s supervision, and none were “privatised”.

After the full briefing, the late chairperson asked if enough projects were being given to the bumiputra contractors, and the JKR DG spoke in the affirmative, and then the late Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman added: “Please make sure that enough projects are also given to other credible contractors to ensure that project completions are not delayed, or simply not completed.”

Recently at a Pusat Komunikasi Rakyat (Komas) forum on discrimination jointly hosted with a UN Expert on the subject, a Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ) councillor reported that within MBPJ all small projects are given to bumiputera contractors registered as class F contractors. None are given to those of other ethnicities. Is this not another form or institutionalised racism?

Is it plausible that after 50 years of building a nation-state, the only group who are disenfranchised in PJ are still only the Malays?

It is my view that the Article 153, after 50 years, has been institutionally abused for the greater purpose of systemic racism under the so-called Bumiputera Policy, which even under the constitution was meant only to be limited to four arenas of application.

Even so, the particular interpretation of this so-called policy in peninsular Malaysia has excluded the Sabahans and Sarawakians and especially the Orang Asli and the other multi-ethnic urban poor in urban areas. May God bless the urban poor in Malaysia with better and fairer opportunities.

1 For a comprehensive understanding and nuances of this phenomenon and related issues please read Kua Kia Soong’s well researched book called, 1May 13: Declassified Documents on the Malaysian Riots of 1969.’

——————————————————————————–

KJ JOHN was in public service for 29 years. The views expressed here are his personal views and not those of any institution he is involved with. Write to him at
[email protected]
 with any feedback or views.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 5 September 2013, 9:50 pm and is filed under
Media
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


RoS DG’s statement that DAP members should not  “harbor false hopes” of forming new party if DAP is deregistered now makes sense as it is proof he had been on acting the script of Umno/BN DDD squad

Now the pieces are falling into place, and  the totally unwarranted statement by the Registrar of Societies (RoS) Director-General Datuk Abdul Rahman Othman in the Star of 26th July telling DAP members not to  harbor “false hopes” of forming a new party if the DAP is de-registered by the RoS is making sense.

DAP leaders and members had been  mystified by Abdul Rahman’s end-of-July statement “out of the blue”, for the notion of forming a new party if the DAP is deregistered had never been raised or entertained by anyone in the DAP, whether leadership or membership, as there could be no plausible ground for the deregistration of the DAP.

Three allegations had been cited by the highly-funded  Umno/BN “DDD” (Demolish/Destroy DAP) campaign in the first seven months of the year to question the validity of the DAP Central Executive Committee (CEC) elections at the DAP Congress in Penang last December, but none of them had been able to withstand scrutiny despite the mysterious last-minute  publication of a  scurrilous and defamatory booklet packing some 100 lies and falsehoods against the DAP  in 12 pages.

Although this booklet of lies is by a phantom “Father Augustus Chen”, it is distributed nationally  in four languages, Bahasa Malaysia, English, Chinese and Tamil, and given widest publicity in the Umno-BN controlled media, whether print, radio and television, despite being an illegal publication without identifying the printer and publisher!

The first allegation of electoral fraud and manipulation in the DAP CEC elections was virtually abandoned after the first two months because there can be no real dispute that there was a genuine computer glitch which had nothing to do with any mistake in vote counting or tabulation, but only in the computer posting of the results for the purpose of  announcement – something which we could prove to anyone at any time.

The other two allegations of “753 delegates mostly Indians” not notified of the Congress and unable to take part in the CEC elections and the “547 phantom delegates mostly from Penang” were just  baseless and downright lies – which is why the RoS DG is not prepared to put in writing the reasons why he is not satisfied with the DAP CEC elections and wants a re-election to be held.

For seven months, the well-oiled and highly-funded Umno/BN DDD “Demolish/Destroy DAP” campaign had churned out lies and falsehoods through several hundreds of reports in Umno/BN controlled media about the DAP, for instance, that “the only way DAP Secretary-General Lim Guan Eng could get rid of party members who are not his supporters, especially the Indians, would be through deregistration of the party”.

According to this scenario, “there was talk within the party that Guan Eng would prefer to have the party deregistered rather than hold a fresh party election”.

There was even the outrageous allegation and lie  that the DAP leadership was trying to bribe the RoS to deregister the DAP!

All this mountain of lies and falsehoods were grist to the mill of the wicked and devilish Umno/BN Demolish/Destroy DAP campaign, but they highlighted one deplorable and distressing fact – that the RoS Director-General was dancing to the tune of the Umno/BN Demolish/Destroy DAP campaign instead of acting independently, impartially and professionally as a RoS Director-General.

This was illustrated by his unwarranted outburst on July 26 telling DAP members not to “harbour false hopes” of forming a new party if DAP is deregistered, when there was no such notion or intention in the party though it fitted the lies and falsehoods of the Umno/BN DDD campaign that the DAP leadership want the DAP deregistered so as to set up a new DAP like UMNO Baru, where Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad took the opportunity to get rid of UMNO members who disagreed with him when old Umno was declared illegal by the court (and not by the RoS) in 1988.

To reinforce his statement that DAP members should not “harbour false hopes” to set up a new DAP, Abdul Rahman even said:

 “They can apply. But the right to approve is with the ROS. We did not even entertain 29 applications to set up new parties submitted over the last five years.”

Although Abdul Rahman officially handed over RoS certificates to 20 new political parties on Monday, September 2, (11 from Sabah, five from Sarawak and four from the peninsula), it is clear that the decision to approve the registration of the 20 new political parties was taken very much earlier, even before his “out-the-blue” “do not harbour false hopes” statement to DAP members on July 26.

The question is whether the RoS DG is continuing to dance to the tune and act on the script of the Umno/BN DDD squad and be a tool of the Demolish/Destroy DAP campaign?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 5 September 2013, 4:00 pm and is filed under
DAP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Tanda Putera fails to honour Tun Razak

by Zairil Khir Johari

5 September 2013

I am disappointed in Tanda Putera’s failure to honour Tun Razak’s achievements.

According to the Malaysiakini articled titled “Zam: DAP irate as its logo stands out in Tanda Putera” dated 4 September 2013, former minister of information Tan Sri Zainuddin Maidin is quoted as saying that the DAP is against the film because the party’s logo is prominently displayed in the film’s controversial May 13, 1969 racial riot scene.

I would like to state that I have seen the film, and having done so, I admit that I am sorely disappointed. However, my dissatisfaction against the film stems not so much from the fact that the DAP was constantly maligned (indeed, our logo appeared to be omnipresent in most of the racial riot scenes, although there was no direct reference linking the party to the riots). This is because I had expected nothing less than a perversion of reality, as how the DAP has been constantly victimised and misrepresented in recent times, most notably over the CEC election.

I was also not surprised by the grossly unfair and one-sided portrayal of the Chinese as the main instigators of the racial riots. That too was expected, considering the film was fully funded by a RM4.8 million grant from FINAS (National Film Development Corporation) and MDEC (Multimedia Development Corporation). After all, race-baiting and provocation is everyday fare for the BN-controlled mainstream media.

However, what most surprised me, and disappointed me at the same time, was the fact that despite the record sum of money invested, the film failed miserably in its main objective – to honour and glorify the true achievements of the late Tun Abdul Razak.

Tun Razak, our second prime minister, is also known as Bapa Pembangunan (Father of Development), a sobriquet that reflects his efforts in championing extensive land reforms undertaken in the 1960s and early 1970s.

Under his stewardship, the Federal Land Development Authority (FELDA) and Urban Development Authority (UDA) were birthed, which ultimately led to rapid rural development and mass urbanisation of the Malays. Through FELDA, rural Malays were resettled into newly developed areas and granted land with which they could engage in modern agriculture. UDA, on the other hand, was tasked to oversee the urban migration of Malays.

As a result of these initiatives, millions of Malays were lifted out of poverty, while education and economic opportunities became accessible to the rural Malays. Consequently a thriving Malay middle class now exists today. That, above all, was Tun Razak’s greatest contribution to the country.

Unfortunately, anyone who watches the movie will be unable to appreciate any of those efforts. Instead, the viewer will merely learn that were it not for Tun Razak, Malaysia Airlines would today be known as MAL instead of MAS.

The gross abuse of millions of public funds for self-aggrandising propaganda notwithstanding, I believe the greatest tragedy of this film is its failure to contribute anything positive about one of our nation’s great leaders.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 5 September 2013, 10:49 am and is filed under
Media
,
nation building
,
Zairil Khir Johari
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Tanda Putera: History or fiction?

Mahdzir Ibrahim

Free Malaysia Today

September 4, 2013

How can Finas justify this work by Shuhaimi Baba, investing millions of ringgit and in the process jeopardising our racial harmony. For what? The truth?

COMMENT

 I’ve watched Tanda Putera. Aside from wanting to know what the hype was about this film, I considered the price of the ticket as my contribution in support local filmmakers. Hopefully, the small amount I paid, to some extent, will be able to help develop the local film industry.

According to media reports, Tanda Putera cost around RM4.5 million, with the National Film Development Corporation Malaysia (Finas) contributing RM2.5 million and the Multimedia Development Corporation RM2 million, excluding sponsorship from GLCs such as MAS.

With that huge amount of investment, the technical aspects of the film was far from satisfying. The quality of computer generated images were messy. The settings, props and costumes also fell short of capturing the atmosphere of the 60/70s era, unlike Bukit Kepong or Leftenan Adnan. Is it because the producers wanted to save on budget?

After watching it, I wondered if the film was about the history of May 13, or something else?

There were the infamous scenes depicting youths urinating on a flag pole. But, it’s not clear if this incident really took place or derived from historical facts. If true, where and what is the source? Before this, we never heard about it. So we want to know the facts, either from police reports or notes by historians.

It is not clear from the scene where the flag pole is located. Was is it in the compound of Harun Idris’ (Selangor Chief Minister) residence or at the government office or a hawkers area? If it is linked to the residence, it’s probably an assumption just because the pole is flying the Selangor flag. Or, is the urination scene a figment of the director’s imagination?

According to an eyewitness account by one Habib Ahmad, based in Kampung Baru at that time, it is almost impossible that the incident took place in the Menteri Besar’s residence.

So, if it did not happen at the residence of the Chief Minister, then where did it happen, if at all it did? This scene is not a stunt that can be fictionalised. It is directly related to the history of May 13.

The events of May 13 intensified early in the movie seem to incite anger and portrays the opposition as cooperating with the communists. Communists and opposition parties are painted with the image of the Chinese as well as the DAP logo emblazoned here and there in that particular scene. A reminder to the director – DAP is not a communist party. DAP is opposed to any struggle through the use of weapons.

Director owes viewers an explanation

I thought that this film would retell the May 13 incident in chronological order and include solid witness reports. I was hopng it would provide a clearer picture about what really happened. But the director abandoned the topic of May 13 halfway through the movie. The topic was dropped after embedding the DAP logo and the image of communists in viewer’s minds.

The rest of the movie revolves around Tun Razak’s family and his friendship with Tun Dr Ismail, and several brief scenes about his efforts in creating Felda, the implementation of the New Economic Policy (NEP) and the struggle to fight the communists.

The characters of Razak and Ismail were well cast and played by Rusdi Ramli and Zizan Nin. I could not see or understand the significance between the incidents of May 13 and Razak’s legacy.

If this film is not about the history of May 13, is it about Razak and his friend Ismail? If that were so, certainly more time should have been spent developing the important and memorable contributions by Razak, such as his efforts to establish Felda.

Is this a fictional movie, hiding behind history and half-truths so that the director or producers need not be accountable to the audience or anyone? I can understand that any adaptation of the first source to another medium may be manipulated with elements of fiction to make it more entertaining.

However, the nuance between fact and fiction should be clear. But in this film, fiction and fact were mixed and messed up. Anyone not familiar with the history of May 13 will assume that all the scenes are 100% based on facts.

Finally, I would like to ask director Shuhaimi Baba what this film is all about? History or fiction? I’m entitled to an explanation because Tanda Putera is funded by tax payers’ money collected by the government from all races, Malay, Chinese, Indian, even from Umno, DAP and PKR members, Muslims, non-Muslims, the poor and rich.

If this is a historical film, then it belongs to the people and they are entitled to an explanation. If it is fiction, the director must be responsible for the images or scenes in her work. I support freedom of expression and freedom of creativity and I will defend the right of Shuhaimi Baba, if she is honest.

Nevertheless, I wonder how Finas can justify this film, investing millions of ringgit and in the process jeopardise racial harmony. For what? The truth?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 5 September 2013, 12:32 am and is filed under
Media
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Anwar Ibrahim & reformasi: From the eyes of an ordinary citizen

– Anas Alam Faizli

The Malaysian Insider

September 06, 2013

“No one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails. A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens but its lowest ones.” (Nelson Mandela)

Growing up, I remember sifting through my father’s collection of old newspaper clips. One reported that a certain persona by the name of Anwar Ibrahim was about to join Umno. That paper clip was from 1982.

Many in Anwar’s circles and followers at the time viewed him as their next hope for a leader that could strongly challenge the government. Needless to say that move to join Umno was not welcomed by many; my mum, a member of JIM included. In 1996, while tabling the budget in Parliament -an annual event where I await with bated breath for him to introduce a new vocabulary – a practice he was famous for – Anwar was surprisingly spotting noticeable breakouts.

Mum responded “Baru nak matang lah tu…(he is probably just about to mature…).” The consternation she felt then remained.

The financial crisis a year later shook most of the tender South East Asian economies, while Anwar was at the pinnacle of his political career. I did not really understand my parent’s remark then about how Anwar would soon “get it”. I soon did.

I watched 2nd September 1998 unravel on television while I was on campus down south. I will never forget that moment; sitting down dumbfounded trying to gather my thoughts.

From then onwards, keeping track of Anwar’s ceramahs around the country, news and developments, became daily affairs. Anwar’s famous: “Ini adalah konspirasi dan fitnah jahat untuk membunuh karier politik saya”– echoed in mind every day.

More arrests were subsequently made in that period, under the draconian ISA. The late Fadzil Noor then lead a coalition of political parties and NGOs known as GERAK. GERAK held massive protests to free Anwar. The reformasi movement then gathered momentum, initially as an Anwar-specific cause.

But what it evolved into was something far greater. It united all opposition, NGOs and Islamic movements and revolutionized to become something bigger. Amidst major differences, opposition parties then realized that there existed transcendental values that they all fiercely subscribed to -such as justice, liberty, and freedom. This realization had major uniting capabilities. Activists made up of PRM, ABIM, JIM and men who left Umno then decided to form ADIL, an organization which eventually graduated to become the Parti Keadilan Rakyat that we know today.

At the height of it all was Sunday 20th September 1998, where the largest ever demonstration took place in Dataran Merdeka, under the Reformasi umbrella. The crowd that had gathered at the National Mosque for Anwar’s landmark Reformasi speech, rallied on to Dataran Merdeka for another speech, then on to Jalan Raja Laut and ended up in front of EPF.

The energy and conviction I felt and witnessed being among the crowd at the time reminded me of our next-door neighbor. Only five months prior, Indonesians ousted their own President Soeharto.

Malaysia had never witnessed such resolute. But the important thing to note is that it was not all for Anwar alone. It was a show of deep unhappiness towards the grave injustices that the government seemed to be able to inflict against someone as high up as the deputy premier. What then was left for the ordinary rakyat.

We finally realized then how deep and structural were the extent of the government’s tentacles controlling the country’s police force, state media and the entire judicial system.

That very same night, balaclava-clad commandos stormed into Anwar’s private home and roughly seized him. Nine days later, he made his first public appearance with a black eye. Malaysia had just witnessed the death of democracy.

What happened after, we all knew and followed. Anwar was put on a controversial trial, found guilty, and sentenced to 9 years of imprisonment. How could the once number two Malaysia, be politically imprisoned, brutally beaten, and emotionally vilified to beyond any human extent, I wondered. Anwar Ibrahim became Malaysia’s most controversial prisoner of conscience.

Reformasi

Reformasi breathed new life into Malaysian youth of the 1990’s, at a time when youthful zeal and activism spirit had diluted in favor of material wealth and pleasure. This was a contrast from the youth of the 70s, whose idealism were more pro-poor, intellectually-driven, and in line with the spirit of merdeka, fitting of a recently liberated nation. It is a mass movement that was manifested by rakyat from all walks of life, whose birth was spontaneous, honest and pulsing of the rakyat’s aspirations. It still very much is; it belongs to everyone, within and out of political parties, young and old.

Fifteen years on, Malaysians have perhaps experienced an unconventional politically maturing process witnessing Anwar and our reformasi. We inherit a Malaysian with various realities to embrace; a rigged election system, highly racially sensitized plural society, a government who has overbearing control over all economic, judicial and social aspects of the country, and spatially and demographically unequal standards of living, amidst many others. It is not easy to change status quo, a system that has deeply entrenched for the past 50 years. Not easy, yet not impossible.

The man who triggered reformasi

The reformasi movement was borne out of the struggles of many political personalities, without whom it could not have materialized as it did, too many to credit without risking injustice. This piece is not about Anwar Ibrahim, as many will easily be led to believe, but it is about the man who triggered reformasi.

A revolutionary varsity student leader in his UM days, Anwar later co-founded one of the pioneering civil society organizations of late 1970s Malaysia, known as Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM). His tendency to highlight the plight of the poor and vulnerables, and criticize the government vocally booked him a 20-month stint ISA stint in 1974 after the Baling incident.

Post 1979 Iranian Islamic Revolution, Malaysia felt the heat from the rise of Islam in the global scene. We witnessed for the first time the proliferation of Islamic-based civil society organizations. This proved a bonus to PAS, whom at the time was welcoming home waves of new young professionals from abroad who embraced the idea of new dynamism in the party. It helped raise the party’s profile amongst foreign-trained barristers, doctors, engineers and economists, posing a significant challenge to Umno’s political hegemony.

Anwar Ibrahim seemed like the viable solution and heir for Tun Mahathir and Umno; a man seen and known for his sound Islamic principles and honorable background, coupled with remarkable literacy in occidental thought and philosophy. Anwar was about to become an influential political figure, climbing the political ladder up to some of the most important positions in a country; as the finance minister and the deputy Prime Minister. Known to be neither unwavering under pressures of corruption nor compromising to cronyism, he had a political career that was not easy to bring down. That fateful September, the sky fell down onto him in a political and economic saga that forever scarred the face of Malaysian political history. But not all was lost. As widely remarked, cleaning sewage water is almost impossible when swimming in it; rather it has to be done from outside the gutter. The man probably needed to learn that. A lesson that he had been paying dearly since.

Building blocks towards a new age reformasi

In November 1999, Malaysia saw the nascent opposition force leading to the 10th General Election known as the Barisan Alternatif. For the first time in history, the opposition garnered the highest ever votes from the Malays. That record had never been challenged even up to this day. Barisan Nasional was salvaged by Chinese and Indian votership, which perhaps at the time were probably politically and economically unready to seriously challenge status quo.

In 2004, Barisan Nasional (BN) turned the tables in a landslide victory. Re-delineation exercises had allowed for substantial gerrymandering, winning BN 24 out of 25 new seats, and more than 90% of the parliament. The retirement of Mahathir, who then already made enough anti-fans for himself, too ushered in fresh support for Umno and Barisan Nasional. It was a personal struggle for me to believe that change was ever going to be possible in Malaysia.

The period before the next 2008 General Election saw the opposition making significant headways, building a forte. Anwar too was already a free man, and was beginning to truly attempt to unite the various parties to form a formidable opposition that the government had no choice but to reckon with. The introduction of needs-based policies also attracted significant new interest especially the non-Malays into its stable. It’s only fair considering the vast new inequalities that were emerging from decades of favoritism-based policies, leakages and misappropriation of resources.

Leading up to the 2008 12th General Election, the waves of change was felt even earlier on. I actually took unpaid leave to come home for the voting and campaign period- from an overseas posting at the time. The opposition won five states and formed Pakatan Rakyat which includes PKR, PAS and DAP. Call for change had begun to creep up from the rakyat from all walks of life to show its teeth.

Knocking down the incumbent ruling party off of its comfortable two-third parliamentary majority was by no means a small feat. It prompted five years of the government launching various “transformative” efforts on the part of the government. As a result, we are now entering supposedly the next phase of growth with endless possibilities. Pun very much intended, if I may. Sure, we are building more highways and train tracks. Yet what is lacking is arguably the required political will power to undertake the softer and real transformation we so badly need.

That very same period provided the opposition time to reorganize and work with their differences to productively form a coalition with its own development plan, its own manifesto and its own budget proposition. It was the first time ever Malaysians could critically compare alternatives to these documents proposed by the government.

Rejuvenating reformasi

Moving forward post 13th General Election, we ask ourselves again, where do we go from here? The natural question now is whether Anwar should make way for the formidable line up of fresh and younger personalities in PKR and Pakatan Rakyat whom clearly have been gaining their own strong following. Is the way forward now a post-Anwar Ibrahim era, which entails institutionalizing and strengthening of the underlying political system? Better structure will allow for the natural development of a continuous pool of talent and leadership, but is it enough?

Strong leaders have historically proven to be the ultimate source of unification to bring about waves of change that ripples above and beyond those laid out by an institution or system. That kind of strong leadership was the only way substantial Malay votes in 1999 could have shifted, a two-thirds majority for the government in 2008 could have been denied, and a game-changing 52% mandate onto PR for 2013 could have been witnessed.

Anwar Ibrahim too is now a different man. From a youthful varsity leader, to a charismatic Islamic leader, to a Deputy Prime Minister, and even down to being an inmate, Anwar’s bruises could have not been only physical. The wisdom and maturity could not have been without blood, sweat and tears.

Two general elections passed after his release and Anwar stuck to his guns. But to claim ownership of the reformasi can only mean one thing; that he steps up to the presidency post of the party himself, to make reality the reforms that he himself had envisioned for the country. Time is ripe for him to take the mantle, step up the challenge again, be democratically elected and rise up as the President of Parti Keadilan Rakyat. It is the implicit hope of the Rakyat, for him to articulate his vision for Malaysia particularly on his young and future masses.

Anwar Ibrahim triggered the reformasi. Now he needs to rejuvenate it too.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 6 September 2013, 1:43 pm and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Pakatan Rakyat
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Let’s ban the purple dinosaur

A tongue-in-cheek piece

by Sheela R

It takes so little to offend these days. Be it a movie, a book, an artwork or even a rock concert, it has become almost fashionable to denounce slightest aberration to our perceived high moral standards.

I for one, am deeply offended by the sight of a particular purple dinosaur, making its appearance on pre-schoolers’ television programmes. Let me elucidate with well-thought-out points, one by one.

It is purple in colour. It is a well-known fact from Stephen Spielberg’s movies that dinosaurs are brown and perhaps yellow, but definitely not purple. (Well he is as good an authority as any other and, being Malaysian,  you will surely excuse me for the shoddy and completely unsubstantiated research.) We are misleading pre-schoolers with this erroneous fact and worse, there lies a danger that they may grow up wanting to dress as gender-neutral purple dinosaurs. Do I detect a certain derision in you? Well I am merely following the example set by our well-meaning officials, who choose to ban performing artists on account of their dressing, for fear of corrupting our Malaysian youth with their sartorial tastes.

An offensive theme song sung by the dinosaur at the end of every episode, mentions the word “love”. Being Malaysian, it is my right to presume that the mere mention of this unmentionable word will lead unsuspecting youngsters into the wicked, wicked world of unbridled lust and vice. You might even roll your eyes and exclaim that one should view this supposedly offensive word in the context of the entire song. Well, why should I bother with context, when our ever-vigilant officials don’t? After all, they see it fit to ban music groups because of their  purportedly satanic lyrics, never mind that their songs, in the broader sense, are all about world peace, justice and anti-war.

This dinosaur’s rotund belly demeans my religion. How in the world is that possible, you may howl. Never mind how, if I deem it so, then it is. Just look at what gives rise to an insult towards one’s religion these days, from alphabets to canines, porcines, bovines, envelopes, paintings, etc, it would be completely un-Malaysian if I did not find something to infuriate me.

If you are offended by my statements, I, in a true Malaysian fashion, admonish you to leave the country.  As for me, I have my eyes set on another. You can accuse me of acquiring a new target to villify, for all I care. Rumours are that there is a giant yellow bird which is infiltrating tender Malaysian minds and making them lose their faith. Now, I am sure this big bird is the product of a Zionist conspiracy, but that is a subject I which I shall reserve for another day.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 6 September 2013, 12:25 pm and is filed under
Articles
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


A DAP man tells how Malaysia’s future “is tied to the BN”

by Sheridan Mahavera

The Malaysian Insider

September 07, 2013

By his own admission, Anthony Loke Siew Fook “ditakdirkan” to join the DAP.

“I started being interested in current affairs since I was in primary school,” says the 36-year-old Seremban native who went to St Paul’s primary and secondary schools.

His father was a DAP member, his nanny’s husband was a member, while his other family members and neighbours were all supporters. A teenage Loke also looked on DAP veteran Lim Kit Siang as a hero.

This was more than two decades ago, when opposition parties and their members were considered eccentric.

“Next to my father’s old shop in Temiang was a newspaper vendor. I remember squatting there everyday to read Utusan Malaysia, Berita Harian and (the now defunct) Watan.

“That was at a time Utusan was critical and balanced,” laughs Loke, saying his favourite sections were politics and sports.

“I always read the politics section first”.

Except for a brief 18 months during which he and a few friends ventured unsuccessfully at an internet start-up, his post-university career has been with the DAP.

In fact, considering his school-age interest, his student activism and his years as a party staffer, state assemblyman and parliamentarian, Loke has been into politics for two-thirds of his life.

It could explain why through-out the interview Loke repeatedly steers the conversation towards politics on subjects, such as how he felt about Malaysia turning 50 and what aspect of the country upsets him.

But this isn’t recycled Pakatan Rakyat ceramah rhetoric.

When talking about “Malaysia at 50”, Loke stresses how we can’t talk about a country and its people without looking at the system in which they have been managed.

In other words, if you want to talk about Malaysia, you still have to talk about its politics.

The Negeri Sembilan breakthrough

Loke’s rise at a young age in national politics – he was 27 when he contested his first seat – follows other DAP luminaries such as Lee Lam Thye, Tan Kok Wai, Fong Poh Kuan, Tan Kok Wai and Lim himself.

Unlike many other parties, be it from Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat, the above-mentioned DAP stars neither had wealth nor a dynastic name when they started out.

But what has made Loke stand out was his work in Negeri Sembilan where he helped the party re-establish its base after almost being decimated in the 1999 elections.

When Loke joined the party sometime in 2002 as a staffer for then secretary-general Kerk Kim Hock, the party he says, was going through a dark period.

Negeri Sembilan for instance, always had a DAP presence in the Seremban area. The party also always had representatives in Parliament and the State Assembly since the 1970s.

“But from 1996 till 2004, we had no wakil rakyat in Negeri Sembilan. My resolve when I joined was to make a breakthrough and recapture seats for the party.

“It was hard then. I was 25, no one knew me. The party was short of funds and resources. But we worked hard and I had a lot of help from party leaders.”

In 2004, he contested the Lobak state assembly seat and beat the incumbent, who was a DAP-turned-MCA politician. This was a bad year for non-BN parties. PAS lost Terengganu and PKR lost all its seats save one.

The DAP slowly rebuilt its base in Negeri Sembilan after 2004. In the 13th general election, it won 11 seats in the 36-seat state assembly and two seats in the Dewan Rakyat.

Yet for all he’s done, Loke still feels dispirited.

“I won in both the seats I contested (in 2013). But we were not empowered to make the changes we promised. We campaigned on a platform of new policies, new management. But the results didn’t enable us to form a government.”

It’s all BN’s fault

Loke is not interested in the process of wheeling-and-dealing, the rush of power and the idol-building of partisan politics.

For him, winning elections is just a means to get to a position whereby he can make a difference for the country.

Even as a wakil rakyat, it pains him that the ability to serve his constituents by speaking up for them and solving their local problems is being crippled, by what he describes as a vengeful state BN administration.

“The state government gives out aid for those who got into university. We’ve had students who told us that their applications were rejected because of the signatures of their ADUN (state assemblyperson) who were from Pakatan.

“The students were told to go and get a signature from a BN ADUN,” says Loke.

Which goes back to what Loke is trying to impress upon throughout the interview – who really is in control of Malaysia and who really does shape the country’s direction?

If Loke and the 10 other Pakatan wakil rakyat were chosen by their constituents, then should not the state administration, which was also chosen by that same system, acknowledge and accept that?

If, as the conventional view goes, a country’s direction is determined by its people, how come people like Loke are not running the country if 51% of the population voted for them last May?

This is the context in which Loke lays the country’s problems (and its future) squarely at the feet of the BN.

“The BN think the country belongs to them. So that’s why they penalise people who don’t support them. It’s a very immature mindset.”

It is also what he wants to see change in the next five years if the country is to progress any further.

“The BN must come to terms that Pakatan is here to stay. That there will always be competition and that the people must be given the opportunity to choose. You cannot just penalise people.

“If BN does not change this mindset then the country will stagnate and not progress, and there will be more polarisation”.

And what will Anthony Loke do in the face of such an obstinate administration and the possibility that this will not change?

“I will continue to be a check and balance to them,” he says with a smile. – September 7, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 7 September 2013, 2:35 pm and is filed under
DAP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Is helping fellow Malaysians racist, Kit Siang’s aide asks Noh Omar

by Elizabeth Zachariah

The Malaysian Insider

September 07, 2013

Dyana Sofya Mohd Daud, one of DAP’s young and upcoming leaders, has challenged former Cabinet minister Datuk Seri Noh Omar to point out how helping Malaysians get a tertiary education could make her racist.

The Umno Selangor state liaison chief and other politicians had criticised the political secretary to DAP adviser Lim Kit Siang after she proposed that an institution like Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) be set up for non-Malays.

“First of all, I did not say that we should open UiTM to the non-Bumis. In the interview I mentioned that we should have something like UiTM for the non-Bumis,” she told The Malaysian Insider late last night in Kuala Lumpur.

In an earlier interview with the Malaysiakini news portal, Dyana said a higher learning education institution like UiTM should be set up for non-Malays. She said she felt sorry for her non-Malay friends who were denied the right to pursue their education at higher learning institutions.

“I would like to challenge Datuk Noh Omar to explain to me how wanting to help needy Malaysians, regardless of race is racist?” she said, adding she failed to understand how having a multicultural student community will cause the country to deteriorate.

Dyana pointed out that while UiTM had a noble objective, which is to help needy students, its purpose had changed over the years.

“With minimum student fee, the students are able to enjoy quality education, good facilities and graduate with recognised university qualifications. It was a heaven-sent help for my middle-class family. All four of my siblings were accepted into UiTM.

“However, UiTM does not just accept needy students anymore, they are opening their doors to not just applicants from middle-income or low-income families.

“I remember having a junior that was a daughter of a then minister, driving around in a Peugeot in campus,” she said.

She argued that if UiTM was able to provide the same privilege – a good degree with a minimum fee – to students from high-income families, needy non-Malay citizens should also be given the same treatment.

“Is it too much to ask for the same treatment for my fellow Malaysian friends? Is asking for fairness or sharing of wealth with my fellow Malaysians a ‘racist’ statement?

“I am patriotic enough to look at the hardships of my fellow Malaysians and walk in their shoes. I suggest that Datuk Noh Omar and Barisan Nasional leaders like him do the same.”

Noh had said that Dyana had made a racist statement with her suggestion and that she had no right to question UiTM’s existence.

“She does not know her history and hence, she has no patriotic spirit. UiTM is clearly protected under Article 153 of the Constitution. This is our right. Don’t question it,” said the former minister for Agriculture and Agro-based Industry.

UiTM former vice-chancellor Tan Sri Ibrahim Abu Shah, who was also offended with the proposal, noted that Bumiputera students were still lagging behind compared with the achievements of students from other races.

“If UiTM accepts non-Bumiputera students, our country will deteriorate as there would not be an understanding between races in Malaysia,” he had said.

She was also called a traitor by many quarters who criticised her for even suggesting the idea.

The UiTM law graduate was also labelled as “a Malay who does not know her history” by Umno leaders.

Dyana was born in Ipoh, into a family of Umno members. Her mother is still an Umno member and was the first division secretary for the party’s women’s wing in Malaysia.

She is serving full-time as Lim’s political secretary since the general election in May.

Dyana first came to prominence in early 2012, when Lim held a press conference to announce her entry into DAP. – September 7, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 7 September 2013, 11:26 am and is filed under
DAP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Setpol Encik Lim Kit Siang dan UITM

– Sakmongkol

The Malaysian Insider

September 08, 2013

Apa sudah jadi kepada pemimpin Umno? Respons mereka terhadap isu-isu yang dibangkitkan sejak akhir-akhir ini dibuat dalam keadaan hysteria.

Dua minggu lalu, bila Anwar Ibrahim mencadangkan perbincangan meja bulat, cadangan tersebut dibaca sebagai cadangan menubuhkan kerajaan perpaduan.

Anwar Ibrahim mengajak pemimpin Umno yang bengap untuk berbincang mengenai polarisasi kaum, mengenai rasuah, mengenai pengurusan ekonomi negara, mengenai jinayah dalam negara dan perkara2 umpanya.

Perkara yang mudah ini pun pemimpin Umno tidak faham sebab diserang penyakit sawan babi dan hysteria.

Pemimpin-pemimpin PAS pun saya harap fahamlah dahulu cadangan Anwar itu. Ini bukan kerajaan perpaduan.

 Bukan untuk bergabung dengan Umno. Tak ada orang hendak bergabung dengan Umno. Umno parti fiudal, rasuah dan rasis dan zalim kepada orang Melayu.

Kita bukan ingin bergabung, kita hendak lawan Umno sampai Umno kalah. Kita hendak memerdekakan orang Melayu dari perhambaan Umno yang feudal ini.

Faktanya, Umno itu lanjutan dari orang-orang yang tuan hamba sini dan tuan hamba sana iaitu pemilik hamba abdi zaman dahulu.

Rakyat Melayu jangan lupa, bahawa ciri utama fiudalisme Melayu ialah memiliki hamba.  Sebab itu kalau kita baca sejarah, tokoh-tokoh membahasakan diri mereka tuan hamba.

Rakyat biasa membahasakan diri mereka hamba. Zaman dahulu, orang Melayu terbahagi kepada dua kategori sahaja- pemilik hamba dan hamba abdi atau hamba sahaja.

Orang Melayu yang revolusioner dan yang mempunyai kesedaran sosial yang tinggi tidak akan mahu bergabung dengan Umno.

Memperjuangkan kepentingan orang Melayu tidak semestinya melalui Umno. Dimana pun kita berada, jika kita Melayu kita boleh memperjuangkan orang Melayu.

Ada orang Umno yang sanggup mendedahkan rasuah dikalangan pemimpin mereka? Ada orang Umno yang berani mendedahkan keadaan sebenar orang Melayu yang rata-ratanya masih miskin?

Yang masih tidak dapat bekalan air, yang tak mampu memiliki rumah, yang tidak berumah, yang hidup kais pagi makan pagi?

Mustahil orang Umno berani bercakap mengenai perkara-perkara ini. Cakap-cakap langkah mayat dia dahulu, baru boleh buat apa-apa adalah cakap besar orang yang sebenarnya tidak ada kekuatan.

Masalah orang Melayu Umno ialah dia ingat dia seorang sahaja yang kuat. Kalau dia tumbuk orang lain, orang lain duduk diam sahaja.

Sikap dan mentality seperti inilah yang menyebabkan orang melayu kalah.  Tidak syak lagi, semasa Portugis melanggar Melaka dahulu, tidak sedikit yang berkata langkah mayat mereka dahulu.

Orang Melayu pakai lembing dan keris, parang dan pisau, kapak dan beliung, mereka lupa Benggali Putih ada meriam dan senapang.

Kita kuat, tapi jangan lupa orang lain pun ada kekuatan. Jadi, janganlah cakap besar , langkah mayat aku dahulu.

Ini cakap remaja yang mukanya masih berjerawat dan basuh kencing pun tak sempurna lagi. Saya berada dalam parti DAP.

Saya berani bercakap mengenai perkara-perkara yang segan atau tidak berani dicakapkan oleh pemimpin Umno.

Ada orang Umno berani kata Umno itu parti rasuah dan mengunakan kuasa kerajaan untuk mengayakan diri pemimpin dan syarikat-syarikat kaitan dengan Umno?

Dan di hadapan rakan-rakan Cina dalam DAP saya berani kata, keadaan orang Melayu masih teruk.

Saya cadangkan pemimpin Umno hari ini kembali kepada prinsip asas- back to basics. Jangan nak suruh orang lain belajar sejarah.

Belajar apa parti politik boleh buat dan tidak boleh buat dalam sebuah demokrasi. Belajar umpamanya sejarah pembinaan PWTC itu.

Tahukah pemimpin Umno tanah yang 10 ekar itu siapa punya dan mengapa tuan tanah sanggup beri pada Umno semata mata kerana berpegang pada prinsip berkerajaan bahawa parti politik yang memerintah tidak boleh mencabul kuasa?

Orang Melayu sebetulnya kena cari pemimpin berprinsip seperti ini bukan memilih pencuri dan pembunuh.

Tanah itu dahulu milik Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah yang diberi percuma kepada Umno. Kenapa beri percuma? Kerana Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah memikirkan bahawa parti politk tidak boleh memohon tanah dari kerajaan bila memegang kuasa.

Melakukan demikian, melanggar prinsip berkerajaan. Menjadi kerajaan bukan lesen melakukan sesuka hati. Prinsip ini pemimpin Umno seperti mamak padukang Mahathir  tidak faham .

Pemimpin Umno yang rasuah dan tidak berotak sahaja yang berfikiran seperti ini. Parti politik tidak boleh memohon tanah dari kerajaan.

Maka oleh kerana Umno ketika itu yang memikirkan bahawa mereka menguasai kerajaan maka boleh memohon tanah, Umno bercadang memohon tanah untuk membina ibu pejabat Umno.

Pemimpin yang berprinsip seperti Tengku Razaleigh tidak bersetuju. Untuk mengelak daripada mencabul kuasa kerajaan, Tengku Razaleigh yang mempunyai tanah ditapak PWTC sekarang( yang dia beli dari pemilik Punjabi atau Chettiar) memberi tanah seluas 10 ekar itu kepada Umno.

Pemimpin Umno yang menjerit sana sini hari ini tahu tidak perkara ini? Tak tahu. Sebab dalam kepala mereka, menguasai kerajaan itu lesen untuk melakukan rasuah, kezaliman, ambil kesempatan, balun tanah, balun syer syarikat, buli orang dan memurtadkan Melayu yang tidak sealiran pemikiran mereka.

Jadi sebelum pemimpin Umno hari ini yang tak seberapa cerdik menasihatkan orang lain membaca sejarah, eloklah pemimpimn Umno itu sendiri membaca sejarah perjuangan orang Melayu terlebih dahulu.

Kembali kepada pembacaan ajakan Anwar berunding meja bulat. Pembacaan itu tidak betul. Demikianlah masa dulu emak dan bapa suruh pergi belajar, kamu ponteng dan bersidai dikedai mamak hisap rokok.

Bila besar, masuk parti Umno dan terbawa-bawa kebodohan remaja bersama sama. Sudahkah pendita-pendita dari Umno ini membaca dan faham apa yang Dyana Sofiah Mohd Daud setpol Lim Kit Siang nyatakan?

Dia hanya menceritakan perasaan sedih dia melihat kawan-kawan bukan Melayu yang miskin dan tidak kemampuan tidak dapat melanjutkan pelajaran.

Pemimpin Umno tidak sukakah kita ada perasaan sedih melihat orang miskin? Mungkin kerana tidak ada perasaan sedih inilah, maka hari ini kita lihat ada 10 juta orang Melayu mempunyai pendapatan bulanan RM1500 kebawah.

Oleh kerana dia ada perasaan sedih melihat bukan Melayu yang tidak mampu melanjutkan pelajaran, dia beranggapan adalah baik jika sebuah institusi seperti UITM diujudkan untuk bukan Melayu. Yakni suatu tempat yang memberi peluang kepada bukan Melayu yang tidak mampu mendapat peluang melanjutkan pelajaran.

Orang Melayu mesti terima kenyataan bahawa bukan semua orang Cina dan bukan Melayu itu kaya dan mampu.

Dalam kawasan saya, kalau kita rajin masuk ke kampung-kampung baru Cina di tempat-tempat seperti Kg Baru Sempalit, Sungai Ruan, Sungai Lui, Cheroh, Sang Lee, Teras dan Sungai Chetang, kita akan dapat lihat bahawa ramai orang Cina yang miskin.

Anak-anak mereka tidak menyambung pelajaran pun. Kepada mereka yang seperti ini, apa harapan yang boleh kita sebagai sebuah kerajaan berikan?

Ini kerajaan untuk rakyat Malaysia bukan? Kecualilah ketika saya tidur malam tadi, pagi ini, kerajaan Malaysia sudah bertukar menjadi kerajaan untuk orang Melayu sahaja.

Bahkan bukan itu! Menjadi kerajaan untuk orang Melayu Umno sahaja! – sakmongkol.blogspot.com, 8 September, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 8 September 2013, 10:58 pm and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
DAP
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


“Useless” research — the seed of great breakthroughs

 –  K Ranga Krishnan

The Malaysian Insider

September 06, 2013

A few weeks ago, as I was preparing to welcome our new batch of students to Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, I came across a wonderful and thought-provoking paper by Abraham Flexner — the educator whose report a century ago revolutionised medical education worldwide — titled The Usefulness of Useless Research.

I was struck by the clarity of the paper’s exposition on how research driven by curiosity leads to unexpected advances.

Flexner wrote this article in 1939 to address the growing discussion on why research has to be useful, a discourse that is happening to this day.

He recounts an illustrative interview that he had with George Eastman of Eastman Kodak fame. Flexner asked him who he thought was the most useful worker in science. Eastman said Guglielmo Marconi, the man credited with using wireless waves to produce the radio.

Flexner then pointed out to Eastman that the real credit belonged to James Clerk Maxwell, who predicted and developed the underlying principles of electromagnetism, and others like Heinrich Rudolf Hertz, who detected and demonstrated these electromagnetic waves.

Neither of these men had any thought about how their work would be useful.

To quote Flexner: “Curiosity, which may or may not eventuate in something useful, is probably the most outstanding characteristic of modern thinking … Institutions of learning should be devoted to the cultivation of curiosity, and the less they are deflected by the consideration of immediacy of application, the more likely they are to contribute not only to human welfare, but to the equally important satisfaction of intellectual interest, which may indeed be said to have become the ruling passion of intellectual life in modern times.”

When driven by curiosity

To wit, one might say that that was yesterday, but today is different.

Well, I can recount many recent stories which continue to illustrate the value and potential of curiosity-driven research.

Dr Ahmed Zewail, who won the 1999 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, gave in the article, Curiouser and Curiouser: Managing Discovery Making, many more examples of breakthroughs based on curiosity-driven research, where the quest was the only motivation and practical utility was not a consideration.

One example is the development of the laser by Dr Charles Townes. He was driven only by fundamental questions on microwave spectroscopy and amplification of light. This work led to the laser now widely used in science medicine, and is a part of our daily lives.

Another story is that of Dr Eric Kandel, who was curious about how the brain works.

Dr Kandel began his study many years ago by examining Aplysia (squid). This work led to a Nobel Prize in 2000 for his groundbreaking research showing how memory is encoded in the brain’s neuronal circuits. Now, this research has become an area of intense interest for treatments of various types of memory disorders, including Alzheimer’s disease.

In short, I think Flexner’s perspective still remains fresh and valid. Curiosity remains the foundation of discovery research, and seeds many of the innovations that lead to useful inventions which change our lives.

Create the right environment

Dr Zewail says there are three essentials to promote curiosity-driven research. First, the right people: Research and development needs young, creative and curious minds. Second, adequate resources. And, finally, an atmosphere that promotes the interaction, exchange and fertilisation of ideas.

Discovery research is not the only kind of research — the development of inventions and tools and medicines that help enhance life are just as critical.

Applied research requires people who can look at problems, understand needs and draw ideas from a variety of sources to develop, test and modify solutions. The mindset is that of a problem-solver and inventor.

Just like curiosity-driven research, this type of research also requires the right people and the right atmosphere that promotes interaction. It also requires a risk-taking culture and resources. We need both kinds of research to flourish and interact to optimise the development of solutions to our various needs and difficulties.

Unfortunately, the timeline between discovery and translation can take a long time. Developing places for natural interactions to take place between this community of discoverers and inventors with the potential consumers of the inventions could make this process easier and maybe faster.

Harnessing and encouraging curiosity from childhood will go a long way in identifying and promoting the enquiring nature that leads individuals to become researchers. But we also need this as a general principle in education to foster the creativity that is required for the knowledge economy.

While we clearly want to develop researchers, we need innovation to flourish in the general workplace culture. One need not be a researcher to come up with better ways to improve work, reduce costs or improve morale — one just needs a mind that looks at problems as an opportunity, not a misery. – September 6, 2013.

* K Ranga Krishnan is Dean of the Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School Singapore. A clinician-scientist and psychiatrist, he chaired the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences at Duke University Medical Centre from 1998 to 2009.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 8 September 2013, 10:25 am and is filed under
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


In search of lost truth

Aerie Rahman

The Malay Mail Online

September 6, 2013

SEPT 6 — The polemical Tanda Putera was screened a few days ago to mixed reviews. I dislike reading reviews before experiencing the said movie/book/concert myself as it conditions my mind to see things according to the reviewer.

However, since Tanda Putera didn’t make it to any cinemas in London and probably won’t ever, I read and listened to reviews to get a glimpse of all the fuss.

What piques my interest about this film is the brouhaha surrounding it. Some people are angered at the RM4.5 million grant it received. Some are angered at how it masquerades itself as a historical film when some parts are purely fictional. Some are just angry.

At the heart of the controversy there is actually a contest: a contestation of the truth as to what really occurred on that fateful day of  May 13, 1969, the contextual considerations that triggered the violence and the subsequent events that unfolded after that day.

Most people are unsure and uncertain about this black spot in our history. Materials on this topic are insufficient.

Since the truth is unclear, people start to formulate their own versions of the truth. I can’t blame them; the truth is after all elusive and relative. The truth is liable to be subjected to various interpretations and manipulations to suit the ears of the hearer and wishes of the maker.

Films such as Tanda Putera are controversial because it is perceived as being intellectually dishonest by telling only one side of the story. The huge subsidy demonstrates the government’s power in the production of a certain historical narrative.

Books such as Kua Kia Soong’s May 13 and the Tunku’s 13 May: Before and After tells the author’s own version of what happened – not actually what happened.

These are not the authoritative truth. A single and authoritative truth must come from an independent institution comprised of a collective of individuals who have scrutinised and weighed every piece of evidence presented. This ensures credibility.

A lack of closure

Post-May 13, our leaders tried their best to restore order and security. They were very deliberative and cautious in their actions. Emergency was declared and the National Operations Council was established. The priority was lives.

This was a sagacious course of action. The result speaks for itself.

The only problem is, no mechanisms were established to investigate what really happened on that day.

When a nation endures a traumatic event in its history, it can choose to inquire or be silent about it. The choice is between fact-finding, like in trials and truth commissions or a national amnesia, where nothing happens.

Malaysia chose the latter, employing silence as a means to construct our history.

The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was established not only to decide on amnesties and listen to the stories of victims. It was formed to unearth facts and create a single authoritative truth. The truth was not only discovered, it was also constructed.

A single authoritative truth was needed so that it can be embedded within the collective memories of South Africans. The process has to be credible enough that people are unable to deny the truth.

While we’ve heard of many Holocaust denials in public, until today there’s hardly a case of a public “Apartheid denial.” People cannot deny Apartheid because the hard evidence points to Apartheid’s existence and the evils it caused.  You’ll look ridiculous if you deny that Apartheid and violence never happened.

The TRC exposed that conflict was not solely caused by the Apartheid machinery. There were innumerable black on black violence with “necklacing” being a favourite execution method. Moreover, violence was also instigated by the resistance movement which resulted in the loss of lives among whites as well.

The TRC’s findings managed to rectify grassroots stereotypes that the Apartheid state was the sole offender. It showed that the conflict cannot be simply reduced to “whites versus blacks.” It’s more complex than that as many other factors needed to be taken into account.

The same applies to May 13, 1969.

Moving forward

On August 27 this year, Lim Kit Siang called for a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) into the events surrounding May 13, 1969. I think this proposal should be given heavy consideration.

Without a single authoritative truth, conspiracy theories and hearsay will continue to be proliferated. Anecdotal stories of one’s uncle in a cinema or one’s aunt in a bus in KL will reign as the truth.

People tend to believe what favours their preconceived notions. It feels comfortable and gives them a sense of security as it is compatible with their existing beliefs. They’ll remain in their own echo chambers, selecting news and opinions on  May 13 which fits their own emotions. This is called confirmation bias.

In anthropologist Michel-Rolph Trouillot’s Silencing the Past: Power and Production of History, he interrogates how Haitians try to forget about this little known but important freedom fighter called Sans Souci – by pushing him into the shadows of history. Locals didn’t want to mention him. They were in denial mode. One of the reasons was obvious; people did not want to believe that a Congolese slave (Bossales) was a leader for Haiti’s independence unlike the dominant and more polished Creoles.

I understand that inquiring into May 13 would open up old wounds. Stories of horror would be recounted and agonising memories will be prodded by an inquisitive public. Nevertheless, the victims and the nation require some form of substantial closure.

Bite the bullet we must, in order to hammer the final nail into May 13’s coffin.

Keeping silent on May 13 but periodically invoking it as a bogeyman to scare the masses is disingenuous. We tacitly proclaim a national amnesia by being silent as to the causes of May 13, 1969 but when it suits our convenience, we point to the disaster itself – all for personal interests.

A prerequisite for Malaysia to mature is by reconciling with our past. It is imperative that we are clear as to what caused the riots. When there is clarity as to the causes, we can prevent it from occurring again.

It’s high time we set the historical record straight.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 9 September 2013, 8:53 am and is filed under
Media
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Is the dissemination of racist lies, poison and incitement, regardless of the harm to Malaysian nation-building, the surest way to high votes and influence in the upcoming UMNO party elections?

There has recently been an unprecedented outpouring of racist lies, poison and incitement in Umno media and social media, whether facebook, twitter or blog, raising the question:

Is the dissemination of racist lines, poison and incitement, regardless of the harm to Malaysian nation-building,  the surest way to high votes and influence in the upcoming UMNO party elections?

Two days ago, the UMNO official newspaper, Utusan Malaysia carried a report quoting a former Umno deputy minister, Dr. Mohd Fuad Zarkashi  making the accusation that the DAP’s criticism of the film “Tanda Putera” “samata-mata ingin menyembunyi kebiadapan Penasihat DAP, Lim Kit Siang yang bertindak kencing di depan rumah Menteri Besar Selangor ketika peristiwa 13 Mei 1969”. (Utusan Malaysia 7.9.13 p.13)

How can the former Umno deputy minister say, and Utusan Malaysia publish, such dastardly falsehood, when this is a most irresponsible and downright lie?

I was never in Kuala Lumpur at any time during the May 13, 1969 racial riots, and the director of Tanda Putera, Datin Paduka Shuhaimi Baba had claimed that the fabricated  urination incident in her film was her “creative licence” in her fictitious account of the May 13, 1969 racial riots!

This is not an isolated instance, as there had been a recent spate of malicious lies and falsehoods in UMNO media and social media, like the blog post of former Information Minister Zainuddin Maidin last Tuesday (3rd September 2013), accusing me of having “sowed the seeds of death” in causing the May 13, 1969 riots.

I have instructed my lawyers to institute legal proceedings against  Zainuddin, Fuad  and Utusan Malaysa to clear my name from these defamatory falsehoods but the question Malaysians and even UMNO delegates, divisional and branch leaders must ask is whether they will allow the dissemination of  racist lies, poison and incitement to sacrifice the higher national  interests of Malaysian nation-building in the belief that this is the surest way to high votes and influence in the upcoming UMNO party elections!

I have said many a time that I was never in Kuala Lumpur during the May 13, 1969 racial riots in Kuala Lumpur but facts and truth do not seem to matter to Umno leaders and propagandists who are bent on spreading the lie that I had provoked the May 13, 1969 racial riots not only through my fictitious  role in the street processions in Kuala Lumpur on May 11, 12 and 13, 1969 in Kuala Lumpur but even for urinating on the flagpole in the Mentri Besar’s residence.

Six circumstances why I could not have provoked the May 13, 1969 riots

There are at least six circumstances to show that I could not have provoked the May 13, 1969 riots.

Firstly, I had not contested in any of the Kuala Lumpur or Selangor seats in the 1969 general elections as I had contested in the Bandar Melaka parliamentary seat.

Secondly, I was never in Kuala Lumpur after the May 10, 1969 general elections and on May 13, 1969, I was in Kota Kinabalu campaigning for the independent parliamentary candidate as polling in Sabah for the 1969 general elections was to be after the Peninsular elections on May 10, 1969.

Thirdly, I would not have dared to return to Kuala Lumpur from Sabah if I had caused the May 13, 1969 riots by shouting anti-Malay slogans in victory processions in the streets of Kuala Lumpur and even urinating at the flagpole of the Selangor Mentri Besar’s residence.

Fourthly, I would have been charged and prosecuted for causing the May 13, 1969 riots if I had been guilty of shouting anti-Malay slogans in victory processions in the streets of Kuala Lumpur and urinating at the flagpole of the Selangor Mentri Besar’s residence, if a person could get away alive or unhurt with such a heinous and provocative act!

Fifthly, I would not have called for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the May 13, 1969 racial riots to ascertain the causes and the culprits down the decades for 44 years, from 1969 to now.

Sixthly, I would never have written a letter to the Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman  from the Muar Detention Centre on 5th August 1969, expressing my “anxieties for the future of Malaysia” and making a three-point proposal for the forging of national unity in the wake of the May 13, 1969 racial riots.

As I said in my letter to Tunku:

“From the very outset of the May 13 disturbances, the DAP had offered its help to restore peace and harmony.

“I myself, on 17th May, had occasion to make a similar offer and pledge on behalf of my party at a press conference in Singapore, on the eve of my return to Malaysian capital from Sabah and arrest.”

My three-point proposal was:

The immediate convening of Parliament (a) for an affirmation and pledge by all MPs to the concept and ideal of racial tolerance, understanding and multi-racialism; and (b) to restore the people’s confidence in the democratic process and deny the M.C.P. from making political capital from the disturbances.

The establishment of a Royal Commission of inquiry into the causes of the May 13 disturbances, and to apprehend and punish the culprits; and

The establishment of an all-party, all-races Royal Commission of Enquiry to probe into the entire gamut of racial problems in Malaysia, with a view to seek long-term solutions.

We should learn the lessons from the tragedy of the May 13, 1969 so that Malaysia can be a more united, successful and prosperous nation and not to distort history and the tragic events of 44 years ago for petty political advantages as in securing high votes and greater influence in the upcoming UMNO party elections.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 9 September 2013, 3:25 pm and is filed under
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Tanda Putera, a replacement for Bukit Kepong

— Ravinder Singh

The Malay Mail Online

September 9, 2013

SEPT 9 — “Tanda Putera” was not a natural birth. In contrast, I believe, “Bukit Kepong” was.

“Bukit Kepong” was a film made in 1981 and based on an incident in Bukit Kepong in 1950. It portrayed a historical fact and was not produced with any ulterior motive.

However, certain vested interests saw how it could be put to political use. It became the prime weapon in the election campaigns of the ruling coalition. For the next several elections it became “mandatory” viewing by the electorate starting a few weeks before each election, and almost to the eve of the election.

The TV screening of the film was calculated to “motivate” the voters into supporting the ruling coalition to ensure a “peaceful” future. If not, another Bukit Kepong could happen again.

Impulses reaching the brain through the sense of sight are very powerful. They account for about 80 per cent of all that the mind absorbs. So, screening of the film at the critical hour before the elections was a calculated strategy to condition the minds of the viewers to believe something and react accordingly at the ballot box. It was mind-conditioning.

Having been used for campaigning purposes at a few elections, it had become stale. This is when someone got a brainwave to produce a designer movie to replace Bukit Kepong. This brainwave, I believe, did not originate in Shuhaimi Baba’s mind. It had to be the mind of a master strategist, as far as election campaigning goes, that came up with it.

After the brainwave, it had to be realised. If Finas itself produced it, it would be too obvious that it was a government propaganda film from the outset. So Finas had to take the back seat, while it provided all the funding to the tune of RM4.8 million of public funds. A willing producer had to be sourced, and was found in the person of Datuk Paduka Shuhaimi Baba.

Shuhaimi Baba therefore does not have to lament the box-office failure of “Tanda Putera”. It was never meant to be a film that would attract audiences. Its purpose was to send messages to people’s minds that would turn into votes for the BN.

Hence, despite a Cabinet “ban” on the screening of the film before the elections, it was “forced shown” to about 3,000 Felda settlers attending a function at the Putra World Trade Centre, and after that at a few institutions of higher learning. It is significant that the audiences to whom the film was “force shown” were from a certain ethnic group.

The question is, if we want to talk of 1 Malaysia, of unity and solidarity, of good inter-ethnic relations, then why was “Tanda Putera” financed by the government? Why was it shown to rural audiences just before the elections despite a Cabinet “ban”? Why was it shown only to people of a particular ethnicity?

Bukit Kepong was not produced with any motive of manipulating people’s minds. But when those in power saw the power of the movie to transmit fear into people’s minds, the movie was abused for that purpose. When it became stale, it had to be replaced by something new to carry on that motive of fear mongering. So another incident in the nation’s history came to the rescue.

Any movie re-enacting history has to be truthful. Shuhaimi Baba herself has admitted “Tanda Putera” is not truthful, and excuses it with the phrase “creative licence.”

Creative licence is not a licence to tell untruths. Spoken untruths may be forgotten after some time, but visual untruths get etched in the mind and people will actually believe they are truths. This has already happened as some who viewed the film say it is just depicting the truth and nothing but the truth!

So, what was the ulterior motive of producing “Tanda Putera?”

                This entry was posted on Monday, 9 September 2013, 11:11 am and is filed under
Media
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.