Brave New World (The Star)
28 July 2011
There is a sense of social justice to be found in our myths. But in the real world there will not be magical heroes. There will only be the constant vigilance and small acts of courage of ordinary folk.
_____________________
WHEN I was a little boy, there was one particular traditional story that freaked me out. This was the tale of Raja Bersiong (the Fanged King).
If I am not mistaken, it is set in Kedah. Anyway, for those of you not familiar with this Malay legend, let me tell you the tale.
Long ago there was a very cruel Raja.
He treated his subjects viciously and was feared and hated.
It is said that he had fangs instead of teeth.
One day, his cook was preparing his lunch when she cut her fingers and bled into his vegetables. Because she was pressed for time, she just went on cooking the meal, rather than face the wrath of the Raja for being late.
When the food was served, the Raja exclaimed that this was the best spinach he had ever eaten.
He called the cook and asked her what she did differently.
Out of fear, she admitted that the only difference to the dish was the addition of blood.
The Raja then ordered that blood be put into all his meals.
Eventually, his appetite for blood grew and grew, and soon people were being slaughtered just to sate his appetite.
The cruel reign of the Raja degenerated into one of abject terror.
Naturally, a hero appeared and he fought the Raja.
The hero had magical powers and he used it to turn himself into a tiger which then devoured the evil ruler.
The story ends, therefore, with a touch of irony; the fanged king met his doom at a pair of fangs.
I tell you, this story scared the heck out of me.
When I was seven I cut my lip and I bled into my mouth.
Inadvertently, I swallowed some of the blood.
I lived in terror that I was going to become Raja Bersiong.
Sure enough, a day or so later, I felt a pain in my neck.
Oh no, I thought, this is it.
My fangs are starting to grow.
It turned out that I had mumps.
Anyway, the point of these ramblings is that unlike some assertions that our culture demands subservience and sheep-like behaviour, our legends say otherwise.
There is a sense of social justice to be found in our myths, which means it is within our collective psyche to stand up against injustice and cruelty.
The legend of Raja Bersiong is about how the abuse of power will eventually lead to one’s downfall.
Of course, in the real world, there are no fairy tale demonic kings.
The forces of oppression take different, more understated forms.
It happens through the usurping of control in public institutions meant to serve the greater good. And just as there are no demonic villains, neither are there magical heroes.
A single hero can’t battle such subtle widespread tools of oppression.
In the real world, it is up to the people to take that responsibility.
In the real world, there will not be a battle royale between a brave tiger and an evil Raja to make the world a better place, there will only be the constant vigilance and small acts of courage of ordinary folk.
Without it, we will forever be haunted by our own Rajas Bersiong.
Tuesday, 9 August 2011
Friday, 22 July 2011
Protecting the royal institution
Brave New World (The Star)
14 July 2011
The monarchy is held in very high regard among many Malaysians. If we are to ensure that this high regard continues, then the royals must play their role as determined by the Constitution.
___________________
NOW that the Bersih march is over, I would like to raise an issue that appears to have been overlooked. Just before the march was due to happen, the King intervened and said he would prefer it if a street demonstration did not occur. At the same time, he acknowledged the peoples’ right to express their legitimate expectations.
It all looks and sounds very reasonable and laudable. Indeed, I reckon most people would say that it is. However, I would like to raise a small warning flag if I may.
Our country is a constitutional monarchy. This means that the powers of the King is determined by the Constitution. His Majesty’s powers are limited. His only true power is to select the Prime Minister and to decide whether to dissolve Parliament or not.
In the past, the King was much more powerful but his immunity from prosecution and power to veto legislation was taken away by a constitutional amendment under the Barisan Nasional government led by Datuk Seri (now Tun) Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
There is, however, one power that the Constitution never provided for, and that is for the King to be involved in politics and governance.
His Majesty is meant to be above the petty politics of the day. In this way, he is above partisanship and also beyond reproach. Thus this seperation of royalty from politics is, in my view, a manner of protecting the institution.
What the King did when he made his statement about the Bersih march arguably borders on involvement in governance. It is of course his Majesty’s right to say what he wishes, but there is always a risk that his statement may have serious implications on public life.
As it is, both sides in the Bersih debate have claimed that the King supports them.
The Government said Bersih defied the King by taking to the streets. Bersih said they were merely following his Majesty’s request by wanting to have the rally in Merdeka Stadium, and it was the closing of the stadium that forced them onto the street.
Already, we can see here how all parties have dragged his Majesty into the fray. If the dignity of the monarchy is of concern, then this should not occur at all.
However, I am also worried that the royal statement may start a precedent where the King gets involved in public matters.
The danger here is that there is no constitutional provision empowering him to do so. And if he does so, he is beyond reproach due to laws such as the Sedition Act. That means that if the King gets involved, the people can’t criticise his involvement or his statement.
In a democracy, it is surely wrong that a hereditary — not an elected — leader can have such influence. This is not only because we the people can’t criticise him but we also have no avenue to show our displeasure via the ballot box.
Many people often point to Thailand where the king has a lot of influence in public life and is still largely beloved. All this is well and good as long as the Thai king is as respected and popular as the one they have now.
What if he is replaced by someone who is not held in such high regard? Such a situation, where a monarch who gets involved in public life and yet has all sorts of laws preventing the citizenry from publically opposing him, would lead to a system of governance that would be an uncomfortable mix between a constitutional monarchy and an absolute monarchy.
As I write this, I am aware that there are many out there who will be jumping up and down claiming I am being derhaka. This is another danger of the King making public pronouncements about issues on governance.
Even if the government of the day does not take action against those who criticise His Majesty, there will be plenty of little royalists who would love to take matters into their own hands, regardless of the resonableness of the complaint or the unreasonableness of the royal statements.
I come from Penang, which means I do not have an instinctive attachment to royalty, having never had a “sultan of my own”. Yet I realise that the monarchy is held in very high regard among many Malaysians.
If we are to ensure that this high regard continues, then the royals must play their role as determined by the Constitution. Only in this way can we make sure they remain untouched by the dirt of politics and the tenuous democracy we have is not watered down further by putting royal involvement in the mix.
14 July 2011
The monarchy is held in very high regard among many Malaysians. If we are to ensure that this high regard continues, then the royals must play their role as determined by the Constitution.
___________________
NOW that the Bersih march is over, I would like to raise an issue that appears to have been overlooked. Just before the march was due to happen, the King intervened and said he would prefer it if a street demonstration did not occur. At the same time, he acknowledged the peoples’ right to express their legitimate expectations.
It all looks and sounds very reasonable and laudable. Indeed, I reckon most people would say that it is. However, I would like to raise a small warning flag if I may.
Our country is a constitutional monarchy. This means that the powers of the King is determined by the Constitution. His Majesty’s powers are limited. His only true power is to select the Prime Minister and to decide whether to dissolve Parliament or not.
In the past, the King was much more powerful but his immunity from prosecution and power to veto legislation was taken away by a constitutional amendment under the Barisan Nasional government led by Datuk Seri (now Tun) Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
There is, however, one power that the Constitution never provided for, and that is for the King to be involved in politics and governance.
His Majesty is meant to be above the petty politics of the day. In this way, he is above partisanship and also beyond reproach. Thus this seperation of royalty from politics is, in my view, a manner of protecting the institution.
What the King did when he made his statement about the Bersih march arguably borders on involvement in governance. It is of course his Majesty’s right to say what he wishes, but there is always a risk that his statement may have serious implications on public life.
As it is, both sides in the Bersih debate have claimed that the King supports them.
The Government said Bersih defied the King by taking to the streets. Bersih said they were merely following his Majesty’s request by wanting to have the rally in Merdeka Stadium, and it was the closing of the stadium that forced them onto the street.
Already, we can see here how all parties have dragged his Majesty into the fray. If the dignity of the monarchy is of concern, then this should not occur at all.
However, I am also worried that the royal statement may start a precedent where the King gets involved in public matters.
The danger here is that there is no constitutional provision empowering him to do so. And if he does so, he is beyond reproach due to laws such as the Sedition Act. That means that if the King gets involved, the people can’t criticise his involvement or his statement.
In a democracy, it is surely wrong that a hereditary — not an elected — leader can have such influence. This is not only because we the people can’t criticise him but we also have no avenue to show our displeasure via the ballot box.
Many people often point to Thailand where the king has a lot of influence in public life and is still largely beloved. All this is well and good as long as the Thai king is as respected and popular as the one they have now.
What if he is replaced by someone who is not held in such high regard? Such a situation, where a monarch who gets involved in public life and yet has all sorts of laws preventing the citizenry from publically opposing him, would lead to a system of governance that would be an uncomfortable mix between a constitutional monarchy and an absolute monarchy.
As I write this, I am aware that there are many out there who will be jumping up and down claiming I am being derhaka. This is another danger of the King making public pronouncements about issues on governance.
Even if the government of the day does not take action against those who criticise His Majesty, there will be plenty of little royalists who would love to take matters into their own hands, regardless of the resonableness of the complaint or the unreasonableness of the royal statements.
I come from Penang, which means I do not have an instinctive attachment to royalty, having never had a “sultan of my own”. Yet I realise that the monarchy is held in very high regard among many Malaysians.
If we are to ensure that this high regard continues, then the royals must play their role as determined by the Constitution. Only in this way can we make sure they remain untouched by the dirt of politics and the tenuous democracy we have is not watered down further by putting royal involvement in the mix.
Sunday, 10 July 2011
Impartial referees matter
Brave New World (The Star)
30 June 2011
Without faith in the impartiality of referees, the beauty of football just goes out the window as doubts over his fairness will mar the proceedings, no matter who wins or loses. The same goes for the EC referees when it comes to elections.
________________________
WHENEVER Tottenham Hotspur play Manchester United, we Malaysian Spurs fans, we few, we happy few, will check out who the referee is. There are a couple of them (who shall remain nameless) whose names we dread every time this particular fixture comes about.
It’s not that any of us have any proof that these men are corrupt and biased in favour of the ruling team, it’s just that this is our perception.
And who can blame us, when a ball that falls a metre into the goal and should have won us the match is deemed as not having crossed the line by the man in black.
Now, before you Manchester United fans out there write angry e-mail about how I’m just another whining Spud (which I suppose I am), let me say that there is a point to all this.
Referees matter. They are important and they must be seen to be impartial.
Without this faith in their impartiality, the beauty of the game just goes out the window as no matter who wins or loses, the doubts over the fairness of the match will mar the proceedings.
Now, if referees are important for something like football, imagine how vital it is to have free and impartial referees for something which will have an effect on our very lives (and not just our Saturday night thrills).
I am speaking of course about elections and the Election Commission (EC).
Do I feel that our electoral system needs an overhaul?
Absolutely, and I believe it has to be much more than just the introduction of indelible ink and other such measures to prevent fraud.
Primarily I think that the EC has to be given the same status as it used to have before the 1962 Constitutional Amendments.
Bear with me as we delve into a bit of history.
Before the 1962 amendments, the EC had tremendous power and, more importantly, it had a great deal of independence.
Between 1957 and 1962, it was the EC that determined the delineations of the constituencies. And because commissioners had security of tenure (it was really hard to get rid of them as once appointed their tenure was akin to that of judges), their decision could be made independent of any sort of pressure from the government of the day.
However, in 1962, all that changed. The security of tenure was stripped away so that the commissioners worked at the pleasure of the Executive. Furthermore, the delineation of parliamentary constituencies was now placed into the hands of Parliament.
The implications are obvious. Whoever controls Parliament could then determine the delineation of the constituencies that best suits them.
And because you have control of Parliament that means you also determine the Executive. Thus, you will have power over the EC, too.
In the words of H.E. Groves at the time of the amendment:
“The vital power of determining the size of constituencies as well as their boundaries is now taken from a commission, which the Constitution makers had apparently wished, by tenure and status, to make independent and disinterested, and has been made completely political by giving this power to a transient majority of Parliament, whose temptation to gerrymander districts and manipulate the varying numerical possibilities between ‘rural’ and ‘urban’ constituencies for political advantage is manifest.”
I do not care who has the majority in Parliament, be it Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat or any other party that may pop up.
The current situation is simply not a good state of affairs because it can be abused by whoever has power.
So to those who think that the election system is hunky dory, I beg to differ.
And please don’t tell me that I can’t differ, because we are supposed to be a democracy and we have the right to express ourselves.
30 June 2011
Without faith in the impartiality of referees, the beauty of football just goes out the window as doubts over his fairness will mar the proceedings, no matter who wins or loses. The same goes for the EC referees when it comes to elections.
________________________
WHENEVER Tottenham Hotspur play Manchester United, we Malaysian Spurs fans, we few, we happy few, will check out who the referee is. There are a couple of them (who shall remain nameless) whose names we dread every time this particular fixture comes about.
It’s not that any of us have any proof that these men are corrupt and biased in favour of the ruling team, it’s just that this is our perception.
And who can blame us, when a ball that falls a metre into the goal and should have won us the match is deemed as not having crossed the line by the man in black.
Now, before you Manchester United fans out there write angry e-mail about how I’m just another whining Spud (which I suppose I am), let me say that there is a point to all this.
Referees matter. They are important and they must be seen to be impartial.
Without this faith in their impartiality, the beauty of the game just goes out the window as no matter who wins or loses, the doubts over the fairness of the match will mar the proceedings.
Now, if referees are important for something like football, imagine how vital it is to have free and impartial referees for something which will have an effect on our very lives (and not just our Saturday night thrills).
I am speaking of course about elections and the Election Commission (EC).
Do I feel that our electoral system needs an overhaul?
Absolutely, and I believe it has to be much more than just the introduction of indelible ink and other such measures to prevent fraud.
Primarily I think that the EC has to be given the same status as it used to have before the 1962 Constitutional Amendments.
Bear with me as we delve into a bit of history.
Before the 1962 amendments, the EC had tremendous power and, more importantly, it had a great deal of independence.
Between 1957 and 1962, it was the EC that determined the delineations of the constituencies. And because commissioners had security of tenure (it was really hard to get rid of them as once appointed their tenure was akin to that of judges), their decision could be made independent of any sort of pressure from the government of the day.
However, in 1962, all that changed. The security of tenure was stripped away so that the commissioners worked at the pleasure of the Executive. Furthermore, the delineation of parliamentary constituencies was now placed into the hands of Parliament.
The implications are obvious. Whoever controls Parliament could then determine the delineation of the constituencies that best suits them.
And because you have control of Parliament that means you also determine the Executive. Thus, you will have power over the EC, too.
In the words of H.E. Groves at the time of the amendment:
“The vital power of determining the size of constituencies as well as their boundaries is now taken from a commission, which the Constitution makers had apparently wished, by tenure and status, to make independent and disinterested, and has been made completely political by giving this power to a transient majority of Parliament, whose temptation to gerrymander districts and manipulate the varying numerical possibilities between ‘rural’ and ‘urban’ constituencies for political advantage is manifest.”
I do not care who has the majority in Parliament, be it Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat or any other party that may pop up.
The current situation is simply not a good state of affairs because it can be abused by whoever has power.
So to those who think that the election system is hunky dory, I beg to differ.
And please don’t tell me that I can’t differ, because we are supposed to be a democracy and we have the right to express ourselves.
Wham, Bam that’s my Man!
Brave New World (The Star)
16 June 2011
There are many “soft men” out there who do not understand what it means to be male and as a result the girls start to get ideas above their station.
______________________
WELCOME gentlemen, welcome. Please take a seat. Anywhere will do. The serving wenches will be coming in a moment to serve your tea. Feel free to ogle at their bosoms and buttocks. That’s what they are there for.
We are gathered here today for the inaugural meeting of the Husband In Charge Klub or HICK for short. In the light of the creation of the Obedient Wives Club, it was thought that it would be appropriate for us men to have an equivalent society; something to help men in Malaysia truly understand what their role is.
After all, there are so many “soft men” out there who simply do not understand what it means to be male. It is these idiots who give us a bad name and they cause so many social problems. For example, they believe in women’s rights. This gives the wrong message to women.
Just because of a small bunch of sissy boys, it is as though we all agree with all that feminism rubbish. The girls start to get ideas above their station and because of that we poor men are not treated well and we have no choice but to have affairs and what not.
Therefore, for the good of society, we must set all men straight. Let there be no mistake, gentlemen, we are here to put things right in this country. We are doing a service to our nation. We should be as proud as a cock strutting the farmyard.
So, let’s establish our core principles and ideals. First, and most important, we are masters. Our word is final. We are the kings. We can express this through various means.
For example, there is no real need to actually talk to your woman. A grunt is sufficient. It is up to her to interpret what that grunt means.
In the first few weeks of marriage, you might need to help her understand by slapping her on the back of the head if she doesn’t get the difference between the “I want a drink” grunt with the “take off your clothes and wait for me in the bedroom until I finish watching football” grunt.
It is also great to have some public displays of subservience from your woman. Make her kiss your hand when you drop her off anywhere. What is important here is not the hand kissing as such, but your own attitude to it.
Don’t look at her when she kisses your manly digits. Look away as though you have something better to do. And remember, if you can zoom off in your car before she has the chance to step away, even better.
The next thing we must concern ourselves with is personal hygiene and fitness. The rule here is simple, neither is necessary. You can be as smelly and as unfit as you like.
She should learn to appreciate and to love your manly musk. And if you get overweight, well, it’s just more of you to love isn’t it?
Mind you, it is very important that this does not go both ways. Your woman must be as fragrant and as slim as on the day you met her.
If she gets podgy as a result of her dropping all those brats that you put into her womb, you have every right to complain about how unattractive she is and how it is because of her that you can’t get it up any more.
Now, the OWC is going to train women to be high-class prostitutes in the bedroom. This is very good. However, our women do not have the same experience as we do with high class prostitutes, so let’s help the girls a bit by telling them exactly what high-class prostitutes do.
On a final note, if they are going to be high-class prostitutes, then what about us? Do we have to be high-class studs?
Of course not, we have to put up with their incessant whining for jewellery, shoes, handbags, clothes, marketing money and all that. It would simply be inhuman to expect us to give them good sex as well.
Remember our motto: “Our Pleasure is Their Pleasure”.
That’s about it gentlemen. I think it is time for our tea break now. Ah, here come the wenches. Move your lovely butts, sweet things, we’re parched!
16 June 2011
There are many “soft men” out there who do not understand what it means to be male and as a result the girls start to get ideas above their station.
______________________
WELCOME gentlemen, welcome. Please take a seat. Anywhere will do. The serving wenches will be coming in a moment to serve your tea. Feel free to ogle at their bosoms and buttocks. That’s what they are there for.
We are gathered here today for the inaugural meeting of the Husband In Charge Klub or HICK for short. In the light of the creation of the Obedient Wives Club, it was thought that it would be appropriate for us men to have an equivalent society; something to help men in Malaysia truly understand what their role is.
After all, there are so many “soft men” out there who simply do not understand what it means to be male. It is these idiots who give us a bad name and they cause so many social problems. For example, they believe in women’s rights. This gives the wrong message to women.
Just because of a small bunch of sissy boys, it is as though we all agree with all that feminism rubbish. The girls start to get ideas above their station and because of that we poor men are not treated well and we have no choice but to have affairs and what not.
Therefore, for the good of society, we must set all men straight. Let there be no mistake, gentlemen, we are here to put things right in this country. We are doing a service to our nation. We should be as proud as a cock strutting the farmyard.
So, let’s establish our core principles and ideals. First, and most important, we are masters. Our word is final. We are the kings. We can express this through various means.
For example, there is no real need to actually talk to your woman. A grunt is sufficient. It is up to her to interpret what that grunt means.
In the first few weeks of marriage, you might need to help her understand by slapping her on the back of the head if she doesn’t get the difference between the “I want a drink” grunt with the “take off your clothes and wait for me in the bedroom until I finish watching football” grunt.
It is also great to have some public displays of subservience from your woman. Make her kiss your hand when you drop her off anywhere. What is important here is not the hand kissing as such, but your own attitude to it.
Don’t look at her when she kisses your manly digits. Look away as though you have something better to do. And remember, if you can zoom off in your car before she has the chance to step away, even better.
The next thing we must concern ourselves with is personal hygiene and fitness. The rule here is simple, neither is necessary. You can be as smelly and as unfit as you like.
She should learn to appreciate and to love your manly musk. And if you get overweight, well, it’s just more of you to love isn’t it?
Mind you, it is very important that this does not go both ways. Your woman must be as fragrant and as slim as on the day you met her.
If she gets podgy as a result of her dropping all those brats that you put into her womb, you have every right to complain about how unattractive she is and how it is because of her that you can’t get it up any more.
Now, the OWC is going to train women to be high-class prostitutes in the bedroom. This is very good. However, our women do not have the same experience as we do with high class prostitutes, so let’s help the girls a bit by telling them exactly what high-class prostitutes do.
On a final note, if they are going to be high-class prostitutes, then what about us? Do we have to be high-class studs?
Of course not, we have to put up with their incessant whining for jewellery, shoes, handbags, clothes, marketing money and all that. It would simply be inhuman to expect us to give them good sex as well.
Remember our motto: “Our Pleasure is Their Pleasure”.
That’s about it gentlemen. I think it is time for our tea break now. Ah, here come the wenches. Move your lovely butts, sweet things, we’re parched!
Thursday, 2 June 2011
Some want it, some don’t
Brave New World (The Star)
2 June 2011
Note: The parts in red were removed by The Star
________________________________
There is an international environmental law called the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste and their Disposal. Yes, I know, the title alone is enough to put anyone to sleep. I have had generations of students do just that.
Anyway, please bear with me. This international law, which Malaysia is party to, basically forbids the illegal export of hazardous wastes to countries that do not want them or do not have the ability to dispose of them safely. It came about because it is actually cheaper for companies to hire a ship, pack it full of hazardous wastes and then dump it in some third world country half way across the planet.
A nasty practice to be sure and one that got pretty out of hand in the eighties, particularly in African countries. Hence this international law came about and Malaysia very rightly decided to be part of this regime. After all why should we take other people’s dangerous waste products?
It is a bit odd therefore that this Lynas rare earth plant was even considered in the first place. The waste product of any rare earth manufacturing is radioactive. It causes ill health and untold misery. It’s happened before in Perak and now it looks set to happen again in Pahang.
The Asian Rare Earth company in Bukit Merah was Japanese, the one in Lynas in Australian. I wonder why they didn’t just have the plant in the wide open spaces of Australia. Is it because it is cheaper to have it here, or perhaps because the Aussies have more stringent laws with regard to radioactive wastes and therefore it makes more sense to come to a country where such laws do not reach such high standards.
Whatever the reason, it sure looks like a version of dumping to me. Instead of creating the waste in their own home country and then dumping it here, they just build the plant right here along with their waste products. I do not blame the people of Gebeng to be very concerned because this is their health and the future of their children at stake here. Their opposition to the plant is totally understandable. Naturally the government and the proponents of the plant will say that it is all safe and fine and dandy.
Speaking of the proponents of this plant a bunch of them disrupted a peaceful protest against the plant recently in Kuantan. The anti anti-plant group was reported to number in the scores and they not only yelled and screamed but also apparently resorted to a spot of physicality. They didn’t like the anti plant people because it seems that they were scaring away tourists.
Isn’t it nice to have such tourism minded people in Kuantan. I didn’t even know that there were tourists in Kuantan. Furthermore one of them was said to have stated that “this is Malay land”. This got me confused, is it alright to have Malay land irradiated? Does the glow of radiation enhance the Malay-ness of the place? Very odd indeed.
There was a review expert panel set up and they have been having meetings with various concerned groups. They seem to be saying that the plant is safe. However, opponents of the plant say that the data obtained in coming to this conclusion came from the plant proponent themselves and therefore is unreliable. An independent third party should be called in to make the necessary investigations and data gathering.
This is a reasonable request, and one which actually mirrors the decision of the High Court in the ARE case in Perak. The judge in that case held that analysis of the data coming from the ARE plant sources could be questioned as the neutrality of said data would doubtlessly be, well, questionable.
I am certain that those who are opposed to this plant will continue in their struggle and I hope that there will be a full and open disclosure of all the facts so that an informed decision will be made. It still seem strange to me however that a government which has put its name to an international law which condemns hazardous wastes would even consider such a plant on its shores.
2 June 2011
Note: The parts in red were removed by The Star
________________________________
There is an international environmental law called the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste and their Disposal. Yes, I know, the title alone is enough to put anyone to sleep. I have had generations of students do just that.
Anyway, please bear with me. This international law, which Malaysia is party to, basically forbids the illegal export of hazardous wastes to countries that do not want them or do not have the ability to dispose of them safely. It came about because it is actually cheaper for companies to hire a ship, pack it full of hazardous wastes and then dump it in some third world country half way across the planet.
A nasty practice to be sure and one that got pretty out of hand in the eighties, particularly in African countries. Hence this international law came about and Malaysia very rightly decided to be part of this regime. After all why should we take other people’s dangerous waste products?
It is a bit odd therefore that this Lynas rare earth plant was even considered in the first place. The waste product of any rare earth manufacturing is radioactive. It causes ill health and untold misery. It’s happened before in Perak and now it looks set to happen again in Pahang.
The Asian Rare Earth company in Bukit Merah was Japanese, the one in Lynas in Australian. I wonder why they didn’t just have the plant in the wide open spaces of Australia. Is it because it is cheaper to have it here, or perhaps because the Aussies have more stringent laws with regard to radioactive wastes and therefore it makes more sense to come to a country where such laws do not reach such high standards.
Whatever the reason, it sure looks like a version of dumping to me. Instead of creating the waste in their own home country and then dumping it here, they just build the plant right here along with their waste products. I do not blame the people of Gebeng to be very concerned because this is their health and the future of their children at stake here. Their opposition to the plant is totally understandable. Naturally the government and the proponents of the plant will say that it is all safe and fine and dandy.
Speaking of the proponents of this plant a bunch of them disrupted a peaceful protest against the plant recently in Kuantan. The anti anti-plant group was reported to number in the scores and they not only yelled and screamed but also apparently resorted to a spot of physicality. They didn’t like the anti plant people because it seems that they were scaring away tourists.
Isn’t it nice to have such tourism minded people in Kuantan. I didn’t even know that there were tourists in Kuantan. Furthermore one of them was said to have stated that “this is Malay land”. This got me confused, is it alright to have Malay land irradiated? Does the glow of radiation enhance the Malay-ness of the place? Very odd indeed.
There was a review expert panel set up and they have been having meetings with various concerned groups. They seem to be saying that the plant is safe. However, opponents of the plant say that the data obtained in coming to this conclusion came from the plant proponent themselves and therefore is unreliable. An independent third party should be called in to make the necessary investigations and data gathering.
This is a reasonable request, and one which actually mirrors the decision of the High Court in the ARE case in Perak. The judge in that case held that analysis of the data coming from the ARE plant sources could be questioned as the neutrality of said data would doubtlessly be, well, questionable.
I am certain that those who are opposed to this plant will continue in their struggle and I hope that there will be a full and open disclosure of all the facts so that an informed decision will be made. It still seem strange to me however that a government which has put its name to an international law which condemns hazardous wastes would even consider such a plant on its shores.
Thursday, 19 May 2011
Check, some news just isn’t right
Brave New World (The Star Online)
19 May 2011
The irresponsible, unfounded and silly abound on the Net. It is up to responsible news organisations to verify the truth of the matter before picking up the story.
________________________
HEY! Guess what? The other day I was wandering around Brickfields in Kuala Lumpur and I saw a group of Hindus discussing something in their temple compound.
You know what? I think they want to make Malaysia a Hindu state!
They are somehow going to get two-thirds of both the Dewan Rakyat and the Dewan Negara along with the Council of Rulers to change the Constitution and make us a Hindu state.
No, don’t laugh. I recognised a politician in there among them, so it must be true.
How can you tell this story is true? Well, you are reading it in a newspaper aren’t you? And to make sure this story is truly credible, I’m going to make the same assertions on my blog.
Does this sound stupid to you? It does? Well, that is because it is.
Now in the world we live in today, anyone with a computer can say any old thing, no matter how obtuse, and then get it out for the whole planet to see.
For example, the “scoop” that a bunch of priests and politicians are going to turn this country into some sort of Christian state.
It’s a wild accusation – irresponsible, unfounded and silly.
However, on the information super highway, you get a lot of silliness and this is to be expected.
In my view, this freedom to be as dumb as you can be is a price worth paying for the freedom of expression the Net gives us.
However, I find it is surprising that this “scoop” would be carried by a newspaper. Aren’t newspapers supposed to work within this strange thing called “journalistic principles”?
Shouldn’t a newspaper check out a story first by doing a spot of investigating? I don’t know, perhaps by calling the organisers of this “insidious” meeting of Christians and asking them.
The conversation could sound something like this: “Hello Padre, are you going to convince Parliament and the Council of Rulers to make this a Christian state? You aren’t? Are you sure, because a blogger said you are.
“What’s his name? I don’t know because he uses a pseudonym. Perhaps there is some other way you want to do it, maybe by force?
“What did you say? Oh, yes, Christians make up only 7% of the population and there is no Christian Army to call upon.
“I see, so it’s just a silly accusation then? Right, well, thanks for your time Padre.”
There you go, simple. No need to do a Woodward and Bernstein with midnight visits to underground car parks to meet informers named “Deep Throat”.
A simple phone call is all it takes.
Speaking of simple, it came as no surprise at all to me to hear Ibrahim Ali jumping on this story and then proceeding to rave and rant.
He promises to lead a crusade against Christians, and that he and his jolly Perkasa pals will be the first to lay down their lives.
What a brave man he is because I would have thought that such language would definitely bring the law down on your head.
I mean what if some Buddhist said he wanted to wage war on Muslims, he would have been locked away under the ISA or the Sedition Act before he can say “bad karma”.
But then it doesn’t take much bravery to say such things where Ibrahim Ali is concerned. Especially if the de facto Law Minister has given you the freedom to make such comments.
He said we have to live with such comments and he won’t use the Sedition Act.
This is because people say such things on the Net anyway and to single out Ibrahim Ali would not be right.
Hey, that’s good to know. So if lots of people say the same thing on the Net, then the Government won’t take action against any single person? This is a fascinating new policy.
Does this mean that if, say, a thousand of us put on our blogs, tweets and Facebook that we want an armed rebellion, no action will be taken?
19 May 2011
The irresponsible, unfounded and silly abound on the Net. It is up to responsible news organisations to verify the truth of the matter before picking up the story.
________________________
HEY! Guess what? The other day I was wandering around Brickfields in Kuala Lumpur and I saw a group of Hindus discussing something in their temple compound.
You know what? I think they want to make Malaysia a Hindu state!
They are somehow going to get two-thirds of both the Dewan Rakyat and the Dewan Negara along with the Council of Rulers to change the Constitution and make us a Hindu state.
No, don’t laugh. I recognised a politician in there among them, so it must be true.
How can you tell this story is true? Well, you are reading it in a newspaper aren’t you? And to make sure this story is truly credible, I’m going to make the same assertions on my blog.
Does this sound stupid to you? It does? Well, that is because it is.
Now in the world we live in today, anyone with a computer can say any old thing, no matter how obtuse, and then get it out for the whole planet to see.
For example, the “scoop” that a bunch of priests and politicians are going to turn this country into some sort of Christian state.
It’s a wild accusation – irresponsible, unfounded and silly.
However, on the information super highway, you get a lot of silliness and this is to be expected.
In my view, this freedom to be as dumb as you can be is a price worth paying for the freedom of expression the Net gives us.
However, I find it is surprising that this “scoop” would be carried by a newspaper. Aren’t newspapers supposed to work within this strange thing called “journalistic principles”?
Shouldn’t a newspaper check out a story first by doing a spot of investigating? I don’t know, perhaps by calling the organisers of this “insidious” meeting of Christians and asking them.
The conversation could sound something like this: “Hello Padre, are you going to convince Parliament and the Council of Rulers to make this a Christian state? You aren’t? Are you sure, because a blogger said you are.
“What’s his name? I don’t know because he uses a pseudonym. Perhaps there is some other way you want to do it, maybe by force?
“What did you say? Oh, yes, Christians make up only 7% of the population and there is no Christian Army to call upon.
“I see, so it’s just a silly accusation then? Right, well, thanks for your time Padre.”
There you go, simple. No need to do a Woodward and Bernstein with midnight visits to underground car parks to meet informers named “Deep Throat”.
A simple phone call is all it takes.
Speaking of simple, it came as no surprise at all to me to hear Ibrahim Ali jumping on this story and then proceeding to rave and rant.
He promises to lead a crusade against Christians, and that he and his jolly Perkasa pals will be the first to lay down their lives.
What a brave man he is because I would have thought that such language would definitely bring the law down on your head.
I mean what if some Buddhist said he wanted to wage war on Muslims, he would have been locked away under the ISA or the Sedition Act before he can say “bad karma”.
But then it doesn’t take much bravery to say such things where Ibrahim Ali is concerned. Especially if the de facto Law Minister has given you the freedom to make such comments.
He said we have to live with such comments and he won’t use the Sedition Act.
This is because people say such things on the Net anyway and to single out Ibrahim Ali would not be right.
Hey, that’s good to know. So if lots of people say the same thing on the Net, then the Government won’t take action against any single person? This is a fascinating new policy.
Does this mean that if, say, a thousand of us put on our blogs, tweets and Facebook that we want an armed rebellion, no action will be taken?
Wednesday, 4 May 2011
Terror threat remains
Brave New World (The Star)
5 May 2011
Osama bin Laden’s death does not mean that the problem he symbolised has gone, not until the causes of terrorism are dealt with properly.
________________________
THE killing of Osama bin Laden has been dominating the news. This is to be expected, of course. After all, he is the embodiment of all evil where America is concerned. And what is important to America must naturally be important to the world.
Despite my sarcastic tone, let’s be clear. I think the world is a better place without Osama, mass murderer and hide-and-seek champion. He has claimed responsibility for the killing of thousands of civilians and in that he is monstrous.
I am of course aware that people like former US President George W. Bush and former British Premier Tony Blair are also responsible for the deaths of thousands with their, I submit, utterly unlawful war against Iraq. Be that as it may, Osama is still an international criminal and his demise will not see me shedding any tears.
It will be interesting to see what happens from this point. Already there are some choices made by the Americans which will raise heated debate.
The fact that Osama was so quickly buried at sea will mean that his body is now irretrievable. This will doubtless give fuel to the conspiracy theorists out there to claim that he is not really dead.
The politically cynical point out that this operation has come at a terribly convenient time for Barack Obama. The killing of Osama will boost his flagging popularity, just in time for the tough upcoming presidential election.
I for one believe that he was killed by the MI6. It is all a British plot designed to keep the world’s press preoccupied so that William and Kate will have a peaceful honeymoon.
Flippancy aside, the death of Osama does raise serious questions. There is a saying used by some who practise stick fighting: to destroy the enemy, you must de-fang the snake.
This means that if we destroy the opponent’s weapon, in this case his stick hand, then we have achieved a step to victory.
This principle, although generally sound, does have its problems. For destroying a person’s main weapon does not mean the problem is solved.
Just because a person loses his stick hand does not mean he has lost his other hand, legs, head and elbows. A key factor may have been removed, but the problem could still remain.
We can see this on the world stage in Egypt, for example. Although former President Hosni Mubarak is now gone, corruption is still rife in Egypt — and so is the economic chaos that the people were so angry about.
In other words, the “fang” is gone but the rest of the body is still there. In Egypt, it was not simply Mubarak that was the problem but an entire system rotted to the core after decades of corruption, nepotism and oppression.
With Osama now dead, it does not mean that the problem he symbolised has gone. The world must still deal with terrorism and, more importantly, the causes of terrorism.
There will always be mad men in the world, those who think that violence is the method to achieve their objectives. But for these kind of people to get large numbers of followers and supporters cannot be simply explained away by saying that all of them are bad.
Terrorism is not some sort of mental problem, it is the result of political, economic and social factors.
In countries where the political process is exclusive and people are not allowed to take part in governance, either because the system followed is a dictatorship or a sham democracy, they are more likely to turn to unlawful methods to get their point across.
When there is widespread poverty and desperation, it is easier to get recruits into a cause which promises salvation, even though the promise comes with a price of mindless violence.
When people are faced with gross social injustice, men like Osama with the message that they will fight that injustice (as deceitful as he may be) will draw plenty of eager followers.
Osama is dead, and although this is definitely a blow to Al-Qaeda and other organisations of their ilk, it does not mean that all is well.
Unless the approach taken goes beyond cowboy gunship diplomacy and idiotic jingoistic flag waving, and while the causes of terrorism are not dealt with properly, all that has been achieved is the destruction of a fang. The threat is still there.
5 May 2011
Osama bin Laden’s death does not mean that the problem he symbolised has gone, not until the causes of terrorism are dealt with properly.
________________________
THE killing of Osama bin Laden has been dominating the news. This is to be expected, of course. After all, he is the embodiment of all evil where America is concerned. And what is important to America must naturally be important to the world.
Despite my sarcastic tone, let’s be clear. I think the world is a better place without Osama, mass murderer and hide-and-seek champion. He has claimed responsibility for the killing of thousands of civilians and in that he is monstrous.
I am of course aware that people like former US President George W. Bush and former British Premier Tony Blair are also responsible for the deaths of thousands with their, I submit, utterly unlawful war against Iraq. Be that as it may, Osama is still an international criminal and his demise will not see me shedding any tears.
It will be interesting to see what happens from this point. Already there are some choices made by the Americans which will raise heated debate.
The fact that Osama was so quickly buried at sea will mean that his body is now irretrievable. This will doubtless give fuel to the conspiracy theorists out there to claim that he is not really dead.
The politically cynical point out that this operation has come at a terribly convenient time for Barack Obama. The killing of Osama will boost his flagging popularity, just in time for the tough upcoming presidential election.
I for one believe that he was killed by the MI6. It is all a British plot designed to keep the world’s press preoccupied so that William and Kate will have a peaceful honeymoon.
Flippancy aside, the death of Osama does raise serious questions. There is a saying used by some who practise stick fighting: to destroy the enemy, you must de-fang the snake.
This means that if we destroy the opponent’s weapon, in this case his stick hand, then we have achieved a step to victory.
This principle, although generally sound, does have its problems. For destroying a person’s main weapon does not mean the problem is solved.
Just because a person loses his stick hand does not mean he has lost his other hand, legs, head and elbows. A key factor may have been removed, but the problem could still remain.
We can see this on the world stage in Egypt, for example. Although former President Hosni Mubarak is now gone, corruption is still rife in Egypt — and so is the economic chaos that the people were so angry about.
In other words, the “fang” is gone but the rest of the body is still there. In Egypt, it was not simply Mubarak that was the problem but an entire system rotted to the core after decades of corruption, nepotism and oppression.
With Osama now dead, it does not mean that the problem he symbolised has gone. The world must still deal with terrorism and, more importantly, the causes of terrorism.
There will always be mad men in the world, those who think that violence is the method to achieve their objectives. But for these kind of people to get large numbers of followers and supporters cannot be simply explained away by saying that all of them are bad.
Terrorism is not some sort of mental problem, it is the result of political, economic and social factors.
In countries where the political process is exclusive and people are not allowed to take part in governance, either because the system followed is a dictatorship or a sham democracy, they are more likely to turn to unlawful methods to get their point across.
When there is widespread poverty and desperation, it is easier to get recruits into a cause which promises salvation, even though the promise comes with a price of mindless violence.
When people are faced with gross social injustice, men like Osama with the message that they will fight that injustice (as deceitful as he may be) will draw plenty of eager followers.
Osama is dead, and although this is definitely a blow to Al-Qaeda and other organisations of their ilk, it does not mean that all is well.
Unless the approach taken goes beyond cowboy gunship diplomacy and idiotic jingoistic flag waving, and while the causes of terrorism are not dealt with properly, all that has been achieved is the destruction of a fang. The threat is still there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
