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.
Wednesday, 4 May 2011
Thursday, 14 April 2011
Show us the real dirty stuff
Brave New World (The Star)
14 April 2011
Videos on those in power with enough money to make Midas go green with envy make for more pertinent viewing than nasty clips of consenting adults.
_______________________________
SO, the infamous video has been making the rounds. I received a message on my mobile phone a few nights ago telling me which website to go to if I wished to take a gander.
I did not.
Neither did I do so when a link was conveniently placed on an Internet news portal.
The reason: My lack of curiosity in such matters is manifold.
First, it’s none of my business what consenting adults do to one another.
Second, come on, these are old people getting busy here; it is not what I would call scintillating viewing.
Rather gross actually, in a wobbly wrinkly way.
Finally, the reason these things float around is because they are supposed to make some sort of statement about our leaders and potential leaders, and frankly I don’t care about this kind of moralistic thinking.
I’ll tell you what videos I would like to watch.
I would like to see videos about leaders and their obscene wealth.
I want to see investigative work done on those in power with enough money to make Midas green with envy.
I want to know how they got it and whether there was any abuse of power in the process of them getting it.
In fact, I’d like to see what their family members’ wealth is like, too.
For me, that would be a far more pertinent issue with which to clamber upon one’s moral high horse for.
I would also like to see a video about strange decisions made, like the one proposing to build a rare earth plant in Lynas, Pahang.
It seems odd to me that, after the tragedy of Bukit Merah in Perak some 30 years ago, such a plant would find a welcome home on Malaysian soil.
In case you don’t know what rare earth is, it is a radioactive substance used in the electronics industry.
Its waste product releases low-level radiation, which can cause a host of potentially lethal ailments.
In Bukit Merah, the residents, upon discovering the dangers of the factory (called Asian Rare Earth) in their midst, fought back, taking the case all the way to the highest court in the land.
They won in the High Court on the grounds of nuisance and the factory was ordered to shut down.
This decision was reversed by the Supreme Court.
Fortunately, due to public pressure in Japan on Asian Rare Earth’s parent company, Mitsubishi, the place was finally shut down.
Many of the residents of Bukit Merah suffered major illnesses at a rate far higher than the national average.
Are we going to see that happen to the people of Lynas?
Perhaps someone should make a video of this issue.
This one I guarantee I’ll watch.
14 April 2011
Videos on those in power with enough money to make Midas go green with envy make for more pertinent viewing than nasty clips of consenting adults.
_______________________________
SO, the infamous video has been making the rounds. I received a message on my mobile phone a few nights ago telling me which website to go to if I wished to take a gander.
I did not.
Neither did I do so when a link was conveniently placed on an Internet news portal.
The reason: My lack of curiosity in such matters is manifold.
First, it’s none of my business what consenting adults do to one another.
Second, come on, these are old people getting busy here; it is not what I would call scintillating viewing.
Rather gross actually, in a wobbly wrinkly way.
Finally, the reason these things float around is because they are supposed to make some sort of statement about our leaders and potential leaders, and frankly I don’t care about this kind of moralistic thinking.
I’ll tell you what videos I would like to watch.
I would like to see videos about leaders and their obscene wealth.
I want to see investigative work done on those in power with enough money to make Midas green with envy.
I want to know how they got it and whether there was any abuse of power in the process of them getting it.
In fact, I’d like to see what their family members’ wealth is like, too.
For me, that would be a far more pertinent issue with which to clamber upon one’s moral high horse for.
I would also like to see a video about strange decisions made, like the one proposing to build a rare earth plant in Lynas, Pahang.
It seems odd to me that, after the tragedy of Bukit Merah in Perak some 30 years ago, such a plant would find a welcome home on Malaysian soil.
In case you don’t know what rare earth is, it is a radioactive substance used in the electronics industry.
Its waste product releases low-level radiation, which can cause a host of potentially lethal ailments.
In Bukit Merah, the residents, upon discovering the dangers of the factory (called Asian Rare Earth) in their midst, fought back, taking the case all the way to the highest court in the land.
They won in the High Court on the grounds of nuisance and the factory was ordered to shut down.
This decision was reversed by the Supreme Court.
Fortunately, due to public pressure in Japan on Asian Rare Earth’s parent company, Mitsubishi, the place was finally shut down.
Many of the residents of Bukit Merah suffered major illnesses at a rate far higher than the national average.
Are we going to see that happen to the people of Lynas?
Perhaps someone should make a video of this issue.
This one I guarantee I’ll watch.
Thursday, 24 March 2011
Focus on the big issues
Brave New World (The Star)
24 March 2011
The civil unrest in the Arab world and fears of radiation poisoning in Japan hold many lessons that Malaysia can do well to take note of.
______________________________
LIBYA is being bombed; Japan is in the grips of a natural disaster as well as fears of radiation poisoning; another long-standing regime looks poised to topple in Yemen; and in Malaysia we are talking about sex videos.
As the world suffers convulsions from earthquakes and military action, we sit under our little coconut shells salivating over the latest sex scandal.
When will we grow up?
There are far more important things to worry about.
If there is anything to be learnt from the madness that is going on around the world, it is that there are some big issues to be dealt with.
If they are not, then disaster can strike.
The tragedy in Japan should make us think about two things.
The first is that nature is unpredictable and we must prepare for such unpredictability.
This is especially true in the light of recent climatic changes in the world.
Sure, it is unlikely that we will suffer a magnitude-9 earthquake; and the tsunami of 2004 is unlikely to happen again.
However, due to changes in weather patterns, we must prepare for effects like greater intensity of rainfall and rising sea levels.
We must ensure that precautions are taken to protect ourselves from these phenomena.
Another thing to ponder from the happenings in Japan is the feasibility of using nuclear power in our country.
I am worried about the safety issues surrounding a nuclear plant.
However, if the powers that be are so convinced, then let’s build our first nuclear plant in Putrajaya.
I am being facetious of course, but surely we should be looking more closely at energy-saving methods and alternative energy production.
Perhaps not on a large scale but on a smaller scale such as solar panels for individual homes.
Over in the Middle East, if Libya and Yemen are to teach us anything, it is that corruption and abuse of power will eventually lead to internal strife and turmoil.
And as hypocritical as the military action on Libya may be (for goodness sake, some of the weapons used by Muammar Gaddafi were the result of Tony Blair’s wheeling and dealing), it is a stark reminder that if things get out of hand, there will always lurk the possibility of superpower intervention.
These are big issues to think about, and they are just a few examples.
There are so many things that should cause us concern – the state of our economy, the integrity of our institutions, the plight of our indigenous peoples and our education system.
The list goes on.
These are the issues that must be debated now. Instead, I foresee yet another tawdry round of innuendoes and crass “banter” about some bedroom antics.
It would be a shame indeed that as we giggle and snicker, our country continues to roll on to an uncertain future.
All because we refuse to learn from the world around us.
24 March 2011
The civil unrest in the Arab world and fears of radiation poisoning in Japan hold many lessons that Malaysia can do well to take note of.
______________________________
LIBYA is being bombed; Japan is in the grips of a natural disaster as well as fears of radiation poisoning; another long-standing regime looks poised to topple in Yemen; and in Malaysia we are talking about sex videos.
As the world suffers convulsions from earthquakes and military action, we sit under our little coconut shells salivating over the latest sex scandal.
When will we grow up?
There are far more important things to worry about.
If there is anything to be learnt from the madness that is going on around the world, it is that there are some big issues to be dealt with.
If they are not, then disaster can strike.
The tragedy in Japan should make us think about two things.
The first is that nature is unpredictable and we must prepare for such unpredictability.
This is especially true in the light of recent climatic changes in the world.
Sure, it is unlikely that we will suffer a magnitude-9 earthquake; and the tsunami of 2004 is unlikely to happen again.
However, due to changes in weather patterns, we must prepare for effects like greater intensity of rainfall and rising sea levels.
We must ensure that precautions are taken to protect ourselves from these phenomena.
Another thing to ponder from the happenings in Japan is the feasibility of using nuclear power in our country.
I am worried about the safety issues surrounding a nuclear plant.
However, if the powers that be are so convinced, then let’s build our first nuclear plant in Putrajaya.
I am being facetious of course, but surely we should be looking more closely at energy-saving methods and alternative energy production.
Perhaps not on a large scale but on a smaller scale such as solar panels for individual homes.
Over in the Middle East, if Libya and Yemen are to teach us anything, it is that corruption and abuse of power will eventually lead to internal strife and turmoil.
And as hypocritical as the military action on Libya may be (for goodness sake, some of the weapons used by Muammar Gaddafi were the result of Tony Blair’s wheeling and dealing), it is a stark reminder that if things get out of hand, there will always lurk the possibility of superpower intervention.
These are big issues to think about, and they are just a few examples.
There are so many things that should cause us concern – the state of our economy, the integrity of our institutions, the plight of our indigenous peoples and our education system.
The list goes on.
These are the issues that must be debated now. Instead, I foresee yet another tawdry round of innuendoes and crass “banter” about some bedroom antics.
It would be a shame indeed that as we giggle and snicker, our country continues to roll on to an uncertain future.
All because we refuse to learn from the world around us.
Thursday, 10 March 2011
Suppressing dissent at a cost
Brave New World (The Star)
10 March 2011
We are squabbling over the ridiculous while the really big issues that will affect us all go undebated. One day we are going to look up and realise these issues have overtaken us.
________________________________
TWO weeks ago 10 students in UPM, who had won seats on the Student Representative Council, were told that they were disqualified by the university management.
This led to an angry reaction from their supporters and scenes of chaos on campus ... well, by Malaysian standards they were chaotic. Eventually the 10 were reinstated.
Last week seven students from Kuala Kubu Baru wanted to return their copies of Interlok to the school because they did not want to read it.
This resulted in them being brought to the police station and collectively interrogated for 10 hours.
These two incidents are separated temporally and spatially but there is a common link between them.
Before I go into that however, I just want to say how shocking I find the Kuala Kubu Baru incident.
It is beyond belief that seven boys, could be questioned by the police in a police station for something like this.
No doubt there is some political controversy about this book, and obviously the boys were making a political statement of some sort.
It would be naive to think otherwise.
However, they were not breaking any law and they were not in any way acting in a manner which would justify this heavy-handed action by the school and the police.
At the very most this was an internal school matter which should have been dealt with by the school authorities and no more.
Ideally of course, knowing the combustible nature of this book, it should have been dealt with in a firm, but sensitive, manner.
Be that as it may, this is what happened in the last two weeks and the common thread is paranoia.
The students of UPM and the boys in KKB were standing up for what they believed in, and it just so happens that what they believe in contrasted with what the powers-that-be want.
The UPM candidates who were disqualified were all “Pro-Mahasis-wa” candidates, not the establishment friendly “Pengerak”.
The KKB boys were in their own way protesting against a book that has been given the stamp of approval by the Education Ministry.
They were in short, dissenting. And dissent cannot be tolerated, especially if expressed by the young.
This is clear by the over the top reaction by the authority figures in these two situations.
So keen were they in protecting the status quo that they would behave in a manner that defies logic and reason.
Is this the level of feudalistic loyalty that we have in this country?
I am afraid that it is.
This kind of medieval thinking and attitude does not only lead to acts of injustice but also bodes ill for our future.
This year is more than likely going to be an election year. Buoyed by its recent by-election victories, the ruling coalition is bound to want to go all the way to win back their precious two-thirds majority.
In a mature democracy winning a strong majority and being able to form a government would be more than enough.
Not here. It is complete domination or nothing at all.
Be that as it may, there will probably be an election this year.
If this is the case, I want to hear what the politicians who want our votes have to say about the floundering economy.
I want to know why there is so much currency leakage.
I want to know how much longer can we depend on our petroleum resources.
And, more importantly, I want to know what are all the candidates going to do about it.
However, considering the stage of our national mental development – that the winning of seats on a powerless student council and the returning of textbooks can lead to such an over reaction, I doubt we are going to get that level of debate.
We are squabbling over the ridiculous in this nation.
We are squabbling while the really big issues that will affect us all go undebated.
One day we are going to look up and realise these issues have overtaken us, by which time it may well be too late.
10 March 2011
We are squabbling over the ridiculous while the really big issues that will affect us all go undebated. One day we are going to look up and realise these issues have overtaken us.
________________________________
TWO weeks ago 10 students in UPM, who had won seats on the Student Representative Council, were told that they were disqualified by the university management.
This led to an angry reaction from their supporters and scenes of chaos on campus ... well, by Malaysian standards they were chaotic. Eventually the 10 were reinstated.
Last week seven students from Kuala Kubu Baru wanted to return their copies of Interlok to the school because they did not want to read it.
This resulted in them being brought to the police station and collectively interrogated for 10 hours.
These two incidents are separated temporally and spatially but there is a common link between them.
Before I go into that however, I just want to say how shocking I find the Kuala Kubu Baru incident.
It is beyond belief that seven boys, could be questioned by the police in a police station for something like this.
No doubt there is some political controversy about this book, and obviously the boys were making a political statement of some sort.
It would be naive to think otherwise.
However, they were not breaking any law and they were not in any way acting in a manner which would justify this heavy-handed action by the school and the police.
At the very most this was an internal school matter which should have been dealt with by the school authorities and no more.
Ideally of course, knowing the combustible nature of this book, it should have been dealt with in a firm, but sensitive, manner.
Be that as it may, this is what happened in the last two weeks and the common thread is paranoia.
The students of UPM and the boys in KKB were standing up for what they believed in, and it just so happens that what they believe in contrasted with what the powers-that-be want.
The UPM candidates who were disqualified were all “Pro-Mahasis-wa” candidates, not the establishment friendly “Pengerak”.
The KKB boys were in their own way protesting against a book that has been given the stamp of approval by the Education Ministry.
They were in short, dissenting. And dissent cannot be tolerated, especially if expressed by the young.
This is clear by the over the top reaction by the authority figures in these two situations.
So keen were they in protecting the status quo that they would behave in a manner that defies logic and reason.
Is this the level of feudalistic loyalty that we have in this country?
I am afraid that it is.
This kind of medieval thinking and attitude does not only lead to acts of injustice but also bodes ill for our future.
This year is more than likely going to be an election year. Buoyed by its recent by-election victories, the ruling coalition is bound to want to go all the way to win back their precious two-thirds majority.
In a mature democracy winning a strong majority and being able to form a government would be more than enough.
Not here. It is complete domination or nothing at all.
Be that as it may, there will probably be an election this year.
If this is the case, I want to hear what the politicians who want our votes have to say about the floundering economy.
I want to know why there is so much currency leakage.
I want to know how much longer can we depend on our petroleum resources.
And, more importantly, I want to know what are all the candidates going to do about it.
However, considering the stage of our national mental development – that the winning of seats on a powerless student council and the returning of textbooks can lead to such an over reaction, I doubt we are going to get that level of debate.
We are squabbling over the ridiculous in this nation.
We are squabbling while the really big issues that will affect us all go undebated.
One day we are going to look up and realise these issues have overtaken us, by which time it may well be too late.
Friday, 25 February 2011
Commission must be neutral
Brave New World (The Star)
24 February 2011
To ensure that there is no conflict of interest, the conducting officers must be totally unbiased.
_______________
THE family of Teoh Beng Hock has decided that they do not want to take part in the Commission of Inquiry which was set up to investigate his death.
This act has been criticised by some quarters as being a political ploy designed to delay the proceedings. I beg to disagree.
The family has some very compelling reasons for doing what they did.
Their main complaint is that there is currently an appeal in the courts regarding the findings of the inquest.
To refresh your memory, the inquest that was formed to investigate the cause of Teoh’s death concluded with an open verdict.
The magistrate was unable to come to a conclusion whether Teoh was killed or whether he committed suicide.
The Attorney-General’s Chambers has decided to appeal to the High Court.
They believe that the cause of death was suicide and they want a declaration from the court to that effect.
The family want this High Court case to either be settled first or dropped by the A-G before the CI continues.
This is a reasonable request for what happens if the CI comes up with one decision and the High Court another?
They are also unhappy that the conducting officers are from the A-G’s Chambers.
The conducting officers are the people with the responsibility of conducting the inquiry.
They organise proceedings, for example by drawing the witness list.
It is odd indeed that the people who are conducting the proceedings of the CI are from the very same body (the A-G’s Chambers) who are calling for a finding of suicide.
It would appear therefore, that there is clearly a conflict of interest here. They are working for the CI, which is supposed to be independent and neutral, yet they are also from an organisation that has made up their mind as to the cause of death.
I am not for one moment questioning the integrity of the individuals who make up the CI.
However, the CI must be impeccable in its neutrality and, more importantly, it must appear to be impeccable.
The way it stands, this neutrality can be cast in doubt.
Furthermore, it must be remembered that the A-G’s Chambers was involved in the initial investigation.
For example, the Investigating Officer revealed the so-called suicide note so late in the inquest proceedings because he was waiting for the green light from the Deputy Public Prosecutor (who is part of the A-G’s Chambers).
The DPP and thus the A-G’s Chambers had a supervisory role in the original investigation, so how can their staff play such a prominent role in the CI.
In order to ensure that there is no conflict of interest, the conducting officers must be totally unbiased.
If it means getting them from an independent source, so be it.
There is after all precedence for this.
In the Commission formed to investigate former Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s black eye incident, an independent party was chosen to lead the conducting officers.
The CI has to distance itself from any possibility of impropriety.
This was not done and thus casts doubts on the whole procedure.
This is the reason why the family and later the state of Selangor decided to pull out.
It is unfortunate that there are accusations that the family had done what it did under external pressure.
They have been through the mill for the past two years or so.
They have stated time and time again that all they want is justice.
It is perfectly within their right to withdraw, and it is perfectly understandable.
24 February 2011
To ensure that there is no conflict of interest, the conducting officers must be totally unbiased.
_______________
THE family of Teoh Beng Hock has decided that they do not want to take part in the Commission of Inquiry which was set up to investigate his death.
This act has been criticised by some quarters as being a political ploy designed to delay the proceedings. I beg to disagree.
The family has some very compelling reasons for doing what they did.
Their main complaint is that there is currently an appeal in the courts regarding the findings of the inquest.
To refresh your memory, the inquest that was formed to investigate the cause of Teoh’s death concluded with an open verdict.
The magistrate was unable to come to a conclusion whether Teoh was killed or whether he committed suicide.
The Attorney-General’s Chambers has decided to appeal to the High Court.
They believe that the cause of death was suicide and they want a declaration from the court to that effect.
The family want this High Court case to either be settled first or dropped by the A-G before the CI continues.
This is a reasonable request for what happens if the CI comes up with one decision and the High Court another?
They are also unhappy that the conducting officers are from the A-G’s Chambers.
The conducting officers are the people with the responsibility of conducting the inquiry.
They organise proceedings, for example by drawing the witness list.
It is odd indeed that the people who are conducting the proceedings of the CI are from the very same body (the A-G’s Chambers) who are calling for a finding of suicide.
It would appear therefore, that there is clearly a conflict of interest here. They are working for the CI, which is supposed to be independent and neutral, yet they are also from an organisation that has made up their mind as to the cause of death.
I am not for one moment questioning the integrity of the individuals who make up the CI.
However, the CI must be impeccable in its neutrality and, more importantly, it must appear to be impeccable.
The way it stands, this neutrality can be cast in doubt.
Furthermore, it must be remembered that the A-G’s Chambers was involved in the initial investigation.
For example, the Investigating Officer revealed the so-called suicide note so late in the inquest proceedings because he was waiting for the green light from the Deputy Public Prosecutor (who is part of the A-G’s Chambers).
The DPP and thus the A-G’s Chambers had a supervisory role in the original investigation, so how can their staff play such a prominent role in the CI.
In order to ensure that there is no conflict of interest, the conducting officers must be totally unbiased.
If it means getting them from an independent source, so be it.
There is after all precedence for this.
In the Commission formed to investigate former Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s black eye incident, an independent party was chosen to lead the conducting officers.
The CI has to distance itself from any possibility of impropriety.
This was not done and thus casts doubts on the whole procedure.
This is the reason why the family and later the state of Selangor decided to pull out.
It is unfortunate that there are accusations that the family had done what it did under external pressure.
They have been through the mill for the past two years or so.
They have stated time and time again that all they want is justice.
It is perfectly within their right to withdraw, and it is perfectly understandable.
Suppression taking its toll
Brave New World (The Star)
10 February 2011
Ruling with an iron fist may work as long as a country is relatively prosperous, but if good governance, accountability and fairness are gone it will only be too easy for poor decision-making and corruption to come in.
__________________________
I WAS, to use that wonderfully Malaysian term, outstation, last week. The hotel I stayed in did not have any Malaysian channels on its telly, so all I had to watch was CNN, BBC and Al Jazeera.
For the entire week I was there, it seemed that the only news in the world were the protests in Egypt. Oh, and Fernando Torres joining Chelsea.
Watching the Tunisian-inspired protests on Tahrir square convinced me even more about the importance of democracy.
Egypt has been ruled by Hosni Mubarak for 30-odd years. In that time, political dissent had been quashed, elections rigged and democracy sidelined in favour of so-called stability.
This may work as long as a country is relatively prosperous.
However, in general, a lack of democratic principles will only lead to poor governance.
With the elements of good governance; transparency, accountability and fairness gone, it is only too easy for poor decision-making and corruption to take root.
Not exactly the right ingredients for prosperity.
Egypt has been mismanaged to the extent that 40% of its people live below the World Bank poverty line.
Food is expensive; Egypt has to import a large amount of its grains from abroad and is far from self-sufficient.
Amid this suffering, the people see a group of politicians entrenched as leaders and who are tremendously wealthy to boot.
Without the usual organs of a democratic state there is little chance for the citizenry to ensure changes of government and to see justice being done when there is corruption or incompetence or both.
This lack of empowerment will lead to frustration.
Such frustration can of course be suppressed by an iron fist; in the case of Egypt, the Mukhabarat or secret police. However, such suppression can only last so long.
We have seen it before in Indonesia, in the Philippines, and currently in Egypt and all over the Middle East.
When the pressure gets too much, people will revolt.
In this part of the world democracy is often portrayed as the opposite of order.
If people are free to speak their minds, if governments are tied to laws that limit their power, we are told that this would lead to chaos and a government too weak to take actions that it thinks are necessary for the good of the nation.
The term that used to describe this philosophy was “Asian Values”.
It is as though we Asians do not “value” our human rights and our civil liberties and the inherent dignity that comes with the power to freely choose who leads us.
It is all of course a great fallacy to think that we simple Asians want to be led by the nose by our glorious leaders.
Just as it is a fallacy to believe that without a true democratic system; a system that will keep government in check, dispense justice fairly and transparently, and empowering the people to have a voice in their own destiny; somehow peace and stability will be ensured.
Egypt, along with numerous other nations, has proven this to be not true.
10 February 2011
Ruling with an iron fist may work as long as a country is relatively prosperous, but if good governance, accountability and fairness are gone it will only be too easy for poor decision-making and corruption to come in.
__________________________
I WAS, to use that wonderfully Malaysian term, outstation, last week. The hotel I stayed in did not have any Malaysian channels on its telly, so all I had to watch was CNN, BBC and Al Jazeera.
For the entire week I was there, it seemed that the only news in the world were the protests in Egypt. Oh, and Fernando Torres joining Chelsea.
Watching the Tunisian-inspired protests on Tahrir square convinced me even more about the importance of democracy.
Egypt has been ruled by Hosni Mubarak for 30-odd years. In that time, political dissent had been quashed, elections rigged and democracy sidelined in favour of so-called stability.
This may work as long as a country is relatively prosperous.
However, in general, a lack of democratic principles will only lead to poor governance.
With the elements of good governance; transparency, accountability and fairness gone, it is only too easy for poor decision-making and corruption to take root.
Not exactly the right ingredients for prosperity.
Egypt has been mismanaged to the extent that 40% of its people live below the World Bank poverty line.
Food is expensive; Egypt has to import a large amount of its grains from abroad and is far from self-sufficient.
Amid this suffering, the people see a group of politicians entrenched as leaders and who are tremendously wealthy to boot.
Without the usual organs of a democratic state there is little chance for the citizenry to ensure changes of government and to see justice being done when there is corruption or incompetence or both.
This lack of empowerment will lead to frustration.
Such frustration can of course be suppressed by an iron fist; in the case of Egypt, the Mukhabarat or secret police. However, such suppression can only last so long.
We have seen it before in Indonesia, in the Philippines, and currently in Egypt and all over the Middle East.
When the pressure gets too much, people will revolt.
In this part of the world democracy is often portrayed as the opposite of order.
If people are free to speak their minds, if governments are tied to laws that limit their power, we are told that this would lead to chaos and a government too weak to take actions that it thinks are necessary for the good of the nation.
The term that used to describe this philosophy was “Asian Values”.
It is as though we Asians do not “value” our human rights and our civil liberties and the inherent dignity that comes with the power to freely choose who leads us.
It is all of course a great fallacy to think that we simple Asians want to be led by the nose by our glorious leaders.
Just as it is a fallacy to believe that without a true democratic system; a system that will keep government in check, dispense justice fairly and transparently, and empowering the people to have a voice in their own destiny; somehow peace and stability will be ensured.
Egypt, along with numerous other nations, has proven this to be not true.
B movie merits more attention
Brave New World (The Star)
27 January 2011
With the infantile politics demonstrated in the Tenang by-election and elsewhere, watching a low-budget science fiction movie may be a more worthwhile pursuit.
_____________________________
ONE night, many, many, many years ago, while flicking through the TV channels, I came across a movie called Robot Monster. It was made in 1953 and was so funny it made me cry.
Robot Monster was one of those science fiction movies about alien invasions so favoured in the 50s.
Of course, nowadays scholars of movies – I’m sorry, I mean, scholars of film – will suck on their professorial pipe, stroke their academic goatees and tell us that these alien invasion flicks were really thinly veiled cautionary tales about the dangers of the Soviet Union and they were actually a reflection of American paranoia.
This may be, but who cares about symbolism and all that stuff when the movie is just so funny.
The one thing that stuck in my mind most of all was the cheapness of the whole thing. The “special effects” if you can call them that, were quite literally cardboard spaceships stuck to wires bobbing around.
The “plot”, which had something to do with indestructible aliens from the moon coming to kill us all, is suddenly inexplicably interspersed with dinosaurs (actually real lizards with extra bits stuck on their backs) coming back to life.
But the coup de grace for me was the costume of the Robot Monster himself. Obviously, the producers were working on a budget, so there was only one monster, not an army. This was so they had to get only one costume.
The costume in this case was a gorilla suit. However, a gorilla was not nearly alien enough. What kind of self-respecting science fiction monster looks like a common Earth gorilla?
So in order to give it that “alien vibe”, the makers of the movie used a deep-sea diver’s helmet as the head of Robot Monster. Voila, we now have a real sci-fi threat in our midst.
But wait! There was a problem. They only had enough money for one gorilla suit and one deep-sea diver’s helmet. For most of the movie, this was okay because there was just Robot Monster wandering the deserts of America (the only country aliens land, it would seem) molesting the heroine.
But in a couple of scenes, Robot Monster had to communicate via a television screen with his boss, Boss Robot Monster.
They used the same outfit for Boss Robot Monster, so they looked identical. How were they to differentiate between the normal Earth-invading Robot Monster and Boss Robot Monster, especially when there was no money?
The answer was ingenious. Some flunky must have looked around the studio’s storeroom and come back with a violin bow. So when you see the two identical Robot Monsters talking to each other, the one waving a violin bow with great authority and menace, well, is the Boss Robot Monster.
I am not sure whether you can find this movie at your usual pirated DVD stall, but if you YouTube “Robot Monster Trailer” you will get a pretty good idea of what I am talking about.
Now, you may wonder why I am writing about such frivolity. Frankly, I was about to write about the Tenang by-election, but the banality, childishness and sheer lack of substance in the politics of this nation had me feeling rather blue.
And although the reality of the infantile politics we are faced with will have to be dealt with, for the moment at least, I’d rather think of something ludicrous that made me cry tears of laughter as opposed to something ludicrous that makes me weep tears of frustration.
27 January 2011
With the infantile politics demonstrated in the Tenang by-election and elsewhere, watching a low-budget science fiction movie may be a more worthwhile pursuit.
_____________________________
ONE night, many, many, many years ago, while flicking through the TV channels, I came across a movie called Robot Monster. It was made in 1953 and was so funny it made me cry.
Robot Monster was one of those science fiction movies about alien invasions so favoured in the 50s.
Of course, nowadays scholars of movies – I’m sorry, I mean, scholars of film – will suck on their professorial pipe, stroke their academic goatees and tell us that these alien invasion flicks were really thinly veiled cautionary tales about the dangers of the Soviet Union and they were actually a reflection of American paranoia.
This may be, but who cares about symbolism and all that stuff when the movie is just so funny.
The one thing that stuck in my mind most of all was the cheapness of the whole thing. The “special effects” if you can call them that, were quite literally cardboard spaceships stuck to wires bobbing around.
The “plot”, which had something to do with indestructible aliens from the moon coming to kill us all, is suddenly inexplicably interspersed with dinosaurs (actually real lizards with extra bits stuck on their backs) coming back to life.
But the coup de grace for me was the costume of the Robot Monster himself. Obviously, the producers were working on a budget, so there was only one monster, not an army. This was so they had to get only one costume.
The costume in this case was a gorilla suit. However, a gorilla was not nearly alien enough. What kind of self-respecting science fiction monster looks like a common Earth gorilla?
So in order to give it that “alien vibe”, the makers of the movie used a deep-sea diver’s helmet as the head of Robot Monster. Voila, we now have a real sci-fi threat in our midst.
But wait! There was a problem. They only had enough money for one gorilla suit and one deep-sea diver’s helmet. For most of the movie, this was okay because there was just Robot Monster wandering the deserts of America (the only country aliens land, it would seem) molesting the heroine.
But in a couple of scenes, Robot Monster had to communicate via a television screen with his boss, Boss Robot Monster.
They used the same outfit for Boss Robot Monster, so they looked identical. How were they to differentiate between the normal Earth-invading Robot Monster and Boss Robot Monster, especially when there was no money?
The answer was ingenious. Some flunky must have looked around the studio’s storeroom and come back with a violin bow. So when you see the two identical Robot Monsters talking to each other, the one waving a violin bow with great authority and menace, well, is the Boss Robot Monster.
I am not sure whether you can find this movie at your usual pirated DVD stall, but if you YouTube “Robot Monster Trailer” you will get a pretty good idea of what I am talking about.
Now, you may wonder why I am writing about such frivolity. Frankly, I was about to write about the Tenang by-election, but the banality, childishness and sheer lack of substance in the politics of this nation had me feeling rather blue.
And although the reality of the infantile politics we are faced with will have to be dealt with, for the moment at least, I’d rather think of something ludicrous that made me cry tears of laughter as opposed to something ludicrous that makes me weep tears of frustration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
