TR EMERITUS

From our Correspondent Malaysia Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin made a mischievous remark to the press today in an attempt to pull Singapore into Malaysia's ongoing cultural war with Indonesia. Muhyiddin was commenting on the recognition of batik as Indonesia's cultural heritage by UNESCO. The listing, which will give the age-old batik tradition some degree of protection under the UNESCO charter, will be made official at an event in Abu Dhabi, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) between September 28 and October 2. Batik is a wax-resistant dyeing technique used on textiles. Due to modern advances in textile industry, the technique is also used for fabric incorporating traditional batik patterns that are not necessarily produced using traditional batik techniques. Muhyiddin was reported to have said: "I do not know what the decision (by UNESCO) means. Does it mean we cannot use our expertise in the batik making tradition? Indonesia has its own batik, just like Malaysia and so does Singapore." Indonesia has consistently accused Malaysia of stealing its cultural heritage. Recently, Malaysia was blamed for using a Balinese traditional dance to promote itself in a documentary and anti-Malaysia protests broke out in the Indonesian capital of Jakarta. It is highly doubtful that the Singapore government will protest against UNESCO's decision to list batik as an Indonesian cultural heritage. It will probably be more concerned at the return of the haze from Sumatra of late. Reference: The Malaysian Insider  Read More →

Extracted from Sin Chew Daily We the undersigned civil society organizations believe that Malaysia must renew our national independence after Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak were brought together to become a new nation 46 years ago. Following a series of saddening and outraging developments since the last Malaysia Day, we feel strongly the need for a new discourse of nationalism that denounces political violence and pursues empowering peace. Diversity and dissent are signs of real independence We fully appreciate the complexity of Malaysia in ethnic, religious, linguistic, cultural, regional, socio-economical, gender, lifestyle and physical terms. We therefore do not pretend that there is a single Malaysia that would meet the expectation and aspiration of every Malaysian. We are proud with our own vision for the nation and at the same time respect those of others. We see the differences in preferences and opinion of how this country should move forward as both inevitable and desirable--inevitable because we are free to choose; and desirable because we have plenty alternatives to consider. Diversity and dissent in public opinion are beautiful signs of real independence. We believe, however, every Malaysian, politician and voter alike, must sign up to one common position: the elimination of political violence. Political violence threatens our independence Political violence refers to actions that aim to achieve certain political goals by causing harm to others or subduing them with violence. This must not be confused with legitimate exercise of freedom of speech, assembly and association where violence is not preached, threatened and executed. More than violation of peace, political violence is exploitation of the physically weak and outnumbered. It deprives the victims of political violence their right to participate in public affairs and prevents the emergence of an inclusive outcome through the use of reason. In fact, political violence is at the core of colonialism as it was the very means how colonial rule was imposed on us. National liberation is in this sense meaningful only when all citizens are free from further colonization of violence and may exercise freedom and reason in running their public life. Four principles of empowering peace In this regard, peace associated with fear that inhibits us from full participation in public affairs is but pseudo peace. True peace must be empowering and inclusive to allow all Malaysians to contribute to and enjoy the national life. True peace requires rule of law and protection of human rights. It is therefore political, but in no way partisan. We call upon every Malaysian citizen and organization, especially the politicians and political parties, to sign up to the following principles: 1. Zero tolerance for violence as a political means Civilized life requires restrain and self-control. Conflicts should be solved through dialogues, deliberation, debates or litigation. There must be zero tolerance for the use, threat or incitement of violence as a political means, regardless of circumstances or subject matters. In this sense, the perpetrators of the cow-head protest should be charged for incitement of violence, not sedition or illegal assembly. The thugs who threatened to rape Rodziah Ismail and to murder Khalid Samad, the elected representatives in Shah Alam, must be investigated and prosecuted for criminal intimidation. The threat of sexual violence, a common trait in many communal conflicts, is especially alarming and absolutely intolerable. 2. Fighting hatred with reason Hatred exists in every society and can only be effectively eliminated by reason, not law. Given a vibrant public sphere, the flaws of hate speeches can be exposed and the perpetrators shamed. Legal suppression only weakens the society's resistance to hatred by removing the need for intellectual rigour and moral courage to confront bigotry. The latest harassment of Malaysiakini by the Malaysian Communication and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) for featuring video-clips of the cow-head protest and the Home Minister's press conference justifying the act is not only violating freedom of expression, but also protecting violence from public shaming. 3. The State's duty to protect political participation The state which monopolizes the legitimate use of violence should exist only to protect citizens from private violence, not to inflict more violence than necessary. The state's coercive power therefore must never be used against peaceful political activities. Instead, the state has the duty to protect political participation. Instead of arbitrarily arresting over 160 1BLACKMalaysia protesters, lawyers on duty, 589 Anti-ISA protestors and bystanders, the anti-PPSMI, Kampung Buah Pala and Hindraf protesters, and using unnecessary violence, the police should have only controlled traffic and maintained order. After all, the validity of the protesters' causes should be judged by the citizen, not the police or the Executive. 4. Upholding elected government The threat of political violence is greatest when political elites resort to means other than elections to attain power. Democracy is the only guarantee for political stability and peace. Politicians and political parties must therefore do their best to win elections honestly, not usurping power after elections. Otherwise, democratic breakdown may lead to coups or revolutions. The Perak coup has seen an elected government being overthrown by a host of unelected institutions including but not limited to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), the Election Commission (EC), the Judiciary, the bureaucracy and the police. The partisan investigation of MACC in Selangor amidst the Barisan Nasional's express wish to takeover the state had led to the death of Teoh Beng Hock, the first of a state official in the custody of a federal agency. If there is no firmed commitment from both sides of the political divide to democracy, the next election may see the military being the next unelected institution dragged into political struggle. On the auspicious birthday of Malaysia, which should have been made a national holiday 46 years ago, let us all vow to make empowering peace the basis of public life of our nation so that all of us may enjoy real freedom. The signatories 1. 1BLACKMalaysia Facebook Page and Group2. Aliran Kesedaran Negara (Aliran)3. All Women's Action Society Malaysia (AWAM)4. Amnesty International Malaysia5. Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ)6. Centre for Policy Initiatives (CPI)7. Centre for Public Policy Studies (CPPS)8. Civil Rights Committee, Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall (CRC-KLSCAH)9. Civil Society Committee, LLG Cultural Development Centre (LLG-CSC)10. Civil Society Initiative for Parliamentary Reform (CSI@Parliament)11. Council of Churches of Malaysia Youth Network12. Durham Malaysian Scholars13. Gabungan Bertindak Mahasiswa Utara(GBMU)14. Group of Concerned Citizens (GCC)15. Institut Kajian Dasar (IKD)16. Institute for Development of Alternative Living (IDEAL), Sibu17. Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF)18. Jaringan Orang Asal Semalaysia (JOAS)19. Jawatankuasa Penduduk Zon 23 MPSJ20. Justice for Beng Hock Facebook Page and Group21. Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall Youth Section (KLSCAH-YS)22. Kumpulan Aktivis Mahasiswa Independen (KAMI)23. Malaysia Youth and Student Democratic Movement (DEMA)24. Malaysian AIDS Council25. Malaysian Indian Development Association26. Middle Eastern Graduate Centre (MAGC)27. Monitoring Sustainability of Globalisation (MSN)28. Muslim Professionals Forum (MPF)29. National Institute for Electoral Integrity (NIEI)30. Oriental Hearts and Mind Study Institute (OHMSI)31. Pahlawan Volunteers32. Partners of Community Organisations, Sabah (PACOS)33. Penang Du Zhong Education Society34. Penggerak Belia Zon 23 MPSJ35. Persatuan Alumni PBTUSM Selangor36. Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (Empower)37. Persatuan Meditasi Projan KL & Selangor38. Persatuan Penduduk Taman Muhibbah Seri Kembangan39. Research for Social Advancement (REFSA)40. Sarawak Central Region Friendship Association41. Semparuthi Iyakkam42. Sisters in Islam (SIS)43. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram)44. Tenaganita45. The Micah Mandate (TMM)46. The People's Parliament47. TONIBUNG (Friends for Village Development), Sabah48. Women's Aid Organisation (WAO)49. Women's Candidacy Initiative (WCI)50. Writer Alliance for Media Independence (WAMI)  Read More →

By Bhaskaran Kunju, Political Correspondent At the Parliamentary sitting on August 18, Mr Viswa Sadasivan gave his maiden speech as a Nominated Member of Parliament. The contents of his speech have already made headlines in just a few days, with even MM Lee providing his views. While most of the attention has been on the race debate, another aspect of Mr Viswa’s speech focused on the need for more participation in political activities for students, particularly those in Universities. It was one of three suggestions he had raised. As an undergraduate studying Political Science in a local University, his comments rang a lot closer to home. Mr Viswa called on the government to encourage more political associations to be set up on campus to cultivate a vibrant political culture from a young age. At present there is only one politically themed society functioning in my University- the Democratic Socialist Society. I do not think that will be of surprise to many. However, there are a large number of religious societies  including Christian society called the Campus Crusaders. A number of campus publications also contain far more liberal views and opinions than any mainstream media. Mr Viswa mentioned an encounter he had with an Undergraduate. He said, “Recently, I met a young lady who had a good honours degree from a local university. She who didn’t know the difference between the President of Singapore and the Prime Minister. It is not just confounding but upsetting to be confronted by such realities! Something is very wrong here.” Mr Viswa might have been surprised but facing such individuals in schools is a reality to me. This doesnot mean that they are unintelligent students. Given them the topic which they have studied. They’d be able to regurgitate whatever they’ve learnt. But there seems to be an inability to learn beyond their respective fields of interest, which often tend to be limited. I think, the basic awareness of politics or current affairs is not much to ask. After all it is the driving force behind our socio-economic existence. Mr Viswa placed the blame on the ineffective teaching of National Education and a non-existent political culture as a hindrance. Though these are two of the contributing factors, the education system in general is at fault as well.  The students are required to mug up and attain good grades. The middle process of understanding and the end result of generating new ideas are missing. The end result? We’re a nation that produces great workers by the masses, but not leaders. Not even thinkers. It is no surprise then there is always a complain of brain drain by the Government and a lack of capable leaders for our political or economical spheres. Yes, we are pushing towards a Knowledge Based Economy (KBE) but how compatible would it be for students who are the products of this education system. It has served us well though far over the decades but there is a need to retune the system. As for a livelier political culture as mooted by Mr Viswa, I believe it will be a double-edged sword. What difference would political associations and activism on campus make if the students are apathetic to begin with? Yes, there will be those who may take it up on interest, but there is a need to factor into account that there lies a possibility that it will only result in political indifference being displaced by a cacophony of misinformation. In my years in University I’ve seen far more invitations to student to organize parties and social events than any of political or intellectual values. It’s rather amusing for me to even think these students will be allowed to be active politically. There are far too many who are consumed by their lives and self-interest . Of course, it will be unfair on my part to make a broad sweep and brush off all undergraduates as being incapable in taking part in political activity. There are a number who have surpassed mediocrity and shown the ability to be critical thinkers. I think given a chance, the political activism could work under a controlled environment. It would be interesting to see how students respond to political activism and I don’t think it will certainly lead to anarchy or chaos. The outcome could be a favourable one if enough time is given for the political culture to find its balance. It is understandable that there will be shaky beginnings but a moderated atmosphere could bear fruitful exchange of ideas in the long run. But there are better solutions to these problems of political apathy, which actually run a lot further than undergrads and youths in general. After all you don’t need to be politically active to have a vested interest in politics. Mr Viswa mentions that the mainstream media needs to be “less sanitised and more politically engaging”. A more engaging mainstream media will definitely provide an outlet for political participation and still be under the control and purview of the government. This effectively allows for a dispersal of ideas and opinions that can still be controlled and maintained to weed out extremism. In other words a livelier and more stimulating media will not necessarily lead to the decimation of peace and order, but on the other hand be a valid platform for exchange of ideas and thoughts. I think as a society we have reached a point where the public in general has enough education and information to be able to hold discussions in a sanitised manner. An unfavourable result of the restrictive nature of the mainstream media has, as pointed out by Mr Viswa, been the rise of “an underground culture that may not always be constructive.” He says this in reference to the online community of blogs and forums. I think that with a wider net of participation and ideas flowing in the mainstream idea, it could definitely dispel a lot of the cynicism and lowbrow engagement of ideas that are currently present at this level. Yes, I am aware of the medium this article is being published in but there are a lot of false sources of information that have taken up the mantle of purveyors of truth and justice. Not at all realising the further damage that baseless allegations could do to the credibility of the need for alternate voices. Mr Viswa mentions youths as being particularly active in this medium and says he does not believe they are apathetic. But he does contradict himself in saying that people are generally politically apathetic. I’m not sure how he defines youths or what his sources are but I think most people of my age are busy blogging on their love life and selling clothes online. It is true that people in general are politically apathetic and he cites fear as a reason. I think, he has a point. The inherent fear that speaking up may only lead to persecution has driven those seeking to voice their views to do so from an anonymous platform. Which in my experience, even from school, has only drawn more cynicism and negativity with little productivity. A lack of engaging and substantial political outlet on a mainstream platform has led to even the most nominal of our societal participation being displaced by the voices of the anonymous on the Internet. I don’t think this is ideal. The Government has over the years tried to reach out to youths in interesting ways. The most curious of all was when a group of young MPs took to performing hip-hop dance routines at the 2006 Chingay Parade. Mr Lam Pin Min the MP for Ang Mo Kio GRC said, “All of us are having fun. It's not important whether we perform well, we dance well or whether we look professional on tv or during the parade. Most importantly, we have to connect with the youths of today," Even if they meant well, I think what it only did was trivialise domestic politics. As a youth who voted for the first time that year I certainly did not think it was useful in any way. I hope the next attempt would not involve MPs dressing in Emo outfits and hanging out at Far East Plaza. Other articles by Bhaskaran Kunju: >> Why social cohesion is at the forefront of the Prime Minister’s National Day Rally >> Changes in political system to allow more alternative voices >> The untimely departure of Chip Goodyear   About the Author: Bhaskaran Kunju is currently a political science undergraduate at a local varsity in Singapore.  Read More →