Coke reveals ambitious 2020 growth targets

Came across this headlines, and my mind took me to another 2020 milestone. A milestone spoken and worked upon for over 10 years now I suppose. Malaysia has far greater resources compared to Coca Cola. Sure Coke has far less politics if not no politics to contend to. And maybe Coke also has far less crooks committed to achieving stated goals. Whereas in the Malaysian instance we have crooks from top to bottom for whom a goal such as Vision 2020 provides the excuse for the policies that will enable them to plunder maybe!!

Anyway, rather than dwelling on that, why not we take Coke's ambitions as a challenge? Let us, Malaysians take that challenge to see who gets to that goal better than the next.

Pakatan Rakyat!! the Ideal!!

Finally, after all the talk Pakatan Rakyat has submitted its application to be registered as a coalition with members of PKR, PAS and DAP. Supposedly it is a statement of their commitment towards a common cause, a common purpose and a common goal. But is it really?

Barisan Nasional leaders point out the differences and the frequent squabbles between members of coalition partners. The current Zulkifli Nordin challenge to Sivarsa shows the diversity in cause, purpose and goals of MPs from even within the same party. Some Indian members of PKR have chided PR for ignoring Indian interests and see themselves as representing Indian interests as their main cause and achieving benefits for Indians as their ultimate goals. Obviously each of them have an audience out there that cheers them on and from which they receive their "accredition" to soldier on.

You also have the intransigent positions taken by some leaders like Karpal Singh who insists that the Islamic State will happen over his dead body. That surely must irk even the most hip of clubbing Muslims. Of course it is most often in response to PAS continued commitment to their Islamic State ideal.

To Karpal Singh, all that I want to say is that hey, its only at best an aspiration. You cannot deny anyone their aspirations. That would be like denying a citizen of hope. Actualising that aspiration would be like my aspiration to ascend to the top of Mt Everest!! Rather than you laughing at my aspiration I would appreciate that you respect it. I have not asked for support and even if I did, it would be perfectly alright to deny me that support. Similarly, respect PAS' Islamic State objectives. Understand it and tell them politely that you cannot support it. But it is not necessary to get yourself worked up over it because if PAS pushed it any further they know that what ever advances they have made will just wither off very quickly.

So what is it that is needed for this coalition to work?

I would like to suggest that politicians as well as citizens understand and separate the different roles played by the different interests that come to play here. In this, PAS and its members would have to confront the greatest of obstacles. So will those in PKR like Zulkifli Nordin.

I have to accept the fact that there is the Muslim believe, some might even say obligation and others a compelling indictment that politics is part and parcel of practicing the religion or the faith. There are many who are motivated and moved to action by their submission to this edict, as they see it, on them. Yet, there are others amongst the Muslims who, possibly having been influenced by "non-Islamic" or secular ideas who would rather not be swept away by the impositions of their faith.

Nevertheless, those wishing to pursue this agenda have to confront the fact that the dynamics and the demographics of the country are such that that objective cannot be pursued without the acquiescence of those who might be diametrically opposed to it. You could wait for the acquiescence to happen, or like the Moguls did, you could do it by the sword. But we are living in the 21st century and the motivators that moved the Moguls are all but dead today. It is life in Malaysia as we know of it today that needs to be governed. In its governance is where politics plays its part.

So What Is It That We Want Governed?

How much of our lives do we want dictated by someone else? In Centralised Economies of the past in communist Soviet Union and China personal choice was not something that was allowed beyond your own home. Even the number of children you could have was dictated to you. I know I have not extended any politician any invitation to invade my life and extract from it my hopes, my choices, my dreams, my opportunities and my miseries. Neither have I given permission to any religious leader of any religion, including my own, to invade my life and that of my children. My freewill is for me to to exercise and not surrender!

That being the case, what do I expect of my elected leaders? Lets put it another way. Am I an asset or am I a liability to the nation? As a taxpayer, as an employer or as an employee I am contributing to the development of the nation. As a parent I am also contributing in ensuring valuable human assets are developed for the country. As a taxpayer, I contribute towards the the roads, the drains, the street lights, the security, and all the other services rendered to the people where the benefit is enjoyed, well, almost equally, without reference to our proportionate contribution to the nation's coffers. Sure I am an asset. And sure I can and I have the right to decide the type of government I want. And I can decide what it is that I want governed, administered and regulated.

Yes, there is the public space that needs governing, administering and regulating. And there is the private space I expect to be given the due respect for and from which I want the regulators well away from. If the regulators want to make themselves really useful beyond governing, administering and regulating the public space, they could, if they want, make it more conducive for me to go about taking advantage of all that this country has to offer. In a legal way of course.


The Government's Task

If in the last paragraph I have been able to impress what is expected and there is a political movement that can dedicate itself to giving me that, than that is what I really would support. The question to Pakatan Rakyat, the coalition, is, can they commit to that? In fact, I should say, in the light of what might appear to be very valid objectives the founding coalition partners are confronted with objectives of their own parties that might just be opposed to one another. One wants to have an Islamic State and do everything Islamic. Another wants a purely secular state and does not attribute any good to any claimant.

To PAS, I would like to ask, what is it about a secular state that it finds offensive? Has not Islam thrived in secular states? What is it about good human values that it finds offensive until it can be adopted or determined or claimed as something stemming from Islam? To DAP, and to some extent myself, what is it about a Muslim claiming a good to have come from Islam so unacceptable?


But really, in what is called for in governing, administering, regulating and leading a country's public space, are these concerns, fears, bias or prejudices going to dictate how the coalition parties are going to work together? I hope not!

And it is this premise that I have to take if I am to be asked to list practical and inspirational organisational solutions to make Pakatan Rakyat stronger. Even before I begin the list, I have to assume that the parties in the coalition and their respective members are not on the same page in so far as their expectations, hopes, aspirations are concerned. They also are not on the same page on such things as what they can do or cannot do. Also, I don't know really what should come first. A practical and inspirational list of solutions or should it be a list of things that we have to agree upon. One thing that surely will unravel this coalition will be to leave to chance the assumptions that they all, representing different sets of interests, bring to the table. If today, after over 52 years we are debating the so called "social contract" it surely has to do with the unspoken and unwritten assumptions that were brought to the table when the three leaders of UMNO, MCA and MIC met. Their assumptions about each of their communities they saw themselves representing would have been valid at the time. But are they valid today? If not, than is the "social contract" spoken of valid today? Indeed Pakatan Rakyat should not even look at the social contract for answers as, if they do, than might as well we not have this Pakatan and we all go back and support the BN.

If it is at all possible, if we imagined ourselves to be on a ship that has hit troubled waters, I know and I am confident that our humanity will take over where we would be able to work together and support one another to get out of the troubled spot. Provided of course we do not give in to our bias, selfishness, prejudices and preferences.



For a Cohesive Pakatan Rakyat we need to:

1. Spell out the Goals and Objectives for the nation and the rakyat that will be for Pakatan Rakyat to achieve. This does not have to be the same as those of the component parties.

2. Define public space and private space so that we all will and can know from there all that is common and that binds us and we can also tell off the politicians to stay off from what is our private space.

3. Insist that as it is geographical constituencies to which leaders are voted in for that they represent all within that constituency and that they will not do or say anything that any one sector or more within that constituency will find offensive or objectionable.

4. Adopt the policy that if we were in business, our market would be the entire citizenry rather than just one sector of the market. Best exemplified by the Nasi Lemak sellers. Usually Malay, but their market is all of us without bias or prejudice!! Why can't our leaders be like our Nasi Lemak sellers? The Nasi Lemak that is most popular is the one that is truly a Malay recipe and not one that is doctored and adulterated to meet another's perceived preference.

5. Have a clear education policy is needed. A bold statement that the national education policy and experiment introduced by Mahathir when he was the Education Minister has failed as reflected by the increased demand for vernacular education will be a good start. Is anyone brave enough to state that the success of the vernacular schools is testimony to and represents the rejection of the Education Services wished on the nation by policy makers? What we have today is simply to pacify and retain MCA and MIC in the BN fold more than it is to nourish our ethnic minorities with culture and language!! The Education Policy should be guided by what is best for the people and the nation in the context of the world we live in than the sentiments and emotions of a few who have little else to justify their political participation to.

6. Acknowledge that matters of the state that the coalition needs to govern have nothing to do with cultural and religious traits and needs of the people. This should be left to the respective communities to take care of. As Mahathir once said, to a handful of us when we met him at his office, the business of government should be to issue laws, regulate, administer, enforce and govern matters of the state and not anything else, really. Of course he did admit that reality of the nation also required the government to provide medical, policing, education and other public and social services. I can't remember him saying that it was his duty to ensure the propagation, protection or whatever of any religion or culture or race. I came out feeling that there was only the Malaysian race!!

7. Recognise that there is a Malaysian race. We know it and recognise it when we are abroad. Then we identify ourselves as Malaysian. We are glad to see fellow Malaysians of any race. Indeed if anyone of our fellow citizens need help with immigration or customs, we gladly help, unless of course if you are a Menteri Besar carrying money he cannot account for. Can we try and be such Malaysians here at home and not see ourselves as Malay, Indian or Chinese?

8. Trust the best Malaysian to do the job. Why should it be that the Home, Finance, Education and Defence Ministers have always got to be Malays? Why should the cabinet positions reflect any racial quota or composition? Why can't it be an all Malay cabinet if indeed all of them are the best for the job? Or all Chinese or all Indian or Kadazan or what ever? Meritocracy is the word.

The above are but just some of the more important trust building imperatives that Malaysia needs if it wishes to advance and the people are to benefit the most from that development. Sadly, however, these ideals will be whittled down by politicians because of their own ambitions, perceived support, greed, fears, prejudices and distrust. To navigate through all this all these inhibitors should be confronted head-on. Not to embarrass or to cause anyone to fail or lose out. But politicians especially are not wont to expressing their own negative attributes that reduces them to the little nothings that they usually are.

Lee Hsien Loong's Speech

I don't normally copy paste speeches or news reports. If and when I do, I usually would have something to say. But here in Lee Hsein Loong's Speech I have nothing to add. He has said it all. As a Malaysian, I can only ask, can we dare hope? Risks of religious fervour

http://www.malaysianmirror.com Monday, 09 November 2009 04:10

This speech by Lee Hsien Loong is widely circulated on the Internet. As always, there will be those who miss out on it. This is published here specially for them. It may be late but it’s still a good read anytime. "To live peacefully together, we need good sense and tolerance on all sides, and a willingness to give and take. Otherwise, whatever the rules there will be no end of possible causes of friction." PM Lee, on how fragile religious and racial harmony is in Singapore and how crucial it is to be tolerant SO what are these risks? Let me just highlight three of them. Aggressive preaching - proselytisation. You push your own religion on others, you cause nuisance and offence. You have read in the papers recently about a couple who surreptitiously distributed Christian tracts which were offensive of other faiths, not just of non-Christians but even of Catholics. They were charged and sentenced to jail. But there are less extreme cases too which can cause problems. We hear, from time to time, complaints about groups trying to convert very ill patients in our hospitals, who don't want to be converted, and who don't want to have the private difficult moments in their lives intruded upon. Intolerance is another problem - not respecting the beliefs of others or not accommodating others who belong to different religions. You think of this one group versus another group, but sometimes it happens within the same family. Sometimes we have parents from traditional religions whose children have converted. The parents have asked to be buried according to traditional rites and their children stay away from the funeral or the wake. It's very sad. From a traditional point of view, it's the ultimate unfilial act but it does happen occasionally. Exclusiveness is a third problem - segregating into separate exclusive circles, not integrating with other faiths. That means you mix with your own people. You'll end up as separate communities. We foresaw these dangers 20 years ago. We passed the Bill, Maintenance of Religious Harmony, in 1989/1990. Before we did that, then PM Lee Kuan Yew and the key ministers met all the religious leaders. We had a closed-door session at MCYS. We spoke candidly. We explained our concerns, why we wanted to move this Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. The religious leaders spoke up candidly, they gave us their support. We moved with their support. We continue to keep in close touch with them, to meet regularly. I do that personally, exchange views, keep the line warm and the confidence on both sides so that I know you, you know me. If there is a problem, we are not dealing with strangers but with somebody we know and trust. Once or twice, I've had to meet them over specific difficult cases. No publicity, relying on mutual trust and the wisdom of our religious leaders to defuse tensions. I'm very grateful for their wisdom and for their support. Because of this active work behind the scenes, we've not needed to invoke the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act for 20 years. But it's something which is important to us which we must keep for a long time. Four basic rules We can never take our racial and religious harmony for granted. We must observe some basic principles to keep it the way it is. First, all groups have to exercise tolerance and restraint. Christians cannot expect this to be a Christian society, Muslims cannot expect this to be a Muslim society. Ditto the Buddhists, the Hindus and the other groups. Many faiths share this island. Each has different teachings, different practices. Rules which only apply to one group cannot become laws which are enforced on everyone. So Muslims don't drink alcohol but alcohol is not banned. Ditto gambling, which many religions disapprove of, but gambling is not banned. All have to adopt 'live and let live' as our principle. Secondly, we have to keep religion separate from politics. Religion in Singapore cannot be the same as religion in America, or religion in an Islamic country. Take Iran, an Islamic country. Nearly everybody is Shia Muslim. Recently, they had a presidential election which was fiercely contested between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi, and the outcome was disputed. Both sides invoked Islam. So Mousavi's supporters had a battle cry - Allahu Akbar (God is Great). In Singapore, if one group invokes religion this way, other groups are bound to say: 'I also need powerful support. We'll also push back invoking our faith.' One side insists: 'I'm doing God's work.' The other side says: 'I'm doing my God's work.' Both sides say: 'I cannot compromise. These are absolute imperatives.' The result will be a clash between different religious groups which will tear us apart. We take this very seriously. The People's Action Party reminds our candidates, don't bring all the friends from your own religious group. Don't mobilise your church or your temple or your mosque to campaign for you. Bring a multi-racial, multi-religious group of supporters. When you are elected, represent the interest of all your constituents, not just your religious group in Parliament. Speak for all your constituents. Thirdly, the Government has to remain secular. The Government's authority comes from the people. The laws are passed by Parliament which is elected by the people. They don't come from a sacred book. The Government has to be neutral, fair. We are not against religion. We uphold sound moral values. We hold the ring so that all groups can practise their faiths freely without colliding. That's the way Singapore has to be. You may ask: Does this mean that religious groups have no views, cannot have views on national issues? Or that religious individuals cannot participate in politics? Obviously not. Religious groups are free to propagate their teachings on social and moral issues. They have done so on the IRs, organ transplants, 377A, homosexuality. And obviously many Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists participate in politics. In Parliament, we have people of all faiths. In the Cabinet too. People who have a religion will often have views which are informed by their religious beliefs. It's natural because it's part of you, it's part of your personality. But you must accept that other groups may have different views informed by different beliefs and you have to accept that and respect that. The public debate cannot be on whose religion is right and whose religion is wrong. It has to be on secular, rational considerations of public interest - what makes sense for Singapore. The final requirement for us to live peacefully together is to maintain our common space that all Singaporeans share. It has to be neutral and secular because that's the only way all of us can feel at home in Singapore and at ease. Common spaces Let me explain to you with specific examples. Sharing meals. We have different food requirements. Muslims need halal food. Hindus don't eat beef. Buddhists sometimes are vegetarian. So if we must serve everybody food which is halal, no beef and vegetarian, I think we will have a problem. We will never eat meals together. So there will be halal food on one side, vegetarian food for those who need it, no beef for those who don't eat beef. Let's share a meal together, acknowledging that we are not the same. Don't discourage people from interacting. Don't make it difficult for us to be one people. Our schools are another example of common space where all races and religions interact. Even in mission schools run by religious groups, the Ministry of Education has set clear rules, so students of all faiths will feel comfortable. You might ask: Why not allow mission schools to introduce prayers or Bible studies as compulsory parts of the school activity or as part of school assembly? Why not? Then why not let those who are not Christian, or don't want a Christian environment, go to a government school or go to a Buddhist school? Well, if they do that, we'll have Christians in Christian schools, Buddhists in Buddhist schools, Muslims in schools with only Muslim children and so on. I think that is not good for Singapore . Therefore, we have rules to keep all our schools secular and the religious groups understand and accept this. For example, St Joseph 's Institution is a Catholic brother school but it has many non-Catholic students, including quite a number of Malay students. The Josephian of the Year in 2003 was a Malay student - Salman Mohamed Khair. He told Berita Harian that initially his family was somewhat worried about admitting him to a Catholic school. He himself was afraid because he didn't know what to expect. But he still went because of SJI's good record. He said: 'Now I feel fortunate to be in SJI. Although I was educated in a Catholic environment, religion never became an issue.' Indeed that's how it should work. I know it works because I understand that Malay students in SJI often attend Friday prayers at Baalwie Mosque nearby, still wearing their school uniforms. SJI thinks it's fine, the mosque thinks it's fine, the students think it's fine, and I think it's fine too. That's the way it should be. Another example of common space - work. The office environment should be one which all groups feel comfortable with. Staff have to be confident that they will get equal treatment even if they belong to a different faith from their managers - especially in government departments, but in the private sector too. I think it can be done because even religious community service organisations often have people who don't belong to that religion working comfortably and happily together. This is one very important aspect of our meritocratic society. Thus we maintain these principles: exercise tolerance, keep religion separate from politics, keep a secular government, maintain our common space. This is the only way all groups can live in peace and harmony in Singapore . Aware and responsible church leaders This is the background to the way the Government looked at one recent issue: Aware. We were not concerned about who would control Aware because it's just one of so many NGOs in Singapore. On homosexuality policy or sexuality education in schools, there can be strong differences in view but the Government's position was quite clear. But what worried us was that this was an attempt by a religiously motivated group who shared a strong religious fervour to enter civil space, take over an NGO it disapproved of, and impose their agenda. It was bound to provoke a push back from groups that held the opposite view, which indeed happened vociferously and stridently. The media coverage got caught up and I think the amplifier was turned up a bit high. This was hardly the way to conduct a mature discussion of a sensitive matter where views are deeply divided. But most critically of all, this risked a broader spillover into relations between different religions. I know many Singaporeans were worried about this, including many Christians. They may not have spoken aloud but they raised one eyebrow. Therefore, I'm very grateful for the very responsible stand which was taken by the church leaders. The National Council of Churches of Singapore issued a statement that it didn't support churches getting involved. There was also the statement by the Catholic Archbishop. Had these statements not been made, we would have had a very serious problem. The Government stayed out of this but after the dust had settled, I spoke to the religious leaders, first the Christians and then the religious leaders of all faiths, so that everybody understood where we stood and what our concerns were. So we can continue to work together to strengthen our racial and religious harmony. Unusually serious subject This is an unusually serious and heavy subject for a National Day Rally. Normally, you talk about babies, hongbaos, bonuses. No bonuses tonight but a bonus lecture on a serious subject. We discussed this in Cabinet at length and decided that I should talk about this. I crafted the points carefully, circulated them many times. Different presentations in Mandarin, Malay and English, because different groups have different concerns, but a consistent message so that there's no misunderstanding. I also invited the religious leaders to come and spend the evening with us tonight. They can help us to help their flocks understand our limitations, to guide them to practise their faiths, taking into account the context of our society. Please teach them accommodation, which is what all faiths teach. I look forward to all the religious groups continuing to do a lot of good work for Singapore for many years to come. Finally, let me share with you one true story which was published recently in an Indian newspaper, The Asian Age, and picked up by The Straits Times. It was about a young man from Gujarat , a Muslim, who migrated to Singapore after the Hindu-Muslim riots in Gujarat in 2002. A train carrying Hindu pilgrims was stopped in Ahmadebad and set on fire. The circumstances were unclear but 50-odd men, women and children burnt to death, trapped in the train. The Hindus rioted. They had no doubt what the cause was. One thousand people died, mostly Muslims because Ahmadebad has a large Muslim community. So this young Muslim decided to come to Singapore after the riots. We call him Mohammed Sheikh. It's not his real name because he still has family there. The article said: 'During the bloody riots, he watched three of his family members, including his father, getting butchered. His family had to pay for being Muslim. 'Besides losing his family and home, Mohammed lost confidence and faith in the civil society. He didn't want to spend the rest of his life cursing his destiny. He wanted to move on.' So seven years ago, Mohammed came to Singapore and got a diploma in hospitality management. Now he is working in an eatery and he hopes to open his own business one day. He told the interviewer, had he stayed in Gujarat , 'I would have been hating all Hindus and baying for their blood, perhaps.' Now 'he loves it when his children bring home Hindu friends and share snacks'. He told the interviewer proudly, 'My children have Christian, Buddhist, Hindu friends.' He even hopes to bring his mother to Singapore so she can see for herself that people of different races, different faiths can be friends. The interviewer asked him what Muslim sect he belonged to and which mosque he went to in India. He said: 'I don't want to get into all that. Now I am just a Singaporean. And I am proud of it.' This story reminds us that while we must not neglect to strengthen our harmonious society, we are in a good position. So let us rejoice in our harmony but let us never forget what being a Singaporean means. It's not just tolerating other groups but opening our hearts to all our fellow citizens. Our future If we stay cohesive, then we can overcome our economic challenges and continue to grow. This is how we've transformed Singapore over the last half century - solving problems together, growing together, improving our lives. From the Singapore River to Marina Bay, we've totally transformed Singapore over the last half century. 1959 was a moment of great change but nobody at the Padang in June 1959 imagined the change in today's Singapore. We will continue to improve our lives, provided we work together and remain a harmonious and a cohesive society so that in another 50 years, we would have built another Singapore, which is equally unimaginable today. The key is to stay united through rain or shine.

A Few Good Men

Felicita Fedelis, in her letter to Malaysiakini published on 16 July, entitled "Harsh punishment for those stoking 'religious disharmony'", said:


"It was even more interesting to see the responses of police force and media to this issue. It was reported in The Star that the two journalists charged with 'causing disharmony' may face two to five years of jail sentence. Such 'seriousness' to the offence. I feel that if a different party had committed such an act to a different community, without question they would have been arrested under the ISA and yet we see a different reaction to this situation.

Most of the times, we do not really know what actions of the arrested persons could have threatened national security and yet in this case, where the offence committed by the Al-Islam reporters are clearly capable of causing racial or religious disharmony, the offenders are simply facing a possibility of two to five years in jail."

To try to understand the response of the government and the police so far, you have to look at how each of the offended community is expected to behave upon such violation visited upon them.

The Catholic and Christian attitude at best is a forgiving one. This has already been said by one of the Bishops. Of course they make known the violation that has happened. Even those who had made the police report, beyond that, wait for their religious elders to guide them towards closure. And most of us achieve closure by forgiving these two ignorant journos.

At worst, we make the police report and for a few, they may just hold a prayer of protest and even worse still would be an out-door candle light vigil to let known to the indignant and indifferent that this is unacceptable behaviour.

Now, the response by the Catholic and Christian community in no way undermines national security. I cannot see the use of the ISA in this instance. Honestly, I think the Catholics and Christian community have already by their response so far have shown them our disapproval and we can leave any further action to the divine.

Now, how would a violation of an equal magnitude visited upon a mosque or any Islamic rituals or practice be responded to? I don't even want to contemplate what it might turn out to be. But within the context of the laws that are there, you will see that this could trigger off a response that could very easily threaten national security within the definitions provided for under the Internal Security Act. Not that I support the ISA, but as for the various tools available to the authorities to bring calm and peace, the ISA might just be appropriate.

As to how the authorities will deal with this matter, there are several factors that will come to play.

1. The police report itself which is an expression of disapproval over a violation of self and which might be covered by some criminal act or other.

2. The attitude of the authorities of their responsibility to non-Muslims especially when the authority responsible for the outcome is insensitive towards the feelings of the non-Muslim.

3. The weight given to the justification of the actions of these two journos if this justification can be found within their own religious calling. An attempt has been made by a blogger, Mahaguru58, where he quotes one religious leader and he quotes the Quran. If you are inclined towards religious justifications, then really these two journos have done no wrong as the only thing that matter is if their actions have necessarily violated any Islamic edicts or fatwas. Since in the Catholic Eucharist it is only the bread that is consumed and it is neither dipped in wine nor is wine served, it would appear to some that their only concern for theses two journos was if they might have consumed the wine. And now that we know that wine was not consumed, and that they may have not, in their religious calling violated anything, they actually are heroes.

Now, put in that position, how then are the police going to act? There is no real harm done. The Christians have had their opportunity to put on display their very charitable Christian forgiving attitude. (Remember, Jesus said, "turn the other cheek"?) If the Christians feel that they need to let it be known that this is unacceptable behaviour...yes, go have that candle light vigil. But more importantly don't forget to pray for the tormentor and the "enemy"! Do we want reprieve? For what?

I would advocate that having made known that what was done was unacceptable behaviour, the Christian thing to do would be to withdraw. There is no need to further contribute towards retribution or punishing these two journos. That is for the laws to take their course and for human decency to prevail. If nothing happens you know if there was any decency to begin with. I do not think it is even necessary to contribute to convicting these two journos.

Maybe if it comes to trial, and if I was to stand as the prosecuting witness, the only thing I would do is to explain what the Eucharist means to me and the Christian community, then to look at these two journos in their eyes and tell them, it is not necessary for them to ask for forgiveness as it may just be beyond them to understand, but to tell them that we forgive them nevertheless. I really would not want these two to be punished for something where their own point of reference might be telling them that they may have pursued a religious calling and did no wrong. The Tom Cruise and Demi Moore movie, "A Few Good Men" comes to mind!!

Manek Urai -PAS' TIME HAS COME!! WILL THEY SURVIVE?

If UMNO was perceived to be the right, PAS conservatives would have been between the far right and right. the 'Erdogans' on the other-hand would, in my reckoning be left of right with a dose of the far right.

Far right of course in the Malaysian context is hard to explain within the context of fight and left as liberally used in Western Democracies.

The far right in the Malaysian instance would appear to have surrendered its fate and future to what is perceived to be "righteous and holy". This is determined by whoever in PAS has gained for himself the honour of being recognised as the righteous. As it is, it would seem like for the moment Tok Nik Aziz might have a problem claiming exclusivity to that title. Though not spoken, surely PAS President, Hadi Awang as well as his deputy Nasharuddin, by their actions and words sound rather dismissive of Nik Aziz's claim.

That being said the results of Manek Urai are going to be telling on holding PAS together. Each side is going to blame the other. Certainly the far right in PAS is going to find comfort in believing and telling themselves that this is a punishment from God for parting from his ways by working closely with PKR and DAP. The "sacrifices" made to accommodate PKR and DAP are unacceptable to God!!

The "Erdogans" can alternatively support their position by saying that the people have spoken. When you want to have "unity talks" with UMNO then what you are saying is you want to equalise things with UMNO. Then what difference does that make for the people, whether they vote PAS or UMNO? People of Manek Urai probably don't see the non-Malays as a factor or perceived enemies or competitors for their prosperity.

I reckon the Manek Urai results are going to drive the wedge further dividing the two clearly distinct wings in PAS. Any attempts to bring these two wings together will probably only result in a very damaging fight that might bring out the extremes to clash in a way no one has pondered. To keep quiet will only eat away at them and not achieve for PAS any clear goals for themselves.

Managing the fall out is whats' going to make PAS make or break. Is Nik Aziz the recommended arbiter? I don't think he is. He has already clearly stated his position as to where he is. I wonder who!

Malaysian Education-All Screwd Up Until Truth is Acknowledged

This is what I posted in Farish Noor's posting on Linguistic Nationalism and the Realities of the Global Age We Live In

Farish,

You said, "advocates of mother-tongue education," and then I was looking forward to reading you demolish these so called advocates. But you did not.

It would seem like when dealing with language, especially, mother tongue, what we all fail to see is the hypocrisy that drives the argument. Even more the lie told by every advocate of mother tongue education as well as those who submit to these advocates and seemingly endorse their argument.

And how come in this sense it is only Malay, Tamil and Chinese that are considered mother tongue when even Mahathir's father would have told you that Tamil was not his mother tongue and yet Mahathir never for once tried to include the teaching in Malayalam for those Malayalee Malaysians? And amongst them are Hindus, Christians as well as Muslims and possibly in almost equal numbers. And what about the Kadazans, Muruts and Ibans? Surely theirs is not Malay as taught in our schools? I forgot, even the Kelantanese would object if one were to suggest that Bahasa Malaysia was their mother tongue. And if I am not mistaken Khir Toyo's mother tongue is Javanese!!

But when an MCA or MIC man was to talk in terms of protecting his mother tongue, somehow that call would appear to sound so sacred that both bureaucrats as well as politicians find themselves unable to dismiss the claim or to tell him to shut up.

Fact is, only in Tamil Nadu in India is Tamil spoken. And even then if I were to go back to the rural village that my ancestors come from the only education I can enroll in at the school nearest to me would be in an English school. Also, right now, all over Tamil Nadu, even the taxi driver would tell you that his kids study in an English School. But, mind you, if the government of India was to force Hindi Education, they'd fail miserably. Many decades ago Tamil Nadu alone stood aloof from the rest of India's transformation to Hindi. and you will see that traveling by train when you cross into Tamil Nadu you suddenly don't see any more signboards in Hindi. It will be English and Tamil.

Anyway, coming back to Malaysia, that same MCA guy who "fights" for vernacular education probably already has his kids in an International school or maybe in some Western country studying in English anyway. And so are the kids of most of our UMNO leaders I would presume.

No sir, it is not for the preservation of language and culture that our race based political leaders, and this includes our Opposition leaders as well, advocate Vernacular schools. Its basically a political icon. Somehow it is supposed to be a reflection of your commitment to your constituents. How can you be a leader of a Chinese or Indian Political party if the only things closest to identifying with your own race is language? As for culture it is shocking for me to see the Chinese leaders trying to suggest that a lot of what they do, wear and eat is Chinese culture. For heaven's sake, Bak Kut Teh, Laksa and Yee Sang are not Chinese as from China. Only Malaysian and Singaporean Chinese know what these are.

And all you need to do to change the minds of all these guys is just to give them a one way ticket to any western country and enough money for them to live a comfortable life, suddenly you will see all their "love" for language and culture go out the window! Mind you amongst immigrant communities in Australia and New Zealand the Malaysian Chinese will refuse to be identified as Chinese lest they be thought of as having come from mainland China. In Malaysia you hardly hear anyone referring to "mainland" China. In Australian and New Zealand Malaysian Chinese most definitely make that distinction. Indeed many would rather that they and their children are referred to as Malaysian. I just got affirmation of that from my daughter!!

But when the political powers shove a language that certainly does not match up to the languages of these other ancient cultures because they can, and also possibly for showing who is boss, and maybe, as a way to undermine any lingual advantage in any other language (well this is how many of us saw it when the changes were introduced in the 1970s), then you can imagine that the new lingual putsch will only be accepted under protest. And very soon they also realised that, like the tortoise does with its shell, going under the cover of "mother tongue" the people found refuge from the thrust of the might of the Malay politicians. And politicians in MCA and MIC found themselves a platform from which they could "lead" their flock.

But despite this, until the early 1980s I would not be too far wrong to say that the people did not make a quick switch. Vernacular schools continued on their downward spiral in admissions. But very soon things started changing. The demographics of the teachers being hired changed. When I was in school, a mission school, the only Malay teachers were the language teachers. You never had Malays teaching the sciences, maths, geography or history or for that matter PE. But this should not have mattered. I have myself hired Malays to teach at post secondary level and they did just as good a job.

Syllabuses started changing. I was talking to a 23 year old the other day and she told me that in Form 2 History, the entire year was spent on studying Islamic History. And of course when the teachers are Malays, there is the added spicing of the aura and awe!

We all started hearing of how after Standard 5 or 6 reasonably good Malay students were taken away to boarding schools. In a mixed classroom the teacher talks about scholarships and residential schools, exciting all the kids. but when the application forms were given out the Chinese and Indian kids saw to their disappointment that they were missed out. And then in Standard 3 or 4 when the Muslim kids started attending agama classes all of a sudden the Chinese and Indian kids find out that their Malay friends would avoid them. And very often they would also tell that it was their Uztaz who would have advised them so.

Then of course you had the uncertainty of gaining tertiary education within Malaysia which saw many of the non-Malays turning to private sector education and qualifications. And then the foreign tertiary institutions got wind of the Senior Middle 3 qualifications which 60 Chinese Private School students were gaining which never got recognised in Malaysia. But in the 1980s, it probably started with their recognition by Professional Institutes in the UK, and soon you could use that for University in foreign countries. Until then these Chinese School students could only go to Hong Kong and to Taiwan. Today you hardly hear of any, becaue they all go off to America and the UK or Australia.

With that opening, that is the ability to continue with further education,Chinese schools prospered. Tamil schools still floundered. But today, I see that Tamil schools in the city rejuvenated and overflowing in admissions. What gives?

I DARE ANY POLITICIAN TO SAY "THE PEOPLE HAVE REJECTED THE EDUCATION DISHED OUT BY THE MOE!"


I would like to suggest that the education dished out by the National School system as managed and administered by the Ministry of Education has been rejected. Not only that, given the opportunity, they all want to run away from the curriculum of the MOE and the influence of the MOE and the the teaching pool of the MOE. When my friends who are Chinese but English speaking and who cannot read or write Chinese, and every way very much western in their thinking and orientation send their kids to a Chinese School knowing they will not receive any help home, that shows what they think. They all walk.

Until and unless everyone, o.k. anyone from amongst the politicians, BN or opposition, is willing to say it as it is, we will always keep missing the turn we have to take. We will never make the correct decision as the politicians on both sides of the house dare not make the statement that needs to be made lest they be branded betrayers of their own race. That, no politician in Malaysia is brave enough to make. Sorry to say, I just cannot see us getting out of this cess pool that we are in.

Unfortunately we have NGOs for everything. Saving the trees, the environment, religion, the sick, freedom, police, but can anyone direct me to an NGO that is working towards Education for the future of our children in Malaysia?

FINALLY ACCEPTANCE!!

"Najib said that Malaysians must stop tolerating and begin accepting each other because only through acceptance can the nation prosper and become developed.

“We must begin to accept and not only tolerate because tolerance is a concept of not wholeheartedly accepting or grudgingly accepting. Acceptance is a better concept and we must begin to accept that we are a plural and multi racial country,” he said.

.........................................................................................................................

And I thougt I will never ever hear that coming from any UMNO member, let alone leader. Even the so called Pak Lah, our former Prime Minister could only utter that rubbish abot tolerating. I recall writing about it. Telling him stop tolerating me, because I too cannot tolerate you. But accept me as I accept you.

With this statement, is Najib putting a nail to the head of "ketuanan Melayu"? After all if you advocate "ketuanan Melayu" there is no need to accept. You only need to tolerate to maintain the peace. You don't need to tolerate even if you don't like it.

The crazy thing was, everytime these political leaders uttered that word tolerate and urging their constituents to tolerate the other races or the other cultures they did not even bother to think about the ramifications of such attitudes. Did they not think that it was that kind of thinking that probably gave birth to the "ketuanan Melayu" concept itself?

I can't fault the Malay leaders alone for uttering this most horrible word. I have even seen MCA leaders use it. Is that why there is this chavunistic attitude amongst the MCA types that we often see them coming off very patronising in their ways?

Well, Najib is certainly bringing down a lot of walls. I have said it before, and I will say it again. I don't support him. But he is captain of the ship that we are all aboard in. We need to get to shore. Like him or hate him he is controlling the rudder. Whether or not he succeeds very much depends on the social order and the assumptions about one another that has to be dealt with. Do we replace tolerance with acceptance? Do we replace suspicion with trust? Do we replace bias with indifference?

Well Najib, as much as I disagree with the latest change in the education policy over the use of English in the teaching of Maths and Scence, I think it is within your bearings to see that the solution to the education quagmire that we are in is not to be found within the political arena. Whats good for the country is not necessarily what is good for the politicians. It takes a brave effort to recognise and acknowledge the failure of the last 30 odd years of educational reform. It needs you, Najib, to come out to say what needs to be said. It is not like as if the people cherish Chinese or Tamil education. The people have rejected the Natioal Education that is rendered by the Ministry of Education. Also acknowledge, the policy to terminate the system that was in place in the 1960s was tainted by a thinking that by these means those seen to be advantaged would be denied that advantage as they would be "brought down" by forcing upon them Bahasa Malaysia, like as if this was all that was needed. Well, it would now seem like our children have all mastered the language and it is no more a barrier to educational excellence. It is just plain rejection of what the Ministry of Education is dishing out through its ministrations.

I have a possible way out of this. Let communities who can. Communities who have the will. Communities who meet certain crieteria to take on the running of the schools. By communities I do not mean race based. It should be other than race based. It could be local communities coming together. It could be the Mission schools getting back to what they used to do, minus the proselytising. Lets do something like that first

Anyway, Najib, for what it is worth, I want to congratulate you for introducing the change from tolerate to accept. I just hope this concept is not over the heads of our political leaders.