Imagine…

Ersatz moderation will not suffice, PM

2010-09-02T11:33:00.000+08:00

Surely any right-minded Malaysian will find it impossible to disagree with the prime minister that we cannot allow racism to destroy us. And surely all of us who cherish the virtues of moderation must find ourselves whole-heartedly agreeing with the prime minister that we cannot allow extreme attitudes on racial and religious issues to compromise national unity.

As such, it is precisely for these reasons, Mr. Prime Minister that moderates such as myself continue to remain perplexed and puzzled about the glaring discrepancy that continues to persist between the messages you espouse and the reality that persists in the manner your government conducts itself.

I must admit, I was struck by your re-affirmation of the principles of the Rukun Negara; something that merely one month ago, I noted in one of my articles should be given far greater prominence in our national culture, especially in place of the religious one-upmanship.

To be precise, I stated that,

In place of such religious invocations, might we not be better off – and would it not be more consistent with our desire for more national unity – if it became more commonplace instead to recite the Rukun Negara or the national anthem.

In a multi-religious country, specific religious invocations are by definition not universal; however, on the other hand, inclusive invocations such as the much-neglected Rukun Negara may well be a nationally universal and valuable unifying force.

But surely you will understand why most moderates such as myself will continue to be puzzled at the lack of practical commitment to the virtues of moderation, and instead at the continued pandering to the religious and racial extremists who insist not on dialogue but demagoguery and intimidation.

And you will also understand why most moderates continue to be skeptical that you want to promote unity and mutual respect, and not imposed control on minorities, when genuine minority voices – irrespective of their political affiliation – continue to be drummed out by the entrenched and vested interests who have come to lack credibility in the eyes of the man on the street.

You will surely understand as well, why moderates struggle to genuinely rally around your clarion calls for moderation when extremist and racist propaganda emanating from some mainstream media are persistently and consistently allowed to be liberally disseminated – and without repercussions - while we find the Home Ministry being overly sensitive and inflexible with independent media.

You will, of course, appreciate the difficulty moderates in the country will continue to have with your apparent commitment to moderation and diversity, when in fact, credible alternative voices in the media are curtailed and marginalised by such seemingly prejudiced regulatory measures.

How, Mr. Prime Minister, moderates such as myself are left asking, should we not continue to have reservations about your government’s commitment to religious acceptance and harmony when your own minister seeks to fan the flames of religious animosity by crassly and blatantly exploiting the case of Teo Nie Ching’s visit to a surau.

To be frank, Mr. Prime Minster, far from reflecting well on your stated claim to moderation and unity, such episodes merely smack of nothing less than blatant hypocrisy and short-sighted opportunism.

These are just an obvious handful of items that speak volumes about what I have called the glaring inconsistency between the rhetoric and practice that persists.

Moderation and unity can only be built with mutual trust and mutual respect. Sadly, these are two traits absent from the tenor, tone and posturing of those espousing an even deeper racialisation of our society.

Such vocabulary – let alone practices associated with mutual respect and trust – seems glaringly absent from the worldview of religious extremists and hate-mongers, the very kind, for example, who have indulged in the intimidation of Teo Nie Ching.

So, Mr. Prime Minister, it is obvious to us moderates, that unless you can better reconcile the glaring inconsistencies between the rhetoric and practice – which have, incidentally, also plagued your predecessor, moderates will remain deeply skeptical and reluctant to come on board. Quite the contrary – they will continue to in fact abandon your ship.

Every August 31 we should remind ourselves not just of our potential, which, as you have rightly noted, is immense, but also of the sacrifices we have all made individually and collectively – irrespective of our race or religion – for each other.

But such mutual coexistence and cooperation cannot be maintained with continued political intimidation that some quarters are prone to indulge in.

I submit that it would indeed be very reassuring and compelling to moderates across the political spectrum if your leadership and government is defined increasingly by its deeds with regards to nurturing moderation and unity rather than by its mere rhetoric.

Moderation and mutual accommodation are, after all, only genuine, when practiced.

G. Krishnan

Could Najib Be So Bold?

2010-08-29T23:42:00.001+08:00

I must admit, reading the recent news stories about Mahathir having his feathers ruffled by talk about the NEP may actually be a healthy sign – one that suggests perhaps Najib may well be trying to bring about some real and constructive change after all.

Having been one who has never found myself ever in agreement with anything Mahathir has espoused, I must confess that seeing him practically seething and unsettled by the mere signals emanating from Najib’s quarters regarding potential reforms to some aspects of the NEP is refreshing and a welcomed development.

To be sure, much of the news from the past several days has not played out too well for Najib’s image. In particular, the invidious hand of the mysterious censors in removing Jamaluddin Ibrahim from the air along with the persistence in the news of the political albatross that is Taib Mahmud has brought more unwelcomed publicity for Najib’s camp. Deservedly or not, a fair amount of the fallout from these events in particular have taken more wind out of Najib’s sails.

But it has to be said that the prime minster has at least seen some recent hopeful signs. Not insignificant has been his bold proclamation of ‘zero tolerance for racism’. Whilst these words may ring hollow for many a skeptics of the prime minister, surely it is worth noting that in this climate of heightened political consciousness and close scrutiny of his words and actions, Najib can ill afford to merely grandstand with slogans without some form of concrete action to go along with such words.

So at least on the surface, there is hope that perhaps he has intentions to sail in a somewhat different direction than say his predecessors have. Which of course brings us back to the continued saber rattling by Perkasa and their defacto inspiration, Mahathir Mohamad.

Everything about Mahathir’s rumbling and grumbling about the impending NEM suggests that at the very least, certain preemptive pressure is already being applied to ensure Najib doesn’t sail into some unchartered waters, at least not when it comes to the NEP. But more likely, it suggests that there is genuine cause for Mahathir and his ilk, and here I mean - in no uncertain terms - especially those hell bent on defending racist policies, that some genuine change is possibly imminent.

That perhaps Najib is indeed poised to change the direction of the sails and steer the boat into some new waters.

As I mentioned, it would be understandable if skeptics appear to take all the talk by Najib with a grain of salt – as mere political posturing. After all, we’ve yet to see substantive change delivered from all the lofty words we’ve heard.

But one thing is certain: it is always a healthy sign – at least for those looking for credible and forward-oriented change – when Mahathir seems to be genuinely unsettled and irked by something. For me, Mahathir’s (and for that matter Ibrahim Ali’s) bizarre outbursts about the government – much like these about the NEM – is akin to a lost ship seeing a bright star in the distant sky: something from which to take hope that indeed there is a chance the ship may yet get on the right course.

But could Najib actually be so bold as to take the ship where, to date, no captain of UMNO has dared venture?

G. Krishnan

* This article first appeared in FreeMalaysiaToday.com

NEM: It’s getting hot in the kitchen

2010-08-15T08:58:00.003+08:00

Reading the tea leaves from the past few days has to lead one to no other possible conclusion but that these are tough days for the prime minister when it comes to the economy.

With our growth rate for the next year expected to barely hover around five percent, which, to be fair in these lean times may not be all that bad, there is nonetheless growing apprehension in the prime minster’s circles that it is going to be increasingly difficult to hold the political dam if such lacklustre economic performance lingers on for the foreseeable short and medium term.

Indeed, gauging from the prime minister’s tone and message at the recent Chinese Economic Congress, it’s clear that the prime minister is feeling some of the heat building up in the economic kitchen. For one, the prime minister - who could have been forgiven for feeling he was not necessarily addressing a most enthusiastic and sympathetic audience – came with a rather benign and blend message about the imperatives of having a vibrant private sector to ensure the country’s drive toward being a high-income economy.

This is especially striking and telling considering that the backdrop to his address was already cast by the unambiguous position staked out by the MCA president and the prime minister's brother as well, regarding the need to revise the across the board 30% Bumiputera equity requirement, which of course, has become almost sacred to a significant element of the prime minister’s political base.

Whilst we can certainly expect the political dance and gamesmanship around this issue to continue right up until the prime minster lays out the specifics and details of his NEM, there is little doubt that the prime minister is feeling the heat from both sides of the divide on this issue.

You know Chua Soi Lek is politically going for the jugular on this issue when he resorts to quoting Confucius that, “Only the wisest and stupidest of men never change and for one to know what is right and not to do it, is the worst type of cowardice.” Knowing that MCA’s credibility among its base has grown increasingly soft means that Chua himself cannot afford to turn a blind eye to the issue.

Coupled with the pressure from the MCA and the wider populous calling for the dismantling of the NEP, it sure must have felt like poor timing (but could there ever be good timing for such a thing?), when your own blood adds to the heat building up in the kitchen by proclaiming that the very blueprint of the 30 percent Bumiputera equity quota itself has become “bastardised’. Following his own remarks at the Chinese Economic Congress, Nazir Abdul Razak is quoted as saying, "I have strong opinions about how the NEP has been bastardised over the years," and further added that, “it is so embedded in everything that we do - in every part of the government, in every part of businesses - that it has become a problem.

Whilst Nazir’s remarks may potentially serve as a small window into the prime minister’s eventual roadmap for revisiting and reforming that which has apparently become “bastardised,” these developments reveal precisely the delicacy of the situation confronting the prime minister.

Under these circumstances, one could understand the prime minister’s cautious tact at the Chinese Economic Congress. Yet, the optimists calling for a major overhaul of the NEP might be tempted to interpret the prime minister’s remarks as tacitly signalling to investors that the government is willing acknowledge – let along address the dilemma of – the white elephant in the kitchen (that is, the NEP), which remains a palpable hindrance to long-term and sustained private sector investment that the prime minster himself insists is imperative.

Further, those calling for an overhaul of the NEP have a real opportunity now – more than ever – to impress on the prime minister that sustained private sector investment in the economy is unlikely to be realised if we persist with ‘business as usual’ under the current highly problematic model.

Quite frankly, one would be hard-pressed to overestimate the desperation and urgency of the situation before the prime minister. Whilst his brother clearly seems forthcoming and unambiguous about the need to revisit critical elements of the NEP – and in the process ignore the extremists who remain wedded to the NEP - in order to put our economic house order, the fact remains that the extremists are prominently seated at the kitchen table.

So it remains to be seen if Najib does have it within him to deal with the necessary reforms – ones that will be consistent with his desire to sustain a vibrant private sector, or will the extremists run him out of the kitchen.

The proof will be in the pudding.

G. Krishnan

Triangulation

2010-08-10T16:26:00.000+08:00

Since its inception, Perkasa and the poster child for it, Ibrahim Ali, has been a political blessing - not so much for Pakatan Rakyat, as it has been for Umno.

This, of course, would not be the popular and prevailing view; but it is one that I find most compelling and politically critical.

Conventional wisdom would suggest that the highly public posturing and prancing by Ibrahim Ali and his ilk, whilst music to the ears of his parochial political base - one that incidentally is already well-rooted in the ultra-conservative wing of Umno - will merely stoke the flames of communalism and further alienate moderates across the electorate.

According to this line of thought, therefore, Perkasa can only be detrimental and adverse to the interests of Umno. Therefore, this conventional thinking would posit that Umno can least afford to further alienate moderates and non-Malays given that the political reality on the ground, so to speak, has arguably grown even more competitive since 2008.

Whilst there is something to be said about the aforementioned interpretation, there is in effect a deeper and more complex political dance unfolding since the arrival of Perkasa on the political scene.

This political dance is no doubt unfolding both within Umno and across the wider political spectrum. Perhaps the most vivid and colourful illustration of this is the apparent tension between the so-called “liberals” within Umno (exemplified by Khairy and his bandwagon - those self-proclaimed Malay liberals) and the more conservative/ultra-nationalist who would be sympathetic and predisposed to the Perkasa mind-set.

But it is precisely this juxtapositioning that illustrates how the self-identified Umno moderates are attempting to triangulate – and in the process, re-capture the political middle-ground for Umno.

This process of triangulation by the moderates involves ultimately trying to situate themselves in-between the Perkasa-types on one extreme and the so-called turncoats – those accused of having betrayed the Malay race who reside in the opposition.

As a result, there could be no better development for the likes of Khairy and his ilk within Umno than to have Ibrahim Ali and Perkasa around as a political punching bag.

Permit me to explain.

One the one hand, the moderates within Umno are clearly trying to put some daylight – and distance - between them and the Perkasa-sympathisers. Indeed, Khairy has seemingly been revealing in the chances to take a swipe at Ibrahim Ali’s theatrics and rhetoric every chance he gets.

Far from simply being a clash of two personalities, this high profile drama encapsulates the essence of this strategy by Khairy and other self-professed moderates to embellish their reputation – and by extension that of Umno as a party committed to a balanced approach to the preservation of Malay superiority.

Hence, they hope to reinvigorate the Malay base through their apparent “moderate” outlook relative to Perkasa and the ultra-conservatives. (Incidentally, the moderates must also be betting on the fact that this will also not hurt Umno’s image in the eyes of non-Malay Barisan Nasional sympathisers.)

Of course, this “moderate” outlook is one that does not involve abandoning the core ideology of Ketuanan Melayu; on the contrary – instead it presents itself as a benign purveyor and protector of that agenda.

In this scenario, Perkasa essentially becomes the face of “militant” Malay nationalism that the moderates look to be standing up against, whilst still being able to lay claim to the mantle of preservers of Malay superiority.

To take on Ibrahim Ali is to attend to and keep intact one major part of the triangulation strategy.

On the other hand, these self-proclaimed moderates are of course equally sensitive about distinguishing themselves from the “traitors” in the opposition who have betrayed the Malay race. Hence, Anwar – as the poster child of those afflicted by this corrosive debasement has been repeatedly portrayed as having gone to the dark side.

Whether it’s the allegation of being an American agent or for cozying up to Jewish interests, the repeated demonization of Anwar by Umno continues to enable them to co-opt key elements of the tone and rhetoric of the Perkasa sympathisers, whilst still distinguishing themselves from the crassness and crudity associated with Perkasa; thus, being sensitive to the need to preserve a moderate face for Umno.

Of course, every now and then, the moderates find themselves in a dilemma and in the unenviable position of reconciling their moderate face with the crass ultra-nationalism of the extremists. But that, precisely, is part of this triangulation political dance that the moderates continue to have to sustain.

Hence, whilst the attacks on Anwar and his comrades continues full throttle, having Perkasa around, and even publicly quibbling against that entity, feeds into Umno’s strategy to re-capture its “moderate” image.

There is a saying that the worst thing one can do to arouse extremists and “militants” is to engage them; doing so simply animates them even more.

The strategy within the dominant camp in Umno to engage with Ibrahim Ali in the most public and highly visible ways is abundant evidence that they fully understand the political value of such public friction and tussling with Ibrahim Ali. Key elements within Umno no doubt fully appreciate the benefits of keeping Perkasa aroused rather than ignoring them.

In this scenario, it would be naïve and simplistic indeed if we were to simply consider Perkasa – and Ibrahim Ali – as a thorn or a liability to Umno.

Far from it – Ibrahim Ali may yet unwittingly turn out to be exactly what helps Umno preserve its claim as the only entity capable of keeping the extremists in check whilst also preserving Malay superiority from being watered down by those in the opposition who are routinely accused of having betrayed the Malay race.

Along with having Anwar around to demonise, publicly taking on Ibrahim Ali represents the other critical piece to Umno’s triangulation strategy.

Therefore, far from being a liability, Perkasa is in fact critical to Umno's survival.

G. Krishnan

Judicial Capitulation

2010-08-06T10:59:00.000+08:00

Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah recently hurled a potent yet distressing contention that we have become “a sick country” as a result of being fractured and divided along communal lines.

Merely days later, we get another unambiguous and ominous illustration of precisely how desperately the country’s health is deteriorating. Judicial Commissioner Yaakob Sam declared that Banggarma, a 28-year-old ‘Hindu’ mother, is officially a ‘Muslim’ – and not as she herself insists, a Hindu.

According to Yaakob Sam, the document verifying Banggarma’s status, who was a Hindu, that she was converted to Islam – at the age of eight, and while in an orphanage – is indeed valid to substantiate the fact that she is a Muslim.

This, of course, despite her adamant insistence – and what any reasonable person ought to be able to infer – that as an abandoned eight-year old in an orphanage, she could not and should not be deemed as having been competent to have made such a decision voluntarily.

To add salt to the wound, Yaakob Sam’s so-called civil judgment also asserts that Banggarma’s dispute about her forced conversion ought to be taken up by the Syariah court.

Herein lies the absurdity of our judiciary. These and other such cases revolving around disputes about individuals’ religious status is precisely how our secular courts have capitulated on their constitutional responsibility and mandate.

If indeed Banggarma insists that she is not a Muslim – and never has been a practicing one – despite what the conversion papers claim, where and what is the legal basis for transferring jurisdiction of the case to the Syariah court?

Further, if by her insistence, she is not a Muslim, is it not the case then that our civil courts have in fact failed in protecting her from being subjected to a religious court she does not believe in – and one that ought not to have jurisdiction and authority to adjudicate on her matter?

Even more perplexing is the absurdity of the civil court’s capacity to affirm based on the conversion papers – the very documents which Banggarma is claiming are invalid given the age and circumstances under which she was apparently converted – that she is a Muslim.

If indeed there is a huge cloud over the circumstances surrounding her conversion when she was eight years old, the civil courts should be responsible and minimally judicious by thoroughly examining and resolving any dispute surrounding the circumstances of someone who was clearly not a Muslim prior to the disputed conversion.

This should be the bare minimum a civil court ought to be expected to resolve before reverting and subjecting someone to a religious court. Yet, Yaakob Sam seems to have been unconcerned about the critical and central issue of the child’s status and conditions under which she was converted back in 1988 – a perfectly legitimate concern of the civil courts to examine and resolve. Instead, the commissioner chose to simply take the documents of conversion at face value and declare that based on the claims in the conversion papers, she is a Muslim.

The implications of such judgments ought to be chilling – that is, if you care about whatever credibility there may be left in our civil judicial system. Rather than keeping the lines between the civil and Shyriah courts clear, decisions such as these in fact deprive individuals, and especially children, who have been potentially victimised from receiving adequate and proper consideration in the civil courts.

For all practical purposes, in rendering this decision, the court has refused to exert its proper and constitutional role in protecting those – and especially the most vulnerable in our society - who might have been discriminated against on the basis of religion.

Imagine the absurdity of this legal situation where the civil court is asserting that it has no jurisdiction in deliberating the merits and the circumstances surrounding Banggarma’s conversion, but it is nonetheless exercising judicial authority in affirming that she is a bona fide Muslim.

Through such a ruling, it has as a matter of fact, exercised authority on a religious matter and yet at the same time ignored its responsibility and duty to exercise judicial due process over a civil matter of potential discrimination.

The least the court owes us all – and Banggarma - is the opportunity to explore and adjudicate on the merits of the claims of alleged victimisation and discrimination.

The persistence of such judicial posture, or more precisely, the lack thereof, further compounds the rapidly diminishing faith and confidence of the common person in the credibility of the civil courts. We’re left to ponder if such persistent capitulation and, for all practical purposes, emasculation of the civil court vis-a-vis the Shyriah court isn’t ultimately a sad commentary of the erosion of our civil rights.

But such are the realities and ailments of our judiciary.

G. Krishnan

'A Sick Country'*

2010-08-01T17:19:00.004+08:00

Recently, Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah boldly stated that “our race-based party system is the key political reason why we are a sick country.”

I couldn’t agree more. And I have a strong feeling that more of us from all walks of life than ever before find ourselves agreeing with the above sentiment.

Ku Li’s recent address to the 4th Annual Malaysian Student Leaders Summit should give us further cause for concern and reflection. However, we need to go beyond reflection and heed his admonition that it is indeed “time to wake up.”

Quite frankly, most of what Ku Li had to impart to the students was refreshing and, from my vantage point, most necessary. For this, he ought to be commended.

Far from mincing his words and delivering stale and old Soviet-style sounding party propaganda, which we have been subjected to by Umno operatives and ideologues through the years, Ku Li did himself (and the country) a huge favour by delivering strong words about the government’s direct hand in fragmenting and dividing us, whilst overseeing the decline of our national stature in various facets domestically and internationally.

Perhaps more impressively, he delivered his message with genuine statesman-like credibility and dignity – more than one can say about his contemporaries and successors in Umno and Barisan Nasional.

Trapped in the contradiction
Ku Li, understandably, has a deep reverence for the historic legacy of Umno. It is hard not to admire his passion and commitment for legacy and vision of Tunku Abdul Rahman and Onn Jaafar.

Tragically, it is also at this intersection – between his passion for the vision of Tunku and the machinery that Umno has become - that Ku Li seems to stumble.

Contradictorily, Ku Li seems weeded to an Umno that has, for all practical purposes (as he himself has conceded), buried Tunku’s vision. Indeed, few (including Ku Li) would deny that Umno has threaded so far away from Tunku’s vision of a progressive, moderate, and inclusive Malaysia that it has practically abandoned that dream.

Despite all the private and public calls for Ku Li to continue to help shape the country in Tunku’s vision, he nevertheless seems unconvinced that abandoning Umno and BN is the only real way for him to continue to salvage any modicum of hope for that progressive vision.

Indeed, millions of Malaysians who share his commitment for getting back on the right path yearn for him to be a part of that very process.

But alas, Ku Li seems mired and trapped in the contradiction between the Umno of today and Tunku’s vision. Consider the following.

Ku Li says, “Today we are no longer as united as we were then. We are also less free. I don’t think this is a coincidence. It takes free people to have the psychological strength to overcome the confines of a racialised worldview. It takes free people to overcome those politicians bent on hanging on to power gained by racialising every feature of our life…”

Yet, he seems to believe that the way out of this perilous dilemma of a racialised Malaysia is to make BN into a multiracial party.

And this is precisely where, unfortunately, the faultiness of Ku Li's proposal becomes exposed.

To “convert BN into a party open to all citizens” requires, as Ku Li is well aware, for Umno to be capable and willing to set itself on an equal footing with the other subservient parties within BN. More importantly, it requires a leadership within Umno capable of – let alone willing to lead – for such a vision.

Surely, Ku Li can appreciate that the embedded and deeply cemented interests within Umno renders it incapable of such a radical departure from what it has – through a decades-long process of systematic racialisation – become.

Ku Li should also wake up now
Indeed, rather than expecting Umno/BN to set the trend in dismantling the race-based political party structure and system, he stands a better chance of accomplishing this outside of the current BN framework and vested interests.

Despite accusations to the contrary, two of the three major parties currently in the Pakatan Rakyat coalition are explicitly and institutionally non-race-based parties. Indeed, the same can be said of PAS.

The DAP, PAS and PKR are, despite relative racial homogeneity, not by design race-based parties. The same, of course, cannot be said of Umno, MCA, and MIC. So whilst the Pakatan aligned parties could arguably do more to promote greater racial diversity within their respective parties – they are not by constitution or mandate race-based parties.

In fact, to be race-based is in the political DNA of the BN parties. He knows all too well how Umno and BN’s cancerous DNA progressively became malignant and regressed into making us “a sick country.”

Therefore, while Umno/BN are steeped in a “racialised worldview”, on the other hand, nothing about each of the parties within Pakatan makes them prisoners to the political cancer that afflicts BN.

By this measure, Pakatan is arguably already one major step ahead of BN in fostering a non-racialised worldview. To be sure, I personally would welcome the day when Pakatan can be a stand-alone party, rather than a coalition of three major non-race-based political parties.

Perhaps Ku Li could come around to recognise that the vision that he so passionately adheres to – and the antidote to the political cancer he so aptly diagnosed - is already germinating outside of BN.

In his clarion call to his hosts at the Student Leaders Summit, Ku Li stated that the “waking up can begin…not tomorrow or the day after but today.”

Alas, if only Ku Li himself could see just how much more he can still do to shape the life of this nation, by waking up now – not tomorrow or the day after – to the reality that the roadmap to the Malaysia he envisions is being spearheaded by those already practicing (however imperfectly) a non-racialised worldview.

G. Krishnan

* This commentary first appeared in Free Malaysia Today

Tackling Homophobia

2010-07-31T11:46:00.000+08:00

In a dramatic change in tide, Argentina has passed a law legalizing gay marriages. With a predominantly Catholic population, Argentina has become a notable addition to a growing list of countries with a strong Catholic influence beginning to reverse the trend of longstanding discrimination against homosexuals.

While Spain had legalized gay marriage back in 2005, Portugal followed suite this year and also legalized gay marriages. Both countries, with populations deeply steeped in Catholicism, seemed to have reached a stage to realise the inherent inhumanity of discriminating against others for their consensual private concerns.

In fact there is a growing global trend to recognize the inherent rights of homosexuals and to remove centuries of prejudice, the convenient scapegoating of homosexuals, and of consensual homosexual activity.

In a growing number of predominantly Catholic countries such as Spain, Portugal, and Argentina, it appears that the Catholic Church has already lost this political battle and seems no longer able to dictate the kind of political prowess to prevent the removal of discriminatory practices and suppression of the rights of homosexuals.

It appears that other countries in South America and elsewhere are also exploring the idea of lifting the ban on gay marriages.

Of course the on-going Sodomy II saga here in Malaysia is not just a reminder of the political theatre that continues to unfold, Section 377b of the Penal Code, under which Anwar has been charged and is being tried, also serves to starkly reinforce the taboo of homosexuality that prevails here.

Perhaps the tide that is changing the outlook and perspective in many Catholic countries will be a good omen for other countries – and foretells of an impending eventuality. Having said that, I for one am not optimistic that we Malaysians are particularly bothered that such laws, which quite obviously and explicitly target a specific segment of the population, continue to persist.

There are few politicians indeed who have had the fortitude to speak out publicly against the inherent bigotry that such laws perpetuate. Yet, in all the outcry against the selective persecution of Anwar, there have been few, if any, prominent voices who have dared to bring attention to the fact that, as with other racially, politically, religiously, or gender discriminatory laws, we need to also take a close look at reversing laws and practices that legitimatise such bigotry against homosexuals.

In 2008, over sixty member states of the United Nations backed a non-binding resolution calling for the decriminalization of homosexuality. Not surprisingly, we – along with most African and Asian nations were not on the enlightened side of this resolution.

Sadly, discrimination against homosexuals remains the norm rather than the exception in most parts of the world.

Those who choose to wallow in their prejudice against homosexuals have no shortage of excuses and justifications. Even now, it is not uncommon to hear many simplistic and ignorant claims, for example, linking homosexuality to AIDS. Again, Africa presents a rather vivid reminder to us all that when it comes to AIDS, homosexuality is actually a red herring. AIDS seems most devastating and widespread in this part of the world where homophobia is rampant and in most of the countries which impose severe punishment against homosexuality.

Indeed, as has been widely reported both by the World Health Organisation and other credible international organisations, heterosexuals have been most responsible for the spread of AIDS in Africa and elsewhere primarily through unsafe sexual practices.

Aside from the “health” argument, others of course are quick to invoke the religious basis for the persecution of homosexuals. Of course, truth be told, religious arguments have also been - and continue to be - widely and conveniently used to justify so-called honour killings in many parts of Asia and elsewhere, to justify discrimination against women in education (think the Taliban), to commit genital mutilation (some would call it torture) against girls, and other atrocities.

In other words, religious justifications – as we’ve seen even through the actions of the Catholic Church – have been used to justify all sorts of tragic events, including, by the way, the Crusades!

My point simply is that, while religious arguments against homosexuality (or other prejudices) are often invoked by many to justify their actions, these are not necessarily without ambiguity, fallacies, or contradictions.

As surely as the nation will continue to indulge in the political circus that is the persecution of Anwar, perhaps some of us will consider and ponder the wider symbolism of such political persecution.

Ultimately, as with any form of selective persecution, the persecution of homosexuals, speaks volumes about the moral decay not of the persecuted, but rather of the persecutors.

G. Krishnan

Misplaced Religiosity?

2010-07-30T12:45:00.007+08:00

Religion has occupied a rather prominent, and sometimes controversial place in our society’s landscape. Most of us, whatever our religious preference, do tend to show goodwill and have a generous regard for those whose religious orientation may be different from ours.

Sure, there are those individuals and, needless to say, government policies that undermine our widely held believe in the principle of freedom of religion. Yet, for the most part (and the religious bigots notwithstanding), we have had a fairly healthy tradition of coexisting.

In this climate of relative religious coexistence (but also some uneasiness), however, we have come to witness a creeping – and now seemingly pervasive – tendency for many of our politicians and public figures to often invoke a religious prayer or greeting before addressing an audience, a gathering, initiating a meeting, or even making a presentation – all of which happen to be non-religious events.

This has been increasing the case - irrespective of the religion concerned. It could be a Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikhs, Taoist, Bahia, or anyone else. On one level, this seems rather harmless. I can imagine those who might be inclined to feel this way. But perhaps we ought to pause and consider, more thoughtfully, the implications of such public practices. Now I am sure there are some who might already be sensing that here come some atheist ideas thinly disguised to corrupt us from our pious ways.

Well, let me assuage those suspicions by explicitly stating that I have nothing against any religion. But be as it may, this is quite beside the point. Whether one is religious or not, a believer or not, is really irrelevant here.

What is relevant is that we be thoughtful about the implications of bringing any religion – even when it seems so mundane – into our non-religious public functions.

What does it say about us as individuals to invoke our respective god in a non-religious public event? Why is it necessary? Has doing so really helped improve our ability to respect each other as fellow Malaysians? Has doing so made our politicians more virtuous, less corrupt than they might otherwise be, or improved their ability to function more effectively for our greater good?

More importantly, perhaps we should ask, is it right and is it good, for these public figures – of whatever religious persuasion – to began a particular secular event or meeting with a religious invocation?

For the sake of discussion, should we not pause to consider if such invocations might in fact be more divisive – by further accentuating our religious differences (especially at a non-religious event, forum, or gathering), rather than what ought to be: to keep religion as a personal matter – and distinct from our “common” and collective (public) affairs – irrespective of religion.

As a nation aspiring to be so-called 1Malaysia, we, and especially many of our politicians, sure seem to already have numerous ways to repeatedly divide ourselves. Does such religious exhibitionism in non-religious functions, gatherings, and events actually add to bridging our divide as a people?

Does it really make the truly religious people any less religious if they dropped these religious invocations at non-religious gatherings? Will God love them any less for doing so? I wonder.

Of course, public expression and demonstration of one’s faith ought to be respected. Aside from publicly and openly celebrating religious holidays and festivals, many may also like to adorn their cars, vans, or lorries with religious signs.

Others choose to publicly wear clothing with religious symbols and expressions. Again, I personally don’t care to indulge in such religious chauvinism, but it’s a personal thing – and to each his own. But do our non-religious public events and gatherings need to have religion infused into it?

God knows we may just go much further than we have toward being a stronger nation.

G. Krishnan

A Devilish Viewpoint

2010-07-23T13:21:00.001+08:00

Are you a worshiper of the Devils? Well, if not a worshiper, perhaps an enthusiast, or even a fanatical follower?

So that you’re not confused, I should be explicit that the Devils I’m referring to in this case are the Red Devils of Manchester United.

You see – as a die-hard Liverpool fan, I certainly cannot be accused of having any soft spot for the Red Devils. But I have no problem with those who are drawn to them. After all, some of my own family members and closest friends are enchanted by the Red Devils. My motto has always been: to each his own.

But apparently my Muslims friends who are admirers of the Red Devils will have to watch out lest they get accused of worshiping an outfit that touts the image of the devil on its emblem, and thus for indulging in what could be deemed as “un-Islamic.”

At least this is what we’re reported to discern from so-called clerics such as Nooh Gadot and Harussani Zakaria.

The Red Devils aside, apparently these clerics are also of the view that Muslims ought to refrain from identifying with or donning the football jerseys of teams such as Brazil, Portugal, Barcelona, Serbia and Norway as they have images of the cross – a symbol of Christianity - on their emblem.

What a predicament indeed.

Coming across this news report reminded me the fatwa that was apparently proclaimed against by the National Fatwa Council in 2008 calling for a ban on yoga for Muslims.

While the public furor that yoga episode created led to the council apparently retreating on its professed objection of yoga, this latest revelation of certain clerics’ views certainly suggest that there are enough so-called religious scholars out there who seem to have a keen eye and concern for truly corrupting influences.

As a matter of fact, following the ‘fatwa on yoga’ fiasco, I wrote a column suggesting that perhaps these religious scholars might want to consider a ban of football itself. The following is an excerpt of my reasoning for why these so-called religious scholars out to consider banning football:

Well, why not? If the National Fatwa Council is presumably on the verge of banning yoga because its origins are non-Islamic and foreign to Muslim teachings, it seems to me we ought to also be considering a fatwa on all forms of indulgence in football.

Football, particularly the organised form of the game, has its origins in the West – the heart of the infidel world! Indeed, the sport is something deeply embedded in the culture of these infidels. It is associated with, for those who passionately follow the sport, indulgence in excessive exuberance and cult like fanaticism. Its enthusiasts are often prone to engage in vices like excessive alcohol consumption, gambling, and even hooliganism.

Seems like a perfectly legitimate point, does it not? Well, at least if you subscribe to the logic of these clerics. But alas, that didn’t seem forthcoming and no such ban ever came about.

But not even two years removed, some clerics did after all pick up on the corrupting influences within football – only not as I had thought they should – considering their peculiar logic.

Instead of a ban on football itself, it seems as if learned clerics such as Nooh Gadot and Harussani Zakaria are more concerned about emblems on jerseys or the flags of certain countries.

By the way, I wonder just how, according to these learned clerics, Muslim citizens of Brazil, Portugal, Serbia, Norway and such countries ought to regard their national flag? Hold it in reverence? Or perhaps they ought to shun it. But I digress….

It is a wonder to me that given all the ways in which religious figures can be a positive influence on shaping our lives, some of these characters nevertheless seem to have a special capacity to truly…uhmm.. astound and astonish.

Back to the issue of the devil, as much as I would like to see the Red Devils perish, I do sympathize with my Muslim brothers and sisters who are passionate about – and proud to wear the emblem of - Manchester United.

As they say in the red half of Liverpool, You’ll Never Walk Alone.

G. Krishnan

Is Syria Anti-Muslims?

2010-07-20T13:21:00.000+08:00

Following the French government’s effort to ban the niqab and burka in public premises, it must come as particularly surprising to many that Syria appears to be following in the footsteps of France (and Turkey) by restricting the use of the niqab.

Based on recent reports in the international media, it appears that “Syria has forbidden the country's students and teachers from wearing the niqab”.

The Syrian government, grounded in secularism, seems intent on keeping what it sees as “extremism” in check. Perhaps not so ironically, we have not heard much of an outcry against Syria from religious zealots and various misguided liberals, as we did when this issue in the French context first became widely publicised.

I am curious if the religious zealots and even pseudo-liberals will also jump on the case of the Syrian government and accuse it of being anti-Islamic. Perhaps the pseudo-liberals and religious extremists do believe that Syria, whose population is well over 85 percent Muslim, has a government that is anti-Muslim?

If I were a betting person, however, I would bet that we won’t find a hue and cry in the Islamic world about Syria’s recent action to ban the niqab and burka as we did when the topic happen to make the headlines in the case of France.

It is understandable that religious zealots would invariably have an issue with secular principles. However, it is deeply disappointing indeed when so-called liberals jump on the same bandwagon with religious bigots to condemn secular governments such as France when it seeks to elevate and preserve secularism.

It seems that pseudo-liberals have a problem when a secular country such as France seeks to preserve its identity as a secular nation, but become tongue-tied when predominantly Muslim countries such as Syria or Turkey act in a similar vein to affirm their commitment to secularism.

Too many liberals are quick to latch on to simplistic claims about xenophobia, anti-Islamism, and such without appreciating the more subtle and nuanced elements of such means to preserve the distinction between religion and a secular system of governance.

We’ve seen all too well what tends to happen when a secular government begins to indulge - and then over-indulges – religion, and especially self-professed religious experts.

Despite all its flaws and shortcomings, hats off to the Syrian government – a member of the Organisation of Islamic Conference - for understanding the need to preserve religion in the private sphere.

G. Krishnan

Fascism: Zaid’s Stinging Zinger

2010-07-06T11:49:00.000+08:00

Zaid Ibrahim was recently quoted as describing Malaysia at risk of becoming a fascist state. Perhaps you too came across the report about his remarks? Well just in case you missed it, he is quoted to have said, “The medication now being pumped into the sick body of this nation is fascism... fascism has a penchant for abusing religious or ethnic identities, where they are moulded into a culture of supremacism.”

Well, I for one was struck by his words. “Is he being hyperbolic?” I wondered. Could it be, that we’re at risk of degenerating into a fascist state? After all, when we think of fascism, we typically think of Nazi Germany or Mussolini’s Italy. Surely, Malaysia could not be approaching anything resembling these two notorious standouts of fascism.

That got me wondering, but what exactly makes a particular government a fascist regime? So I decided to look into it. Well, I came across a very enlightening article by Laurence Britt who has actually thoughtfully spelled out 14 key characteristics that identify a fascist state.

Whilst you can surely look up what he has to say, I thought I would list them here. As you scroll down the list, you might find it interesting (and eery?) to note how our government’s policies, actions, and modus operandi are spot and correspond with Britt’s 14 characteristics of fascism. Here is Britt's list:

1. Powerful and continuing expression of nationalism. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity…usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.”

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

Was Zaid on to something when he equated the Malaysian government with fascism?

You be the judge.

G. Krishnan

Umno's Pisang Goreng

2010-07-05T12:52:00.000+08:00

I cannot help but be struck by the farcical excuse now being given for not having the MACC investigators go to London to pursue leads in what is obviously a highly delicate case that continues to grip the country. Contrast this to the actions of Joseph Breham and the French investigation team that came all the way here to investigate the Scorpene scandal.

Profoundly telling, isn’t it, just how our MACC and the police has once again undermined its own credibility in the handling of a high profile scandal? Surely, the presence of the French investigation team here looking into the Scorpene case provides a vivid reminder of just how much our anti-corruption agency leaves to be desired.

Such are the ‘virtues’ of the Umno regime. For over two years now, its leadership has repeatedly bombarded us about the need for reform. We routinely hear about how Umno has to change; overcoming corruption, money-politics, complacency, and such must be foremost in reinventing and sanitising the image of Umno.

Of course, never articulated is what exactly has to change and happen. And beyond that, it leaves one wondering that if reforms are necessary, surely that means there are things that the government is clearly currently failing at. How often in the last two years have we heard the Umno brass say that Umno and Barisan Nasional must deal with shortcomings in its approach to governance? Why is it, then, that nobody in Umno and the government is held accountable for these failures?

One has to wonder, is this the face of a government committed to leaving no stone unturned to correct failed policies and one also committed to getting to the bottom of the various scandals, including the P.I. Bala affair?

Why is it that, Bala aside, we have not heard of the MACC investigating any of the others implicated in the alleged concoction of the second statutory declaration by Bala? Surely these various individuals also have not conveniently left the country for the MACC to bother with pursuing the investigation?

It seems many of our politicians continue to treat us the public with contempt. As I’ve said before in another context, it sure feels as if Umno is feeding us lots of pisang goreng that looks appetising, but is in fact made from rotten bananas. It is difficult to draw any other reasonable conclusion.

When Joseph Breham and his team arrived to look into the allegations of corruption associated with the sale of the submarines, our government, rather than being forthcoming seemed more intent on political posturing and dismissive of the investigation protocol.

So much for Umno reforming its old ways.

Indeed, it doesn’t take much to see that on several fronts, Umno’s rhetoric and actions do not add up at all, and this is especially so when it comes to getting to the bottom of other scandals, including the Bala affair.

The fact is, whichever government or Umno scandal it may be, we see more stonewalling and dismissive declarations by Umno’s politicians than diligence and independence from the investigative bodies concerned.

But alas, when it needs to pursue frivolous sedition charges against a political foe, or to tie down the opposition leader in a legal tangle, the police and other investigative bodies can somehow suddenly operate at miraculous speed and efficiency.

And if the above is not enough, we can always expect Umno, as we have seen most recently again, to trumpet the rhetoric of Malay rights – and yes, the fear mongering of how Anwar Ibrahim is a threat to Malay unity.

Is it any wonder then, that the public has grown cynical and sceptical about this government?

Despite all the promises to bear better fruit, the Umno banana tree has been diseased for a long time and only produces rotten bananas. It is as true today as it has ever been for several decades, that the so-called guardian of uplifting the common Malay person and supposed protector of plural Malaysia is anything but that.

I am again reminded of the proverb that: jika batang mati, munkin cendawan tumbuh (where there is a dead branch, there’s bound to be fungus.)

Surely, you still don’t think it’s possible to get tasty pisang goreng from rotten bananas?

G. Krishnan

Courting International Credibility

2010-07-02T20:16:00.000+08:00

While trying to keep up his political momentum at home, Najib has been trying to also juggle the task of rebuilding his image on the international stage, especially vis-à-vis that of Anwar, who continues to enjoy the international image of both a moderate Muslim and an opposition figure who has been grievously wronged by two trials regarded overseas as trumped up in the attempt to drive him from politics or worse. And if recent events are any indication, as in the domestic controversies that have off-and-on gripped Najib’s government, Anwar is not likely to cede much ground on the international stage either.

Continued at: Asia Sentinel

A 'Malay Liberal'?

2010-06-29T14:11:00.001+08:00

Khairy Jamaluddin has recently drawn considerable attention (not to mention some public approval in some quarters) by presumably sticking his neck out, so to speak, in speaking out against Perkasa and Ibrahim Ali. Touting himself as a ‘reformist’ and a ‘Malay liberal’, he has seemingly set himself apart from the ultra-Malay nationalist mouth-piece, Ibrahim Ali.

This tension has evidently publicly set the two on a collision course, and some might even say helped Khairy - and some factions within Umno - to patch up the credibility holes within Umno that continue to be the source of erosion in the younger voters’ support for Umno.

Whilst I don’t deny that there is some clear underlying political agenda in the Umno Youth leaders attempts to accentuate the apparent schism between himself and the thrust of what Ibrahim Ali embodies, I for one find it utterly amusing that Khairy and his ilk within Umno are invoking the label of ‘Malay liberal’ to distinguish themselves from the ultra-Malay chauvinists.

Malay liberal? Now there’s an oxymoron if I ever heard of one. I suppose one has to credit the politician who can invoke such absurd terms and not only get away with it, but actually even garner praise from some quarters in the process. I for one am utterly amused by this convenient twist and spin being deployed, and am at the same time struck by how easily the so-called ‘Malay liberals’ within Umno are getting away with such word-games.

It appears those who are self-defining and also buying onto this word-game have conveniently forgotten or cannot be bother with what it means to be a liberal. Regardless of all the possible permutations of liberals, one thing is certain: one cannot claim to be a liberal and also advocate the kind of race-based politics that is Umno’s bread-and-butter.

Besides, I may be naïve but I remain befuddled about what exactly is a ‘Malay liberal’? If there can be a ‘Malay liberal’ could there also be ‘Chinese liberals’ and ‘Bugis liberals’ or ‘Iban liberals’? And how are these supposedly different from a mere, plain, simple ‘liberal’?

The first principle of being a liberal is a commitment to and respect for the equality of all – regardless of race, religion, sex, or other social markers. This is the most elementary prerequisite of being a liberal. It should be obvious that any card-carrying member of Umno by definition fails this basic prerequisite of being a liberal.

Imagine then, the absurdity of manufacturing and invoking a term such as a “Malay liberal”. You see for this reason, whilst I may find Ibrahim Ali’s rhetoric and demagoguery repulsive, I really don’t think there is much difference between a so-called ‘Malay liberal’ and an ultra-nationalist Malay such as Ibrahim Ali.

One can be a liberal or not. One cannot be a liberal grounded in a race-based political party perpetuating a racist system.

G. Krishnan

Making Merry in Maghreb

2010-06-18T11:17:00.000+08:00

Earlier this month the city of Fes in Morocco hosted its 16^th Annual Festival of World Sacred Music. Yes, you read that correctly – World Sacred Music. I know some of you must be wondering: could a Muslim country actually allow such a thing as a sacred music festival to be held?

Oh, yes. Not only has the city of Fes been hosting this festival for all these years, you will find a fascinating mixture and range of music genre from a variety of religious and sacred traditions performed during this festival that goes on for about a week.

This celebration of sacred music brings together under one festive roof artists such as Parvathy Baul from India and Epi from Mongolia. Also gracing the festival was the SamulNori Hanullim Ensemble from South Korea, Pandit Hariprasad Chaurasia from India, American Gospel singers, Sufi singers from Morocco and North Africa, and the Baghdad-Jerusalem Ensemble, with the latter performing music of the Jewish tradition of Baghdad.

I can’t help but contrast what this festival of sacred music in Morocco represents with the religious hang-ups we find in some quarters in this country. Now you would think given how our religious Gestapo acts in this country, that it would just be anathema for Muslims to listen to, let alone collaborate in performing sacred music from other religious traditions. After all, remember the fit some of these supposedly religiously self-righteous people had about yoga?

I wonder what JAWI and the various states’ religious police would have to say about such a festival of the world’s sacred music hosted here. You don’t suppose JAWI would view favourably such a cultural event to celebrate the different sacred traditions of the world, do you?

The openness for Muslims in Morocco to be able to openly celebrate sacred music from different religious traditions sure does put into perspective the fact that we have a deep paranoia about inter-faith celebration in this country – and we could learn a whole lot about religious coexistence from the Moroccans and especially the Sufi-Muslims.

G. Krishnan

You Can Bet On It

2010-06-14T08:07:00.003+08:00

Whatever your personal and partisan politics may be about the gambling controversy, I am reminded once again, as the World Cup is well underway, that whether you gamble on sports or not, we as a nation are once again reduced to being on the sidelines of a world sporting extravaganza. To be more precise, we’re again in the audience looking in on a major team sport on the world stage.

Sure, some of us are in favour of gambling on such occasions and some not. Either way, the glaringly obvious fact is that as a nation we continue to fail at getting on to the international stage in a major team sport.

As a football fan, I’ve wondered why is it that we’ve failed so miserably at building a formidable football squad that has any international repute? Indeed, it’s obvious that the same also happens to be the case in hockey and several other team sports. Ever wonder why that is? Football and hockey, however, as two prominent team sports, stand out in particular. If we look into our early achievements in these team sports, we were actually reasonably good on the international stage.

If you pay any attention to what the old-timers say, they’re always quick to reminisce about the glory days of the country’s football team. Apparently, we were right there among the best in East Asia, and competitive among the elite football teams in Asia. Whenever we competed, we were often shoulder-to-shoulder with the likes of Japan and South Korea; teams that regularly participated in the Merdeka tournament.

As I understand it, we had some amazing players on the national football team back then. Names that we have come to know as legendary in the folklore of Malaysian football. It seems as if by the early 1980s, as the Mahathir reign started to exert its grip on the country, football – and even other team sports became increasingly politicized. That was the beginning of the end. Ever since then, it’s been a steady downhill slide for these team sports in our country. Indeed, the peak of our hockey glory was of course the 1975 World Cup semi-final.

While other countries, including Japan and South Korea, have gone on to become Asian powers in football and are again playing in the World Cup, our days as a formidable force even in Southeast Asia is highly questionable and dubious. Indeed, it’s gotten so bad that frankly, it’s painful to watch the team play.

Politics in these sports – especially in the appointment of key personnel and staff and especially in the selection of players - quickly resembled the politics in wider society. Just as the presence of non-Malays in government positions and government universities became less visible, their representation on the playing field of these sports also strangely and miraculously withered away.

What a coincidence, that highly qualified non-Malays not only became squeezed out of entrance to universities, government scholarships and jobs, they were also less likely to be selected to the national teams of football and hockey starting around this time. And, as I said, the early 1980s was also the time that we started to slide downhill in these sports.

Now just contrast the dismal state of our team sports such as football and hockey with the state of our competitors in individual sports, such as badminton and squash. Here, you see, individual ability, after all, cannot be disguised – as you can with selecting a hockey or football team. Who must we choose to represent us for the Thomas Cup? Surely it has to be the best individual players in the country. How do we know who is best? Well, surely the players who do best in the singles matches like the Malaysian Open or the doubles pair that do best in international tournaments are the best in our country.

While our Umnoputeras could make sure that, like in the case of entrance to the university, we could still keep out the best and select the mediocre, can you imagine our national image in the international community if our best singles (and doubles) players who win in individual international competitions were not selected to represent Malaysia?

Of course there are other individual sports, such as tennis or golf, which - it seems we don’t have such a long tradition of in this country and – we aren’t very prominent on the international stage. But where we do have individuals who represent the country, they happen to be the best individual players.

But that is not the case when it comes to team sports - thanks to Umno's not so subtle manipulation of politicising these popular team sports.

So the pattern is clear. Umnoputeras and Ketuanan Melayu ideology have not so coincidentally also destroyed national team sports. So after half a century of independence, we remain in the sidelines, for example, of the football World Cup even if as a nation we’ve always had a strong passion for the sport. On the other hand, even countries like Ghana, Ivory Coast, and Nigeria – countries comparable to us in age, and South Korea and Japan, against whom we used to be competitive – are playing among the world’s best in South Africa.

One thing you can bet on: these African countries playing in the World Cup did not select their teams based on racial politics, ideology or the heritage of the players.

G. Krishnan

3 Idiots

2010-06-11T08:30:00.005+08:00

Apparently three idiots recently rudely stormed a meeting between some parents of quite possibly the most accomplished SPM students who, by the way, were denied government scholarships and some opposition MPs in parliament.

Most news reports of the incident suggest that the three who stormed the meeting to disrupt an otherwise perfectly civil gathering were Barisan Nasional MPs. How shocking! And here I was thinking such BN-type behaviour only happened out on the streets. You know, as in the kind of thing that happened to Allan Lim, the Selayang Councillor, when he was apparently attacked by a bunch of hoodlums in Batu Caves.

Now see, that would be quite consistent with the thug-mentality we often see prevail in may instances associated with you know which political camp. After all, we are accustomed to seeing that kind of Mat Rempit-like behaviour during by-elections, cow-head decapitating, hysterical street protests against Israeli, and such.

But for members of the public to be rudely harassed and racially insulted in the house of parliament - and that too whilst meeting privately with elected representatives to address their grievances? I suppose this is a good reminder that there is no way to know where such signature uncouth and crass behaviour from a particular camp will expose itself.

Apparently, one of the Barisan Nasional MPs made the following bigoted remark about the parents in the conference room: “Keling semua ini buat apa kat sini, bilik dah gelap ni, apa mereka mahu” (what are they doing here, the room has become dark, what do they want). So much for intelligent and constructive dialogue.

Reading about the above bigoted remark surprised me somewhat – only because apparently this was not accompanied by what we’ve come to expect from such characters, such as some hysterical kris-waving or perhaps the breaking of some wall pictures or the barking of profanities.

Given the darkness that is the empty space between the ears of these bigots, naturally they were also incapable of realizing that the average IQ in the room immediately plummeted to an embarrassingly low number when these bigots entered the room where the parents were gathered.

Imagine, these are the type of people we supposedly entrust to govern.

G. Krishnan

Anwar and Pakatan’s Tune on Israel

2010-06-09T12:50:00.002+08:00

Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional (especially Umno) have made a big production out of the recent flotilla issue involving Israel. In the aftermath of the violence that unfolded off in the Mediterranean, both political factions have attempted to play up the anti-Israeli rhetoric and to capitalise on the incident.

Naturally, much of the theatre that unfolded was catered for domestic consumption. Indeed, both camps seem to be falling over each other trying to make the most out of the Israeli government’s actions against the flotillas, and once again trying to score political points off of the Palestinian-Israeli stand-off.

Not wanting to be outdone by Barisan Nasional, Anwar Ibrahim, like a boxer trying to counter-punch his opponent, has been trying to keep the tussle with the prime minister going by levelling criticisms about the latter’s response to the Israeli. In many respects, I am rather disappointed by Anwar’s exhibitionism on this front. It is, to say the least, utterly disappointing.

It is not surprising to see Umno play up its anti-Israel and even anti-Semitic tendencies every chance it gets. There, after all, is a long legacy of doing just so in Umno. At times, this Umno-led anti-Semitic propaganda has served it well to galvanise support for the government against a far away villain that ultimately doesn’t represent a threat to Umno in any way whatsoever. On other occasions, the anti-Semitism serves to temporarily divert attention from Umno’s domestic troubles.

At the end of the day, it is the persistence of a political narrative which, inevitably, has as its central premise the demonization of Israel. In this case, the centre of the controversy stems from Israel’s blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza. Of course, the critics of the blockade do not appear to have made a big cry out about Egypt’s role in enforcing the blockade of Gaza. Yes, the same Egypt, which along with Turkey, is a member of the Organisation of Islamic Conference – to which the Palestinian Authority also belongs. Egypt too, in other words, has actively imposed a blockade on Hamas-controlled Gaza by closing the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt. Such are the realities of the region, not to mention the realities of supposed Arab brotherhood itself.

Let us just make note of the fact that the Israeli blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza would not, from the Israeli standpoint, be as effective if they were not being complemented by the contributions of the Egyptians - that is, the Palestinians’ fellow Arab brethrens. What, one has to wonder, could be the Egyptians’ motivation for aiding and abetting the Jewish state in its supposed efforts to punish the Hamas regime, which happens to be hell bent on the destruction of Israel?

This reality, of Arab complicity in the blockade of Gaza, sure is not a pretty picture of Arab brotherhood, is it? How exactly is it that Israel’s efforts to weed out and undermine a terrorist organisation such as Hamas seems to draw universal public condemnation from Pakatan Rakyat and Umno, but we never see the Umno Youth charging en masse to the American or Egyptian Embassy to protest Egypt’s complicity in the blockade and persecution of Palestinians?

More disturbing and disappointing actually, is the fact that while Anwar Ibrahim likes to tout himself as a moderate to his western friends, he is too quick to join in the anti-Israel and Jew-bashing orgy here at home. In this respect, Anwar Ibrahim unfortunately doesn’t set himself apart from Umno’s bigotry - he virtually embodies it.

Pakatan and Anwar Ibrahim, while unlikely to steer away from the Jew-bashing that goes on in our politics, could nevertheless take a different tact and potentially be a real source for bringing the public to a more constructive posture vis-à-vis Israel.

It seems convenient for our politicians to attack Israel’s blockade, as Turkey seems to be doing. Of course this is also the same Turkey that had its own blockade of Armenia during the Nagorno-Karabakh War. This is also the same Turkey that is deeply implicated in an Armenian genocide and the persecution of the Kurds. So, in our condemnation of Israel, we seem to also conveniently overlook the blood on the hands of our fellow anti-Israeli allies such as Turkey.

By the way, it is worth noting that many a victors happen to have justified annexing territory captured in war. Israel, however, despite having repelled its aggressors, has not claimed to annex and incorporate the West Bank and Gaza into the Israeli state. On the contrary, Israel has shown the desire to revert control of these territories to the Palestinians. It is for this reason that we saw the birth of the Palestinian Authority limited self-governance.

Therefore, even if Umno politicians can be expected to exploit the Israeli issue for domestic propaganda purposes as they have repeatedly done, there are arguably really good reasons for Anwar Ibrahim to take the high road and to make his reputation abroad as a moderate mesh with his rhetoric here at home.

When it comes to domestic politics, Anwar Ibrahim seems to think we voters are more mature than Umno tends to give us credit for. Perhaps it’s time he recognised that he can also apply the same premise to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If only he would be willing to see that he should also help bring PAS and others along and promote a more constructive approach toward Israel within Pakatan Rakyat, and the wider public instead of just doing what is simply politically expedient on the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

It’s about time Anwar Ibrahim and Pakatan Rakyat also realise that following in the footsteps of Umno in this respect and fanning the flames of Israel-bashing for political mileage is not doing us – and especially not the Palestinian cause - any favours.

G. Krishnan

That was 'no Love Boat'

2010-06-06T05:11:00.001+08:00

Some people say there's always two sides to a story. What we often forget is there is a tendency to put on huge blinders and ignore critical facts in any story.

If you consider some critical facts, which our mainstream media has conveniently ignored, perhaps you will understand that there was more to the violence that broke out on the flotilla off the coast of Israel than most of us are led to believe. Consider the following information: http://www.jpost.com/Home/Article.aspx?id=177286

History Repeats Itself

2010-06-05T13:52:00.001+08:00

You’ve heard of the expression, ‘history repeats itself.’ Surely you’ve also come across the term ‘déjà vu.’ There are quite a number of things and situations about Malaysian politics where both these expressions would very easily apply. I am sure if we were to compile a list, we would come up with a fascinating stack of examples. But I’m not about to do that. Instead, I am merely going to shed some more light on the absurdity that continues to prevail – and repeat itself - when it comes to our government’s allocation of seats for local universities and PSD scholarships.

Yet again, we have seen the government make a mockery of the issue of merit and achievement by denying highly qualified and otherwise deserving students a place in a local university. Of course, yet again, these are students who happen to be of the “wrong” race.

Each year, we undergo this same tragic episode of coming to terms with the blatant discrimination that continues to be practiced by the education ministry and each year we get the usual political dance playing itself out. I was stuck by the fact that the MIC vice-president S. Subramaniam had to yet again raise the matter of such blatant and systematic discrimination with the prime minister. And I suppose we are to feel assured and impressed by the fact that, according to Subramaniam, “The prime minister has given an undertaking to resolve the matter.”

Such is the travesty of our system – and of the ineptness of the MIC – that each year, like a well-timed and choreographed ritual, we have to go through this humiliation. Yes…the humiliation of seeing our (I mean Malaysian) youth having to go claw and scrape for a bit of fair treatment congruous with their merit and achievement. Nothing these students each year ask for happens to be unreasonable or out of line. They make their case because they have been, despite performing extremely well in the SPM exams, denied their just reward in the form of a scholarship or even entrance into a public university, merely because of the accident of race.

Tell me how this is not, in the most transparent and blatant way, racism.

Much like Samy Vellu used to do in the past, now we have Subramaniam to supposedly be impressed about. Isn’t it great that the MIC is in the forefront of taking this matter right to the top guy? What would we do without our MIC man at the table to raise this concern with prime minister himself? And surely you must be feeling good knowing that Subramaniam is “confident that an amicable solution could be negotiated with the government.”

This episode is precise the symptom of what is so wrong and so decadent about the MIC and its role as a subservient party to Umno. There may well be numerous more examples of just what the MIC’s stature is in Barisan Nasional, but there is no better illustration and reminder of this each year as we see it have to be humiliated yet again by having to undergo the “bowl in hand” and plead-to-the-master ritual.

Why is it that despite year after year of having heard the cries of parents and students, the MIC and Barisan Nasional cannot come up with a resolution to ensure that highly qualified and deserving students do not get stiffed simply because of who they are? (I’m sure you realise this is a rhetorical question.)

And so the saga continues…until next year – when we’ll be subjected to yet another installment of this episode of discrimination in the allocation of PSD scholarships.

Ironic isn’t it, the MIC has managed to preserve itself despite (or perhaps because of) its failure to bring about long-term solutions for its constituents.

G. Krishnan

Private Khairy to the Rescue

2010-06-05T08:52:00.001+08:00

As international pressure continues to mount on Israel’s apparent heavy-handed response some days ago to the flotilla that tried to sail into Gaza, we have seen a range of responses from various quarters directed at Israel. Even as we continue to anticipate the consequences of the fallout from that tragic incident, another showdown between Israeli forces and another flotilla is unfolding in the Mediterranean as another ship purportedly carrying aid is intercepted.

Surely, after what transpired during our local demonstrations against Israeli’s actions with the last flotilla, the admonitions and warnings in the charged comments by Khairy Jamaluddin will ring loud in the ears of the Israeli authorities as they weigh their options on how to confront the impending situation.

I can imagine the Israeli commanders simply shaking in their boots having heard Khairy issue the following ultimatum: “If another attack happens, we will rise. I am sure the people here will sacrifice our lives to fight for this.” There were assurances from him that: “We will not only demonstrate, but we will also make sure that we go to Gaza to defeat the Israeli regime.”

Surely having such words coming from such a highly skilled and trained soldier must give the Israeli forces real shivers. After all, Khairy would be coming to the rescue of the residents of Gaza and spearhead the demise of the Israeli regime. The terrorist organisation Hamas could not do it and the clandestine operations for years from southern Lebanon could not defeat the Israeli regime. Indeed, even the 1967 Arab invasion of Israel ended up as a political and military catastrophe for the Palestinians. But I guess the Israelis have yet to encounter the prowess of the Umno Youth and their Private Khairy.

Alas, if only Private Khairy and his Umno cadres were not busy spending their time having to dodge questions about APCO and dealing with other pressing political scandals here at home, they could well have been on the last flotilla. Then, surely the Israeli commandos would have been scared out of their wits and run for cover rather than intercept the ships.

Perhaps there is still a possibility that Private Khairy will get a chance to exhibit his military genius and bring about the demise of the Israeli regime.

With warriors like Private Khairy on their side, surely the Palestinians will be delivered to their promise land.

G. Krishnan

All the PM’s (New) Men

2010-06-02T11:05:00.003+08:00

The recent Cabinet mini-reshuffle is yet another glimpse into Najib’s gradualist and cautious approach to rebuilding both the inner core of his administration as well as, more broadly, the Barisan Nasional itself. It should not come as a surprise to most of us that whilst the last 24 months or so have been somewhat of a wild rollercoaster ride for Najib, underneath it all there has been a series of systematic efforts to rebuild and revitalise Barisan Nasional. In many ways, by necessity this process has had to be gradualist and incremental in nature – and for the most part, there has been an explicit willingness on his part to go beyond mere cosmetic changes.

Given all the political baggage, internal feuds, and not to mention embarrassing loss of credibility of the MCA and MIC leadership over these recent months, Najib has had no choice but to deal with this new reality. This new reality, one that I believe has been fully evident since Badawi’s departure, is about overcoming the paradox of the old politics that defined much of Barisan Nasional.

To put it simply, Najib understands that if he is to succeed as prime minister and salvage Barisan Nasional for the foreseeable future, he cannot afford to surround himself only with the ‘yes Tuan’ types from the MIC and MCA. That, after all, has arguably become one of the distinct and defining traits of what had become so wrong about Barisan Nasional. And Najib’s new tact, if we can call it that, is to try and walk a fine line between trying to convince public opinion (especially those voters who used to religiously support the MCA and MIC) that he understands their message and is committed to responding to their concerns, whilst having to be mindful of the pressure coming from the ultra-extremists within UMNO.

One cannot ignore the fact that Najib has had to cautiously navigate through some treacherous waters as the leadership struggle in the MCA played out. More recently, we saw the screws, both from within and outside of the MIC, tighten on Samy Vellu – another glaring thorn of the old politics. Whether there was any truth around Vell Paari’s allegations that the brass within UMNO was orchestrating Samy’s exit, let’s just say Najib will not be shedding any tears when that day does arrive.

Beyond wanting to understandably cultivate a new breed of faces and leaders within some of these Barisan Nasional parties, Najib has also been willing to bring in a new generation of non-Malay players into the various bodies of the executive branch to serve in strategic roles. These individuals, often not highly visible in the public eye are also ones who have typically opted not to be associated with the old politics of the MCA and the MIC. They have thus historically been individuals who have stayed away from becoming beholden and controlled by the party political apparatus of the MCA or MIC – and thus without the baggage of the old politics that comes with being party insiders or cronies.

Indeed, this new breed of individuals have typically distinguished themselves as being independent voices, and individuals willing to provide candid feedback and counsel to Najib and the government rather than indulge in the bum-licking and pandering that prevailed for far too long from those self-invested political operatives within MIC and MCA.

Yet, to some extent, of course Najib cannot simply abandon the party operatives in these Barisan component parties. Hence, whilst the leadership struggles within these parties continue to fester, in due course control of these parties is bound to shift into the hands of more acceptable faces. And incidentally, some operatives within the MIC, for example, recognise this reality, and have been willing to risk political banishment by Samy – for the time being – by conveniently changing their tune and appearing to stand up to the grip of Samy and his ‘old politics.’ Thus, by jumping ship now, these party operatives are trying to repackage themselves and lining themselves up to come back into the party as “reformers” for having stood up to the old politics of the MIC.

On the other hand, Najib is not putting his eggs only in the usual old Indian and Chinese political hierarchy within the inner-circle of these parties. In some ways, he is by-passing these party operatives and increasingly turning to independent and constructive non-Malay professionals and corporate leaders to bring them into the fold of the executive’s machinery and as credible informed voices capable of helping Najib steer the reform and rebuilding programmes. In line with this pattern, it is not surprising that we also hear about gestures by his representatives to court the leadership of the Human Rights Party or having had his representatives hold clandestine contacts with P. Waymoorthy in London. It is also consistent with his move to not appoint the usual non-Malay political suspects from the MCA or MIC to various consultative and advisory bodies; opting instead for fresh independent voices from outside the stale and discredited MIC and MCA.

All these developments, taken together, paint a picture that is undeniable and one that shows Najib tilting toward engagement with credible non-Malay voices. Indeed these tentative signs suggest that Najib is willing to listen to credible non-Malay voices outside of the traditional party circles of the MIC and MCA who have been prone to only telling the prime minister what they think he wants to hear rather than what he should hear.

So whilst the most recent mini reshuffle of the Cabinet is interesting in itself, it is but another part to a wider process of reform underway within the executive branch – a reform marked by embracing new, more credible voices and a willingness to recognise the failures of the old politics.

These are the prime minister's new men, a chorus of new independent voices who are being included into advisory roles precisely because they're not the 'yes Tuan' types still typical of the opportunistic cadre of the old and new guard within the MIC and MCA.

If Najib has it within him to be receptive to these independent professional and corporate leaders and constructive voices, he may just have a fighting chance – the UMNO ultras notwithstanding - to make some genuine reforms happen.

G. Krishnan

Arrogance Par Excellence

2010-05-18T14:55:00.000+08:00

“Can we have a deal, can we have an understanding or not?”

“The understanding is quite simple…you help me I help you”

“Ini bukan tipu…if you deliver me Robert Lau on Sunday, on Monday I will ask the cheque to be prepared.”

“This is our deal tonight…I don’t know how much it cost…okay lah, Robert Lau menang, I ask the 5 million to be prepared Monday.”

These were some of the words uttered by our prime minster in Sibu recently. Our very Najib Abdul Razak, who is, incidentally, most interested in a so-called ‘1Malaysia.’ I have to say, I have been very confused since the beginning about this ‘1Malaysia’ idea of his. Quite frankly, it really struck me as very empty and shallow. I just did not get it how there could be so many policies of this government that were deliberately divisive and discriminatory, but yet he tries to sell us this slogan of ‘1Malaysia.’

But his speech in Rejang Park during the Sibu by-election campaign, where he was unambiguous in his choice of words, clearly captured and encapsulated for me what this government – and his ‘1Malaysia’ slogan - is all about. In his ‘1Malaysia’ we the people and his party are one (meaning together), only when we vote for his party. Apparently, we give him what he wants, and then we are eligible for retribution in the form of a cheque. Alas, he gets the one candidate of his picking, and we get one cheque! Could this be what his ‘1Malaysia’ is all about?

Well, this is about as close as I can get to seeing what his slogan translates into in practice. This got me wondering: under our laws, can a politician actually indulge in such political horse-trading for votes? I know we’ve seen numerous previous instances of enticements and monies distributed on behalf of certain political camps to influence voters. But this blatant, shameless and unadulterated bargaining for votes is truly shocking.

Beyond the mockery that this makes of the election law, it also reveals the extent to which Zaid Ibrahim’s remarks, that the various enforcement agencies are nothing but mere facilitators of the prime minster’s agenda, ring so true.

But closer scrutiny of the prime minster’s horse-trading that day in Rejang Park actually provides more evidence of the frequently heard charge of Umno arrogance. Rather than appealing to voters for why his candidate is deserving of the voters’ trust, like a master teasing his pet, Najib toyed with and mocked the desperation and vulnerability of the voters. Sarcastically asking the crowd if they badly needed funds for dealing with the flooding problem, he dangled them some meat, if they would only roll over, so to speak.

There for us all to see was a classic moment of Umno’s arrogance on display. He did not see the need to actually make the case of why his candidate was better qualified, more suited and capable of serving the public. Rather, like a master talking down to his subjects (or pets), he stood before them and reminded them of their subservient position: they would get help but they had to first show allegiance to the master.

To this observer, there was no sentiment in his tone or voice of sympathising with the predicament of the residents there. There was not a sliver of understanding of the concerns of the people shown by him. Indeed, not even an acknowledgment of why, despite years of control of Sibu and Sarawak, residents in places such as Rejang Park continue to endure hardships from flooding. He saw no need to atone for BN failures to the people in Sibu.

Rather, Najib came across as aloof, calculated and cold in his “deal” to them.

Such is the arrogance of the Umno mindset.

Apparently the prime minster has commented that Barisan Nasional lacked “creativity” in its Sibu campaign. I suppose one could say that given his posturing in Rejang Park, indeed he could have been more creative in disguising the Umno arrogance that was on display. But then again, much like the ‘1Malaysia’ gimmick, would we really have been fooled by such “creativity”?

G. Krishnan

'I Want to Make a Deal With You'

2010-05-17T15:38:00.001+08:00

“Can we have a deal, can we have an understanding or not?”

“The understanding is quite simple…you help me I help you”

Ini bukan tipu…if you deliver me Robert Lau on Sunday, on Monday I will ask the cheque to be prepared.”

“This is our deal tonight…I don’t know how much it cost…okay la, Robert Lau menang, I ask the 5 million to be prepared Monday.”

As you may know, these were some of the words uttered by our prime minster, who is, incidentally, most interested in a so-called ‘1Malaysia.’ I have to say, I have been very confused since the beginning about this ‘1Malaysia’ idea that his mainstream media has been propagating for him. It really was very empty and shallow to me. I just did not get it how there could be so many policies that were deliberately divisive and discriminatory, but yet he tries to sell us this slogan of ‘1Malaysia.’

But his speech in Rejang Park during the Sibu by-election campaign really cleared it up for me. Now I get it. In his ‘1Malaysia’ we the people and his party are one (meaning together), when we vote for his party. We give him what he wants, then we can get a cheque. You see? He gets one candidate, we get one cheque! Therefore, ‘1Malaysia’!

Well, maybe we can also make similar deals with UMNO/Najib?

Maybe we’ll pay our taxes only if you fix our dilapidated schools, where the children of your ‘1Malaysia’ continue to suffer and are deprived and denied a basic education.

Maybe we’ll pay our taxes only if you can make sure our children don’t continue to die in the hands of the people who are suppose to protect us!

Maybe we’ll only pay our taxes – and the salary of the civil servants – if they can respect the public and treat us with dignity rather than contempt.

We’ll also keep our promise and pay our taxes if we can be assured that corrupt politicians are not swindling us and taking trips and holidays abroad at our expense.

We’ll also keep our promise to pay our taxes if these revenues are used to actually fix our chronic low-income housing shortage.

Frankly, “I want to make a deal with you” about many other things as well.

After all, if you can make the kind of deal you claim you made in Hulu Selangor and the kind of deal you proposed in Sibu, what’s wrong with these other deals?

Boleh?

G. Krishnan

Mee Kampua Sedap la

2010-05-17T10:00:00.003+08:00

Sure, it wasn’t the most convincing and emphatic win for the DAP in Sibu. But unlike the Hulu Selangor by-election where Pakatan actually came out not looking as badly bruised as most people initially assumed, the same cannot be said of UMNO/BN in Sibu.

Despite the razor thin margin of victory, the outcome in Sibu was a reminder to all that Pakatan is still very much a force to contend with. Indeed, some might say that since UMNO (yes, not MIC) took Hulu Selangor and Pakatan/DAP carried Sibu, the two essentially swapped seats that the other camp previously held. This picture is obvious enough for anyone to see. But a close look at the bigger picture bodes well for Pakatan.

Sibu – much like the Hulu Selangor seat prior to 2008 – was a BN/UMNO stronghold. To go into such areas and yet be highly competitive – let alone win - is a reminder that the political landscape cannot be taken for granted anymore as it once was by UMNO. Yes, it is nice for the opposition to celebrate wildly with the capture of Sibu, and the hurt from the loss of Hulu Selangor was likewise quite painful.

Focusing on the bigger picture, however, suggests that the win in Sibu and even the loss in Hulu Selangor, together bode well for Pakatan.

For one, it shows that in both places - where, by the way, there is a substantial Chinese presence - UMNO is finding it hard to hold on to these voters. The fact that UMNO had to sign big cheques in Hulu Selangor and send out their ATM machines to get a chunk of the vote means they’re having to dig deeper to try to coax voters. And looks like Najb’s promises to sign a huge cheque for Sibu, while it might have lured and tempted many to “sell” their vote to BN, still did not deliver the seat for him. So the bottom line is that both in Sibu and Hulu Selangor, not only UMNO cannot take the voters for granted anymore, it is also finding out that trying to buy favours is also not working too well!

This is perhaps as crucial a development as winning the Sibu seat itself. While I can see that many in Pakatan would have been deeply disappointed, as they were in Hulu Selangor, had they lost in Sibu by the same slim margin as they won, it really would not have been as bad as many may have thought. Remember that Sibu has been one seat where in the last election DAP got thrashed by over three thousand votes!

Together, these signs are very encouraging for Malaysian politics. Aside from seeing more real competition for UMNO, voters are expecting more from UMNO than merely the shallow assurance of money to entice and coerce them. People are clearly interested in what UMNO represents and less on how big a cheque UMNO promises to write for voters. And frankly, many are realising that there is not much there to chew on or savour once you look closely at what UMNO is serving up to the voters. And perhaps most critically, a disproportionate number of Chinese voters in UMNO/BN strongholds are steadily and surely realising that UMNO’s menu serves up more heartburn and indigestion than is worth the price.

To this, I say thank you Ibrahim Ali. Thank you Perkasa. And thank you to all the bigots. These people are indeed great for reminding us why, far from being appetising, UMNO’s menu actually gives us nothing but an upset belly.

On the other hand...

Burp. Oh, my goodness; please excuse me, but I couldn’t help myself.

This Kampua Mee sure is delicious.

G. Krishnan

It’s Not a Criminal Trial…

2010-05-15T10:12:00.003+08:00

It struck me as odd that some lawyers on the sidelines of Anwar’s trial have been dissecting Karpal’s strategy (though it’s probably the strategy of Anwar’s collective legal team) to highlight the contradiction between Saiful’s claim and the specific legal code under which Anwar is being tried.

While I happen to lean in the camp of those who think it was better to raise the contradiction in this early stage rather than just prior to the curtain coming down on the trial, I have to admit I’m one who thinks the timing of this objection is based upon strategic political considerations – and not legal ones. Therefore, the debate about Karpal's strategy among the legal circles actually misses the central point: What is critical about Karpal's strategy is that it's a legal strategy deployed to expose the fact that this is a political trial.

I can see the relevance of second-guessing and debating a defense’s legal strategy in a typical criminal case. But then let’s not forget this isn’t, by any stretch of the imagination, a typical criminal case. In a political trial – and that’s what the defense is portraying it as – there is of course a lot more to it than just a legal strategy. In fact, as I’ve argued elsewhere, since nothing about the contradictions and inconsistencies in the case should really surprise us, this legal hair-splitting by lawyers from the sidelines is good banter but the legal merits - or lack thereof - really is inconsequential to the final courtroom outcome.

Indeed, I believe the strategy by the defence team to expose the contradictions sooner rather than later actually supports my view that Anwar’s legal team also realises - and wants the whole country to see – that this as a political trial. Therefore, by exposing from early on what they believe is a deck of cards stacked against them, Anwar, Karpal and the defence team hope to go on the offensive earlier rather than later and hopefully start winning in the court of public opinion by exposing the bias of the court. Of course they’re not getting any help from the mainstream media and have to rely on the wider alternative and even the international media. This approach fits with their position all along that there is a political conspiracy against Anwar and this trial is the means to short-circuit Anwar’s political comeback.

For this reason, and this reason only, I agree with the strategy taken by Anwar’s team. Karpal and associates have not taken to expose the contradictions in the case not merely for some sound legal or strategic basis as one might do in a typical criminal trial. Rather, their strategy is wholly predicated on the need to cast this trial for what it is: a political vendetta. To do this, Karpal and his associates must effectively frame this for what it is from the start: a political trial. Hence, the judge’s refusal to recues himself from presiding over the case, and now the judge’s refusal to allow the defence to appeal the judge’s ruling to allow Anwar to be tried under Penal Code section 377b reinforces the perception, or so it is hoped by the defence, that political considerations – and not the pursuit of justice - are driving this trial as evident in the courtroom.

I think it was Edmund Burke who said, bad laws are the worst form of tyranny. Along this line, so is a corrupted judicial system.

Rest assured that along with Anwar, we’re all being crippled by this tyranny.

G. Krishnan

The Games People Play

2010-05-12T20:27:00.002+08:00

Well, if you ever needed another glaring example of how our glorious judicial system works, we are seeing it unfold before our very eyes. Make no mistake, despite what others might think, this trial is not a farce. On the contrary, it is a model trial.

Do you think Anwar’s political enemies really care what the public or the rest of the world thinks of our judicial system? Do you really think so?

Do you think it really bothered Umno that the rest of the world saw all the absurdities of the first so-called trial when Anwar was convicted for sodomy?

Do you think the government is really bothered what others think about the patently obvious bias nature of the current trial of Anwar?

What does it matter whether Saiful was sodomised or not?

Even if Saiful was sodomised (regardless by whom), why does it really matter whether it was consensual or not?

What does it really matter, regardless of what the law says about consensual sex?

Does it really matter that a trial judge who is overseeing a high-profile sodomy trial of the leading opposition politician in the country pretend to even appear to be impartial? Why should he bother?

Why is it so important that an accused at least have a right to know the substance of a criminal complaint against him so as to be able to accordingly respond to the complaint?

Isn’t it obvious that any accused could fairly defend oneself against a criminal allegation even if they didn’t know the specifics of the allegation against them?

Ask yourself this, wouldn’t you want to be treated the same way by this court if you were on trial?

Don’t you think the judge and prosecution had long anticipated that Anwar’s legal team would, in due course, raise the objection about the contradiction between the law he’s being charged under and the claim by Saiful that his alleged sexual encounter with Anwar was non-consensual?

Don't you think the prosecution and the judge already know that the defence will be maneuvering to call Najib to the stand? And surely you know that Anwar's lawyers know that the judge and the prosecution know this too. And don't you think Anwar's team and the prosecution already have a sense about what the judge will say to that?

All these are mere trivial inconveniences that muddy the waters.

I’m sure if you asked this of the judge, it would be exactly how he’d want to be treated if he was in Anwar’s shoes, don’t you think?

Aren't you wondering when Saiful, who has been allegedly sodomised (not necessarily by Anwar), and the Judge in this case will be recognised with the Eminent Malay Award by Umno?

Don’t you already know where this model political trial is headed?

G. Krishnan

Tak Kisah lar

2010-05-12T15:49:00.006+08:00

Do you think Anwar’s political enemies really care what the public or the rest of the world thinks of our judicial system? Do you really think so?

Do you think it really bothered Umno that the rest of the world saw all the absurdities of the first so-called trial when Anwar was convicted for sodomy?

Do you think the government is really bothered what others think about the patently obvious bias nature of the current trial of Anwar?

What does it matter whether Saiful was sodomised or not?

Even if Saiful was sodomised (regardless by whom), why does it really matter whether it was consensual or not?

What does it really matter, regardless of what the law says about consensual sex?

Why is it so important that an accused at least have a right to know the substance of a criminal complaint against him so as to be able to accordingly respond to the complaint?

Isn’t it obvious that any accused could fairly defend oneself against a criminal allegation even if they didn’t know the specifics of the allegation against them?

Ask yourself this, wouldn’t you want to be treated the same way by this court if you were on trial?

All these are mere trivial inconveniences that muddy the waters.

I’m sure if you asked this of the judge, it would be exactly how he’d want to be treated if he was in Anwar’s shoes, don’t you think?

Aren't you wondering when Saiful, who has been allegedly sodomised (not necessarily by Anwar), and the Judge will be recognised with the Eminent Malay Award by Umno?

Don’t you already know where this model political trial is headed?

G. Krishnan

That’s funny, Zaid!

2010-05-11T10:40:00.001+08:00

In case you missed it, here’s a reminder that Zaid Ibrahim is no lightweight and can indeed deliver some nice blows to his political adversaries, and also do it with a dash of piercing sarcasm.

Zaid, I had a real good chuckle seeing your tweets about Muhyiddin possibly having read Animal Farm and also on Ibrahim Ali’s comment regarding revoking parliamentary immunity.

The thought crossed my mind that perhaps you were being too generous and complimentary to Muhyiddin in presuming that the man might have actually read Animal Farm "many times" to appreciate that while we’re presumably all equal, some of us are more equal than others. But then as I thought about your words, it occurred to me that one could also see another less generous interpretation. Either way, Zaid, it’s funny.

The same goes for your terse remark about Ibrahim’s novel idea about revoking parliamentary immunity. Must be nice to know that we have such brilliant minds and role models in Umno to lead the way for us all!

Keep up the good fight, Zaid.

G. Krishnan

Phantom Dictator

2010-05-11T07:40:00.002+08:00

Apparently Mahathir claims he was not a dictator during his more than two decades of reign. Now I wonder just how anyone could imagine otherwise. How foolish these observers and critics must be to think Mahathir’s rule in any way resembled a dictatorship.

It may be true that there aren’t too many former dictators or even current ones who would easily and candidly admit being so. After all, it doesn’t bode very well for their image. In fact, you can rest assured that Mahathir’s once close ally across the Indian Ocean in Zimbabwe doesn’t regard himself a dictator. Now here is a man who has been in control since the country was founded, and has systematically suppressed the press, free speech, and a viable opposition in that country, but do you think Mugabe considers himself a dictator? Don’t count on it. Officially, Mugabe has been time and again “elected” by the Zimbabweans to lead the country; much the same way I suppose Mahathir was “elected” time and again here.

As a matter of fact, come to think of it even Saddam Hussein and Ferdinand Marcos were repeatedly, just like Mahathir and Mugabe, “elected” in one election after another in their respective countries. In fact, I recall that in the last election before Saddam’s…shall me say “overthrow,” it was known that he was “re-elected” with 98 percent of the vote! So when you have such leaders who are repeatedly “elected,” how can one claim that these were all dictators? No sir, definitely not. Now maybe Mahathir wasn’t so fortunate as Saddam to have won elections with 98 percent of the vote, but he sure was easily “elected” each time, no?

Also, there were always real constitutional checks and balances such as a legitimately independent judiciary during Mahathir’s rule, no? The judiciary, much like it is now, really stood up to Mahathir’s power and control. And I am sure we all believe that he had no power to affect the independence of the judiciary even when there were judges who seemed to go against his intentions. All that stuff about the dismissal of Lord President Salleh Abas and other judges in 1988 were just the sort of things you would expect to happen in the normal course of any democratic country. They do not in any way reflect on Mahathir’s reign and nor was he a dictator. A “democratically elected” leader clearly had all the constitutional powers to unilaterally dismiss Salleh Abas and castrate the judiciary.

This was all perfectly legitimate and consistent with how democracies and non-dictators not just all over the world but here too tend to act. I have a strong feeling for example that if you ask the “elected” leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (otherwise known as North Korea), Kim Jong Il, not only will he agree that he’s also not a dictator, but that like Mahathir, he too is entitled to unilaterally dismiss justices and rearrange the judiciary.

What? You say, dictators don’t really respect the idea of a free press and free speech? Well, now surely you cannot accuse Mahathir of that! During Mahathir’s reign, we had the NST, Star, Utusan, Chinese and Indian newspapers, multiple tv stations, and so on. Ah! I know what some of you are probably thinking. How can government controlled press, which shuts you down in any way be considered “free”? But you see, our journalists who worked for these government-approved media preferred to “freely” not question anything about Mahathir’s regime.

That doesn’t mean it was Mahathir’s fault, right? You see, the “free” mainstream media simply preferred to buat bodoh only. Just as now, the mainstream media journalists are so inept and incompetent that they merely like to report the empty slogans of the government in their newspapers and their broadcasts. I’m sure they will all tell you they were “free,” and still are, to report, investigate and write stories as any self-respecting journalists should do. Although they did not, that had nothing to do with Mahathir’s rule. We can’t blame that on the tone and climate of intimidation and centralisation of power in Mahathir’s rule, can we? Not fair, you know.

Finally, you must understand that the draconian ISA crackdown during Mahathir’s reign is also not really the trait of a dictator-style ruler. Even though arresting and imprisoning people indefinitely without trial is the way Saddam Hussein and Hafez-al-Assad in Syria did things, like Mahathir, they were not dictators. Of course every time Saddam and Assad cracked down on dissidents, they were deemed a threat to the nation and to these “elected” leaders, just like the crackdowns under Mahathir were a threat to our “elected” leader's monopoly on power.

So see? If you just think a little bit, ah, you’ll realise. Even though all the key things that make a government a dictatorship and someone into a dictator were present during Mahathir’s reign, he was not a dictator, you know. Where got dictatorship during Mahathir’s time? Actually, it was very much same as now: very democratic and non-repressive, lar.

G. Krishnan

Extremist Chinese

2010-05-08T10:29:00.001+08:00

Quite profound, isn’t it, that certain UMNO politicians have come out once more with their blazing and piercing insights about so-called ‘extremist Chinese’ in our midst. Surely this has to be a serious warning to these unreasonable Chinese to stop being so pushy and out of the mainstream.

For starters, surely you see the trouble that the Umnoputeras have with these extremist Chinese who expect to be treated like any self-respecting Malaysian would want to be. How can these Chinese expect to be considered as equal citizens to other Malaysians, and especially the Umnoputeras? So what that they are through-and-through Malaysian in every sense of the word. So what if their ancestors have graced this land for generations and over the course of centuries?

Can’t these extremist Chinese understand what it means to be a pendatang? Yes, as the Umno ideology goes, so long as you’re Chinese, remember that you’re a pendatang, and don’t you forget that. It does not matter if your ancestors have a longer and deeper history and connection to this land than many of the pseudo-Malays, many of whom may be barely second generation Malaysian or whose parents and relatives might have even entered the country illegally. And imagine the audacity of these extremist Chinese to refer to these newly minted, self-proclaimed so-called Malays as pendatang.

Surely you can understand the anger and desperation of these Umnoputeras who want to make a big stink about such extremist Chinese. What are we going to degenerate into if these Chinese start to expect that they be treated with dignity and respect for their constitutional rights? I suppose the next thing you know they’ll want to have tv programmes to discuss and report on issues such as quotas, government discrimination, and scandals. Imagine how ungrateful these extremist Chinese can be, thinking that we ought to have such a thing as press freedom and non-governmental manipulation and censorship of the media.

After all these years, haven’t these extremist Chinese gotten it into their heads that they should not doubt that Umno is deeply committed to moving the country forward for all Malaysians? I mean how many more speeches laced with overt and covert threats do these Umnoputeras have to deliver before these Chinese will realise that if you do not support MCA and Gerakan in order to perpetuate Umno-style patronage politics, then you are an extremist Chinese? As a Chinese, if you question Umno’s failed policies and pathetic record of scandals and abuses, then you’re of course an extremist. What is so difficult to understand about that? If you support the opposition, then you’re a genuine ‘extremist Chinese.’ Simple.

Of course, if you follow Umno’s propaganda, you will notice that for many of these Umnoputeras, so-called extremist Chinese often become a real problem whenever Umno itself seems to be floundering, divided, or losing credibility among a large segment of Malay and non-Malay voters.

But while some foolish people seem to think that is Umno’s most basic modus operandi and that Umno’s relevance and ultimate raison d'être is intimately tied to creating and demonising these so-called ‘extremist Chinese,’ this is not the case at all.

You may think it’s a familiar ploy and sadly, one that has worked wonders for Umno, it’s really nothing of this sort.

We really do have to be vigilant against extremist Chinese. After all, we can’t risk tolerating these extremist Chinese, who might make us a less racist and more democratic country, can we now?

G. Krishnan

It's May!

2010-05-07T10:19:00.003+08:00

Are you really surprised by the pathetic politics of the likes of Azhar Ibrahim invoking the threat of another May 13 in the Penang assembly? Well, maybe there are some out there who are but, quite frankly, I’m not. In fact, I was surprised that such talk from the ultra-communalist Ketuanan Melayu party did not occur somewhat sooner.

This kind of indulgence in such gutter politics has, after all, been in the making for some months now. Despite the apparent ‘success’ of BN in the recent by-election in Hulu Selangor, we have actually been seeing some signs of serious strain in the BN coalition for several months now. The unadulterated desperate lashing out we’re thus seeing in some circles of the proponents of Ketuanan Melayu seems to be a symptomatic and at the same time predictable given the pressure being felt by BN/UMNO.

The steady and undeniable collapse of the MCA of course symbolises the apprehension in the BN circle of sluggish and fading Chinese support for the BN. While that trend has been in motion since the last general election, we have seen nothing but a steady consolidation and even acceleration of this trend. Of course events like the Teoh Beng Hock’s death compounded by the government’s utter lack of transparency, and quite to the contrary, its deliberate stonewalling, in dealing with the investigation has no doubt added to the Chinese mistrust of the government.

One definitive indicator of this solidifying mistrust of the government became really obvious in the Hulu Selangor by-election. If ever there was a mass Chinese vote abandoning the BN, the Hulu Selangor vote was it. And there is no doubt that the UMNO/BN operatives were quite aware that this was going to be the case in Hulu Selangor; hence, the intense battle for holding on to the Malay proportion of the vote from slipping over to Zaid. But the racist-extremists apparently are feeling so insecure that they’re continuing their attack on Zaid as if they’re fearing that Zaid’s defeat in Hulu Selangor is not going to be the last they hear of him.

Of course the formation of Perkasa and the increasingly vocal stance of those who revel in racist ideology shows the growing desperation of the racist. More recently, the controversy surrounding Joshua Wong and other journalists, and the wider government interference in the Chinese-language media in particular, has not done anything to help the government’s image, especially among the Chinese. The fact that Joshua Wong and other have gone public with their revelations about the internal political pressure and censorship of MSM and especially the Chinese-language media simply magnifies the government’s growing desperation on the one hand, and further erodes the confidence of the Chinese in the BN.

Hence, the more the Chinese become disillusioned with the BN, the more desperate the ultra-communalist get. As we have seen from previous experiences, when the government and UMNO operatives get desperate and concerned, they lash out with not so subtle threats and references to May 13. In the past, these ultra-communalist have been able to use this desperate and fear-mongering tactic to coerce Chinese support for BN. Will this desperate approach work again?

How ironic that we’re seeing some of these transparent and blatantly desperate acts in this month of May.

G. Krishnan

I Have Been Sodomised (II)*

2010-05-05T11:17:00.003+08:00

I have been sodomised against my will by politicians who have abused the public trust to indulge in money politics.

I have been sodomised by the PKFZ scandal.

I have been sodomised by inept, self-serving, and morally bankrupt Indian and Chinese politicians who have mortgaged my civil and human rights to Umno and made me a second class citizen.

I have been sodomised because my country’s police are too busy playing politics and disinterested in dealing with crime and corruption especially at the highest levels.

I have been sodomised as I am disqualified from certain government programmes because of my name.

I have been sodomised as I cannot get access to equal education because of my name.

I have been sodomised because narrow-minded, ultra-nationalistic cultural infants have ruined the quality of the schools, universities, and curriculum.

I have been sodomised because the MIC has taken the public’s monies and flushed them down the drain in schemes like Maika investments.

I have been sodomised because parties like MIC, Gerakan and MCA are more interested in their crumbs from UMNO than in ensuring that all citizens are treated equally under the law.

I have been sodomised by conspirators who hide behind the Official Secrets Act and shield from the public just how they may be lining their pockets with public contracts and programmes, while they have the audacity to accuse others of being opportunistic and dishonest.

I have been sodomised because my fellow citizens like Teoh Beng Hock and Kugan get killed while in police custody and no one is charged for causing his death.

I have been sodomised because apparently no police officer has been held accountable for the torture of B. Prabakar.

I have been sodomised because my fellow citizens have been held indefinitely without being charged of a crime and denied their day in court.

I have been sodomised by uncouth racists who call me and my fellow native born Malaysians ‘pendatang’ and ‘orang asing.’

I have been sodomised by foul-mouthed xenophobic who think they have the right to preach blatantly racist propaganda and paranoia.

I have been sodomised by feudal-minded, reactionary, sexist bigots because they want to deny women equal rights.

I have been sodomised by fascist-like, maniacal bigots who want to deny me my right to free speech.

I have been sodomised by Taliban-like religious terrorists because they assume that they have the right to determine others’ religious orientation.

I have been sodomised by characteristically zealous religious hypocrites whom the BN cabal allows to prey on others, and who think they know how God wants us to lead our lives.

That’s how badly I have been sodomised against my will. And for the record, I could reveal more instances of such abuse under the auspices of the BN cabal.

So, before you in the opposition get into any type of ‘marriage proposal’ with the UMNO cabal, be reminded exactly what we’re dealing with.

That aside, for now I’d like an appointment at the prime minister’s residence to discuss my experiences of being sodomised against my will.

G. Krishnan

*This is an excerpt from one of my earlier post.

€114 million

2010-04-30T09:05:00.002+08:00

Joseph Breham, a member of the legal team from France stated that the French judicial system has clearly established that there is sufficient evidence of suspected corruption in the Scorpene submarine scandal to warrant an investigation. He has said that Malaysian taxpayers may well have been swindled in the amount of over €114 million. On the other hand, our authorities claim there is ‘no case’ to answer to in the submarine purchase.

Fascinating, to say the least, how our investigators and the independent French judicial authorities seem to be so far apart on the reality surrounding this issue. Joseph Breham and his team have come all the way here to see if any French entity or individual has been involved in corruption. On the other hand, our authorities don’t even seem to have blinked an eyelid at the apparent conflict of interest and alleged nepotism associated with the deal.

Unfortunately, someone needs to give Joseph Breham a quick lesson on Malaysian traditions. First off, he needs to understand that while the French have an independent judicial process, our far superior judicial system doesn’t need to be independent or even pretend to be independent. Second, he should know that by not having an independent judiciary, our system is obviously far superior. After all, haven’t our government already said there is ‘no case’ to answer to in this matter? There you have it! These French investigators are here making fools of themselves and their system of law and justice. I wonder, isn’t it embarrassing to come all the way here and show the rest of us exactly how inefficient their system is? You mean they can’t see what our government can see so clearly that there were no laws broken?

By the way, someone should tell these French people that what they call corruption, we call ‘business as usual.’ This is not illegal, lah. Just like vote buying, you know. When you promise and pay cash for votes, these foreigners call it corrupt politics. What nonsense. We call it BN culture. Surely they cannot come here and try to tell us what is wrong and right! We’ve been doing things like that for so long already, and has any big shot people in the government gone to jail for these kinds of things? How many billions here and there swindled but what’s the problem? Just like this submarine saga, the other cases also end up as ‘no case.’

In one of his comments, Joseph Breham rhetorically said, “I do not know how many hospitals, schools, motorway and so on you can buy in Malaysia for €114 million.” Quite touching isn’t it, to see how these foreigners seem more concerned in the prospect that we the taxpayers may have been swindled in this deal. Yet our own government, with our excellent non-independent judiciary is so sure - despite there not being any commission to look into it - that no such thing happened. But, as I said, because we have a superior judiciary system that is not independent, we really need not worry or have others be concerned about the Malaysian taxpayers. Our BN government is making sure these kinds of things are not called corruption. So if it’s not called corruption, how can the taxpayers have been cheated? See? So simple, ya.

Therefore, no need to worry. This is our system; there is no such thing as government corruption in Malaysia.

Case closed.

G. Krishnan

Joshua Wong, Malaysian Democracy and Bigots

2010-04-28T18:04:00.000+08:00

Joshua Wong’s recent resignation as ntv7’s producer of Editor’s Time is another vivid reminder of how the bizarre and twisted logic of bigots – particularly those condoned by UMNO - in this country tends to trump free speech, and any prospects for building any real democratic practices.

Frankly, I was not exactly disgusted by the fact that Joshua apparently experienced political interference on matters about his programme. That, after all, is to be expected, given our long legacy of government-controlled media. Should any of us really be surprised by any revelation of UMNO-related manipulation or interference with the press? You’d really have to be living on planet Mars all this while if you’re actually shocked by what happened to Joshua. The fact is, censorship in the mainstream media is the norm; I’d be shocked if there was no censorship occurring in the mainstream media and if journalists in these media actually had professional autonomy and independence. So given that’s the case, what’s the big deal?

Actually, I wanted to remind you, in case you missed the real issue here, that what is telling about this episode is how it reveals the bizarre and twisted logic used to invoke control on journalists and free speech in general.

Remember the controversy over the Bar Council’s forum on religious conversion in 2008? There we had a mob of some 300 protesters outside the Bar Council threatening to storm into the forum in order to disrupt a perfectly legal and peaceful gathering to discuss, in a civilised manner, a perfectly appropriate issue affecting our lives. And what was the authorities’ response? Well, so as the aroused mob of protesters are not “provoked,” into doing anything violent and illegal, the police actually convinced the participant’s of the legal forum to disband! Yes, it was not the mob that was asked to disband from its illegal protest or for intimidating participants at a perfectly legal gathering; instead it was the lawyers who were forced to abandon the forum, censored, and denied their right to partake in the forum.

On that day, bigotry prevailed. Worst yet, free speech was choked because bigots were apparently offended by a mere forum to deliberate and discuss a most relevant topic.

Fast forward to the cow-head incident in Shah Alam. Remember the home minister’s public response and comments in that instance? In case you don’t recall or missed his comments, you can check it out here. But the jest of it was that let’s not blame the cow head protesters; we need to understand that their actions were provoked by unreasonable challenges to Malay supremacy! Ahh, how wonderful. The message we got was let’s not question and correct the bigots from their gross ignorance, arrogance, foolishness and overt, provocative intimidation of others. Rather, we should censor ourselves so that bigots don’t get aroused to chop-off cow heads and parade them in public as a way of threatening others.

Again, bigotry prevailed. Just as the Bar Council’s forum incident, free speech was choked; we were admonished not to address ‘sensitive matters’ because bigots might get aroused and do foolish things like chop off animals’ heads.

So we’re not to deal with real issues because bigots will be upset.

And now we have the Joshua Wong episode. Apparently, the story goes that someone had sent an SMS, which was forwarded to ntv7 via one or more politically well-connected persons, that “rants with racial undertones, suggesting that Chinese people are “becoming rude” and that “the Malays should go to war.”

So here again is an example of how a bigoted person’s insecurities and paranoia becomes the excuse for censoring free speech. We’re again told to “watch out,” so to speak, because some racists are getting upset so we should not exercise our free speech.

So you see, the dilemma is not that there is repeated censorship of individuals or of journalists. The striking pattern in our country seems to be that the bigots become the ones who rule the roost.

Rather than taking those bigots and straightening them out (after all, we have really good government re-education and propaganda camps for brainwashing people), the government coddles these bigots by giving their voice credibility and legitimacy, while it chokes off legal forums, journalists such as Joshua Wong, and just plain regular people for fear that we don’t want the bigots to get aroused!

What wonderful logic, isn't it, for undercutting democracy.

G. Krishnan

Bigots: Democracy's Nemesis

2010-04-28T10:58:00.009+08:00

On that day, bigotry prevailed. Worst yet, free speech was choked because bigots were apparently offended by a mere forum to deliberate and discuss a most relevant topic.

So we’re not to deal with real issues because bigots will be upset.

So you see, the dilemma is not that there is repeated censorship of individuals or of journalists. The striking pattern in our country seems to be that the bigots become the ones who rule the roost.

What wonderful logic, isn't it, for undercutting democracy.

G. Krishnan

Just for the Record, RPK...

2010-04-28T07:16:00.005+08:00

In a recent article, RPK noted that there has been some undue ‘Indian bashing’ that has gone on since the outcome in the Hulu Selangor by-election. Instead, RPK argues that there’s arguably more blame to go around for the failure of the Malay vote to come on board with Pakatan.

I happen to concur with his point regarding the latter about the Malay vote, and for that matter even his comments about ‘Indian bashing.’

I know some of you might be saying, “but wait a minute! Weren’t you one of those making a big fuss about lack of Indian support for Zaid?” Actually, if you’re referring to my columns Hindraf: Morally Bankrupt, and A Simpleton in Politics, you’ll see that my concern has been primarily and solely with Hindraf’s tactics and strategy in failing to firmly support Zaid. Some may call this ‘Hindraf bashing.’ I don’t think I would have any problem with that kind of a blunt characterization, but it was by no means Indian bashing. And, there is a critical difference between the two.

Now I realize RPK may not have been referring to my columns as examples of the ‘Indian bashing’ that has gone on (but then again, he might have). Yet, I think his point is a worthy one to acknowledge; as it is to note the distinction between ‘Indian bashing’ and picking a bone with Hindraf in this situation.

My contention always was – and is - that Hindraf had the potential to make a difference and to continue to be a force for undermining the dominance of the racist UMNO. To me, even if Zaid had not won despite having had Hindraf’s support, it would nevertheless have been an important moral victory for Hindraf to be on the right side of this struggle. That, ultimately, is my point.

It’s not fair, as RPK has noted, to place the blame for Pakatan coming up short in Hulu Selangor on the Indians. But I’m convinced that we need to engage Hindraf to realize that working for real change for the marginalised cannot happen, as I have previously argued, by enabling UMNO.

I don’t for one moment blame the poor Indians who are still in the grip of MIC and UMNO. If many have yet to realize that a non-racist agenda, such as Pakatan’s, will serve them better, then it’s the job of so-called leaders to show the way. Just as Pakatan could have surely done a better job with Malay voters, I remain convinced that, despite their differences, Hindraf had a special opportunity to cement an alliance with Pakatan and to make further in-roads toward keeping the pressure on UMNO.

So, I’ll share the sentiment that 'Indian bashing’ in this context is uncalled for. On the other hand, specific groups, including Hindraf, cannot be beyond reproach.

G. Krishnan

A Simpleton in Politics

2010-04-27T09:09:00.001+08:00

Not surprisingly my last column chastising Hindraf had ruffled some feathers among its insiders. My criticism of Hindraf as being ‘morally bankrupt’ prompted the accusation that I’m a “simpleton in politics.”

Some of you in Hindraf say, Pakatan is nothing but another UMNO; it acts like the mandore. Not quite. You see, Pakatan may not give you all you want, but that doesn’t mean it is another UMNO. For it to be another UMNO, Pakatan needs to engage in keris-waving at its general assemblies; it has to repeatedly affirm the racist-ideology that you and I are nothing butpendatang; it has to have as its central ideology, the ideology of Malay racial superiority. You see, you in Hindraf who are so politically sophisticated, this simpleton is not convinced that Pakatan is the same as UMNO. That is simply your hyperbolic rhetoric because you’re frustrated that you’re supposedly not being treated as the kingmakers that you perceive yourselves to be, and therefore you go about making yourselves greater than the cause you supposedly espouse.

I will admit to being a simpleton in politics if...

…being a simpleton means not having to sell-out your principles for political expediency. I may be a simpleton in politics, but I understand that I would not do anything to tacitly enable the party (UMNO) that is the source of my oppression. But Hindraf has done just that. I know that the ideology of Ketuanan Melayu is espoused, preached, and advocated by UMNO. It is hell bent on ensuring I remain a second-class citizen. That I cannot accept, and I will not justify supporting any party that is determined to endorse or abet such a racist ideology. But Hindraf has done just that by willing to undermine Pakatan Rakyat (and therefore, while seeming to be “neutral,” has, for all practical purposes, strengthened UMNO).

I will happily admit to being a simpleton in politics…

…but I’m not obsessed with self-serving political ambition as some in Hindraf have clearly exhibited by selling-out to UMNO. I don’t need to go into spelling this out but the split we’ve seen over the last year in Hindraf is evidence of how many within Hindraf are willing enough to be “a component party” to UMNO. What, I wonder, was the price for these people in Hindraf, for such an alliance? Consider this just a simple question from a simpleton in politics.

The folks in Hindraf don’t deny that they were frustrated by PR for not agreeing to their conditions and, therefore, withheld support for Pakatan in Huu Selangor. Oh, I see, perhaps one has to be sophisticated at politics, like some of these Hindraf folks appear to be, to sell out their cause to the highest bidder! Apparently the ‘crumbs’ that PR was offering Hindraf were not the kind of ‘crumbs’ many within Hindraf believe they can ultimately get from UMNO. I may be a simpleton in politics but I at least have enough self-respect not to sell-out to the highest bidder – especially not one that insults my dignity.

I will be delighted to be accused of being a simpleton in politics…

…but at least I am clear that my humanity is not for sale. Hindraf claims to be advocates of the marginalised Indians. These marginalised Indians are our fellow Malaysians. I care about them because they’re Malaysians who are being exploited by a racist regime. I may not get all the concessions I like from Pakatan for these marginalised Indians today, but I know Pakatan is committed to the cause of the people, and that is a worthy start for me. It is enough to ensure that I will support Pakatan because it opposes the fundamental premise of a racist Malaysia.

If Pakatan, as you politically sophisticated people think, is no different than UMNO, then, let me tell you, Hindraf today has become no different than MIC. It is nothing if not a pathetic, parochial-minded bunch of self-serving panderers.

Finally, let me put it this way to you: as a simpleton in politics, I rather have one-tenth of a kaya roti now (from Pakatan), only to continue advocating for a fair share of the roti for all marginalised Malaysians, rather than eat one-third of a kaya roti with mouldy fungus on it from UMNO.

Ultimately I, as a simpleton in politics, go to sleep at night with my conscience clear that I am not perpetuating racism against my fellow Malaysians. As I see it, those of you in Hindraf, who are apparently so sophisticated in politics, are willing to abet, and are contributors to UMNO’s racist ideology. That is the bottom line.

My kaya roti (and conscience) is clear… is yours?

G. Krishnan

Eating Kaya Roti With Mould

2010-04-27T09:07:00.002+08:00

I will admit to being a simpleton in politics if...

I will happily admit to being a simpleton in politics…

I will be delighted to be accused of being a simpleton in politics…

My kaya roti (and conscience) is clear… is yours?

G. Krishnan

Hindraf: Morally Bankrupt

2010-04-26T12:24:00.002+08:00

I asked a friend if she’d seen Tamil Padam and she said, “ya; for a Tamil movie, it was something interesting.”

I said, “What? Tamil movie?!” I’m not talking about the movie, lah! I’m talking about the recent Tamil padam that unfolded in Hulu Selangor!

Like her, you’re also probably thinking what’s this Tamil padam in Hulu Selangor, ya? Call it déjà vu if you like. Maybe even ‘back to the future’? Whatever your preference, the BN win in Hulu Selangor does of course give us much to mull over and there’re several meaningful subtexts and lessons that could be drawn from the by-election. As far as “the Indian scenario” is concerned, to put it simply, it’s the same old mellow-dramatic drama of the Indians shooting themselves in more critical places than just the foot. BN wins and a substantial Indian vote supports the Indian (MIC) candidate.

Of course we know about Hindraf, which having had its quid-pro-quo proposition rejected by Pakatan Rakyat in the days leading up to April 25th, turned a cold shoulder toward Zaid’s campaign. I suppose Hindraf must have thought it was dealing with UMNO when it tried to squeeze PR for some concessions before agreeing to any formal support for Zaid. Well, I’m sure many in the Hindraf inner circle will be saying to PR: ‘Ah, see, we told you so? You can’t win without us – and serves you right!”

Well, if that’s the case, go right ahead Hindraf, and deal with the devil. What this would suggest, of course, is Hindraf would rather have UMNO, and all the baggage of corruption, abuse, restrictions on democratic freedoms and such, gain political mileage just so it can spite PR. Put whatever spin it may want on the situation; ultimately, Hindraf has been directly complicit in enabling UMNO – the very entity which arrested its leaders and punished them without due process of the law. Hindraf has been complicit in abetting the very entity that has been the cause and culprit in the exploitation of the same marginalised Indians for half a century, which Hindraf claims to be fighting for.

Because of some prescriptive disagreement, Hindraf is apparently willing to sit out and see its longstanding oppressor gain even more power, rather than wholeheartedly support PR, which espouses the vision of uplifting all who have been exploited by UMNO. Hindraf is willing to enable UMNO rather than support that movement which seeks to rid the country of political corruption and nepotism.

And what is the message that its strategy has sent to Indian voters? Go ahead and, like us, deal with the devil. Heck, in this case, Hindraf might as well go ahead and move into the MIC premises and collaborate with Samy Vellu! What’s the difference? Talk about shooting yourself, this is a serious, if not fatal, self-inflicted wound by Hindraf.

Yes, despite what many may think, this is not as critical a setback for PR as it actually is for the Indians. You’ve essentially affirmed continued submission to all that UMNO stands for, you have tacitly agreed to submission to the ideology of the likes of Ibrahim Ali, and the racist dogma of Ketuanan Melayu. That’s what your stubbornness has helped affirmed.

Really makes sense, right?

So for what it’s worth, I’m done with putting up with sob stories from Hindraf. For me, Hindraf has lost its moral high ground.

Syabas, Hindraf!

Truly like a classic Tamil movie.

G. Krishnan

Tamil Padam

2010-04-26T12:10:00.002+08:00

I asked a friend if she’d seen Tamil Padam and she said, “ya; for a Tamil movie, it was something interesting.”

I said, “What? Tamil movie?!” I’m not talking about the movie, lah! I’m talking about the recent Tamil padam that unfolded in Hulu Selangor!

Really makes sense, right?

So for what it’s worth, I’m done with putting up with sob stories from Hindraf. For me, Hindraf has lost its moral high ground.

Syabas, Hindraf!

Truly like a classic Tamil movie.

G. Krishnan

ATM Machines in Hulu Selangor

2010-04-24T08:47:00.009+08:00

You’ve all read reports of the ATM machines in Hulu Selangor, ya? No ,these are not the regular ATM machines you find in the lobby of a bank or in a shopping centre. These are a different kind of ATM machines, lah. You can get cash out of these machines even if you have no bank account or ATM card. No need to have your pin number either. Even better, you don’t have to go looking for the machine. It actually comes to you! They have legs, they have arms, and they look like regular people – just like you and me. And of course the most amazing thing is they just give out cash. We’re not talking kacang putih amounts; this is real money, you know!

Some of the poor people being confronted by these ATM machines are seeing amounts that they don’t even see in year, let alone a month. When you have a really big challenge – and a big name like Zaid Ibrahim to overcome, I suppose you also are forced to expand more of your resources to defeat him than might be otherwise necessary. The more I see how hard and desperately UMNO is sending out its foot soldiers - its human ATM machines - and how desperately they’re luring the voters in Hulu Selangor, I am wondering if this is not a good sign after all. Let me explain what I mean.

I know there are many – far more so than we might think - of us out there who find the UMNO money machine to be a despicable ploy that amounts to nothing more than vote buying. Those who understand that UMNO is hollow in principles and is devoid of ideas for moving the country forward understand very well that it has the money to splash, and hence manipulate the voters with cold hard cash. This is not a new UMNO method and it will also not be the last time we see it.

The fact that UMNO has not been able to assume an easy win in Hulu Selangor and is having to fight for ever single vote, its victory – if it wins in Hulu Selangor – would come at a heavy price. From all indications, UMNO has had to dole out a lot of cash. Call it what you may, but the fact remains that if UMNO wins this seat, it would have come at a much heavier price than many of its other so-called victories in the past. This UMNO victory, as much as they will gloat about it, will come at a huge cost to them.

And that will be a silver lining in this episode. If nothing else, it will again remind us all that Pakatan is here for the long haul and it is not going to be run over easily. There is no doubt that a Pakatan loss will be a blow to its progress and the in-roads it had made with voters in various parts of the country. It is also the case that Pakatan won the Hulu Selangor seat last time by only a few dozen votes. So this has been a tough, very divided and heavily contested seat. It is also the case that based on several previous elections, this was a very safe UMNO/BN seat.

Given how hard UMNO’s ATM machines have had to work, does it not suggest that UMNO not only cannot take this seat for granted anymore, but that it has to now fight for every conceivable vote and fight hard – and therefore spread more cold cash around to stand a chance at winning.

Now I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not suggesting this kind of money politics should be condoned or encouraged. But if UMNO is incapable of changing its ways, and is going to indulge in such practices anyway, why not make sure their ATM machines are having to work around the clock and be spitting out lots more cash to locals than has been the case in the past? As I see it, at least voters are getting something more substantial now than they might have ever had in the past.

Of course, I do like Anwar’s suggestion better that the voters take the money but vote for Pakatan instead. But what I’m addressing is a wider point. An UMNO victory in Hulu Selangor will essentially be a very costly victory, and maybe if this is the only way that many of the poor will ever see some cash in their hands from UMNO, so be it.

And just maybe, this means the days of UMNO taking the voter for granted are quite possible over for good.

Progress sometimes comes about in strange ways.

G. Krishnan

My vote goes to Zaid because...

2010-04-23T08:24:00.002+08:00

He is a person of integrity.

He is experienced.

He is principled.

He is not beholden to anyone else.

He is not corrupted.

He is about being Malaysian first.

He is committed to the principle of equality for all Malaysians.

He is not out to line the pockets of his cronies.

He is committed to the rule of law.

He is strongly opposed to communal-racist politics.

I also support Zaid because I believe…

The alternative candidate is an UMNO stooge.

The alternative candidate is an UMNO tambi.

The alternative candidate is beholden to UMNO.

The alternative candidate is nothing but the next Palanivel.

The alternative candidate will be more of the same BN neglect of the poor.

Why, after half a century, should I continue to believe that BN truly cares about my well-being? If it has not lived up to its promises; if it has made a mockery of the public’s faith and trust; if it has harboured and protected racists and bigots; if it has abused our vote and fanned the flames of racial tensions; if it has been plagued by contempt for our rights and protections as citizens; why would I again…and again…and again, keep voting for them?

Why, I ask myself, am I repeatedly rewarding BN/UMNO when it does not respect my rights? Why, I ask myself, do I continue to support the BN only to find myself belittled, marginalised, abused, and insulted by its repeated arrogance?

Am I not worthy of better? Am I so foolish that I go back to the same party that is the source of my pain? Am I so psychologically crippled that I cannot break away from the BN despite its contempt for my rights?

Why, I ask myself, do I not give myself the chance for a better future? When I know that the BN will only give me what it always has – and I know I don’t like it, why do I keep rewarding them anyway?

Am I foolish? Not anymore. That is why, Zaid is my man.

G. Krishnan

Ethical and Unethical Politicians

2010-04-21T11:42:00.004+08:00

Given UMNO’s ‘character assassination' of Zaid Ibrahim, it is of course worth reminding the voters of Hulu Selangor, as several - including Anwar - have done, that here they have a former minister of law who resigned from the UMNO cabinet on account of his disgust at UMNO’s (and BN’s) abuse of the country’s laws to unlawfully suppress free speech.

A recent controversy surrounding Shashi Tharoor, who was a junior minister in India also prompted him to resign his ministerial post in the Congress government. While Shashi Tharoor adamantly denied any wrongdoing or unethical conduct, he resigned so that the cricket-related controversy does not distract from the government’s agenda.

Reading about this case in India reminded me of Zaid’s resignation as minister. It also reminded me of how unusual and uncommon their responses tend to be in politics. These individuals have the integrity and decency to be guided by standards of public conduct and higher principles. It isn’t very often, is it, that we see public figures or politicians acting in the interest of the greater good.

It really didn’t surprise me when Zaid and UMNO/BN parted company. Sometimes good people can become tangled up with very dubious organisations, but eventually they do realise that they don’t belong in such organisations. But how many other former UMNO/BN politicians can you think of who walked away from UMNO because of frustration with the scandals, corruption, nepotism, cronyism, and mismanagement, to name just a few problems, that have plagued UMNO/BN?

Sometimes – albeit not often enough – we come across politicians (Shashi Tharoor) who, despite not having been found guilty of any wrongdoing, resign because they do not want to distract from the public’s genuine agenda. If – only if - there were UMNO/BN politicians who had the integrity to do the same. Given all the UMNO/BN politicians who have been contaminated by scandals, let alone embarrassed, tainted, and humiliated by unethical and suspicious conduct, we would have already seen loads of UMNO/BN politicians exit the political arena. But then that, as we know, is not the nature of UMNO/BN politics. On the contrary, as we see now again with the smear campaign against Zaid, it is actually within UMNO/BN's political make-up to actually practice and reward unethical political behaviour.

Politicians such as Zaid (and Shashi Tharoor) are indeed a refreshingly unique breed, even if they aren’t perfect.

UMNO/BN, on the other hand, is perfect – disgustingly perfect at the practice of vile and dirty politics.

G. Krishnan

Heads and Najib Wins, Tails and Samy Loses

2010-04-18T10:32:00.003+08:00

Has the BN coalition now revealed its true colours? Are we seeing what has always been its true character or is the coalition actually entered a new phase in its history? It’s hard to deny the fact that the main component parties – especially MCA and MIC were in a serious downward spiral prior to March 2008. That outcome, especially in the case of the MIC, revealed exactly how corroded and diseased the party had become by virtue of its own misdeeds. The MCA wasn’t far behind the MIC in having lost its credibility. We have seen both these component parties of the BN continue to desperately struggle to find some sliver of good news in cleaning up their internal mess.

For what it’s worth, the MIC’s recent trials and tribulations confirm one thing: the party is now practically under UMNO directive and is defacto a subsidiary of UMNO. After 2 years of trying to remake itself, we find that the party may actually have regressed even further and plagued with more chaos than either prior to March 2008 or since its much publicised attempts at a makeover.

While Najib and Muhyiddin did not get the pleasure of seeing Samy Vellu’s grip of the MIC end – yet, Samy’s political impotence relative to UMNO and the BN leadership has become even more blatantly transparent. The ‘slap in the face’ delivered to Samy by Najib/Muyiddin in rejecting Samy’s choice for the Hulu Selangor by-election is just one of the latest piece of evidence that while UMNO – for the time-being anyway – finds it necessary to still have the MIC in its fold as a component party, it (and by extension the Samy bandwagon) has become enough of a liability that Najib and Muhyiddin clearly feel the need to keep Samy (and the MIC) under a very tight leash.

It may seem ironic indeed that after having vetoed Samy’s candidate for Hulu Selangor and having frustrated the local MIC brass there by hand-picking the MIC man for the by-election, Najib is nevertheless raising the stakes on the MIC (and Samy) by insisting that the MIC must deliver Hulu Selangor for the BN. How would you like to be in Samy’s shoes for this problem, eh? You’d think that having undermined Samy and Palanivel by sidelining them and frustrating, if not angering, a significant portion of the MIC loyals, the burden would be on Najib and Muhyiddin (and UMNO) to make sure their hand-picked person delivers the Hulu Selangor seat.

Let me tell you what this reads like to me: If Kamalanathan wins in Hulu Selangor, Najib and Muhyiddin will of course come off smelling like a bunga raya, but if Kamalanathan flops, Samy Vellu’s MIC suffers another blow – and it’s Samy’s MIC that again fails to deliver for Najib and the BN (and there goes another nail into Samy’s political coffin).

The fact that there have been some gestures toward helping clean up Samy’s Maika mess and MIC’s in-fighting simply means the MIC and Samy are made even more politically impotent in BN and made further beholden to Najib. By the way, I’m sure the thought did cross your mind about the timing of Samy’s revelation that Najib will assist in straightening out the in-fighting within MIC.

So what does all this mean for the make-over that MIC has been undergoing? Well, I personally find the implications to be self-evident. Don’t you?

G. Krishnan

Paper Tigers

2010-04-16T04:49:00.003+08:00

In case you didn’t know already, maybe now you realize just how good an actor Samy Vellu really is. He actually puts all the movie actors in Tollywood to shame la. Looking at his smiling face standing on stage with his party’s candidate for Hulu Selangor just shows how slick of an actor this guy really is.

Amazing isn’t it? It is just amazing to see how wonderfully Samy’s rebranded MIC has come along. Having gotten a whipping in the last general elections, they go into a “lick your wounds” mode and promise to change. They promise to recognize the problems faced by their constituency, they promise to be more in tune with helping to resolves the peoples’ problems, and there were grand statements about cleaning up the bad image of the MIC as a failed, hopeless bunch of self-serving opportunists who seemed incapable of being independently strong enough to stand up against their master.

Well, we’ve now seen just how deep this rebranding has gone – and how pathetic the party continues to be. Just days ago we had all the chest thumping and loud barking by the MIC brass that Palanivel shall be the only MIC option for the Hulu Selangor. Oh yes, take it or leave it! Palanivel! Palanivel! Palanivel! We are our own party and we decide who will be our candidate. We want our party’s deputy president as the BN candidate for Hulu Selangor. What’s more, our branch leaders in Hulu Selangor will resign en masse if Palanivel is not the candidate.

Oh, how the paper tigers have been exposed! Now I’ve had others suggest some more graphic descriptions of this MIC. Let’s just say they’ve been referred to be lacking certain anatomical parts between their legs. But I personally think that the paper tiger description will suffice for me. Of course you’re free to disagree with me on which one of these two descriptions best fit for the MIC.

Either way, the bottom line is self-evident, is it not? This is a party that has tried to dress itself up different but underneath it all, it is the same as it has been: The Samy Vellu donkey cart in a Samy Vellu led circus with a cast of characters who, in the eyes of millions, look absolutely foolish and politically spineless.

So it’s hard to imagine just how, as with the MCA, the MIC could be regarded as a so-called equal partner in the BN coalition. It’s more like the estate mandore slapping the tambi around.

Now we shall see if the Indian voters in Hulu Selangor will continue this legacy of being the tambi and continue to do what the MIC has modeled for them or will they see the futility of being sold out by the MIC…again.

G. Krishnan

Let It Be Palanivel…Please, la!

2010-04-15T07:43:00.002+08:00

Come on man, UMNO, please let MIC have their way this time, la. Why are you trying to sabotage poor Palanivel and the MIC? See ah, just because the MIC blew it the last time in Hulu Selangor doesn’t mean the voters don’t really care for him as a candidate, you know. After all, I’m sure all the MIC jokers will be head-over-heels about having one of their own, so to speak, on the ballot.

What? You don’t think Palanivel can win the seat for BN? What la, you…why so pessimistic, one? Aiyoo yoo, just try and see la; who knows the voters might really like him, you know. Who cares that Pakatan would really like to have their kampung boy challenged by our MIC joker. They’re just jealous la. They cannot even dream of having such a fantastic champion of the Indians as Palanivel. You know he’s spent just about his entire political career as Samy Vellu’s… well, let’s just say he’s really got great experience la.

Hey, and also, don’t be too worried that many of the Malay and Chinese voters are not too thrilled about Palanivel, okay? I know right now they must be looking at us in BN and thinking, what a bunch of clowns. Even though we’re having this really public bickering and in-fighting going on among ourselves, I think they will all do as Mukhriz says and express their appreciation for Dr. M and BN. Therefore, if we nominate Palanivel, they will sure express their thanks and vote BN la. After all, Samy was Dr. M’s servant, ehm.. I mean minister what; and Palanivel was a loyal…aah… ally of Samy. So see? The voters will express their thanks for Dr. M and vote for Palanivel. Just like old times again! After all, this is Hulu Selangor what! Get it? Hulu Selangor. It won’t be hard to get them to believe us that MIC has its act together – just as we did when Dr. M was in charge of BN. Just trust me, okay?

I know we have been saying that Pakatan is the one that is divided but we clearly have some serious problems, right? But let’s just pretend that the voters in Hulu Selangor are too foolish and naïve to know how bad things really are in our BN camp. We will all pretend that everything is elok only in BN – no problems, no sweat.

Once we nominate Palanivel, we can really bring out our usual tricks and easily make fools of the Hulu Selangor voters, la.

That’s how we’ll win, okay UMNO?

Signed,

Pendatangs who support Ketuanan Melayu and who are grateful to be second class citizens

Kampung Boy Better Than Any BN ‘Local Boy’

2010-04-14T12:25:00.003+08:00

So Umno/BN apparently plans to make a big stink about the fact that Zaid Ibrahim would not be a suitable MP for Hulu Selangor because he’s not a ‘local boy.’ Well, I imagine most of the voters in Hulu Selangor are probably more savvy than the BN machine is prone to give them credit for.

I’m sure Zaid and the PR coalition would welcome such an attack on Zaid from the BN and I have a strange feeling that before this was even made public, the political central nervous system within PR had fully anticipated this eventuality. After all, we know, don’t we, how predictable the BN tends to be.

This predictability about the BN, of course, also includes the fact that they’re notorious for being absolutely inconsistent and pathetically shameless. So what, that Zaid is not a ‘local boy’? And I think that the voters is Hulu Selangor are intelligent enough to know that just having an MP with local connections doesn’t mean squat. Just ask them about Palanivel! I’m sure the voters in Hulu Selangor can tell you about just how hopeless and removed this MIC/BN insider with ‘local’ connections had become from the people of Hulu Selangor. Well, guess what? They were so frustrated and fed-up with this locally connected insider that they threw him out of parliament.

So much for the hang-up about having a local candidate. I have a strange feeling Hulu Selangor voters understand that what is key is that they elect someone who will advocate for them and is capable of delivering; not just someone who can brag about being ‘a local boy.’ Oh, and by the way, I wonder if the BN people remember another infamous ‘local boy’ of their own from Sungai Siput? Aah, what was the name of that local character that the voters of Sungai Siput put on the heap of “political trash” they threw out in 2008? Furthermore, I think we can all come up with several examples where BN itself has enthusiastically put up a so-called ‘outsider’ as a candidate in elections.

So you see, being in the BN fold means you don’t have to be consistent or even concerned about your credibility. You just need to be shamelessly opportunistic. Yes, this is another perfect example where BN will do anything and say just about anything – however hypocritical it might be (heard of the Apco fiasco?) – to score political points.

Let’s see if the voters in Hulu Selangor can rise to the occasion and send a convincing message that they want credible leadership from a kampung boy and not cronyism from ‘a local boy.’

G. Krishnan

Hulu Selangor: Wondering who to vote for?

2010-04-13T07:30:00.004+08:00

Are you one of the 64,500 Hulu Selangor votes? Are you wondering who to vote for in the upcoming by-elections? Here are a few questions you can answer, which would be a very effective way to help you decide.

1. Do you think it’s great that over RM27 mil was apparently spent on women’s footware for civil servants under the Umno/BN regime?

2. Do you think it’s great that the UMNO/BN regime has not yet found anyone responsible for the death of individuals such as Kugan and Teoh Beng Hock?

3. Do you think it’s appropriate that UMNO/BN exploits the judiciary system for targeting and politically hounding its opponents?

4. Do you think it is good for our country that UMNO/BN carried out the coup d’etat in Perak?

5. Do you think that it is acceptable that UMNO/BN politicians repeatedly exploit racial issues to intimidate voters and instill fear in us?

6. Do you think it is good for our future to have an UMNO/BN regime that is mired in corruption and embroiled in repeated scandals such as missing jet engines, the PKFZ fiasco, and abuse of public funds through the allocation of non-competitive tenders?

7. Do you think that the on-going practice of denying and delaying citizenship for spouses of Malaysians, while granting citizenship to illegal immigrants in Sabah is good immigration policy?

8. Do you agree that the MIC leadership should not be held accountable for the abuse and squandering of people’s saving and investments?

9. Do you think the MIC has been a good and credible representative of poor and marginalized people?

10 Do you believe the UMNO/BN should continue to squander the nation’s wealth?

If you answered ‘yes’ to any of the above simple questions, you should vote for the BN candidate. On the other hand, if you answered ‘no’ to even one of the questions, then you should not continue allow a stale, bankrupt, and visionless regime continue to destroy this country’s future. You should send a very clear message that you care about what happens to our future - and that future cannot be built on rewarding the party and coalition that has, time and time again, abused the public’s trust.

So you see, it’s not too complicated, is it?

G. Krishnan

Noh Omar, About Your Apology...

2010-04-11T08:53:00.006+08:00

Noh Omar thinks by invoking some words of historical figures such as Tan Siew Sin and VT Sambanthan, he can give further credence to, and legitimate, his racist assumptions about Ketuanan Melayu. Perhaps in doing so, we’re all suppose to embrace his warped ideas of Ketuanan Melayu and the non-Malays will see, in his view, the prudence of remaining subservient and ‘grateful’ to those of his ilk and mindset.

For what it’s worth, Noh, I’ve got news for you. Let me put it very simply to people such as you and your kind: we non-Malays don’t owe you anything – not the least our citizenship. In case you don’t know, my citizenship as a Malaysian is my birthright, not a favour from you for which I need to be indebted to you. My concern and regard for my country need not be subject to your scrutiny and does not need your approval. As a Malaysian, I am endowed with some fundamental and specific rights and privileges – just as any other citizen.

I do not owe you anything for you and your ilk did not do me any favours. You get it? You have not done me any favours! If anything, I can check-off a long list of grievances of how your warped assumptions reflected in a self-serving toxic parochialism has undermined my rights and privileges as a Malaysian citizen. Maybe, rather than espousing your distorted and selective historical facts, you can start by apologizing for all the racism and bigotry your party has practiced. Maybe you can start by expressing your gratitude and appreciation for all the sacrifices Malaysians have made to put up with you and the selective and special treatment you have extracted from us all that have involved sacrifices for millions of us.

Maybe, when you can stand in front of a podium and publicly thank the rest of us Malaysians for putting up with all the discrimination and racism that millions of us have had to endure, just maybe, then might you be exhibiting some humility. Until then, your apology is worthless and meaningless – and you can stick it in one of your body cavities.

G. Krishnan

BN's Hulu Selangor Dilemma

2010-04-08T10:49:00.004+08:00

Najib seems to be holding his cards very close to his chest when it comes to the BN candidate for Hulu Selangor. While we’ve been given some sneak preview - after some noticeable drama that has apparently transpired behind the scenes - that the BN will hedge its bets on an MIC candidate, there has been enough smoke in the BN circles to suggest that all is not well between the folks at Menara Manickavasagam and Putra World Trade Centre. Indeed, the short distance between the former on Jalan Ipoh and the latter on Jalan Tun Ismail might as well seem like a million kilometers apart.

Although there is little doubt that BN is certainly intent on keeping PR/PKR guessing about its candidate for the time being, it’s also abundantly clear that Umno grassroots movers and shakers in Hulu Selangor are unsettled about the potential of Palanivel as the BN candidate. This latter circumstance is enough to be a slap in the face for the MIC hierarchy (and especially Palanivel who is obviously ambitious in his own right to want to succeed his party’s president in the foreseeable future).

The resistance to his candidacy from various quarters in Umno raises serious challenges both for Palanivel’s credibility as a viable candidate and to the impact it may have on swaying those voters that BN is clearly going to have to win back into its column if it’s to wrestle the seat from PKR. But this must also surely put a real dent on Palanivel’s own confidence as a potential party leader. Let’s just put it this way: it doesn’t quite do wonders for Palanivel’s confidence and reputation when Najib clearly seems pensive and conflicted about the choice.

Putting Palanivel’s personal political (mis)fortunes aside, there remains a palpable discomfort in the BN ranks. So while Pakatan has its work cut out for itself if it hopes to hold on to the seat in Hulu Selangor, it may be just a bit too premature to write PKR off and resign the seat to BN as some “experts” are supposedly telling us. While recent months have shown that Pakatan has many of its own wrinkles, which have to be ironed-out and its own house to put in order, it is not as if BN will not face some stiff voter scrutiny and can simply expect to exploit Pakatan’s follies. And obviously as far as I know, no one is also assuming that Umno/BN’s money-machine will not kick into action when the contest truly heats up.

But it is clear that there is much work yet to be done to narrow the deep wedge between Jalan Tun Ismail and Jalan Ipoh. Under these circumstances, Pakatan has a real opportunity in Hulu Selangor to capitalise on BN’s floundering.

G. Krishnan

(Screw the) People First!

2010-04-07T09:20:00.006+08:00

Slogans are great, aren’t they? Our current regime, like all its predecessors, specialises in manufacturing slogans. In many ways the current government is taking this art form to unprecedented levels. The idea of ‘putting people first’ seems to have been a theme the regime has tried to play up ever since the last general elections.

Unfortunately, looking at the state of affairs from exposes dealing with government tenders, wastage, potential fraud, abuse of public funds, lack of oversight, and other such related debacles becoming public since this government came to power, one might be forgiven to conclude that the more appropriate slogan reflective of this regime would be: Screw the People First!

Now, you really don’t need me to run down the list of instances where we’ve seen repeated mismanagement of the public’s resources but the recent revelations on apparent outrageous amounts dolled out for screw-drives simply is a perfect illustration of the magnitude of mismanagement pervasive in this regime. Come to think of it, is it any wonder that Umno has to repeatedly rely on its Ketuanan Melayu propaganda to continue to trump everything else that may cast a serious shadow over its credibility?

Why fret about missing jet engines or the sheer incompetence in managing oversight in the PKFZ scandal; Umno is here to protect and preserve Malay supremacy! Why be bogged down by Apco or police brutality? Why pay attention to those moaning about a spineless and politicised judiciary? You should be afraid of the pendatang. Indeed, you need to worry about the agents of the Chinese, such as Anwar! Don’t sweat all the problems in our declining economic competitiveness, but do be careful of traitors to the Malay race!

Well, I’m sure you get the point and can certainly come up with several other similar instances to corroborate my point.

There is one tool and one tool only that has been the source of Umno’s longevity. It is not, as many believe, Umno’s control of the purse-strings – and therefore, its ability to be the patron of its base and of MIC and MCA. While that is true – and I don’t for a moment deny that getting the crumbs from Umno does matter and does contribute to why MCA and MIC continue to do Umno’s bidding. But Umno's ability to ultimately garner the support of its own base – and that of the complicit MCA and MIC is due to the fact that these enablers of Umno ultimately believe that racial politics is the only approach possible.

For Umno’s supporters, this amounts to therefore embracing their perceived supremacy. For Umno’s enablers (MCA, MIC, Gerakan), this amounts to taking their crumbs and being the deferential and obedient servant. Hence, for different reasons, Umno prospers politically because of its greatest weapon: keeping racial politics relevant.

Screw the people – and it ultimately won’t matter all that much. Umno always has the racial card to ensure that no matter how badly the average person is screwed, its base and its servants will oblige because Umno makes sure racial politics remains relevant.

G. Krishnan

An ulu fellow on Hulu Selangor

2010-04-03T08:42:00.001+08:00

I may be an ulu fellow but I don’t agree with the road being taken by the Human Rights Party especially when it comes to its relationship with Pakatan. Ironically, what the HRP is doing is leading itself down the path of the same flawed logic - and consequently paralysis - of the parochial race-based politics of BN.

I may be an ulu fellow but for me it’s about time Uthayakumar recognized the need to forge a non-race-based approach to uplifting the marginalized and disenfranchised - a formula that Pakatan is so critically trying to nurture in an environment so infested by BN-style communal politics.

I may be an ulu fellow but it’s time to see that parties such as the Human Rights Party and other such narrowly-race based parties do nothing more than reinforce more of the same thing among so many of us: the tendency to rely on and accept race-based politics as the only approach to governance. In order to change this kind of race-based politics of BN, we must be willing to go the extra step in supporting those who reject purely race-based politics.

I may be an ulu fellow but the HRP needs to understand how to become a constructive force for real change for Malaysians by supporting those who reject racist-based politics rather than another brick in the wall that supports and cements the racist style of race politics that has been practiced by BN.

I may be an ulu fellow but I will support individuals such as Zaid Ibrahim, Nizar Jamaluddin, Said Husin Ali, Lim Guan Eng, Prof. Ramasamy or R. Sivarasan not because of their race or religion but because they appreciate that Umno’s racially driven politics is shallow and destructive.

Yes, I may be an ulu fellow, but I can see that aside from rejecting the kind of abuse of power and the racially-laden cronyism practiced by Umno, the aforementioned individuals and other like-minded ones represent the future – a future that is not laced by the abject ineptitude of Umno’s enablers such as the MCA and MIC, but a future that will be defined by a commitment to public accountability, our common destiny, and respect for the rights of all Malaysians.

I may be an ulu fellow and not be as smart as Uthayakumar, but I’m sure he understands what I’m saying. And it helps when sometimes we can put our egos aside and be sure that we’re not cutting our nose to spite our face. Uthayakumar must realize that he can make far more progress with Pakatan in raising the quality of life for Indians if he partners with Pakatan to struggle for uplifting ALL Malaysians who have been neglected by BN.

The way I see it, Uthayakumar can join hands with people such as Zaid Ibrahim, Syed Husin Ali and Lim Guan Eng, or he risks making himself into an Indian version of Zulkifli Noordin. For his sake, I wish he’d not go down the road of the latter and instead be a constructive part of that process starting in Hulu Selangor.

Speaking of Hulu Selangor, though I may be an ulu fellow, I hope Pakatan doesn’t select its candidate for the Hulu Selangor seat based on racial criteria. It should select the best candidate who can most effectively represent the ideals and vision of Pakatan.

G. Krishnan

Coaching Our Future Olympians?

2010-04-03T07:40:00.007+08:00

Have you ever been curious about our country’s prospect for a medal in track and field in the Olympics someday? Are you a parent hopeful that your child might someday be a world-class athlete? Well, if you’re curious why I ask, perhaps you’ll read on and find out.

Not too long ago, I was reminded just why I would be best served not to even bother with false hopes about a renaissance in Malaysian athletics. You see I came across these very telling images and was left feeling quite sad, but at the same time disgusted and embarrassed for what has become of physical education – and perhaps education in general – in some, and quite likely, many of our schools.

In case you’re unfamiliar with what kind of physical education some of our so-called teachers may be providing students today, here is a bit of insight you might find revealing.

Why, you wonder, would our kids not learn proper techniques for performing certain activities such as high jump? Well, one good reason might be that they actually have PE teachers who themselves are preoccupied with not teaching PE, let alone showing that they’re even appropriately dressed to teach PE, let alone capable of performing or demonstrating to our students the proper skills and techniques they should be exposed to in PE.

With PE teachers like that, is it any wonder that we’ve seen our national stature in sports make as much progress as the MIC has in promoting the well-being of Indians in the country.

I feel deeply sorry for these kids who are being robbed of their potential because our country’s politicians have preferred to brutally compromise the education and the development of our children by putting it in the hands of people who obviously have no grasp, let alone real knowledge and much less commitment to building the next generation of well-rounded adults.

As I see these images, I can’t help but hope that what it reflects is not symptomatic of the rest of the education being delivered by such teachers. But quite depressingly, I think I know the reality is not reassuring, to say the least.

In the meantime, with PE teaching like the kind going on in these photos, looks like we’ll just have to keep dreaming about that first Malaysian Olympic medal in track and field.

G. Krishnan

When you're bankrupt...

2010-04-02T08:14:00.001+08:00

When you’re politically bankrupt and have no new ideas on how to take the nation forward, just adopt the innovative and creative ideas of your opponents.

When you’re politically bankrupt, find yourself looking like a government crumbling on the weight of the religious bigots, and have lost the public relations battle on the potential caning of Kartika, then just manufacture a convenient political face-saving solution to the matter.

When you’re politically bankrupt and have no vision to offer the country, play the same old record of communal politics (as in “I’m Malay first” comment and the birth of Perkasa) and become even more deeply entrenched in the politics of race and racism.

When you’re politically bankrupt and have been exposed in parliament for being hypocritical (as in the Apco fiasco), just go after those who have exposed you.

When you’re politically bankrupt, you offer up the same old excuses for your failure and prop up the same old patronage system to ensure your grip on power.

It is a shame that those of us who have the ability to reject those who are politically bankrupt and who are merely bleeding the country do not seem prepared or capable of doing so.

G. Krishnan

A mob vs a roundtable

2010-01-19T16:53:00.003+08:00

The contrast is self-evident. Events following the High Court’s decision on the ‘Allah’ case, would suggest that Umno tacitly played up the matter to politically capitalise on the situation. Especially noteworthy was the prime minister’s remark that there was not much the regime could do to prevent the Friday street protests from proceeding. If I didn’t know any better, I would have thought we were living in a failed state with an absolutely hopeless and meaningless government; much of the kind we find in Somalia, where warlords – not elected officials rule the day.

By way of contrast to the Umno response, consider the fact that Anwar recently hosted a roundtable on the ‘Allah’ controversy.

Why did it not surprise me that, from the outset, Umno’s response was utterly predictable? Indeed, I reminded you all shortly after the Court’s decision that you can essentially count on an appeal of the decision from Umno. Nowhere did you find Umno ever keen on modeling a genuinely moderate approach to such issues. Having first initiated the ‘Allah’ ban, Umno then proceeds to essentially give the ‘green light’ for the protests following the Court’s ruling. At no point did we see the so-called leadership of Umno come out and model constructive action such as promoting a public dialogue to help channel the energy this issue had arounsed.

No. Instead we saw a kind of impotent response to the planned illegal protests. Whatever happened this time around to the FRU and police who only months ago were cracking down on Hindraf, Pakatan Rakyat or other NGO protesters? Did these instruments of brute force suddenly misplace their batons and water cannons?

Indeed, the contrast is self-evident in how Umno responded then and how it responded now to the protesters. But equally revealing is how Umno cannot fathom to openly and genuinely model any democratic qualities, such as having a public forum, roundtable or public dialogue between the various concerned segments of the population. You see that would be how leaders and organisations committed to democratic principles would respond – by helping to bring various parties to the table, by showing that dialogue is the way to moving forward; not just in this instance, but in every situation.

That different groups might have competing and divergent interests is not surprising. Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhist, and others may not all and always see eye-to-eye on all matters. But a responsible government, especially one that espouses to be ‘democratic,’ would know the importance of generating and modeling dialogue: not fanning the flames of sectarianism.

G. Krishnan

Business as usual

2010-01-17T08:44:00.003+08:00

Here we go again. In a blatantly transparent effort to pacify non-Malays and pull-back their support for the BN, the regime comes up with more of its quota schemes. This time, we’re apparently supposed to be impressed by the regime’s scheme to allocate 30 percent of the intake to the RMC to non-Malays. This is in an effort to presumably “show that the RMC as a full-boarding school was open to all races in the country.”

Well, maybe you’re impressed but frankly, I’m not. Neither am I impressed that the so-called Cabinet Committee on Indian Affairs wants the regime to set aside "about 10 percent work in government projects for Indian contractors.”

I suppose such news would come as very encouraging, if not great, changes to those who celebrate the culture of patronage politics that Umno has been notorious and infamous for. And that is precisely the problem with both these developments. If I recall correctly, those of us who find Umno’s “bumiputera-only” and “bumiputera-first” policies offensive and counter-productive do so precisely because such policies have been the embodiment of patronage and racist policies that have brought us to the very crossroads we find ourselves at: the crossroads of intense racial polarization.

And what is Umno’s remedy? More racist-based policies! Yes…such policies are by definition racist. According to such Umno patronage politics, the solution to loss of non-Malay political support is to pander to them now with the same patronage-style racist policies that alienated non-Malays in the first place. Talk about a one-trick pony. This Umno machinery truly lacks in any imagination, creativity, and innovative capacity. It seems only capable of giving us racial quotas!

If the principle of using racial quotas was offensive in the case of preferential policies for Malays, why should it not be offensive now? And given that the main non-Malay BN parties have been actively self-destructing like never before, I suppose they must be hoping that their non-Malay support base would view these bones thrown their way as a sign of great accomplishment for their races.

How pathetic.

If ever there was evidence that these BN parties are so addicted to patronage politics and are innately incapable of getting past this way of operating, you really have to look no further. Despite the fact that it’s self-evident that this is a foolish and shallow game, it is proof that Umno/BN really are incapable of taking the nation beyond such shallow policies.

I don’t care if 100 percent of the RMC intake is Malay – so long as they’re the best qualified candidates. And whatever non-Malays are also given admission to RMC should be the most deserving based on merit and not because they meet some quota.

Similarly, the best companies should be ones receiving government contracts based on a competitive tender and not because the contractor is Indian, Chinese or whatever.

Zaid Ibrahim is absolutely correct when he says that to get rid of patronage politics, you need to get rid of those controlling the system.

Malignant cancer is like that – unless you get rid of it - lock, stock and barrel, it goes along like business as usual, eating away until it destroys the entire body.

G. Krishnan

The Emperor is Exposed

2010-01-16T19:15:00.003+08:00

It has become one of the hallmarks of the Umno method: act first, and maybe think it over later. The latest example of this is of course most evidenced by the handling of the Allah controversy.

By now, much ink, and not to mention keyboard strokes, has been expanded in revealing the absurdity of the ban on the use of Allah by non-Muslims. The mere politicization of the issue from the very inception of the ban illustrates the mockery it made of the issue. But it also reveals precisely this propensity to act – and only then (maybe) ponder the absurdity of its actions.

How exactly could a responsible government – not to mention in a multireligious country - even issue such a ban if it had put even some modicum of sensible thought into realizing how preposterous this would be. But of course a responsible government, where perhaps there was a strong commitment to inter-faith dialogue, would be aware that the Sikh’s holy book has numerous references to Allah in its text. And perhaps even more Malaysians across the board might know this fact.

But of course that would only be possible if we had a government which was not hell bent on building walls of ignorance between us and repeatedly isolating us from each other in practically all facets of our daily lives. The religious isolation between the different faiths is only a microcosm of the wider isolation we seem to experience in our daily lives. Our wonderful Umno regime’s schemes have got us socializing and playing less with each other, sitting less along-side each other, living in increasingly segregated communities, working less with each other, eating less alongside and with each other… the list goes on and on.

So is it any wonder that the regime acts on a politically motivated religious ban without a sufficient – let alone thorough – understanding of other religions? And isn’t this utterly incompetent handling of the matter now being only further aggravated and compounded by further politicization of the matter by this latest twist of a dual so-called ‘east-west’ Malaysia policy on the ban?

Of course we’ve seen numerous other instances of such Umno practices. Just in recent past, we’ve had flip-flops on the language medium in schools, the number of subjects students may take or not take, and whether English should/should not be a compulsory subject…. These flip-flops are all too familiar to us and again reveal the lack of competence; which then only serves to further exacerbate the need to disguise that incompetence (and the other corrosive qualities such as the chronic corruption and patronage system) with more religiously and racially-laden distractions.

It seems strikingly clear that everywhere we look, the Umno regime has, in its policies, been reinforcing a divide between us while conveniently espousing the same old rhetoric of unity, harmony, pluralism and such flowery but otherwise hollow words to Umno.

Amazingly, this flip-flop, as demonstrated now with an ‘east-west’ Malaysia Allah policy, actually reveals that Umno really isn’t even very savvy anymore at its own game. Or maybe the rest of us are waking up and realizing the Umno game.

Either way, the emperor is being exposed.

G. Krishnan

Ter-ror-ism [ter-uh-riz-uhm]

2010-01-13T10:52:00.006+08:00

If you look it up in the dictionary, this is what it says about terrorism:

~noun

1. the use of violence and threat to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

2. The state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3. A terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

The government and the media can refer to the bombings of the churches and the most recent attack on the Sikh temple in Sentul as arson, stone-throwing, or whatever other euphemism but there is no getting around the obvious.

These are acts of terrorism.

And we are dancing around, tip-toeing, walking on word egg-shells, so to speak, because we don’t want to confront the obvious: the government’s ploy of repeatedly politicizing religion has brought us to the point where terror is now being deployed by certain parties to achieve their political ends.

Terror, as defined by the dictionary above, refers to “the use of violence and threat to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.” Which part of this definition and description do the media not understand?

Terrorism has become part and parcel of how political intimidation now occurs in the country. There was a time when politicians made tacit threats and warned minorities in their speeches. We regressed, for example, to mobs on the streets, which would intimidate others from hosting perfectly legitimate and legal forums to discuss human rights issues. These mobs would be protected by the police and allowed to force the legal forums from being conducted.

In other words, those using intimidation were allowed to prevail.

We’ve also seen other acts and display of implicit – if not explicit – intimidation against religious minorities under other circumstances either on the part of politicians or civilians, which essentially went uncontained and unpunished. I don’t know what you call those kinds of events but when I look at the above definition, there is no doubt in my mind what those acts constitute.

So in 2010, we find that certain religious minorities are again being targeted. Their places of worship are attacked and it is clear that these acts are not random juvenile prank or acts of arson (which implies no political agenda). That much we can reasonably agree upon, right?

As a matter of fact, the timing of the incidents would clearly lead one to reason that what these acts have in common is their attempt to use violence to intimidate for a political reason.

Don’t count on the media to call it what it is. Don’t count on the politicians either.

But terrorism has come to our streets and our neighbourhoods.

I know for myself exactly where the blame lies for this state of our affairs.

Certain politicians have been good at fanning the flames. Now they reap what they sow.

Ter-ror-ism [ter-uh-riz-uhm].

G. Krishnan

'Under Control'

2010-01-12T10:13:00.003+08:00

The home minister says “we’ve got it under control.”

I’m sure this comes at great relief to all of us. I’m reminded of other occasions, which have been also as reassuring to me as this current proclamation by the home minister.

Those Umno general assemblies were ‘under control’ when all the kris-waving and brandishing went on.

Those Umno general assemblies were also ‘under control’ with when all that ethno-religious frenzy would be whipped up and spewed.

The situation was also ‘under control’ when the authorities were giving cover to the bigots who paraded with the severed cow head last year.

The situation was ‘under control’ when the mob was allowed to indulge in its illegal public chest-thumping demonstrations last week.

The situation has always been ‘under control’ each time the regime feels it is necessary to play the religious card and continue to use religion as a means for distracting its core supporters from the real issues that inflict our society.

The situation has always been ‘under control’ even when time after time, we are confronted with one scandal after another.

The situation is ‘under control’ despite the fact that this regime continues to squander both the nation’s resources and stability.

The situation is ‘under control’ despite the fact that Umno and BN has clearly forfeited its credibility to continue to govern.

The situation is ‘under control’ because we the voters allow Umno to continue to treat us with contempt.

The situation is ‘under control’ because the regime assumes a meager $500,000 to a bombed church is enough to buy it goodwill from the public.

The situation is ‘under control’ because we lack the courage to tell Umno that enough is enough.

The situation is ‘under control’ because Umno repeatedly talks about changing and reforming but in practice, it is the same creature.

The situation is ‘under control’ because Umno tries to make us belief that it’s listening and understands our frustration with the growing divide it creates between us but in actuality, it conducts itself in the same way it always has: divide and conquer.

Why would you think that the regime would concede that it had failed in any way and contributed to a climate of heightened tensions that led to the church bombings?

When politicians come up with asinine ideas, we have not just a right but also an obligation to hold them accountable; not become coerced – again – into having to go along with a bad idea. Doing that – again and again - jeopardizes us all – and allows politicians who undermine our civil liberties to get away with it.

And what’s the regime’s most notable solution to the Allah row? Well, of course, it’s for those of us who’ve been deemed second and third class citizens to cave in by dropping the court challenge, and further erode their rights – again.

Ostensibly, as always, the message is the same: give up your natural and constitutional rights and you'll be safe.

Oh yes, the situation is definitely ‘under control.’

G. Krishnan

Wrong Again...

2010-01-10T10:59:00.005+08:00

In an understandably defensive tone, Najib tries in vain to convince millions of us that Umno is not to blame for the terror attacks on the churches. And in what clearly is a follow-up attempt at more damage control, he’s now, tried even more desperately to insist that Umno is not a racist party. And what’s his basis for such a claim? History!

Now, there’s a perfect example of what would surely have to be selective Umno history. Perhaps Najib and Umno sympathizers could use a brief refresher on some landmark episodes so that we can see once again how badly he’s got it wrong when he claims Umno is not a racist party.

It was Umno that gave us the NEP and our legalized discriminatory system – our very own Malaysian apartheid.

It was Umno that gave us unprecedented expansion of discriminatory educational, housing, employment, and various other public policies.

It was Umno that gave us the culture and ideology of Ketuanan Melayu.

It was Umno that gave us the marginalization of minority rights in every imaginable facet of society.

It was Umno that gave us kris-waving general assemblies.

It was at an Umno rally in 1987 when anti-Chinese rhetoric was being stoked and fermented.

It is Umno that has given us an education system in which merit has been set aside in favour of race-based criteria for admission, promotions, and success.

It is Umno that has given us the tradition of abuse and contempt for the poor minorities in the country.

It is Umno that has been at the controls when the racist and brainwashing BTN programmes were put in place.

It was Umno that was in charge when we underwent the saga of temple destructions.

It was Umno that was in charge when the ban on ‘Allah’ was imposed.

And who exactly controls the so-called newspaper that publishes racist garbage?

And under whose watch exactly did this current controversy get incompetently - and tragically - out of control?

Huufff…. Need I go on?

Well, let me just make one other point. If I didn’t know any better, I’m inclined to think that more than being just a racist party, there is actually a broader racist design of ethnic cleansing that has been underway for many years now.

No, it’s not the kind of ethnic cleansing that went on in Rwanda and Bosnia and such, but one has to wonder if Umno has in fact been actually engaging in a low-intensity strategic ethnic cleansing policy for some years now.

And one of the telling signs of the outcome of this strategy and the impact of the above policies has been the steady outflow of minorities from the country coupled with the highly controlled policies of limiting the influx of non-Malays.

Do you suppose after these current terror attacks which happened under Umno's watch, there won't be many more Christians and others who may truly be wondering about what the future holds and may be thinking about a future somewhere other than here? Are we likely to see continued exodus of fearful minorities out of the country? I wouldn't rule it out.

And with each passing year, Umno policies come to have the impact of producing ethnic cleansing, only not in the way we have come to think of the term.

Umno not racist?

Get real.

G. Krishnan

Terrorism: Najib and the Blame Game

2010-01-09T08:32:00.004+08:00

Responsible parents always remind their kids, do they not, that playing with fire can be dangerous. You don’t know what some kids might do. And irresponsible parents may not have caused the house to catch fire and burn down, but they’re also not without blame for letting their spoilt juvenile delinquents to play with fire that results in the house burning down.

It’s Umno that insisted on and implemented the ban against the universal use of the term ‘Allah.’ Therefore, Umno is responsible for politicising this religious issue.

With the above ban, it ‘s Umno that provoked The Herald to challenge the constitutionality of the ban. Therefore, it is Umno that triggered this whole fiasco.

Once the High Court had ruled Umno’s ban unconstitutional, it was Umno that insisted on a stay on the court’s ruling. It was Umno that heightened the stakes – arguably to flex its muscle as the champion of Islam – and signaled that the court’s decision must be challenged. Therefore, Umno is culpable in politicising the religious controversy in a highly public fashion.

When its foot soldiers began to get aroused with the court’s decision, and by Umno’s leadership, which insisted on challenging the court’s ruling, it merely emboldened the rebel rousers. Therefore, Umno is at least negligent in its handling of the matter.

When the Umno leadership seemed sheepish in dealing and squelching the unlawful protests (like its repeatedly done to other unsympathetic groups), it simply added fuel to the nascent fire. Therefore, Umno is clearly implicated in letting the situation deteriorate.

Umno leaders may not have put the fire-bombs in the hands of the terrorists (and make no mistake about it, these church fire-bombings were acts of terrorism), but Umno leaders’ actions which triggered the build-up of this controversy cannot now be conveniently disregarded and swept under the rug.

And any reasonable person would understand that you don’t have to have a directive from the Umno leadership to do something in order to assign some degree of responsibility for a particular action.

Responsibility comes in various forms and degrees; in this case, Umno has been an intimate part of a series of linked developments – ones that it alone had a major part in escalating.

How then can Najib be taken seriously when he’d like to wash away responsibility by insisting that Umno cannot be blamed for these bombings?

Umno may not have sent the bombers out to do the (mis)deeds, but it sure cannot claim to be wholly innocent.

Umno may not have told anyone to burn down the house but it sure put the matches in the hands of the culprits.

G. Krishnan

"The Gods Must Be Crazy"

2010-01-08T14:21:00.004+08:00

I was sitting in a coffee shop having some tea. It was rather empty at the time as I sat in one corner quietly sipping my teh. Suddenly, I heard a voice say: “Very sad, isn’t it? I can’t imagine what some people will do – and justify it in by invoking my name.”

I was shocked – I looked around but there was no one near me! “What’re you so terrified about,” said the voice. Now I started to really get scared.

“I am God – and I’m talking to you,” said the voice. I listened.

“This has to be a first. There have been a lot of atrocities in human history that have been justified by invoking my name. There have been genocides, wars, man-made famines, infanticide, honour killings, assassinations, hijackings, beheadings, persecutions, mindless bombings, executions, and all kinds of other madness carried out presumably in my name. Imagine – all that in order to honour me or presumably to serve me.”

I was very tense and sweating profusely. None of the attendants in the coffee shop noticed anything unusual or even glanced my way.

The voice went one: “But this is bizarre – and seems like a first: these people going bonkers about who can refer to me with what name. What is it with these people? Didn’t I give you all a mind so you may actually think – even a little?”

“Amazing! Truly amazing, I tell you,” is what I heard.

I just sat still; shell-shocked and by now wondering if I should just get up and leave.

“Do they not realize that I can take care of myself? After all, I’m God! I suppose it never crossed their minds that I am perfectly capable of deciding – when the time comes – who has insulted me and who has not; who called me by a name I found offensive and who dishonoured me. Really, do these people actually think I need mortals like them to protect my reputation and honour?

It’s obvious that these people have not grasped the extent to which they’ve developed an exaggerated sense of self-importance.”

"Madness! Utter madness."

I thought to myself: you won’t find me disagreeing with that!

G. Krishnan

Shabash UMNO!

2010-01-08T11:22:00.004+08:00

The UMNO-led regime tells us that peaceful candlelight vigils are unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Those participating in them – presumably because they are part of an “unlawful” assembly - have on multiple occasions in the past been manhandled, beaten, dragged, abused and hauled away by the so-called authorities.

The UMNO-led regime and its cronies preach to us that street protest is not part of our Malaysian way for addressing grievances.

But of course these excuses for cracking down on the public are only invoked upon those it finds disagreeable. When UMNO goons indulge in illegal demonstrations and violence, UMNO and the regime somehow miraculous become incompetent at unleashing the wrath of the riot police upon these people. Indeed, some in the regime even mysteriously become defenders of the right to free speech!

Now, we get fire-bombings against churches. And what, might we ask, is the justification for such barbaric attacks on these places of worship? Of course we're often told that no religion condones such barbarism. But, let us now realize that we’ve reached another milestone under UMNO: that such barbarism has now also become part of our political reality.

This kind of barbarism is not only now something we find in Afghanistan with the blowing up of the statuses of Buddha or the kind of backwardness one finds in Pakistan with the persecution of Christians and Hindus or the recent violence against Coptic Christians in Egypt. Yes, we too can now claim this distinction of belonging to a class of pathetic nations where we seem to breed such vile and barbaric fanatics who destroy our nation by their despicable deeds.

Thank you UMNO and BN for helping to bring us to such new heights of disgrace and shame.

Now, we are but only another backward nation where religious fanaticism has been so stoked and politicised that we find ourselves reduced to such absurdity that we take petty squabbles about who can use which word to refer to which god - and from there, we find the barbaric among us feeling emboldened by UMNO’s politicisation of religion.

Shabash UMNO.

G. Krishnan

Hallelujah – But Behold!

2010-01-01T10:23:00.001+08:00

We all know that our judicial system has a peculiar tendency. By this I mean that decisions that tend to go against the regime’s position often, on appeal, tend to turn out to be in its favour. One most recent high profile example of this was of course the battle of the mentri besars of Perak. If you’ve followed that saga, you know how we went from one High Court judgment that was a victory for Mohammad Nizar only to find a stay on the judgment and a subsequent reversal of the initial ruling upon appeal by the government.

The recent case of the High Court’s ruling on the government’s ban on use of the word ‘Allah’ by non-Muslims and especially The Herald, while clearly a sensible decision will only be, I’m afraid, a temporary victory for The Herald. Given the sentiment being reported that the government is likely to appeal the decision, I’m afraid this saga is also going to play out in the all too familiar verdict.

So while I can understand the elation in some quarters – especially among those of us who do care about preserving the constitutional protections on religious freedoms, I wouldn’t go so far as Lawrence Andrew of The Herald to claim that this High Court ruling “shows that we are truly living in a '1Malaysia', not two Malaysias."

Don’t you think that’s going just a bit too far all too prematurely? Surely, Lawrence and his lawyers know all too well that this process has a long way yet to go. And before we jump to such grandiose conclusions based on one specific partial episode, we should perhaps sit back contemplate about the judicial road travelled by Anwar or Mohammad Nizar in their respective court battles with the regime.

Indeed, I have a creepy feeling that this decision also will find the same eventual fate as the High Court’s favourable ruling last May for Mohd. Nizar in his battle as MB of Perak. I recall the jubilation in his face at that time – not unlike what we see now with Lawrence Andrew.

So while this sounds like I’m raining on The Herald’s moment in the sun, I’m only just actually blowing some rain clouds to produce some overcast.

The rain will be self-evident when the regime appeals this ruling all the way up the judiciary system. That’s when the cards will be really stacked, as in the Nizar and Anwar cases, againstThe Herald, against religious freedom, and against the Constitution.

And by the way, it’s self-evident too, is it not, that the government’s zealous pursuit of this case just goes to show how much it is determined to play the religious card.

G. Krishnan

Umno Could Learn from Pastor Eddie

2009-12-31T14:56:00.002+08:00

If only the arrogant and self-righteous within Umno were capable of the kind of humility Pastor Eddie speaks about in this video.

Here's Wishing You A Miserable New Year...

2009-12-31T07:21:00.004+08:00

If you’re one of the plethora of corrupt politicians, I wish you have a miserable year getting bribes and kickbacks.

If you’re one of these corrupt politicians, I can only dream that you’re caught on tape doing one of your dastardly misdeeds.

If you’re a political insider who has always greased the wheels of cronyism and nepotism, I wish you a truly horrible year for your political fortunes.

If you are one of those politicians who has been obsessed with lining your own pockets and doling out the public’s wealth for your own family and relatives, I wish you a horrible year politically.

And for those of you who have also been peddlers of racist propaganda to promote your pathetically shallow, narrow-minded, and disgustingly divisive communalism, I wish you fail miserably in 2010.

Indeed, for those who have exploited religion and used it as a weapon to abuse, mistreat, and violate the rights of others, I wish you have a painful process of coming to your senses and recanting on your misdeeds.

In this similar vein, for those of you who continue to indulge in spewing poisonous venom in order to divide and misguide the public, while adding to the suffering of the people, I wish you have a truly horrendous time doing so in the coming year.

May the public servants who abuse their position of authority, commit crimes of violence and torture against civilians and abuse the human rights of others themselves be inflicted with a torturous feeling of guilt and the pain of a tormented conscience.

For those who have made a mockery of our judicial system, may you find yourselves haunted by the torture you've inflicted on innocent others.

For those who have abused the public trust by bleeding the country’s rich resources and ruined the well-being of the nation, I hope you get your just desert and find yourself sitting in prison.

Am I hopeful that our political system, for what it is, can help make my above wishes come true?

Well, let me put it this way: I may be an optimist but I’m no idiot.

And to the rest of you who do not fit the profile of the pathetic politicians and so-called public servants above, may you have a peachy new year - may your yin and yang be in total harmony.

G. Krishnan