Category: Society

Categories
Politics & government Society

[2084] Of not humored by the accusation of Malayan imperialism

Those who value liberty place responsibility on a pedestal. Without responsibility, an entity is undeserving of liberty and deserves admonishment for its oversight. While it is heartening to witness the culture of liberty flourishing in Malaysia, it is unclear if the necessary responsibility associated with freedom is experiencing parallel development required of a mature free society. Many Malaysians are delighted at the prospect of greater freedom but remain unwilling to take up the required responsibility.

Sentiments prevalent in several issues can demonstrate this clearly. The issue of fuel subsidy is one: advocates of subsidy want to consume fuel but are unashamedly unwilling to pay for its fair, free market cost.

Another example, which I would like to go into greater depth, is the discussion regarding the relationship between eastern and Peninsular Malaysia.

I am not at all humored by complaints raised by critical Malaysians in Sabah and Sarawak on how they have been short-changed in the 46-year-old partnership between the two states in Borneo and the 11 states in the Malay Peninsula. Some public discourse in eastern Malaysia exhibit varying levels of hostility to Peninsular Malaysia that sometimes in jest includes the mention of Malayan imperialism. Along with it are matters such as underdevelopment, allocation of resources, immigration and even the date of National Day, among other things.

This hostility is unfair because the peninsular states should not be their punching bag. Only the federal government has the power to effectively address those issues both Sabah and Sarawak face individually or collectively. It is utterly crucial to differentiate between the peninsular states and the federal government. Failure to do so will not solve the problem and is likely to make the problem worse by introducing new ones. Hence, the resentment should be directed at the federal government.

Furthermore, while admittedly the other 11 states theoretically dominate the national legislature, federalism is only rarely a priority item among these 11 states due to years of the centralization policy of the federal government that flagrantly disrespected individual states’ rights. In fact, perhaps that is true for all states in Malaysia, including Sabah and Sarawak. Simply observe the Dewan Negara. What is supposed to be a symbol of states’ rights has been reduced to a rubber stamp of the executive, contrary to the spirit of democracy, even in the crudest definition of democracy.

Actually, even the federal government is unworthy of the resentment. If it has been forgotten, Sabah and Sarawak are part of the federal government. Two factors need stress.

One, Sabah and Sarawak are over-represented in the Lower House of Parliament in terms of population. Both states combined have approximately only six million people but are associated with 56 seats. The other 11 states have close to 20 million Malaysians but have only 153 seats in the Dewan Rakyat.

Two, moreover, as a direct result of the March 8, 2008 general election, both states have unprecedented influence in the federal government.

If the interests of Sabah and Sarawak have not been secured, it is clear that those who are frustrated at national discourse regarding both states should not blame the peninsular states or even the federal government. Rather, their representatives have failed.

Their federal representatives failed because despite over-representation in Parliament and commanding influence in the federal government, these eastern Malaysian representatives failed to effect national discourse. Meanwhile, their state representatives failed because they did not stand up to federal pressure when called upon to do so.

Yet, the majority in Sabah and Sarawak continuously voted for these representatives who sometimes seemingly colluded with the federal government to erode state rights of not only that of Sabah and Sarawak, but all 13 states of the 46-year-old federation.

Ultimately, this is a failure of assuming rightful responsibility. It is a failure of Sabahans and Sarawakians, especially those who are unhappy with the status quo. They demand their rights but they do not stand up and be counted. Thus, they brought this upon themselves and therefore, they have only themselves to blame.

What other conclusion can one draw?

Worst of all, they are shifting the cause of their failure to those on the peninsula. Not only those who cry Malayan imperialism each time the federal government comes in sight failed to act by changing their representatives, they refused to shoulder the consequences for their failure to act by making a scapegoat out of Peninsular Malaysia.

As I said, I am not at all humored.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

First published in The Malaysian Insider on September 17 2009.

Categories
Society

[2073] Of busting the myth of the monolithic community

What happened on a Friday in Shah Alam—when a group of individuals protesting against construction of a Hindu temple chose to do it by parading a severed cow’s head knowing full well that Hindus hold the cow sacred—is disgusting. There are ways to protest but the method employed by them is so despicable that it should be unthinkable and, hence, unspeakable. Malaysians who believe in a more inclusive future have every right to be angry at the protesters, whatever their political inclinations may be.

So reckless was the action that it left far too many thinking individuals with a revolting aftertaste that lingers on the tongue, even days after. It reminds too many Malaysians of one of the worst facets, if not the worst, that Malaysia can offer. It invokes all kinds of negative emotion: fear, sadness, disgust, anger. Pessimism reigns.

Regardless of debate regarding the ideals of Malaysia, this is no way to enter August 31, or September 16.

On the other side of the coin is the romantic Malaysia at play however.

If one concentrates just barely, one would realize an oft-overlooked but yet obvious and crucial fact in the whole episode. It is a fact that is capable of holding the tide of pessimism as the Hoover Dam to the Colorado.

It is a fact that the one who is standing up for a minority group against the majority is Khalid Samad, a Muslim Malay. It is a hopelessly cliched romantic narration in which a Malaysian of a different background stands up for another Malaysian of different background.

Nonetheless, this important fact deserves greater attention because it provides a concrete example in combating generalization that leads to the perception that a community is homogeneous in its opinion and that that opinion is one where all Malays are out to oppress the non-Malays. It is especially useful in undoing views that the whole majority population—every Malay—is bent on pushing the minority aside with impunity.

For the action of a very limited number of individuals, there are those who condemn the whole Malay population as they condemned the outrageous protesters. This generalization is unfair and unbecoming of anybody that dreams of an inclusive Malaysia.

That generalization is absurd. More than absurd, it is dangerous because that itself leads to a greater downward spiral into bigotry. While they themselves claim to abhor bigotry, they themselves are falling into the same trap that forms the basis of such bigotry.

It cannot be emphasized enough that one large factor contributing to the racial and religious mess in Malaysia is the perception that ethnic groups in Malaysia are monolithic and that there is no individual but only a unit listening to the hive mind inside each of this group.

This is not a conflict between Muslim Malays against the minority. Rather, it is a conflict between inclusiveness and intolerance. For this reason, for their offence, these barbarians deserve focused criticism with the spirit of inclusiveness. But not with further bigotry and racism.

Any criticism that has with it a hint of bigotry and racism—in this particular case, by equating the whole Malay population with that of the few barbarians—is counterproductive. Such criticism against the protesters only justifies and strengthens the flawed notion of monolithic community because it attacks other Malays and Muslims who are innocent of the appalling act done on Friday in Shah Alam. When these Malays and Muslims are unfairly criticized, the likelihood of them to fall in line with the perceived communal pattern increases to worsen the situation.

The presence of Khalid Samad—not him as a person per se but the fact that he is a Muslim Malay—standing in opposite to the position of bigots forces anybody contemplating to unfairly commit that gross generalization. The role of Khalid Samad makes good the abstract criticism that has been made against the perception of monolithic community for the longest time.

Granted, such roles as that played by Khalid Samad frequently plays out in smaller settings every day around Malaysia and, in fact, around the world. Khalid Samad is not an exception to a generalization. Instead, the generalization of monolithic community is downright wrong.

Unfortunately, those who hastily generalize too often are too blind to see so small a deed. What they need is a big one to convince them.

With the temple controversy becoming a national issue, the role Khalid Samad has assumed provides Malaysians with an opportunity to demonstrate and convince themselves how flawed the notion of monolithic community is. It provides a chance to smash the idea of homogeneity to smithereens.

That is something Malaysians should celebrate and that should be the spirit as Malaysia celebrates its day, be it August 31, September 16 or any other day for that matter.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

First published in The Malaysian Insider on September 1 2009.

Categories
Science & technology Society

[2071] Of masquerading: H1N1, facemasks and soap

Last week in Kuala Lumpur, I was at the Plaza Rakyat LRT station when a family lugging wheelie suitcases asked me whether they were at the right platform to get to KL Sentral. Being from out of town myself, I said I did not know, but continued to watch them because the two teenage daughters were wearing surgical masks. I have had a rather ghoulish fascination with infectious diseases since childhood, and when the pandemic started back in April, my lab-mates and I followed it like Malaysians watching the English Premier League.

The family eventually got affirmation from someone else that we were indeed on the correct platform. As we waited for the train, one of the girls’ shoulders shuddered, and she pulled down her mask to cough vigorously without covering her mouth. Relieved, she replaced the mask and continued staring into space.

Despite advisories from the Ministry of Health and other experts, most people still have the wrong end of the stick regarding surgical masks: their primary purpose is to protect other people from your germs, not the converse. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s advice on facemask use is that sick persons, not well, should wear them. They do protect the wearer from large splatters, but they do not filter out aerosol-sized droplets and have big gaps around the nose and sides, unlike a real respirator. When I had to wear an N95 respirator for working with viruses in graduate school, the fitting involved trying on several different models and jumping up and down while being sprayed in the face with a saccharine solution to check if any droplets got through.

(On the other hand, the use of facemasks in healthcare settings such as clinics and hospitals can help to slow the spread of flu, since many people may be infected and shedding virus in those locations. This still does not mean that an uninfected individual wearer is protected, and neither WHO nor the CDC recommend mask use in community settings.)

If facemasks do not work, why are people so enthusiastic about them?

First, it gives people a sense of control over the situation. We can watch out for robbers, but an invisible virus is a terrifying, insidious idea for most (especially those who cannot do math and think the world is ending). Unlike the advice to stay healthy, wash your hands, and go home if sick — which a sensible person should practice all the time anyway — buying a mask gives the consumer a sense of having done something concrete. The same goes for heading to the doctor to demand Tamiflu, which to me is really terrifying because antiviral abuse inevitably leads to viruses becoming drug-proof.

Secondly, I think Malaysians are exceptionally susceptible to silly claims about health because we are muddled between our Asian cultures with their various traditional remedies, modern biomedical science, and Western pop-culture pseudoscience. All you have to do is look at the number of ads in the newspapers and on banners selling health products (Tongkat Ali vs. Quantum Pendants). The exorbitant prices that masks were going for, before the introduction of price controls last week, further encouraged the perception that masks were a valuable prophylaxis against the dreaded flu. The terrible quality of science and math education does not help either, since it creates the mentality that those are things you memorize for exams, not tools for real-world application.

The final irony is that influenza virions (virus particles) are notoriously fragile and break down quickly at room temperature — this is in comparison to viruses like polio, which can hang around in water supplies for quite a long time. In particular, the stability of the virus in aerosols at tropical heat and humidity is significantly less than in the cold, dry winter in so-called ”temperate” countries, which is why we usually have low levels of flu year-round rather than seasonal outbreaks like Europe, Australia, and North America.

Some researchers think that flu is more likely to spread by contact or fomites (contaminated objects) in tropical regions. That means that your best friend is not a facemask, but a soap bottle. As an enveloped virus, flu is particularly susceptible to detergents. Why this has not been more strongly emphasized by the MOH, and why you can see toilet attendants wearing facemasks while guarding public toilets with no soap, boggles the mind.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

HWA SHI-HSIA recently finished her MS in comparative biomedical sciences at the University of Wisconsin. She maintains http://xenobiologista.com/blog/.

Categories
ASEAN History & heritage Society

[2070] Of Indonesia did not create the tune of Negaraku or Terang Bulan

I do feel that in many cases, general Malaysians do have unfair perception of Indonesia as well as have acted unfairly against far too many Indonesians living in Malaysia. But the current sentiment in Indonesia is bordering a ridiculous level. Silly jingoism is playing out in Indonesia.

In the Jakarta Globe, a state recording executive claims that Malaysia — to use the zeigeist of anti-Malaysia in Indonesia — ‘stole’ the tune of Negaraku from the Indonesian song of Terang Bulan.

An executive of Lokananta, a state recording company based in Solo has drawn attention to Malaysia’s national anthem, ”Negaraku,” claiming that it is suspiciously similar in tune to ”Terang Bulan,” a song written by the Bandung Ensemble and first recorded by Lokananta in March 1956 — a year before Malaysia’s independence was announced on Aug. 31, 1957.

”Terang Bulan is a keroncong song, meant for entertainment. Why did they take it for their anthem?” asked Ruktiningsih, head of Lokananta.

”Does Malaysia really have no dignity at all?”

Keroncong is a melodious musical genre that has its roots in Portuguese music and is usually played on violins, flutes and a small, ukelele-like guitar.

Ruktiningsih said that ”Terang Bulan” was one of 49 Indonesian songs recorded in Jakarta by national radio station RRI on the orders of then President Sukarno in 1956. The songs were later made into a record by Lokananta. [Malaysian anthem actually Indonesian, says record company. Candra Malik. Jakarta Globe. August 29 2009]

Let us disregard the fact that modern Southeast Asian states, Indonesia and Malaysia included, did not exist before about mid-20th century. Let us ignore the fact that the current boundary between the two countries only came into existence in the 1820s by virtue of the 1824 Anglo-Dutch Treaty. Let us ignore that culture spread and shared by lands what are now called Indonesia and Malaysia. Let us ignore too that many Indonesian citizens became Malaysians in modern times and that they too practice their culture, which is more or less similar to Indonesian, bar assimiliation process that occurred while their adopt local practice.

Even after discounting those historical accidents, the insinuation is odd.

It is odd because the tune was first recorded to be heard in Seychelles in mid-19th centry, and first played by the government of Perak as its state anthem in 1888 or 1901 in England. On top of that, the tune was composed by a Frenchman. The Federation of Malaya later decided to modify Perak’s anthem into the federation’s anthem. The anthem continues to act as the national anthem of a larger federation called Malaysia when the 11 states of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore decided to federate.[1]

Rather than Malaysia internalizing an Indonesian song, the 1956 Indonesia song originated from the same source as Negaraku. If the executive is to define ownership of the tune as the one that first created it, then both Malaysia and Indonesia have no ownership over it. The ownership should belong to that dead Frenchman.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — See The National Anthem of Malaysia – Negaraku at Malaysian Monarchy. Accessed August 29 2009.

Categories
Society

[2069] Of barbarians in Shah Alam

One of the worst aspects of Malay conservatism reared its ugly head today.

In Shah Alam, in protest against construction of a Hindu temple, a group of individuals — no, barbarians is a more apt description for only barbarians are capable of committing such an uncivilized act — brought along with them a severed head of a cow with clear intention to insult.

SHAH ALAM, Aug 28 — A group of Malay-Muslim protesters claiming to be residents of Section 23 have threatened bloodshed unless the state government stopped the construction of a Hindu Temple.

Amid chants of “Allahuakbar,” the group also left the severed head of a cow at the entrance of the State Secretariat here as a warning to Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim. [Protesters threaten bloodshed over Hindu temple. Shazwan Mustafa Kamal. The Malaysian Insider. August 28 2009]

They are multiple other more respectful ways to protest. For instance, they can bring the state government to court. Yet, they just had to do it in the most insulting way, given that cows are held sacred by the Hindus. The provocation was utterly unncessary and distasteful.

The group of barbarically educated protestors should be roundly and harshly criticized for what they had done. The most responsible action is to bring these barbarians to shame. Continuous moral pressure must be applied on them unrelentlessly. Condemnation in the strongest terms is in order.

That however is not the worst of the whole episode. They made explicit threat of bloodshed.

That threats must be taken seriously by the authority. Criticism and shaming alone will not be enough to ensure that that threat will not be carried out by the barbarians.

I intend to make myself clear. The protesters, at least the leaders, especially Ibrahim Haji Sabri, should be arrested for making threats. They should not be arrested for the gathering or for savagely parading the cow head, no matter how digusting the act is.

It is imperative that any action taken be grounded on proper rationale, even if the end result is the same.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

p/s — the other side of the story.

[youtube]ytAkNMyGd1M[/youtube]

A protester said that the temple was supposed to be moved to Section 22 instead of 23 from Section 19. I am interested in the truth behind the statement and if it is true, the reason why the state government decided to do so.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

pp/s — after some desktop research, I stumbled upon Khalid Samad’s explanation:

Ada pula yang menambah Seksyen 22 adalah tapak cadangan kerajaan BN dulu, majoriti masyarakat Hindu. Hakikatnya tapak cadangan BN adalah kawasan kilang, jauh dari mana-mana penduduk, Muslim mahupun Hindu. Terlalu jauh dan amat tidak sesuai. Kalau betul ingin membantu, biarlah ikhlas, biarlah adil. [Respon pengunjung: Persoalan Kuil Seksyen 23. Khalid Samad. August 19 2009]

I encourage others to read Khalid Samad’s full post.