Category: Society

Categories
Economics Politics & government Society

[1324] Of a grim signal for the opposition and possibly a bad survey

In both Turkey and Japan, voters’ main concern is the same: the health of the economy.

The Merdeka Centre for Opinion Research conducted a survey earlier in June and this is the result:

A survey by the Merdeka Centre for Opinion Research in June found that 76 per cent of Malays thought the economy was favourable, but only 45 per cent of Chinese and 58 per cent of Indians shared their view. [News Focus: Economy, crime main concerns of Malaysians. Darshni, Shamini. NST. August 7 2007]

That does not sound good for any opposition party that depends on Malay votes.

Regardless, this might be a result of a very confusing question:

Asked whether they thought Malaysia was lagging other economies but if programmes and other government efforts would help the country catch up, 24 per cent of Malays, 44 per cent of Chinese and 45 per cent of Indians disagreed. [News Focus: Economy, crime main concerns of Malaysians. Darshni, Shamini. NST. August 7 2007]

Do the participants disagree to the statement “the economy is lagging” or “government effort helps to catch up”?

And these results do not make sense, or at least something is missing.

On Islamisation, 91 per cent of Malays said they supported the idea while 82 per cent of Chinese and 58 per cent of Indians did not. [News Focus: Economy, crime main concerns of Malaysians. Darshni, Shamini. NST. August 7 2007]

Do read that together with:

Among those who felt the Islamisation process had a positive effect, 29 per cent said it instilled noble values and eight per cent said the religion helped reduce social ills and indecency. [News Focus: Economy, crime main concerns of Malaysians. Darshni, Shamini. NST. August 7 2007]

Only 29% of the sample agrees that Islamization instill noble values and only 8% agrees that religion reduces social ills but 91% of Malays support Islamization. Odd.

I believe a more meaningful way of presenting the results is to either divide the result regarding instillation of noble values into ethnic groups, or to have the percentage out of the total sample related to the question of support for Islamization instead of having it in its current form. Only through either one method does one could compare an apple to an apple. By reading this article from the New Straits Times, it is either the reporter has bad critical writing skill or the Merdeka Centre conducts unreliable survey.

I tried to clarify some of my confusion by looking for the actual survey. The Merdeka Centre’s site however is disappointing: nothing relevant could be found there.

But putting technical questions aside, could it be that the reason behind support for Islamization is neither about promoting noble values nor reducing social ills but mostly caused by something else?

And finally:

On Islamisation, 91 per cent of Malays said they supported the idea while 82 per cent of Chinese and 58 per cent of Indians did not. [News Focus: Economy, crime main concerns of Malaysians. Darshni, Shamini. NST. August 7 2007]

A concrete fact to support my earlier post.

Categories
Politics & government Society

[1323] Of unelected representatives have no mandate to represent everybody

There is strength in numbers… with all things equal, of course. Those active in politics realize this and they work hard to build up their bases. Some however pretend that they have similar support, claiming to represent a body while no member of the body could recall appointing any representative to speak for the members as one. Though this might seem odd to those with the right of mind, self-proclaimed but unelected representatives are as common as rats in the monsoon drain.

It is not hard to find an example or two.

One that comes to mind is the component parties of the Barisan Nasional. It is customary for those in UMNO to claim to speak for all Malays, claiming to represent all Malays. The same is true to MCA and MIC. This however is untrue because not all Malays agree to be represented by UMNO, or any other community for that matter. When presented with proof that these race-based parties do not represent every Malay, Chinese, Indian, etc as they claim to be, their way out is to accuse those that refused to be represented by them as traitors.

What these unelected representatives really mean by traitors really not traitors to the community but rather, traitors to the unelected leaders, which none has pledged loyalty to in the first place.

Another similar example relates to the religious conservative Muslims who claimed to speak for the whole Muslim community, as if the Muslim community is a monolith society with a single mind. When those that disagree raised their voice against these unelected representatives, the self-proclaimed leaders began calling those that have different minds as heretics. But the religious conservatives are strange animals. While they may play with exclusive politics game, when one genuine wishes to opt out of the community, these religious conservatives actively hinder one’s liberty to do so. A true catch-22 — they will shove you out of the door but they do not let you go out of the door. The minds of the religious conservatives are truly mindless.

In both cases, the trend is observable, as clear as daylight. The unelected representatives masquerade as the authorities of a community despite knowing full well that they have no organic mandate to speak for everybody in the community. When dissenting voice fills the air to remind the pretenders of that fact, these unelected representatives would accuse the reminders as traitors to the community. The accusation continues on and on until only those that agree with the unelected leaders, as well as those that are too afraid of being labeled as traitors, are the only ones left in the community.

Suddenly, only those that stay loyal to the unelected representative are the true members of the community. The others which were part of the original and more inclusive community are now the outsiders.

The unelected representatives have no mandate to represent us; they have no mandate to represent a community which has never appointed them as the speakers. These unelected representatives are merely pretenders, impostors, liars. Or at the very least, these unelected representatives assume that they have the support of the community; they simply assume too much.

Categories
Economics Liberty Society

[1299] Of don’t tread on me

Public domain.

Dedicated to Raja Petra Kamarudin, and liberty at large.

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

p/s — pardon the low frequency of post. Work now demands extra labor.

But do not forget, DAP is organizing a forum on Negara Islam on Thursday, July 26 2007 at the Chinese Assembly Hall in Kuala Lumpur at 1930 hours.

Later on July 30 2007, Prof K.S. Jomo will be speaking at a talk at the same place:

Malaysia Economic Development Since Merdeka: Lessons for the Present and Future

Date: 30 JULY 2007 (Monday)

Time: 8.00PM-10.00PM

Venue: Kuala Lumpur & Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall, No. 1, Jalan Maharajarela, 50150 Kuala Lumpur (Near Maharajarela Monorail Station)

Guest Speaker: Prof. KS Jomo

Jomo K. S. has been Assistant Secretary General for Economic Development in the United Nations’ Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) since January 2005. He was Professor in the Applied Economics Department, Faculty of Economics and Administration, University of Malaya until November 2004, and was on the Board of the United Nations Research Institute on Social Development (UNRISD), Geneva (2002-4). He is Founder Chair of IDEAs, International Development Economics Associates ( www.ideaswebsite.org)

Born in Penang, Malaysia, in 1952, Jomo studied at the Penang Free School (PFS, 1964-6), Royal Military College (RMC, 1967-70), Yale (1970-3) and Harvard (1973-7). He has taught at Science University of Malaysia (USM, 1974), Harvard (1974-5), Yale (1977), National University of Malaysia (UKM, 1977-82), University of Malaya (since 1982), and Cornell (1993). He has also been a Visiting Fellow at Cambridge University (1987-8; 1991-2) and was Visiting Senior Research Fellow at the Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore (2004).

He has authored over 35 monographs, edited over 50 books and translated 11 volumes besides writing many academic papers and articles for the media. He is on the editorial boards of several learned journals. Some of his most recent book publications include Malaysia’s Political Economy (with E. T. Gomez), Tigers in Trouble, Rents, Rent-Seeking and Economic Development: Theory and the Asian Evidence (with Mushtaq Khan)

Abstract: Malaysia as a nation turns into 50 this year. In commemoration of 50 years of nationhood, there has never a better time for Malaysians to reflect on the present, its origins in the past and what the future holds. The economic crisis that began in 1997 has reduced growth rates since.

Ten years after the crisis, how far has Malaysia recovered? What is the present situation of the Malaysian economic? Is FDI the solution for Malaysia’s economic stagnation? All these questions and many more will be addressed by Prof. Jomo. This discussion should open a debate on our shared future as a nation.

Language: English

ALL ARE WELCOME!

Categories
History & heritage Society

[1287] Of searching for the origin of Malaysian nation

A nation is not a state and vice versa, unless a nation-state is in the equation. Many however do not comprehend the difference between the two concepts. The comprehension of the difference is crucial in understanding why Malaysia as a state and a nation is not 50 years old come this August 31.

There can be no confusion that on a federated state — Malaysia — was formed on September 16 1963. The accumulation of thousands of years of history converged at that one point to allow us to live in Malaysia. It is true that the new state that is Malaysia inherits the institutions of the previous states but just as Russia is not Soviet Union, the state of Malaysia is not the state of Malaya. This historical fact alone insists that Malaysia is almost 44 years old when history remembers the 50th anniversary of a free Malaya.

The idea of state is very straight forward, unlike the concept of nation. The term nation is so vague that its beginning is open to interpretation. So, when an UMNO member from Tambun says that Malaysia as a nation is older than 50 years, he is not at all wrong. His opinion is of course dependent on an assumption that the Malaysian nation is really a Malay nation. This is not new. During a recent debate on Bangsa Malaysia, the chief minister of Johor believes that a Malaysian nation is a nation spearheaded by the Malays.

Throw away the political explosive and the emotional debate, rationally under this assumption a Malay nation would originate as far back as between the second and the sixth century of the common era, when possibly, the first recorded Malay nation was established as Srivijaya.

Even if one disagrees with idea, a Malaysian nation that is neutral of ethnicity exists before the formation of Malaysia and the day Malaya achieved its independence from the United Kingdom. Within the context of this entry, the question that needs to be asked is this: when actually is the birth of this nation? Was the beginning point 1963? Or 1957? Or 1948? 1946? 1824? When?

If the favored idea is the potpourri of nations, then this nation was born some time after the mass migration of Chinese and Indian into pre-existing nations living in Malaya, Sarawak and North Borneo. That would be in the 19th century. It is this nation — no state — that we now call Malaysia. The name may be different then but in essence, those names, refer to the same nation.

August 31 1957 signifies only one thing: a free Malaya. That however does not mean there was no Malaya on August 30 1957. Malaya as a state was established on January 31 1948, after the Malayan Union was disbanded. If Malaya is the reference point for the supporters of “50 years”, then really, logically — throw away the meanings of nation and states for a moment — 59 should be the magic number.

In conclusion, on one hand, as a nation, it is an insult to say we have lived for such a short lifespan, as if all those events, all those interactions before that day in 1957 matter not. On the other hand, as a state, it is boosterism to say that we are older than we are. No nation or state was born on August 31 1957.

I personally do not subscribe to nationalism but if an organic Malaysian nation is a goal one seeks, then embracing unvarnished history is an important step one needs to take. Without understanding one’s past as well as the difference between nation and state, Bangsa Malaysia will be an unsolved riddle, interpreted differently by different community within Malaysia, the state.

Categories
Liberty Society

[1284] Of utter outrage

I repeat, utter outrage:

A Malaysian woman held for months in an Islamic rehabilitation centre says she was subjected to mental torture for insisting her religion is Hinduism.

Revathi Massosai, the name by which she wants to be known, says she was forced to eat beef despite being a Hindu. [Malaysia ‘convert’ claims cruelty. BBC. July 6 2007]

I am lost for words.