Categories
History & heritage Humor Science & technology

[1312] Of the discovery of oxygen

According to Wikipedia, oxygen was officially discovered on August 1 1774. I wonder what humanity was breathing before that day…

Oxygen was first described by MichaÅ‚ SÄ™dziwój, a Polish alchemist and philosopher in the late 16th century. SÄ™dziwój thought of the gas given off by warm niter (saltpeter) as “the elixir of life”.

Oxygen was more quantitatively discovered by the Swedish pharmacist Carl Wilhelm Scheele some time before 1773, but the discovery was not published until after the independent discovery by Joseph Priestley on August 1, 1774, who called the gas dephlogisticated air (see phlogiston theory). Priestley published discoveries in 1775 and Scheele in 1777; consequently Priestley is usually given the credit. Both Scheele and Priestley produced oxygen by heating mercuric oxide.

Scheele called the gas ‘fire air’ because it was the only known supporter of combustion. It was later called ‘vital air’ because it was and is vital for the existence of animal life.

The gas was named by Antoine Laurent Lavoisier, after Priestley’s publication in 1775, from Greek roots meaning “acid-former”. As noted, the name reflects the then-common incorrect belief that all acids contain oxygen. This is also the origin of the Japanese name of oxygen “sanso” (san=acid, so=element). [Oxygen. Wikipedia. August 1 2007]

Possibly pot.

Categories
History & heritage Liberty

[1289] Of freedom fries

Public domain.

Rue Montorgueil by Claude Monet.

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
Economics History & heritage

[1280] Of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, the Asian Financial Crisis and the unholy trinity

Almost 30 years ago, the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) was established to promote monetary stability among 12 members of the European Commission (EC). All participating states agreed to limit the variability of respective currency to 2.25% band on either side of a central rate. Later members were allowed to have their exchange rate to gyrate within a 6.00% band from a central rate. The ERM was a tool to converge the monetary policy of the 12 states and eventually, the adoption of a monetary union. Between 1992 and 1993, the ERM suffered a crisis that in a way, is similar to the Asian Financial Crisis that began exactly a decade ago.

In 1989, an EC committee laid out a plan to realize the European Monetary Union (EMU). The EMU would have an European central bank to manage a unified monetary policy for the EC. This ultimate convergence of a myriad of independent monetary policies would abolish all national currencies and eventually create an EC-wide currency.

Before the EMU could be established, all 12 members of the EC (namely, Germany, France, United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Portugal, Ireland, Luxembourg and Greece) had to approve the plan. In 1992, the Danish people almost rejected the EMU in a referendum while opinion poll in France was unconvincing. This brought the EMU into question, hurting confidence in the EMU and the ERM.

Currency speculators started to short sell various European currencies, betting for currencies devaluation. Regardless whether it was a self-fulfilled prophecy or a natural outcome, massive devaluation occurred and that forced many countries to drop out of the ERM band. Many fought but all lost. The British pound was one of them. The Malaysian central bank, the Bank Negara tried to defend the pound but it proved to be a USD4 billion futile adventure. In my opinion however, none other fought more valiantly mad than Sweden.

In effort to stop devaluation of the krona dead on its track as well as to teach the speculators a lesson, the Sveriges Riksbank, the central bank of Sweden, raised interest rate up to an astronomical 500%. This shocked a lot of people, including the speculators. The crazy monetary policy worked for awhile until the economy started to so a sign of stress. With a long run rate like that, not too many economy would survive long and so Sweden relented, quit the battle and forced to float the krona.

The story repeated itself in other European countries. The central banks of Portugal and Italy initially tried to defend their currencies only later to admit defeat. About five years later, similar story struck Southeast Asia.

On July 2 1997, after sustained pressure of devaluation, the Bank of Thailand gave up the battle to defend the baht. As history has recorded, the baht lost more than half of its value, from 26 baht to a US dollar in late June 1992 to 55 baht per US dollar in January 1993.

A professor of mine told my class that in late 1997, he did not understand what was going on but he did watch everything slipped away. He continued by saying nobody knew what exactly caused the crisis. But ten years after Camdessus looked on Suharto, we might have learned a thing or two from the crisis.

For me, it offers a real life example of the unholy trinity. The unholy trinity is the desire to have a pegged currency, free flow of capital and independence in monetary policy. One can only have two of them, not all three. When there is a violation of the rule, trouble looms.

In case of Sweden, the Sveriges Riksbank wanted all three. Under intense pressure and eager to move forward, the peg had to go. For Malaysia, in order to move on, free flow of capital had to go. Or rather, was chosen to be expendable. The Southeast Asian country imposed capital control in at the peak of the crisis and pegged its currency to the US dollar in 1998.

Of course, that is not the only lesson that could be learned from the era of irrational exuberance. But if the next currency crisis strikes, would anybody remember the lessons learned in the past?

Categories
History & heritage

[1270] Of Victorian moralist in Perak’s Augean Stable

Published in Berita Harian last week was a long letter urging film director Jins Shamsuddin to get cracking on the filming of an explosive event in Malaysian history, the assassination of James Birch, the first British Resident of Perak at Pasir Salak on Nov 2 1875, the second day of Hari Raya.

Three years have passed since the initial announcement on the film and among those offering co-operation and funding is the Perak Government. Finas (The National Film Corporation) had offered assistance and at one stage it was announced that a British film company would be involved in the project, but since then nothing more has been heard about it.

A charitable explanation for the delay might be the historical research required. In these days of books by biographers, hagiographers and traducers no royal personage, president or prime minister – past or present – is safe. Warts and all is what people want to read.

We begin with Sir Richard Winstedt, the Malay language scholar, who praised Birch and derided Sultan Abdullah. Of the former he wrote: “…an English gentleman with all the virtues and defects of his class…a man in a hurry to carry light to Perak…for even long experience had failed to bring home to his unimaginative mind that hurry is futile in the training of child-like chieftains, especially when they are sensitive, proud and spoilt”.

And of Abdullah, the Perak Sultan, Winstedt wrote: “….a young Malay raja with the charming manners of his class and the vices proper to the spoilt darling of a royal harem, sensitive as a woman to slights and shades of manner, fastidious as a woman over dress, an extravagant libertine, vain, timid and adept at intrigue”.

As Professor Khoo Kay Kim, the historian wrote in his monograph J.W.W. Birch: A Victorian moralist in Perak’s augean stable? Winstedt saw Birch as the epitome of virtue and Abdullah, the personification of vice. In short, everything is black or white and there are no shades of grey.

It had been submitted, Khoo added, that Birch failed as a Resident only because he lacked diplomacy and that he was ignorant of Malay adat (custom) and language. “But was he completely ignorant of the Malay language?”

Quoted then was Charles Fox, Chief Clerk of the Eastern Department in the Colonial Office in London: “There can be no doubt of his (Birch’s) ability and that his knowledge of Malay Language and some experience in dealing with these Native Chiefs is in his favour (Feb 2, 1874)….It will be very difficult to replace the loss of one who knew well the people and language” (Nov 10, 1875, after Birch’s death).

Noted was that Cox knew Birch for many years since the latter had been in the colonial service for 27 years, having previously served in Ceylon.

There was the oft-repeated story that Birch tried to abolish slavery. Quoted then was Sir Peter Benson Maxwell, an English barrister:”…the despatches allude to Mr Birch’s feelings of humanity as prompting him to protect runaway slaves. When the cases are examined, the slaves are found to be girls, and girls only”.

Mentioned in the accompanying notes was a letter sent by Datuk Mustapha Albakri dated Jan 31, 1952, Keeper of the Rulers’ Seal, about a Malay manuscript which described Birch as an “over-sexed man”.

Also in the manuscript was the claim that the “outrageous behaviour of the Indian guards towards the women in the locality multiplied the resentment of the Malay chiefs towards Birch and his men a hundredfold”.

Mention has been made by others that some slaves were given by Birch to his policemen to become their mistresses.

Also noted was the finding of a board of inquiry that Birch had borrowed money from three Chinese – Tan Seng Poh, Cheang Hong Lim and Tan Chin Hoon. “Some months after Birch had borrowed money from him, Chin Hoon’s steamer was seized by Tunku Kudin, Viceroy of Selangor. Birch wrote personally to Kudin to release the steamer but it appears that he failed to influence Kudin”.

As has also been mentioned in the introduction to Birch’s journals he was heavily indebted to several Chinese merchants, one of whom had the Singapore opium farm.

Despite the inquiry Birch was sent to Perak in October 1874 to assume provisionally the duties of Resident. Questioned later was his management of revenue collection in the State. There was then the conclusion: “Even the colonial office had sufficient misgivings about Birch to prompt it to refuse to confirm him in the post of Resident without more searching investigations into his financial circumstances. Until his death, therefore, Birch was but acting provisionally in the office”.

How did Birch get on with the Perak Sultan? Written in his diary dated Feb 3, 1875, is the following: “The Sultan wished to go down to Batarabit, and I accompanied him as far. I had a very long talk with him about the taxes, and gave him two proclamations which I want him to issue: one about the future duty on mines and the other about the customs duties”.

And on Feb 4, Thursday: “The Sultan ordered a fat sheep to be killed and invited me for breakfast with Dris. Again we had a long talk about the taxes etc, and he personally is quite ready to fall into my views”.

On another occasion Abdullah made a plea for some money but was turned down and instead given a humiliating lecture in front of his followers by Birch.

No less illuminating is his diary dated Nov 9, Monday, 1874: “Prince of Wales birthday. Did not forget it even here. Gave the man a duck curry and the clerks beer, and hoisted my flag at 8am. It was curious to see how many came to look at it, and then all sat down and expressed a general opinion as to the good to be derived to the country by its being hoisted, and their future comparative safety”.

As recorded Birch was killed while bathing on a raft after he had ordered his interpreter Mat Arshad to post three proclamations on a goldsmith’s shop. The action was challenged by Dato’ Sagor accompanied by some 50 armed men.

In the months that followed all considered implicated in the assassination were hunted by the colonial authorities with the assistance of troops from India and Hong Kong. Tried and hanged were Dato’ Maharaja Lela, Dato’ Sagor and four others.

Exiled to the Seychelles were Sultan Abdullah, the Menteri, Dato Laksamana and Dato Shahbandar. Several others were banished to Johor.

No mean task, therefore, would be the filming of the incident which indeed hastened the colonisation of Peninsular Malaysia. Tell it like it was, Jins has already been advised by the Perak istana. He would need to get advice from such as Khoo, history professor Zainal Abidin and others to get the story right.

What is to be presented is history, not propaganda. Among questions raised would be the practice of slavery in old Perak and how the ordinary rakyat in the kampung fared in those not so halcyon days.

A nation’s history has its ups and downs, zig-zags, bloody conflicts and moments of triumphs. As someone remarked, boring is the country in need of heroes. [Personally Speaking: Tell the Birch story like it was. Mazlan Nordin. NST. February 6 1998]