Categories
Photography Society

[2539] Crowd violence and police stupidity

I had an expensive bet with a friend that more than 200 would be arrested after the Bersih dust settled. The tally now is coming close to 500. I won. My record with him now is 2-0 in my favor.

In the beginning, the odds were against my favor. It appeared that the government had finally reached a kind of maturity to match a more political active society. The gathering crowd was not harassed and the authorities, apart from closing Dataran Merdaka with barbed wire, were largely taking a hands-free attitude. I started to think that I had entered into a fool’s wager.

There were some stupidity by the police, like trying to drive several trucks right through the middle of the crowd. Some irresponsible individuals threw plastic water bottles at the trucks. This trend would prove bad later as the situation deteriorated beyond anybody’s control after somebody broke the barricade to Dataran Merdeka that invited overreaction by the police force, which fired unreasonably tear gas right into a largely peaceful crowd. With the crowd spanning from Dataran Merdeka to Sogo on both Jalan Tunku Abdul Rahman and Jalan Raja Laut and to well beyond Masjid Jamek, it is a wonder that there was no deadly stampede. (There was another large group on the other side of Dataran Merdeka, at the Bar Council; Marina Mahathir has story from the other side).

So, I had expected to lose the bet. That was until I saw on the road to Jalan Parlimen a troop of riot police was equipping themselves with their gears. This was probably an hour before the chaos began.

When I saw that, I began to retreat to the back, expecting the worst. I know how it feels like to be exposed to tear gas. I had no intention to go through the same experience all over again.

I did not know whether the riot police was just on standby mode or was preparing to disperse the crowd regardless of what happened. I am more inclined to believe the latter. The reason is that in the morning, plain cops were forming a barrier. The riot police riot in their full gears took over when it was close to 2 o’clock, the time when the Bersih sit-in was to begin officially.

Whatever the possibilities, the crackdown started later than I expected. So, I spent the time exploring the true size of the crowd.

The size was just amazing. This was larger than the first and the second incarnation of Bersih. I went to both and this sit-in surprised me the most. I had expected protest-fatigue. I had expected a smaller protest. I was dead wrong. This was bigger than anything Malaysia had ever seen. Anybody who thinks otherwise is probably a Barisan Nasional sympathizer, or an anti-protest couch potatoes dependent on papers like Utusan Malaysia.

Both my phone and internet connection did not work close to Dataran Merdeka. Somebody told me it might be network congestion. The funny thing was that, farther away from Dataran Merdeka, the connection worked. I suspect a jammer was deployed.

As we all know by now, the worst came. Some fools broke the barricade and the even more foolish riot police fired tear gas into the crowd of thousands without warning. The police could have arrested those whom broke the barricade, but despite the hundreds of police officer deployed at Dataran Merdeka, they chose to punish the thousands.

That made the crowd angry but they knew they were no match for tear gas and water laced with chemical. And so they retreated.

This was an angry crowd. Remember that adjective.

The anger was focused solely on the police though. It requires no brainpower to understand that. It was a concentrated anger against the police force and there were proofs to this. Civilian vehicles were let through. The medical team was cheered on and let through.

The police, well, water bottles were thrown at them. With kilometers of angry crowd, some police officers had the audacity to drive their vehicles through the angry crowd. This was utter stupidity by the police, always clueless about the situation on the ground, despite having deployed helicopters and paragliders in the air, in the era of social media.

The hostility and violence of the minority in crowd was regrettable and should be condemned. Yet, would you, being the sole focus of crowd anger, drive through a road filled with kilometers of angry crowd, at unbelievable speed that could cause roadkill?

Here is a proof of that stupidity and the targeted hostility.

More balls than brain.

The unnecessary violence by some in the crowd, and the stupidity of the police caused a police car to ram into at least two protesters as it was later reported. And the car was overturned by an angry mob. It is unfortunate that that is the focus of the mainstream media, and not the context, or the larger issue of electoral reform, or the lies of political transformation program.

Categories
Activism Photography Politics & government Society

[2538] Where were you today?

And so I went.

I went because I remembered a line from CNN long ago. The news network ran an advertisement showing videos of important development from around the world. It ended with a line, “where were you?”

I do not want to answer, in the future, “I was in my bed.

I will not need to. I went.

Categories
Activism Politics & government Society

[2537] Contemplating Bersih sit-in

I am currently at home, contemplating whether I should be going to the biggest event of the year so far or stay at home in my bed, reading books or simply enjoy the Saturday. The biggest event of the year yet is the Bersih’s sit-in in Kuala Lumpur.

I participated in both the previous incarnations of Bersih and I thoroughly enjoyed the atmosphere. In the 2011 protest, I learned how it felt to be exposed to tear gas and it was not an easy experience. I joked around immediately after I recovered from the tear gas exposure that, “I am now a protest veteran.”

I have been to multiple protests. Three of them involved loitering around the police stations in Brickfields, Dang Wangi and Bukit Aman. Despite that, I do not really enjoy protesting in such manner. It is almost always tiring and running around in the city being chased by the police is not really as fun as that “police and thieves” kid game. It is stressful. In a large protest like Bersih, there are just too many variables to think about: escape route, police location, road blocks, water source, faces of people. And I do not have the stamina to run around like dogs. I just do not.

I remember how painful it was to my lungs, how the muscles were crying stop please, how the heart begged a relief before it exploded. Only the selfish mind said, go on and don’t stop. That was in the heat of the moment.

But like any rational human being, I learn and I know the experience is not pleasant. I am just not an activist who is persistent in participating in very physical and demanding exercise. I really do not have the appetite for protests day in and day out. There is a cost to participation.

Even right now, if there was no protest, I would have gone to the office to analyze monetary data for publication on Monday. I will not do that today because I know if I do go to the office to work, I will not do anything because I will be checking my Twitter account and visiting various news portals constantly, curious about a party downtown. No work will be done, that too I know.

I am still contemplating my participation and it is still several more hours before the appointed time. But whatever the decision, you can bet that I support Bersih.

Categories
History & heritage Society

[2432] The evolution of cleanliness, according to Farish Noor

It is always a pleasure to listen to what Farish Noor has to say. He is a kind of a hip academician that challenges and entertains the mind. He makes history subversive and so making it much more interesting that the dull official version sanctioned by the establishment. I like subversion, even if I myself am increasingly conforming to societal rules… for a libertarian, that is. Last weekend when he held his regular public lecture at the Central Market Annex was no different.

He has a hypothesis on the understanding of the concept cleanliness and its evolution since colonial times. I do not buy it outright because it is, well, too clean and too specific. If you have a certain set of events, you are likely to be able to accommodate a lot of themes if you are creative enough.

Farish wanted to tie that lecture with the Bersih movement. I thought that was all too convenient. It sounded as if he was working the problem backward rather than deriving it from the root. Given this, there has to be more than a theme to sew it all together cleanly and tightly.

Nevertheless, the hypothesis of his is interesting enough for me to have a think and to modify it so that to make it more general. I find the looser understanding of his hypothesis which I consider as the gradual inversion of top-down approach of governance into the organic one as a more convincing narrative.

The whole premise of the lecture was how the idea of cleanliness was originally state-centric. European colonial powers in Southeast Asia considered the tropical environment with some disgust. The tropical jungle with sweltering sun conjured insect-infested environment, always associated with diseases like malaria.

The colonial powers brought with them new ways of life, apparently more ordered and cleaner, free from the naturally dirty tropics.

These powers introduced systematic town planning and better sanitation in Southeast Asia. Farish showed a photograph or maybe a painting contrasting clean European-designed building painted white erected in Southeast Asia with wooden Malay homes built haphazardly with coconut trees growing here and there randomly. If I may exaggerate, cows roamed free in the Malay village. European colonial powers took the former as clean, and the later as dirty. Farish more than hinted the racial superiority European colonialists held against the native then.

He argued that the introduction of modern medicine through colonial state apparatus further strengthened the European notion of cleanliness. The scientific nature of modern understanding of medicine intertwined with European understanding of cleanliness. Traditional Southeast Asian medicine was looked down at due to its dependence on beliefs regardless of its efficacy (here was where I first disagreed with Farish’s lecture. While a lot of these kinds of medicine are effective, many more are based on grandmother’s belief and downright fraud). The colonial powers undertook upon themselves to apply modern understanding of medicine and hence cleanliness to clean up the colonies. Hence, the introduction of town planning, for instance.

For him, cleanliness is not confined only to physical cleanliness. He argued at the public lecture that the definition of cleanliness was more wholesome. It also includes moral and spiritual aspects. It is this definition that allowed him to tell a story of evolving definition of cleanliness. He defended his definition by highlighting that the local inhabitants’ understanding of the term cleanliness included moral and spiritual cleanliness: a soul or morality untainted by the bad intention or even touched by the devil so-to-speak. He cited various customs as a lemma to his larger point.

Farish believed the notion of cleanliness that the European colonialists brought to this part of the world was a facade to cover up the dirty business of colonialism. While the colonial towns and capitals were neat, the political and economic exploitations were ugly: tin mines, rubber plantations, the misery these activities brought to the immigrants, the wars and crime. Farish argued that even the introduction of health ordinances was done toward this end.

European racism somehow got into the picture, with the colonial masters inevitably associated all things dirty with the locals and that gave the impetus for the mission of civilizing humankind, or probably in Farish Noor’s parlance, making everything clean. Here is where the wholesome definition of cleanliness gets into the larger picture.

This all encompassing understanding of cleanliness gives one mandate to govern. I am better than you, and therefore I am the master. From mere racism, it was later translated into statism. The state was all knowing.

Fast-forward to post-colonial Malaysia, the racist connotation (racism among Malaysians notwithstanding) was gone but the statism prevailed.

This time around however, the common people subscribing to Islamic values saw the government was dirty, whatever those values were. It was a kind of nationalism that despised colonial legacy. In the 1970s, the university students saw the political elites and institutions as champagne drinking men living a Western lifestyle. These elites were not the god-fearing leaders that fit the idealized leaders these students dreamed for. The students were revolting against what they thought was impure political structure.

Farish believes this was the first seed that prodded civil society to assume the concept of cleanliness as theirs and turned it from state-centric to organic definition. From the state being clean and the ruled being dirty, the relationship was subverted and reversed. What was dirty was clean, and what was clean was dirty.

He then introduced the Bersih movement into the storyline.

It is the civil society in Malaysia which now sees the government as dirty, and that civil society is stepping up to the pedestal, and beginning talking down to the government, as the government did previously. The civil society wants to clean up the corrupt government. Thus explains the evolution of the concept ”cleanliness” up to contemporary time.

Again, the evolution of cleanlinessis too convenient for me. Again, like I wrote earlier, I find the looser hypothesis more attractive, a hypothesis that traces the evolution of the relationship between the governed and the governing rather than that of a concept, which has to be loosen up beyond its typical meaning before it could fit Farish’s narrative.

Categories
Politics & government Society

[2398] Bersih and the wider trust deficit

Somewhere in Streatham, south of London earlier this year, I found myself slouching lazily on a couch watching the BBC with a friend and his still lazier cat. On television was the Egyptian revolution ”live”, with protesters and government supporters throwing rocks at each other. Such was the lamentable state of Egypt that used to be the apex of human civilization not once, but twice. Its deeply flawed institutions had reduced Egypt into a state of anarchy.

”Don’t you find this impossible?” I think I asked my friend. ”We know these protesters want Mubarak out but what about his supporters? Are their wishes less legitimate than those protesting on the streets?”

The reply came promptly, ”The importance of a credible election. Credible elections are important in determining popular opinion. Nothing in Egypt has enough credibility or the competence to ascertain the popular opinion right now.”

The Arab Spring is an extreme example but it does highlight the importance of a working electoral system. It highlights the importance of individuals trusting a system to aggregate popular opinion fairly and peacefully.

For this reason, the effort at electoral reforms by Bersih is important. Some of its demands add transparency in the electoral process and transparency goes a long way in creating credibility.

Bersih, of course, is about electoral reforms but the question of confidence in institutions is really part of the larger trust deficit problem in Malaysia. The problem of trust deficit is this: a considerable portion of Malaysians distrusts the government. And they are not libertarians. Rather, they are part of the everyday people.

It does not matter whether that portion makes up the majority of Malaysian society or not. The point is that they are big enough that they cannot be ignored, or banned just like that. There is no place for an ostrich if the country plans to solve the deficit.

For Malaysia, distrust in public institutions will not degenerate to the deplorable level seen in the Arab world recently anytime soon. It is an exaggeration to say otherwise. That is a long way down the canyon. Yet, various other not-so-ideal things can happen with the lack of confidence in public institutions.

When the public distrusts the courts, the police and everything that is commonly understood as the typical uncontroversial functions of the state, the government will have a hard time doing its job.

Take distrust in the police, for example. Crime cannot be the responsibility of the police alone. Crime fighting requires co-operation from the public. In an overly distrusting environment, is there a reason for a person to aid the police? Be a witness for the police? Is there a reason for the person to report the occurrence of crime to the police? Is there a reason for the person to believe the police will protect them?

All that will see individuals investing in their security, taking resources away from more productive activities. They make redundant activities typically funded by taxes.

This is already happening. Drive around Petaling Jaya and other neighborhoods and one can see what effectively are gated communities. Residents are pooling their resources to hire private firms to secure their property.

It shows they are distrustful of the police. Or at least how they do not believe that the police are competent enough to serve them, the taxpayers. What, one might ask, is the point of paying taxes to support the police force when one has to employ private security firms to keep one’s house safe?

And just to be naughty, if there was enough trust between the public and the government, the government would not have to spend millions of public funds for public relations exercises. That money can better be spent elsewhere. Yet, in times of great skepticism, what would be wasteful during normal times could become a necessity to keep the government running.

It is good to keep a healthy dose of skepticism against the government and the state in general. Yet, there is some optimum level of skepticism before destructive cynicism sets in.

Quite unfortunately, the current government of Malaysia — the Abdullah and the Najib administrations alike — is too good at inculcating public cynicism against itself. Given how the government tries hard to erode the independence of public institutions, the government is undermining public confidence in public institutions.

Bersih is a modest effort at trying to ultimately restore credibility to public institutions. In its little way, it is an effort to tackle the wider trust deficit.

The Najib administration, however, disagrees and demonizes Bersih instead. Maybe that is not at all surprising. The flawed institutions of status quo benefit the incumbent. The administration and its fiercest supporters are happy with the status quo. In jargon-speak, they have captured the public institutions.

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 July 16 2011.