Categories
Politics & government

[2474] So bankrupt of issues, they squabble over an insignificant banner

I have been using the word farce all too often these days. I find this is really bad because it suggests that my vocabulary is limited. I admit, it is limited to simple words but to demonstrate it in the public so openly, especially for a person who regularly pretends to write columns in both online and the more traditional newspapers, it is bad business. But I really cannot help it. There are so many instances where the word describes exactly what the instances are.

Here is yet another one of those farces that is becoming a national issue: at a small protest at UMNO headquarters organized by university students, somebody without approval lowered down a banner that had the Prime Minister’s face on it. The protestors were highlighting the issue of academic freedom, responding to events that demonstrated much more needs to be done with respect to undue political influence exerted by the federal government on Malaysian campuses.

And guess what attracted the most attention nationally?

You would be too kind to the farcical politics to suggest the issue of academic freedom is the crux. Or maybe even freedom of assembly.

The biggest issue by far that has arisen from the whole brouhaha is the act of lowering the banner. Granted, the act itself was wrong but is that really the biggest issue UMNO has over the incident?

And it does not end there. The education deputy minister Saifuddin Abdullah whom decided to entertain the protestors at UMNO HQ by agreeing to accept a memorandum from the student group has been asked to resign by some for the whole farce.[1] Indirectly, some UMNO members and supporters are blaming the deputy minister for that.

Really? Seriously? A resignation for such a trivial thing?

C’mon, UMNO members. There are ministers with actual scandal like Shahrizat Jalil and she is getting away with murder.

In the end, do you know what does this illustrate?

Quite simply, it is the bankruptcy of issues. Of all issues there to pick from, UMNO and its members chose the most trivial to fight for.

I say it again. This is a farcical fraca. Petty. This should be a comedy or a satire played in the theater, not on the national stage. Alas…

Maybe, this is a manifestation of a conservative-liberal tussle within UMNO, but surely, there are bigger conflicts to play out, something less petty to sweat over.

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

[1] — KUALA LUMPUR, 20 Dis — Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah kini berhadapan dengan serangan daripada beberapa pihak dari dalam Umno dan proparti itu, dengan ada yang mendesak agar beliau meletakkan jawatan berhubung insiden menurunkan bendera wajah Datuk Seri Najib Razak, Ahad lalu.

Serangan itu dibuat menerusi mesej-mesej Twitter dan entri dalam blog-blog.

Timbalan Menteri Pengajian Tinggi itu, yang dilihat sebagai antara pemimpin Umno bersikap terbuka dalam isu-isu berkaitan penuntut institusi pengajian tinggi (IPT) dan Akta Universiti dan Kolej Universiti (AUKU) digesa memikul tanggungjawab insiden kumpulan mahasiswa menurunkan dan kemudian menaikkan semula bendera Najib di pekarangan ibu pejabat Umno di sini.

Selain kritikan di dunia siber, Persatuan Alumni Pemimpin Pelajar IPT Malaysia bercadang berhimpun di pekarangan Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi di Putrajaya petang esok.

Presidennya Mohd Shahar Abdullah berkata, pihaknya mahu melahirkan sokongan kepada kepimpinan Najib selaku perdana menteri dan presiden Umno susulan insiden kelmarin. [Saifuddin jadi sasaran desakan letak jawatan susulan insiden bendera Najib. The Malaysian Insider. December 20 2011]

Categories
Conflict & disaster Society

[2473] A world without Iraq

I was almost late for my morning history class. I ran as fast as I could while trying to keep my balance on ice and snow. By the time I entered the classroom, I was gasping for air. For the not very athletic me, it was not easy to breathe hard during a cruel Michigan winter. As I settled in my seat thinking my heart was about to explode and my lungs collapsing, the instructor said, “Today will be about what ifs. What if you were early?”

The class burst into laughter at my expense.

After several minutes of friendly pokes, the instructor began to share his plan for the day. “But seriously, today will be about what ifs.” What if Venice and other cities had not monopolized the spice trade? What if old European powers were unsuccessful at colonizing Asia? What if Dien Bien Phu did not happen? What if the United States had not entered the Second World War? There were many more what ifs.

We were discussing colonialism in Asia and we were exploring the importance of certain events by trying to imagine an alternative history where those events did not occur. It required a broad understanding of history.

It also required all of us in the class to do our voluminous readings. A lot of us, being freshmen and still patting ourselves on our backs for getting into a storied school, did not finish our reading. We gave it a stab anyway. We had enough imagination to run wild.

That old memory reran in my mind as President Barack Obama finally, for better or for worse, fulfilled one of his election promises. The US is officially withdrawing from Iraq after more than eight years since the invasion that toppled the former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

The withdrawal ceremony was being telecast ”live” on CNN. As I sat in my chair listening to Leon Panetta making his speech, my mind wandered to Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and the rest of the Arab world. Remembering my freshman lesson, I asked myself, ”What if the US had not invaded Iraq back in 2003?” Would Saddam Hussein’s regime have become a victim of the Arab Spring?

We will never know but nobody can say that would have been impossible. Whether a person is supportive of the war or vehemently rejects the invasion, he or she cannot deny that Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator.

That makes his removal desirable to some extent. If the 2003 invasion was legitimate in some ways, many in the anti-war camp would support or at least not reject the invasion. If Saddam Hussein was toppled organically by Iraqis just like how Hosni Mubarak, Muammar Gaddafi and Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali were toppled, many more would support the regime change.

An Arab Spring for Iraq would have been ideal. It would have removed a dictator without causing bad blood among various sides. Yes, it would be eight years later but in a time of terrorism and religious extremism, a world without the 2003 invasion of Iraq could have spurred deeper co-operation between the US and those that mattered.

A world without the war would have the US possibly swamped with goodwill of the kind it received in the aftermath of the September 11 attack but soon after squandered in the run-up to the 2003 war.

It could be the case, or it could not. Just as Japan in the Second World War made the colonized natives realize that colonial European powers were not invincible, the US invasion also reminded the Arabs that their dictators were not gods.

Sure, the United States of the 2000s was not Japan of the 1900s that was seriously underestimated first by the Russians and then later all the colonial powers in South-east Asia. Still, what is possible is not always evident until somebody makes it a reality. The US with its unmatched military might removed Saddam Hussein. The US made possible a regime change.

Or — this might sound repulsive, especially for those in the anti-war camp but consider this — the Arab Spring might not have happened without the 2003 invasion.

An alternative reality without the war would have taken away the realization of the possibility, and possibly affected the psyche of the Arabs. What was possible would have remained only one of the possibilities deep in the minds of ordinary men, never to surface to the real world.

A world without the war also would have taken away the anger against the US. The US in many parts of the Middle East and Northern Africa had close relationships with many Arab dictators. The relations were maintained in the name of stability and much to the detriment to the freedom agenda.

The ordinary man in the streets of the Arab world, already with a low opinion of the US, saw the relationship as a constant reminder of how much they disliked their own autocrats. This only added to local frustrations that had nothing to do with the US directly. All that anger and frustration, along with the cumulative effect of all those issues, created a momentum to push history to converge to a point that sparked the Arab Spring.

Without the war, part of the momentum would not have existed. The cumulative anger without the invasion might not have been enough to start the Arab Spring. That sans-Iraq anger might have been just a weak undercurrent, never to surface and threaten the dictators’ expensive boats, rocked gently by the pleasant waves.

There are a lot of other considerations as well. Maybe without the war, the US would have enough money to bail out Europe. Maybe, Obama would not have been elected as the president. Maybe, we would be still swimming in cheap oil. Maybe. Maybe. Who knows, really?

At least we know one part of history is ending. At least we know the next chapter is a whole new world, for whatever it is worth.

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 December 18 2011.

Categories
Society

[2472] Douthat on Hitchens

Whereas they feel entirely authentic when they’re couched as “aux armes, citoyens” rallying cries in the struggle against tyranny. Hitchens is never more himself (for better or worse) than when he’s railing against the supposed cruelties of Benedict XVI, or comparing God to Kim Jong-Il. In this sense, he’s really less of an atheist than an anti-theist: Whereas Dawkins and co. are appalled by the belief in God, Hitchens is far more appalled by the idea that anyone would want to obey Him. Every true romantic needs a great foe, a worthy adversary, a villain to whose destruction he can consecrate himself. Never one for half measures, Hitchens just decided to go all the way to the top. [Evaluations. God and the Political Romantic. Ross Douthat. June 17 2010]

Categories
Economics

[2471] Decoupling, finally?

The 2008-2009 financial crisis laid to rest the idea that Asia is isolated from the troubles in the US and Europe. The idea was that the fundamentals in Asia were strong enough to support growth. Proponents of decoupling were silenced and embarrassed but the celebration on the other side did not last long. There was a recession at hand and the debate swiftly switched to how best to address the recession.

The dead is walking.

It is 2011 and the idea of decoupling is reemerging again. It has been criticized, just it has been criticized before but statistics in the past few quarters and months have been surprising. The final GDP growth for Malaysia is very likely to be healthy despite all the skepticism and bad news from abroad. The industrial production index figures came out strong for October, beating forecasts by a long shot; it beat even the highest forecast among those polled by Bloomberg. Exports meanwhile has been amazing despite Europe tumbling up and down on a roller coaster ride. The only thing that is not as great as these things is the leading indicator, which by the way, is not negative. After all that has been said and done, it is likely Malaysia will grow at least 5% for the whole year of 2011.

Contrasting these numbers and those in Europe, there appears to be a strong case for decoupling.

Decoupling does make sense, since domestic demand is strong. Just observe the GDP growth figures. It is really hard to say there is a threat of a recession by looking at the GDP numbers so far. Still, the trade exposure is still high, and it is also really hard to say Malaysia will escape whatever really bad happening in Europe unscathed. I will not stick my neck out just yet, unlike the author of Economics Malaysia who writes that Malaysian exposure to European woe is not as big as a brouhaha some has made it out to be.[1]

Standard Chartered thinks 2012 will be a two-speed world, implicitly supporting the decoupling idea in its report. Financial Times’ Beyond BRIC sarcastically, maybe, writes, “just don’t call it decoupling” while reviewing the two-speed world report.[2]

As for myself, I think I prefer to be on the safer side. I subscribed strongly to the decoupling idea because I looked at the so-called real economy and concluded, Malaysia would go through the global crisis rather smoothly. I was wrong. There was a shallow recession. So, I will sit out and watch as an observer than a proponent this time around, for now.

Still, if the European crisis materializes, if the worst materializes, it will be worse than that experienced in 2008 and 2009.

Add that to the fact that the Chinese economy is slowing down (slowing down is relative because the growth rate is still high), I at least am expecting 2012 to be a rougher ride than 2011. But it does not take a genius to say that; I dare say it is the general feeling within the profession.

The more important thing is that we will see whether the decoupling hypothesis will survive 2012.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved
[1] — [Malaysia’s European Sensitivity. Economics Malaysia. December 12 2011]

[2] — [Standard Chartered sees a resilient Asia, Mideast and Africa in 2012. Standard Chartered. December 12 2011]

Categories
Politics & government

[2470] Progress brought by better actors

The war drums are being sounded again. The drummers are telling us the election is around the corner yet again. Looking back, I am not so sure much tangible things have been achieved since the last time the drums were sounded.

It has been awhile since the last one. I remember I was angry at many things that it would take a book to list down those sources of anger. I thought I took some initiatives then to channel my anger appropriately. And I voted for the first time in my life in a national election. Now, it is almost four years later and I am disappointed at which things have gone so far.

I am unsure what I had hoped out of that election. I know I did not expect anything out of this world. I did not expect things would change all the sudden into my liking. I knew real, structural, permanent change would take a lot of time and work. Maybe, it would even take a whole generation. It would be naïve of me to think that the immediate years after the 2008 election would reinvent Malaysia into something better.

I do not really know what better means really, but it is out there and I know Malaysia is not there yet. It is just one of those Goldilocks things. It is a trial-and-error exercise. When it is right, one just know that it is right. When at first you do not succeed, you try and try again.

As I inspect my hopes for the country, or rather the community that I live in and interact with, I am starting to suspect that this hope is unattainable. It keeps shifting forward and it does not stay still. It is ever out of my reach. I suppose it is progress and there is progress since 2008.

There are bolder dreams now, swankier presentations and more executions. Yet, one does not need to do much to be better if the Abdullah administration is the benchmark.

Really, it is hard to see if progress we have seen in the last few years is of any real meaning in the grand scheme of things. Racial and religious issues are still flaring up purposefully by some groups. Pick up some of the local newspapers and the headlines are ever ready to prove agitprops are at work. I have learned to dismiss the fear mongering but many have not, and this is angering. Many have yet to learn what is real and what is imagined.

Corruption is still there. As new controversies emerged, old ones go unresolved.

And those in power still lie. The lies are more getting sophisticated with public relations companies as coaches and makeup artists, but lies are lies. In one hand, those in power show that they have something positive to offer, but in the other hand behind their back, mud and slime.

Maybe, after all those historic change and transformation, what we have now for the most part of it are better actors.

That is progress, I suppose.