Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- On the Freedom to Offend an Imaginary God
- Sam Harris on the Innocence of Muslims affair
- Najib’s theatre of dreams
- Killing innocents is never the answer
- Anti-hopping law – a necessity?
- The Havoc Education Reform Inflicts: Education Blueprint 2013-2025
- PR leaders sign Kuching Declaration
- UMNO and the Malay Mental Serfdom
- Maddening Malaysian Maths
| On the Freedom to Offend an Imaginary God Posted: 19 Sep 2012 02:39 PM PDT Our panic and moral confusion were at first sublimated in attacks upon the hapless Governor Romney. I am no fan of Romney's, and I would find the prospect of his presidency risible if it were not so depressing, but he did accurately detect the first bleats of fear in the Obama administration's reaction to this crisis. Romney got the timing of events wrong—confusing, as many did, a statement made by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo for an official government response to the murder of Americans in Libya. But the truth is that the White House struck the same note of apology, disavowing the offending speech while claiming to protect free speech in principle. It may seem a small detail, given the heat of the moment—but so is a quivering lip. Our government followed the path of appeasement further by attempting to silence the irrepressible crackpot Pastor Terry Jones, who had left off burning copies of the Qur'an just long enough to promote the film. The administration also requested that Google remove "Innocence of Muslims" from its servers. These maneuvers attest to one of two psychological and diplomatic realities: Either our government is unwilling to address the problem at hand, or the problem is so vast and terrifying that we have decided to placate the barbarians at the gate. The contagion of moral cowardice followed its usual course, wherein liberal journalists and pundits began to reconsider our most basic freedoms in light of the sadomasochistic fury known as "religious sensitivity" among Muslims. Contributors to The New York Times and NPR spoke of the need to find a balance between free speech and freedom of religion—as though the latter could possibly be infringed by a YouTube video. As predictable as Muslim bullying has become, the moral confusion of secular liberals appears to be part of the same clockwork. Consider what is actually happening: Some percentage of the world's Muslims—Five percent? Fifteen? Fifty? It's not yet clear—is demanding that all non-Muslims conform to the strictures of Islamic law. And where they do not immediately resort to violence in their protests, they threaten it. Carrying a sign that reads "Behead Those Who Insult the Prophet" may still count as an example of peaceful protest, but it is also an assurance that infidel blood would be shed if the imbecile holding the placard only had more power. This grotesque promise is, of course, fulfilled in nearly every Muslim society. To make a film like "Innocence of Muslims" anywhere in the Middle East would be as sure a method of suicide as the laws of physics allow. What exactly was in the film? Who made it? What were their motives? Was Muhammad really depicted? Was that a Qur'an burning, or some other book? Questions of this kind are obscene. Here is where the line must be drawn and defended without apology: We are free to burn the Qur'an or any other book, and to criticize Muhammad or any other human being. Let no one forget it. At moments like this, we inevitably hear—from people who don't know what it's like to believe in paradise—that religion is just a way of channeling popular unrest. The true source of the problem can be found in the history of western aggression in the region. It is our policies, rather than our freedoms, that they hate. I believe that the future of liberalism—and much else—depends on our overcoming this ruinous self-deception. Religion only works as a pretext for political violence because many millions of people actually believe what they say they believe: that imaginary crimes like blasphemy and apostasy are killing offenses.
|
| Sam Harris on the Innocence of Muslims affair Posted: 19 Sep 2012 02:35 PM PDT There is much in the post to agree with. For a start, I agree that Innocence of Muslims, or the trailer for it, or selection from it, or whatever the hell that was, is (pretty much) unwatchable. I did actually force myself to watch the damn thing (you can find it easily if you really must), but it is atrocious in every possible respect – bigoted, scurrilous, disjointed, and suffering from the most abyssmal production values since Plan 9 from Outer Space (I know I'm not the first to make the comparison, so apologies to whoever was). Harris dismisses as "obscene" such questions as, "What exactly was in the film? Who made it? What were their motives? Was Muhammad really depicted? Was that a Qur'an burning, or some other book?" I think that's going too far. It does appear that the film was deliberately created to express hatred for Muslims and to provoke a violent backlash. In the circumstances, we can ask these questions about it, especially when we add in further issues such as (apparently credible) claims of actors being conned into thinking they were involved in a very different project. There is much to discuss about the film itself and the circumstances of its production, even if, at the end of the day we agree with Harris that:
Yes, that's right. We do get to express our repudiation of belief systems, including Islam, without being constrained by the power of the state, or so I want to argue (and have done in the past). We can go on to criticise prophets or anyone else. Harris is pretty much correct when he says:
Yes, pretty much right. Only "pretty much" because there's an element of exaggeration to quibble about, the way it's been worded. The problem is not so much that we can't "think aloud" on certain topics as that we cannot publish those thoughts widely, once we've sorted them out, should we take certain strong stances. But even when the point is expressed in a less rhetorical way, it's true that an important freedom has been lost, not through the actions of the state but through the willingness of some Muslims to resort to murder in response to what they see as insults to Islam or their prophet. How should the state and its officials respond – and how should we request that they do so? They may be tempted to suppress some kinds of anti-religious speech and to demonise the speakers as racists and criminals … and in some cases they may even be correct that they are dealing with racists or something very similar. Even leaving aside basic concerns about freedom of speech, however, this response can be counterproductive. If an impression is created that political power is being used to silence opposition to Islam, this will merely add to the resentments against Islam that are already present in Western societies, and which have now been fueled by the violent, in some cases murderous, responses to Innocence of Muslims. More generally, when religious leaders and organisations try to prevent certain speech from being heard or certain images from being seen, this adds to the layers of distrust and resentment. The effect is exacerbated if governments get in on the act, actually assisting to suppress speech and images.
|
| Posted: 19 Sep 2012 01:20 PM PDT As speeches go, the prime minister struck all the right chords last week at the National Press Club awards night. It would have been a cracker of a speech — had it come from someone else or made in another setting. A cracker of a speech to eager-beaver young cadet reporters, a valedictory speech to journalism graduates, or even as a half-time dressing-room pep talk. Sadly it was not a championship coach speaking, but a prime minister being undercut even as he spoke by those ostensibly on his watch. It could have been worse: it might have been made by that oaf, his deputy, or that motor-trade Johnny waiting stage right. Sadly, too, it was aimed mainly at online irregulars whose loyalty is projected at a price, and to a working press who toil quite comfortably in newsrooms owned and operated by various limbs of the corporatist-state that the prime minister attempts vainly to steer.  Reichstag Perdana, a Potemkim theatre of dreams But the ship of state is a ponderous rotting hulk, not a nimble kayak. And so, as speeches go, it just…went. I don't know if anyone listening to his speech that night felt a sudden onset of vertigo, such are the giddy heights of the prime minister's annual recital of the free-press creed. Reading the NST's abridged version the next morning, though, brought to mind my old Sixth Form English Lit master explaining what Coleridge meant by a willing "suspension of disbelief" — that state of mind required when reading poetry or fiction, of Xanadu or the second-hand thoughts of Reichstag Putrajaya. As with Najib's grand declarations of intent in 2009, over-reaching ambition was quite apparent in a speech that was excellent in parts, as the curate once said; therein the problem: those are the very parts that others don't reach and won't.  Perdana West Too often the prime minister's speeches have had the ring of being pitched both for the files of the National Archives and well as for the ears of Wall Street, Fleet Street, Whitehall, the Executive Building, the Champs Elysees, the Kohlesseum and other such fine hostelries for the transient and the sometimes sentient. Real-life audiences at press nights are not composed of those driven by ambition to plant a footprint in the alley of stars; rather more mundanely, they comprise those enveloped in the machinations of petty flunkies and petty flacks whose eyes are firmly set on the next project, the next contract, and the next election. The nomenclitura, as Dato Sak AK47 calls them. Noble thoughts and noble aims litter the prime minister's press awards speeches: they are meant to inspire but ring hollow when delivered to a shallow audience that lives by instructions to sell the sizzle. It is the advertising copywriter, not the journalist, whose trade requires him to sell the sizzle, not the steak — and the journalist will hear no sizzle in a blancmange. Read more at: http://uppercaise.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/najibs-theatre-of-dreams/ |
| Killing innocents is never the answer Posted: 18 Sep 2012 01:42 PM PDT The strike was approved in response to the "guilt" of some Iraqis who had supposedly threatened the life of George Bush the elder. It did not seem to matter that the trial for said crimes was not even over yet when the missile was launched.
|
| Anti-hopping law – a necessity? Posted: 17 Sep 2012 02:44 PM PDT The exact motivation(s) of a voter in voting for a particular candidate will be hard to ascertain. Whether the voter votes for the candidate as an individual or for the party which the candidate represents will be a source for further study. The fact that a voter actually crosses at the column beside the party's emblem to denote his or her support for that party/candidate on the ballot paper may however provide an important, though not definitive, clue to the question. Be that as it may, the end result of a vote for any candidate would be the formation of the government by the political party whose candidates win the most number of seats. That is the thrust of our – and in fact, every - democratic process. It follows that when a government can be changed by several elected representatives frog-jumping from an elected government to the opposition, the democratic process whereby our government is chosen and formed would be rendered a mockery. In the same breath, when a new government could be formed by an opposition, who has actually lost the election, by virtue of the frog-jumping acts, the whole foundation and premise of that new government is the betrayal of the people's votes and choice. That would be a sad reflection of where we are, in terms of democratic process, in the 21st century. Yet, parliamentary defection is not peculiar to Malaysia. GC Malhotra, in his book, Anti-Defection Law in India and the Commonwealth, noted that the defection is also known "by different nomenclatures—such as "floor-crossing," "carpet-crossing," "party-hopping," "dispute" and "waka [canoe]-jumping." In fact "crossing the floor", according to the Australian Parliamentary Library, 2005, sometimes refers merely to the act of voting on an issue with the opposition rather than the act of defecting to another party. In the book, Malhotra listed anti-defection laws, in varied forms, enacted by India in 1973, 1985 and 2003. The 2003 law provides that a person can be disqualified from serving in parliament for "voluntarily giving up the membership of his original party" (2005: 965). Furthermore, the Indian law permits parliamentary expulsion simply for voting (or abstaining from voting) "in the House contrary to any direction issued by the political party to which he belongs." Kenneth Janda, in his paper, "Laws Against Party Switching, Defecting or Floor Crossing in National Parliaments" (Northwestern University, August 2009), observes that at least 8 countries see defection as a serious mischief necessitating anti-defection rules in their respective constitution. These are Belize, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, Seychelles, Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe. Closer to home, even Singapore sees it fit to provide in its constitution a provision which reads: Article 46 Tenure of Office of Members (1) Every Member of Parliament shall cease to be a Member at the next dissolution of Parliament after he has been elected or appointed, or previously thereto if his seat becomes vacant, under the provisions of this Constitution. (2) The seat of a Member of Parliament shall become vacant; (b) if he ceases to be a member of, or is expelled or resigns from, the political party for which he stood in the election. Janda observed that as of 2009, there were at least 41 nations which have anti-defection laws (as opposed to having a constitutional provision) in one form or another. Perhaps, the best rationale for anti-defection laws is best summarized by Scott W Desposato, as quoted by Janda in his paper:
|
| The Havoc Education Reform Inflicts: Education Blueprint 2013-2025 Posted: 16 Sep 2012 03:11 PM PDT In this five-part commentary I will critique the latest reform effort contained in Preliminary Report: Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025 released on September 11, 2012. The first three essays will address the Blueprint's findings and recommendations; the fourth, its omissions, and the last, the flaws in the process with this particular reform effort. The Blueprint clearly identifies the main problems and challenges at both the system and individual levels, but fails to analyze why or how they came about and why they have been let to fester. Consequently the recommendations are based more on conjecture rather than solid data; more towards generalities and the stating of goals rather than on specifics and how to achieve those goals. On the positive side, the goals and milestones (at least some of them) are clearly stated in quantifiable terms, so we would know whether they have been achieved going forward. Despite extensive public participation and the inclusion of many luminaries (including foreign ones) on the panel, the report has many glaring omissions. It fails to address the particular challenges facing Islamic and rural national schools. This is surprising considering that the constituents in both streams are Malays, a politically powerful group. Even more pertinent, those schools regularly perform at the bottom quartile; they drag down the whole system. Improving them would go a long way in enhancing the entire system. Yet another omission is the failure to analyze and thus learn from earlier reform efforts. This Blueprint does not live up to Najib Razak's assertion of being "bold, comprehensive and transparent." Transparent perhaps, but not bold or comprehensive! That is not surprising as the panel is dominated by civil servants. They have been part of the problem for so long that it would be too much to expect them now to magically be part of the solution. Predictability of Education Reform It is a particularly Malaysian obsession to reform its educational policy with the political season. Every new minister feels compelled to do it, as if to demonstrate his political manhood. Now it is Muhyiddin's turn. Five years ago under Hishamuddin there was Langkah Langkah Ke Arah Cemerlangan (Steps Towards Excellence). Five years before that under Musa Mohamad was Pembangunan Pendidikan 2001-2010: Rancangan Bersepadu Penjana Cemerlangan Pendidikan (Education Development 2010-2011. Plan for Unity Through Educational Excellence). Notice the long pretentious titles and frequent use of the word "excellence." In the meantime generations of young Malaysians, especially Malays, continue to pay the price for the follies of previous reforms, in particular the one in the 1970s that did away with English schools. Someone finally wizened up and brought back the teaching of English, albeit only in science and mathematics. Then just as we were adjusting to and recovering from that reversal, a new leader who thought himself smarter changed back the system! This latest reform released on September 11, 2012, will prove to be the 9-11 of Malaysian education. The destruction may not be as dramatic visually and physically as the other 9-11, but the wreckage will be real and massive, with the havoc remaining long after to haunt current and future generations. The damage will be extensive, cumulative, and compounding. As in the past, this time we are again being promised that this storm of a reform will wash away the thick polluted haze that has been hovering over our schools. Yes, the air will be clearer and fresher after a storm, and the birds will sing. Meanwhile however, we have to deal with ripped roofs, flood debris, and destructive landslides. In compiling this Blueprint the government has commendably sought wide public participation and at great expense. The public in turn responded massively and enthusiastically, reflecting the angst over our education system. The panel however, did not sufficiently discern the difference between quantity and quality, and duly gave equal time to the bombasts as well as the wise.
|
| PR leaders sign Kuching Declaration Posted: 16 Sep 2012 02:02 PM PDT The de facto leader of Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) Anwar Ibrahim signed on behalf of his party, while Lim Kit Siang, DAP National adviser signed on behalf of DAP and Haji Abdul Hadi Awang, PAS President signed on behalf of PAS. Also affixing their signatures on the declaration were also state leaders. Sarawak PKR Chief Baru Bian signed on behalf of PKR, while Wong Ho Leng, Sarawak DAP Chairman signed on behalf of DAP and Haji Adam Ahid, PAS Commissioner on behalf of his party. The Declaration reads: "Lest we forget, and lest all the peoples of our great Nation of Malaysia forget, we the undersigned do once again firmly, resolutely and unequivocally pledge and promise before the whole Nation of Malaysia as our witness, on this historically day the 16th of September, 2012, in the City of Kuching, and on behalf of our respective parties and Pakatan Rakyat will honour all its pledges and promises to the peoples of Malaysia. "We will honourably execute all the policies set forth in the Buku Jingga so that Malaysia will once again be a great Nation, her peoples prosperous, her future secure and peaceful, and her name celebrated by all the nations of the world. "We will honour the spirit of the Malaysia Agreement of 1963 which our founding fathers put their hands to, and as a sign of our deep commitment to the peoples of Sarawak and Sabah, consistent with democratic principles and justice for all Malaysians, in particular:
|
| UMNO and the Malay Mental Serfdom Posted: 16 Sep 2012 01:53 PM PDT I am most baffled when he says or suggests that UMNO has an ideology. Since when does UMNO has an ideology consisting of beliefs and basic driving force? What ideology? Since the time when I was still in UMNO until now, we have been taught that UMNO hasn't got an ideology. It has always claimed it's pragmatic although the word actually means anything goes. No sir, UMNO hasn't got any ideology. Everyone sees a position in UMNO as a means to make more money. That is why Najib has so much difficulty in weaning off incumbents from their current seats. Unless of course he pays them off and that is what he is doing. He's giving so many people golden handshakes. When he says DAP will dominate, he must be off his rockers. But then he is talking to a pliant and nodding crowd whose minds are conditioned by TV3 and Utusex Malaysia. The argument that DAP will dominate is incredible as well as devious. He was speaking at the Mesyuarat Perwakilan UMNO Bahagian- the local Perhimpunan Agung. It was the same when he spoke to the rented crowd at stadium Bukit Jalil a few months ago. But when he retires to the sleeping quarters, he can't sleep because he's getting nightmares. He's thinking, can UMNO even reach the 100 seat mark? Well, I know more about him that the average reader. We have explained why DAP will become a formidable party because of the disciplined and quality leadership and clarity of its cause. Seat wise, DAP cant form a government without PAS and PKR because it's contesting not more that 52 seats or even less. Unless of course the Malays in PKR and PAS are of the same mediocre standard as UMNO leaders, then only, Malays are disadvantaged. Malay survival is at risk if they continue the corrupt and self-interested UMNO. Even Kit Siang and Guan Eng acknowledged the political reality of this country. The majority of the population is Malay and to suggest that anyone other than a Malay can be PM and TPM at this juncture of our history, is devilishly disingenuous. Bu then, UMNO is the devil we know. The reason why DAP is assailed is because the party has become the party of choice by the majority of the Chinese, Indians and to small extent, Malays. Malays now prefer PKR and PAS. When he asked the pliant crowd are you ready for elections- they will answer yes of course. We have been waiting for the money! Where the mo? Do Malays depend on UMNO? That is what UMNO wants us to believe and that it's why it's only strategy is to keep Malays on economic leash by giving handouts and free things. It's also Najib's only strategy. Talking about ETP and NKRA, KPI must exert some tremendous mental stain on him. Poor fellow. That only thing they have withheld from Malays- effective economic freedom free from regulations, licenses that favor the rich, quotas that are robbed by the rich and powerful etc. That is absolute lie. Malays do not depend on UMNO for their survival. Malays have got a choice if they want to maintain that emotional security- support PAS or PKR. Do we see Malays suffer in Selangor, Kelantan, Penang and Kedah where UMNO is not in power? No? Then Malays do not depend on UMNO for their survival. They prosper under good governance, sincere and dedicated administrations. When UMNO leaders proclaim that our security is at risk that reflects more of their incompetence. The Home Minister shows his complete incompetence by allowing vigilantes to roam the street and create havoc. Hishammuddin should resign from his post as Home Minister if he's not bright enough.
|
| Posted: 16 Sep 2012 01:34 PM PDT Leaving aside the complete unreliability of frogs, for simplicity sake let us still view that 20 of Sabah's 25 federal seats are held by BN. In neighbouring Sarawak, with peh-mo in almost total control, the BN holds 29 of its 31 federal seats. But will BN? 222 - 56 East Malaysian seats = 166 peninsula federal seats Immediately post GE-12, BN held 140 to Pakatan's 82 (whence AI had laughingly claimed he could obtain an additional deformed 30 MPs by 916 to give a Pakatan 112 majority versus BN's 110 wakakaka).  Thus, out of BN's 140, there were only (140 - 49 East Malaysian BN federal seats =) 91 federal seats in Peninsula. Recall, immediately post GE-12, Pakatan had 75 peninsula federal seats, providing us with a OK Corral-like stand-off in Peninsula of 91 BN seats versus 75 Pakatan seats, a mere majority of 16. Thus, assuming voters continue to vote Pakatan in those same 75 federal constituencies in Peninsula, the coalition only requires victory in another 9 seats to put BN gasping for breath in Peninsula like an ikan kembong landed on hot burning beach sands.  And in Peninsula, such a victory is very doable with doom and gloom already forecast for BN in the peninsula states of Johor, NS and Malacca, and which may explain UMNO becoming more and more feral (thuggish), with the UMNO Home Minister even talking like a petulant immature boy. Mind though, BN (UMNO) may claw a couple back in Kedah because of one screwed-up bloke there who prefers UMNO to Pakatan's DAP and who has not cooperated well as a Pakatan leader should.  Assuming optimistically for an instant, Pakatan in GE-13 wins 84 federal seats in Peninsula to BN's 82 (and IMHO, it's quite likely to be more than just 84 wakakaka) it needs another 28 seats in East Malaysia to form the new Malaysian government. Of that required 28 East Malaysian seats, the DAP has won and thus is fairly well entrenched in 3. Will Pakatan be able to win another 25?  Alas, PAS has been obdurately selfish in Labuan, knowing full well it can't win in that constituency yet insisting it wants to stand its candidate there again. In GE-12, its candidate came last in a 3-corner fight and lost his deposit wakakaka.
|
| You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan