ANCAMAN KEPADA MELAYU

"UTUSAN MALAYSIA: Sekarang ini ada pula Melayu liberal yang juga mahu supaya diwujudkan kesamarataan?

DR. SHAM RAHAYU: Kelompok ini yang menjadi racun, saya sebut ini adalah Melayu yang makan Melayu, Melayu yang menjadi racun kepada Perlembagaan.

Tidak mustahil mereka yang mencetuskan semua ini.

Mereka yang nak jadi juara memperjuangkan hak sama rata, tanpa memahami sejarah Perlembagaan secara semangatnya.

Mereka melihat Perkara 153 itu seolah-olah membawa pandangan buruk kepada Melayu, mereka rasa keistimewaan itu macam bantuan kepada orang cacat, benda yang buruk kepada orang Melayu.

Ini menjadikan orang memijak Perlembagaan.

Mereka ini tali barut yang menjadikan Perkara 153 dan orang Melayu sendiri bencikan keistimewaan Melayu.

Kita tidak menafikan perkembangan mutakhir ini menunjukkan wujud dua Melayu iaitu Melayu liberal dan Melayu Perlembagaan. [Mingguan Malaysia]"

Media independence: Don't just leave it to the journalists

I refer to Mirror, Mirror by A. Asohan on StarMag June 15.

I was at the National Press Club when de facto Law minister Zaid Ibrahim gave a disingenuous speech to a roomful of journalists, bloggers and activists who work for press freedom.

He seemed to be the appropriate person from the government to be invited to speak in the Walk for Press Freedom event on June 1st. Firstly, because he seemed like a progressive fella with his talk and action on reforming the judiciary.

Secondly, because he is the de facto law minister, he would perhaps do something about the oppressive laws that continue to muzzle the media.

I think his speech was not only condescending, but showed his lack of understanding of the issues at stake. He started off by saying that he was not there to support press freedom nor was he the right person for that matter to be addressed to. Then he lectured the retinue of journalists and activists that they should blame themselves for the lack of media freedom, and NOT the government.

I think if we were more self-respectable, we would’ve just walked out. Luckily, some of us boo-ed and jeer-ed him. Afterall, we didn’t go there to be lectured by some politician about media freedom. We want to see if this government after March 8 is committed to media freedom, as it seems to be, about the state of the judiciary.

A media of integrity, a fair and balanced media, is not just the prerogative of journalists. It is in the interest of everyone – it is the right of the citizens in a democratic country. It should provide a fair and balance view of issues important for the people, and to be the voice of the voiceless, rather than a mouthpiece of the government.

After Operasi Lallang in 1987, the government under the former Prime Minister effectively brought all mainstream media under its control either directly, or indirectly. Newspapers were bought over by political parties and laws like the Printing and Publication Act, the Official Secrets Act and the Sedition Act instill fear and self-censorship among its senior editors and working journalists.

In this climate of fear, the lack of critical journalism is precisely what’s driving people online to get their news. The explosion of bloggers and online news and the millions of hits they get show the people’s hunger for REAL NEWS and VIEWS that matter. That power is now accorded some respect after the fallout of the recent general election. Good. Now let’s hope something is done to lift those laws that curtail the independence of mainstream media.

If we leave it to the current batch of working journalists and senior editors to revamp the state of the media, with those laws still hanging over their heads like a Damocles’ sword, we won’t get anywhere. After all, their bread and butter depend on retaining the status quo.

In the same way, let me ask Zaid, why didn’t he tell the judges to clean the judiciary up? Can we leave it to the judges to clean themselves up, when some of them are implicated as beneficiaries of executive interference? Why talk about an independent commission to elect judges, why bother when judges themselves haven’t said anything about overhauling the justice system?

A strong, independent media is an integral institution of a functioning democracy. Like an effective, independent judiciary – those two pillars of democracy should not just be left just to working judges or working journalists. They are too important.

And this time I agree with Asohan - the press, the powers-that-be and the public – are stakeholders here. It is in the interest of the Malaysian public to be served news that is fair and balanced and that reflects their needs and aspirations. If you believe that you deserve to know the truth and make informed decision, make it known by signing on this petition http://benar.org/

Come on, take that first step.

FOOD CRISIS: IS THE ANSWER MORE TECHNOLOGY, MORE FREE TRADE? Burma's numbers don't lie

---
I came across some startling numbers in Newsweek while taking my usual lrt train to work in downtown KL. "By the Numbers" is my favourite section in the magazine because it makes you double back and think again. This time it's about Burma and food.

Since the media broke stories about the food crisis and rising food prices, I've been trying to get my head around this new global life threatening issue. Food shortage due to climate change and biofuel taking away land for food crops are among the things that have been blamed. And the solutions - I've read that we need another green revolution, we need more genetic modified seeds, we need to modernise and corporatise agriculture, and we need more free trade.

But are those the answers? Or are they the very reasons why we're facing the food crisis now.

These numbers from a very "backward" country confirms my suspicion about the mis-conceptions and mis-information about the global food crisis.

By the Numbers (reprint from Newsweek May 25 - June 2)

Burma is a land of agricultural bounty - its rice yield ranks as one
of the highest in Southeast Asia. This richness has cushioned the
ruling junta from the food riots that are starting to plague
neighbouring states.

206 - number of kilograms of rice per person per year consumed in
Burma, the highest in the region.

3.8 - number of tons per hectare of Burma's rice yield - 44 percent
higher than that of neighboring Thailand.

2,912 - average number of daily calories consumed by Burma's citizens,
the highest in Southeast Asia

6% - of Burma's people who are malnourished, as opposed to 20 % of
Thais and 19 % of Vietnamese.

Now for those of you who have little idea about the wealth disparity of these South East Asian nations, here are their GDPs per capita.

Burma USD 1,800
Thailand USD 9,200
Malaysia USD 12,200
Indonesia USD 3,900
Philipines USD 5,000

Thailand's GDP per capita is more than FOUR times that of Burma, and Malaysia's is almost SEVEN times that of Burma. If you walk in downtown Bangkok or Kuala Lumpur, and then in Rangoon, you'd think that you've been transported 50 years back. Yet there are more malnourished people in Thailand than Burma.

I am amazed that whatever we think about the Burmese, as being oppressed and starved by their fat military rulers, they are amazingly self-sufficient. Left to their own devices, left to their antiquated agricultural tools and their traditional way of farming, Burma's rice yield per hectar is 44% higher than Thailand, which has an export oriented agriculture and has embraced all kinds of new technologies, modern chemical fertilisers and pesticides.

That leads me to ask: Is modern farming depleting the richness of soil and thus, reducing the capacity of land to produce? Is the corporatisation of food decreasing food sustainability and food security?

I want you to read Vandana Shiva's interview with ALTER net. She is a world-renowned environmental activist, physicist, and authour of 300 papers in leading scientific and technical journals. Here she explains how corporation-friendly economic schemes got us into this mess in the first place.


Vandana Shiva: Why We Face Both Food and Water Crises

--

The Boxing Ring

I've been publishing all the comments that come to the Chinese school debate - weather it is pro or against without fear or favour.

This is what I found:

1) I am very,very moderate. Sickeningly so. So I can be a referee, but I'm pretty sure the wrestlers on opposite side of the ring will accuse me of favouritism. And very soon they will both turn against me.

So here goes:

On one side of the ring is the pro-national school "extremist" who says - BAN CHINESE SCHOOLS! You are Malaysian, not Chinese ok, try going back to China and see if you're accepted!-- and this coming from a young Chinese student.

On the other side of the ring are the pro-Chinese school "extremist" who seem to think that any talk that is not supporting Chinese school whole-heartedly is against it. Some of them are also prone to call me Banana, American, no-culture, no roots dsb.

This is my analysis:

The way some Chinese "extremist" feel about Chinese schools is almost similar to the way people would protect their religion and places of worship. It's sacred. It's like the institution of their identity and survival. In a way, it's true. They feel they really have to protect their identity and survival in a threatening environment that they do not feel any sense of belonging.

Many Chinese, even after the 4th and 5th generation here, (longer than a lot of Malays here) still feel besieged. And that feeling of being besieged feeds on itself. It starts from seeing that Malays get certain government privileges that you don't get by virtue of your descent. And we see certain politicians still calling us a pendatang, and say that if we "challenge" them, the keris will be bathed with a certain group's blood.

Inspite of that, we all stand up and sing Negaraku, pay taxes, makan belacan, durian and drink teh tarik. And to try to placade our sense of justice, they bombard us with Malaysia Truly Asia propoganda - everybody different colour but happy happy under one banner. This hypocrisy is truly an insult to all of us who know fully well that some people are more equal than others. It's really painful. And when you feel like giving up and moving to another country, which is a really really painful decision, you felt a glimmer of hope just watching one of Yasmin Ahmad's petronas ads....I'm sure by now you should know about Tan Hong Ming and his beau Umi Qazrina. If not click here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rHRgCiS22o. Damn it Yasmin.

So, in a way, I can understand that feeling of not-belonging and trying to protect their survival and identity. But I also think it is getting out of hand. Even though many Chinese have already made it, they still feel threatened. I liken it to the Zionist state of Israel, because of the historical injustice against Jews, they keep feeling threatened even when they are threatening others. Their defense becomes an offense to many people.

I observe that about a lot of Malaysian Chinese, even when they are discriminating others, they still feel justified. And many Malays do feel very discriminated and looked down upon in companies where the majority are Chinese.

These people look down on other races, and they dont know how to give and take with other races becasue they think they are superior. It's in their eyes, and in their body language and I hate that. I observe it better than other Chinese because I can blend and I look neither Chinese nor Malay.

But as a Chinese (3/4) myself, I want to call on Chinese to stop feeling fearful, and stop being so cocooned. Come out and engaged, and change that oppressive system. Becasue you are not the only one who feel discriminated and oppressed. Many Malays and many Indians feel that too. By coming out to engage is to move beyond your comfort zone and change that system so that there is more space for all of us to feel a sense of belonging. I think to keep on defending your right to send all your kids to Chinese schools, so that they wont have a chance to engage with others is only defending the status quo. Becasue when you do that, you are allowing national schools to become Malay schools. you are denying Malays of having the opportunity to mix with Chinese kids, and allowing fear and prejudice to breed. And you will also breed another generation of Chinese fearful or too proud to engage with others.

"Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing." - Arundhati Roy

Chinese school non-arguments

I see now, why Chinese school debate is "sensitive," It's actually not sensitive, it's just that people don't understand what the other side is saying.

Four people wrote back to me. Three lambasted me for

1) wanting to ban Chinese schools
2) being an American and have no roots
3) accusing me of not honouring Chinese culture and history.

The other one asked for evidence that national schools are being Islamised.

First of all, I never agree to the banning of Chinese schools.

Secondly, I value culture and history and learning of civilisations. And if you don't think national schools do enough of that, than push to have electives so that our children have choices. And if you still don't think that is enough, than send them to Chinese schools.

The people who are pro-Chinese schools say that it is not just language but Chinese culture that is important, Chinese history, Chinese civilisation... etc.

I truly support your right to study Chinese culture and history. But no one has addressed my biggest concern.

IS IT HEALTY THAT OUR KIDS STUDY AND GROW UP IN AN ENVIRONMENT OF MONOCULTURE, WHEN THE REALITY IS THAT WE LIVE IN A MULTICULTURAL SOCIETY?

And why are national schools so unattractive? Why are we paying tax money to support an institution that is not attractive to a majority of Chinese? Shouldn't we do something about it? Shouldn't we be a part of nation buidling and make sure that it represents our needs too? Afterall we are citizens of this country.

I think if someone had addressed my primary concern, we would actually get somewhere. Like how about Chinese schools try to increase their percentage of non-Chinese to make sure that kids of different ethnicities mingle?

And, let's really advocate for a better kind of national education that can cater to the needs of different ethnicities. Let's find a common shared goal.