Wednesday August 13, 2008
News break of a different kind
MUSING BY MARINA MAHATHIR
In the developed world, where information assaults you everywhere, it comes as a relief that the recent headline events unfolding in Malaysia hardly merits a mention.
YOU would think that in these days of information overload, you’d have to hide in a cave somewhere remote in order to escape any news about our beloved Malaysia.
But in fact I did not have to do that at all when I was on a break recently.
I was in the middle of the developed world, where information is hardly difficult to come by, where it almost assaults you from everywhere.
You have TV, newspapers, advertising billboards flashing you news almost wherever you go. There is no escape.
But where did Malaysia figure in all this? Nowhere. Which may come as a relief to most of us, given the general unsavoriness of recent events.
On the other hand, it may mean that there is simply no news about our country worth reporting on.
What we might consider a disaster of a country right now isn’t bad news enough to warrant a mention at all in Western newspapers. There might be some who ask why we should care at all.
Indeed, we are certainly well covered in our neighbours’ papers. But is any of it positive?
Is the tone one of envy at our successes or general smirking at our rapid decline?
No doubt it was a week in which trying to get any column space or airtime was particularly difficult.
The two biggest stories in the week I was away were Obama’s rockstar-like tour of Europe and the capture of Radovan Karadjic, the Butcher of Bosnia.
One good guy and one bad guy are a bit hard to beat.
Almost a quarter of a million people turned up to listen to Obama when he spoke in Berlin, most of whom would never be able to vote for him.
Yet they looked like they wished they could.
The Americans know how to stage these things very well, building a catwalk in front of the Victory Column and working out all the best camera angles.
It almost became immaterial what he had to say; it was the image of Obama in front of that sea of people that was the message that his campaign team wanted to send back home: our boy is not only cool at home, he’s also cool overseas.
Why, no less than the President of France has pretty much endorsed him as his counterpart before a single American vote has been cast.
Indeed, before Obama has even been officially nominated as the Democratic candidate.
The Americans know everything about image building; we should learn a thing or two from them.
Also keeping foreign relations in mind was the Serbian government that suddenly “found” Radovan Karadjic after 13 years.
It turns out that all the while he had been in Belgrade, posing as a long-haired bearded alternative medicine practitioner, a species of folk normally associated with peace and calm, not the wholesale butchering of hundreds of thousands of people on the basis of their religion.
The reason he was finally captured was not because the new Serbian government had a sudden attack of conscience but because they wanted to curry favour with the European Union in order to join their august company.
Still it was nice to know that Karadjic won't be laying his “healing” hands on anyone anymore.
Meanwhile, Obama was doing some laying of hands of his own.
I watched him live on TV answering questions at something called the Unity Summit, a rather odd name for a conference of every type of journalist in the US, except white ones. But I must say he deftly answered some very tough questions.
The representative of the National Association of Native American Journalists asked if he was going to apologise to Native Americans for past wrongs perpetrated by the US government since the Australian and Canadian prime ministers had apologised to their own indigenous people.
He answered it pretty adroitly
by saying it’s better to raise their living standards and increase
their opportunities for advance-
ment than just to apologise for the past.
It made me wonder if we had a National Association of Orang Asli and Other Indigenous Malaysian Journalists to ask the same question of our leaders.
He handled the representatives of the National Associations of Hispanic, Asian-American and Muslim Journalists (“When are you going to visit a mosque, Senator?”) in similar vein.
It was interesting, insightful into his character, and quite entertaining.
Also, impressive, when you consider that he just got off the plane after a whirlwind tour of Europe.
Then I get home to a country where you have to wonder if even this mainstream newspaper was being ironic when they headlined a story on how some students had questioned our PM by saying they had “grilled” him.
And yes, it was the editors who had put the word “grilled” within single quote marks.
29 August 2008
17 July 2008
IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR ALL
The articles are captured from the original writer, MsMarina (with her permission). SambalBelacan is just compiling articles to make easier to find. Any comments received will remain un-respond because it's not mine.Reach her at her very own blog at http://rantingsbymm.blogspot.com/ Please.
==================================
In the name of their fathers
MUSINGS BY MARINA MAHATHIR
The recent announcement that Muslim adopted children must use the names of their biological male parent and not that of their adoptive fathers, as previously allowed, is causing anguish to many an adoptive parent as well as
I wonder what is it about us as a society these days when common sense has now become less commonplace?
Once upon a time we trusted ourselves, in our instincts and in our own values to do the right thing. We empathised with those in unfortunate circumstances and did our best to mitigate their situations.
These days people trust their natural instincts less, preferring to refer to others who tell us they are in authority.
We abdicate the responsibility to think and instead ask for guidance from others and follow that advice even when sometimes instinctively we know that the advice is unfair and incorrect.
A fine example is the recent announcement by the Home Minister that Muslim adopted children must use the names of their biological fathers and not the names of their adoptive fathers, as previously allowed.
Ostensibly, this was to fall in line with a fatwa made eight years ago but whether this solves problems or creates them seems to not be considered at all.
In the first place, the assumption seems to be that adoptive parents always know who the father of their adopted children are. But since babies are often adopted from unwed mothers, the fathers are not always known.
What if the babies are the result of liaisons with foreign fathers who gave false names? What if the babies are the result of rape?
Sometimes babies are adopted from a different race. If Baby A was originally Chinese or Indian and not born Muslim, do they then have to be known as Baby A Tan or Baby B Ramasamy?
Some have argued that the reason for keeping adopted children’s original names is so that they will not accidentally marry their own siblings.
Perhaps there was a risk of this in the days when people did not travel much outside their own communities or tribes.
This is possibly why the Chinese advise against marriage between two people with the same surnames. But with more than two billion Chinese sharing many common surnames, the chances that a Tan from one end of the country being related to a Tan from the other end of the country has become remote.
But if the logic is that you should take your father’s name so that you won’t marry any of your father’s other children, then what protection would you have against marrying one of your mother’s other children (by a man other than your father) that she might also have given away?
Furthermore, the converse logic is also problematic. If you don’t share the same surname as your adoptive siblings, then presumably you can marry them, even if you have grown up with them all your life.
Biologically this may be all right but socially and morally, would this still not be regarded as incestuous?
Woody Allen was neither biologically or even ethnically related to Soon-Yi Previn, yet people still found the liaison between them repugnant because she was his wife’s adopted daughter.
As the sister of several adopted siblings, I know at close hand the problems associated with both having the same as well as different surnames.
All my adopted siblings knew their status from childhood but the problem came from outside the family, not within. People did not treat them the same as us biological children even though they have the same surname.
In some cases, they simply disbelieved their relationship because of the different surnames. Perhaps it is because we are not an ordinary family but I imagine that even in ordinary families, you can still have this problem.
Besides, in Malay families, we do not have surnames. Not every “bin Ali” is related to every other “bin Ali”. You would have to trace back each person several generations on both sides of the family in order to be certain they are or are not related.
How is that possible with adopted children, especially orphans or abandoned children?
This new policy is one that is causing anguish to many an adoptive parent. Adoption has often meant a better life for many orphans. Couples adopt so that they can provide a loving home to children who would otherwise have never known a family.
I know some couples who've adopted children who turned out to be hearing-disabled and they have done everything they can to ensure that their children lead as normal a life as possible.
Already this policy is causing people to hesitate before they adopt. Many others are concerned about the emotional turmoil that public knowledge of their non-biological child’s status will cause, as opposed to private acceptance within the family.
One has to wonder who exactly is to benefit from this new law? It is certainly not the adopted child.
09 July 2008
Toxic shock syndrome
MUSINGS BY MARINA MAHATHIR
Anyone who has an opinion finds a counter-opinion. Neither is necessarily founded on truth.
JUST when we thought the atmosphere in our beloved country was toxic enough, it just got even worse.
I don’t know if anyone finds politics and politicians in our country as tiresome as I do these days.
And I mean those of every stripe and shade. Somehow none of them seem capable of behaving like normal people with normal instincts.
Everything is seen and done through a political lens.
Which is fine except that that’s not the way most normal people think.
The worst thing is that after a while, they start infecting others and even ordinary people start thinking the same way.
So people start looking at things through a distorted lens without even realising it.
For instance, it seems an automatic reaction for politicians to regard everything their opponents do as wrong, regardless of what it is.
So even if it is something good for the people, their opponents will impute some sinister agenda to it.
I would be happy to receive anything that makes my life easier from anyone, and I really don’t care to be told that it really isn’t good for me without a convincing argument why.
But how silly has the situation become that even their supporters start thinking the same way, even when their own lives are affected by what their leaders do.
On the other hand, politicians also are quick to defend whatever their own colleagues do as good, regardless of what it is.
If what their colleagues do is totally unconscionable, at the most they will react slowly and gently.
A case in point would be the bocor case last year, when after a rather long time, a non-apology was offered after much persuasion by their own party mates.
This type of attitude seems to have seeped into other people, too.
Double standards seem to prevail.
For instance, the same people who call
for justice to be blind seem to not want to apply this same standard to those they don’t like.
One would think that to prove that justice is indeed non-discriminatory, one would bend over backwards to insist on justice for those one has no great love for.
Instead there is a scramble to take every little bit of gossip or opinion as true.
Yet, if the same were directed at those they like, the response would be that these were “scurrilous” and “politically motivated.”
What sort of example are we setting for the general public with this?
Nowadays everyone sees so many plots and counterplots in everything that the atmosphere has become truly toxic.
Anyone who has an opinion finds a counter-opinion. Neither is necessarily founded on truth.
So there is no advance towards any sort of resolution.
Everyone seems to find it shameful not to have an opinion, even if it is not founded on anything they actually know.
There is no pausing to reflect and consider. To try and learn more so that one can give a measured response to anything.
Even ministers give knee-jerk personal opinions in unbecoming ways.
Small wonder that everyone else feels that they can make foolish unconsidered statements as well.
Not that the media is of any help. News today is simply a string of sound bites.
You get the impression that reporters ask for only three words of reactions rather than a proper explanation of what anyone thinks of any issue.
Responses do depend on the questions being asked as well, and in my experience many of the questions do not go beyond “What do you say to what so-and-so said?”
Unfortunately, politicians lap up the opportunity to show how glib they are.
Perhaps it goes back again to our general attitude towards information.
We want it quickly and in small bits. We don’t want long studied explanations about anything and then have to think about them.
Rumours, gossip and hearsay are what we want to believe.
Unfortunately there are many purveyors of these.
Maybe we should just boycott politicians and politics for a while. Or demand that they behave like normal people and concentrate on real issues.
People are trying to figure out how to feed their families.
That is the most important issue of all. Hungry people are neither patient nor good-tempered.
Nothing except good policies to manage this issue is going to matter.
23 June 2008
IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR ALL
The articles are captured from the original writer, MsMarina (with her permission). SambalBelacan is just compiling articles to make easier to find. Any comments received will remain un-respond because it's not mine.Reach her at her very own blog at http://rantingsbymm.blogspot.com/ Please.
==================================
Wednesday June 18, 2008
You walk the talk first
Musings
By MARINA MAHATHIR
The Government wants us to change our lifestyles to cope with inflation. It is easier said than done since most people were having it difficult even before the hikes. The Government must first set an example by doing things it should have done long ago.
WITH the recent hike in fuel prices and the Government’s exhortations for us to change our lifestyles in order to cope, may I provide here some suggestions for the Government and those who work for it to “share our burden”.
1. Stop having meetings, especially out at resorts, far enough away to be able to claim transport allowances. Have online meetings instead or teleconferences. Use Skype or chat.
2. No need to order special pens, bags, T-shirts, notepads and other goodies for those same meetings.
3. No need to order kuih for mid-morning or teatime meetings in government offices, or nasi briyani lunches for those meetings that happen to end just at lunchtime.
4. Cancel all trips for government servants to conferences overseas unless they return with full reports of what they did there, who they met and what they learnt and how they mean to apply what they learnt at home. Ask them to do presentations to colleagues who did not get to go, on the most interesting and important papers that they read.
5. Scrutinise invoices for contracts to make sure they are truly reflective of what those projects or supplies cost.
6. Stop elaborate launches for government programmes. In particular, stop the buying of souvenirs, special batik shirts, corsages, bouquets and caps.
7. Make all civil servants and politicians travel economy class. That means really travelling at the back of the plane and not buying full fare economy class tickets that allow them to be upgraded to Business Class.
8. Stop having the full complement of police escorts to cut down on petrol costs. If they need to be somewhere by a certain time, start earlier like the rest of us. Wouldn’t be a bad thing for them to also experience a traffic jam.
9. Once a week (or more), have ministers use public transport so they know what everyone else has to suffer. This might provide them with the incentive to improve them.
10. Once a week, let ministers go to a market to buy food for their families with instructions to not spend more than RM100.
11. Get ministers to carpool. They might get more work done just by being able to talk to each other to see what can be coordinated between their ministries. For instance, the Ministers of Health and Women could discuss what to do about women’s health issues in the car on the way to work. Maybe have a secretary to travel in the front seat to take down notes on what was discussed. By the time they get to their offices, things can get implemented.
12. Once a month, get civil servants to work with one disadvantaged group in order to be better able to appreciate their problems. It could be blind people one month, hearing disabled people the next, orang asli the following month and people living with HIV/AIDS after that.
We could start buddy systems which pair one civil servant with one disadvantaged person and at the end of it, ask each pair to make recommendations on how to make life better for each other. This might get rid of the problem of desk jockeys, people who never stray very far from their desks yet make policies for people they know nothing about.
13. Have PA systems that shout out the name of the officers who have to serve people at government offices so that people get the services they came for and don’t have to keep coming back just because the officer was out having coffee.
No counter should be left unmanned for more than five minutes before the officer is paged to go back to their stations. This should cut down waiting time for the public and save them transport costs in having to keep returning just to get one thing done.
14. Government officers who lose people’s files should be fined and have their names publicised for being careless and causing inconvenience to the public. Instead of making the public travel to their offices several times to deal with their problems, they should travel to go see their client and deal with it right there and then.
And every officer who goes out of the office should be given a reasonable time to get his work done after which he is expected back in office so he doesn't waste time doing something else.
15. And newspapers should save paper by reporting real news rather than non-news that they carry, particularly nonsensical utterances by politicians.
As they say, we need to do this all together in order to make a difference. So if the Government and politicians make these lifestyle changes, I will do my part and change mine.
11 June 2008
IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR ALL
The articles are captured from the original writer, MsMarina (with her permission). SambalBelacan is just compiling articles to make easier to find. Any comments received will remain un-respond because it's not mine.Reach her at her very own blog at http://rantingsbymm.blogspot.com/ Please.
==================================
Wednesday June 4, 2008
Looking beyond the white blouse
MUSING BY MARINA MAHATHIR
There are many different ways of thinking about the same thing, and if we insist that our way is best, we need to defend it with sound arguments.
I would nominate for “Small Mind of the Year” the announcement by a female student that our schoolgirls’ uniforms are too transparent, and therefore would lead to them being raped, have unwanted babies and all sorts of evil things.
I’m surprised they didn’t mention that these white blouses would also make them corrupt and power-hungry.
It’s nice that a student association is taking an interest in issues. But one would have thought it would complain about the general state of education in this country, rather than school uniforms.
In France, students are taking to the streets to protest against the poor quality of the education in the state schools.
It would be far more impressive if our students complained about the same. After all, they must wonder why they cannot get jobs after studying. Or do they blame it on the alleged state of undress of other people as well?
Perhaps complaining about the education system would reveal that this is why they have become so small-minded.
Instead of breeding big brains with the capacity to think issues out clearly and then hold their ground with solid arguments, we get grey matter that has been squeezed into tiny boxes by an education system that lauds small minds and thinks brains that think expansively are dangerous.
The easiest and cheapest counter-attack is however to use the “freedom of speech” argument, where hole-ridden proposals are recast as opinion, never mind how silly. But these are the same people who would never allow anyone with contrary opinions the same freedom to speak.
It’s an argument that took the Education Ministry rather too long to put down.
And nobody seems to have noticed that neither Minister nor Special Adviser on Women said anything either.
When there are statements like these, nobody should be so polite as to not simply say that it’s silly. Why should we be afraid of offending people who patently have not thought things through?
But we allow it for only one reason: they mentioned religion. Instantly this puts such dubious arguments out of bounds. I have heard people claim that drinking hot water is haram.
If someone proposes a ban on anyone drinking hot water because it is not allowed by a certain religion, do we simply let it pass?
Once upon a time, someone said that it was impossible to land on the moon. If someone still says that today, do we still treat it with reverence?
We see small-mindedness everywhere, with simplistic arguments and solutions to everything. Nobody seems to want to do the hard work of bolstering arguments with hard facts and evidence.
We seem to be proud of not using our brains, as if it’s an organ that is meant just for show. Never mind that in some people, once they open their mouth, the size of the brain becomes evident.
The assumption is often made that the smallness of mind is in direct proportion to the amount of education the person has. But we often see so-called educated people displaying the same narrowness of thinking.
Perhaps it is a factor on how much exposure someone has. I think we should take someone like those who say things like “clothes cause rape” and put them in forums where they have to defend their arguments.
If their arguments can actually stand up to the test, then they’re worth talking about. But how much should I bet that they won’t take up the offer?
I once witnessed the total shock someone with a dubious argument received when he was invited to defend his policies at an international forum overseas. He was so confident he was correct; it did not occur to him that there would be counter-arguments.
Left unable to defend himself, he started to blame others and the organisers for “setting him up”. This is what happens when one lives in an environment where small-mindedness is encouraged, where debate and discussion is discouraged.
If we truly want to develop, we need to teach our children that there is a big world out there; and to be part of that world, we need to learn how to think differently.
We need to realise that there are many different ways of thinking about the same thing, and if we insist that our way is best, we need to defend it with sound arguments, not retreat into the realm of opinion.
Even opinions must have a sound basis, not plucked from the air.
