22 November 2007

==================================
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 November 21, 2007


Stop embarrassing the public

Musings
By MARINA MAHATHIR

We need to restore a sense of public shame. We need to define it, and we need leaders who live and behave in an exemplary way.

I WAS observing recently how different people had different definitions of shame. Most define it as a sense of embarrassment when something they cannot control happens.

For instance, one person said it was what he felt every time he saw a foreign tourist go into a public toilet. Another said it’s when she can’t repeat what she just said in front of her kids.

I was curious about this because of the way the word “shame” kept coming up in relation to recent events.

There were some people who felt shame that Malaysians had taken to the streets in protest because they felt that this was “uncivilised’ behaviour.

Then there were others who saw shame in the opposite perspective: they felt embarrassed that their fellow citizens were treated so badly by the authorities. Surely, they said, we have become civilised enough to tolerate dissent without having to react to it with violence.

Thus “shame” and “civilised behaviour” appeared on both sides of the fence.

Then there were those who felt embarrassed and ashamed that a politician could expose himself as an inarticulate buffoon on international television.

Herein lies the puzzle: how is it that poor performance can invoke pride rather than shame? Is that symptomatic of something else these days?

In the old days (which didn’t seem too long ago), people did not talk about parts of the body or bodily functions in public, especially at inappropriate moments.

But these days we get parliamentarians and other public officials making crude remarks, almost always about women’s anatomy and bodily functions, without even so much as turning the slightest shade of red.

And what do their audiences do when they hear this? They giggle and laugh.

Perhaps, secretly, the mostly female audience felt shame and embarrassment but because they are dependent on male authority figures for their positions, they say nothing and play along instead.

And in so doing they betray their own sex once again.

How little we value our dignity.

These are the times when I feel so old-fashioned.

Which people may find ironic considering that I am accused of being shameless a lot of the time for wanting to talk about sex education for young people and about how to make sex safe.

But the one thing one never does when educating others about sex is to make it crude, because that’s what turns people off. Appropriate terminology and approach is key.

But outside of the educational context, when the intention is to humiliate, referring to the anatomy is crude and unnecessary. People should be embarrassed not only to have to listen to it but also to even mention it.

Thus I wonder at what point will we decide that our tolerance for such crudeness has finally reached its limit.

When are we truly going to censure public figures who talk trash regardless of their station in life? When are we going to shame them into stopping?

Instead we see endless displays of shamelessness.

There are public figures who build humongous mansions with unexplained funds and then try to look charitable by inviting orphans for a one-night stay. I blush at the thought of it; how come they don’t?

Others, obviously endowed by the thickest of skins, buy support by giving out honorifics even to those who patently do not deserve them or even have criminal records. Not an ounce of shame whatsoever.

Everyone else laughs at them but they actually think they are being exemplary human beings.

No shame in the least about redefining humanity as being corrupt. Incredible!

Maybe I should develop a thicker hide.

But the thing is I have a young daughter who reads the newspapers and I wind up red-faced when she asks me how come these people she reads about do and say things that I have always taught her not to.

Although not everything gets into the newspapers (perhaps their limits for shame are lower than the people they cover?), my daughter sometimes hears my friends and I talking about the latest public embarrassment.

How do I explain these to her?

We need to restore a sense of public shame.

To do that, we need to define it and we need leaders who live and behave in an exemplary way.

We need leaders who have a sense of diffidence and restraint, who understand that they can’t say one thing and do another.

Who do not treat the public as if they are fools who will take anything they dish out.

That time is no longer far off because we, the public, are beginning to feel we no longer want to be embarrassed.

12 November 2007

==================================
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 November 7, 2007


Lessons from a nostalgic trip

MUSINGS
By MARINA MAHATHIR

Onstage a colourful multiracial and multilingual community celebrated the musical talent of P. Ramlee. Offstage, music and dance has become controversial.

I WENT to see P. Ramlee: The Musical recently and it was an enchanting experience in so many ways. For one, I felt proud that a musical of such high standard could be produced by a Malaysian team (with some neighbourly help).

It had energy, creativity, talent and great music in spades, and was an overall enjoyable treat. Congratulations to the entire cast and crew.

The musical was of course a nostalgic trip down the story of P. Ramlee, perhaps our greatest artiste.

But it was nostalgic in more ways than one. It spoke of a more carefree time, and despite being partly set in pre-independence years seemed a lot more liberated than we are today.

If we only looked at the characters portrayed onstage and looked at the audience, we can see the stark difference, even if the play is largely fiction.

Onstage a colourful multiracial and multilingual community celebrated the musical talent of P. Ramlee. Women dressed in the demure dresses of yesteryear. They danced and sang with abandon.

Yet offstage, music and dance has become controversial. Women’s clothes have changed from traditional to modern forms, but at the same time become more confining.

We can’t just say this was stage dramatisation, because if we look at old photographs from the 50s and 60s women’s heads were uncovered.

Onstage, Malay movie stars wore glamorous clothes and went to nightclubs without anyone shaking their heads in judgment. The entertainment press reported romances between stars, but did not moralise.

Now actors and actresses who want to get anywhere have to lead almost inhumanly exemplary lives or risk all sorts of censure.

Perhaps the stars of old were not always exemplary in their behaviour but people were more forgiving and society didn’t particularly suffer.

Nowadays, every social ill is blamed on people not being religious enough, even though despite having so much more religion around us we in fact have more social ills.

Perhaps it is unfair to compare life today with that portrayed in a stage play. But we can research the era and see what has changed.

Why was it that in the 50s and 60s, P. Ramlee could come up with movies and songs that have endured the test of time? Perhaps it was because he was given the artistic freedom to do what he wanted? Perhaps he was trusted?

Today what passes for popular cinema is of such low standard that it seems almost amazing that we even have such a cinematic heritage as P. Ramlee movies. Did all these spring from the same traditions? Or did our perspective on life change?

I watched the audience and even though there was uproarious reception from some quarters, you could still feel some disapproval.

Perhaps it was the depiction of nightclub life? After all, these days we raid nightclubs to rid them of Muslims. Was it the strapless tops? Of late, female singers are being hauled up for wearing more.

Was it the portrayal of strong women who didn’t want to take any nonsense from their men and walked out rather than stay and put up with it? These days, the misbehaviour of men are blamed entirely on women, both the ones they are married to and the ones they are not.

I get nostalgic for a freer time, when we still had to fight for something and not yet become mired in complacency. When we were still hungry for success and knew we had to work hard for it. When we didn’t know that there were shortcuts to success and that there were people who were extremely successful that way.

Why do I think that was a freer time? Because we were free to think that we all had potential and could fulfil it if we were willing to work hard. Now we have potential we don’t have the freedom to fulfil. Or we don’t believe we have potential because we don’t have connections or are not protected by privilege.

To achieve that we need to be able to think and speak, to explore unfettered. Even in Saudi Arabia, the new King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) has been set up with a commitment to academic freedom and international collaboration.

Here we can’t even manage to teach Mathematics and Science in English, the international language. Which basically means we can’t even dream of sending our students to KAUST or to any other good university abroad.

We don’t even have the freedom of making good policy. A little bit of opposition and we pull back hurriedly.

We don’t have P. Ramlee anymore, and we don’t have that time again. We may have progressed but maybe we lost a lot, too.

05 November 2007

==================================
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 October 24, 2007


Winning votes soul-ly on talent

Jindal, a first-generation American from India to win the governorship of a traditionally conservative state like Louisiana speaks volumes for opportunity in the US for talented people with a penchant for hard work.

MUSINGS BY MARINA MAHATHIR

I READ on Monday morning that Bobby Jindal, the American-born son of Indian immigrants was elected Governor of Loui-siana in the United States. A young two-term Republican Congressman, he is a conservative who became the first non-white Louisiana governor since 1870 after running on promises to end political corruption, cut taxes and improve schools.

We cannot know how Bobby Jindal will do just yet, but I am intrigued by his win. The fact that a first-generation American from India could win the governorship of a traditionally conservative state like Louisiana speaks volumes for opportunity in the US for talented people with a penchant for hard work.

On TV I watched as all these little old white ladies shook his hand with great enthusiasm. He had replaced a white woman Governor who had been severely criticised for bungling rehabilitation efforts after Hurricane Katrina.

The fact that Jindal is very educated and had been a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford is definitely a plus point.

In Perak recently, the MB called for graduates to be selected as election candidates. That’s all very well but let’s hope they are real graduates and not the ones who get dubious doctorates from unheard of universities.

But we also know, having a degree from a prestigious university is no guarantee either that you’ll be a good politician or leader. For some people, entering politics is license to throw all that education out of the window in favour of the crassiest politically expedient slogans. Which makes them no better than the local village thug in my book.

Jindal also has a CV that is heavy on experience in public policy. For twelve years he successfully managed Louisiana’s health and hospitals department, sought to reform their Medicaid system and then went on to the Federal Government to become Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation of Health and Human Services.

All that experience brought to bear when he returned to his home state to enter politics where he successfully ran for election to the US Congress twice. So he’s not a parachute Governor by any stretch of the imagination, despite his young age.

I have to sigh when I read about Bobby Jindal. When faced with the dimwits we have in Cabinet and Parliament, I have to feel depressed.

Are we ever going to hear our politicians say, as Bobby Jindal did in his victory speech: “One thing I know for sure, you can get a distorted view sitting in the halls of government. Things start to look different.

“The lobbyists begin to look larger and the people begin to look smaller. Reality becomes distorted. I’ve seen it in Congress as well. I’m not going to let that happen to me.”

Or this: “I have said throughout the campaign that there are two entities that have the most to fear from us winning this election - One is Corruption, and the other is his sidekick Incompetence. If you happen to see either of them, please let them know the party is over.”

Now this is no opposition politician speaking. He’s in the same party as George W. Bush. But all the same, he’s talking about corruption and incompetence generally, not corruption and incompetence only if they’re by anyone not in the same party. Is it any wonder that I find it refreshing?

It would be really great if we could only scrutinise all our political candidates closely before they stand for elections. We should be able to ask them what their stand is on many issues such as the Constitution, freedom of speech and of religion, on women, on the judiciary. They can have whatever opinion they want but whether we agree or not is what will decide whether they get our vote.

Instead we have to vote on what party the candidate is from, rather than the individual him or herself. That’s maybe OK for the truly useless candidates but for those who do have some integrity and talent, it must be a bit insulting.

I’m sure there are people out there dying to showcase their talents and ideas and market those ahead of the next elections. But they won’t get much of a chance because there is no room for individuality in our system, especially not individual integrity.

I read an article the other day about how campaigns by candidates with real integrity in the US get taken over by the party political marketing de-partments so that they become moulded into the type of candidate that the party wants them to be.

Some of them become successful politicians but with the sacrifice of their own souls. Those who cannot hack that loss of personal integrity eventually quit politics altogether.

Guess that isn’t a problem when we start off with soul-less politicians anyway.

18 October 2007

==================================
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 October 10, 2007


Whimsical art of making policy

MUSINGS
By MARINA MAHATHIR

It seems that these days, instead of a well-researched, well-thought out comprehensive plan to tackle any problem, we get ad hoc suggestions here and there.

SOME motorbikes overtake a minister’s car and he immediately wants to ban big bikes from the highways.

A deputy minister claims that his ministry has no plans to institute an intrusive blood test on everyone, when his own official documents state that that’s exactly their policy.

Another parliamentary secretary, speaking entirely outside the field of his expertise, ‘thinks’ that we should have a certain policy.

A minister happens to hear a doctor’s advice on radio, gets offended, and cancels the entire programme.

All this leaves me wondering how policy is actually made in this country. Is it by whimsy? Is it when some politician’s ego is bruised?

Or is it through careful study of whether that policy is really beneficial to the most number of people, rather than to appease the easily deflated self-esteem of the pompous?


Appeal to ego: Superbikers like these should invite the minister concerned, give him the biggest bike and let him go for a ride.
Is there some grand plan to anything? Is the banning of motorbikes on highways part of some major plan to improve road safety?

If so, wouldn’t time and energy be better spent dealing with the Mat Rempit problem that contributes to more broken heads at Friday night emergency rooms than anything else?

Or some campaign to get people to buckle up their children in cars?

It seems that these days, large pictures are ignored in favour of small peeks at a problem. Instead of a well-researched, well-thought out comprehensive plan to tackle any problem, for example, public security and safety, we get ad hoc suggestions here and there.

Real serious debate on the pros and cons, based on sound information rather than personal opinion, is absent.

Then you have to wonder how good a policy is when it is finally made.

In the meantime issues that need immediate leadership response are not managed.

For instance, there needs to be strong messages that vigilantism will not be tolerated when it comes to dealing with crime suspects, especially those accused of child abuse or murder.

I hear the most appalling comments about people not yet charged with anything. Then they are released.

Yet the public is never reminded of the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

I read about how some people beat a foreigner to death because they suspected him of stealing a watch.

While they were pounding him to a pulp, the woman who lost her watch found it. By that time it was too late.

What causes these things? It is nothing but sheer prejudice against foreigners whom we assume are the source of all crime in this country.

Yet, the police themselves have come out to say that locals commit 80% of all crimes in this country.

When we do have evidence, nobody then uses it as the basis for a policy to prevent discrimination against foreigners, which would also help our relations with other countries.

Instead we let these fester, perhaps because they are politically useful.

When we do have sound policies, nobody keeps an eye on their enforcement.

The other day, it was mentioned in newspaper headlines that a suspected child murderer died of AIDS-related complications.

In the first place, we have a policy of confidentiality about people’s health status in this country, especially for highly stigmatised diseases like AIDS.

This confidentiality does not end with death because of the effect on families left behind.

Secondly, what has the health status to do with the case? The guy died, so you can’t proceed with the case.

But to specifically mention that he died of AIDS-related causes immediately implies that people with HIV/AIDS have a special propensity to commit heinous crimes, despite a total lack of evidence that this is so.

Did anyone from the ministry concerned come out and slap the wrists of whoever was responsible for the revelation?

As a result, the prejudice continues and the work to manage HIV in this country becomes ever more difficult.

When policymaking is based on the whims and fancies of whoever wants to say anything about it, it leaves an environment of uncertainty and unease.

Does it mean that if someone else has another whim, the policy will change?

Assuming policies are meant for the benefit of the most number of people, how do we even know if they are any good when the process by which policy is made is less than transparent?

Whimsical policymaking also means that policies can be changed also by appealing to whimsy and ego.

If I were a superbiker, I’d invite the minister concerned, give him the biggest and most powerful bike around, some handsome leathers and let him go for a ride.

Accompany him, but make sure you never pass him.

Then we’ll soon see that there’ll be no more talk about banning bikes on highways.

Selamat Hari Raya, maaf zahir bathin, everyone!

01 October 2007

==================================
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 September 26, 2007


Be sympathetic, don’t speculate

Musings
By MARINA MAHATHIR

One of the results of media sensationalism is that it creates and perpetuates certain myths resulting in certain responses. In the case Nurin Jazlin Jazimin one of the main ones is that somehow the parents are responsible for her death by being negligent. The response to that is to say that they can be charged under the law.

It’s often said that rape victims suffer twice, once during the actual trauma of the act and again when the media reports on it.

Salacious bits about the crime are repeated endlessly, gossip is flagged and when the case goes to court, curiosity about the victim sometimes exceeds that of the perpetrator.


Show understanding: It was not necessary to say Jazimin and his wife Norazain Bistaman can be charged as they had just buried their child. The statement only seems to serve public relations purposes.
Worse still when the victim is killed. One only needs to remember Canny Ong to know how true this is.

This seems to be true again in the murder of little Nurin Jazlin Jazimin. Initially her disappearance receives some mention but as the days go by, little alarm is raised.

Then 28 days pass by and things start to heat up. A body is discovered and the frenzy begins.

I have to wonder about media ethics. If a child is sexually abused and killed, does it really matter how? Is there really a need to report the more abhorrent details of her suffering?

Is there really a need to print photos of the dead child, even if the initial intention was to find out her identity? Don’t little children deserve some respect too?

Then what is the need to raise speculation about what happened and why? These are not things we will know for sure until the killer is found and caught. So why speculate?

Why not concentrate energies firstly on finding the killer and secondly on ensuring that no other child will ever suffer the same fate?

What use is it to spend time speculating on the possible reasons why this happened when each and every case may be different?

I feel sorry for the parents. Bad enough that they had to face that long agony of searching for their child and then its terrible conclusion without having to also face each day screaming headlines about things that are untrue.

It only illustrates the way the Internet and blogs have become so essential because it allows their side of the story to be heard when there is no other way.

What is the result of the media sensationalism? It creates and perpetuates certain myths resulting in certain responses.

One of the main ones is that somehow the parents are responsible for the death of their child by being negligent.

The response to that is to say that they can be charged under the law.

Firstly, whether they are or not are debatable and cannot be ascertained without proper investigation. That investigation does not need to be done immediately because it is not urgent.

Secondly, even if they can be charged under some law, is it necessary to bring it up now when they’ve only just buried their child?

When leaders are expected to have some wisdom, one has to wonder what possessed some of ours to immediately start talking as if the guilty ones are the parents. Is there not a killer still at large?

Would not issuing a statement of sympathy and condolence first be the right thing to do as well as a strong commitment to find the killer? If nothing else, statements such as these serve public relations purposes.

In countries like Japan, public officials sometimes issue apologies for failing the public. Here, they turn on the victims and make them feel like criminals.

What if in the meantime another child disappears? Do the parents immediately get arrested?

What has happened to our priorities that they can be turned so upside down?

How is it that a Government that issues ‘caring’ budgets can be so cavalier in its treatment of ordinary citizens, citizens that it has in fact failed?

If I were to call myself a leader, firstly I would visit the parents and extend my sympathies. I would have attended the funeral.

Then I would say exactly what I would do to find the killer and make our streets safe for citizens, especially our children.

I would say that that’s my responsibility and promise to the nation, not anyone else’s.

Then I would take action. A campaign to tell parents how to talk to their kids about safety would be the first thing.

Then there would be signs in public places asking people to look out for anything odd involving children, and to report those immediately.

Meanwhile the police will not rest until they catch the killer.

But I would also warn the public not to take the law into their own hands, no matter how angry they get with possible suspects.

The law must be seen to work.

Leaving it to the public may result in vigilantism. What if they get the wrong person?

Two wrongs do not make a right.

There have been too many Nurin Jazlins. People are fearful for their kids. It wouldn’t hurt for our leaders to be more sensitive to that.