Asking the right questions

Wednesday September 21, 2005
Asking the right questions
Musings by MARINA MAHATHIR
I TRY to be fair to people as much as I can and the other day I had a major epiphany. I realised that I really had not been very fair to our religious officials by constantly criticising them for their obsession with topics that are either trivial or beyond their field of expertise. Then it occurred to me that the reason they feel compelled to comment on little topics like whether it is okay to kiss people’s hands or not or whether reality shows promote immorality is because that’s what the media keeps asking them.
I think the media should realise that they are really insulting our religious lot by asking them these questions. Nobody asks Really Important people these questions because, frankly, it is beneath them to answer them. But there they are, our self-sanctified guys, having to endure these silly questions all the time, and then getting flak for it. It’s really not their fault!
Therefore I have decided to provide a list of questions that the media should ask our religious leaders in order to show them the respect they deserve. Here are some of them:
What do you think should be done to reduce global poverty?
The world’s richest 500 individuals own a combined income that is greater than that of the poorest 416 million. What do you think should be done about reducing this massive gap between rich and poor in the world?
70% of the world’s people are uneducated, with only minimal schooling. Do you think this is a bad thing, and what would you do about it?
According to the latest UNDP Human Development Report, every hour 1,200 children die around the world, mostly because of poverty. What do you think would be the best way to help children such as these?
Income inequalities are not the only thing that disadvantages people. Gender inequalities also play a part. In India, the death rate for children aged 1-5 is 50% higher for girls than it is for boys. In Pakistan, two million more girls would be in school if there were gender parity. What do you think should be done to address these gender inequalities?
According to the report also, the development of any country is influenced by the status of women in that country. Hence, Malaysia ranks only 61st in the Human Development Index (HDI) because women make up only 13% in Parliament, 24% in managerial and administrative positions and only earn 47% of men’s income. Nothing much has changed for women for the past 30 years. But we are not the worst off. The countries with the least empowered women are all Muslim countries, including Pakistan and Yemen. What do you think of this?
Although terrorism in developed countries is most in the news, in fact the poorest countries in the world experience more conflict. These conflicts only fuel under-development. For instance, nine out of the 10 countries with the lowest HDI have experienced conflict at some point since 1990. Conflict also plays a part in five out of 10 countries with the lowest life expectancy, in nine out of 10 countries with the highest infant and under-five mortality rates and in eight out of 10 countries with the lowest primary school enrolment. What do you think should be done to resolve conflict so that these countries may prosper?
How much of a rise in fuel prices do you think people can take?
What do you think can be done to prevent cross-border environmental problems such as the haze?
What do you think should be done so that disabled people are not left behind in our country’s development?
Our country spends only 2% of GDP on health and 2.8% of GDP on military expenditures in 2003. Do you think this is right?
What do you think of the Millenium Development Goals? Malaysia failed one of the 6th MDG, which relates to health. What do you think we can do to redress this?
In 1975, 37.7% of our population lived in urban centres. Since then, our people have become more urbanised with 63.8% in 2003 and a projected 71% by 2015. Is this a good or bad thing, and should politicians recognise this fact and act accordingly?
While we are ranked 61 in the Human Development Index, many Muslim countries are ranked even lower, even so-called “rich” countries such as Saudi Arabia (77). There are also many Muslim countries ranked very low such as Iran (99), Egypt (119), Pakistan (135) and Yemen (151). The small oil-rich United Arab Emirates are the highest-ranking Muslim country at 41. What do you think of this?
I wait with bated breath.

Read More

Independence and freedom

Wednesday September 7, 2005


Independence and freedom

By MARINA MAHATHIR

Since we have been celebrating our 48th birthday this past week, I thought it was an opportune moment to reflect on some of the words we like to toss about these days. It seems to me that abuse of words is a major Malaysian disease these days and perhaps it’s high time we formed an association for the protection of the true meaning of words.

In 1957, our founding fathers and mothers declared that we were “merdeka” from the yoke of colonial rule. Now these days we may translate that word as “independence” but “merdeka” did and does still mean “freedom”. We were celebrating our freedom from being under the rule of other people in our own land and the ability at last to make our own decisions for the good of our people.

Nowadays “freedom” isn’t used anymore to describe that day four dozen years ago because it’s become a bad word. These days, say you want freedom and some people immediately think that you want to take drugs and parade around naked in the streets. We want our kids to be independent but oh no, we don’t want to give them freedom. Heaven only knows what they might do with freedom!

I say that we should reject this abuse of the word “freedom” and reclaim its good meanings. All those years ago when we declared ourselves free, we wanted the right to self-determination, to chart the course of the future for ourselves in our own way. This we have done admirably and it’s not harmed anyone. We claimed the right to speak up and be heard as an equal and respected member of the global community.

So why then should we deny that same freedom to our own people within our own boundaries? Why is it that the freedom that is good for us as a country is bad for individuals within the country? Imagine if everyone had assumed that a free Malaya would be a bad thing, would naturally cause chaos in the world. We would never be where we are today. Yet we can deny our own, especially our young, that same freedom to speak up, to find their own paths in life, albeit with guidance from their elders.

When people want freedom to follow their own spiritual journeys, we clamp down on them as if this would bring the end of the world, even when there aren’t many of them. Speaking up, reading widely and learning on our own are freedoms that are thought of as evils. On that August day so many years ago, our fundamental freedoms were enshrined in our Constitution. Yet these days, those freedoms are being abused daily, with most of us completely unaware. How we insult our foreparents and their hard work in gaining our freedom this way!

What other words do we abuse these days? Take “human rights”. It is interesting to me that we use these words liberally when talking about foreigners we like in Palestine and in Bosnia, while at home talking as if human rights are some infectious disease that needs to be eradicated. Some people again talk about human rights as if this means that we are all asking for the right to marry people of the same sex.

As if this is the most important thing in the world when there are still women, children, the disabled, the poor and marginalised who cannot enjoy full rights as human beings. By that I mean, basic human rights to education, to healthcare, to citizenship, to what every human being needs to live in dignity. To distort the words “human rights” as a way of distracting from these basic issues is an age-old trick. We have to recover the true meaning of these words; that in itself would be an act of respecting human rights.

Lastly, another truly abused word is “religious”. These days the image of religious people is for the most part a negative one. Religious people, thanks to a few publicity-loving types, are viewed as unsympathetic, given to opinions based on personal whims, love to tell people the very many things that they shouldn’t do rather than what they should and can do, wholly uninterested in giving workable solutions to people’s real problems.

Worse still are the types who claim to be religious and then call for other human beings to be punished, and even killed, for acts they consider sinful, a list that is far longer than what we normally think of as sins. The question is, if these people take on the role of judge, jury and executioner, then what would be left for God to do?

I think we should also reclaim and redefine the meaning of religious. Religious people should be gentle and genteel, serene and worldly wise, attuned to the real needs of their people and what is happening in this fast-developing world. They should decline to offer opinions on issues that they know nothing about, humbly deferring instead to those who know more. They should be able to listen and engage in discussion because this is what will lead to enlightenment for all, including themselves. They should extend their hand to the needy in real ways. When was the last time we saw a religious public official sitting down among orphans or the disabled? When will they decide simply to be human?

Read More

Another take on reality shows

Wednesday August 24, 2005


Another take on reality shows

By MARINA MAHATHIR

The other day, while reading the newspaper, a light bulb went off in my head (not a common occurrence). It dawned on me that there must be no stupid people in Malaysia.

How did something so profound occur to me so suddenly? I figured that everyone who merits a quotation in our papers must be very smart, no matter what they said, because surely otherwise the media would not quote them.

It occurred to me that if a person with some sort of title says something, and the papers actually take them seriously, they must have at least some modicum of intelligence. Otherwise surely the appropriate reaction is to fall down laughing. But there they are, all over our papers, taken very seriously indeed by our media as if they were founts of genuine wisdom.

Is it only me who thinks it is supremely ironic that while various government types are denouncing reality shows as unIslamic and should be haram – especially because there are open demonstrations of affection between people – those on the other side of the political fence are happily wooing the winner to their state to give concerts to his fans there? How weird is it that someone who spouted a government slogan (albeit unconvincingly) on the show should then accept hospitality offers from the Opposition?

I am not one of those people who cannot go out on Saturday nights because I have to get my weekly dose of tears. But I did take a belated interest in this show because I think it is something of a phenomenon with all sorts of social implications. It is a show about dreams where ordinary people, the kids of the average Malaysian with the slightest glimmer of talent, can become famous. People of all walks of life follow this real life drama every week, willing their favourites to make it (and of course helping them along with millions of SMSes.)

One look at the audience every week will tell you that to cast aspersions on any of the contestants is to risk alienating a substantial portion of the population. Not only the mothers and aunts in the audience adore these kids but also thousands of others at home. Witness the tumultuous welcome they received when they went home, even the ones who didn’t win.

Has someone forgotten that these are voters? Why on earth do we alienate them?

I think we need some perspective about reality shows. By all means, we should not copy everything blindly especially the more useless ones where one has to find the perfect man or woman from a selection of pretty dubious candidates. Or the ones where they test couples’ fidelity to each other by putting all sorts of temptation in the way.

But what exactly is the harm of these talent shows? Oh sorry, there were some wise words about how cavorting on stage with the opposite sex makes one want to take drugs. (Personally I think you need to take drugs to be able to watch some of the cavorting.) Does everything lead to bad stuff? Does everything have to be immoral? Aren’t our people able to simply have fun?

I’m sorry, I refuse to think that the makciks in the AF audience are participating in immorality. What are we saying about their darling Mawi? He likes nasyid and girls who wear the tudung, after all.

I think it’s not a bad thing to have reality shows that have some educational value beyond the purely voyeuristic appeal. It would be interesting to have a Malaysian version of The Apprentice though I’m not sure I can think of a local Donald Trump. Besides what are they going to teach besides needing to know all the right people?

Would it be too much to ask that we read about really smart people in our media? Or aren’t the really smart people saying anything? Are we afraid that that old saying about keeping your mouth shut when you don’t know anything rather than opening it and confirming to everyone that it’s true actually holds water? But then there are any number of people who are happy to spout off on everything, while at the same time denying other people the right to say anything about their so-called area of expertise. Why on earth should we treat them with such reverence?

Unless they are right, we’re too stupid to tell the difference.

Read More

Let them speak

Wednesday August 10, 2005


Let them speak

By MARINA MAHATHIR

I’ve always thought that Malaysians are disinclined towards self-reflection and analysis. Why this should be so could probably be blamed on an education system that does not encourage independent thinking and questioning, as well as a dislike for confronting anything unpleasant. This is all very well if you never have to face it for yourself. But lately I’ve been in situations where I’ve had to witness this and you want to just curl up in embarrassment.

First I was at an overseas conference where a Malaysian government official was presenting a paper on a subject that was controversial and has few supporters in the international community. I was surprised that he had accepted the invitation to speak in the first place but having done so, I thought he must have worked out a convincing argument. To the utter bemusement of everybody, he presented a paper more suited to a high school student than a senior government official. Not only was it devoid of any scientific justification, it bore no logic at all.

It made me realise that some officials must live in an insular world where they have no idea what the rest of the world thinks and therefore naively present arguments that they don’t even realise will not hold water among well-informed people. Then they are shocked at the strong reaction they get. Now if they can then respond by presenting cogent reasons for their viewpoint, they might have saved a modicum of respect. But instead they simply give up and refuse to take the challenge of engaging in a debate. Everybody is then left dissatisfied.

I thought this was just an aberration until I witnessed the same inability to read an audience and present an intelligent analysis of a situation from an even more senior official. Perhaps when we are used to an uninformed unquestioning audience, we tend to underestimate the intelligence of every one we face.

It wouldn’t have alarmed me, if I thought that there was a new generation of Malaysians who could be different. So I went to a seminar hoping to listen to more interesting viewpoints. I did find some but not from anyone I didn’t already know. In a panel where university lecturers spoke and students asked questions and ventured opinions, I was struck by how some supposedly highly-qualified academicians had the same inability to provide a rational analysis of real situations and instead resorted to vague generalisations and illogic. Unsurprisingly the students were no better, asking unoriginal questions and spouting well-worn phrases that elicited applause from their own crowd. Not a single student asked any questions which were at all provocative or revealed some real thinking.

I suppose we should not blame our students’ lack of thinking skills when people who don’t have them either are teaching them. (And I know it isn’t just me saying this; some visiting academicians have embarrassingly mentioned the same thing). Students are also not going to stand up and say anything different for fear of attracting derision both from their lecturers and their peers. This is not a country that values original thinking and difference much after all.

The sad thing is, when you get young people by themselves, away from adults that they depend on, they can be very different. They can express opinions that don’t imitate others and you can appeal to their common sense and inherent goodness. But how much opportunity do we give young people to do this safely and without attracting some sort of punishment?

Yet if we expect the next generation to compete on an international level, we have to nurture their ability to speak and stand up for themselves. The types that I’ve been listening to will only be laughed at overseas.

I know what I speak of. As a young university student overseas, I was shocked to find that not only did people have vastly different opinions than me, they were more than willing to tell me exactly why I was wrong. The first few times I would retreat wounded into my room and cry with frustration at my own inability to defend my views. I also wondered how much of my views were in fact my own or just regurgitation of someone else’s. In time I got better at thinking out issues and putting across my opinion. I also learnt that it isn’t the end of the world if everybody disagreed with you.

We have to do something concrete about nurturing the thinking skills of our young people because otherwise they will not survive in the larger world. For a start we could be more stringent about the intellectual abilities of those who teach them. We can also create an environment that would be safe and encouraging for our young people to express themselves. Only then can we hold our heads high wherever we are.

Read More

Globalisation of fear

Wednesday July 27, 2005


Globalisation of fear

By MARINA MAHATHIR

When we hear the word “globalisation”, we think immediately of McDonald’s and Starbucks, and moan the fact that it seems to go only one way. True globalisation will probably only exist when people can buy nasi lemak at corner stalls in New York.

But one aspect of globalisation hardly ever merits a mention. And that is the globalisation of fear, grief and rage. In the past 10 years I have had to feel this globalisation of emotions, particularly fear and grief, four times. Two were for natural disasters, the Kobe earthquake in 1995 and the recent tsunami, and two others were for man-made tragedies – the Sept 11 events in the United States and the recent July 7 bombings in London.

In all four events, I feared for friends in all the affected areas and started working the phones and e-mails trying to find them. I found my friend Sunita from Kobe safe and sound after one week. During the recent tsunami I had friends in Phuket and Sri Lanka whom I nervously waited for news for several days. All were safe, though some had narrow escapes.

When Sept 11 happened, I immediately thought of friends who lived in Lower Manhattan and my cousin who lives in Washington DC. It took many long distance phone calls, frantic e-mails and unnerving days of waiting before I received confirmation that they were all fine. (One who was not fine was an uncle who suffered a heart attack and passed away after watching the dreadful events in his hotel room in Chicago.)

On July 7, I got the news just as I was packing to leave for Europe. It felt like a nightmare all over again. Having studied in Britain, I have some very close friends in London. One of them, Dharshi, a Sri Lankan, commutes to London every day from Cambridge, arriving at King’s Cross station, to go to work. I called their handphones and their homes and there was no response. A few agonising hours later, one SMS came back: We are OK. But not from the most vulnerable of them all, Dharshi.

When I got to Europe, I kept calling and SMS-ing. With every non-response, my stomach got even more tied up in knots. It was not until some 36 hours after the bombing happened that I finally got news of Dharshi. She had actually come into King’s Cross station during the evacuation alert and had decided to take the Northern Line underground to go to work. This was the subway line that it is speculated the alleged bomber on the bus was supposed to have taken but somehow did not. It was lucky for Dharshi; not so lucky for 16 other people on the bus.

I found my other friend Chris the next morning. The feeling of relief that all my friends were safe was intense. I’m sure that was the same for everyone else in London and elsewhere who had to search for their friends and loved ones. But it must be nothing compared to the grief of those who learnt that theirs were no more.

It might seem elitist to actually have friends in so many countries abroad to worry over. But the world gets smaller every day with easier travel and communications, so this globalisation of fear and grief is going to affect more and more people. While we don’t have to have friends in these affected places to empathise and sympathise, knowing someone makes it even more real and chilling.

And even while you can make intelligent guesses as to what motivates these things, it doesn’t dissipate the pain at seeing so many needless deaths and injuries. And what is worse, feeling that lingering pain of once more being lumped together with violent destructive people just because, on the surface of things, we have a common faith.

Having felt such fear and grief for events so far away, today I felt a total rage when reading that the father of one of the alleged pilots of the Sept 11 planes actually praised the London bombings and called for more! (On July 21, there were more, albeit less deadly.) We have to wonder what lost moral compass such a person has to call for more deaths, including those of Muslims.

He even said that the Muslims who condemned the bombings should be declared traitors to the faith. What a perfect way to project Islam! It only confirms that it is not a peaceful non-violent religion to those who are prejudiced, and to those who have suffered at the hands of these bombers.

Looking at reactions to all this violence, I am convinced that violence by all parties begets nothing but more violence. Violence is physical and structural. It is not limited to bombs; it also means repression of people by the state or those powerful enough to act as a state.

Invading other people’s countries is an act of violence; therefore it should be no surprise that people react violently. Killing people on public transport is also an act of violence and invites more. As we feel more insecure, people spend more on “security” but it makes us only feel more oppressed because we always lose our freedom. Let us never be fooled that violent acts will give us peace, freedom and democracy.

Read More