a journey reflected...

This blog is now officially 1 year old; this time 1 year ago I ventured into the blogging phenomenon.

And how far I have come since then...

I wanted to thank all those who had taken the time and effort to read and reflect on my posts, offered their own comments, thereby initiating a most interesting and enriching discourse - to me at least - on several current and relevant issues.

There is nothing more satisfying and exciting to me than to see ideas being vigorously tossed around, dogmatic point of views challenged and new ideas put forward to replace old one - done in a spirit of respectful openness and rational fair-mindedness.

All of these are but a glimpse on the new vista of opportunities that will knock at our doorstep if we are willing to open our minds, expand our perspectives and listen to others.

It is a situation ripe with intellectual activities and counterpoints. And that must surely be a sign of a fertile ground for change and betterment.

I say, let the good times roll ;-p

for my mother...

(a dedication to my mother, a woman of amazing strength and grace)

As the sun rises in the east
And sets in all its glory in the west
Time passed and the years flew by
I was far away from home, out of the nest.

In the bitter cold of the winter's night
I wrapped a layer of wool around me
Here all alone in a foreign land
How I wish it were your arms hugging me.

While the independence was welcomed
I could not help feeling a little helpless
I had to run my own life as it were
And cold, lonely nights made it much worse.

You always remained in the shadow
Of every applause heard, every accolade received,
You never asked for any acknowledgment
You merely gave and continue to give.


Adapted from My Companion on Life's Journey by LAUREN LIM

bersempena hari guru...

Berburu ke padang datar,
Dapat rusa belang kaki;
Berguru kepalang ajar,
Ibarat bunga kembang tak jadi.
(Dedikasi kepada Hari Guru dan guruku tercinta)

Dialah pemberi paling setia
Tiap akar ilmu miliknya
Pelita dan lampu segala
Untuk manusia sebelum manjadi dewasa.

Dialah ibu dialah bapa juga sahabat
Alur kesetiaan mengalirkan nasihat
Pemimpin yang ditauliahkan segala umat
Seribu tahun katanya menjadi hikmat.

Jika hari ini seorang Perdana Menteri berkuasa
Jika hari ini seorang Raja menaiki takhta
Jika hari ini seorang Presiden sebuah negara
Jika hari ini seorang ulama yang mulia
Jika hari ini seorang peguam menang bicara
Jika hari ini seorang penulis terkemuka
Jika hari ini siapa saja menjadi dewasa;
Sejarahnya dimulakan oleh seorang guru biasa
Dengan lembut sabarnya mengajar tulis-baca.

Di mana-mana dia berdiri di muka muridnya
Di sebuah sekolah mewah di Ibu Kota
Di bangunan tua sekolah Hulu Terengganu
Dia adalah guru mewakili seribu buku;
Semakin terpencil duduknya di ceruk desa
Semakin bererti tugasnya kepada negara.

Jadilah apa pun pada akhir kehidupanmu, guruku
Budi yang diapungkan di dulang ilmu
Panggilan keramat "cikgu" kekal terpahat
Menjadi kenangan ke akhir hayat.


USMAN AWANG

a nation on a short route to disaster?

The Prime Minister's take on the issue which lead to the BBC Chairman Datuk Shahrir Ahmad's resignation:

Prinsip Barisan Nasional (BN) yang tidak membenarkan Ahli Parlimennya menyokong usul pembangkang di Parlimen adalah kekal dan perlu dipatuhi semua anggota.

So in principle, Datuk Shahrir was in a serious breach of party conduct when he supported the Opposition's bid to investigate the claims made in the NST newspaper report against the Jasin MP, with regards to his dealings with the Customs office.

I find this so-called 'party principle' perplexing - what is the practical basis of such ruling?

Solidarity? Facade of unity? Perhaps.

But what happens when the will of the party does not concur with the need and desires of the public - the very people who elected you in the first place?

The logical thing to do is to resign. Fair enough.

But what does this ruling say about the party as a whole? Sure, it is a fine way to ensure that all party members toe the line.

But what does it say about affecting and initiating changes within the party? Is it able to evolve and respond to external circumstances if all that it demands from its members are their unwavering devotions whilst suppressing any vehicle for change?

When you think about it, the argument for solidarity and unity does not seemed so valid anymore.

A party who refuses to listen to its members and opresses any dissenting voices from within risk eventually of being stagnant, apathetic and out of touch with the realities of the current political landscape.

It doesn't take a genius to deduce what would happen to such parties if they remain oblivious to their own internal shortcomings - history is replete with countless warnings and examples of such situations.

It is foolish to assume that a single dissenting voice would be able to tear the whole party apart; surely, the party is made of sterner stuff than that.

However, if the party is held together not by a commitment to integrity and sound principles, but instead racked with tribal-like allegiances greased by shady money politics, one can understand why dissenting voices - even if it is in the minority - are much feared and loathed.

Even if the desire for solidarity are made in good faith, why then are our MPs so susceptible to make the broad and often misleading conclusion that everything and anything which comes from the Opposition are detriment to the country's interest and therefore should be rejected outright?

Are they so blinded by divisions along partisan lines and consumed by party allegiance that they feel safe to simply abandon their faculties of reason and common sense?

Does joining a political party requires you to be accountable first to the party and second to wishes of the public?

Does joining a political party means having to sell or throw away your own conscience?

I believe one should always focus on the content rather than the messenger; in this case, the merits of the Opposition's proposal should take precedent regardless of the person who originally proposed it, especially when it concerns the integrity and honour of the Parliament.

To nonchalantly push aside any proposal which seeks to extract the truth over the matter simply because it came from the other side reflects badly on the mentality and maturity of the MPs besides exposing their sheer narrow-mindedness.

Furthermore, it makes one wonder: are they not capable of rational thought at all?

It is a sad day indeed for Malaysia.

for whom the bell tolls?

The de facto Law Minister, Dato' Nazri Aziz gave the following interview in the wake of the resignation of the BBC Chairman Datuk Shahrir Ahmad to the NST (7th May).

(Warning: may contain some nauseating statements and logical inconsistencies)

The first salvo:

Thesis: As a rule the Barisan Nasional does not support any Opposition motion or resolution.

Justification: They too don’t support us. When the Government referred Karpal Singh (DAP-Bukit Gelugor) to the Rights and Privileges Committee, the Opposition did not support it. They voted along party lines, they refused to accept that Karpal could have committed what he was accused of.

Conclusion: So along the same lines, I, as deputy Whip, cannot allow any BN member (going by the Opposition motion) to be referred to the Rights and Privileges Committee.

The second salvo:

If anything, the party involved (Customs and Excise Department) should have lodged a police report or reported it to the Anti-Corruption Agency. Those are the agencies which should be investigating the claim. Not the Rights and Privileges Committee.

Let other agencies do it. MPs are not above the law.

I am unsure why the MPs are so adamant to finding out the truth behind the newspaper reports; if the reports are proven untrue, then the names of the MPs could be cleared by initiating an investigation into the matter. After all, isn't 'berani kerana benar, takut kerana salah'?

I suppose the MPs will conjure up other excuses - no time, not important, have other important things to discuss, only an Opposition's attempt to discredit the MPs etc. - though I would think that their recent jaunt over the bow-ties being worn in the Parliament constitutes a graver waste of precious hours, which could be used to discuss other pressing, less superficial issues.

I think any sane-minded person if wrongly accused, would agree to any attempts to clear his or her name; only if the person have something else to hide would he balk at the suggestion.

It is as simple as that; if only the MPs could see it that way.

The third salvo:

Does anyone sense the paradox in the following statement? First he said:

I believe the Jasin MP is not wrong in what he did. We are called upon everyday for help by our constituents. I also do that as an MP (to help constituents).

For example, someone gets arrested by the police in my constituency, he comes to my office for help. I go and mitigate on his behalf with the OCPD. Is that obstructing the authorities from doing their job?

Afterwards, he concluded that:

Either way, whatever it may be, it is up to the authorities concerned. They make the decision, we can only mitigate on behalf of our constituents.

Mitigate: make less severe, painful or serious.

If someone wishes to mitigate the matter or lessen the punishment being meted out as stipulated by the law, shouldn't one take the matter to the courts rather than using one's political connections to 'close one eye' to the infraction?

If the judgement is made through the avenues of law, shouldn't the matter of negotiating it be done through similar channels?

Only then one can ensure that one has acted bona fide in the matter, and not by directly interfering with the course of law.

And true to the Malaysian way, Nazri made the following sweeping generalization - with the belief that implicating more people would make the offense seemed less severe:

If the Jasin MP is guilty, then all MPs are guilty of this ...trying to help constituent.

Finally, the piece de resistance:

Q: Will there be a day when BN backbenchers will be able to vote according to their conscience and not according to the party line?

A: I don’t think so. We are in Parliament because of our party. People in Padang Rengas voted for the Barisan Nasional, not for Nazri. If you are not affiliated to any party, then you can vote according to your conscience. That should not be a problem.

I guess this is how Nazri views the MPs in the Parliament: mindless automatons and simply yes-men of their respective political parties - not elected representatives of the people.

In his mind, conscience and political allegiance does not go hand in hand. It is also clear which one of the two is more valuable to him.

Perhaps he is implying that most MPs should abandon their conscience when discharging their duties and responsibilities.

What happens if the desire to 'help the constituents' contradicts with the wishes of the political party?

Whom do you serve then?

if sometimes you wonder why...

You have to do the right thing. It may not be in your power; maybe not in your time, that there'll be any fruit. But that doesn't mean you stop doing the right thing. You may never know what results come from your action.
But if you do nothing, there will be no result.

Fond tributes to those who believes in doing the right thing:
MGG Pillai (1939-2006), Zubir Yahya (1952-2006)
and
Promoedya Ananta Toer (1925-2006)

selamat jalan buku
selamat sampai di ibukata
ibunya rindu...

Al-Fatihah...