Monday, May 7, 2012
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Malaysian General Election 2008 Part II
Opposition politics make history when it snatched 5 states in West Malaysia from the ruling coalition. A month later, news media storyline is still reverbrating but along a few redux UMNO/Malay, Sabah/Sarawak, Opposition/States.
The UMNO/Malay redux to their post election blues appear driven by 2 sides: one group remains positive and consider the result, while disappointing, was not as bad as the other group made it out to be. Inevitably, in any robust political structure, the UMNO/Malay redux may eventually see the party reform itself from within - but over a period of time. Non-Malay Malaysian observers will keenly watch and read the internal debate from a distance, and will undoubtedly compare any policy changes to those espouse by the Opposition coalition.
The much-speculated Opposition take-over through parlimentarian defection never occur. The election was a milestone, but it doesn't look likely that the political landscape will ever mature to 2-party system any time soon.
While the ruling coalition may look shaky, it still command much grass-roots support especially in Sarawak and Sabah, which between them - has a sizeable parlimentary seats. The Opposition does not have a coherent platform - aside from presenting an anti-thesis of the ruling coalition : it also remains, a party of middle and upper middle class - for whom big words - justice, democracy, rule of law - means something. The grassroots merely wants the status quo : even if there remains structural/cultural problems - nepotism,corruption and all other intractable evils of an emerging democracy - the grass roots prefer the status quo. A few subsidy and election day government minor rural project - never fail to renew loyalty in the rural populace.
As important a milestone as it was that the Opposition had win, even in metropolitan state as Selangor, its probably more useful for future generations of political pundits and bloggers to study and blog what happen decades and centuries later, than to expect any immediate transition to a 2-party political system.
The UMNO/Malay redux to their post election blues appear driven by 2 sides: one group remains positive and consider the result, while disappointing, was not as bad as the other group made it out to be. Inevitably, in any robust political structure, the UMNO/Malay redux may eventually see the party reform itself from within - but over a period of time. Non-Malay Malaysian observers will keenly watch and read the internal debate from a distance, and will undoubtedly compare any policy changes to those espouse by the Opposition coalition.
The much-speculated Opposition take-over through parlimentarian defection never occur. The election was a milestone, but it doesn't look likely that the political landscape will ever mature to 2-party system any time soon.
While the ruling coalition may look shaky, it still command much grass-roots support especially in Sarawak and Sabah, which between them - has a sizeable parlimentary seats. The Opposition does not have a coherent platform - aside from presenting an anti-thesis of the ruling coalition : it also remains, a party of middle and upper middle class - for whom big words - justice, democracy, rule of law - means something. The grassroots merely wants the status quo : even if there remains structural/cultural problems - nepotism,corruption and all other intractable evils of an emerging democracy - the grass roots prefer the status quo. A few subsidy and election day government minor rural project - never fail to renew loyalty in the rural populace.
As important a milestone as it was that the Opposition had win, even in metropolitan state as Selangor, its probably more useful for future generations of political pundits and bloggers to study and blog what happen decades and centuries later, than to expect any immediate transition to a 2-party political system.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Malaysian General Election 2008
Except for the World News Section, the Borneo Post edition yesterday was full of news and related to the upcoming Malaysian General Election, and at the risk of being considered unpatriotic, the paper appear to have been turned into nothing more than campaign leaflets and newsbits of the ruling Barisan National.
And the Malaysian TV programmes, especially the local news - are no different. Every single nuance of the newsreader lines, almost unabashedly pro government in style and substance. As with the print media, the electronic media in the country has mobilised to become the most effective campaigner for the ruling government.
As apolitical as I am, its hard not to think about the possible long term impact of this specific facet of the country's election culture to the development of democracy in terms of structure and consciousness of the population. To keep the intellectual challenge to the minimum: the impact will be bad and good, positive and negative.
Next to the word negative: I have the phrase "stunted democary" flashing through my mind. In every election, the Opposition appear to have been muted and clueless by the massive avalanche of election-time "news" story. I find it hard to believe that the Opposition is simply irrelevant on every election. Even in the most matured democracies, the political landscape always have spots where correction is necessary for further development of democracy.
Without looking for blame and/or hypothesizing the cause for the state of affairs, I think the ultimate negative impact is for the Malaysian democratic growth to be stunted (remain in its cocoon), and be left behind while other nations grow theirs and become more adept at positioning themselve to benefit from the changing world. Even in a one-party system in some part of the world, one can see how the vigorous political debate from within the party, appear to create ideas that produce tangible results.
It takes some collective effort, independent of opposition politics, to nudge a young democracy away from its "groupthink" syndrome which can hurt itself in the long run.
To some extent, the phenomenon of NGOs appear to fill the void (of creating substantive public discussions), where traditional political party fail. But because NGOs have specific agendas, it does not have sufficient appeal to permeate the consciousness of the population at large. The sum of all NGOs does not make a coherent platform that would be in a position to correct or force a democracy that have been dominated by a single entity to change course.
From what happen in other parts of the world, it became obvious that other agents of creative/destructive change to a democracy is of course, the foreign or external media. But for the most part: its all to clear that external interference is almost with certainty doom to fail for a long time, with predictable impact - before it can become a force for good.
So, the original point should be rephrased: it takes some collective effort of Malaysians themselves to nudge the young democracy from its groupthink syndrome and to pry it out from its feel good cocoon, lest it become too comfortable and stop growing. From this standpoint, it is not enough to exercise the right to vote; Malaysians should also make it their responsibility to help the Malaysian democracy grow to new heights. There are just so many issues, both internal and external that have not make their way into public forum. The media appear satistify to satiate the population with positive inidcations of current and future economic development alone as barometer of good and positive development in the country : the challenge to the supposedly highly educated population is to look at all the issues, including (of course) future economic challenge from rivals in the region and how to grow, if not protect the current quality of life. Most importantly, perhaps Malaysian from all walks of life, should make it their responsibility to try to listen to alternative political views, and to participate in the dissection of ideas and issues.
So much for the negative impact. Without a doubt: there are many good positives that can come from handing out absolute majority to the ruling political part(ies) to continue to administer a young country, such as Malaysia. Stability and continuity in development programmes is one of the fruits of retaining the same administrators and policymakes within the context of public policy. And yes, foreign businessmen, will rather work with an imperfect existing government, rather than having to embed exit strategy as additional risk factors (and cost) in their investment. Even if the opposition were to espouse equally market-friendly economic policies, businessmen will most certainly not want to take chances if their other guaranteed better investment destination. On the bureauratic front, not doubt continuity will allow public spending projects to continue unabated - and I reckon, it would be easier to contain the final cost and completion time of the project. Most importantly, perhaps - all stakeholders, in a multi-religious, multi-ethnic, geographically-diversed, that characterise the Malaysian electorates, will know what to expect on post-election day : that the existing institutions that grant each their piece of the Malaysian dream - will continue to be maintained; and the social contract remains intact. Post election day: the Malays get some of what their struggle is about, the Indians get the same more or less piece of what the fractured community wants, the Chinese may manage to advance their cause to prosper as Malaysian Chinese, and the rest of the indigenous groups in Sabah and Sarawak get assurance of continuing protection for their enshrined rights - and this simple fact is probably at the apex of all Malaysian dreams.
Unfortunately, the choice between following the path of creative "negatives" (vigorous public discourse of the issues) to the path of assured positives: has not yet become a free choice at all, or that there is no conscious effort to make the general election into a time of meaningful reckoning, not of the choices that need to be make but at the very least, of the deliberate effort to advance democracy forward. I suppose its OK if this blog will never be read by the intended audience (or anyone) : at least privately, I feel the carthasis of having exercise my right to think and blog about the Malaysian media during the upcoming General Election.
And the Malaysian TV programmes, especially the local news - are no different. Every single nuance of the newsreader lines, almost unabashedly pro government in style and substance. As with the print media, the electronic media in the country has mobilised to become the most effective campaigner for the ruling government.
As apolitical as I am, its hard not to think about the possible long term impact of this specific facet of the country's election culture to the development of democracy in terms of structure and consciousness of the population. To keep the intellectual challenge to the minimum: the impact will be bad and good, positive and negative.
Next to the word negative: I have the phrase "stunted democary" flashing through my mind. In every election, the Opposition appear to have been muted and clueless by the massive avalanche of election-time "news" story. I find it hard to believe that the Opposition is simply irrelevant on every election. Even in the most matured democracies, the political landscape always have spots where correction is necessary for further development of democracy.
Without looking for blame and/or hypothesizing the cause for the state of affairs, I think the ultimate negative impact is for the Malaysian democratic growth to be stunted (remain in its cocoon), and be left behind while other nations grow theirs and become more adept at positioning themselve to benefit from the changing world. Even in a one-party system in some part of the world, one can see how the vigorous political debate from within the party, appear to create ideas that produce tangible results.
It takes some collective effort, independent of opposition politics, to nudge a young democracy away from its "groupthink" syndrome which can hurt itself in the long run.
To some extent, the phenomenon of NGOs appear to fill the void (of creating substantive public discussions), where traditional political party fail. But because NGOs have specific agendas, it does not have sufficient appeal to permeate the consciousness of the population at large. The sum of all NGOs does not make a coherent platform that would be in a position to correct or force a democracy that have been dominated by a single entity to change course.
From what happen in other parts of the world, it became obvious that other agents of creative/destructive change to a democracy is of course, the foreign or external media. But for the most part: its all to clear that external interference is almost with certainty doom to fail for a long time, with predictable impact - before it can become a force for good.
So, the original point should be rephrased: it takes some collective effort of Malaysians themselves to nudge the young democracy from its groupthink syndrome and to pry it out from its feel good cocoon, lest it become too comfortable and stop growing. From this standpoint, it is not enough to exercise the right to vote; Malaysians should also make it their responsibility to help the Malaysian democracy grow to new heights. There are just so many issues, both internal and external that have not make their way into public forum. The media appear satistify to satiate the population with positive inidcations of current and future economic development alone as barometer of good and positive development in the country : the challenge to the supposedly highly educated population is to look at all the issues, including (of course) future economic challenge from rivals in the region and how to grow, if not protect the current quality of life. Most importantly, perhaps Malaysian from all walks of life, should make it their responsibility to try to listen to alternative political views, and to participate in the dissection of ideas and issues.
So much for the negative impact. Without a doubt: there are many good positives that can come from handing out absolute majority to the ruling political part(ies) to continue to administer a young country, such as Malaysia. Stability and continuity in development programmes is one of the fruits of retaining the same administrators and policymakes within the context of public policy. And yes, foreign businessmen, will rather work with an imperfect existing government, rather than having to embed exit strategy as additional risk factors (and cost) in their investment. Even if the opposition were to espouse equally market-friendly economic policies, businessmen will most certainly not want to take chances if their other guaranteed better investment destination. On the bureauratic front, not doubt continuity will allow public spending projects to continue unabated - and I reckon, it would be easier to contain the final cost and completion time of the project. Most importantly, perhaps - all stakeholders, in a multi-religious, multi-ethnic, geographically-diversed, that characterise the Malaysian electorates, will know what to expect on post-election day : that the existing institutions that grant each their piece of the Malaysian dream - will continue to be maintained; and the social contract remains intact. Post election day: the Malays get some of what their struggle is about, the Indians get the same more or less piece of what the fractured community wants, the Chinese may manage to advance their cause to prosper as Malaysian Chinese, and the rest of the indigenous groups in Sabah and Sarawak get assurance of continuing protection for their enshrined rights - and this simple fact is probably at the apex of all Malaysian dreams.
Unfortunately, the choice between following the path of creative "negatives" (vigorous public discourse of the issues) to the path of assured positives: has not yet become a free choice at all, or that there is no conscious effort to make the general election into a time of meaningful reckoning, not of the choices that need to be make but at the very least, of the deliberate effort to advance democracy forward. I suppose its OK if this blog will never be read by the intended audience (or anyone) : at least privately, I feel the carthasis of having exercise my right to think and blog about the Malaysian media during the upcoming General Election.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Kenya 2008
It was only yesterday that Kenya was a peaceful country and good references were made to it from many sectors of the world of commerce, culture and politics. Besides Nigeria, South Africa, Egypt, and Ghana - in the 80s and 90s - one will also likely find students from Kenya - in any college in the mid West. The country was serious about developing their human capital.
Thus the breakdown in law and order after an election to elect the country's President is surprising : one would expect such a vicious outbreak of violence to occur in somewhat less developed democracy, where the phrase "nation building" has just started to be hailed across hailers, radios and TVs - but not in the beacon of African democracy - Kenya !
Reminiscent of Rwanda: the breakdown appear to have a tribal warlordism, and perhaps along Sudan fault-lines, it also has religio-tribal tinge to it. Political awakenings, along religious and tribal lines - factors which are below the surface of electioneering - has got to be the dominant cause for the civil conflict at this time. If the current problem is not address to the root cause into the anthropological realm, the same conflict will rise again and again in future generations.
The simplest explanation for the vicious violence; if CNN were to be believed - is simply that Kenyan political landscape - similar to most third world country - is still dominated along tribal/race. And when the key institutions break down - in this case, the election commission - the tribes/race/religious group, throw out their civilised struggle in 3-piece suits to hip-hop head gear and torn blue-jeans street brawls and machete wielding street soldiers with spontaneous war cries coming from the deepest recess of human raw emotions.
If it can happen in Kenya, and quite recently in Iraq - and most brutally in Rwanda, and one can also point to Sudan: how can it be prevented from happening in other seemingly peaceful and progressive countries ? Is the inevitable political awakenings of minorities; which are often brutally suppressed by the all too familiar tyranny of the majority in any emerging democracy -will also inevitably lead to a convulescent event - before the flaw in the system of governance can be corrected ? New countries (less than 50 years old) which were ex-colonies of the western powers - were carved out more by geography than natural tribal regions (look at Congo, Rwanda, etc) so its fair to say the stability of such countries are held together by fragile threads of the need to co-exist, or else the stability would have been imposed by strong-willed dictator or an oligarchical politics of coalitions.
In the short term, the fires erupting in Kenya need to be put out urgently so the world can be spare of the painful concience - that was Rwanda. In the long term, the powers and the influentials should really look at the rights of minorities and tribes who can easily be marginalised by the ruling majority. If its difficult to champion individual rights as enshrine in the Human Rights Declaration, it should not be more difficult to establish similar charter for minorities - or the world will risk more implosions in other parts of the world after Kenya ?
If the Rwandan tragedy does not become a wakeup call to action for the intellectual/political elites of the world , consider this: Kenya must have hundereds of tribes which could have provided the world with a rich tapestry of human experience if the tribes language and culture are encouraged to flourish by the other Kenyan majority but instead, and lets be honest about it: Kenya ascent as a major tourist destination and the subsequent embrace of democratic model where votes and US$ alone shape the country's destiny - its rich tapestry of cultures has atrophied to the extent that even street brawlers appear to be wearing torn-jeans and bandana head gear !
Now at the risk of offending many: I can extend Kenya to just about any other countries including my own - Malaysia: and point to the danger , or at least the regrets that future generations will experience when - a century from now, hundereds of unique tribal custom and languages would be lost - and every Malaysian would have become "one with the world" and exhibit no other uniqueness of identity other inherited physical features. And if truth be told: for once I absolutely abhor the oft quoted slogan of harmony and tolerance, as basis for social compact: Malaysians and Kenyans, and Americans - should celebrate the diversity in peoples - instead of "barely" tolerating their differences. Then and only then, perhaps - the likes of tragedy that was Rwanda, and potentially Kenya - will permanently be avoided at the root cause, below sloganeering and electioneering !
For a Just World,
Meramat (Feb 2008)
Thus the breakdown in law and order after an election to elect the country's President is surprising : one would expect such a vicious outbreak of violence to occur in somewhat less developed democracy, where the phrase "nation building" has just started to be hailed across hailers, radios and TVs - but not in the beacon of African democracy - Kenya !
Reminiscent of Rwanda: the breakdown appear to have a tribal warlordism, and perhaps along Sudan fault-lines, it also has religio-tribal tinge to it. Political awakenings, along religious and tribal lines - factors which are below the surface of electioneering - has got to be the dominant cause for the civil conflict at this time. If the current problem is not address to the root cause into the anthropological realm, the same conflict will rise again and again in future generations.
The simplest explanation for the vicious violence; if CNN were to be believed - is simply that Kenyan political landscape - similar to most third world country - is still dominated along tribal/race. And when the key institutions break down - in this case, the election commission - the tribes/race/religious group, throw out their civilised struggle in 3-piece suits to hip-hop head gear and torn blue-jeans street brawls and machete wielding street soldiers with spontaneous war cries coming from the deepest recess of human raw emotions.
If it can happen in Kenya, and quite recently in Iraq - and most brutally in Rwanda, and one can also point to Sudan: how can it be prevented from happening in other seemingly peaceful and progressive countries ? Is the inevitable political awakenings of minorities; which are often brutally suppressed by the all too familiar tyranny of the majority in any emerging democracy -will also inevitably lead to a convulescent event - before the flaw in the system of governance can be corrected ? New countries (less than 50 years old) which were ex-colonies of the western powers - were carved out more by geography than natural tribal regions (look at Congo, Rwanda, etc) so its fair to say the stability of such countries are held together by fragile threads of the need to co-exist, or else the stability would have been imposed by strong-willed dictator or an oligarchical politics of coalitions.
In the short term, the fires erupting in Kenya need to be put out urgently so the world can be spare of the painful concience - that was Rwanda. In the long term, the powers and the influentials should really look at the rights of minorities and tribes who can easily be marginalised by the ruling majority. If its difficult to champion individual rights as enshrine in the Human Rights Declaration, it should not be more difficult to establish similar charter for minorities - or the world will risk more implosions in other parts of the world after Kenya ?
If the Rwandan tragedy does not become a wakeup call to action for the intellectual/political elites of the world , consider this: Kenya must have hundereds of tribes which could have provided the world with a rich tapestry of human experience if the tribes language and culture are encouraged to flourish by the other Kenyan majority but instead, and lets be honest about it: Kenya ascent as a major tourist destination and the subsequent embrace of democratic model where votes and US$ alone shape the country's destiny - its rich tapestry of cultures has atrophied to the extent that even street brawlers appear to be wearing torn-jeans and bandana head gear !
Now at the risk of offending many: I can extend Kenya to just about any other countries including my own - Malaysia: and point to the danger , or at least the regrets that future generations will experience when - a century from now, hundereds of unique tribal custom and languages would be lost - and every Malaysian would have become "one with the world" and exhibit no other uniqueness of identity other inherited physical features. And if truth be told: for once I absolutely abhor the oft quoted slogan of harmony and tolerance, as basis for social compact: Malaysians and Kenyans, and Americans - should celebrate the diversity in peoples - instead of "barely" tolerating their differences. Then and only then, perhaps - the likes of tragedy that was Rwanda, and potentially Kenya - will permanently be avoided at the root cause, below sloganeering and electioneering !
For a Just World,
Meramat (Feb 2008)
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Gaza Violence
The pictures on TV shows it all in the most graphic form, almost everyday - since Israel's founding. The non-stop violence has by now, must have become a way of life for the parties involve in the conflict. Or, in another word, it must have become part of the psyche of living in those parts of the world. At the risk of oversimplification, I often conclude the apparent conflict inevitability and the elusive solution, suggest something far deeper than a collective psyche - the root cause of the conflict, above all - must have been as deeply entrenched as the vast difference in religious beliefs and dogmas.
What else drive men to such extreme intolerance, and such belief in self-righteousness, if not their religious dogma - especially those that had conferred in their believers such sense of righteous action, so as to preclude any possible notion that other dogmas can be accomodated ?
The religious leaders, political elites, and the learned and the intellectuals - normally would rationalise or downplay the role of religion in the conflict, rather than facing it head-on but the explanation should really be as simple as follow: the Jews population at large is conferred by their religion as a special people, and gave them holier-than-thou attitude towards the rest of the people in the region - indeed, in the rest of the western world; the Christians west, see the Jewish state as the guardian of the birthplace of Christianity and the Jews are their close cousins, and for that reason - no one in the Bible belts is going to think of Arabs as anywhere near as the Jews as the close cousin of Christianity (hence, the US will sink and swim with Israel); as for the Muslim pious, it would be hard to imagine that the piety instinct in the most learned human being can overcome specific verse in their Koran, that one could be considered unkind to Jews: and the continuing hurt of the Palestine in this century - only serve to reinforce the Koranic versus about the supposedly stubborn Jews.
Religion do have many a beautiful intentions that urge kindness in people. However, the more religious one gets, the more intense the need to close ones mind to accept that other religion are equally right in their assertions and dogmas. Hoffer could not be more right in the True Believer - that at certain stage, the belief system graduated to denying basic rights of the others to be true.
If there is light at the end of the tunnel, it surely rest in the gathering of momentum towards pragmatism - that simply, lead to the choice by the parties and their supporters, to drop deap seated positions and review the conflicts simply from territorial, and/or economics and political dimensions. But, even in this scenario - there is a possible simple explanation to the intractable solution to the conflict: namely that, both parties to the conflict has gotten used to living with the huge amount of aids by the international community - that the benefactors to the aid, will simply detract the process towards peace. Again - the argument here, is the simpleton's view of the conflict; may not be the absolute truth - but that there is basis, for the conjecture - can't be easily dismissed.
Perhaps, its time for all to drop all intellectual pretentions - and be honest, and then move on - to common ground - whatever, that truly mean: I do hope it means, to cease from believing in the righteousness of conflicts to settle scores.
For a Just World,
Meramat /2008
What else drive men to such extreme intolerance, and such belief in self-righteousness, if not their religious dogma - especially those that had conferred in their believers such sense of righteous action, so as to preclude any possible notion that other dogmas can be accomodated ?
The religious leaders, political elites, and the learned and the intellectuals - normally would rationalise or downplay the role of religion in the conflict, rather than facing it head-on but the explanation should really be as simple as follow: the Jews population at large is conferred by their religion as a special people, and gave them holier-than-thou attitude towards the rest of the people in the region - indeed, in the rest of the western world; the Christians west, see the Jewish state as the guardian of the birthplace of Christianity and the Jews are their close cousins, and for that reason - no one in the Bible belts is going to think of Arabs as anywhere near as the Jews as the close cousin of Christianity (hence, the US will sink and swim with Israel); as for the Muslim pious, it would be hard to imagine that the piety instinct in the most learned human being can overcome specific verse in their Koran, that one could be considered unkind to Jews: and the continuing hurt of the Palestine in this century - only serve to reinforce the Koranic versus about the supposedly stubborn Jews.
Religion do have many a beautiful intentions that urge kindness in people. However, the more religious one gets, the more intense the need to close ones mind to accept that other religion are equally right in their assertions and dogmas. Hoffer could not be more right in the True Believer - that at certain stage, the belief system graduated to denying basic rights of the others to be true.
If there is light at the end of the tunnel, it surely rest in the gathering of momentum towards pragmatism - that simply, lead to the choice by the parties and their supporters, to drop deap seated positions and review the conflicts simply from territorial, and/or economics and political dimensions. But, even in this scenario - there is a possible simple explanation to the intractable solution to the conflict: namely that, both parties to the conflict has gotten used to living with the huge amount of aids by the international community - that the benefactors to the aid, will simply detract the process towards peace. Again - the argument here, is the simpleton's view of the conflict; may not be the absolute truth - but that there is basis, for the conjecture - can't be easily dismissed.
Perhaps, its time for all to drop all intellectual pretentions - and be honest, and then move on - to common ground - whatever, that truly mean: I do hope it means, to cease from believing in the righteousness of conflicts to settle scores.
For a Just World,
Meramat /2008
Saturday, January 19, 2008
More Autonomy for Sarawak in Malaysian Federation
Sarawak "joined" the Malaysian Federation in Sept 1963.
Given the vast disparity in terms of development between Sarawak and West Malaysia, I believe I'm not the only one questioning whether it was right for history and the regional politics to hand Sarawak to Malaya elites which at that time had no social, historical and commercial ties with Sarawak ?
Would it have been better if Sarawak were to progress towards globalisation and democratics principles along her own path, instead of joining the Malayan Federation which is at least 100 years ahead ?
I believe, if Lee Kuan Yew had succumb to the short term security of joining the Malayan Federation, the region would not have benefited from Singapore's development. The political, commercial and overall strength in initial capacity, afforded by a Federation, does not help a member state especially if it was a federation forced into being - in this case, the drive to get off being colonised by the British and at the same , for Sarawak to remain "independent" from the other regional powers. In another word, it was a marriage of convenience. To the great wisdom of statesman like Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore chose to forge a path towards nationhood independent of the Malayan Federation - and she is contributing more to the region than the whole Malaysian federation.
Take this view into the global context, and into the present - one can't help but laterally apply the history lessons to Iraq, Cosovo, Kurdistan, Sudan, Congo, Indonesia, Palestine etc. In the globalised world, will the regional powers allow a small state to prosper on its own path, and not to usurp her spirit into a force marriage, for some lofty balance of power in the region ? Take the Kurds for instance. Shouldn't the region and the world powers be more receptive to the possibility of the Kurds (some 12 million people) in the region have a country of their own ?
Afterall, democracy empowers the individual. If an aggregate of individuals identifies themselves as a people with common ties and visions for the future, would it not be for the overall benefit of the region if they were to be also empowered - give autonomy and perhaps, independence to self-determine their future, and to build their own institutions according to their norms ?
Forced union through federalism, in nation building, it seems to me, not only fail to acknowledge the underlying differences among member states but also is a failure to acknowledge the possibility that the member states can prosper faster if it were to be left on its own, independent of the federation.
Which now led us to thinking of modern federated states, and loose congregation of countries such as the United States and the European Union. I used the United States and the European Union in the same sentence because in some sense, the United States is a union of countries, in much the same way that the EU, are "almost" federated countries. The United States is the most successful federated states in history: and due to the diversity of the states, that may appear to runs counter to the earlier argument, that preference should be individuals to form their own country even to the smallest possible (strength in being small) group.
I think what the modern federation fail to recognise is how much autonomy the Federal govt in the United States gave to the state and local government. Why the model is no applied in Sudan (Darfur), and why the same cannot be negotiated for the states in Iraq ? Heck, even powerful China is experimenting with "one country, two system" !
In wrapping this up: it would be a pity if century from now, the Malaysian Federation still fail to recognise strength in a looser federation, and grant my Sarawak greater autonomy to chart its own development. By then, the disparity between Sarawak and West Malaysia, will be extended to 200 years: and its hard to imagine the disparity between Sarawak and Singapore !
For a Just World,
Meramat
Given the vast disparity in terms of development between Sarawak and West Malaysia, I believe I'm not the only one questioning whether it was right for history and the regional politics to hand Sarawak to Malaya elites which at that time had no social, historical and commercial ties with Sarawak ?
Would it have been better if Sarawak were to progress towards globalisation and democratics principles along her own path, instead of joining the Malayan Federation which is at least 100 years ahead ?
I believe, if Lee Kuan Yew had succumb to the short term security of joining the Malayan Federation, the region would not have benefited from Singapore's development. The political, commercial and overall strength in initial capacity, afforded by a Federation, does not help a member state especially if it was a federation forced into being - in this case, the drive to get off being colonised by the British and at the same , for Sarawak to remain "independent" from the other regional powers. In another word, it was a marriage of convenience. To the great wisdom of statesman like Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore chose to forge a path towards nationhood independent of the Malayan Federation - and she is contributing more to the region than the whole Malaysian federation.
Take this view into the global context, and into the present - one can't help but laterally apply the history lessons to Iraq, Cosovo, Kurdistan, Sudan, Congo, Indonesia, Palestine etc. In the globalised world, will the regional powers allow a small state to prosper on its own path, and not to usurp her spirit into a force marriage, for some lofty balance of power in the region ? Take the Kurds for instance. Shouldn't the region and the world powers be more receptive to the possibility of the Kurds (some 12 million people) in the region have a country of their own ?
Afterall, democracy empowers the individual. If an aggregate of individuals identifies themselves as a people with common ties and visions for the future, would it not be for the overall benefit of the region if they were to be also empowered - give autonomy and perhaps, independence to self-determine their future, and to build their own institutions according to their norms ?
Forced union through federalism, in nation building, it seems to me, not only fail to acknowledge the underlying differences among member states but also is a failure to acknowledge the possibility that the member states can prosper faster if it were to be left on its own, independent of the federation.
Which now led us to thinking of modern federated states, and loose congregation of countries such as the United States and the European Union. I used the United States and the European Union in the same sentence because in some sense, the United States is a union of countries, in much the same way that the EU, are "almost" federated countries. The United States is the most successful federated states in history: and due to the diversity of the states, that may appear to runs counter to the earlier argument, that preference should be individuals to form their own country even to the smallest possible (strength in being small) group.
I think what the modern federation fail to recognise is how much autonomy the Federal govt in the United States gave to the state and local government. Why the model is no applied in Sudan (Darfur), and why the same cannot be negotiated for the states in Iraq ? Heck, even powerful China is experimenting with "one country, two system" !
In wrapping this up: it would be a pity if century from now, the Malaysian Federation still fail to recognise strength in a looser federation, and grant my Sarawak greater autonomy to chart its own development. By then, the disparity between Sarawak and West Malaysia, will be extended to 200 years: and its hard to imagine the disparity between Sarawak and Singapore !
For a Just World,
Meramat
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Blogging : A retrospective
I had wanted to blog ever since reading about the new Internet cult-ure that appear to spread, for a whole a lot of reasons, and equally, I can think of many reasons why I should not or why bother.
This is my second entry in my blog here. It still cross my mind why I should bother to blog at all but for now, I suspend the urge to question my motive but just simply to blog.
Given that cave dwellers left scratches and sketches on their wall, it may well be the case that people blog for the same reasons. Since the folks at Google provide the walls to write on, I should make use of the free facility.
Hopefully, Google had in their intention all along, to preserve the writings on the cave for no reason whatsoever. There is goodness, in my view - in making crude personal expression, even if it has no grandeur objective - other than to satisfy a cave dweller's urge - and to keep it there for posterity.
If my children and grandchildren were to read this, long after I'm dead (not anytime soon !), they should know there is nothing in the blog other than sketches and scratches of thoughts to fill an otherwise vacous walls.
And, hopefully (way in the future !), on my death bed, I will blog if blogging is worth the time it was allocated.
For a Just World,
Meramat
This is my second entry in my blog here. It still cross my mind why I should bother to blog at all but for now, I suspend the urge to question my motive but just simply to blog.
Given that cave dwellers left scratches and sketches on their wall, it may well be the case that people blog for the same reasons. Since the folks at Google provide the walls to write on, I should make use of the free facility.
Hopefully, Google had in their intention all along, to preserve the writings on the cave for no reason whatsoever. There is goodness, in my view - in making crude personal expression, even if it has no grandeur objective - other than to satisfy a cave dweller's urge - and to keep it there for posterity.
If my children and grandchildren were to read this, long after I'm dead (not anytime soon !), they should know there is nothing in the blog other than sketches and scratches of thoughts to fill an otherwise vacous walls.
And, hopefully (way in the future !), on my death bed, I will blog if blogging is worth the time it was allocated.
For a Just World,
Meramat
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)