Abolishing PPSMI-Our Government’s Magnificent Mistake (I just had to post this: NST kinda mangled my letter lol)

It seems the decision is final. The Government has decided to abolish the teaching of Mathematics and Science in English (PPSMI), ignoring the protests of the Parent Action Group for Education (PAGE), and even ignored the idea of providing options for those who wishes to learn the two subjects in English. Needless to say, many people are unsatisfied with the ‘explanation’ and ‘rationale’ of the government, which seem neither properly explained nor even rational, myself included. I know this letter might be ignored by the policy-makers, but I think it’s quite right for one who disagrees to point out why they do so, without being stifled under the pretence of ‘accepting the abolition with an open heart’ (refer to comment by the Kedah GPMS, NST 1 Nov 2011, page 6).

First, the decision of the government to abolish PPSMI was done after ‘considering all views’, according to our current Deputy Prime Minister. He never really told us if all views were fairly represented, or even those who voiced out their views are even qualified to do so. PAGE has good reason to voice their support for the policy, as they are parents concerned with the future of their children’s education, and are valid interested parties. Undoubtedly, there are also parents who are against PPSMI due to concerns for their children, but what business has Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, A Samad Said, Gerakan Mansuhkan PPSMI (GMP) and the Malaysia Linguistic Association (PLM) to make comments on this issue? Anybody is entitled to their opinion, but it seems quite stupid of the government to agree to the opinions of these groups, who are not even involved in the teaching of Maths and Science, and who, other than the pretentious title of ‘defenders of national language’ (refer to argument below), have nothing to contribute to this debate. This is true in the case of DBP, whose lack of production or even translation of proper scientific works for the past 30 years caused this dearth of Malay-language scientific reference books in the market and pushed Dr Mahathir to propose PPSMI in the first place.

And the decision to replace PPSMI with another policy is done without proper thought. What exactly does Upholding the Malay Language and Strengthening the Command of English (MBMMBI) mean? How does it differ from what we have today? Mastering language requires proper exposure to the language in conversational use, yes? Under PPSMI, students are more exposed to English, as they use and utilise the language in three classes (Maths, Science (and its branches Physics, Additional Mathematics, Biology and Chemistry), and English), while other subjects are taught in BM. So it seems PPSMI would achieve MBMMBI’s goals better than that policy itself, which means nothing more than ‘teaching Malay and English’, like we have always done.

Second, the opposition to PPSMI is argued by A Samad Said, DBP and other language groups as being a matter of ‘defending national language’, or BM. What a shameless thing for these people to do, standing behind the façade of ‘national’ language pride’. It would have been much easier to call it as a political move to score brownie points. Because it is political: simple as that. For one, these people, for all their talk about how the national language is suitable to teach all Malaysians, fail to censure politicians that support them for sending their children to study in private or International schools that teach in English, while labelling supporters of the policy from among the middle and lower class as ‘pengkhianat bangsa’. A different standard for the rich, it would seem…Second, their argument of defending BM as the national language for education means nothing as they voice no opposition to Chinese and Tamil vernacular schools, where BM is only used in teaching-well, BM, I suppose. Are they not worried about the scant use of national language there, especially when more Malay parents are sending their children to Chinese vernacular schools? Or is their silence regarding vernacular schools linked to the strength of the Chinese educationist movements and supporters? Regardless, their ‘defence’ of the national language rings hollow.

Third, the government’s arguments for abolishing PPSMI seem to have been based on flawed and false arguments. First, the argument that Dr Mahathir intended for PPSMI to be used to master the English language. What a blatant lie! Which government policy or speech did they cite to prove this argument? Dr Mahathir never intended PPSMI to be a tool to teach English. He only argued that mastery of Science and Maths are necessary for the development of a nation, and most advanced scientific and medical discoveries and works are available in English (unlike Dewan Bahasa, the Americans and English publishing companies voraciously translate works by leading German and Japanese scientists into English as well, making it available to a wider audience). Second, the argument that rural students could not cope with PPSMI as their parents and surroundings could not speak in English is baseless and patronising, to be honest. Is the government suggesting we teach English in BM as well? Obviously parents who can’t speak English at home can’t help their children in that language. That is what teachers are for. To teach the students, and help them understand the subjects. There have been some arguments that it is difficult to teach the students Maths and Science in a language they don’t understand, but seriously, how difficult is it to teach “one plus one equals two?” The way the opponents of PPSMI argue, you’d think they are teaching rocket science to Primary One students in the English of the King James Bible, which is not the case. They teach simple formulae to students in simple language when they are in primary school before proceeding to more difficult and complex formulae according to their levels.

Why was PPSMI introduced in the first place? It was because Dr Mahathir’s administration understood that it is important for a society to master Science in all its branches and Mathematics in order to become developed, and English is the language in which these advanced works are written in. One of the better ways to do so is to expose the young to Maths and Science in English early on, with an understanding of the complex scientific and mathematical jargon: an element which English, with its focus on grammar and literature, could not possibly address.

I do, however, concede to the government one strong argument against the PPSMI option. PAGE’s efforts for are noble, but I fear it’s not going anywhere. The government is right. It is quite difficult to provide the option of PPSMI in schools, as it would cause the swelling of teaching staff in schools merely to teach two subjects, and would force the cumbersome task of setting up different classes for the teaching of the two subjects in English for the students that opt to do so. PAGE should instead change their goal: they should propose the introduction of an English-stream school system for all subjects, including the subjects that form the Social Sciences and Humanities in university such as History, Geography, Islamic Studies, Moral Studies, and Economics. This proposal would provide PAGE with a more solid ground, as the language chauvinists that use ‘pengkhianat bangsa’ one too many times have no reason to oppose this proposal without opposing vernacular schools in principle as well, which they fail to do before due to politics. The English-stream school system is one option that would have my support.

History is written by the Victors? (An English translation of an older note)

"History is written by the Victors." We do not know who exactly said these words first. It might be Napoleon, or Winston Churchill, the latter an amateur historian in his own right. And this statement has been used by some groups, such as the anti-nationalists, the postmodernists or even politicians to reject "official" historical narrative, accusing them of being controlled, manipulated, wilful hiding of evidence by a Big Brother-like ruling establishment with full hegemony over the telling of history.

But this statement, like many of the statements made by the left-wing ideologues, has the annoying problem of not being adequately qualified with a proper definition, and it would have been laughed off by any respectable historian or history students who take their craft seriously. Let us try to answer the problems:

1. Is this statement even true? If yes, why? Or more importantly, so what? How does saying this statement dogmatically prove that history is false or untrue? Does the status of victory disqualifies the victors from telling or writing history at all? Why? What is the justification of this approach then?

2. With this statement, does this mean all history studied is merely evil government propaganda who wishes to control the past and defend their bias, and we historians must 'cleanse' and 'purify' history?

3. Let's consider 2 to be right, would this not mean that historians have already submit to their own bias when they decide to challenge "official" history? And if this happens, does this not open the 'clean' and 'pure' historians to charges of bias, thus disqualifying their writings like the "official" works they sought to denounce?

4. Let's take the postmodernist approach to history. History is merely perspective (as history is subjective and depends on the views of the 'victor'), and history itself is only wordplay and philosophy, with no importance attached to evidence, upholding the superiority of interpretation of evidence, or even more frighteningly, interpretation without the need for evidence itself.

5.If 4 is true, then history itself is untrue, and it could not be differentiated from fiction. But this could not be true, for we know the past is real, events did happen, and history could only be written with records and documents from the past, not pulled out of thin air and shaped to our will, according to the postmodernist view.

6. But I digress. Let us return to the main statement of history belonging to the victors. What does it mean to be a 'victor'? Who won what? What decides a group as a 'victor'? Victory on the battlefield? Victory in political struggle? Victory when one's view is accepted by the majority and becomes 'official' history, and thus becoming the 'history of the victors'? The term 'victor' itself is undefined, thus causing this confusion among the people.

7. If 'victor's history' meant one's view is finally accepted by the majority, then what use it is for us to question them, as if the victors are all evil and biased? for the struggle to challenge "official" history begins with the writing of 'alternative' history that one hopes will be accepted by the public.

8. However, when this happens i.e. when alternative history is accepted by the majority and the old official history is rejected, the logical outcome is alternative history would no longer become alternative, but official, thus becoming the "history of the victors" they despised so much. This is a flowchart to illustrate that fact:

Official history-->written by the victors-->biased and impure-->we must purify history-->introduction of alternative history-->accepted by many-->becomes official history-->written by the victors now-->biased and impure-->repeat.

9. If the people who threw around this meaningless statement actually studied their historiography (study of the writings of history), they would know such a statement is wrong and empty. If only military victors control history, then there would be no "The Peloponnesian War" by Thucydides, who wrote about the war from the perspective of Athens, who LOST the war with Sparta. If only political victors wrote history, then the United States would be viewed as a great and holy power who defeated the evil Axis empires in World War II, and their "official" historians would be prevented from writing about the discrimination faced by the Blacks in the military, and the unlawful detention of Japanese-Americans in detention camps in Manzanar due to racial prejudice.

10. The truth is much simpler. Historians, regardless of political, religious, ideological views of background, when they study history, they will eventually submit to the superiority of evidence. We are not lawyers, or sociologists, or a guy with a camera who manipulate evidence based on pre-conceived theories. Our theories are shaped AFTER all evidence have been observed and studied, and subject to peer review and even later revision when new evidence arises. In the end, there is no "victor's history". There is only "evidence-based history."

My Interview

I got to interview Tan Sri Prof Emeritus Dr Khoo Kay Kim on BFM for the Special Merdeka Programme. Yay :)

Here is the interview:

http://bfm.my/assets/files/TheBiggerPicture/2011-08-16_MerdekaSpecial_KhooKayKim.mp3

Reminiscence-A Trip to Nagasaki (18-24 November 2010); and a Note on the History of Nagasaki

Introduction

Since today is the 66th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Nagasaki, I thought I'd write about my experience in the short week I was there.

I visited Nagasaki last November (2010). 2 years back, I was offered the same opportunity by my department (the East Asian Studies Department, Faculty of Arts, UM), but turned it down for a debate competition in Bangkok (oh yeah, tons of fun that was *rolls eyes*). Therefore, when the Department asked me again if I wanted to go to Nagasaki around August or September, I considered myself quite fortunate and seized the opportunity. It was probably at the expense of other juniors, or kouhais who wanted to have at least one opportunity to visit Japan before they graduate. I feel like I'm supposed to feel some remorse and apologise here...ah, they all got to stay in Tokyo for 2 weeks anyway, so all's well that ends well, saith the Bard.

We (Zakaria sensei, Dr Nasrudin, En Aziz (of the Museum of Asian Art) Hakeem (a junior) and I) left Malaysia at midnight on 18th November to Fukuoka Airport on Korea Airlines (a journey totalling 9 hours, stopping at Incheon International Airport). Ah, yes. Korea Airlines-where "Moslem Meal" is actually "Vegetarian" with the labels changed, and where I first heard "King of Anything" by Sara Bareilles. Got that song stuck in my head for a fortnight. But I digress.

We arrived in Nagasaki at 1PM. It was late autumn in Nagasaki. Leaves everywhere were brown, the roads were clean, and it was Sakamoto Ryoma year, so his posters were everywhere. It was quite an amazing sight. And I kicked myself a couple of times for not bringing a camera. Sunrise was around 7AM and sunset around 5PM, and the chilly but dry wind (14 degrees Celcius) made me more appreciative of the heater in the Nagasaki Park Side Hotel room. And the lack ofhalal meat meant we had to live on seafood, miso soup, bread and butter, and the cookies available at a nearby convenient store.

We were in Nagasaki for the Youth Network Project, conducted by the Nagasaki Shin-Shakaijin Network, in conjunction with the Nagasaki Peace Memorial Hall. It was a meeting not only between organisers of different institutions, but between the students as well, from Malaysia, Japan, and South Korea. The main theme of the symposium was to find "methods to develope and organise a peace network by Asian youths." In the seven days we were there, three days were reserved for these meetings, as well as other activities, such as visiting the Peace Park and Hypocenter Park, the Atomic Bomb Museum, film screenings on the Atomic Bombings and listening to lectures by the hibakushas (atomic bomb survivors).

We had one day off. So Hakeem and I decided to visit half of Nagasaki. By foot. Hey, we could have taken the tram, but we didn't have that much money to spare. We wanted to save so we could buy some souvenirs at the museum shop or at the Coco Walk Shopping Complex. It was a tiring, but quite satisfying trip, at least on my part.

After the Otsukare-sama (Thank you) party on the night of the 23rd, we retired to our room and packed our belongings and souvenirs (with the currency exchange rate, there weren't much options to begin with, except a stacks of postcards and some small Coca Cola cans that cost around ¥58 each). We returned to Malaysia on the 24th, just in time for me to sit for my paper on Korean Foreign Policy, which could be seen as fitting considering the day before, Yeonpyeong Island was bombarded with North Korean missiles.

The History of Nagasaki (and the actual focus of this essay)

Ah, the history of Nagasaki. Quite rich, much like the kasutera sponge cake they inherited from the Portuguese. And linked to our own history as well.

Nagasaki the port was founded by the Portuguese and Jesuit missionaries in 1571, but the history of the island itself (Kyushu) was older. The island was the first territory in the Land of the Rising Sun to receive the message of Christ through the evagelical zeal of the Jesuits. It was in 1547 when St Francis Xavier, then in Malacca for the second time (out of five visits), met a Japanese fugitive named Anjiro (or Yajiro; later renamed Paulo de Santa Fe), whose description of Japan piqued his interest and would later lead to his visit of Kagoshima in 1549. It fell on the Captain of the Malacca Fort, Dom Pedro da Silva da Gama, to arrange for Xavier's visit to Japan. Malacca's role in aiding the mission to Japan was acknowledged by Xavier in his letter to King John III the Pious of Portugal.

The island of Kyushu became the bastion of Christianity and Portuguese dominion in Japan, which would lead to the founding of Nagasaki as a trading post and missionary centre. Of course, the combination of Portuguese guns, Jesuit passion, and the growing number of Japanese Christians converts, even among the daimyos (landlords) and samurai, were considered as serious threats to the newly-established Tokugawa regime.

Beginning from the 1590s until the late 1630s, the Tokugawa Shoguns issued edicts banning the spread of Christianity in Japan and cruel punishments in order to 'persuade' the Christians to apostacise, such as crucifixions, desecration of the image of Christ and Mary (known as fumi-e, treading images), and dangling the unfortunate souls on top of the lava of Unzen. This persecution was marked by the important event of the Martyrdom of the 26 Saints on February 1597, where six European missionaries and 20 Japanese Christians were arrested and forced to walk in the snow, where they were later crucified on the hills of Nishizaka in Nagasaki. This brutal persecution also led to the important event of the peasant uprising in 1637-38, known as the Shimabara Rebellion, led by the charismatic 15-year old Amakusa Shiro. The defeat of this rebellion would drive the Christians underground (later known as Kakure Kirishitan, Hidden Christians) and forced to adopt Buddhist images and rituals to conceal their faith (such as replacing images of Mary with the Goddess Kannon, and having lay members replace the duties of exiled padres).

I was unfortunate to not have the time and opportunity to visit the site of the Shimabara Rebellion, but I did visit the Site of the Martyrdom, as well as the Museum and Monument. It was satisfying to be there,to say the least, to be among the old documents and letters of Portuguese missionaries, of old crucifixes and relics carved from wood, of fumi-es and disguised Mary statues, and old maps and books, which included references to Malacca.

Nagasaki later fell to the Dutch, the only European group tolerated by the Tokugawa regime. The Dutch used Nagasaki port as a gateway into Japan, building a wharf and a factory in Dejima near the Nagasaki harbour. Nagasaki was also viewed by the Tokugawa authorities as the sole gateway to Western science and knowledge of the outside world (known as Rangaku). Such knowledge would include the limited information on the Malay peninsula, made available to the Japanese only through the Reijusan Zusetsu, a book by Shiba Kokan (1738-1818), which was a translation of Francois Valentijn's Oud en Nieuw Oost-Indien (Old and New East India).

The black ships of Commodore Perry eventually led to the end of Japan's seclusion period, and it was followed by the influx of foreign merchants and missionaries in Japan. One of these was the Scotsman Thomas Glover, who aided the rebels in the Boshin War, leading to the Meiji Restoration. His former house was later converted into a tourist attraction. I did not have the opportunity to go to the Garden as it was too far, but I did visit his grave at the Sakamoto International Cemetery.

There was something wrong with the idea of me viewing an international cemetery as a tourist attraction. It felt like those emo kids who go to graves and read pretentious, narcissistic poems...but it was free, as opposed to other tourist attractions. So there. It was a decent cemetery, and it was interesting for me to discover the division of quarters in the cemetery, such as the Jewish quarter, the Chinese, French, British and American quarters (I was half-expecting a grave of a Malayan to be there), and the grave of Nagai Takashi, a survivor of the atomic bombings until his death due to leukemia in 1951, and the author of The Bells of Nagasaki, which I was fortunate to have read even before this Nagasaki trip.

The most important part of history associated with Nagasaki is obviously the atomic bombings on August 9th, 1945. On this day, at 11.02AM, the American pilots dropped an atomic bomb of 3.25m in length, 1.52m in diametre and 4.5 tonnes in weight, nicknamed the Fat Man, on the city of Nagasaki, emitting an energy equivalent to 21 kilotonnes of TNT and heat of 3,900 degrees Celcius (poetically called 'Brighter than a Thousand Suns'). The damage caused was staggering. The area within a 2-mile radius of the hypocentre was destroyed completely. Almost 80,000 people died on the day, and the survivors (hibakusha) would later suffer the effects of radiation.

As I visited the important sites that marked this event, such as the Peace Statue, the rebuilt Urakami Cathedral, the Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Hypocentre, the lonely Torii (gate pillars) of the Sanno Shinto shrine, the Atomic Bomb Museum and the Nagasaki National Peace Memorial Hall, I could feel the message that the people of Nagasaki wanted to share with the world: they oppose the development of atomic weapons and the evils of war, which would eventually lead to a nuclear holocaust and the extinction of the human race. The museum here and in Hiroshima are unique in Japan. Unlike the museum in Tokyo (which I have visited), they have no qualms about presenting the rise of military fascism and Imperial Japan in an objective manner. They readily acknowledged the crimes committed by the Japanese Army in their conquest of Asia, in the Sino-Japanese War, and in World War II. And they also see the atomic bomb as bringing an end to the hideous war. And they wished for it to stay that way. They campaigned strongly against the continued nuclear weapons development by the Powers and nations (USA, Russia, China, UK, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, and Iran), as they do not wish for their fate to befall other people. 'No more Hiroshima, no more Nagasaki, no more War,' one of the hibakushas said at the end of his lecture.

Conclusion

So ends my reminiscence of my trip to Nagasaki. It's actually one of the longest notes I have ever written, I think. Much of this essay is based on facts. Good. I have no problems with being factual in my reminiscences. Now, how do I end this essay? It's a bit cheesy, but a quote would do well, I think.

"The person who prays for peace must not hide even a needle, for a person who possesses weapons is not qualified to pray for peace"-Nagai Takashi (1908-1951) in Heiwa no To.

Stumbled on something

An article on Wikipedia today mentioned this movie, an animated short titled La Vieille Dame Et Les Pigeons (The Old Lady and the Pigeons) by Sylvain Chomet in 1998. Curious, I searched for the film on Youtube. It was there. All 24 minutes of it. Normally, I'm not into European Continental films. They tend to make you think (gasp), and sometimes, they screw with your sense of reality. No sir. Give me Hollywood flicks and Japanese anime anytime.

This animated short is that kind of film. By the time the credit rolls, you'll be repeating "W.T.F." for 3-minutes straight (lol). But it was enjoyable. And the music by Jean Corti is amazing. It's quite frustrating that you can't find the title of the song.

Anyway, here's the film (part 1 of 3):

An Important Date for Malaysians to Remember

The 25^th of July is arguably one of the most important dates in Malaysia’s history. It marked the Feast of Saint James the Greater, and on this day, 500 years ago, Afonso de Albuquerque, Caesar of the East, cried “Santiago!” and launched the first attack on the city of Malacca in a battle that would lead to the Fall of Malacca a month later.

The Fall of Malacca was one of the greatest defeats of the once mighty Malaccan Sultanate and one of the greatest conquests of the Portuguese Empire, deserving mention in the Sejarah Melayu of Tun Seri Lanang (Chapter XXIII), the Hikayat Hang Tuah (Chapter XXVIII), the Os Lusiadas of Luis Vaz de Camoes (Canto X, stanzas 44, 57, and 123), and even an epic poem titled Malaca Conquistada by Francisco de Sa de Meneses. The city, described by Duarte Barbosa as “...the richest seaport with the greatest number of wholesale merchants and abundance of shipping and trade that can be found in the whole world” was economically a strategic location. The nascent Portuguese Empire, which just discovered the Cape of Good Hope as an alternative to the Red Sea route, also conquered city-ports along the East African coast, the Arabian Sea and the west coast of India in order to secure their trade network and break the Muslim monopoly of the spice trade. Economic considerations, though with a tinge of religious fervour and political glory, was the main drive of the Portuguese Conquest of the East.

There are many reasons given for Portuguese victory, from the disunity of the enemy, to tactical superiority and good public relations. The latter reasons could be true, as the Portuguese gained the advantage after capturing the bridge of the Malacca River during battle, and won the loyalty of foreign merchants when Albuquerque promised them safe conduct and regulated the looting of the city. Regardless, the victory of the Portuguese was impressive, considering their numbers (around 1600 soldiers and 40 ships) compared to the might of 20,000 Malaccan and Javanese men (100,000 men, according to the exaggerated account of Tome Pires), 20 war elephants, and the warriors skilled in using the feared poisoned kris and Turkish guns.

On the first reason of defeat, I have heard some politicians invoke this event in order to stress on the importance of unquestioned unity under one leader. This I must disagree with. Yes, the defeat of the Malaccan forces could be attributed to disunity, but we must also remember that the people of Malacca at the time despised its ruler. Sultan Mahmud Syah was recorded by Tome Pires and Tun Seri Lanang as a maniacal despot in his youth, one who defiled his followers’ wives, assassinated his siblings like the Ottoman Sultans did for fear of rivalry and executed the family of his Bendahara in an act of paranoia. These acts have more than once cost him the loyalty of his men (Khoja Hassan, the son-in-law of Hang Tuah, for example). If anything, this event should serve as a lesson for the leaders to not overstep their boundaries, thus bringing shame to their office and losing the loyalty of their citizens.

The Fall of Malacca should be considered an important event in Malaysian history. First, it led to the formation of new Malay sultanates, such as the successor states of Johor and Perak, and the rise of a new Malay Empire, Acheh in Sumatra. These new sultanates would contribute in the development of Malay intellectual activity, with Aceh producing philosophers such as Hamzah Fansuri, and Johor producing Tun Seri Lanang, who wrote the paramount Malay history tome, the Sejarah Melayu. These new sultanates served as continuation of the Sultanate of Malacca, and they would be the precursors of some of the surviving Malay kingdoms in Malaysia today.

Second, the conquest of Malacca marked the beginning of colonialism in Malaysia. Portuguese conquest for native riches would also attract the colonialist power of the Dutch, British and Japanese empires, spanning 446 years until Tunku Abdul Rahman’s historic declaration of ‘Merdeka!’ on 31^st August 1957.

Third, it marked the arrival of Christianity in the Malay World, although the Portuguese government in Malacca seemed quite lax in this area, judging from the frustration of Saint Francis Xavier in obtaining cooperation by the authorities of Malacca in his proselytising due to economic concerns. Today, Christians number 9% of the Malaysian population, not directly due to Portuguese efforts, but they did begin this effort.

Fourth, interaction with the Portuguese led to the expansion of Malay vocabulary, with around 400 words in the Malay lexicon originated in Portuguese, such as bendera, gereja, jendela, keju, kemeja, meja, minggu, sekolah, and roda.

Fifth, the Portuguese Conquest also led to the emergence of a community, now a small minority in Malaysia. They are the Eurasian (Serani) community, a community of mixed European-Asian ancestry due to the miscegenation policies of Alfonso de Albuquerque, spread across the country and the world, but united by a quiet little village known as the Portuguese Settlement (formed 1930). This community, which incorporated Malay lifestyle, the Catholic faith and developed their own language based on Portuguese, is quite underrepresented in national policy, even in politics, much like the Orang Asli. They are not even represented in our history textbooks, but this community has contributed to the development of our nation, much like the other races. They filled the administrative and teaching positions in the civil service and schools during the British period due to their fluency in the English language; they fought valiantly against the Japanese forces during Occupation (this included one former English College teacher who was killed by the Japanese); and they have produced political leaders such as Datuk G Shelley and Bernard Sta Maria. This community deserved to be recognised as well, as scions of a mighty race and children of this nation.

So much for the effects of Portuguese conquest of Malacca, which no doubt is an important event in Malaysian history.

It is surprising, though, that for all our shared history, Malaysia has no diplomatic relations with Portugal. We have housed embassies and consulates in this country, and forged relations with other countries as well, including former colonial powers such as the United Kingdom, Japan and the Netherlands. It would be wise for Malaysia to form this relation with Portugal, in order for us to share our knowledge and learn from one another.

This essay written about the Fall of Malacca is not intended to summon some spectre of ridiculous xenophobia and nationalism for something that happened 500 years ago, but for us to understand our history and appreciate how far we have come from there.

Imam Muda: Pharisaic Piety, among other things

I first heard of Imam Muda, touted as the first reality show that seeks to find the best, brightest, and most pious person fit for the role of an Imam (cleric) (and arguably fitting sons-in-law for TV-watching parents), around last year. The show aims to find an Imam that is knowledgeable in terms of religion and also appealing to the young with his personality. Two seasons and a planned spinoff later, this show has been praised by viewers as being new and informative, a welcome alternative to the so-called mindless, ‘hedonistic’ entertainment reality TV shows. But this show is not without flaws.

I will give credit where it is due. Aiming to package Islam as being relevant to the youths of this country through its contestants, the show’s creators have prepared important tasks that might shape the so-called aspiring spiritual leaders of the community, such as being able to counsel married couples, preparing HIV corpses for burial, mixing with orphaned children and being involved in sports activities. The incorporation of courses on important subjects, such as English, psychology, and basics of economics, might provide, to some extent, credence to the contestants, where they would be seen as having a broader base of knowledge than just rituals, rules and simplistic doctrinal stances. Furthermore, Imam Muda’s success has spawned a new spinoff for aspiring female preachers (despite its adherence to a gender-separate competition, a strange definition of ‘separate but equal’ that has been discredited by Brown vs Board of Education 57 years ago).

However, I do have a number of comments on the reality show, relating to the claim of the creator, Izelan Basar, where “we want to promote a modern, tolerant Islam”.[1] In my list of comments, I wish to take this statement, as well as the entire format of the show, to scrutiny for not fulfilling the proper definition of being “modern.”

What does it mean to be ‘modern’? Considering the word to have arisen from Western civilization and school of thought, one must then look to the West to find the proper definition and application, and this includes their views on politics, economy, society, philosophy and ideals. “Modern” is a movement towards modifying traditional beliefs in accordance with modern ideas, according to the Oxford English Reference Dictionary. Modern is also defined as ‘the capacity of institutions to develop the economic and political capacity, especially social institutions, needed to support a liberal democracy.’[2] Within this definition, the idea of a modern institution (religion) requires one to also accept certain concepts such as democracy, respect to personal rights and personal autonomy, respect for rule of law, respect of women, proper deference and thirst of knowledge, and respect for differing opinions. All of these qualities I state have not been met in this new show.

On my list of comments:

1. The Pharisaic piety of Imam Muda

My first thought when Imam Muda first came to mind were the Pharisees, an ancient Jewish social movement during the Roman Occupation of Jerusalem who observed the Law of Moses and were highly self-righteous about it. After a few episodes and a number of articles, I found my initial suspicions to be correct, based on the acts and words of the contestants.

The goal of this reality show was, to quote one German news, “[to look] for a young imam who could help put an end to moral decline in the country”.[3] Is this self-righteousness not the characteristics of the Pharisees? Nothing could be more arrogant than for the religious, based on their own limited definition of morality, to proclaim the sins of the world and their own purity, and their self-appointed unquestioned authority to tell others to be as moral as them, and ‘put an end to moral decline’. What ‘moral decline’, I ask. Sexual promiscuity? Alcohol? Drugs? All of these problems within the community have secular organisations, medical, educational and psychological, that could sufficiently deal with these problems without the unnecessary burden of the clerics to claim divine authority to proclaim you as full of sin. They must at least explain the role of religion or faith in helping this problem that could not be provided by secular methods.

And I understand that some camera shots of the contestants praying and constantly praying were necessary. And of them praying some more: it is, after all, part of the job description. But would it not be enough to show one episode where they pray, just to establish that fact? It reeks of pious showmanship, another pharisaic characteristic. Maybe the contestants do not read the Bible or adhere to the ethics of Jesus of Nazareth. He does, however, have a good point in Matthew 6: 1-8, commanding his followers to eschew public ‘acts of righteousness’ before men and praying before men, lest they receive their reward on earth and not in heaven, and their sincerity be questioned. This might be the case, with the offering of a university scholarship, a pilgrimage trip, a laptop, a car, and a job to the winner, all in the name of God. This pharisaic piety belonged to the 1^st century AD, not the modern 21^st century.

2. Orang Asli visit

This drive for outward piety has also led Astro to consider, in the second season, bringing the contestants to the Orang Asli village, which raised some controversy. The controversy here refers to the possibility that the contestants would be among the Orang Asli and proselytise Islam among them. This would not sit well with them, with complaints by the various Orang Asli communities of the blatant attempts of Islamisation of the Orang Asli, leading to the loss of their identity and heritage, as well as problems of discrimination (based on studies by Nobuta Toshihiro)[4]. Regardless of the explanation given by Izelan Basar, the general manager of Astro Oasis, denying the accusation,[5] they must at least bear responsibility for this lack of research and foresight. Considering that the Orang Asli have been negatively perceived as ‘backward jungle folk’ and face problems in terms of lack of proper health and educational infrastructures, the last thing they need are a bunch of outsiders coming into their dwelling and talking to them about religion.

And if we do accept the explanation from Izelan that “visiting the indigenous people is meant for the better understanding of other cultures and building tolerance in living in a multi-religious and cultural society,” then it would be more acceptable for them to introduce the imam aspirants to join other religious communities as well, such as the Christians, Catholic and Protestants, the Buddhists and Hindus, especially when Muslims interact with them on a daily basis.

3. Khalwat raids

If there is one aspect of the show that negates the very objective of Imam Muda in becoming a show with a more ‘modern’ face, it is the blatant act of harassing people and disregard of personal space via the khalwat raids. How dare these arrogant young men, under the conceited pretence of “preventing adultery”, began to harass and embarrass couples in Titiwangsa (a public place, mind you, and a blatant disrespect to personal autonomy), and raiding hotels without proper warrants, as if the religious departments have been given carte blanche to disregard hotel privacy laws and proper procedural channels. And even if I might be proven wrong on Sharia procedure regarding raids, the fact that couples are humiliated on this show by being at the receiving end of a condescending lecture by prize-seeking cleric aspirants[6] while the entire ordeal was recorded and broadcasted for viewers to fulfil their self-righteous sadism is against a characteristic of being ‘modern’, namely the right to personal autonomy (this would remind one of the Puritans in America who would gather and cheer during the burning of witches and branding of sinners).

Furthermore, the principle of khalwat raids (which in principle must be unconstitutional) is also not discussed. Why the lone view that khalwat raids are necessary to prevent baby dumping, even though baby dumping still occurs WITH the presence of raids? Why not provide the alternative views of the illegality of conducting such raids and recording them on camera to humiliate the victims, or even the opposition to the principle of khalwat raids as suggested by Dr Asri, former Mufti of Perlis?[7] What disrespect. Would it not be better for these contestants, rather than snooping around for couples who they think might sin, they would be better off hunting wife beaters?

4. Lack of discussion on intellectual issues

They may be involved with society, but in the end, these contestants are vying to become an Imam, which requires them to have a good grasp of theology and the intellect. There were some questions given to the contestants on proper ways to conduct Islamic rituals and their sources via written tests. However, it is disappointing that the show, which is supposed to be deep and different from the ‘superficial’ shows of the West, seems to intellectually mollycoddle the contestants and prevent them from proper expression on their knowledge on serious Islamic issues.

What have they to talk about regarding interfaith relations? How do they treat non-Muslim sacred literature? Do they debate and discuss them?

What about freedom of expression? How do they deal with freedom of expression, even freedom that might offend them? What about anti-Islamic literature? How do they deal with it? Complete ban, or freedom of information, with them answering the criticisms like proper scholars?

What about the theory of evolution? Do they adhere to the view of Harun Yahya creationism, or the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection accepted by the respectable scientific community?

What about history? Will they allow the proper writing of history, or do they prefer hagiography with the uncomfortable parts removed?

What about the Israel-Palestinian conflict? Destruction of Israel, or two-state solution? What about acts of terrorism done in the name of Islam? Are they justified? And should they be called martyrs or criminals?

These questions might seem too much to be put into ten 1 hour episodes. But I cannot stress more on the importance of these serious intellectual issues being raised. After all, Malaysia is a country where opinions of the cleric is given prominence and a hearing in all issues, even ones where he has no apparent academic or intellectual qualifications simply because he carried the title Ustaz (Reverend) in front of his name, such as economy, politics, history, science, medicine, constitutional law and management of society. At the very least, these contestants must be shown to respect knowledge and other disciplines. And without these issues being discussed, the reality show would only limit these contestants as Imams who only lead prayers and harass couples in Ttitwangsa.

5. One supreme judge

Understandably, in trying to find a leader of the flock, Imam Muda would not leave the choice of choosing their champion to the same flock they would serve. They need a religious teacher, an experienced person, to judge them. Enter Ustaz Hassan Mahmud al-Hafiz.

While I do not doubt his ability to issue judgment as he sees fit, I could not but question the wisdom of having only one judge to determine the outcome. Being but human, one is subservient not only to evidence, but also ideology or personal world-view when making his decision. And having only one judge with his own views on what is proper and improper in judging the future religious leader of a community is quite authoritarian in nature.

True, there are some advisors in the show whose input in the show might contribute to the judge’s choice, but still, the final choice is with the judge. The intellectual and ideological movement within Islam is not monolithic. They have representatives among the conservative, the hardliners, the moderates, and the liberals. Why are their voices not represented, from the hardliner Datuk Harussani, to the moderate Dr Asri, to the liberal SIS? Should they not be called upon to give judgment as well? It would be fairer as well for the contestants, as they would also be exposed to various views within Islam and thawing their previous ideological bias. This, I believe, would fulfil the objective of achieving a ‘modern, tolerant Islam’ that respects and listens to other views as well.

Conclusion:

Imam Muda is a decent show, I must admit. But it is not immune from criticism. And my comments on some things may be seen as too much to expect from a ‘reality’ show. But the show’s creators have put this burden on themselves, in trying to make the show ‘different’ from the other shows ‘with no religious values,’ and contributing something positive to society. For everyone's sake, I hope they got that part right.

---

[1] Abe, Nicola (6 August 2010) “Malaysia’s Imam Idol: A Reality Show’s Search for a Muslim role Model” Spiegel Online International. From http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,710268,00.html (2 July 2011)

[2] Entry “Modernism”. In Robertson, David. The Penguin Dictionary of Politics. London: New York. 1993.

[3] Abe, Nicola (6 August 2010) “Malaysia’s Imam Idol: A Reality Show’s Search for a Muslim role Model” Spiegel Online International. From http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,710268,00.html (2 July 2011)

[4] See Nobuta Toshihiro, ‘Islamization Policy toward the Orang Asli in Malaysia,’ in Bulletin of the National Museum of Ethnology, 31(4): 479–495 (2007). Taken from http://ir.minpaku.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/10502/3335/1/KH_031_4_002.pdf

[5] (January 10, 2011) “Astro Oasis: Contestants’ jungle visit not to preach.” The Star. From : http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?sec=nation&file=/2011/1/10/nation/7765274 (3 July 2011)

[6] (Let’s drop the whole ‘I’m doing it for God’ thing. They’re doing it for Mammon. At least be honest about it)

[7] Asri Zainal Abidin (November 2, 2008) “Bila Yang Nyata Terbiar, Yang Tersembunyi Dicari.” From http://drmaza.com/home/?p=480 (3 July 2011)

Disturbing trend in Umno

An old letter I wrote to The Sun newspaper:

10:18AM Fri, 12 Nov 2010 from www.sun2surf.com

THE end of the 61st Umno general assembly on Oct 24 left a mark on the party, the largest in the Barisan Nasional and the core of the ruling coalition. Much has been discussed – education, economy, race and the Constitution – in order to show Umno as being involved in discussing the issue of nation-building.

However, what is most noticeable in Umno is the disturbing trend that is actually weakening the party: the process of its radical Islamisation and Arabisation.

True, this process began 30 years ago and its fruits seen in ensuing years, with the case mounted on the Catholic Church for its use of the term "Allah" (which it had used in Bahasa Malaysia for a long time). However, the recent assembly has marked such a disturbing trend of moralising and pontificating by delegates and speakers, that one would confuse it for a religious conference.

For example, the term "wasatiyyah" or moderation has been much thrown around like a magic word, as if to stress on the idea of the moderation of Umno.

What is wrong with "kesederhanaan"? It is a decent Malay word and has been used without problems before. Is kesederhanaan so displeasing that one has to turn to Arab terminology to impress the audience? Would the language purists be ready to pounce on these people for mixing Arab words in a

Malay language conversation or speech, as much as they would gladly do when English was used?

The same could be said of Umno youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin’s speech, the title of which was "Maqasid dan Manhaj Perjuangan" (Goals and approaches of the struggle), as if "matlamat" and "pendekatan" were not good enough. One would expect this stunt from Anwar Ibrahim, and this has been rightly pointed out by blogger Jebatmustdie.

But it doesn’t stop there. Johor Baru Puteri Umno chief Azura Mohd Afandi took morality preaching to a new level. With no logic behind it, she blamed sanitary pad advertisements for causing "social ills" – a most asinine statement if there ever was one.

It would be a joke, if not for the scary fact that she is holding a minor leadership position in the largest organisation in the ruling coalition.

The call by Perlis representative Fathul Bari Mat Jahya for the establishment of a council of ulama on the last day of the assembly is most disturbing, especially of Umno. The ulama, with their own views of how politics should be conducted i.e. a theocratic state, would not complement Umno. They would instead be a great liability. If Umno members actually bother to study history, they would know the former Umno ulama wing of the late 1940s would turn on it and form what is now known as Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS).

This trend towards radical, unthinking Islamisation and Arabisation within Umno is most unwelcome in a party that is supposed to be the leader of a multiracial and multi-religious coalition. Datuk Onn Jaafar, the founder and visionary of Umno, understood the threat of radical Islam from outside and inside Umno, and one who would call a spade a spade, rightly labelled it as "the danger from the mountains".

Great men make great mistakes. Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s greatest mistake was allowing Anwar Ibrahim into Umno, thus opening the floodgates to religious fanatics like Abim infiltrating Umno, where it is now represented by speakers with a fixation for Arabic terms, and where sanitary pad commercials are thought to give rise to unruly adolescents and social ills.

Umno should stay off this road and return to its original role: a Malay, nationalist, and most importantly, secular party. Secularism has been much maligned and misrepresented by religious fanatics over the years as an anti-religious way of thinking, and this misguided view should be answered.

The idea that Umno would not allow religion or religious interpretations to bias its decision to determine national policies is the only acceptable way it can attract the moderates. And this can only be achieved by taking the original secular approach. And it should not be apologetic about it.

Nothing serious...

There have been some noise made about the upcoming Bersih 2.0 demonstration on July 9, and the responses (actually threats) by Perkasa and UMNO Youth, where these people are fighting for...

Actually, what is this demonstration for anyway? I know it's for something important...something to do with elections...

Anyway, what's the issue, again? Right to protest? What's so difficult? It's in Article 10 of the Constitution. Let the people protest-lah. I mean, Bersih 2.0 is basically doing the same thing everyone else (including UMNO supporters) is doing online: whine and bitch about the government, but this time, they're walking. And looking at some of Ambiga's photos, she needs the walk.

Hey, if Bersih 2.0 wants to demonstrate, that's their right. And if Perkasa and UMNO Youth want to demonstrate against the right to demonstrate (hey, don't ask me. Ask the people hailing "Don't Talk Shit" guy as their Dear Leader), it's also their right. I think.

But this whole street demonstration...I just had to ask a question: must it be 'on the street', per se? I mean, really? I know it's your right to demo and 'tunjuk power' on the street, Bersih and Perkasa, but you're not the only one using the roads. And you're not the only ones who paid taxes to build the elaborate road systems of KL. Other people paid taxes too. Especially those who have to work on that day. Or those who plan to the movies with their spouses and partners. in other words, people who have souls.

Yeah, yeah, some people might say it's going to be an important day, and people will remember it in the future when freedom rings and democracy reigns, and people should be considerate and sacrifice this one day for Utopia to happen...only, your right to protest this one day (which must provide you people with joy) doesn't provide you the right to ask other people to sacrifice their comfort. Riddle me this, Batman. If people can't use the roads the way they want, which is properly and without hassle, because you're exercising the right to use it the way you want, doesn't that constitute a conflict of rights? I don't speak lawyer. Maybe someone can explain this to me.

Maybe I'll get Lawyered, and they can provide justification for above question. Fine, then. If protesters like the street, they can go with it. Can't do much against masses of angry mobs (I mean, righteous fury of the rakyat). But they could seriously consider an option of protesting somewhere else. It's not that ridiculous an idea. Rather than summon the great spirit of Hyde Park when supporting their right to protest, it would be nicer if someone actually proposed a protest-model based on how it is done in Hyde Park, London.

They could, for one, pick a spot away from the main roads (where traffic is not hindered and small retailers can continue their daily business), like Lake Gardens in KL, for example. The protesters can march around the lake, clear their voices, get some exercise (while exercising their rights), then after demo, go to the nearest mamak store or coffee shop and minum-minum, talk a bit, bitch a bit, find romance in the process, sing and dance like HSM, then go back home.

And make a timetable. 10-11 AM: Bersih 2.0, 11 AM-12 PM: Perkasa, 12-1 PM: UMNO Youth, (and other groups who want to join).

See? Quite simple and straightforward, isn't it? What's so difficult about the whole thing? Bersih gets to demo, Perkasa gets to demo. Lawyers can pretend to do something meaningful. PAS and UMNO can pretend to do something useful. Anwar can pretend to be PM on Sept 16 again, Najib can say to the world that he's a democratic leader that allows dissenting protest...

Everybody's happy. The end.

p/s I still take swipes at Lawyers, but after 4 years, I'm admittedly warming up to this species. From No. 3 on my personal No-Like list, they dropped to number 11. Clap clap clap clap.