Read this news three days ago. Oh dear, I thought. More hot flush from the Yellow T-shirts.
Where were these avengers, the voice of the people, by the people, for the people, when we needed them; to articulate and represent us at the dire and sorry state of our water supply in Selangor, when in early March we were deprived of water for 4 whole days plus plus? How can the ordinary rakyat remain bersih without our supply of water? For the two geriatrics, we only found out about the water cutoff when we brought our two cats to our vet and Aida the receptionist inquired if we were affected by the closure of supply in our area
.
Got home, checked the letter box, there was no letter informing us of the disruption. Checked with our neighbour - she was just as much in the dark. Checked with my sister at Bukit Mulia, she was uncertain too as she had had no warning in the post. So just two days before our departure, the two geriatrics rummaged for all the water containers they could find to store enough water for upstairs and downstairs - both for our use and for Osman our house and cat sitter who would be taking over when we leave. Was this due to a drought like a few years back? At least then we had a respite when water was turned on at night. Has global warming affected Selangor more than any other part of the country? No, it's due to a typical Malaysian malady - just sheer mismanagement on the part of our corporate and political leaders.
Anyway AsH is just letting off steam about life in our sultry and torrid tropical Selangor.
I found out later what was involved in SPR (see the image above). SPR is the Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya or Election Commission (EC) - who is responsible for constituency re-delineation, which has to be conducted every 8 years. It was done in 2003 for Malaya and Sabah, and in 2005 for Sarawak. Thus it was due for the coming General Election.
This review has everything to do with the theory and practice of DEMOCRACY, a system of government we inherited from the British who in turn had taken its mantle and practice from the Greeks.
However laudable democracy is, I applaud H.L. Mencken's view "Democracy is a form of worship. It is the worship of Jackals by Jackasses".
I must declare my ignorance of the practice of delineation and reviews of electoral boundaries in various democracies. Sometimes it's described as gerrymandering. At times it is claimed to resolve electoral bias and to equalise electoral constituency sizes. But in the light of the hi-tech collusion of Cambridge Analytica and Facebook to target the voting and the voter during the Presidential election of the planet's richest and strongest democracy, redelineation and re-jigging looks quite anaemic.
Nevertheless on 28 March, Malaysia's Election Commission's redelineation report was passed in the Dewan Rakyat - despite a great deal of robust outcry from the Opposition and their Yellow Legionnaires.
Well, Singapura in 2015 also conducted a similar exercise. It had a different appellation, it was called the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC). Amongst the changes made; there were more Single Member Constituencies (SMC). Two SMCs, Joo Chiat and Whampoa and the Moulmein-Kallang GRC(Group Representative Constituency) vanished. Naturally all incumbent governments will find sound, solid reasons for their manoeuvres. The tamperings with the SMCs and GRC were regarded by the Opposition and their supporters as a move by the People's Action Party to "cut their losses". But outpourings of anger and dissent in Singapura were muted unlike in Malaya. Perhaps this can be attributed to a shortage of supply and demand for Yellow T-shirts in Singapura !
As for the electoral system in USA, it was quite acceptable and legal for a Presidential candidate (Hillary Clinton) to win the popular vote by a 3 million vote margin, lose the Electoral College by 74 votes and yet she had to concede victory to Trump! That's democracy?
The Electoral College is made up of all the states in the Union. Each state, large or small is granted three electoral votes - from the two Senators and one representative. There was one delineation, the 23rd Amendment, whereby the capital Washington got at least three electoral votes. The Census Bureau attempts to balance the number of representatives for a changing population (what Americans describe as 'census-based reapportionment' ) but despite this, Hispanics and Asians remain disadvantaged in the size of their representation. If this is democracy in the USA, why do we coloured practitioners have to be whiter than white?
In UK, the Conservatives have been complaining about the pro-Labour electoral bias. I shall not attempt to delve into the mechanics of the bias. Factors like abstention (which is supposed to help Labour to get more MPs for its votes than the Conservatives) and the effect of having a third party like the Lib-Dem seem to play a part in the 'mismanagement' of democracy in UK.
I find it interesting that some members of the Opposition in Malaysia advise voters to abstain from voting in the coming General Election. I reckon this is part of a voting strategy for victory in an election in a democracy. I am certain all our political parties have their in-house (or maybe external too?) electoral mechanics to service and manipulate the pokery-jiggery necessary to win the next and all other elections.
While we poor sods, the rakyat are brought up on the milk of Abraham Lincoln's platitude of "Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people" this cynic prefers to include this caveat by Oscar Wilde. His version is: "Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people, by the people, for the people".
And on the prospect of being further bludgeoned, also beware of these 'hurrah words' like Freedom, Equality, and Human Rights.
In the next few months in Malaysia, expect more sightings of the likes of Snoopy and the Red Baron. But despair not, lying in wait are several Great Pumpkins to help whoever with their old and new battle plans.
It is a general popular error to imagine the loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for its welfare. (Edmund Burke, 1729-1797)
I've been hibernating, keeping away from the goings-on in my kampung - and the spouse's kampung too. I've figured I'll just have to sit back and observe in despair - as the Lunchais and the whippersnappers get on with their circus and shenanigans. Certainly, this is not a time fit for a Septuagenarian,.. a Senior Citizen..... an Old Fogey, a Diddy, a Warga Mas, a Geriatric .... a Superannuated codger and crone.
So, ......
But even geezers like Ash have to sit up and glower at the mouthings of present (Cameron) and future (Trump) leaders of the Free World. More and more I observe an outbreak of these modern ailments - "constipation" of the brain and "diarrhoea" of the mouth.
There's firstly Donald Trump, the Prime Contender for the throne of the Presidency in the US of A.
Repeating his wild suggestion for eliminating terrorism in his country would just be more publicity for his bigotry. Perhaps a look at what he's made of would be more illuminating, to understand why the world has become what it is - especially in the geo-politics of the Middle East.
When Whites and Christians and non-Muslims express their racism, extremism and bigotry they are regarded as merely offensive and crazy. Most devious of all: their views and practices are just an aberration, a little blip on a spotless and civilized culture.
For instance, in the case of The Holocaust, we have the Holocaust deniers - but there are also the mollifiers, who deem the Holocaust as deviant and unrepresentative of European-Christian culture. I reckon it is far easier for them to demonise and pulverize Muslims because the latter have no political and financial clout. And best of all for the West - Muslims are hopelessly divided, they are their own worst enemies. ( PS just like my bangsa Melayu)
DONALD TRUMP - and his true colours.
Firstly, take the big news about Trump here in Britain:
....... and here are the reasons why.
1. According to the powers-that-be in the British Parliament .....
2.
3.
Secondly, why should anyone condemn a man with such a fervent and relevant religious faith? After all, we have his own word for this:
Not only that ......
This can be seen in the company he keeps.......
Thirdly, Donald Trump is no maverick outsider:
There have been outbursts of dismay and anger in the United States about Trump's display of bigotry. Concerned Americans and other Americaphiles have been very vocal in denouncing him, saying that his "incivility, his racism, his phobia about everything .... is un-American". They claim Trump does not not represent "American values".
As for the meaning of "American values", it all depends on how susceptible you are to a belief in myths, and on the severity of your myopia (or the 'inability to see distant objects clearly').
But do read the above article from Counterpunch - which should help to remove the scales from one's eyes.
Finally, why should Muslims and non-Muslims be surprised?
But that is America. What about here in my spouse's kampung? Well, some would say it's not much better. Take the Great British Prime Minister David Cameron ......
Here's an appetiser by Steve Bell, one of the best satirist-cartoonists from The Guardian 18 January 2016
The spectacle of 'boat-people' stranded in the Andaman Sea brought on a sense of deja vu from 40 years ago. In 1975, the Viet Cong defeat of the Americans led to an exodus of South Vietnamese 'collaborators' and 'sympathizers' to the United States - initially mainly the well-educated and wealthy Vietnamese - totalling about 125,000. The second wave began in 1978. These were the 'boat people' , who were poorer and not as well-educated as the first wave. They were mainly Vietnam's Chinese, 'long distrusted by the native Vietnamese'. They were under pressure because they had to leave their urban homes to go into the rural 'new economic zones' as labourers - and they feared being drafted into the army. When China attacked Vietnam in 1979, the pressure got even stronger. The Government imposed 'exit permits' costing about $3000 for those who chose to leave. But there were many others, both Chinese and Vietnamese, who left sans exit permits because they could not bear the food shortages and living under Communist rule. [The same scenario if the Malayan Communist Party had 'won' in Malaya?] On that journey thousands died as a result of water and food shortages, of drownings and attacks from pirates. The survivors landed in Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines and Hong Kong. Malaysia bore the brunt, because the Peninsula was the boat people's 'first line of approach'. The east coast states of Trengganu, Kelantan and Pahang, - the poorest states of the Peninsula - were deluged by flotillas of 'boat-people' landing on their shores. The boat people were coming at the rate of 65,000 a month. While Thailand was able to send Cambodian refugees escaping Pol Pot's regime back into their homeland, Malaysia had no such option, she had no common land border with Vietnam or Cambodia. The boat people who first landed in 1978 created a 'crisis problem' of 20 years for Malaysia. Malaysia was designated as a 'nation of first asylum', Refugee camps for Vietnamese and Cambodians were set up in Pulau Bidong (with 42,000). "By the time Bidong was closed as a refugee camp on 30 October 1991, about 250,000 Vietnamese had passed through or resided in the camp " (Wikipedia). Other camps were located at Sungai Besi (1975-1996) and Pulau Tengah. On the departure of the refugees in 1981, Pulau Tengah, - endowed with beautiful reefs and where leatherback turtles lay their eggs - was declared a marine park. According to Bram Steen, UNHCR Malaysia, 240,000 Vietnamese refugees from Malaysia had been resettled in third countries and 9,000 others opted to return to Vietnam'. Check : http://www.unhcr.org/43141e9d4.html
While Malaysia was stretching over backwards to provide transit camps for the refugees, she also co-operated with the UNHCR to facilitate their repatriation to third countries like USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK and even Israel. This task took nearly 20 years. It was not smooth sailing for Malaysia. The bouquets went to the receiving Western countries. The brickbats were reserved for Malaysia - and especially from Australia. The latter even made a movie to castigate Malaysia's attitude towards the boat people. I refer to the movie Turtle Beach (1992).
From Wikipedia
From Wikipedia
I suppose those who were just "twinkles in their fathers' eyes" during that period know little or nowt about the social and political problems that Malaysia had to deal with in being the "nation of first asylum" - including the self- righteous and hypocritical whining of the British and Australians.
When people opt to migrate, to leave their homeland for another, two factors are involved - "push" and "pull". One could say that Chinese immigration from 150 years ago into Malaya and Singapore was based on the the push factor of escaping poverty and the aftermath of wars in China. Unlike present day refugees from Afghanistan, African states south of the Sahara, Iraq and Syria, immigrants from China had an easier rite of entry. They were needed and welcomed by the British Imperial authority who enabled and encouraged them to start a new life in the Semenanjung and Singapore with the option of returning home whenever they felt like doing so.
Zhonghandi - The late Mr Lee Kuan Yew's ancestral home in Guangdong Province built by his great-grandfather Li Muwen in 1884 with money he had earned in Singapore.
From Malayan Reader Book 3 - a scene from the 1920s to 1940s.
Because of the positive and profitable experience of life in the Malay Peninsula, the pull factor further encouraged the migration from China
From Story of Malaya and her Neighbours by Philip Nazareth
The moral is obvious. Malaya - and Malaysia - have an honourable history of taking in migrants. Which brings us to the most recent case of "boat people" on Malaysian shores. In this case, a clear demarcation must be made between economic migrants from Bangla Desh ("pull") and political refugees from Myanmar ("push"). According to a UNHCR statement on 17 May, only 400 of the 1,000 boat people who landed in Langkawi waters were Rohingya refugees. The status of the Rohingyas as political refugees is clear cut. Boat people from Bangla Desh, however, are a very different matter. If they want to work in Malaysia or Thailand or Indonesia they, unlike the Rohingyas, have the facility and the means to apply through the proper channels like many of their kinsmen in Malaysia.
According to an article in The Australian (11 May 2011) : "The Rohingya .... are the second largest group from Burma to flee to Malaysia. Denied full citizenship, education and travel rights in their native state, where they are routinely harried and harassed, there is little they can do to improve their lot bar leaving their homes for an unsure reception elsewhere. Refugees International claimed ..... the Rohingya were one of the most persecuted groups in the world. At least 200,000 have fled from Burma to neighbouring Bangla Desh, where only about one-tenth are recognised as refugees by Bangladesh's government and where most live in squalor.
What are Malaysia's options? Malaysia is already 'home' to more than 90,000 refugees and asylum seekers, mostly the mistreated Christian Chins and the even more persecuted Muslim Rohingyas. There are the others like those from Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and Sri Lanka. Besides these numbers, there are an estimated (a conservative one) 1.5 million people who are "undocumented migrants" mainly labourers from Indonesia.
Most certainly, those stranded on board their boats must be given food and water and medical treatment. As for landing .... well, that is the nub of the matter - as Australia knows only too well ....
Furthermore : "The Canberra government, which is determined to prevent asylum-seekers from arriving on its shores by boat after a hazardous journey across the Indian Ocean, has warned the protestors they will never be allowed to live in Australia. Peter Dutton the new Australian Immigration Minister reiterated that there would be 'no softening of Australian policy', that the government maintains 'absolute resolve' that such refugees would 'never arrive in Australia'.
For Malaysia, then, it is a double damnation: damned if you do, damned if you don't. The Malaysian dilemma needs to be analysed in terms of the larger context, of the global displacement of people by wars, poverty and extremism.
Malaysia only needs to observe how the Christian-Caucasian founts of human rights deal with the problem. Our bleeding heart defenders of human rights - always so quick to follow Western strictures against Malaysia - could learn a little from European, Australian and North American policy and resolutions with regard to migrants - and especially the boat people problem. They cannot expect Malaysia to be "whiter than white', so to speak.
BUT, there is one stark difference between the plight of the Mediterranean boat people and the one in Southeast Asia. The former is almost entirely the making of the western world - the political and economic breakdown of the African states, the War on Terror in the Muslim Middle East and the pursuit of the Arab Spring in Libya. It's a case of "the chickens coming home to roost". However, the main perpetrator of this chaos, the USA has somehow been cushioned from facing culpability.
In the case of the Rohingyas, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia bear no responsibility. The crisis is entirely the creation of Myanmar's extremist political and religious policy. Those crusaders for elections and a government based on human rights in Myanmar, celebrities like Aung San Suu Kyi should be persuaded to now turn their liberal intentions to stopping the persecution of the Rohingyas.
As for El Dorado Europe, now facing daily the problem of poor and desperate people crossing the Mediterranean in their thousands trying to get in, is it any surprise that they are now turning to their kinsmen from down under for a solution? ....
One brain wave and trend setter from Australia
Another brain wave, this time from the European Union.
In the past week or so, the print and electronic media in UK have been giving a lot of publicity to the boat-people in the Andaman Sea, as they have with the situation in the Mediterranean. But embedded in it is a touch of giving Malaysia a 'ticking off ' - almost a re-hash of the criticisms made by Malaysia's human rights brigade.
As a matter of interest, Christian Chins from Myanmar who are stuck in a "ghetto of sorts in Kuala Lumpur's Imbi district" can draw hope from the success of their fellow-Christian Myanmar refugees, the Karens. They (170 Karens ) are happily settled in a small town ( population 2,300) in Victoria (Australia) where they contribute $41m benefit to the local economy working at a local poultry producer Luv-a-Duck.
Australia has this warning for immigrant hopefuls from Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Syria etc.
But there's hope for a select group of people.
From Reuters 7 August 2014
And the British Government (ever ready to learn from Australia?) has just announced exactly the same policy.
* * * * *
Forty years ago, when Malaysia had to provide refugee camps for Vietnamese boat people, they fought and got the assurance from western countries that these refugees will be repatriated to third countries and/or return to Vietnam. The Myanmar government have denied any responsibility. It is obvious that 'third party' countries that are richer than Malaysia will not offer asylum to the Rohingyas. They are all suffering from 'compassion fatigue' - they just have too much "collateral damage" to deal with - and the EC is well on the way to turning itself into Fortress Europe.
Above all, Malaysia still has to sort out their present problem of over 1.5 million refugees, asylum seekers and illegal migrant workers!!
Let the experts deal with the solution - people like Lilianne Fan (a Bangkok- based expert on humanitarian and conflict issues in Asia, research associate at the humanitarian policy group of the UK's Overseas Development Institute), Charles Santiago (Chair of Asean Parliamentarians for Human Rights, a coalition of lawmakers advocating for fundamental rights in Southeast Asia), David Mane (Executive Director of the Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre, Australia and principal solicitor and migration agent) and Jeff Labowitz ( Chief of mission, International Organisation for Migration, Thailand). See : http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/15/how-to-solve-asian-migrant-boats-crisis-expert-views-rohingya
Whatever suggestions are made by these experts and other pontificators; some people, some organisations, some countries will have to put their money where their mouth is.
