Hari terakhir bersama Dr. Mahathir, 31 Oktober 2003 adakah tarikh kemerdekaan kedua? Harapan kepada Pak Lah
Akhirnya, saat-saat yang ditunggu dan juga sebaliknya (berbeza-beza mengikut individu) sudah tiba. Ada yang menganggap negara terhutang budi kepada beliau di atas jasa dan sumbangan yang dikatakan tidak ternilai. Ada yang beranggapan pemimpin seperti ini hanya muncul sekali dalam masa 200 tahun. Ada yang menganggap pemergian beliau adalah sesuatu yang dinantikan dengan penuh derita selama 22 tahun.
Tidak ketinggalan ada yang menganggap tarikh keramat 31 Oktober ini adalah KEMERDEKAAN KEDUA Malaysia! dan mereka ini juga menantikan detik kemerdekaan ketiga iaitu jatuhnya kerajaan Barisan Nasional di dalam pilihanraya yang akan datang. Siapakah golongan itu? Tepuk dada tanya selera.
Walau berbeza sekalipun persepsi dan pandangan kita terhadap Dr. Mahathir, kita wajar memberikan sekalung tahniah kepada beliau di dalam usahanya untuk memajukan negara dan rakyatnya.
Oleh kerana beliau akan pergi, kita tidaklah perlu untuk menangisinya malah sebaliknya kita hendaklah memandang ke hadapan dan mula berfikir dan bertindak sewajarnya di dalam usaha mengukuhkan dan memacu negara ke hadapan. Bermain dengan nostalgia yang tidak bertempat adalah beberapa langkah ke belakang.
Di kesempatan ini, aku ingin mengucapkan SELAMAT BERSARA! kepada Dr. Mahathir Mohamad dan selepas ini segala keresahan, pandangan dsb ditujukan terus kepada bakal Perdana Menteri Malaysia yang kelima, Dato' Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
Aku mempunyai senarai yang panjang akan harapan yang ingin aku sandarkan terhadap beliau dan di sini aku akan ringkaskannya.
- demokrasi
- hak asasi manusia
- hapuskan undang-undang drakonian
- kebebasan berhimpun
- kebebasan kehakiman
- pendidikan yang berkualiti
- kebebasan intelektual
- kebebasan ekspresi
- kebebasan media
- jadikan SPR independen sepenuhnya
- jadikan BPR independen sepenuhnya
- hapuskan dasar pro- Bumiputra
- perkenalkan dasar pro- kemiskinan
- bincangkan isu sensitif sejujurnya
- kerajaan yang pro rakyat
- memastikan wawasan 2020 dicapai
- rakyat luar bandar tidak dianaktirikan
- benarkan undang-undang hudud jika rakyat bersetuju
- perpaduan kaum yang sebenar
- dialog antara agama
- meritokrasi pendidikan
- urbanisasi yang menyeluruh
- prihatin terhadap golongan muda
- titik beratkan seni yang mengilmukan
- tingkatkan mentaliti masyarakat
- tingkatkan 'software' di kalangan rakyat
- hentikan pembodohan pelajar
- perbanyakkan jenama Malaysia asli yang bukan copy paste
- tingkatkan R&D
- wujudkan kerjasama yg rapat di antara IPT dan sektor swasta dan industri
- tingkatkan kualiti perkhidmatan awam
- pecat kakitangan awam yang malas dan tidak mesra
- artis dibenarkan memberi pendapat dengan bebas supaya tidak
kelihatan mereka ini golongan yang dipermainkan dan bodoh tapis
Diharap Pak Lah dapat melihat dan mengambil tindakan selanjutnya. Tahniah kerana anda telah berjaya menjadi Perdana Menteri Malaysia yang kelima walaupun tidak mendapat mandat terus dari rakyat. Selamat berjaya!
Friday, October 31, 2003
Thursday, October 30, 2003
Artikel di bawah adalah hasil ihsan saudara Fathi Aris Omar
Merobek-robek citra Cak Nun
Emha Ainun Nadjib, penyair dan penggiat masyarakat di Jawa Timur, datang ke Malaysia dengan acara seni yang ketat. Selain persembahan bersama kumpulan gamelan Kiai Kanjeng, budayawan ini juga menyampaikan pidato umum di Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka (DBP).
Emha, yang juga popular sebagai Cak Nun, memang sasterawan dan penulis kolum yang berani mencabar Orde Baru sejak awal 1980-an lagi. Beliau kini bergerak sangat aktif bersama kumpulan muziknya dalam pelbagai kegiatan masyarakat – seolah-olah seorang penggerak politik di peringkat akar umbi.
Dalam bicaranya Selasa lalu, dengan jimat tetapi tepat, Cak Nun merumuskan kedudukan seni, seniman, budaya, perjuangan bangsa Indonesia dan cabaran globalisasi. Dia juga tidak segan silu menyebutkan kewajiban seniman dalam proses politik.
"Saya sekarang tidak lagi bergiat aktif dalam politik. Tetapi jika pemimpin politik bersifat diktator (seperti presiden Soeharto), seniman (Indonesia) tentu akan berperanan lagi," katanya, sepintas lalu begitu, menjelaskan hubungan dirinya dengan tekanan politik, khasnya tangkapan polis.
Emha termasuk lima tokoh di republik itu, bersama sarjana besar Nurcholish Madjid (Cak Nur), menulis surat bagi menggesa presiden Soeharto meletakkan jawatan pada saat-saat genting reformasi Mei 1998.
Mereka berdua juga adalah antara tokoh yang mencadangkan pembentukan jawatankuasa reformasi bagi menggantikan kabinet Soeharto dan pembentukan Majlis Permesyuaratan Rakyat (MPR) yang baru – walaupun saranan ini digagalkan oleh projek politik Amien Rais (waktu itu bersama Adnan Buyong Nasution dan Goenawan Mohamad).
Kebangkitan siswa
Emha (kiri), teman rapat bekas presiden Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur) dan WS Rendra, sudah banyak kali membela rakyat yang tertindas dan sering berada di belakang bantahan siswa reformasi lima tahun lalu. Dia juga dekat dengan anak-anak muda beraliran kiri Partai Rakyat Demokratik (PRD), kelompok awal yang mencabar Orde Baru sebelum kebangkitan sistematik siswa Indonesia pada awal 1998.
"Emha terus berjuang melalui kesenian bagi menyelamatkan jiwa raga rakyat yang bermasalah dari rejim Soeharto ke Habibie, ke Gus Dur dan kini Megawati," tercatat dalam buku ringkas terbitan pihak penganjur, Persatuan Penulis Nasional (Pena), sempena kunjungan seniman ini sejak 18 Oktober lalu.
Dalam wawancara ringkas dengan sekumpulan wartawan (termasuk saya), Emha mengingatkan kita agar tidak terlebih-lebih memandang tinggi seni dan seniman di mata masyarakat. Sebaliknya dia mencadangkan pendidikan politik – menggunakan seni – bagi memberdayakan rakyat, khususnya sebagai ‘pertahanan budaya’ ketika mendepani arus deras globalisasi yang ditunggangi kaum pemodal dan budaya konsumerisme.
Walau penuh warna-warni dan misali sekali Cak Nun – sama juga kedudukan Pramoedya Ananta Toer, Rendra atau Goenawan – tetapi seniman, budayawan dan intelektual kita selalunya juling atau rabun.
Oleh itu bicara Emha sebagai seniman independen dalam konteks kehidupan bernegara di republik itu, walau bernas dan relevan dengan kita di Malaysia, akan berlalu begitu sahaja.
Jika dia datang lagi dan berbicara beberapa kali di negara kita (termasuk kepada khalayak yang sama), begitulah sikap budayawan, seniman dan cendekiawan kita: menyaring dan terus menyaring Cak Nun!
Pendukung utama
Emha dan Kiai Kanjengnya akan hanya dinikmati serta diingati sebagai ketua kumpulan pemuzik gamelan, yang hadir bersama isterinya yang comel dan gemar berceloteh isu-isu semasa. Wawasan seninya, peranan kesenimanannya dan saranannya kepada kita boleh sahaja diabaikan.
Lihat laporan-laporan Berita Minggu (ruangan ‘Sang Lamri’ dan Mingguan Malaysia (bahagian ‘Pancaindera’) semalam – bagaimana media arus perdana menyaring citra menyeluruh Cak Nun dan membawa imej biasa selebriti, seolah-olah Britney Spears, Aishwarya Rai atau Sarimah Ibrahim.
Goenawan (kiri) pernah hadir atas jemputan rasmi birokrasi seni negara ini tetapi bekas pemimpin Tempo ini hanya dikenang sebagai penulis, budayawan atau pemikir Indonesia yang tinggi nilai prosa dan cendekianya.
Mas Goen, nama pendeknya di kalangan aktivis, tidak akan diingat sebagai pendukung utama kebebasan berfikir dan bersuara seperti pembabitannya menubuhkan Institut Studi Arus Informasi (ISAI) dan juga tulang belakang Aliansi Jurnalis Independen (AJI) bagi mendobrak tekanan politik Soeharto terhadap kebebasan media sejak 1994.
Novel Pram atau puisi Rendra mendapat ikutan yang luas juga di sini tetapi cukuplah nilai sastera karya mereka dinikmati. Lupakan proses politik dan peranan yang menjadikan dua tokoh ini bermakna dalam konteks karya dan negara mereka.
Kita sukar lekang daripada filem-filem Hindi, khususnya sebelum kebangkitan era filem cinta Kuch Kuch Hota Hai beberapa tahun lepas. Tetapi kita, khasnya kaum ibu dan wanita, tidak pernah mempelajari yang jernih daripada filem-filem Bollywood itu sejak 1970-an – tentang perjuangan menentang penindasan ke atas rakyat bawah, rasuah, kebejatan sistem kehakiman, penyelewengan polis atau sikap buruk golongan kaya.
Penyaringan budaya
Bagi kita, filem Hindi hanyalah lagu-lagu dan tariannya yang mengasyikkan, heronya yang kacak dan pasangannya yang manis! Penyaringan yang sama berlaku pada muzik underground dan pop kita.
Emha, ketika berbicara di DBP pada 21 Oktober, hanya seorang penyajak yang cuba memasyarakatkan puisi. Kita enggan mengangkat wawasan seninya. Malah, jika ada di kalangan kita yang mengangkat wawasan seni Emha, kumpulan ini dianggap pelik walaupun nada serta fokusnya sama sahaja dengan Emha.
Cak Nun – pada mata kita – bukan penggiat sosial independen serta seniman yang mempunyai peranan politik nasional dan pembina sosio-budaya rakyat bawahan di celah-celah kekalutan Indonesia.
Penyaringan budaya atau menyusun semula konteksnya daripada simbol atau makna asal sering terjadi di negara kita, sesuai dengan cita-cita kerajaan untuk menyahpekakan politik daripada segenap segi kehidupan, termasuk kesenian atau budaya pop.
Soeharto memang mahu budaya atau seni pop yang gersang politik, sementara presiden Soekarno pula ingin seni dan budaya dipolitikkan mengikut citarasa nasional dan ideologi negara.
Tetapi Rendra, Goenawan, Emha, Pramoedya, Iwan Fals atau Wiji Thukul sering mengembalikan makna serta resah kepolitikan seniman dalam luahan kreatif mereka walau terpaksa berdepan dengan kekuatan jentera politik pemerintah masing-masing.
Ruang idealisme
Namun dimensi seumpama inilah yang tidak mahu diiktiraf oleh budayawan dan seniman Malaysia. Mereka tidak sanggup bergelut dengan kesenimanan seumpama ini, lalu mereka merobek-robek makna dan citra syumul seniman-sasterawan Indonesia.
Budayawan dan seniman kita dihantu bayang-bayang estetik luahan seniman dari negara jiran tetapi tidak sanggup memikul peranan kepolitikan yang turut mengangkat darjat mereka di republik itu.
"Seperti yang disebut oleh (sasterawan muda berbakat dan terkenal) Faisal Tehrani … kita tidak boleh menggunakan situasi di Indonesia untuk mewajarkan ruang idealisme di Malaysia," tulis SM Zakir, juga pengerusi forum ‘Seni dan Politik’ awal tahun ini.
"Dan bagi saya pula, sehebat mana pun Goenawan Mohamad, WS Rendra dan Pramoedya di mata Fathi (Aris Omar), mereka tidak menyumbang apa-apa kepada pembentukan ruang awam di Malaysia," tambah penulis muda ini, dalam polemik ringkas kami tentang keperluan ruang awam untuk kelangsungan seni budaya.
Pada minggu lepas, di DBP, saya tidak fikir kumpulan seniman dan budayawan yang mengikuti bicara Emha itu dapat menerima kebulatan ideanya. Cak Nun akan disaring dan dirobek-robekkan.
Penyaringan itu pula sejajar dengan kehendak "meta-wacana" yang dipopularkan oleh pihak berkuasa negara ini – penyahpolitikan seni dan budaya. Kerana terlalu biasa, mungkin seniman, sasterawan dan cendekiawan kita tidak sedar mereka sering menapis.
Hakikatnya, pertembungan budaya asing di negara-negara lain, atau antara kumpulan-kumpulan sosial, sering berlaku. Gejala penyaringan atau penyusunan semula konteks tidak ganjil.
Budaya pop Amerika
Penafsiran semula simbol atau makna dalam hubungan antara budaya, atau interculturalism, selalunya berlaku untuk mengelak kesan-kesan yang dianggap "merugikan" kumpulan penerima. Sering, para pengawal dalam kumpulan penerima – atas nama politik, agama, budaya atau ekonomi – akan memburuk-burukkan kehadiran budaya baru.
Kedatangan budaya pop Amerika Syarikat di negara Eropah Barat atau Jepun sering digambarkan buruk. Misalnya, pihak berwajib di dua wilayah ini sering menuduh budaya pop Amerika membawa "kewanitaan yang berdaya seksual dan kejantanan yang berlebihan"
Pada hakikatnya, hujah Heide Fehrenbach dan Uta Poiger ialah negara Eropah Barat dan Jepun bertujuan menolak produk budaya yang diimport dari Amerika dan mengongkong tingkahlaku pengguna, khususnya wanita, yang menjadi sasaran utama iklan dari negara itu. Budaya pop Amerika menggoncang kepentingan ekonomi-politik mereka, bukan soal imej atau takrif kejantinaan.
Saya kira, usaha merobek- imej Pramoedya, Rendra, Goenawan atau Emha di sini, datang daripada kebaculan, kejahilan serta kemalasan seniman dan budayawan kita. Seniman dan budayawan yang terlalu lama dibelai oleh subsidi dan kebergantungan kepada kerajaan.
Seniman dan budayawan kita, khususnya yang tua-tua, tidak mungkin berjaya mencerahkan minda kita, apatah lagi menganjak peradaban bangsa. Mereka enggan melihat pertembungan budaya, dalam konteks ini, hubungan Malaysia-Indonesia, sebagai langkah menyiasat kelemahan diri dan akur pada kebenaran yang lebih tinggi.
Dalam bahasa lebih ilmiah, "wacana antarabudaya", kata Bonnie Marranca. Mereka enggan mencari kebenaran yang lebih dalam dan tuntas, seperti telah disuarakan oleh wakil muda mereka, Faisal Tehrani dan SM Zakir.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rujukan
Fehrenbach, Heide dan Poiger, Uta, ed (2000) Transactions, Transgressions, Transformations: American culture in Western Europe and Japan, New York: Berghahn Books. Lihat ‘Introduction’, hal xv.
Marranca, Bonnie dan Dasgupta, Gautam, ed (1991) Interculturalism and Performance, New York: PAJ Publications. Bab ‘Thinking about interculturalism’ hal. 11
Sen, Krishna dan Hill, David (2000) Media, Culture and Politics in Indonesia, Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Bab ‘The music industry: performance and politics’ hal. 177-184 tentang peranan politik muzik-muzik underground dan pop ketika pemerintahan Soeharto. Kenapa dua gejala ini tidak berlaku di Malaysia? Lihat juga bab ‘The Internet: Virtual politics’ hal. 200 yang menunjukkan anak-anak muda suka bahan-bahan politik daripada pornografi. Oleh itu, bahan-bahan ini menjadi kebimbangan Orde Baru, bukannya pornografi!
SM Zakir (2003) ‘Ruang awam: Ideal atau utopia?’ dalam Mingguan Malaysia, 15 Jun
"Tulisan ini asalnya diterbit dalam Malaysiakini.com (27 Oktober 2003). Ia diterbitkan semula di sini dengan izin penulisnya. Beliau dapat dihubungi di fathiaris@yahoo.com"
Merobek-robek citra Cak Nun
Emha Ainun Nadjib, penyair dan penggiat masyarakat di Jawa Timur, datang ke Malaysia dengan acara seni yang ketat. Selain persembahan bersama kumpulan gamelan Kiai Kanjeng, budayawan ini juga menyampaikan pidato umum di Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka (DBP).
Emha, yang juga popular sebagai Cak Nun, memang sasterawan dan penulis kolum yang berani mencabar Orde Baru sejak awal 1980-an lagi. Beliau kini bergerak sangat aktif bersama kumpulan muziknya dalam pelbagai kegiatan masyarakat – seolah-olah seorang penggerak politik di peringkat akar umbi.
Dalam bicaranya Selasa lalu, dengan jimat tetapi tepat, Cak Nun merumuskan kedudukan seni, seniman, budaya, perjuangan bangsa Indonesia dan cabaran globalisasi. Dia juga tidak segan silu menyebutkan kewajiban seniman dalam proses politik.
"Saya sekarang tidak lagi bergiat aktif dalam politik. Tetapi jika pemimpin politik bersifat diktator (seperti presiden Soeharto), seniman (Indonesia) tentu akan berperanan lagi," katanya, sepintas lalu begitu, menjelaskan hubungan dirinya dengan tekanan politik, khasnya tangkapan polis.
Emha termasuk lima tokoh di republik itu, bersama sarjana besar Nurcholish Madjid (Cak Nur), menulis surat bagi menggesa presiden Soeharto meletakkan jawatan pada saat-saat genting reformasi Mei 1998.
Mereka berdua juga adalah antara tokoh yang mencadangkan pembentukan jawatankuasa reformasi bagi menggantikan kabinet Soeharto dan pembentukan Majlis Permesyuaratan Rakyat (MPR) yang baru – walaupun saranan ini digagalkan oleh projek politik Amien Rais (waktu itu bersama Adnan Buyong Nasution dan Goenawan Mohamad).
Kebangkitan siswa
Emha (kiri), teman rapat bekas presiden Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur) dan WS Rendra, sudah banyak kali membela rakyat yang tertindas dan sering berada di belakang bantahan siswa reformasi lima tahun lalu. Dia juga dekat dengan anak-anak muda beraliran kiri Partai Rakyat Demokratik (PRD), kelompok awal yang mencabar Orde Baru sebelum kebangkitan sistematik siswa Indonesia pada awal 1998.
"Emha terus berjuang melalui kesenian bagi menyelamatkan jiwa raga rakyat yang bermasalah dari rejim Soeharto ke Habibie, ke Gus Dur dan kini Megawati," tercatat dalam buku ringkas terbitan pihak penganjur, Persatuan Penulis Nasional (Pena), sempena kunjungan seniman ini sejak 18 Oktober lalu.
Dalam wawancara ringkas dengan sekumpulan wartawan (termasuk saya), Emha mengingatkan kita agar tidak terlebih-lebih memandang tinggi seni dan seniman di mata masyarakat. Sebaliknya dia mencadangkan pendidikan politik – menggunakan seni – bagi memberdayakan rakyat, khususnya sebagai ‘pertahanan budaya’ ketika mendepani arus deras globalisasi yang ditunggangi kaum pemodal dan budaya konsumerisme.
Walau penuh warna-warni dan misali sekali Cak Nun – sama juga kedudukan Pramoedya Ananta Toer, Rendra atau Goenawan – tetapi seniman, budayawan dan intelektual kita selalunya juling atau rabun.
Oleh itu bicara Emha sebagai seniman independen dalam konteks kehidupan bernegara di republik itu, walau bernas dan relevan dengan kita di Malaysia, akan berlalu begitu sahaja.
Jika dia datang lagi dan berbicara beberapa kali di negara kita (termasuk kepada khalayak yang sama), begitulah sikap budayawan, seniman dan cendekiawan kita: menyaring dan terus menyaring Cak Nun!
Pendukung utama
Emha dan Kiai Kanjengnya akan hanya dinikmati serta diingati sebagai ketua kumpulan pemuzik gamelan, yang hadir bersama isterinya yang comel dan gemar berceloteh isu-isu semasa. Wawasan seninya, peranan kesenimanannya dan saranannya kepada kita boleh sahaja diabaikan.
Lihat laporan-laporan Berita Minggu (ruangan ‘Sang Lamri’ dan Mingguan Malaysia (bahagian ‘Pancaindera’) semalam – bagaimana media arus perdana menyaring citra menyeluruh Cak Nun dan membawa imej biasa selebriti, seolah-olah Britney Spears, Aishwarya Rai atau Sarimah Ibrahim.
Goenawan (kiri) pernah hadir atas jemputan rasmi birokrasi seni negara ini tetapi bekas pemimpin Tempo ini hanya dikenang sebagai penulis, budayawan atau pemikir Indonesia yang tinggi nilai prosa dan cendekianya.
Mas Goen, nama pendeknya di kalangan aktivis, tidak akan diingat sebagai pendukung utama kebebasan berfikir dan bersuara seperti pembabitannya menubuhkan Institut Studi Arus Informasi (ISAI) dan juga tulang belakang Aliansi Jurnalis Independen (AJI) bagi mendobrak tekanan politik Soeharto terhadap kebebasan media sejak 1994.
Novel Pram atau puisi Rendra mendapat ikutan yang luas juga di sini tetapi cukuplah nilai sastera karya mereka dinikmati. Lupakan proses politik dan peranan yang menjadikan dua tokoh ini bermakna dalam konteks karya dan negara mereka.
Kita sukar lekang daripada filem-filem Hindi, khususnya sebelum kebangkitan era filem cinta Kuch Kuch Hota Hai beberapa tahun lepas. Tetapi kita, khasnya kaum ibu dan wanita, tidak pernah mempelajari yang jernih daripada filem-filem Bollywood itu sejak 1970-an – tentang perjuangan menentang penindasan ke atas rakyat bawah, rasuah, kebejatan sistem kehakiman, penyelewengan polis atau sikap buruk golongan kaya.
Penyaringan budaya
Bagi kita, filem Hindi hanyalah lagu-lagu dan tariannya yang mengasyikkan, heronya yang kacak dan pasangannya yang manis! Penyaringan yang sama berlaku pada muzik underground dan pop kita.
Emha, ketika berbicara di DBP pada 21 Oktober, hanya seorang penyajak yang cuba memasyarakatkan puisi. Kita enggan mengangkat wawasan seninya. Malah, jika ada di kalangan kita yang mengangkat wawasan seni Emha, kumpulan ini dianggap pelik walaupun nada serta fokusnya sama sahaja dengan Emha.
Cak Nun – pada mata kita – bukan penggiat sosial independen serta seniman yang mempunyai peranan politik nasional dan pembina sosio-budaya rakyat bawahan di celah-celah kekalutan Indonesia.
Penyaringan budaya atau menyusun semula konteksnya daripada simbol atau makna asal sering terjadi di negara kita, sesuai dengan cita-cita kerajaan untuk menyahpekakan politik daripada segenap segi kehidupan, termasuk kesenian atau budaya pop.
Soeharto memang mahu budaya atau seni pop yang gersang politik, sementara presiden Soekarno pula ingin seni dan budaya dipolitikkan mengikut citarasa nasional dan ideologi negara.
Tetapi Rendra, Goenawan, Emha, Pramoedya, Iwan Fals atau Wiji Thukul sering mengembalikan makna serta resah kepolitikan seniman dalam luahan kreatif mereka walau terpaksa berdepan dengan kekuatan jentera politik pemerintah masing-masing.
Ruang idealisme
Namun dimensi seumpama inilah yang tidak mahu diiktiraf oleh budayawan dan seniman Malaysia. Mereka tidak sanggup bergelut dengan kesenimanan seumpama ini, lalu mereka merobek-robek makna dan citra syumul seniman-sasterawan Indonesia.
Budayawan dan seniman kita dihantu bayang-bayang estetik luahan seniman dari negara jiran tetapi tidak sanggup memikul peranan kepolitikan yang turut mengangkat darjat mereka di republik itu.
"Seperti yang disebut oleh (sasterawan muda berbakat dan terkenal) Faisal Tehrani … kita tidak boleh menggunakan situasi di Indonesia untuk mewajarkan ruang idealisme di Malaysia," tulis SM Zakir, juga pengerusi forum ‘Seni dan Politik’ awal tahun ini.
"Dan bagi saya pula, sehebat mana pun Goenawan Mohamad, WS Rendra dan Pramoedya di mata Fathi (Aris Omar), mereka tidak menyumbang apa-apa kepada pembentukan ruang awam di Malaysia," tambah penulis muda ini, dalam polemik ringkas kami tentang keperluan ruang awam untuk kelangsungan seni budaya.
Pada minggu lepas, di DBP, saya tidak fikir kumpulan seniman dan budayawan yang mengikuti bicara Emha itu dapat menerima kebulatan ideanya. Cak Nun akan disaring dan dirobek-robekkan.
Penyaringan itu pula sejajar dengan kehendak "meta-wacana" yang dipopularkan oleh pihak berkuasa negara ini – penyahpolitikan seni dan budaya. Kerana terlalu biasa, mungkin seniman, sasterawan dan cendekiawan kita tidak sedar mereka sering menapis.
Hakikatnya, pertembungan budaya asing di negara-negara lain, atau antara kumpulan-kumpulan sosial, sering berlaku. Gejala penyaringan atau penyusunan semula konteks tidak ganjil.
Budaya pop Amerika
Penafsiran semula simbol atau makna dalam hubungan antara budaya, atau interculturalism, selalunya berlaku untuk mengelak kesan-kesan yang dianggap "merugikan" kumpulan penerima. Sering, para pengawal dalam kumpulan penerima – atas nama politik, agama, budaya atau ekonomi – akan memburuk-burukkan kehadiran budaya baru.
Kedatangan budaya pop Amerika Syarikat di negara Eropah Barat atau Jepun sering digambarkan buruk. Misalnya, pihak berwajib di dua wilayah ini sering menuduh budaya pop Amerika membawa "kewanitaan yang berdaya seksual dan kejantanan yang berlebihan"
Pada hakikatnya, hujah Heide Fehrenbach dan Uta Poiger ialah negara Eropah Barat dan Jepun bertujuan menolak produk budaya yang diimport dari Amerika dan mengongkong tingkahlaku pengguna, khususnya wanita, yang menjadi sasaran utama iklan dari negara itu. Budaya pop Amerika menggoncang kepentingan ekonomi-politik mereka, bukan soal imej atau takrif kejantinaan.
Saya kira, usaha merobek- imej Pramoedya, Rendra, Goenawan atau Emha di sini, datang daripada kebaculan, kejahilan serta kemalasan seniman dan budayawan kita. Seniman dan budayawan yang terlalu lama dibelai oleh subsidi dan kebergantungan kepada kerajaan.
Seniman dan budayawan kita, khususnya yang tua-tua, tidak mungkin berjaya mencerahkan minda kita, apatah lagi menganjak peradaban bangsa. Mereka enggan melihat pertembungan budaya, dalam konteks ini, hubungan Malaysia-Indonesia, sebagai langkah menyiasat kelemahan diri dan akur pada kebenaran yang lebih tinggi.
Dalam bahasa lebih ilmiah, "wacana antarabudaya", kata Bonnie Marranca. Mereka enggan mencari kebenaran yang lebih dalam dan tuntas, seperti telah disuarakan oleh wakil muda mereka, Faisal Tehrani dan SM Zakir.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rujukan
Fehrenbach, Heide dan Poiger, Uta, ed (2000) Transactions, Transgressions, Transformations: American culture in Western Europe and Japan, New York: Berghahn Books. Lihat ‘Introduction’, hal xv.
Marranca, Bonnie dan Dasgupta, Gautam, ed (1991) Interculturalism and Performance, New York: PAJ Publications. Bab ‘Thinking about interculturalism’ hal. 11
Sen, Krishna dan Hill, David (2000) Media, Culture and Politics in Indonesia, Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Bab ‘The music industry: performance and politics’ hal. 177-184 tentang peranan politik muzik-muzik underground dan pop ketika pemerintahan Soeharto. Kenapa dua gejala ini tidak berlaku di Malaysia? Lihat juga bab ‘The Internet: Virtual politics’ hal. 200 yang menunjukkan anak-anak muda suka bahan-bahan politik daripada pornografi. Oleh itu, bahan-bahan ini menjadi kebimbangan Orde Baru, bukannya pornografi!
SM Zakir (2003) ‘Ruang awam: Ideal atau utopia?’ dalam Mingguan Malaysia, 15 Jun
"Tulisan ini asalnya diterbit dalam Malaysiakini.com (27 Oktober 2003). Ia diterbitkan semula di sini dengan izin penulisnya. Beliau dapat dihubungi di fathiaris@yahoo.com"
2 hari terakhir bersama Dr. Mahathir
Disiarkan surat pembaca bernama Devinder Sharma yang disiarkan di Malaysiakini, 29 Oktober 2003.
An open letter to Dr M
Only a few weeks back, it was a proud moment for me, like millions all over the world, to listen to your blistering and courageous voice at the UN General Assembly. You have time and again demonstrated at international forums your claims for equality, peace and justice.
The world respects you for your uprightness, leadership and statesmanship. You have lived up to that by announcing your unilateral decision to step down after a long stint at the helm of affairs in Malaysia, turning the underdeveloped country into an economic wonderland.
We all know that the transformation you brought about was mainly due to your forthrightness and vision and partly due to your autocratic way of functioning.
At least, I have a strong admiration for political leaders who know what they are doing. And in that respect, I must say that you surprised the political observers by your astuteness and remarkable leadership.
However, there comes a time in the life and tenure of every leader when his greatness is measured not by the number of years that he has been the undisputed leader of his people but by his sheer humility and ability to pardon his political opponents.
Even Lord Krishna says in Gita, the holy book of the Hindus, that he who is humble, he who tries to overlook the fault of others, and he who accepts his own flaws in retrospect, is the greatest.
Such moments come once in a while wherein history gives you a chance to demonstrate your humility, and thereby your greatness and Statesmanship.
I am shocked to learn that your government, maybe through the legal route of the courts, has found Irene Fernandez guilty of maliciously publishing false news in exposing the conditions in immigration detention camps in August 1995.
What is equally more shocking is that this episode was considered so serious that your courts have pronounced a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment. The unfortunate verdict shows clearly how your government uses institutions to cover up its wrong doings, violations of rights and accountability to the people.
Lord Krishna would have surely hung his head in shame to learn that an activist can be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment. I am sure Prophet Muhammad would be dismayed to learn that the great Mahathir Mohamad didn't even think twice before putting a social activist behind bars.
You can't stoop so low, Mr Prime Minister. Don't forget you too have to answer your God. You have a chance to correct your own faulty governance, and as Lord Krishna said, it is your greatness if you accept your flaws and try to rectify them.
You have a one in a million chance to restore the credibility of your judiciary, thereby going down in history as the one who acknowledged the mistakes.
We have seen innumerable leaders who stay long in power but who, because of their arrogance, do not earn their rightful place in history. On the other hand, there are leaders, who even without being in power, are revered and worshiped.
One such leader comes from India. Mohandas K Gandhi became a Mahatma for his courage to represent the people and fight for the rights of the masses. He died for justice and peace. I am sure you will agree that the world will continue to regard him for what he stood for, what he fought for and what he died for.
Dr M, you too can hope to find a respectable place for yourself in history. Better late than never, they say.
The right opportunity is just in front of you. Demonstrate your greatness for once by setting aside the sentence (on Fernandez) and I can assure you the world will applaud you, and hold you in high esteem.
May God, give you the strength to measure up to real greatness
Disiarkan surat pembaca bernama Devinder Sharma yang disiarkan di Malaysiakini, 29 Oktober 2003.
An open letter to Dr M
Only a few weeks back, it was a proud moment for me, like millions all over the world, to listen to your blistering and courageous voice at the UN General Assembly. You have time and again demonstrated at international forums your claims for equality, peace and justice.
The world respects you for your uprightness, leadership and statesmanship. You have lived up to that by announcing your unilateral decision to step down after a long stint at the helm of affairs in Malaysia, turning the underdeveloped country into an economic wonderland.
We all know that the transformation you brought about was mainly due to your forthrightness and vision and partly due to your autocratic way of functioning.
At least, I have a strong admiration for political leaders who know what they are doing. And in that respect, I must say that you surprised the political observers by your astuteness and remarkable leadership.
However, there comes a time in the life and tenure of every leader when his greatness is measured not by the number of years that he has been the undisputed leader of his people but by his sheer humility and ability to pardon his political opponents.
Even Lord Krishna says in Gita, the holy book of the Hindus, that he who is humble, he who tries to overlook the fault of others, and he who accepts his own flaws in retrospect, is the greatest.
Such moments come once in a while wherein history gives you a chance to demonstrate your humility, and thereby your greatness and Statesmanship.
I am shocked to learn that your government, maybe through the legal route of the courts, has found Irene Fernandez guilty of maliciously publishing false news in exposing the conditions in immigration detention camps in August 1995.
What is equally more shocking is that this episode was considered so serious that your courts have pronounced a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment. The unfortunate verdict shows clearly how your government uses institutions to cover up its wrong doings, violations of rights and accountability to the people.
Lord Krishna would have surely hung his head in shame to learn that an activist can be sentenced to 12 months imprisonment. I am sure Prophet Muhammad would be dismayed to learn that the great Mahathir Mohamad didn't even think twice before putting a social activist behind bars.
You can't stoop so low, Mr Prime Minister. Don't forget you too have to answer your God. You have a chance to correct your own faulty governance, and as Lord Krishna said, it is your greatness if you accept your flaws and try to rectify them.
You have a one in a million chance to restore the credibility of your judiciary, thereby going down in history as the one who acknowledged the mistakes.
We have seen innumerable leaders who stay long in power but who, because of their arrogance, do not earn their rightful place in history. On the other hand, there are leaders, who even without being in power, are revered and worshiped.
One such leader comes from India. Mohandas K Gandhi became a Mahatma for his courage to represent the people and fight for the rights of the masses. He died for justice and peace. I am sure you will agree that the world will continue to regard him for what he stood for, what he fought for and what he died for.
Dr M, you too can hope to find a respectable place for yourself in history. Better late than never, they say.
The right opportunity is just in front of you. Demonstrate your greatness for once by setting aside the sentence (on Fernandez) and I can assure you the world will applaud you, and hold you in high esteem.
May God, give you the strength to measure up to real greatness
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
Proton melebarkan sayap
Utusan Malaysia dan AFP melaporkan Proton telah menandatangani surat hasrat untuk memiliki 50% ekuiti MZ Agusta, pembuat motorsikal berjenama Cagiva, Husqvarna dan MV Augusta. Adakah ini satu strategi pempelbagaian yang diambil oleh pengurusan Proton untuk menghadapi dunia automotif yang semakin kompetitif? Usaha yang patut dipuji, namun tunggu dan lihat apakah langkah seterusnya.
Klik untuk laman web rasmi MZ Agusta
Utusan Malaysia dan AFP melaporkan Proton telah menandatangani surat hasrat untuk memiliki 50% ekuiti MZ Agusta, pembuat motorsikal berjenama Cagiva, Husqvarna dan MV Augusta. Adakah ini satu strategi pempelbagaian yang diambil oleh pengurusan Proton untuk menghadapi dunia automotif yang semakin kompetitif? Usaha yang patut dipuji, namun tunggu dan lihat apakah langkah seterusnya.
Klik untuk laman web rasmi MZ Agusta
3 hari terakhir bersama Dr. Mahathir
Mahathir milestones
Major milestones in the life of Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who retires Friday after 22 years as Malaysia's prime minister:
1925: Born on Dec 20, the youngest of 10 children of an immigrant schoolteacher father of Indian descent and a Malay mother.
1953: Graduates as a medical doctor at the King Edward VII College of Medicine in Singapore and returns to the then-British colony of Malaya to work as a government medical officer before going into private practice.
1964: Enters politics (Malaysia gained independence in 1957) as a member of parliament for the United Malays National Organisation (Umno).
1969: Expelled from the party after criticising premier Tunku Abdul Rahman for failing to stand up for ethnic Malays in the face of economic dominance by the ethnic Chinese minority.
1970: Writes "The Malay Dilemma", criticising Malays for failing to progress.
1972: Rejoins Umno after being rehabilitated when Tunku resigns.
1974: Elected as member of parliament again and begins rapid rise through the ranks, holding several ministerial posts.
1978: Becomes deputy president of Umno.
1981: Takes over as Malaysia's fourth prime minister.
1982: Introduces the "Look East" policy, turning to Japan as an economic role model.
1985: Malaysia sinks into recession. Mahathir imposes fiscal austerity measures and relaxes affirmative-action laws favouring Malays.
1986: Mahathir's first deputy Musa Hitam resigns due to personal conflict.
1987: Mahathir narrowly fends off a challenge for Umno presidency in April from his then-trade minister Razaleigh Hamzah.
1987: Government swoops on the opposition in October, detaining more than 100 people and suspending three newspapers, to curb a rise in racial tension over the issue of Chinese education.
1988: Cracks down on the judiciary after the high court supports a petition by his opponents within Umno. The country's top judge is sacked.
1989: Mahathir undergoes heart bypass operation.
1991: Outlines his "Vision 2020" plan to make Malaysia a developed nation by that year.
1993: Strips the country's monarchs of their legal immunity from prosecution after a state sultan allegedly beat up a field hockey coach in his palace.
1994: Slaps a seven-month ban on awarding of government contracts to British firms in protest at British media claims that his government was corrupt.
1997: Hosts a summit of Asean leaders. Despite western protests over Burmar's human rights record, he backs Rangoon's entry into Asean to mark the grouping's 30th anniversary.
1998: Imposes capital controls and pegs the ringgit at 3.80 to the dollar as the economy plunges into recession due to the Asian financial crisis.
1998: Sacks his deputy and finance minister Anwar Ibrahim on grounds of sexual immorality. Anwar was later tried and sentenced to a total 15 years in jail for abuse of power and sodomy.
2002: Announces his unexpected resignation in an emotional speech at Umno's general assembly in June. He later makes plans to step down by October 2003, and endorses his deputy Abdullah Ahmad Badawi as his successor.
2003: Hosts summits of the Non-Aligned Movement in February and the Organisation of Islamic Conference in October ahead of his retirement. - AFP
Never mind the talk, Mahathir's legacy is Muslim democracy
Malaysia's leader has succeeded with a difficult balancing act, write Peter van Onselen and Wayne Errington.
Mahathir Mohamad is retiring as Prime Minister of Malaysia. Retiring, not fleeing in disgrace, not moving to Saudi Arabia to hide from international law, not avoiding a looming corruption scandal, not forced out by street protests, and not facing a firing squad.
As leadership changes in developing nations go, the hand-over to Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is as good as it gets. Mahathir is not seeking immunity from prosecution from his successor, will not be waging a guerilla war against the forces of liberation, and uncertainty about Malaysia's future has not upset the financial markets.
We can, unfortunately however, look forward to hearing him continue to speak out on international affairs, including the many apparent shortcomings of Australia and its leaders. Nevertheless despite his race-baiting, we should listen.
Unfashionable as it may be to say, Mahathir has been the greatest leader of any developing country since the postwar independence movement began. In truth, he doesn't have a lot of competition, given the rogues' gallery of genocidal dictators that has populated the Third World in that time. All the more reason to pause and reflect upon the good, with the bad, in Mahathir.
Malaysia is on track to become a prosperous, multicultural democracy. In the Islamic world, in particular, this is an unheard-of trifecta. Elsewhere in South-East Asia we see poverty, civil war and dictatorship. Malaysia's is a mighty achievement of peaceful economic and social development in a volatile region.
In spite of the Asian financial crisis, during which Mahathir alienated polite opinion by rejecting the advice of the IMF, Malaysia's economy is in reasonable shape. It has been a remarkable transformation.
In their divide and rule style, the British colonists left a poisonous legacy of racial division in Malaysia. The majority Malays ran the bureaucracy and the Chinese were dominant in commerce and mining, while Indian immigrants provided the labour on rubber plantations. The early years of independence were marked by ethnic tension, culminating in riots after the 1969 federal elections.
Contrary to the accepted view in Western societies, Mahathir has sought to overcome this division by dealing head-on with the differences between ethnic groups. His 1969 book, The Malay Dilemma, castigated his fellow Malays for their poor work habits in comparison with the industrious Chinese minority.
As Prime Minister he continued to lecture his fellow Muslims, while giving them a leg-up with a program of preferential educational and employment opportunities.
There was more than an echo of this approach to development in Mahathir's much castigated but little-read speech to the Organisation of the Islamic Conference this month.
In between the disgraceful anti-Semitic rhetoric came a passionate call for a modernising Islam, a peaceful civilisation that respects the pursuit of knowledge, trade and technology. The path of modernisation, he argued, would be much more successful in guaranteeing the security of the Muslim world than resorting to violence.
Of course, with Mahathir still far from impressed with the diligence of his fellow Malays after 30 years of his haranguing, we shouldn't expect miracles in response to the goading of his fellow Islamic rulers. But Mahathir has been the model of a moderate Islamic leader, wrestling with the forces of Western-dominated globalisation on one side, and the cave-dwelling bin Laden wannabes on the other.
This balancing act is an enormously difficult task for a political leader. Mahathir's anti-Western and anti-Semitic tirades are aimed at building a sense of nationalism in an ethnically diverse state. Malaysians are proud hosts of the world's tallest buildings and revelled in the spotlight of the Commonwealth Games. In the minds of voters, Mahathir's nationalism compensates for his less popular policies, such as his criticism of theocratic politics and the ethnic Chinese resentment of racial preferences.
The path of Islamic modernisation is a balancing act that Western nations should encourage. The only alternative is to continue to cultivate pro-Western regimes that don't rely on popular support. That is a short-term solution. All dictators fall on their sword eventually, and the result is usually more turmoil rather than less.
This is a lesson that we should have learnt after the collapse of the Soeharto regime in Indonesia, and again when the pro-Western Saudi Arabia and Egypt produced the bulk of the September 11 terrorists. Moderate Muslim governments, not Western belligerence, will win the war on terrorism.
The prickly relationship that all contemporary Australian prime ministers have endured with Mahathir is curious in light of the 30-year lovefest our leaders enjoyed with Soeharto. He was responsible for the deaths of as many as a million Indonesians and left a legacy of militarism, social division and an economy in smoking ruins. And we wonder why Indonesia's President Megawati Soekarnoputri continually snubs Australia - our once friend Soeharto deposed her father in a coup. Such is the morality of international affairs that our leaders threw barbs at Mahathir while toasting Soeharto.
Putting aside the shocking treatment of Anwar Ibrahim, the Malaysian Government's treatment of its opposition is positively respectful in comparison with its neighbours where torture, exile, repression and civil war have been the norm. Opposition parties do win elections in some states. And it's not a pretty sight. PAS, the Islamic party, is held back from implementing a brutal form of sharia law in the states it controls, Kelantan and Terengganu, by only the strictures of the federal constitution.
Condemn his racist words, by all means, but remember that Mahathir's Malaysia is the most successful model of a modern Muslim nation that the world has to offer.
Peter van Onselen teaches in the Master of International Relations at UNSW.
Wayne Errington recently completed a PhD on South-East Asian
Mahathir milestones
Major milestones in the life of Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who retires Friday after 22 years as Malaysia's prime minister:
1925: Born on Dec 20, the youngest of 10 children of an immigrant schoolteacher father of Indian descent and a Malay mother.
1953: Graduates as a medical doctor at the King Edward VII College of Medicine in Singapore and returns to the then-British colony of Malaya to work as a government medical officer before going into private practice.
1964: Enters politics (Malaysia gained independence in 1957) as a member of parliament for the United Malays National Organisation (Umno).
1969: Expelled from the party after criticising premier Tunku Abdul Rahman for failing to stand up for ethnic Malays in the face of economic dominance by the ethnic Chinese minority.
1970: Writes "The Malay Dilemma", criticising Malays for failing to progress.
1972: Rejoins Umno after being rehabilitated when Tunku resigns.
1974: Elected as member of parliament again and begins rapid rise through the ranks, holding several ministerial posts.
1978: Becomes deputy president of Umno.
1981: Takes over as Malaysia's fourth prime minister.
1982: Introduces the "Look East" policy, turning to Japan as an economic role model.
1985: Malaysia sinks into recession. Mahathir imposes fiscal austerity measures and relaxes affirmative-action laws favouring Malays.
1986: Mahathir's first deputy Musa Hitam resigns due to personal conflict.
1987: Mahathir narrowly fends off a challenge for Umno presidency in April from his then-trade minister Razaleigh Hamzah.
1987: Government swoops on the opposition in October, detaining more than 100 people and suspending three newspapers, to curb a rise in racial tension over the issue of Chinese education.
1988: Cracks down on the judiciary after the high court supports a petition by his opponents within Umno. The country's top judge is sacked.
1989: Mahathir undergoes heart bypass operation.
1991: Outlines his "Vision 2020" plan to make Malaysia a developed nation by that year.
1993: Strips the country's monarchs of their legal immunity from prosecution after a state sultan allegedly beat up a field hockey coach in his palace.
1994: Slaps a seven-month ban on awarding of government contracts to British firms in protest at British media claims that his government was corrupt.
1997: Hosts a summit of Asean leaders. Despite western protests over Burmar's human rights record, he backs Rangoon's entry into Asean to mark the grouping's 30th anniversary.
1998: Imposes capital controls and pegs the ringgit at 3.80 to the dollar as the economy plunges into recession due to the Asian financial crisis.
1998: Sacks his deputy and finance minister Anwar Ibrahim on grounds of sexual immorality. Anwar was later tried and sentenced to a total 15 years in jail for abuse of power and sodomy.
2002: Announces his unexpected resignation in an emotional speech at Umno's general assembly in June. He later makes plans to step down by October 2003, and endorses his deputy Abdullah Ahmad Badawi as his successor.
2003: Hosts summits of the Non-Aligned Movement in February and the Organisation of Islamic Conference in October ahead of his retirement. - AFP
Never mind the talk, Mahathir's legacy is Muslim democracy
Malaysia's leader has succeeded with a difficult balancing act, write Peter van Onselen and Wayne Errington.
Mahathir Mohamad is retiring as Prime Minister of Malaysia. Retiring, not fleeing in disgrace, not moving to Saudi Arabia to hide from international law, not avoiding a looming corruption scandal, not forced out by street protests, and not facing a firing squad.
As leadership changes in developing nations go, the hand-over to Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is as good as it gets. Mahathir is not seeking immunity from prosecution from his successor, will not be waging a guerilla war against the forces of liberation, and uncertainty about Malaysia's future has not upset the financial markets.
We can, unfortunately however, look forward to hearing him continue to speak out on international affairs, including the many apparent shortcomings of Australia and its leaders. Nevertheless despite his race-baiting, we should listen.
Unfashionable as it may be to say, Mahathir has been the greatest leader of any developing country since the postwar independence movement began. In truth, he doesn't have a lot of competition, given the rogues' gallery of genocidal dictators that has populated the Third World in that time. All the more reason to pause and reflect upon the good, with the bad, in Mahathir.
Malaysia is on track to become a prosperous, multicultural democracy. In the Islamic world, in particular, this is an unheard-of trifecta. Elsewhere in South-East Asia we see poverty, civil war and dictatorship. Malaysia's is a mighty achievement of peaceful economic and social development in a volatile region.
In spite of the Asian financial crisis, during which Mahathir alienated polite opinion by rejecting the advice of the IMF, Malaysia's economy is in reasonable shape. It has been a remarkable transformation.
In their divide and rule style, the British colonists left a poisonous legacy of racial division in Malaysia. The majority Malays ran the bureaucracy and the Chinese were dominant in commerce and mining, while Indian immigrants provided the labour on rubber plantations. The early years of independence were marked by ethnic tension, culminating in riots after the 1969 federal elections.
Contrary to the accepted view in Western societies, Mahathir has sought to overcome this division by dealing head-on with the differences between ethnic groups. His 1969 book, The Malay Dilemma, castigated his fellow Malays for their poor work habits in comparison with the industrious Chinese minority.
As Prime Minister he continued to lecture his fellow Muslims, while giving them a leg-up with a program of preferential educational and employment opportunities.
There was more than an echo of this approach to development in Mahathir's much castigated but little-read speech to the Organisation of the Islamic Conference this month.
In between the disgraceful anti-Semitic rhetoric came a passionate call for a modernising Islam, a peaceful civilisation that respects the pursuit of knowledge, trade and technology. The path of modernisation, he argued, would be much more successful in guaranteeing the security of the Muslim world than resorting to violence.
Of course, with Mahathir still far from impressed with the diligence of his fellow Malays after 30 years of his haranguing, we shouldn't expect miracles in response to the goading of his fellow Islamic rulers. But Mahathir has been the model of a moderate Islamic leader, wrestling with the forces of Western-dominated globalisation on one side, and the cave-dwelling bin Laden wannabes on the other.
This balancing act is an enormously difficult task for a political leader. Mahathir's anti-Western and anti-Semitic tirades are aimed at building a sense of nationalism in an ethnically diverse state. Malaysians are proud hosts of the world's tallest buildings and revelled in the spotlight of the Commonwealth Games. In the minds of voters, Mahathir's nationalism compensates for his less popular policies, such as his criticism of theocratic politics and the ethnic Chinese resentment of racial preferences.
The path of Islamic modernisation is a balancing act that Western nations should encourage. The only alternative is to continue to cultivate pro-Western regimes that don't rely on popular support. That is a short-term solution. All dictators fall on their sword eventually, and the result is usually more turmoil rather than less.
This is a lesson that we should have learnt after the collapse of the Soeharto regime in Indonesia, and again when the pro-Western Saudi Arabia and Egypt produced the bulk of the September 11 terrorists. Moderate Muslim governments, not Western belligerence, will win the war on terrorism.
The prickly relationship that all contemporary Australian prime ministers have endured with Mahathir is curious in light of the 30-year lovefest our leaders enjoyed with Soeharto. He was responsible for the deaths of as many as a million Indonesians and left a legacy of militarism, social division and an economy in smoking ruins. And we wonder why Indonesia's President Megawati Soekarnoputri continually snubs Australia - our once friend Soeharto deposed her father in a coup. Such is the morality of international affairs that our leaders threw barbs at Mahathir while toasting Soeharto.
Putting aside the shocking treatment of Anwar Ibrahim, the Malaysian Government's treatment of its opposition is positively respectful in comparison with its neighbours where torture, exile, repression and civil war have been the norm. Opposition parties do win elections in some states. And it's not a pretty sight. PAS, the Islamic party, is held back from implementing a brutal form of sharia law in the states it controls, Kelantan and Terengganu, by only the strictures of the federal constitution.
Condemn his racist words, by all means, but remember that Mahathir's Malaysia is the most successful model of a modern Muslim nation that the world has to offer.
Peter van Onselen teaches in the Master of International Relations at UNSW.
Wayne Errington recently completed a PhD on South-East Asian
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
4 hari terakhir bersama Dr. Mahathir
Klik di sini untuk artikel oleh Simon Elegant di Edisi Internet Majalah Time.
Kepada mereka yang ingin mengetahui dan membaca segala berita terkini mengenai Dr. Mahathir, sila berkunjung ke laman web Mahathir Mohamad.
Klik di sini untuk artikel oleh Simon Elegant di Edisi Internet Majalah Time.
Kepada mereka yang ingin mengetahui dan membaca segala berita terkini mengenai Dr. Mahathir, sila berkunjung ke laman web Mahathir Mohamad.
Monday, October 27, 2003
Komentar Johan Jaaffar di Berita Minggu
Bekas Ketua Pengarang Kumpulan Akhbar Utusan Melayu (M) Berhad ini sudah tidak perlu diperkenalkan lagi. Pandangan yang dikemukakan beliau sewajarnya menjadi bahan perbincangan dan perdebatan khalayak. Sila klik untuk membaca artikel beliau.
Disiarkan pandangan balas saudara Fathi Aris Omar berkenaan tulisan Datuk Johan Jaaffar.
Paradoks Kuala Lumpur!
Jeritan seorang budayawan, waktu-waktu tertentu, mungkin mudah diperkecilkan. Seperti kritik C. P. Snow dalam The Two Cultures (1959) dan kelompok sarjana bersama F. A. Hayek dalam Capitalism and the Historians (1954) terhadap seniman, budayawan atau cendekiawan Barat sendiri.
Seperti juga Goenawan Mohamad tidak suka dianggap “budayawan” jika, katanya, hanya pandai berbicara tentang bermacam-macam perkara yang mereka sendiri tidak tahu.
Namun Johan Jaaffar ketika mengulas kedudukan seni dan masyarakat kita berbicara dengan jujur dan penuh sedar (‘Jangan sampai kesenian bangsa dihina’, Berita Minggu, 26 Oktober). Kebernasan ini sukar lagi disanggah atau dipermain-mainkan, jika kita jujur serta halus mendalami maksudnya.
Dalam tulisan pendek itu, Johan melihat banyak penjuru kelemahan, selain ahli politik, usahawan, kelompok kelas menengah dan juga, tidak lupa, sasterawan dan seniman. Senarai kritikan ini sahaja, jika terus dihurai dan dikembangkan, boleh menjadi sebuah buku tebal.
Dan tanpa ragu-ragu, tulisan bekas wartawan kanan Kumpulan Utusan ini juga menjurus pada dasar pendidikan dan orientasi pembangunan kerajaan kita sendiri – kejujuran seumpama ini sangat sukar kita temui kini pada penulis-penulis kolum di akhbar arus perdana.
“Dalam proses kita menjadi negara maju dan rakyat berminda saintifik, kita perkecil peranan pengajian sastera. Pada akhirnya sastera dipelajari oleh pelajar yang paling lemah dan yang terbaik menjurus pada aliran sains. Sastera hanya untuk manusia yang pengkhayal dan tidak memahami nilai masa dan ringgit,” tulisnya.
“Kita mewujudkan ahli perniagaan, kumpulan profesional, birokrat dan ahli politik yang tidak faham makna sejarah, tidak mengerti seni sastera, tidak menghargai kebudayaan bangsa dan menganggap sastera dan budaya itu untuk orang lalai, keliru dan patah hati.”
Tetapi, dari satu segi, rungutan Johan ini tidaklah ganjil. Ia telah menjadi budaya atau nilai hidup yang dihayati tanpa segan dan silu lagi. Malah, boleh dibangga-banggakan. Justeru kritik Johan dalam kolumnya boleh sahaja berlalu tanpa menimbulkan goncangan kepada birokrat, usahawan, ahli politik dan seniman kita.
Pembaca, khasnya kelompok-kelompok yang dimaksudkan itu, akan tergaru-garu kepala untuk melanjutkan perbahasan ini walhal ia isu besar yang harus diangkat menjadi wacana nasional selama beberapa bulan. Malah, jika kita jujur dan serius, isu seumpama ini layak disusuli dengan kongres kebudayaan kebangsaan.
Atau setidak-tidaknya, tokoh-tokoh masyarakat kita akan turut membahaskan tanggapan Johan ini, mengupasnya dari pelbagai penjuru, tanpa henti-henti. Ibarat Immanuel Kant dan beberapa tokoh lagi menyertai pertandingan esei “Was it Aufklarung?” (Apa itu pencerahan?) dalam majalah Jerman, Berlinische Monatsschrift pada 1784.
Kant waktu itu profesor falsafah tersohor di zamannya tetapi dia tidak malu untuk menghuraikan persoalan yang dianggap terlalu asas, ketika itu Zaman Pencerahan Eropah sudah bergerak 100 tahun sejak berkembang di kepulauan Inggeris.
Benarlah ulas Johan: “ … mereka sebenarnya tidak mempunyai dasar minda yang betul untuk menghayati apa pun.”
Pada hemat saya, rungutan Johan itu hanyalah satu cebisan paradoks Kuala Lumpur – paradoks Bangsar Baru dengan najis gagak dan puntung rokok yang bersepah-sepah, paradoks imej liberal orang muda tetapi tidak banyak membaca, paradoks minum di Bintang Walk dengan asap kereta yang menderu-deru, berpakaian label sejagat tetapi minda kampungan, berkereta mewah tetapi hiasan dalaman di pejabat dan banglonya bunga-bungaan plastik, suka melepak di kafe-kafe di kaki lima KLCC tetapi pandangan dunianya langsung tidak kosmopolitan.
Sesiapa yang berlubuk di kota besar ini akan tersepit di celah-celah manusia dan ruang fizikal yang hilang budaya, akal budi dan seni. “Kita sedang menuju pada krisis kebebalan seni di kalangan rakyat,” tulisnya lagi dalam ruangan ‘Di Luar Lingkaran’.
Dan rakyat yang beliau maksudkan itu bukan di luar bandar atau kelas bawahan di kota tetapi manusia-manusia penting yang turut menentukan keputusan-keputusan asas politik, ekonomi dan seni kita.
Walau begitu, saya kira akan ada pihak atau individu yang tidak memandang positif rungutan ini. Bagi sebilangan orang, ia mungkin satu lagi leteran yang syahdu daripada seorang budayawan Melayu.
Leteran yang berleluasa sejak dekad-dekad lalu tetapi sering diabaikan oleh kumpulan-kumpulan strategik di negara ini. Malah, ia mungkin sahaja dianggap “mengganggu”.
FATHI ARIS OMAR
Bangsar, Kuala Lumpur
Bekas Ketua Pengarang Kumpulan Akhbar Utusan Melayu (M) Berhad ini sudah tidak perlu diperkenalkan lagi. Pandangan yang dikemukakan beliau sewajarnya menjadi bahan perbincangan dan perdebatan khalayak. Sila klik untuk membaca artikel beliau.
Disiarkan pandangan balas saudara Fathi Aris Omar berkenaan tulisan Datuk Johan Jaaffar.
Paradoks Kuala Lumpur!
Jeritan seorang budayawan, waktu-waktu tertentu, mungkin mudah diperkecilkan. Seperti kritik C. P. Snow dalam The Two Cultures (1959) dan kelompok sarjana bersama F. A. Hayek dalam Capitalism and the Historians (1954) terhadap seniman, budayawan atau cendekiawan Barat sendiri.
Seperti juga Goenawan Mohamad tidak suka dianggap “budayawan” jika, katanya, hanya pandai berbicara tentang bermacam-macam perkara yang mereka sendiri tidak tahu.
Namun Johan Jaaffar ketika mengulas kedudukan seni dan masyarakat kita berbicara dengan jujur dan penuh sedar (‘Jangan sampai kesenian bangsa dihina’, Berita Minggu, 26 Oktober). Kebernasan ini sukar lagi disanggah atau dipermain-mainkan, jika kita jujur serta halus mendalami maksudnya.
Dalam tulisan pendek itu, Johan melihat banyak penjuru kelemahan, selain ahli politik, usahawan, kelompok kelas menengah dan juga, tidak lupa, sasterawan dan seniman. Senarai kritikan ini sahaja, jika terus dihurai dan dikembangkan, boleh menjadi sebuah buku tebal.
Dan tanpa ragu-ragu, tulisan bekas wartawan kanan Kumpulan Utusan ini juga menjurus pada dasar pendidikan dan orientasi pembangunan kerajaan kita sendiri – kejujuran seumpama ini sangat sukar kita temui kini pada penulis-penulis kolum di akhbar arus perdana.
“Dalam proses kita menjadi negara maju dan rakyat berminda saintifik, kita perkecil peranan pengajian sastera. Pada akhirnya sastera dipelajari oleh pelajar yang paling lemah dan yang terbaik menjurus pada aliran sains. Sastera hanya untuk manusia yang pengkhayal dan tidak memahami nilai masa dan ringgit,” tulisnya.
“Kita mewujudkan ahli perniagaan, kumpulan profesional, birokrat dan ahli politik yang tidak faham makna sejarah, tidak mengerti seni sastera, tidak menghargai kebudayaan bangsa dan menganggap sastera dan budaya itu untuk orang lalai, keliru dan patah hati.”
Tetapi, dari satu segi, rungutan Johan ini tidaklah ganjil. Ia telah menjadi budaya atau nilai hidup yang dihayati tanpa segan dan silu lagi. Malah, boleh dibangga-banggakan. Justeru kritik Johan dalam kolumnya boleh sahaja berlalu tanpa menimbulkan goncangan kepada birokrat, usahawan, ahli politik dan seniman kita.
Pembaca, khasnya kelompok-kelompok yang dimaksudkan itu, akan tergaru-garu kepala untuk melanjutkan perbahasan ini walhal ia isu besar yang harus diangkat menjadi wacana nasional selama beberapa bulan. Malah, jika kita jujur dan serius, isu seumpama ini layak disusuli dengan kongres kebudayaan kebangsaan.
Atau setidak-tidaknya, tokoh-tokoh masyarakat kita akan turut membahaskan tanggapan Johan ini, mengupasnya dari pelbagai penjuru, tanpa henti-henti. Ibarat Immanuel Kant dan beberapa tokoh lagi menyertai pertandingan esei “Was it Aufklarung?” (Apa itu pencerahan?) dalam majalah Jerman, Berlinische Monatsschrift pada 1784.
Kant waktu itu profesor falsafah tersohor di zamannya tetapi dia tidak malu untuk menghuraikan persoalan yang dianggap terlalu asas, ketika itu Zaman Pencerahan Eropah sudah bergerak 100 tahun sejak berkembang di kepulauan Inggeris.
Benarlah ulas Johan: “ … mereka sebenarnya tidak mempunyai dasar minda yang betul untuk menghayati apa pun.”
Pada hemat saya, rungutan Johan itu hanyalah satu cebisan paradoks Kuala Lumpur – paradoks Bangsar Baru dengan najis gagak dan puntung rokok yang bersepah-sepah, paradoks imej liberal orang muda tetapi tidak banyak membaca, paradoks minum di Bintang Walk dengan asap kereta yang menderu-deru, berpakaian label sejagat tetapi minda kampungan, berkereta mewah tetapi hiasan dalaman di pejabat dan banglonya bunga-bungaan plastik, suka melepak di kafe-kafe di kaki lima KLCC tetapi pandangan dunianya langsung tidak kosmopolitan.
Sesiapa yang berlubuk di kota besar ini akan tersepit di celah-celah manusia dan ruang fizikal yang hilang budaya, akal budi dan seni. “Kita sedang menuju pada krisis kebebalan seni di kalangan rakyat,” tulisnya lagi dalam ruangan ‘Di Luar Lingkaran’.
Dan rakyat yang beliau maksudkan itu bukan di luar bandar atau kelas bawahan di kota tetapi manusia-manusia penting yang turut menentukan keputusan-keputusan asas politik, ekonomi dan seni kita.
Walau begitu, saya kira akan ada pihak atau individu yang tidak memandang positif rungutan ini. Bagi sebilangan orang, ia mungkin satu lagi leteran yang syahdu daripada seorang budayawan Melayu.
Leteran yang berleluasa sejak dekad-dekad lalu tetapi sering diabaikan oleh kumpulan-kumpulan strategik di negara ini. Malah, ia mungkin sahaja dianggap “mengganggu”.
FATHI ARIS OMAR
Bangsar, Kuala Lumpur
5 hari terakhir bersama Dr. Mahathir
Loved and loathed, Mahathir leaves complex legacy
Loved and loathed but rarely ignored, Malaysia's Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad leaves a complex legacy when he retires on Friday.
He is seen by some in the West as a Muslim bigot, but for 22 years he has run a moderate multi-racial, multi-religious country.
Mahathir is a sharp critic of Western capitalism, but has transformed Malaysia from a sleepy tin and rubber exporter into a vibrant manufacturing nation.
'He is unique'
He is accused of being dictatorial, but is stepping down voluntarily with a democratic system, though criticised as flawed, still in place.
Trying to pigeonhole Asia's longest-serving elected leader, even his critics say, is pointless because he is unique.
When Mahathir created his latest international uproar by telling an Islamic summit this month that "Jews rule this world", an Israeli ambassador in the region condemned the rhetoric but admitted to being "confused" by a simultaneous call for an end to Palestinian violence.
Australia has long been a target of the Malaysian leader's invective - he described it recently as "some sort of transplant" in Asia - but Foreign Minister Alexander Downer conceded just a week ago that Mahathir had "done a very good job" with the economy.
Another measure of the West's difficulty in dealing with Mahathir is shown by the sudden drop in the clamour against his human rights record since the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States.
A major criticism had been his use of a security law allowing indefinite detention without trial, but with alleged Muslim militants now the main targets and the US and other Western countries beefing up their own security laws, the objections have become muted.
Sense of humour
In person, the 77-year-old Mahathir's mild demeanour is spiced with a sharp sense of humour and an ability to shrug off the brickbats thrown at him.
"People say I am a dictator, but they can say what they like," he told AFP in a recent interview. "I would like one day for people to stand outside the cabinet room, to hear the laughter and the jokes.
"We are very relaxed with each other, we are friends. It's a team that is very representative of every race, culture and religion. We have Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Taoists... everybody is there and we have to reach agreement among ourselves."
He said he believed his greatest achievement had been maintaining racial harmony in a country made up of about 65 percent Malays and other indigenous people and large Chinese and Indian minorities.
His greatest failure, he said, "is that I still cannot get the indigenous people, the Malays in particular, to understand the workings of a free market economy and what they must do about it."
Race, clearly, is central to Mahathir's vision of the world, and one of the reasons people are so often shocked by him is that he speaks bluntly about his racial perceptions.
In June, he accused the "European race", including Americans and Australians, of warmongering, indiscriminate attacks on Muslims, greed and sexual deviancy.
At the same time, he said: "They are very clever, brave and have an insatiable curiosity".
Even his widely condemned remarks about Jews contained admiration. They "survived 2000 years of pogroms not by hitting back, but by thinking", he said, calling on Muslims to emulate them.
Calls Malays lazy
His victims abroad often forget that he doesn't spare his own Malay people - whom he calls lazy - or Muslims generally, who he says should match their religious piety with studies of science and mathematics so they can catch up with the West.
Endlessly energetic himself - he has been the driving force behind the creation of a new administrative capital and a high-tech industrial city while still finding time to invent an Islamic toilet - he constantly exhorted his countrymen to push themselves to the limit.
"Only a race that is brave enough to face and overcome challenges will become successful," he said recently when congratulating the first Malaysian to swim the English Channel.
He ensured that a deal this year to buy fighter jets from Russia included a trip into space for a Malaysian, and the search is now on for the country's first cosmonaut.
Born on December 20, 1925, the youngest of 10 children of an immigrant schoolteacher father of Indian descent and a Malay mother, Mahathir trained and practiced as a doctor before going into politics in 1964.
He was expelled from the ruling United Malays National Organisation -- for criticising the prime minister -- but after his rehabilitation began a rapid rise through the ranks.
Mahathir became prime minister in July 1981 -- when Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were newcomers to power in the United States and Britain.
Thatcher, dubbed the "Iron Lady" during the Cold War, once said of Mahathir: "We both believe in speaking our minds. It's just as well he is a man, for he'd have been lethal with a handbag."
Asked whether he agreed with this assessment, Mahathir replied: "I think, in a way, what she says is right. We don't think in terms of being popular all the time. I think that is what leadership is all about."
Putting that philosophy into practice earned him a reputation as an international maverick.
Faced by one of the biggest crises of his tenure, the Asian financial collapse of 1997-98, he did the opposite of what the International Monetary Fund and mainstream economists advised, imposing capital controls and pegging the currency to the US dollar.
This year, the IMF acknowledged that he had been right and his country had taken a shallower dive and staged a quicker recovery than others in the region.
Anwar Ibrahim
But Mahathir's record will be blemished for many by his action around the same time against his then deputy, Anwar Ibrahim, who was sacked then jailed for 15 years on charges of sodomy and corruption.
Anwar, who says the action was taken to prevent him from mounting a political challenge, is still listed by the United States and human rights groups as a political prisoner.
Critics say the confrontational premier has bent independent national institutions such as the judiciary to his iron will, stifled dissent and severely limited press freedom.
But for many leaders in Southeast Asia, his successes eclipse his faults.
Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri had to choke back the tears as she bade him farewell at a recent summit, saying: "The mark of his statesmanship has been implanted deep in our consciousness. The reach of his mind is so far and wide."
That mind, he told AFP, would be put to use during his retirement to write his memoirs -- which could well take their title from what is reportedly his favourite song "I did it my way."
While he says he will play no role in government, he had a warning for the world at a news conference in which he defended his criticism of the Jewish people.
He said he would "even be more irresponsible after I have stepped down".
"But probably not being the prime minister, people won't take notice of what I say, so I'll be more free to say nasty things."
It is the first part of that statement that many in the West are looking forward to. A top aide to US President George W Bush said wryly amidst the row: "We wish him a happy retirement." - AFP
Loved and loathed, Mahathir leaves complex legacy
Loved and loathed but rarely ignored, Malaysia's Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad leaves a complex legacy when he retires on Friday.
He is seen by some in the West as a Muslim bigot, but for 22 years he has run a moderate multi-racial, multi-religious country.
Mahathir is a sharp critic of Western capitalism, but has transformed Malaysia from a sleepy tin and rubber exporter into a vibrant manufacturing nation.
'He is unique'
He is accused of being dictatorial, but is stepping down voluntarily with a democratic system, though criticised as flawed, still in place.
Trying to pigeonhole Asia's longest-serving elected leader, even his critics say, is pointless because he is unique.
When Mahathir created his latest international uproar by telling an Islamic summit this month that "Jews rule this world", an Israeli ambassador in the region condemned the rhetoric but admitted to being "confused" by a simultaneous call for an end to Palestinian violence.
Australia has long been a target of the Malaysian leader's invective - he described it recently as "some sort of transplant" in Asia - but Foreign Minister Alexander Downer conceded just a week ago that Mahathir had "done a very good job" with the economy.
Another measure of the West's difficulty in dealing with Mahathir is shown by the sudden drop in the clamour against his human rights record since the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States.
A major criticism had been his use of a security law allowing indefinite detention without trial, but with alleged Muslim militants now the main targets and the US and other Western countries beefing up their own security laws, the objections have become muted.
Sense of humour
In person, the 77-year-old Mahathir's mild demeanour is spiced with a sharp sense of humour and an ability to shrug off the brickbats thrown at him.
"People say I am a dictator, but they can say what they like," he told AFP in a recent interview. "I would like one day for people to stand outside the cabinet room, to hear the laughter and the jokes.
"We are very relaxed with each other, we are friends. It's a team that is very representative of every race, culture and religion. We have Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Taoists... everybody is there and we have to reach agreement among ourselves."
He said he believed his greatest achievement had been maintaining racial harmony in a country made up of about 65 percent Malays and other indigenous people and large Chinese and Indian minorities.
His greatest failure, he said, "is that I still cannot get the indigenous people, the Malays in particular, to understand the workings of a free market economy and what they must do about it."
Race, clearly, is central to Mahathir's vision of the world, and one of the reasons people are so often shocked by him is that he speaks bluntly about his racial perceptions.
In June, he accused the "European race", including Americans and Australians, of warmongering, indiscriminate attacks on Muslims, greed and sexual deviancy.
At the same time, he said: "They are very clever, brave and have an insatiable curiosity".
Even his widely condemned remarks about Jews contained admiration. They "survived 2000 years of pogroms not by hitting back, but by thinking", he said, calling on Muslims to emulate them.
Calls Malays lazy
His victims abroad often forget that he doesn't spare his own Malay people - whom he calls lazy - or Muslims generally, who he says should match their religious piety with studies of science and mathematics so they can catch up with the West.
Endlessly energetic himself - he has been the driving force behind the creation of a new administrative capital and a high-tech industrial city while still finding time to invent an Islamic toilet - he constantly exhorted his countrymen to push themselves to the limit.
"Only a race that is brave enough to face and overcome challenges will become successful," he said recently when congratulating the first Malaysian to swim the English Channel.
He ensured that a deal this year to buy fighter jets from Russia included a trip into space for a Malaysian, and the search is now on for the country's first cosmonaut.
Born on December 20, 1925, the youngest of 10 children of an immigrant schoolteacher father of Indian descent and a Malay mother, Mahathir trained and practiced as a doctor before going into politics in 1964.
He was expelled from the ruling United Malays National Organisation -- for criticising the prime minister -- but after his rehabilitation began a rapid rise through the ranks.
Mahathir became prime minister in July 1981 -- when Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were newcomers to power in the United States and Britain.
Thatcher, dubbed the "Iron Lady" during the Cold War, once said of Mahathir: "We both believe in speaking our minds. It's just as well he is a man, for he'd have been lethal with a handbag."
Asked whether he agreed with this assessment, Mahathir replied: "I think, in a way, what she says is right. We don't think in terms of being popular all the time. I think that is what leadership is all about."
Putting that philosophy into practice earned him a reputation as an international maverick.
Faced by one of the biggest crises of his tenure, the Asian financial collapse of 1997-98, he did the opposite of what the International Monetary Fund and mainstream economists advised, imposing capital controls and pegging the currency to the US dollar.
This year, the IMF acknowledged that he had been right and his country had taken a shallower dive and staged a quicker recovery than others in the region.
Anwar Ibrahim
But Mahathir's record will be blemished for many by his action around the same time against his then deputy, Anwar Ibrahim, who was sacked then jailed for 15 years on charges of sodomy and corruption.
Anwar, who says the action was taken to prevent him from mounting a political challenge, is still listed by the United States and human rights groups as a political prisoner.
Critics say the confrontational premier has bent independent national institutions such as the judiciary to his iron will, stifled dissent and severely limited press freedom.
But for many leaders in Southeast Asia, his successes eclipse his faults.
Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri had to choke back the tears as she bade him farewell at a recent summit, saying: "The mark of his statesmanship has been implanted deep in our consciousness. The reach of his mind is so far and wide."
That mind, he told AFP, would be put to use during his retirement to write his memoirs -- which could well take their title from what is reportedly his favourite song "I did it my way."
While he says he will play no role in government, he had a warning for the world at a news conference in which he defended his criticism of the Jewish people.
He said he would "even be more irresponsible after I have stepped down".
"But probably not being the prime minister, people won't take notice of what I say, so I'll be more free to say nasty things."
It is the first part of that statement that many in the West are looking forward to. A top aide to US President George W Bush said wryly amidst the row: "We wish him a happy retirement." - AFP
Sunday, October 26, 2003
6 hari terakhir bersama Dr. Mahathir
Terasa cepat benar tarikh keramat pemergian Dr. M menghampiri kita. Pemergian beliau dari jawatan maha penting itu adalah sesuatu yang sukar untuk dijangkakan sebelum ini. Sememangnya Dr. M adalah seorang tokoh yang penuh dengan kejutan dan kontroversi.
Secara peribadi aku amat mengagumi beberapa pandangan dan sikap Dr. M tentang isu global dan Melayu/Islam yang dikira agak progresif dan berani. Salah satunya yang masih segar dalam ingatan adalah tatkala beliau menyeru umat Islam menggunakan akal jika mahu perjuangan Islam berjaya semasa menyampaikan ucapan di Persidangan OIC baru-baru ini.
Aku amat selari dengan beliau kerana mengikut logik dan fikiran rasional, umat Islam dan agamanya akan dipandang sebagai agama yang tidak toleran dan ganas jika pendekatan yang diguna pakai oleh segelintir umat Islam tidak dihalang.
Kuasa akal adalah asas kepada kejayaan dan kemajuan sesuatu bangsa, agama dan tamadun. Pencarian ilmu sains dan teknologi oleh umat Islam adalah suatu jihad yang sangat penting di zaman ini bagi membolehkan umat Islam menjadi peneraju di dalam segala bidang. Tidak dapat dinafikan umat Islam di kala ini adalah sama seperti umat Kristian di dalam zaman gelap.
Namun ucapan berulang kali Dr. M yang menuduh parti PAS sebagai mengharamkan umat Islam untuk mempelajari ilmu selain ilmu agama adalah di antara tuduhan membabi buta dan bersifat dangkal.
Masih jelas di ingatan ketika aku menghadiri Kongres Pendidikan Melayu beberapa tahun lalu, Dr. M menuduh sebegini di hadapan para peserta dan beberapa peserta di sebelah dan juga aku mengeluh agak kuat sehingga didengari sebilangan peserta yang berdekatan, yang aku sangat pasti golongan ini adalah wakil UMNO bahagian atau cawangan yang terpaksa hadir untuk memenuhkan dewan.
Pendekatan sains dan teknologi yang disarankan dan diguna pakai oleh PAS amat jelas adalah berpaksikan kaedah Islam. Sama ada ia adalah pendekatan yang terbaik dan dapat memberi hasil yang terbanyak, itu perlu diperbincangkan oleh golongan yang pakar secara jujur.
Apa yang ditakuti adalah dengan mendiskriminasikan ilmu agama di dalam usaha untuk melahirkan saintis dan teknokrat di kalangan umat Islam, sebilangan umat Islam yang kecewa akan menganggap dan mentafsir ianya sebagai usaha untuk merendah-rendahkan agama Islam yang secara langsung dan tidak langsung akan mengakibatkan tindakan tidak rasional dan seterusnya memburukkan pertelingkahan dua golongan yang bermasalah ini.
Apa yang amat penting, janganlah kerana politik segala macam perkara-perkara yang sangat penting untuk survival umat Islam dan juga semua makhluk di muka bumi ini dipolitikkan ke tahap yang bobrok sekali. Tolonglah UMNO dan PAS!
Terasa cepat benar tarikh keramat pemergian Dr. M menghampiri kita. Pemergian beliau dari jawatan maha penting itu adalah sesuatu yang sukar untuk dijangkakan sebelum ini. Sememangnya Dr. M adalah seorang tokoh yang penuh dengan kejutan dan kontroversi.
Secara peribadi aku amat mengagumi beberapa pandangan dan sikap Dr. M tentang isu global dan Melayu/Islam yang dikira agak progresif dan berani. Salah satunya yang masih segar dalam ingatan adalah tatkala beliau menyeru umat Islam menggunakan akal jika mahu perjuangan Islam berjaya semasa menyampaikan ucapan di Persidangan OIC baru-baru ini.
Aku amat selari dengan beliau kerana mengikut logik dan fikiran rasional, umat Islam dan agamanya akan dipandang sebagai agama yang tidak toleran dan ganas jika pendekatan yang diguna pakai oleh segelintir umat Islam tidak dihalang.
Kuasa akal adalah asas kepada kejayaan dan kemajuan sesuatu bangsa, agama dan tamadun. Pencarian ilmu sains dan teknologi oleh umat Islam adalah suatu jihad yang sangat penting di zaman ini bagi membolehkan umat Islam menjadi peneraju di dalam segala bidang. Tidak dapat dinafikan umat Islam di kala ini adalah sama seperti umat Kristian di dalam zaman gelap.
Namun ucapan berulang kali Dr. M yang menuduh parti PAS sebagai mengharamkan umat Islam untuk mempelajari ilmu selain ilmu agama adalah di antara tuduhan membabi buta dan bersifat dangkal.
Masih jelas di ingatan ketika aku menghadiri Kongres Pendidikan Melayu beberapa tahun lalu, Dr. M menuduh sebegini di hadapan para peserta dan beberapa peserta di sebelah dan juga aku mengeluh agak kuat sehingga didengari sebilangan peserta yang berdekatan, yang aku sangat pasti golongan ini adalah wakil UMNO bahagian atau cawangan yang terpaksa hadir untuk memenuhkan dewan.
Pendekatan sains dan teknologi yang disarankan dan diguna pakai oleh PAS amat jelas adalah berpaksikan kaedah Islam. Sama ada ia adalah pendekatan yang terbaik dan dapat memberi hasil yang terbanyak, itu perlu diperbincangkan oleh golongan yang pakar secara jujur.
Apa yang ditakuti adalah dengan mendiskriminasikan ilmu agama di dalam usaha untuk melahirkan saintis dan teknokrat di kalangan umat Islam, sebilangan umat Islam yang kecewa akan menganggap dan mentafsir ianya sebagai usaha untuk merendah-rendahkan agama Islam yang secara langsung dan tidak langsung akan mengakibatkan tindakan tidak rasional dan seterusnya memburukkan pertelingkahan dua golongan yang bermasalah ini.
Apa yang amat penting, janganlah kerana politik segala macam perkara-perkara yang sangat penting untuk survival umat Islam dan juga semua makhluk di muka bumi ini dipolitikkan ke tahap yang bobrok sekali. Tolonglah UMNO dan PAS!
Saturday, October 25, 2003
7 hari terakhir bersama Dr. Mahathir
Disiarkan surat pembaca bernama The Don yang disiarkan di Malaysiakini, 23 Oktober 2003
Mahathir is having the last laugh
The piece by James Harding and Amy Kazmin in the Financial Times on Oct 20, 2003 under the caption that Mahathir Mohamad's ‘call for new trade agenda irks US’ is both one-sided and an insult to the concept of speech freedom that the Western world always keeps harping on about.
It is the right of any country to call for a promotion of any ideas or concept in the international arena. Mahathir is merely doing that in the interest of the smaller nation. If the big powers such as US and EU do not agree with him, then they can outline their rebuttal and in a fair and professional manner, rather than criticising the man for saying otherwise.
This has always been the trademark of Western powers and journalists. Is Mahathir such a big influence in the world arena that the world is scared of his opinion. Is free speech the exclusive domain of the Western powers only?
The comment by James Harding that George W Bush later pulled Mahathir aside is an insult to the standing of a elected official of a sovereign nation. Mahathir is not under the payroll of the US for Bush to pull him aside. That is absolutely ridiculous. Mahathir's comments about Jews ruling the world was made to a captive audience to whip up a patriotic movement. The world should ignore it if it did not mean anything.
Judging from the world reaction, I really believe that Mahathir is having the best and last laugh on this matter.
Disiarkan surat pembaca bernama The Don yang disiarkan di Malaysiakini, 23 Oktober 2003
Mahathir is having the last laugh
The piece by James Harding and Amy Kazmin in the Financial Times on Oct 20, 2003 under the caption that Mahathir Mohamad's ‘call for new trade agenda irks US’ is both one-sided and an insult to the concept of speech freedom that the Western world always keeps harping on about.
It is the right of any country to call for a promotion of any ideas or concept in the international arena. Mahathir is merely doing that in the interest of the smaller nation. If the big powers such as US and EU do not agree with him, then they can outline their rebuttal and in a fair and professional manner, rather than criticising the man for saying otherwise.
This has always been the trademark of Western powers and journalists. Is Mahathir such a big influence in the world arena that the world is scared of his opinion. Is free speech the exclusive domain of the Western powers only?
The comment by James Harding that George W Bush later pulled Mahathir aside is an insult to the standing of a elected official of a sovereign nation. Mahathir is not under the payroll of the US for Bush to pull him aside. That is absolutely ridiculous. Mahathir's comments about Jews ruling the world was made to a captive audience to whip up a patriotic movement. The world should ignore it if it did not mean anything.
Judging from the world reaction, I really believe that Mahathir is having the best and last laugh on this matter.
A MALAYSIAN ROJAK
by Amir Muhammad
Rojak, a type of spicy salad, is a popular Malaysian dish that consists of seemingly incongruous elements. Although sometimes use as a term of racist abuse for someone of mixed parentage, it's more often celebrated as a symbol of the multicultural heritage and reality of Malaysia.
The tourist ads will tell you that the three main races (Malay, Chinese, Indians) live in perfect harmony. Of course the reality is more complex; too often, minority voices are stifled, while the twin threats of capitalist ubiquity and religious obscurantism present unappealing visions of forced homogeniety.
The three features and three shorts from Malaysia are a good type of rojak (I hope).
Yasmin Ahmad's RABUN shows an elderly couple still very much in love; there are subtle allusions to the urban-rural disparity and racial prejudice in this warm and wise work. James Lee's ROOM TO LET reminds many of the work of Tsai Ming-Liang. This deliberately paced drama of youthful ennui is accentuated by witty flourishes, such as the scene in which two young men rhapsodise over the Kuala Lumpur Petronas Twin Towers (the tallest phallic symbols in the world) without Lee's camera showing us this grandiose sight. Ho Yuhang's MIN, where an adopted girl looks for her birth mother, has all the makings of an old-fashioned melodrama, but is stripped down to a a modernist, daringly elliptical work that teases you to fill in the blanks.
My short FRIDAY is set during one afternoon at the National Mosque, while R. Daven's MY FATHER AND HIS CELLULOID transports us to an Indian plantation. Rounding this off with a regional perspective is Ho Yuhang again with his Cambodia-shot CLASSROOMS.
Many languages, colours and textures are evident in these new works. Whether or not rojak has export potential is for you to decide.
by Amir Muhammad
Rojak, a type of spicy salad, is a popular Malaysian dish that consists of seemingly incongruous elements. Although sometimes use as a term of racist abuse for someone of mixed parentage, it's more often celebrated as a symbol of the multicultural heritage and reality of Malaysia.
The tourist ads will tell you that the three main races (Malay, Chinese, Indians) live in perfect harmony. Of course the reality is more complex; too often, minority voices are stifled, while the twin threats of capitalist ubiquity and religious obscurantism present unappealing visions of forced homogeniety.
The three features and three shorts from Malaysia are a good type of rojak (I hope).
Yasmin Ahmad's RABUN shows an elderly couple still very much in love; there are subtle allusions to the urban-rural disparity and racial prejudice in this warm and wise work. James Lee's ROOM TO LET reminds many of the work of Tsai Ming-Liang. This deliberately paced drama of youthful ennui is accentuated by witty flourishes, such as the scene in which two young men rhapsodise over the Kuala Lumpur Petronas Twin Towers (the tallest phallic symbols in the world) without Lee's camera showing us this grandiose sight. Ho Yuhang's MIN, where an adopted girl looks for her birth mother, has all the makings of an old-fashioned melodrama, but is stripped down to a a modernist, daringly elliptical work that teases you to fill in the blanks.
My short FRIDAY is set during one afternoon at the National Mosque, while R. Daven's MY FATHER AND HIS CELLULOID transports us to an Indian plantation. Rounding this off with a regional perspective is Ho Yuhang again with his Cambodia-shot CLASSROOMS.
Many languages, colours and textures are evident in these new works. Whether or not rojak has export potential is for you to decide.
A BRIEF LOOK AT MALAYSIAN CINEMA
By Amir Muhammad
Malaysian cinema has so far fallen below the radar when it comes to international festivals, but the Torino Film Festival this year screens three of our features and three shorts. This is the largest representation we have ever made in a single European festival, and sets out a note of cautious optimism for greater things.
Malaysian cinema has been one of the least exciting in East Asia due to a combination of factors, social and economic. We have one of the worst censorship systems east of the Taliban. Unlike the Taliban, our censors are still in power. The few Malaysian films that have dared to flirt with race, religion, politics and sex are chopped to bits. Although our population is 22 million, less than 5 percent go to the cinema. The rest prefer to watch pirated videos, in the manufacture of which we are world-beaters.
There is a perception of audience fragmentation, too. Malays make up about 55% of the population and proportionately more of the ticket-buying public. (Butin the two states controlled by the Islamic opposition party, cinemas, those dens of sin, do not exist). So almost all features are aimed at the Malay urban market, ignoring the sizable Chinese and Indian minorities. Malaysia makes about a dozen mainstream features a year, with the average budget of Euro 300,000. The box-office successes tend to have pop stars either acting out versions of their love-lives or portraying valiant police personnel. There are also big-screen adaptations of TV sitcoms and patriotic war movies (funded by the government). Some of these will screen in neighbouring Singapore, but that's about it.
The film industry in Malaya (as it was then called) began in the 1930s and reached its peak in the late 1950s under two studios: Shaw Brothers and Cathay. The headquarters were in Singapore, then in the same country. The earliest films were mainly adaptations from Indian movies; not surprising because the technicians were imported from India. The most beloved and prolific star of this system was P. Ramlee
(1929-1973), a writer-director-singer-songwriter who appeared in over 50 movies of various genres. Until today, his name is evoked in wonder because he was the
one person whose appeal seem to cut across ethnic, class and generational boundaries.
In the mid-60s, the collapse of the studio system, together with the separation between Malaysia and Singapore, sent the film industry into a tailspin. Without the protection of these capitalist patrons or the state, Malaysian films struggled to find a relevance – and an audience. The 1980s were an especially traumatic time as some years saw fewer than 5 films being made. A combination of government incentives and a burgeoning middle-class saw film production and audience figures go up again in the 1990s.
The two most commercially successful directors are Yusof Haslam and Aziz M. Osman, who churn out at least one film a year. Their genre movies, influenced very much by Bollywood and Hollywood conventions, have pretty much defined the parameters of contemporary mainstream cinema. In 1995, U-Wei Saari's "The Arsonist" became the first Malaysian film to screen at Cannes, and his subsequent "Jogho" (1997) was a rare movie to get foreign funding – in this case, Japan's NHK.
The digital-video generation started a few scant years ago. The advantage of DV in exploring themes and styles too risky for theatrical features is self-evident. My "Lips to Lips" (2000) was the first Malaysian DV movie, and was mainly in English. Its lead actor James Lee has gone on to become a more prolific director, with "Room to Let" (2002) being his third feature. Aside from its stylistic hommage to Malaysia's best-known filmic export Tsai Ming-Liang, it is also rare for being in Chinese. There has also been an increase in the making of independent shorts, thanks to regular screening platforms organised by the Malaysian Film Club in Kuala Lumpur. Ho Yuhang started out with experimental shorts and "Min" is his first feature; although commissioned by a TV company as a 45-minute story, he made his own, superior, 80-minute cut, which is shown here.
As an advertising director, Yasmin Ahmad virtually pioneered the format of commercials that tell very local, heart-warming, stories. Many of her ads have become part of the Malaysian collective memory in a way hardly achieved by our post-P. Ramlee films. It's therefore exciting to see her gifts applied to her 16mm feature "Rabun" (2003). A work strong in subtlety and nuance but which eschews alienating tropes of artiness, I wonder if the myopia depicted in "Rabun" is also the way for us all to start seeing things more clearly.
Kedua-dua artikel ini ditulis khusus untuk buku program Festival Filem Torino ke 21 yang akan berlangsung dari 13-21 November. Ini untuk memberikan sedikit perspektif tentang filem dan juga senario industri filem di Malaysia kerana menurut kata Amir, masyarakat di sana tidak pernah menonton filem dari Malaysia. Terima kasih Amir!
By Amir Muhammad
Malaysian cinema has so far fallen below the radar when it comes to international festivals, but the Torino Film Festival this year screens three of our features and three shorts. This is the largest representation we have ever made in a single European festival, and sets out a note of cautious optimism for greater things.
Malaysian cinema has been one of the least exciting in East Asia due to a combination of factors, social and economic. We have one of the worst censorship systems east of the Taliban. Unlike the Taliban, our censors are still in power. The few Malaysian films that have dared to flirt with race, religion, politics and sex are chopped to bits. Although our population is 22 million, less than 5 percent go to the cinema. The rest prefer to watch pirated videos, in the manufacture of which we are world-beaters.
There is a perception of audience fragmentation, too. Malays make up about 55% of the population and proportionately more of the ticket-buying public. (Butin the two states controlled by the Islamic opposition party, cinemas, those dens of sin, do not exist). So almost all features are aimed at the Malay urban market, ignoring the sizable Chinese and Indian minorities. Malaysia makes about a dozen mainstream features a year, with the average budget of Euro 300,000. The box-office successes tend to have pop stars either acting out versions of their love-lives or portraying valiant police personnel. There are also big-screen adaptations of TV sitcoms and patriotic war movies (funded by the government). Some of these will screen in neighbouring Singapore, but that's about it.
The film industry in Malaya (as it was then called) began in the 1930s and reached its peak in the late 1950s under two studios: Shaw Brothers and Cathay. The headquarters were in Singapore, then in the same country. The earliest films were mainly adaptations from Indian movies; not surprising because the technicians were imported from India. The most beloved and prolific star of this system was P. Ramlee
(1929-1973), a writer-director-singer-songwriter who appeared in over 50 movies of various genres. Until today, his name is evoked in wonder because he was the
one person whose appeal seem to cut across ethnic, class and generational boundaries.
In the mid-60s, the collapse of the studio system, together with the separation between Malaysia and Singapore, sent the film industry into a tailspin. Without the protection of these capitalist patrons or the state, Malaysian films struggled to find a relevance – and an audience. The 1980s were an especially traumatic time as some years saw fewer than 5 films being made. A combination of government incentives and a burgeoning middle-class saw film production and audience figures go up again in the 1990s.
The two most commercially successful directors are Yusof Haslam and Aziz M. Osman, who churn out at least one film a year. Their genre movies, influenced very much by Bollywood and Hollywood conventions, have pretty much defined the parameters of contemporary mainstream cinema. In 1995, U-Wei Saari's "The Arsonist" became the first Malaysian film to screen at Cannes, and his subsequent "Jogho" (1997) was a rare movie to get foreign funding – in this case, Japan's NHK.
The digital-video generation started a few scant years ago. The advantage of DV in exploring themes and styles too risky for theatrical features is self-evident. My "Lips to Lips" (2000) was the first Malaysian DV movie, and was mainly in English. Its lead actor James Lee has gone on to become a more prolific director, with "Room to Let" (2002) being his third feature. Aside from its stylistic hommage to Malaysia's best-known filmic export Tsai Ming-Liang, it is also rare for being in Chinese. There has also been an increase in the making of independent shorts, thanks to regular screening platforms organised by the Malaysian Film Club in Kuala Lumpur. Ho Yuhang started out with experimental shorts and "Min" is his first feature; although commissioned by a TV company as a 45-minute story, he made his own, superior, 80-minute cut, which is shown here.
As an advertising director, Yasmin Ahmad virtually pioneered the format of commercials that tell very local, heart-warming, stories. Many of her ads have become part of the Malaysian collective memory in a way hardly achieved by our post-P. Ramlee films. It's therefore exciting to see her gifts applied to her 16mm feature "Rabun" (2003). A work strong in subtlety and nuance but which eschews alienating tropes of artiness, I wonder if the myopia depicted in "Rabun" is also the way for us all to start seeing things more clearly.
Kedua-dua artikel ini ditulis khusus untuk buku program Festival Filem Torino ke 21 yang akan berlangsung dari 13-21 November. Ini untuk memberikan sedikit perspektif tentang filem dan juga senario industri filem di Malaysia kerana menurut kata Amir, masyarakat di sana tidak pernah menonton filem dari Malaysia. Terima kasih Amir!
Artikel di bawah adalah hasil ihsan saudara Fathi Aris Omar
Misteri lelaki botak
Tepat jam 11.40 pagi, Amelie Poulain akhirnya menemui rahsia itu - lelaki botak yang fotonya bertaburan dekat banyak mesin mengambil gambar segera di Paris. Nino Quincampoix, kawan lelaki gadis ini, sudah lama mencari misteri lelaki berkepala botak, namun gagal.
Suatu hari dia hampir-hampir menemui jawabannya tetapi lelaki botak itu berlalu begitu pantas. Berkat keghairahannya yang luar biasa, Nino mengumpul banyak sekali cebisan-cebisan foto terbuang, termasuk milik lelaki ini, di dalam satu album tebal.
Sebelum pertemuan secara kebetulan itu, semata-mata takdir, sangka Amelie lelaki botak ini "sudah mati tetapi dia bimbang dilupakan orang; jadi dia merakamkan foto di serata tempat seakan-akan mengirim mesej faksimili dari akhirat."
Walaupun Amelie - gadis yang sangat pemalu dan tidak bergaul sejak kecil - sudah sudah mengetahui rahsia mengenai lelaki botak itu, tetapi tidak sanggup berterus terang kepada Nino kerana dia menaruh hati kepada lelaki itu, yang kebetulan merupakan temannya semasa kecil.
Lalu, disusun pertemuan – seolah-olah tidak sengaja – antara Nino dengan lelaki botak itu bagi meredakan misteri yang bermain dalam minda temannya itu. Pada waktu yang sama, tiba-tiba Amelie semakin sayang pada Nino.
Kita di Malaysia sekarang - seperti Amelie dan Nino - mencari-cari lelaki berkepala botak. Jawapannya mudah dan tidak mempunyai keajaiban agung, tetapi selok-belok fikiran kita sendiri menjadikan kewujudannya suatu misteri.
Lelaki botak itu hanya seorang pembaiki mesin foto segera. Jadi fotonya diambil untuk memastikan peralatan itu sudah berjaya diperbaiki. Oleh itu, fotonya tidak bermakna apa-apa, maka dikoyak dan dibuang walau kualitinya baik sekali.
Keputusan penting
C Wright Mills, intelektual Amerika Syarikat berdepan dengan misteri yang sama – seakan-akan menjawab misteri lelaki botak dalam filem jenaka Amelie, arahan Jean-Pierre Jeunet.
Pada 1959, ketika negara kuasa besar itu sedang menimbangkan campurtangan dalam perang di Vietnam, Mills menulis The Sociological Imagination. Tokoh ini risau keputusan penting pemimpin politik atau kerajaan tidak disanggah oleh kaum cerdik pandai negara itu.
Mills bertanya: "Kenapa pemikir bebas begitu terasing daripada turut menentukan keputusan-keputusan penting orang berkuasa?"
Soalan yang sama ditanya oleh Paul Krugman, dalam satu kolumnya di New York Times pertengahan tahun ini, apabila berjaya didedahkan yang Presiden George Bush mereka-reka alasan untuk berperang dengan Iraq.
Bagi pakar ekonomi ini, tindakan negaranya itu seperti skandal masyhur Watergate ketika Presiden Richard Nixon, tetapi malangnya kini tiada wakil rakyat, media atau cendekiawan yang sanggup mempertikaikan presiden mereka sendiri, "apa yang presiden tahu dan sejak bila dia tahu (penyelewengan) hal itu?"
Tulis Krugman: "Melancarkan perang berdasarkan landasan palsu, paling tidak, merupakan satu pengkhianatan. Jadi jika anda mengaku pada diri sendiri bahawa hal sedemikian telah terjadi, anda (rakyat Amerika umumnya) mempunyai tanggungjawab moral untuk menuntut penanggungjawaban.
Strategi politik
"Tetapi untuk berbuat demikian dengan mendepani tidak hanya sebuah negara berkuasa besar dan keras tetapi juga (rakyat) seluruh negara yang belum bersedia menerima hakikat bahawa pemimpin-pemimpin mereka telah memperalatkan peristiwa 11 September untuk kepentingan politik. Hal ini sangat menakutkan."
Kesimpulan Krugman yang paling menarik dan relevan dengan kita hari ini: "Tetapi jika kita tidak sanggup mendapatkan mereka yang rela menanggung risiko ini – untuk berdepan dengan kebenaran dan seterusnya bertindak menuntut penanggungjawaban – apa akan jadi pada demokrasi kita?"
Sepanjang lima tahun krisis politik-ekonomi sejak 1998, kita mencari-cari golongan cendekiawan, khususnya yang berpengaruh dan berpengalaman, untuk memandu arah ketatanegaraan kita. Tidak kita temui. Segelintir daripada mereka – kononnya strategi politik – terus melompat dan berlubuk bersama pembangkang.
Mereka bercakap penuh jiwa raga dengan lagak tulen orang politik dan mengukuhkan lagi satu kumpulan besar yang sangat dominan, Barisan Alternatif dan rangkaian badan bukan kerajaan (NGO), media dan kumpulan siswa bersama pakatan itu. Kononnya, walau kini sukar dipertahankan lagi, sebagai menampung kekerasan mesin penindasan kerajaan dan birokrasinya.
Suara dari dua tebing ini yang terdengar laungannya.
Sementara seniman, sasterawan, sarjana, wartawan, siswa, budayawan, profesional dan aktivis masyarakat umumnya membisu. Mereka meneruskan kehidupan harian seolah-olah tidak ada apa-apa yang berlaku.
Persoalan-persoalan asas kenegaraan – kebebasan badan kehakiman, rasuah, kebebasan akhbar, pilihanraya bebas lagi adil (jurdil), keganasan polis, pengagihan ekonomi (nepotisme-kronisme), tekanan ke atas pengkritik kerajaan, kesewenangan pemimpin negara dan undang-undang keras – dibiarkan berlalu tanpa sebarang rasa gelisah dan bersalah yang menekan-nekan dasar hati mereka.
Sebab itu, apabila kita hadapkan persoalan-persoalan ini, mereka masih tergagap-gagap hendak menanggapinya, gagal merumuskan permasalahan serta lembab pula meletakkan peranan serta kedudukan dalam krisis politik hari ini.
Masyarakat demokrasi
Seperti kegelisahan Mills pada 1959 dan Krugman hari ini, kita mencari-cari "pemikir awam" atau public intellectuals.
Dalam ungkapan profesor Randolf David dari Universiti Filipina, selepas merujuk kepada karya Mills itu: "Tugasan yang boleh diambil oleh seseorang atau segolongan pemikir awam tidak terhad.
Tugasan ini hanya dibataskan oleh daya imaginasi, bukan lingkungan kerjaya mereka. Hubungan tanggungjawab ini dengan pemikir awam akhirnya ialah sejauhmana komitmen mereka terhadap cita-cita terhadap sebuah masyarakat demokrasi."
Mereka perlu muncul dan berperanan segera, sekurang-kurangnya dalam tulisan atau wacana awam. Setidak-tidaknya menjelang pilihanraya umum nanti – sekali lagi gelombang idea (atau kempen dan propaganda) bakal tingkah-meningkah. Kita akan diasak untuk membuat keputusan-keputusan penting, bukan soal tokoh dan parti sahaja, tetapi masa depan bersama.
Pilihanraya bukan saat pengundi memangkah untuk memilih ahli politik. Ia urusan pertandingan idea rakyat untuk didengar oleh orang politik. Parti-parti politik dan Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya (SPR) sudah hingar-bingar tetapi suara cendekiawan, seniman, sasterawan dan profesional kita di mana?
Kenapa mereka harus bersembunyi di balik orang politik, ketika pilihanraya umum dan masa senggang antara dua pilihanraya umum?
Orang muda sekitar 20-an dan 30-an, khususnya yang belum mewarisi dosa-dosa politik dekad-dekad sebelumnya, kini seperti Amelie dan Nino. Mencari-cari misteri yang remeh-temeh kerana cerdik pandai kita sengaja mengoyak dan mencampak foto mereka di merata-rata tempat.
Pertanyaan Krugman, persoalan Mills atau kebingungan Amelie, kini mengaum-ngaum di telinga cendekiawan kita, kalaulah mereka mahu mendengarnya.
"Jika kita tidak sanggup mendapatkan mereka yang rela menanggung risiko ini – untuk berdepan dengan kebenaran dan seterusnya bertindak menuntut penanggungjawaban – apa akan jadi pada demokrasi kita?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sumber:
Idea asas Mills diambil daripada sedutan teks ucapan profesor Randolf David dari Universiti Filipina seperti diterbitkan dalam API Newsletter, No 5, Jun 2003. (boleh didapati di laman web IKMAS, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia).
Sementara rencana Krugman diambil daripada terjemahannya (disediakan oleh saya) ‘Rakyat Amerika ditipu’ dalam majalah Siasah, Ogos 2003
"Tulisan ini asalnya diterbit dalam Malaysiakini.com (20 Oktober 2003). Ia diterbitkan semula di sini dengan izin penulisnya. Beliau dapat dihubungi di fathiaris@yahoo.com"
Misteri lelaki botak
Tepat jam 11.40 pagi, Amelie Poulain akhirnya menemui rahsia itu - lelaki botak yang fotonya bertaburan dekat banyak mesin mengambil gambar segera di Paris. Nino Quincampoix, kawan lelaki gadis ini, sudah lama mencari misteri lelaki berkepala botak, namun gagal.
Suatu hari dia hampir-hampir menemui jawabannya tetapi lelaki botak itu berlalu begitu pantas. Berkat keghairahannya yang luar biasa, Nino mengumpul banyak sekali cebisan-cebisan foto terbuang, termasuk milik lelaki ini, di dalam satu album tebal.
Sebelum pertemuan secara kebetulan itu, semata-mata takdir, sangka Amelie lelaki botak ini "sudah mati tetapi dia bimbang dilupakan orang; jadi dia merakamkan foto di serata tempat seakan-akan mengirim mesej faksimili dari akhirat."
Walaupun Amelie - gadis yang sangat pemalu dan tidak bergaul sejak kecil - sudah sudah mengetahui rahsia mengenai lelaki botak itu, tetapi tidak sanggup berterus terang kepada Nino kerana dia menaruh hati kepada lelaki itu, yang kebetulan merupakan temannya semasa kecil.
Lalu, disusun pertemuan – seolah-olah tidak sengaja – antara Nino dengan lelaki botak itu bagi meredakan misteri yang bermain dalam minda temannya itu. Pada waktu yang sama, tiba-tiba Amelie semakin sayang pada Nino.
Kita di Malaysia sekarang - seperti Amelie dan Nino - mencari-cari lelaki berkepala botak. Jawapannya mudah dan tidak mempunyai keajaiban agung, tetapi selok-belok fikiran kita sendiri menjadikan kewujudannya suatu misteri.
Lelaki botak itu hanya seorang pembaiki mesin foto segera. Jadi fotonya diambil untuk memastikan peralatan itu sudah berjaya diperbaiki. Oleh itu, fotonya tidak bermakna apa-apa, maka dikoyak dan dibuang walau kualitinya baik sekali.
Keputusan penting
C Wright Mills, intelektual Amerika Syarikat berdepan dengan misteri yang sama – seakan-akan menjawab misteri lelaki botak dalam filem jenaka Amelie, arahan Jean-Pierre Jeunet.
Pada 1959, ketika negara kuasa besar itu sedang menimbangkan campurtangan dalam perang di Vietnam, Mills menulis The Sociological Imagination. Tokoh ini risau keputusan penting pemimpin politik atau kerajaan tidak disanggah oleh kaum cerdik pandai negara itu.
Mills bertanya: "Kenapa pemikir bebas begitu terasing daripada turut menentukan keputusan-keputusan penting orang berkuasa?"
Soalan yang sama ditanya oleh Paul Krugman, dalam satu kolumnya di New York Times pertengahan tahun ini, apabila berjaya didedahkan yang Presiden George Bush mereka-reka alasan untuk berperang dengan Iraq.
Bagi pakar ekonomi ini, tindakan negaranya itu seperti skandal masyhur Watergate ketika Presiden Richard Nixon, tetapi malangnya kini tiada wakil rakyat, media atau cendekiawan yang sanggup mempertikaikan presiden mereka sendiri, "apa yang presiden tahu dan sejak bila dia tahu (penyelewengan) hal itu?"
Tulis Krugman: "Melancarkan perang berdasarkan landasan palsu, paling tidak, merupakan satu pengkhianatan. Jadi jika anda mengaku pada diri sendiri bahawa hal sedemikian telah terjadi, anda (rakyat Amerika umumnya) mempunyai tanggungjawab moral untuk menuntut penanggungjawaban.
Strategi politik
"Tetapi untuk berbuat demikian dengan mendepani tidak hanya sebuah negara berkuasa besar dan keras tetapi juga (rakyat) seluruh negara yang belum bersedia menerima hakikat bahawa pemimpin-pemimpin mereka telah memperalatkan peristiwa 11 September untuk kepentingan politik. Hal ini sangat menakutkan."
Kesimpulan Krugman yang paling menarik dan relevan dengan kita hari ini: "Tetapi jika kita tidak sanggup mendapatkan mereka yang rela menanggung risiko ini – untuk berdepan dengan kebenaran dan seterusnya bertindak menuntut penanggungjawaban – apa akan jadi pada demokrasi kita?"
Sepanjang lima tahun krisis politik-ekonomi sejak 1998, kita mencari-cari golongan cendekiawan, khususnya yang berpengaruh dan berpengalaman, untuk memandu arah ketatanegaraan kita. Tidak kita temui. Segelintir daripada mereka – kononnya strategi politik – terus melompat dan berlubuk bersama pembangkang.
Mereka bercakap penuh jiwa raga dengan lagak tulen orang politik dan mengukuhkan lagi satu kumpulan besar yang sangat dominan, Barisan Alternatif dan rangkaian badan bukan kerajaan (NGO), media dan kumpulan siswa bersama pakatan itu. Kononnya, walau kini sukar dipertahankan lagi, sebagai menampung kekerasan mesin penindasan kerajaan dan birokrasinya.
Suara dari dua tebing ini yang terdengar laungannya.
Sementara seniman, sasterawan, sarjana, wartawan, siswa, budayawan, profesional dan aktivis masyarakat umumnya membisu. Mereka meneruskan kehidupan harian seolah-olah tidak ada apa-apa yang berlaku.
Persoalan-persoalan asas kenegaraan – kebebasan badan kehakiman, rasuah, kebebasan akhbar, pilihanraya bebas lagi adil (jurdil), keganasan polis, pengagihan ekonomi (nepotisme-kronisme), tekanan ke atas pengkritik kerajaan, kesewenangan pemimpin negara dan undang-undang keras – dibiarkan berlalu tanpa sebarang rasa gelisah dan bersalah yang menekan-nekan dasar hati mereka.
Sebab itu, apabila kita hadapkan persoalan-persoalan ini, mereka masih tergagap-gagap hendak menanggapinya, gagal merumuskan permasalahan serta lembab pula meletakkan peranan serta kedudukan dalam krisis politik hari ini.
Masyarakat demokrasi
Seperti kegelisahan Mills pada 1959 dan Krugman hari ini, kita mencari-cari "pemikir awam" atau public intellectuals.
Dalam ungkapan profesor Randolf David dari Universiti Filipina, selepas merujuk kepada karya Mills itu: "Tugasan yang boleh diambil oleh seseorang atau segolongan pemikir awam tidak terhad.
Tugasan ini hanya dibataskan oleh daya imaginasi, bukan lingkungan kerjaya mereka. Hubungan tanggungjawab ini dengan pemikir awam akhirnya ialah sejauhmana komitmen mereka terhadap cita-cita terhadap sebuah masyarakat demokrasi."
Mereka perlu muncul dan berperanan segera, sekurang-kurangnya dalam tulisan atau wacana awam. Setidak-tidaknya menjelang pilihanraya umum nanti – sekali lagi gelombang idea (atau kempen dan propaganda) bakal tingkah-meningkah. Kita akan diasak untuk membuat keputusan-keputusan penting, bukan soal tokoh dan parti sahaja, tetapi masa depan bersama.
Pilihanraya bukan saat pengundi memangkah untuk memilih ahli politik. Ia urusan pertandingan idea rakyat untuk didengar oleh orang politik. Parti-parti politik dan Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya (SPR) sudah hingar-bingar tetapi suara cendekiawan, seniman, sasterawan dan profesional kita di mana?
Kenapa mereka harus bersembunyi di balik orang politik, ketika pilihanraya umum dan masa senggang antara dua pilihanraya umum?
Orang muda sekitar 20-an dan 30-an, khususnya yang belum mewarisi dosa-dosa politik dekad-dekad sebelumnya, kini seperti Amelie dan Nino. Mencari-cari misteri yang remeh-temeh kerana cerdik pandai kita sengaja mengoyak dan mencampak foto mereka di merata-rata tempat.
Pertanyaan Krugman, persoalan Mills atau kebingungan Amelie, kini mengaum-ngaum di telinga cendekiawan kita, kalaulah mereka mahu mendengarnya.
"Jika kita tidak sanggup mendapatkan mereka yang rela menanggung risiko ini – untuk berdepan dengan kebenaran dan seterusnya bertindak menuntut penanggungjawaban – apa akan jadi pada demokrasi kita?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sumber:
Idea asas Mills diambil daripada sedutan teks ucapan profesor Randolf David dari Universiti Filipina seperti diterbitkan dalam API Newsletter, No 5, Jun 2003. (boleh didapati di laman web IKMAS, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia).
Sementara rencana Krugman diambil daripada terjemahannya (disediakan oleh saya) ‘Rakyat Amerika ditipu’ dalam majalah Siasah, Ogos 2003
"Tulisan ini asalnya diterbit dalam Malaysiakini.com (20 Oktober 2003). Ia diterbitkan semula di sini dengan izin penulisnya. Beliau dapat dihubungi di fathiaris@yahoo.com"
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
9 hari terakhir bersama Dr. Mahathir
Can Malaysia cope without Mahathir?
By Rohan Sullivan and Jasbant Singh
ASSOCIATED PRESS
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — When Malaysia's political elite gathered in mid-June for their biggest party of the year, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, 77, implored them not to make a fuss over him. Once he retires this fall, the leader said, "I'm a nobody."
Not to Malaysians. Crowds thronged to hear his farewell speech, spilling out of the ruling party's high-rise headquarters and blocking downtown streets. Monsoon rains soaked teary-eyed supporters as they watched him on giant television screens.
Most Malaysians have trouble imagining life after Mr. Mahathir, who announced plans last summer to step down in October after a 22-year reign that has made him Asia's longest-serving elected leader, and saw him rise to international prominence while leading them to prosperity and becoming a leading, and scathing, critic of U.S.-led globalization.
"When you think of Malaysia, you think of Dr. M.," said Zuraini Harun, 32, a cafe manager whose generation remembers no other leader. "Mahathir is Malaysia."
But confidence born of economic achievements under Mr. Mahathir is tempered by uncertainty about what will follow, particularly with the rise of al Qaeda-linked militants in Southeast Asia and a drift toward fundamentalism among Malaysia's predominant Muslim Malays.
For almost half the period since independence from British rule in 1957, Mr. Mahathir has dominated politics in this ethnically diverse nation of 24 million people at the southern tip of continental Asia.
He spearheaded Malaysia's transformation from a tin- and rubber-producing backwater into one of Southeast Asia's wealthiest countries. It now exports shiploads of Dell computers and other manufactured goods, and boasts a Malaysian-built Proton car in every driveway, a high-rise capital and a color TV in every village home.
Mr. Mahathir has kept the peace among Malaysia's delicately balanced racial mix while building a modern, secular society with strong Islamic influence. Teen-age girls wearing designer jeans and Muslim head scarves window shop in suburban malls as ethnic Chinese play mah-jong over beer and pork crackling in nearby cafes.
But Mr. Mahathir's development record has come with an autocratic style that critics say mocks Malaysia's claims to be a democracy.
He has blatantly favored the Malay majority over the country's large Chinese and Indian communities. Political opponents have been locked up without trial. Critics say press and judicial independence has been eroded and a culture of cronyism and government unaccountability has thrived.
"Despite economic growth and stability, Mr. Mahathir's regime has been very authoritarian," said P. Ramasamy, a political scientist at the National University of Malaysia.
A physician from the small northern state of Kedah, Mr. Mahathir made his name in politics by defining what he called "the Malay dilemma." He portrayed Malays as downtrodden among the economically vibrant Chinese minority, but too apathetic and fatalistic to do much about it. It was a stereotype he was determined to break.
With a firmly held view that social freedoms are luxuries that follow, not precede, economic development, Mr. Mahathir has pursued a grand vision to make Malaysia a fully developed country by 2020.
He vigorously wooed foreign investment during the Asian boom years of the 1980s and early 1990s, adopted hands-on economic management and spent billions on mega-projects that sometimes indulged a taste for the grandiose. A small country, Malaysia nevertheless boasts ownership of the world's tallest buildings, a state-of-the-art Formula One racing circuit, and an opulent administrative capital complete with presidential palace.
Mr. Mahathir also carved out a role as spokesman for the developing world and moderate Islam, railing against the perceived evils of globalization and decrying the war on terrorism as an excuse to attack Muslims. Yet he has cracked down on suspected Islamic militants — including one who hosted two of the September 11 hijackers during 2000 — and won Malaysia status as a U.S. ally against terrorism.
Early in his reign, Mr. Mahathir demonstrated a political toughness by crushing a challenge within his own United Malays National Organization in 1987. His purge included more than 100 arrests and rushed-through changes to the constitution to strip some powers from the judiciary.
His fiercely independent, patriarchal side flared again during the Asian financial crisis in the late 1990s.
When currencies and stock prices started tumbling and foreign investors pulled out, Mr. Mahathir railed at "rogue speculators" he accused of trying to destroy Asian economies and charged the West wanted to recolonize the East through economic control.
As contemporaries such as Gen. Suharto fell in neighboring Indonesia, Mr. Mahathir rejected free-market conventional wisdom and imposed capital controls that protected Malaysia from the worst of the crisis. By 2001, Malaysia had recovered faster than many other countries in the region.
Mr. Mahathir also said he suspected the financial crisis might stem from a Jewish "agenda," saying Jews "are not happy to see the Muslims progress."
Amid the financial turmoil, Mr. Mahathir put down a nascent challenge by his deputy, Anwar Ibrahim, who in short order was fired, arrested, tried and sentenced to 15 years in prison for abuse of power and sodomy. Police used tear gas and water cannons to disperse protests by Anwar supporters.
The case fractured Malaysia's political community and energized the opposition, led by a conservative Islamic party. The government suffered its worst result in years at elections in 1999, though it won comfortably.
Diplomatic strains over the deputy's treatment thawed only recently, after the focus of international relations shifted from social issues to security after the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States.
Malaysia has detained without trial more than 70 suspected members of Jemaah Islamiyah, an Islamic extremist group blamed for a string of deadly bomb attacks in the region and accused of plotting to blow up U.S. and other Western targets.
The crackdown helped win Mr. Mahathir an invitation to the White House in May 2002 and praise from President Bush. But he soon returned to criticizing the U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, again fraying Washington's equanimity.
Worries about Islamic extremism have helped Mr. Mahathir repair damage from the Anwar affair. He has painted the country's largest opposition group, a fundamentalist Muslim party that made electoral gains in the post-Anwar turmoil, as a threat to Malaysia's stability.
But the Pan-Malaysia Islamic Party remains the strongest challenger to Mr. Mahathir's bloc, which has led the government since independence and is drawing criticism for cronyism and corruption.
Pressing an Islamic-oriented agenda that includes death by stoning for adultery and the amputation of thieves' hands, leaders of the Muslim party increasingly talk of politics in religious terms.
"Malaysian Muslims want real Islam to be practiced," said Hatta Ramli, a member of the party's central committee. "Islam may be in place in some institutions, but things contrary to Islam are also being practiced — suppression of human rights, poor governance, corruption."
The prospect of religion playing a big role in the political battle for Malay votes worries the Chinese and Indian minorities, who make up around a third of the population. The country suffered bloody race riots in 1969.
Race and religion remain among the most sensitive issues in Malaysia, thanks in part to years of affirmative-action policies designed to increase ethnic Malays' share of economic wealth.
The policies guarantee Malays places at universities, shareholdings in corporations and other benefits. For years one of the strongest defenders of the policies, even Mr. Mahathir has joined critics in worrying they encourage complacency among some Malays. Chinese and Indians, meanwhile, grumble about being made into second-class citizens.
Mr. Mahathir said recently his greatest failing was not making Malays more highly regarded. Critics say part of the blame lies with his tendency to cajole rather than convince, and to a paternalistic culture he has allowed to develop around him.
"No matter how good a leader you are, the fact that you stay too long becomes an issue in itself," said Shahrir Samad, a member of the supreme council of Mr. Mahathir's ruling party. "When [Mr. Mahathir] goes, I think it is a positive thing."
His handpicked successor, deputy Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, is drab by comparison. A former Islamic student and career politician, Mr. Abdullah faces a formidable task in putting his own mark on a system commanded for so long by one man.
Mr. Mahathir insists he doesn't want a special role in government such as the "senior minister" title accorded to his contemporary and old rival, Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew.
But few people expect a lifetime of opinionated governing to shift into a simple, quiet retirement writing memoirs.
"It is not Mahathir's style to remain silent," said John R. Malott, a former U.S. ambassador.
The Life & Legacy of Malaysia Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad
SUSIE GHARIB: He`s Asia`s longest serving elected leader, but Mahathir Mohamad`s days at the top are coming to an end. The outspoken Malaysian prime minister is due to step down at the end of the month, after almost 23 years in power. From Kuala Lumpur, Rian Maelzer takes a look at Mahathir`s legacy.
RIAN MAELZER, NIGHTLY BUSINESS REPORT CORRESPONDENT: Mahathir Mohamad has won much praise for Malaysia`s rapid economic development and has been accused of allowing rampant cronyism to hurt the economy. He`s been credited with preserving harmony in this multi-ethnic country and accused of dividing Malaysia thanks to his heavy-handed leadership. Although broadly speaking a democracy, Malaysia under Mahathir has been accused of human rights viola!
tions, including the prosecution five years ago of former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. Many feel it was politically motivated and the U.S. Government was among those that condemned the jailing of Anwar, Mahathir`s protege turned rival.
LIM KIT SIANG, DEMOCRATIC ACTION PARTY: It`s undermined important institutions of government and affecting the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, the important rule of parliament.
MAELZER: On the economic front, though, even most critics acknowledge many successes. Mahathir`s liberalization of the economy prompted a massive influx of foreign investment and rapid industrialization. That, in turn, helped slashed poverty and stimulate the emergence of a thriving middle class. Mahathir has also overseen the creation of impressive physical infrastructure and steered the country up the industrial value chain into areas such as I.T.
ZULKIFLI ALWI, UNITED MALAYS NATL. ORGANIZATION: It is undeniable that Dr. M!
Mahathir has been the main architect in the programs that we have chart ed in these fields.
MAELZER: All those achievements, though, took a hit with the onset of Asian financial crisis in 1997. Mahathir chose not to follow International Monetary Fund prescriptions, as Malaysia`s neighbors did. Instead, he controversially opted to pit the currency to the dollar and institute strict controls to prevent capital flight. Even many long time critics now praise his actions.
DR. CHANDRA MUZAFFAR, POLITICAL SCIENTIST: It was a very bold position and it worked. I would regard his ability to protect the nation`s economic sovereignty and, indirectly, its political independence, as a major achievement.
MAHATHIR MOHAMAD, MALAYSIA PRIME MINISTER: Find some way of protecting yourself from such huge corporations.
MAELZER: The financial crisis turned Mahathir into an outspoken critic of global capital. And that criticism has often taken the form of anti-Western tirades, not something people expect from his mild-mannered successor, Abdu!
llah Badawi.
TERENCE GOMEZ, UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA: Mahathir has actually upset a lot of people in the West, governments of the West. But now he can play a more conciliatory role, especially in terms of trying to draw in response from the West by toning down some of the rhetoric that Mahathir has been propagating.
MAHATHIR: The result of this confrontation between the haves and the have notes, the developed and the developing, is a world that is practically ungovernable.
MAELZER: That same anti-Western rhetoric, though, coupled with Malaysia`s economic achievements, have made Mahathir a leading spokesman for the developing world and many will be hoping that when the 77-year-old steps down Malaysia`s prime minister at the end of this month he won`t be stepping out of the international spotlight for good. Rian Maelzer, NIGHTLY BUSINESS REPORT, Kuala Lumpur.
Can Malaysia cope without Mahathir?
By Rohan Sullivan and Jasbant Singh
ASSOCIATED PRESS
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — When Malaysia's political elite gathered in mid-June for their biggest party of the year, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, 77, implored them not to make a fuss over him. Once he retires this fall, the leader said, "I'm a nobody."
Not to Malaysians. Crowds thronged to hear his farewell speech, spilling out of the ruling party's high-rise headquarters and blocking downtown streets. Monsoon rains soaked teary-eyed supporters as they watched him on giant television screens.
Most Malaysians have trouble imagining life after Mr. Mahathir, who announced plans last summer to step down in October after a 22-year reign that has made him Asia's longest-serving elected leader, and saw him rise to international prominence while leading them to prosperity and becoming a leading, and scathing, critic of U.S.-led globalization.
"When you think of Malaysia, you think of Dr. M.," said Zuraini Harun, 32, a cafe manager whose generation remembers no other leader. "Mahathir is Malaysia."
But confidence born of economic achievements under Mr. Mahathir is tempered by uncertainty about what will follow, particularly with the rise of al Qaeda-linked militants in Southeast Asia and a drift toward fundamentalism among Malaysia's predominant Muslim Malays.
For almost half the period since independence from British rule in 1957, Mr. Mahathir has dominated politics in this ethnically diverse nation of 24 million people at the southern tip of continental Asia.
He spearheaded Malaysia's transformation from a tin- and rubber-producing backwater into one of Southeast Asia's wealthiest countries. It now exports shiploads of Dell computers and other manufactured goods, and boasts a Malaysian-built Proton car in every driveway, a high-rise capital and a color TV in every village home.
Mr. Mahathir has kept the peace among Malaysia's delicately balanced racial mix while building a modern, secular society with strong Islamic influence. Teen-age girls wearing designer jeans and Muslim head scarves window shop in suburban malls as ethnic Chinese play mah-jong over beer and pork crackling in nearby cafes.
But Mr. Mahathir's development record has come with an autocratic style that critics say mocks Malaysia's claims to be a democracy.
He has blatantly favored the Malay majority over the country's large Chinese and Indian communities. Political opponents have been locked up without trial. Critics say press and judicial independence has been eroded and a culture of cronyism and government unaccountability has thrived.
"Despite economic growth and stability, Mr. Mahathir's regime has been very authoritarian," said P. Ramasamy, a political scientist at the National University of Malaysia.
A physician from the small northern state of Kedah, Mr. Mahathir made his name in politics by defining what he called "the Malay dilemma." He portrayed Malays as downtrodden among the economically vibrant Chinese minority, but too apathetic and fatalistic to do much about it. It was a stereotype he was determined to break.
With a firmly held view that social freedoms are luxuries that follow, not precede, economic development, Mr. Mahathir has pursued a grand vision to make Malaysia a fully developed country by 2020.
He vigorously wooed foreign investment during the Asian boom years of the 1980s and early 1990s, adopted hands-on economic management and spent billions on mega-projects that sometimes indulged a taste for the grandiose. A small country, Malaysia nevertheless boasts ownership of the world's tallest buildings, a state-of-the-art Formula One racing circuit, and an opulent administrative capital complete with presidential palace.
Mr. Mahathir also carved out a role as spokesman for the developing world and moderate Islam, railing against the perceived evils of globalization and decrying the war on terrorism as an excuse to attack Muslims. Yet he has cracked down on suspected Islamic militants — including one who hosted two of the September 11 hijackers during 2000 — and won Malaysia status as a U.S. ally against terrorism.
Early in his reign, Mr. Mahathir demonstrated a political toughness by crushing a challenge within his own United Malays National Organization in 1987. His purge included more than 100 arrests and rushed-through changes to the constitution to strip some powers from the judiciary.
His fiercely independent, patriarchal side flared again during the Asian financial crisis in the late 1990s.
When currencies and stock prices started tumbling and foreign investors pulled out, Mr. Mahathir railed at "rogue speculators" he accused of trying to destroy Asian economies and charged the West wanted to recolonize the East through economic control.
As contemporaries such as Gen. Suharto fell in neighboring Indonesia, Mr. Mahathir rejected free-market conventional wisdom and imposed capital controls that protected Malaysia from the worst of the crisis. By 2001, Malaysia had recovered faster than many other countries in the region.
Mr. Mahathir also said he suspected the financial crisis might stem from a Jewish "agenda," saying Jews "are not happy to see the Muslims progress."
Amid the financial turmoil, Mr. Mahathir put down a nascent challenge by his deputy, Anwar Ibrahim, who in short order was fired, arrested, tried and sentenced to 15 years in prison for abuse of power and sodomy. Police used tear gas and water cannons to disperse protests by Anwar supporters.
The case fractured Malaysia's political community and energized the opposition, led by a conservative Islamic party. The government suffered its worst result in years at elections in 1999, though it won comfortably.
Diplomatic strains over the deputy's treatment thawed only recently, after the focus of international relations shifted from social issues to security after the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States.
Malaysia has detained without trial more than 70 suspected members of Jemaah Islamiyah, an Islamic extremist group blamed for a string of deadly bomb attacks in the region and accused of plotting to blow up U.S. and other Western targets.
The crackdown helped win Mr. Mahathir an invitation to the White House in May 2002 and praise from President Bush. But he soon returned to criticizing the U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, again fraying Washington's equanimity.
Worries about Islamic extremism have helped Mr. Mahathir repair damage from the Anwar affair. He has painted the country's largest opposition group, a fundamentalist Muslim party that made electoral gains in the post-Anwar turmoil, as a threat to Malaysia's stability.
But the Pan-Malaysia Islamic Party remains the strongest challenger to Mr. Mahathir's bloc, which has led the government since independence and is drawing criticism for cronyism and corruption.
Pressing an Islamic-oriented agenda that includes death by stoning for adultery and the amputation of thieves' hands, leaders of the Muslim party increasingly talk of politics in religious terms.
"Malaysian Muslims want real Islam to be practiced," said Hatta Ramli, a member of the party's central committee. "Islam may be in place in some institutions, but things contrary to Islam are also being practiced — suppression of human rights, poor governance, corruption."
The prospect of religion playing a big role in the political battle for Malay votes worries the Chinese and Indian minorities, who make up around a third of the population. The country suffered bloody race riots in 1969.
Race and religion remain among the most sensitive issues in Malaysia, thanks in part to years of affirmative-action policies designed to increase ethnic Malays' share of economic wealth.
The policies guarantee Malays places at universities, shareholdings in corporations and other benefits. For years one of the strongest defenders of the policies, even Mr. Mahathir has joined critics in worrying they encourage complacency among some Malays. Chinese and Indians, meanwhile, grumble about being made into second-class citizens.
Mr. Mahathir said recently his greatest failing was not making Malays more highly regarded. Critics say part of the blame lies with his tendency to cajole rather than convince, and to a paternalistic culture he has allowed to develop around him.
"No matter how good a leader you are, the fact that you stay too long becomes an issue in itself," said Shahrir Samad, a member of the supreme council of Mr. Mahathir's ruling party. "When [Mr. Mahathir] goes, I think it is a positive thing."
His handpicked successor, deputy Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, is drab by comparison. A former Islamic student and career politician, Mr. Abdullah faces a formidable task in putting his own mark on a system commanded for so long by one man.
Mr. Mahathir insists he doesn't want a special role in government such as the "senior minister" title accorded to his contemporary and old rival, Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew.
But few people expect a lifetime of opinionated governing to shift into a simple, quiet retirement writing memoirs.
"It is not Mahathir's style to remain silent," said John R. Malott, a former U.S. ambassador.
The Life & Legacy of Malaysia Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad
SUSIE GHARIB: He`s Asia`s longest serving elected leader, but Mahathir Mohamad`s days at the top are coming to an end. The outspoken Malaysian prime minister is due to step down at the end of the month, after almost 23 years in power. From Kuala Lumpur, Rian Maelzer takes a look at Mahathir`s legacy.
RIAN MAELZER, NIGHTLY BUSINESS REPORT CORRESPONDENT: Mahathir Mohamad has won much praise for Malaysia`s rapid economic development and has been accused of allowing rampant cronyism to hurt the economy. He`s been credited with preserving harmony in this multi-ethnic country and accused of dividing Malaysia thanks to his heavy-handed leadership. Although broadly speaking a democracy, Malaysia under Mahathir has been accused of human rights viola!
tions, including the prosecution five years ago of former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. Many feel it was politically motivated and the U.S. Government was among those that condemned the jailing of Anwar, Mahathir`s protege turned rival.
LIM KIT SIANG, DEMOCRATIC ACTION PARTY: It`s undermined important institutions of government and affecting the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, the important rule of parliament.
MAELZER: On the economic front, though, even most critics acknowledge many successes. Mahathir`s liberalization of the economy prompted a massive influx of foreign investment and rapid industrialization. That, in turn, helped slashed poverty and stimulate the emergence of a thriving middle class. Mahathir has also overseen the creation of impressive physical infrastructure and steered the country up the industrial value chain into areas such as I.T.
ZULKIFLI ALWI, UNITED MALAYS NATL. ORGANIZATION: It is undeniable that Dr. M!
Mahathir has been the main architect in the programs that we have chart ed in these fields.
MAELZER: All those achievements, though, took a hit with the onset of Asian financial crisis in 1997. Mahathir chose not to follow International Monetary Fund prescriptions, as Malaysia`s neighbors did. Instead, he controversially opted to pit the currency to the dollar and institute strict controls to prevent capital flight. Even many long time critics now praise his actions.
DR. CHANDRA MUZAFFAR, POLITICAL SCIENTIST: It was a very bold position and it worked. I would regard his ability to protect the nation`s economic sovereignty and, indirectly, its political independence, as a major achievement.
MAHATHIR MOHAMAD, MALAYSIA PRIME MINISTER: Find some way of protecting yourself from such huge corporations.
MAELZER: The financial crisis turned Mahathir into an outspoken critic of global capital. And that criticism has often taken the form of anti-Western tirades, not something people expect from his mild-mannered successor, Abdu!
llah Badawi.
TERENCE GOMEZ, UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA: Mahathir has actually upset a lot of people in the West, governments of the West. But now he can play a more conciliatory role, especially in terms of trying to draw in response from the West by toning down some of the rhetoric that Mahathir has been propagating.
MAHATHIR: The result of this confrontation between the haves and the have notes, the developed and the developing, is a world that is practically ungovernable.
MAELZER: That same anti-Western rhetoric, though, coupled with Malaysia`s economic achievements, have made Mahathir a leading spokesman for the developing world and many will be hoping that when the 77-year-old steps down Malaysia`s prime minister at the end of this month he won`t be stepping out of the international spotlight for good. Rian Maelzer, NIGHTLY BUSINESS REPORT, Kuala Lumpur.
Tuesday, October 21, 2003
Blogger Albert Point of View
22 Years Mahathir
What is achieved and what went wrong.
Achieved:
Malaysia recognised as a respectable nation, although the past few years 'west-bashing' of dr M has done more harm than good.
Average income of Malaysians went from RM 4630- in 1982 to 14.877- in 2002.
This is of course an inflated figure because of the currency peg and devaluation of the ringgit.
Overall standard of living improved.
A capital inflow 1988-1997 of 52 billion.
Not achieved:
Transparency in goverment.
End to corruption.
Cronyism.
What went out of the window:
Press freedom.
Free judiciary.
Free market credentials.
(Cronies cannot go bankrubt, dr M stated that himself (Renong) )
What has been wasted on behalf of the future generation:
25 BILLION is squandered through misadventures (Perwaja, Bakun, cureency speculation by central bank)
20 BILLION total need for revival of MAS, take over of LTR and several others mainly public transport.
Billions in overspending, than the yen surged by 70% and the debts went from big to huge.
Budget overspending since the economic crises.
So called revival of the economy.
What has been achieved for the nation as a whole:
Landmarks of world status, but money wasted.
(Sepang Circuit,Petronas Towers,Airport Sepang and name it)
An economy that will collapse when the dollar goes down a lot.
Companies up to their neck in 'cheap' debt because borrowing is cheap.
General public up to their neck in debt, because borrowing is pushed through their throats.
An industry that absolutely cannot compete on world scale.
A banking industry that is 20 years behind with Europe!
A judiciary that is hopeless, slow and inefficient.
A bunch of parlementarians that cannot be critisised, if you do they will sue you on the spot.
Total of probably 60 billion plus to be coughed up by the future generation for dr M's adventures.
Privatisation and creation of heavy industry miserably failed.
The only one making a bit of money is Proton, but thats only because of protection agains foreign competition.
So thats temporary, they will disappear in the future. Turnover is way to small.
Press surpression made sure that hardly anyone believes a printed letter of a newspaper.
TV is terrible, there are NO checks and balances in this country,
only cheques and balances, and those cheques get falsified and cost another xxx million and the balance is creative accounting.
The way he treated opponents is beyond any description, and really stinks.
He did not trust anyone around him.
20 Years left a bitter taste for the nation, allthough denied of course.
If he left 10 years earlier yes, he might have gone in history as a nation builder.
Now? Time will learn, but i doubt it will be a pleasant memory.
UMNO will deny that for ever of course, but history will give them a report figure too.
And elections are on the way
22 Years Mahathir
What is achieved and what went wrong.
Achieved:
Malaysia recognised as a respectable nation, although the past few years 'west-bashing' of dr M has done more harm than good.
Average income of Malaysians went from RM 4630- in 1982 to 14.877- in 2002.
This is of course an inflated figure because of the currency peg and devaluation of the ringgit.
Overall standard of living improved.
A capital inflow 1988-1997 of 52 billion.
Not achieved:
Transparency in goverment.
End to corruption.
Cronyism.
What went out of the window:
Press freedom.
Free judiciary.
Free market credentials.
(Cronies cannot go bankrubt, dr M stated that himself (Renong) )
What has been wasted on behalf of the future generation:
25 BILLION is squandered through misadventures (Perwaja, Bakun, cureency speculation by central bank)
20 BILLION total need for revival of MAS, take over of LTR and several others mainly public transport.
Billions in overspending, than the yen surged by 70% and the debts went from big to huge.
Budget overspending since the economic crises.
So called revival of the economy.
What has been achieved for the nation as a whole:
Landmarks of world status, but money wasted.
(Sepang Circuit,Petronas Towers,Airport Sepang and name it)
An economy that will collapse when the dollar goes down a lot.
Companies up to their neck in 'cheap' debt because borrowing is cheap.
General public up to their neck in debt, because borrowing is pushed through their throats.
An industry that absolutely cannot compete on world scale.
A banking industry that is 20 years behind with Europe!
A judiciary that is hopeless, slow and inefficient.
A bunch of parlementarians that cannot be critisised, if you do they will sue you on the spot.
Total of probably 60 billion plus to be coughed up by the future generation for dr M's adventures.
Privatisation and creation of heavy industry miserably failed.
The only one making a bit of money is Proton, but thats only because of protection agains foreign competition.
So thats temporary, they will disappear in the future. Turnover is way to small.
Press surpression made sure that hardly anyone believes a printed letter of a newspaper.
TV is terrible, there are NO checks and balances in this country,
only cheques and balances, and those cheques get falsified and cost another xxx million and the balance is creative accounting.
The way he treated opponents is beyond any description, and really stinks.
He did not trust anyone around him.
20 Years left a bitter taste for the nation, allthough denied of course.
If he left 10 years earlier yes, he might have gone in history as a nation builder.
Now? Time will learn, but i doubt it will be a pleasant memory.
UMNO will deny that for ever of course, but history will give them a report figure too.
And elections are on the way
10 hari terakhir bersama Dr. Mahathir
Menjelang detik persaraan Perdana Menteri kita, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad pada 31 Oktober ini, aku ingin menyiarkan tulisan-tulisan dari pelbagai sumber mengenai kejayaan dan kegagalan selama 22 tahun beliau memerintah.
Pemerintahan beliau adalah sama baya dengan umur aku dan boleh dikatakan hampir kesemua dasar dan polisi yang dilaksanakan sepanjang pemerintahannya telah membentuk cara aku berfikir dan bertindak walaupun aku lahir di ketika Tun Hussein Onn menjadi PM.
Sepanjang pemerintahannya, terlalu banyak perkara yang perlu diperkatakan dan dinilai semula. Justeru, diharap kita yang peka dan sedar dapat menganalis segala fakta yang ada sejujurnya demi untuk merubah dan melihat negara tercinta ini bertambah cemerlang di dalam semua lapangan dalam erti kata yang sebenar.
Sama ada yang memerintah kita adalah BN, BA, DAP atau parti apa sekalipun, kita tetap perlu bersuara untuk menuntut hak dan memainkan peranan demi untuk kebaikan negara dan masyarakat keseluruhannya. Tidak perlu ditangisi apa yang tiada kerana pemimpin datang dan pergi, apa yang perlu ditangisi adalah kerelaan manusia untuk diperbodohkan semudahnya.
Sumbangan dan jasa bakti Dr. Mahathir terhadap kita tidak boleh dipertikaikan dan jika ada yang masih tidak mengakui kejayaan yang dicipta beliau, mereka ini seharusnya dibukakan mindanya. Namun ini tidak bermakna beliau seorang yang tidak boleh dikritik dan dipersalahkan. Apapun, terima kasih Dr. Mahathir.
Menjelang detik persaraan Perdana Menteri kita, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad pada 31 Oktober ini, aku ingin menyiarkan tulisan-tulisan dari pelbagai sumber mengenai kejayaan dan kegagalan selama 22 tahun beliau memerintah.
Pemerintahan beliau adalah sama baya dengan umur aku dan boleh dikatakan hampir kesemua dasar dan polisi yang dilaksanakan sepanjang pemerintahannya telah membentuk cara aku berfikir dan bertindak walaupun aku lahir di ketika Tun Hussein Onn menjadi PM.
Sepanjang pemerintahannya, terlalu banyak perkara yang perlu diperkatakan dan dinilai semula. Justeru, diharap kita yang peka dan sedar dapat menganalis segala fakta yang ada sejujurnya demi untuk merubah dan melihat negara tercinta ini bertambah cemerlang di dalam semua lapangan dalam erti kata yang sebenar.
Sama ada yang memerintah kita adalah BN, BA, DAP atau parti apa sekalipun, kita tetap perlu bersuara untuk menuntut hak dan memainkan peranan demi untuk kebaikan negara dan masyarakat keseluruhannya. Tidak perlu ditangisi apa yang tiada kerana pemimpin datang dan pergi, apa yang perlu ditangisi adalah kerelaan manusia untuk diperbodohkan semudahnya.
Sumbangan dan jasa bakti Dr. Mahathir terhadap kita tidak boleh dipertikaikan dan jika ada yang masih tidak mengakui kejayaan yang dicipta beliau, mereka ini seharusnya dibukakan mindanya. Namun ini tidak bermakna beliau seorang yang tidak boleh dikritik dan dipersalahkan. Apapun, terima kasih Dr. Mahathir.
Thursday, October 16, 2003
Ayumi Hamasaki, J-pop dan Malaysia
Kepada mereka yang meminati segala macam budaya popular Jepun, sama ada komik Dragonball, Sinchan, fesyen, muzik, drama dan sebagainya. Tidak dapat tidak nama Ayumi Hamasaki pasti diketahui dan dikenali sama ada secara sedar atau tidak.
Ayumi Hamasaki telah menjadi fenomena dan beliau dianggap sebagai satu simbol atau ikon J-pop yang semakin tersebar ke seluruh pelusuk dunia selain daripada Utada Hikaru dan GLAY.
Pengaruh J-pop telah berkembang di Malaysia terutamanya di bandar-bandar besar dan di mana komuniti Cina adalah majoriti. Namun kebelakangan ini, penerimaan masyarakat Melayu terhadap artis-artis dari Jepun ini semakin meningkat.
Di KL, syurga untuk J-pop terletak di kedai muzik Tower Records KL Plaza di mana terdapat banyak koleksi cd dan juga kaset dari artis-artis Jepun yang terkenal atau tidak. Selain daripada itu, kedai-kedai kecil seperti yang terdapat di S&M Plaza juga sangat menarik untuk dikunjungi kerana walaupun pilihan yang ada hanya terhad kepada artis popular, namun harga di sini agak berpatutan.
Kembali kepada Ayumi, beliau setakat ini telah menghasilkan 5 buah album tidak termasuk dua album khas yang bertajuk, BEST: A BEST dan BALLADS BEST: A Ballads, 30 buah single dan 16 buah remix album.
Yang menarik lagi tentang beliau ini adalah kemampuannya menulis lirik yang baik dan berkualiti. Antara lirik lagu dan juga lagu yang saya minati setelah mendengar kesemua lima buah album beliau adalah A Song For XX, Connected, Naturally, I Am, Surreal, Evolution, A Song is Born, M, Duty, We Wish, Real Me, Hanabi dan Heartplace.
Tidak seperti kebanyakan artis wanita Malaysia yang tidak mampu menulis lirik lagu dengan baik (kalau bolehpun hanya lirik lagu cinta) apa lagi menulis lagu sendiri. Kebanyakan lirik lagu yang ditulis beliau berkisar tentang pengalamannya sendiri serta rakan-rakannya. Beliau juga menegaskan akan menulis segala pengalaman yang dilalui beliau dan rakan-rakan sejujurnya di dalam liriknya seperti yang diperkatakannya di dalam laman web rasminya.
"I like to try to view my own and my friends' experiences objectively, and put my honest feelings into words. If I write when I'm low, it will be a dark song, but I don't care. I want to be honest with myself at all times."
Jika ini dapat dipraktikkan oleh penyanyi-penyanyi wanita kita terutama yang terkenal seperti Siti Nurhaliza, Ning Baizura, Siti Sarah, Misha Omar, Ziana Zain dan sebagainya, industri muzik Malaysia pasti akan berkembang baik dari segi pemikiran, variasi dan kualiti.
Ketika ini amat sukar untuk mendengar lirik dan juga lagu yang ditulis oleh artis wanita kita yang selain daripada lirik cinta. Jika dibuat perbandingan dengan artis J-pop dari segi kejujuran, pemikiran dan keaslian, ia seperti langit dan bumi. Tidak dinafikan artis wanita Malaysia memiliki suara yang baik dan berkualiti, namun artis wanita Jepun walaupun tidak kesemuanya bagus juga memiliki kualiti yang sama. Malah ada kelebihan yang lain pula.
Mungkin kita menantikan kemunculan penyanyi-penyanyi wanita generasi baru yang mempunyai prinsip dan dapat lari kejijikan nilai pemikiran artis wanita arus perdana seperti yang dapat dibaca di URTV dan Mangga terutamanya.
Klik untuk profil
Klik untuk latar belakang
Klik untuk senarai album
Klik untuk lirik
Kepada mereka yang meminati segala macam budaya popular Jepun, sama ada komik Dragonball, Sinchan, fesyen, muzik, drama dan sebagainya. Tidak dapat tidak nama Ayumi Hamasaki pasti diketahui dan dikenali sama ada secara sedar atau tidak.
Ayumi Hamasaki telah menjadi fenomena dan beliau dianggap sebagai satu simbol atau ikon J-pop yang semakin tersebar ke seluruh pelusuk dunia selain daripada Utada Hikaru dan GLAY.
Pengaruh J-pop telah berkembang di Malaysia terutamanya di bandar-bandar besar dan di mana komuniti Cina adalah majoriti. Namun kebelakangan ini, penerimaan masyarakat Melayu terhadap artis-artis dari Jepun ini semakin meningkat.
Di KL, syurga untuk J-pop terletak di kedai muzik Tower Records KL Plaza di mana terdapat banyak koleksi cd dan juga kaset dari artis-artis Jepun yang terkenal atau tidak. Selain daripada itu, kedai-kedai kecil seperti yang terdapat di S&M Plaza juga sangat menarik untuk dikunjungi kerana walaupun pilihan yang ada hanya terhad kepada artis popular, namun harga di sini agak berpatutan.
Kembali kepada Ayumi, beliau setakat ini telah menghasilkan 5 buah album tidak termasuk dua album khas yang bertajuk, BEST: A BEST dan BALLADS BEST: A Ballads, 30 buah single dan 16 buah remix album.
Yang menarik lagi tentang beliau ini adalah kemampuannya menulis lirik yang baik dan berkualiti. Antara lirik lagu dan juga lagu yang saya minati setelah mendengar kesemua lima buah album beliau adalah A Song For XX, Connected, Naturally, I Am, Surreal, Evolution, A Song is Born, M, Duty, We Wish, Real Me, Hanabi dan Heartplace.
Tidak seperti kebanyakan artis wanita Malaysia yang tidak mampu menulis lirik lagu dengan baik (kalau bolehpun hanya lirik lagu cinta) apa lagi menulis lagu sendiri. Kebanyakan lirik lagu yang ditulis beliau berkisar tentang pengalamannya sendiri serta rakan-rakannya. Beliau juga menegaskan akan menulis segala pengalaman yang dilalui beliau dan rakan-rakan sejujurnya di dalam liriknya seperti yang diperkatakannya di dalam laman web rasminya.
"I like to try to view my own and my friends' experiences objectively, and put my honest feelings into words. If I write when I'm low, it will be a dark song, but I don't care. I want to be honest with myself at all times."
Jika ini dapat dipraktikkan oleh penyanyi-penyanyi wanita kita terutama yang terkenal seperti Siti Nurhaliza, Ning Baizura, Siti Sarah, Misha Omar, Ziana Zain dan sebagainya, industri muzik Malaysia pasti akan berkembang baik dari segi pemikiran, variasi dan kualiti.
Ketika ini amat sukar untuk mendengar lirik dan juga lagu yang ditulis oleh artis wanita kita yang selain daripada lirik cinta. Jika dibuat perbandingan dengan artis J-pop dari segi kejujuran, pemikiran dan keaslian, ia seperti langit dan bumi. Tidak dinafikan artis wanita Malaysia memiliki suara yang baik dan berkualiti, namun artis wanita Jepun walaupun tidak kesemuanya bagus juga memiliki kualiti yang sama. Malah ada kelebihan yang lain pula.
Mungkin kita menantikan kemunculan penyanyi-penyanyi wanita generasi baru yang mempunyai prinsip dan dapat lari kejijikan nilai pemikiran artis wanita arus perdana seperti yang dapat dibaca di URTV dan Mangga terutamanya.
Klik untuk profil
Klik untuk latar belakang
Klik untuk senarai album
Klik untuk lirik
Artikel di bawah adalah hasil ihsan saudara Fathi Aris Omar
Politik seniman Hollywood
"Kami tidak berminat menjadi ‘kaki demo’ sepanjang hayat," kata Jane Fonda, bintang besar Hollywood lewat abad lalu. "Sekarang tiba masanya bagi mereka yang terbabit dalam gerakan protes (antiperang) 1960-an mula menyusun usaha mengambil alih kuasa politik."
"Kita bercakap soal menyediakan calon wakil rakyat. Kita bercakap soal menggubal undang-undang. Kita bercakap soal membikin filem progresif, kerana sangat penting membina budaya yang progresif dan membuka minda orang ramai.
Akhir sekali kita mesti ingat untuk mencabut akar umbi kerosakan yang mengawal budaya kita, niat untung yang mengawal budaya kita. Tetapi kita tidak akan berjaya berbuat demikian kecuali kita mempunyai kuasa dan pengaruh."
Fonda, ketika mengeluarkan kenyataan ini, mula berasa yakin dan faham kekuatan industri hiburan Hollywood. Dia pernah mengalami krisis identiti diri, sebagai penggiat politik dengan bintang filem. Akibatnya, sebelum berkenalan dengan suami Tom Hayden pada 1972, dia mengambil sikap low profile dalam bidang perfileman semata-mata untuk fokus kepada aktivisme politik.
Memang ada debat besar dan kepercayaan kuat di kalangan aktivis politik, khususnya beraliran kiri, untuk meminggirkan diri daripada dunia pop Hollywood. Gerakan politik kiri, termasuk gerakan sulit Parti Komunis di California, sudah bertapak sejak 1930-an lagi.
Golongan kiri waktu itu sangat percaya pada kuasa filem Hollywood untuk perubahan sosial. Abraham Polonsky misalnya melihat filem bukan setakat kempen sosial tetapi juga sebagai sejenis seni (art form).
Sikap intelektual
Tetapi selepas kejayaan mereka bekerjasama dengan kerajaan Amerika Syarikat menentang fasisme Jepun dan Nazi, dengan mengeluarkan filem-filem propaganda perang pro-Amerika, golongan kiri akhirnya terpinggir dan lemah dalam era McCarthyisme sekitar 1950-an – mereka disenaraihitam dan dihadapkan ke muka pengadilan Jawatankuasa Kegiatan Lawan Amerika.
Antara tokoh utama Hollywood bersama Parti Komunis di peringkat awal ialah Albert Maltz dan Polonsky. Kedua-duanya bagaimanapun menentang sikap parti itu yang suka mengongkong dan menuntut kesetiaan mutlak. Maltz pernah dihukum apabila cuba mengekalkan sikap intelektual yang independen daripada parti itu.
Jane Fonda, ketika menentang kuat peperangan di Indochina pada awal 1970-an dan bersimpati dengan golongan kiri, turut menjadi sasaran kempen memburukkan imejnya dan kebencian kerajaan Amerika di bawah pentadbiran Presiden Nixon.
Sebelum kejatuhan presiden itu pada 1974, Fonda sering diawasi agen persekutuan FBI manakala agen perisikan CIA pula membuka surat-suratnya dari luar negara, rumahnya diceroboh dan akaun wangnya diubahsuai kerajaan, tanpa pengetahuannya.
Beberapa negeri menggubal peraturan untuk mengharamkan Fonda dan filem lakonannya. Stesen-stesen TV enggan menyiarkan filemnya. Manakala media pula memberi bermacam-macam gelaran negatif untuk menjatuhkan imej baiknya. Ada usaha untuk mendakwanya sebagai ‘pengkhianat negara’ selepas lawatannya ke Hanoi, Vietnam pada 1972.
"Jika saya berada (dan berbuat begini) pada tahun 1950-an, saya mungkin sudah dikenakan hukuman mati di kerusi elektrik," kata anak pelakon Henry Fonda. "Memang wujud usaha terancang untuk menekan saya, untuk memulau filem-filem lakonan saya, dan untuk menyenaraihitam saya."
Mencipta keuntungan
Namun selepas berkenalan dengan Hayden, setahun selepas itu mereka berkahwin, Fonda menilai semula peranannya sebagai bintang popular Hollywood. "Tom-lah orang pertama dari kumpulan kiri yang benar-benar percaya pada kuasa filem. Mereka kini telah bercerai.
Dia secara sistematik membikin filem dan sangat berminat melihat media ini sebagi saluran komunikasi. Dan saya pun mula berfikir kembali cara saya melihat industri filem," ceritanya kepada dua pengarang Creative Differences: Profiles of Hollywood dissidents.
Fonda mula merumus konsep filem bermesejkan kesedaran masyarakat serta demokrasi dengan meraikan tuntutan industri hiburan Hollywood. Pertentangan dua dunia ini – politik dan Hollywood – sukar dipecahkan sebelum itu.
Industri ini pada asalnya memilih ‘jalan selamat’, dengan hanya melayan kehendak khalayak, mencipta untung berganda-ganda, menjual angan-angan penonton, pro-syarikat besar dan mempertahankan kuasa politik sedia ada. Bagi aktivis politik, keadaan Hollywood seumpama ini tidak sesuai dengan perjuangan mereka.
Fonda - apabila mencecah usia 40-an dan berfikir matang - mulai sedar batasan idealisme zaman mudanya dan juga arif dengan batasan estetika dan intelektual Hollywood. Dia akhirnya bersedia bekerja dalam kerangka sistem Hollywood.
"Untuk menjadikan peranan mereka lebih berkesan dalam bidang kebudayaan, pembikin-pembikin filem progresif," rumusnya, "mesti belajar bagaimana membina wayang yang benar-benar menarik emosi penonton tetapi membawa mesej demokrasi."
Kurang azam
Selain filem, Fonda dan suaminya juga bergerak melalui pertubuhan politik bagi memberikan kesedaran di peringkat akar umbi dan mempengaruhi proses undang-undang. Antara pertubuhan itu ialah Kempen untuk Demokrasi Ekonomi (CED) yang bertujuan memecahkan pemusatan syarikat besar ke atas kuasa kerajaan dan mengembalikan kuasa rakyat untuk pengurusan ekonomi negara.
Dia dan Hayden (kiri) juga menubuhkan Kempen Keamanan Indochina (IPC) bagi membongkar perang di benua kecil itu yang cuba disembunyikan oleh Nixon daripada mata rakyat Amerika. Dengan kerjasama aktivis kempen ini - Bruce Gilbert - Fonda menubuhkan syarikat perfileman independen IPC Films pada 1973 untuk "mengeluarkan filem yang Hollywood sepatutnya telah terbitkan tetapi tidak berani berbuat demikian."
Seperti juga Gilbert, Fonda yakin, selagi sesuatu filem (atau produk budaya pop) itu mempesona, berjaya menarik perhatian ramai, membawa pulangan wang kepada syarikat pengeluar, mesej yang disampaikan – sama ada politik atau bukan – tidak menjadi soal utama.
"Pembikin filem (serius) yang mempedulikan isu-isu masyarakat dan ada kesedaran sosial, gagal bukanlah kerana ada tapisan tetapi kerana tidak mempunyai azam yang kuat (dan gagal mencari rumusan sesuai)," kata Gilbert lagi kepada pengarang David Talbot dan Barbara Zheutlin.
Gilbert yang berpengalaman luas dalam kegiatan politik antiperang, memang berminat dengan filem dokumentari independen tetapi menyedari pengaruh filem-filem ini sangat terbatas. "Filem-filem Hollywood jauh lebih berpengaruh," tambahnya, "jika pembikin filem yang progresif lebih kuat semangatnya dan mempunyai daya imaginasi."
Memang benar, jelas Fonda, filem-filem Hollywood tidak mendalam, kasar (tidak halus), kurang nuansa dan pembayangan tetapi berpengaruh luas serta berkesan ke atas orang ramai.
"Pembikin-pembikin filem tahu memanipulasi perasaan khalayak. Kita harus lakukan hal yang sama," katanya. "Kita juga harus belajar bagaimana menggerakkan perasaan penonton, tetapi arahnya berbeza (daripada tujuan filem arus perdana yang menjual khayalan dan mencipta wang semata-mata)."
Fonda sedar, di awal pembabitan politiknya, dia agak gelojoh dan kasar. Ada waktu-waktunya dia berasa tidak cukup kiri, tidak terlalu militan, sebab itu ucapannya berapi-api dan dipenuhi retorika.
Politik progresif
Sikapnya waktu itu dianggap tempoh politik sectarian yang sangat melampau, kadang-kadang untuk membuktikan sesuatu kepada teman seperjuangan politiknya. Dia akhirnya menjadi musuh media dan meminggirkan lagi perjuangannya daripada arus perdana rakyat Amerika.
Tetapi selepas 1972, dan khususnya selepas kejatuhan Nixon dua tahun berikutnya, Fonda berjaya menjadikan Hollywood sebagai saluran idea-idea politik yang halal dan boleh diterima ramai.
Dia menganggap dirinya sebagai ‘pemimpin boleh nampak’ atau visible figure walaupun bukan pemimpin politik (dalam maksud tradisi) yang bergerak dalam struktur rasmi pertubuhan politik untuk memobilisasi akar umbi.
Pemimpin jenis ini, dengan sokongan pertubuhan rasmi politik, jauh lebih membantu gerakan politik itu sendiri – berbeza dengan pembabitan awal Fonda dalam era 1960-an atau awal 1970-an.
Namun sebilangan kelompok politik progresif tidak senang dengan caranya ini. Bagi mereka, bintang ini dan suaminya berjuang untuk diri sendiri, bukannya menyedarkan masyarakat akar umbi.
Tetapi pembabitan Fonda, suaminya dan pertubuhan mereka masih dihormati di kalangan teman seperjuangan kerana masih sedia bekerjasama dengan aktivis politik. Ideanya dan pertubuhan CED berjaya membuka mata orang ramai tentang kuasa berlebihan yang dibolot oleh syarikat-syarikat gergasi Amerika.
Jane Fonda meninggalkan wasiat ini untuk seniman dan budayawan kita: "...Semakin lengkap diri anda sebagai seorang manusia...semakin mendalam kefahaman anda mengenai anjakan sosial dan kesannya kepada masyarakat - maka anda merupakan seorang pelakon yang semakin mantap...Apabila anda merasakan ada sebab untuk anda hidup dan anda merasa komited kepada sesuatu di luar diri anda, maka itulah tandanya anda adalah seorang artis yang baik".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tulisan ini diolah daripada Talbot, David dan Zheutlin, Barbara (1978) Creative Differences: Profiles of Hollywood dissidents, Boston: South End Press, hal 131- 143
"Tulisan ini asalnya diterbit dalam Malaysiakini.com (13 Oktober 2003). Ia diterbitkan semula di sini dengan izin penulisnya. Beliau dapat dihubungi di fathiaris@yahoo.com"
Politik seniman Hollywood
"Kami tidak berminat menjadi ‘kaki demo’ sepanjang hayat," kata Jane Fonda, bintang besar Hollywood lewat abad lalu. "Sekarang tiba masanya bagi mereka yang terbabit dalam gerakan protes (antiperang) 1960-an mula menyusun usaha mengambil alih kuasa politik."
"Kita bercakap soal menyediakan calon wakil rakyat. Kita bercakap soal menggubal undang-undang. Kita bercakap soal membikin filem progresif, kerana sangat penting membina budaya yang progresif dan membuka minda orang ramai.
Akhir sekali kita mesti ingat untuk mencabut akar umbi kerosakan yang mengawal budaya kita, niat untung yang mengawal budaya kita. Tetapi kita tidak akan berjaya berbuat demikian kecuali kita mempunyai kuasa dan pengaruh."
Fonda, ketika mengeluarkan kenyataan ini, mula berasa yakin dan faham kekuatan industri hiburan Hollywood. Dia pernah mengalami krisis identiti diri, sebagai penggiat politik dengan bintang filem. Akibatnya, sebelum berkenalan dengan suami Tom Hayden pada 1972, dia mengambil sikap low profile dalam bidang perfileman semata-mata untuk fokus kepada aktivisme politik.
Memang ada debat besar dan kepercayaan kuat di kalangan aktivis politik, khususnya beraliran kiri, untuk meminggirkan diri daripada dunia pop Hollywood. Gerakan politik kiri, termasuk gerakan sulit Parti Komunis di California, sudah bertapak sejak 1930-an lagi.
Golongan kiri waktu itu sangat percaya pada kuasa filem Hollywood untuk perubahan sosial. Abraham Polonsky misalnya melihat filem bukan setakat kempen sosial tetapi juga sebagai sejenis seni (art form).
Sikap intelektual
Tetapi selepas kejayaan mereka bekerjasama dengan kerajaan Amerika Syarikat menentang fasisme Jepun dan Nazi, dengan mengeluarkan filem-filem propaganda perang pro-Amerika, golongan kiri akhirnya terpinggir dan lemah dalam era McCarthyisme sekitar 1950-an – mereka disenaraihitam dan dihadapkan ke muka pengadilan Jawatankuasa Kegiatan Lawan Amerika.
Antara tokoh utama Hollywood bersama Parti Komunis di peringkat awal ialah Albert Maltz dan Polonsky. Kedua-duanya bagaimanapun menentang sikap parti itu yang suka mengongkong dan menuntut kesetiaan mutlak. Maltz pernah dihukum apabila cuba mengekalkan sikap intelektual yang independen daripada parti itu.
Jane Fonda, ketika menentang kuat peperangan di Indochina pada awal 1970-an dan bersimpati dengan golongan kiri, turut menjadi sasaran kempen memburukkan imejnya dan kebencian kerajaan Amerika di bawah pentadbiran Presiden Nixon.
Sebelum kejatuhan presiden itu pada 1974, Fonda sering diawasi agen persekutuan FBI manakala agen perisikan CIA pula membuka surat-suratnya dari luar negara, rumahnya diceroboh dan akaun wangnya diubahsuai kerajaan, tanpa pengetahuannya.
Beberapa negeri menggubal peraturan untuk mengharamkan Fonda dan filem lakonannya. Stesen-stesen TV enggan menyiarkan filemnya. Manakala media pula memberi bermacam-macam gelaran negatif untuk menjatuhkan imej baiknya. Ada usaha untuk mendakwanya sebagai ‘pengkhianat negara’ selepas lawatannya ke Hanoi, Vietnam pada 1972.
"Jika saya berada (dan berbuat begini) pada tahun 1950-an, saya mungkin sudah dikenakan hukuman mati di kerusi elektrik," kata anak pelakon Henry Fonda. "Memang wujud usaha terancang untuk menekan saya, untuk memulau filem-filem lakonan saya, dan untuk menyenaraihitam saya."
Mencipta keuntungan
Namun selepas berkenalan dengan Hayden, setahun selepas itu mereka berkahwin, Fonda menilai semula peranannya sebagai bintang popular Hollywood. "Tom-lah orang pertama dari kumpulan kiri yang benar-benar percaya pada kuasa filem. Mereka kini telah bercerai.
Dia secara sistematik membikin filem dan sangat berminat melihat media ini sebagi saluran komunikasi. Dan saya pun mula berfikir kembali cara saya melihat industri filem," ceritanya kepada dua pengarang Creative Differences: Profiles of Hollywood dissidents.
Fonda mula merumus konsep filem bermesejkan kesedaran masyarakat serta demokrasi dengan meraikan tuntutan industri hiburan Hollywood. Pertentangan dua dunia ini – politik dan Hollywood – sukar dipecahkan sebelum itu.
Industri ini pada asalnya memilih ‘jalan selamat’, dengan hanya melayan kehendak khalayak, mencipta untung berganda-ganda, menjual angan-angan penonton, pro-syarikat besar dan mempertahankan kuasa politik sedia ada. Bagi aktivis politik, keadaan Hollywood seumpama ini tidak sesuai dengan perjuangan mereka.
Fonda - apabila mencecah usia 40-an dan berfikir matang - mulai sedar batasan idealisme zaman mudanya dan juga arif dengan batasan estetika dan intelektual Hollywood. Dia akhirnya bersedia bekerja dalam kerangka sistem Hollywood.
"Untuk menjadikan peranan mereka lebih berkesan dalam bidang kebudayaan, pembikin-pembikin filem progresif," rumusnya, "mesti belajar bagaimana membina wayang yang benar-benar menarik emosi penonton tetapi membawa mesej demokrasi."
Kurang azam
Selain filem, Fonda dan suaminya juga bergerak melalui pertubuhan politik bagi memberikan kesedaran di peringkat akar umbi dan mempengaruhi proses undang-undang. Antara pertubuhan itu ialah Kempen untuk Demokrasi Ekonomi (CED) yang bertujuan memecahkan pemusatan syarikat besar ke atas kuasa kerajaan dan mengembalikan kuasa rakyat untuk pengurusan ekonomi negara.
Dia dan Hayden (kiri) juga menubuhkan Kempen Keamanan Indochina (IPC) bagi membongkar perang di benua kecil itu yang cuba disembunyikan oleh Nixon daripada mata rakyat Amerika. Dengan kerjasama aktivis kempen ini - Bruce Gilbert - Fonda menubuhkan syarikat perfileman independen IPC Films pada 1973 untuk "mengeluarkan filem yang Hollywood sepatutnya telah terbitkan tetapi tidak berani berbuat demikian."
Seperti juga Gilbert, Fonda yakin, selagi sesuatu filem (atau produk budaya pop) itu mempesona, berjaya menarik perhatian ramai, membawa pulangan wang kepada syarikat pengeluar, mesej yang disampaikan – sama ada politik atau bukan – tidak menjadi soal utama.
"Pembikin filem (serius) yang mempedulikan isu-isu masyarakat dan ada kesedaran sosial, gagal bukanlah kerana ada tapisan tetapi kerana tidak mempunyai azam yang kuat (dan gagal mencari rumusan sesuai)," kata Gilbert lagi kepada pengarang David Talbot dan Barbara Zheutlin.
Gilbert yang berpengalaman luas dalam kegiatan politik antiperang, memang berminat dengan filem dokumentari independen tetapi menyedari pengaruh filem-filem ini sangat terbatas. "Filem-filem Hollywood jauh lebih berpengaruh," tambahnya, "jika pembikin filem yang progresif lebih kuat semangatnya dan mempunyai daya imaginasi."
Memang benar, jelas Fonda, filem-filem Hollywood tidak mendalam, kasar (tidak halus), kurang nuansa dan pembayangan tetapi berpengaruh luas serta berkesan ke atas orang ramai.
"Pembikin-pembikin filem tahu memanipulasi perasaan khalayak. Kita harus lakukan hal yang sama," katanya. "Kita juga harus belajar bagaimana menggerakkan perasaan penonton, tetapi arahnya berbeza (daripada tujuan filem arus perdana yang menjual khayalan dan mencipta wang semata-mata)."
Fonda sedar, di awal pembabitan politiknya, dia agak gelojoh dan kasar. Ada waktu-waktunya dia berasa tidak cukup kiri, tidak terlalu militan, sebab itu ucapannya berapi-api dan dipenuhi retorika.
Politik progresif
Sikapnya waktu itu dianggap tempoh politik sectarian yang sangat melampau, kadang-kadang untuk membuktikan sesuatu kepada teman seperjuangan politiknya. Dia akhirnya menjadi musuh media dan meminggirkan lagi perjuangannya daripada arus perdana rakyat Amerika.
Tetapi selepas 1972, dan khususnya selepas kejatuhan Nixon dua tahun berikutnya, Fonda berjaya menjadikan Hollywood sebagai saluran idea-idea politik yang halal dan boleh diterima ramai.
Dia menganggap dirinya sebagai ‘pemimpin boleh nampak’ atau visible figure walaupun bukan pemimpin politik (dalam maksud tradisi) yang bergerak dalam struktur rasmi pertubuhan politik untuk memobilisasi akar umbi.
Pemimpin jenis ini, dengan sokongan pertubuhan rasmi politik, jauh lebih membantu gerakan politik itu sendiri – berbeza dengan pembabitan awal Fonda dalam era 1960-an atau awal 1970-an.
Namun sebilangan kelompok politik progresif tidak senang dengan caranya ini. Bagi mereka, bintang ini dan suaminya berjuang untuk diri sendiri, bukannya menyedarkan masyarakat akar umbi.
Tetapi pembabitan Fonda, suaminya dan pertubuhan mereka masih dihormati di kalangan teman seperjuangan kerana masih sedia bekerjasama dengan aktivis politik. Ideanya dan pertubuhan CED berjaya membuka mata orang ramai tentang kuasa berlebihan yang dibolot oleh syarikat-syarikat gergasi Amerika.
Jane Fonda meninggalkan wasiat ini untuk seniman dan budayawan kita: "...Semakin lengkap diri anda sebagai seorang manusia...semakin mendalam kefahaman anda mengenai anjakan sosial dan kesannya kepada masyarakat - maka anda merupakan seorang pelakon yang semakin mantap...Apabila anda merasakan ada sebab untuk anda hidup dan anda merasa komited kepada sesuatu di luar diri anda, maka itulah tandanya anda adalah seorang artis yang baik".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tulisan ini diolah daripada Talbot, David dan Zheutlin, Barbara (1978) Creative Differences: Profiles of Hollywood dissidents, Boston: South End Press, hal 131- 143
"Tulisan ini asalnya diterbit dalam Malaysiakini.com (13 Oktober 2003). Ia diterbitkan semula di sini dengan izin penulisnya. Beliau dapat dihubungi di fathiaris@yahoo.com"
Sunday, October 12, 2003
Surat pembaca The Star dan media di Malaysia
Akhbar The Star edisi 10 Oktober telah menyiarkan satu surat pembaca yang sangat menarik di ruangan Mail. Input yang diberikan oleh penulis yang menamakan dirinya sebagai Amar Tan dari Subang Jaya ini sesungguhnya pasti akan diberi penuh perhatian oleh kerajaan negeri PAS dan parti pembangkang, BN.
Cukup gembira dan berbesar hati dengan penyiaran surat ini yang boleh dikatakan suatu pandangan dan penilaian yang jujur dan terbuka. Syabas kepada editorial yang bertanggungjawab! Aku masih menganggap akhbar The Star adalah akhbar arus perdana yang terbaik di Malaysia walaupun tidak bebas sepenuhnya.
Secara mudahnya, aku mempunyai persepsi bahawa kesemua akhbar yang berbahasa English termasuklah juga akhbar The Edge sebagai satu sumber bacaan yang baik dan tidak memperbodohkan pembaca secara keterlaluan seperti akhbar berbahasa Melayu kecuali artikel yang ditulis oleh Wong Sulong di akhbar The Star. Betapa sedihnya!
Tetapi apa yang lebih aku gemari di akhbar English adalah artikel-artikel yang ditulis di ruangan- ruangan seperti Star Two, In Tech, Life & Times dsb. Antar penulis yang aku gemari adalah Joceline Tan, Brenda Benedict dan Marina Mahathir. Surat pembacanya juga lebih berkualiti daripada Utusan dan Berita Harian. Bahagian berita walaupun tidak begitu berani dan bebas, namun ia tetap lebih baik.
Aku juga mempunyai satu tanggapan bahawa media mana yang dibaca mempengaruhi cara kita berfikir dan bertindak. Oleh sebab itu aku tidak begitu hairan dengan kejumudan, kebekuan minda, kemelayuan terlampau dan segala macam sifat negatif yang wujud di kalangan orang Melayu yang hanya bersandarkan kepada akhbar Melayu.
Kesemua ini cukup merungsingkan aku kerana selagi mana ketebukaan minda tidak wujud, bagaimana mungkin umat Melayu ini ingin membuat anjakan paradigma di dalam segala hal seperti seni muzik dan filem, politik, pendidikan, sains dan teknologi dsb.
Aku tidak begitu kisah terhadap golongan yang membaca akhbar Melayu atau media cetak berbahasa Melayu jikalau di dalam masa yang sama turut membaca majalah Minda, Massa, Siasah, Dewan Masyarakat, I, Majalah PC, Milenia dsb. Tetapi aku cukup gundah terhadap golongan yang sumber alternatifnya adalah Mangga, URTV, Hai, Bintang Hit dan segala macam bahan bacaan picisan lain.
Aku juga amat dukacita dengan kekurangan sumber bacaan berbahasa Melayu yang berkualiti dan kadangkala aku juga mempunyai persepsi bahawa kerajaan sama ada secara sedar atau tidak sedar telah memperbodohkan orang Melayu dan tetapi di dalam masa yang sama menyebar idea akan perlunya sikap terbuka dan matang. Betapa hipokritnya mereka!
Sementara itu, sumber bacaan yang berkualiti di dalam media berbahasa English lebih senang diperolehi dan pelbagai pilihannya seperti The Edge, Malaysian Business, Aliran dsb.
Jalan alternatif yang aku rasakan wujud di saat ini untuk orang Melayu berubah ke arah yang lebih baik adalah dengan membaca media yang ada di dalam kedua-dua bahasa ini dan kepada mereka yang rajin membaca dan mengkaji ilmu dan pemikiran yang terdapat di dalam media berbahasa English, tersangat bagus jika mereka ini dapat menyebar luas pula apa yang diperolehi dan terlebih bagus jika dapat menerbitkannya di dalam majalah, samizat dsb di dalam medium BM. Namun yang lebih superb adalah mempelajari sebanyak mungkin bahasa yang wujud di dunia ini dan membaca segala apa media yang ada.
Akhbar The Star edisi 10 Oktober telah menyiarkan satu surat pembaca yang sangat menarik di ruangan Mail. Input yang diberikan oleh penulis yang menamakan dirinya sebagai Amar Tan dari Subang Jaya ini sesungguhnya pasti akan diberi penuh perhatian oleh kerajaan negeri PAS dan parti pembangkang, BN.
Cukup gembira dan berbesar hati dengan penyiaran surat ini yang boleh dikatakan suatu pandangan dan penilaian yang jujur dan terbuka. Syabas kepada editorial yang bertanggungjawab! Aku masih menganggap akhbar The Star adalah akhbar arus perdana yang terbaik di Malaysia walaupun tidak bebas sepenuhnya.
Secara mudahnya, aku mempunyai persepsi bahawa kesemua akhbar yang berbahasa English termasuklah juga akhbar The Edge sebagai satu sumber bacaan yang baik dan tidak memperbodohkan pembaca secara keterlaluan seperti akhbar berbahasa Melayu kecuali artikel yang ditulis oleh Wong Sulong di akhbar The Star. Betapa sedihnya!
Tetapi apa yang lebih aku gemari di akhbar English adalah artikel-artikel yang ditulis di ruangan- ruangan seperti Star Two, In Tech, Life & Times dsb. Antar penulis yang aku gemari adalah Joceline Tan, Brenda Benedict dan Marina Mahathir. Surat pembacanya juga lebih berkualiti daripada Utusan dan Berita Harian. Bahagian berita walaupun tidak begitu berani dan bebas, namun ia tetap lebih baik.
Aku juga mempunyai satu tanggapan bahawa media mana yang dibaca mempengaruhi cara kita berfikir dan bertindak. Oleh sebab itu aku tidak begitu hairan dengan kejumudan, kebekuan minda, kemelayuan terlampau dan segala macam sifat negatif yang wujud di kalangan orang Melayu yang hanya bersandarkan kepada akhbar Melayu.
Kesemua ini cukup merungsingkan aku kerana selagi mana ketebukaan minda tidak wujud, bagaimana mungkin umat Melayu ini ingin membuat anjakan paradigma di dalam segala hal seperti seni muzik dan filem, politik, pendidikan, sains dan teknologi dsb.
Aku tidak begitu kisah terhadap golongan yang membaca akhbar Melayu atau media cetak berbahasa Melayu jikalau di dalam masa yang sama turut membaca majalah Minda, Massa, Siasah, Dewan Masyarakat, I, Majalah PC, Milenia dsb. Tetapi aku cukup gundah terhadap golongan yang sumber alternatifnya adalah Mangga, URTV, Hai, Bintang Hit dan segala macam bahan bacaan picisan lain.
Aku juga amat dukacita dengan kekurangan sumber bacaan berbahasa Melayu yang berkualiti dan kadangkala aku juga mempunyai persepsi bahawa kerajaan sama ada secara sedar atau tidak sedar telah memperbodohkan orang Melayu dan tetapi di dalam masa yang sama menyebar idea akan perlunya sikap terbuka dan matang. Betapa hipokritnya mereka!
Sementara itu, sumber bacaan yang berkualiti di dalam media berbahasa English lebih senang diperolehi dan pelbagai pilihannya seperti The Edge, Malaysian Business, Aliran dsb.
Jalan alternatif yang aku rasakan wujud di saat ini untuk orang Melayu berubah ke arah yang lebih baik adalah dengan membaca media yang ada di dalam kedua-dua bahasa ini dan kepada mereka yang rajin membaca dan mengkaji ilmu dan pemikiran yang terdapat di dalam media berbahasa English, tersangat bagus jika mereka ini dapat menyebar luas pula apa yang diperolehi dan terlebih bagus jika dapat menerbitkannya di dalam majalah, samizat dsb di dalam medium BM. Namun yang lebih superb adalah mempelajari sebanyak mungkin bahasa yang wujud di dunia ini dan membaca segala apa media yang ada.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)