FMT: The political impact of Bersih 2.0... By Johan Saravanamuttu

The political impact of Bersih 2.0

July 20, 2011

The BN is still haemorrhaging from the Sarawak state election of April 16, where it lost the urban vote. Bersih 2.0 shows a continuing slide.

COMMENT

By Johan Saravanamuttu

The repercussions of Bersih 2.0 will no doubt be profound. It has already been dubbed as Malaysia’s “Hibiscus Revolution”. The question that is now uppermost in the public imagination is whether the current government will also suffer a severe blow for its inept handling of the event.

Bersih started out in 2006 as a movement of civil society forces and political parties calling for clean and fair elections. Its demands for cleaning up the electoral rolls, reviewing postal votes, including allowing for voting from abroad, fair access to the media, the elimination of corrupt practices are nothing radical or revolutionary and yet the government’s resistance to it has allowed the opposition parties and those not in support of the present government to easily latch on to a ready-made platform for galvanising support.

Bersih’s first political rally on Nov 10, 2007 saw some 40,000 Malaysian streaming into the heart of Kuala Lumpur, setting a benchmark for peaceful political protest in Malaysia.

On July 9, 2011 almost the same number of demonstrators were out in the streets of Kuala Lumpur, as estimated by the independent “politweet”, despite a ban on the rally and police roadblocks at every point of entry into KL. If the political impact of Bersih 1.0 on the general election of March 2008 is now axiomatic, would Bersih 2.0 have a similar impact on the next general election?

It is important to first understand the character of the rally itself. The outpouring of material on the social media and through social networking websites reached proportions which, in my view, have been unprecedented and have not stopped. At the point of writing, over 200,000 facebookers have called on premier Najib Tun Razak to resign. The webpage has picked up 20,000 votes or more in one day.

The people who showed up at Bersih 2.0 came from a cross-section of Malaysia’s multicultural society, with Malays and youth as the dominant groups. This spoke well for the continuation of the trajectory of Malaysia’s non-racialised “new politics”. The involvement of national literary laureate A Samad Said who wrote a touching poem about Malaysia’s “wounded democracy” was highly inspiring to the would-be Bersih rallyers.

Various attempts made to delegitimise Bersih by Umno-related groups had a counter-productive effect. Thus it was alleged that it would be “unIslamic” for Muslims to participate in an illegal rally. The bogey of May 13 was also invoked and the Chinese were asked to stock up on food and stay at home. Such racialisation of the event by Perkasa and the Malay paper Utusan Malaysia helped to further augment multiracial supporters on the other side. The lame counter march of a couple of hundreds of Umno Youth “patriots” proved to be the proverbial drop in the bucket in terms of its impact.

The event received a crucial boost when Suhakam chairman Hasmy Agam weighed in to opine that it was legitimate. Najib had called for the rally to be held at a stadium and the organisers obliged after meeting with the King but the police were adamant about not giving a permit for use of the Merdeka Stadium.

The heavy-handed action on the part of the police – some 1,700 arrests, heavy use of tear gas, water cannons, and some argue, responsibility for one death – has put the government in a no-win situation vis-à-vis the common Malaysian citizen.

BN in damage control mode

In public imagination, Bersih 2.0 would stand out even more than Bersih 1. Already folklore about Bersih has gone “viral” on the Internet. A few examples should suffice. “The Lady of Liberty”, an elderly woman well into her 60s, who braved the water cannons, holding a branch with two daisies has been reproduced ad infinitum in multiple incarnations and web designs.

Numerous individuals present at the rally have written first-hand accounts to show why as ordinary citizens their participation was a morally and socially uplifting experience. Not least of all, Marina Mahathir, the daughter of Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the patron of Perkasa, wrote in her blog that she had gone to participate in the Bersih rally in support of her daughter and all the young people who were drawn to the cause.

Admittedly, Bersih 2.0 is largely an urban phenomenon. But this is not to be taken lightly, if urbanites are fast becoming the voting majority. The prime minister and his ruling coalition, Barisan Nasional, are now in damage control mode.

The BN is still haemorrhaging from the Sarawak state election of April 16, where it lost the urban vote. Bersih 2.0 shows a continuing slide. Umno’s vote banks in the rural areas alone cannot assure it of regaining a two-thirds control of Parliament – which Najib must get to prove he is better than his predecessor Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

The premier is now surely conflicted about waiting out till the mandatory date for the next election in early 2013 or holding it much earlier in 2012. Another difficult budget awaits in October this year and with the Malaysian economy invariably on the verge of a dip, prospects are somewhat dim for the ruling coalition.

Larger than the issue of the next general election, which would now likely to be in early 2012, is the changing nature of Malaysian politics. Political parties like his, which continue to mobilise support purely on the basis of race, after Bersih 2.0, are on a short political tether.

The writer is senior visiting research fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. The article first appeared on Aliran. http://aliran.com/6077.html

malaysiakini: Bersih 2.0: The struggle for a dignified existence.... by CT Wong

Bersih 2.0: The struggle for a dignified existence

C T Wong
Jul 7, 2011

This is best of times, this is the worst of times.

It is the best of times because there is a real possibility of all peoples, of all races and all religions, coming together to demand for fairness in election, for a dignified existence.

It is the worst of times because Bersih 2.0 is a mirror. Instead of seeing a chance to correct the electoral wrongs, the power elites manipulate this opportunity to crush the dissenting voice.

Electoral fairness is of critical importance to democracy. Without a fair and clean election, the winning party loses the legal and moral legitimacy to govern. It is a win without honour.

It breeds unchecked corruption and cruelty. It deforms and disfigures a democratic way of life. It humiliates and brutalises the citizens. Hence, citizens have the right and responsibility to correct election fraud so as to regain human dignity.

The main motivation for election fairness is not for usurpation of political power but for a genuine respect for freedom, peace and justice. Without fairness, peace is neither possible nor sustainable.

Also, the very reason we need and cherish democracy is that human beings are fallible.

We all make mistakes, one time or another, one way or another.

Democracy gives us the chance to correct the mistakes - abuses of power, the thuggery and bullying, corruption, inflicting cruelty to one another etc.

Without the freedom of expression, the freedom of movement, the peoples are dehumanised for having to suffer the indignity caused by the mistakes.

The desire to live a dignified existence is as natural as breathing. No power on earth, however authoritarian it is, can take it away.

A mere random survey of the folklore, the mythology of all civilisations - the Chinese, the Indians, the Malays, the aborigines etc - inevitably reflects the flame of this desire.

The violence of repression is effective for a short period, but it is shallow. It does not touch on the roots of social injustices.

The tragedy of Malaysia is that this non-violent desire is distorted as something dangerous, treacherous and sinister, and as a threat to 'national security'.

Hence, public intellectuals are few. Rationality is banished. It is 
extremely difficult even to identify and define a problem. For example, how fair is our electoral procedure ?

What evidence is available to support or refute fraudulent election?

We do not need the sophisticated mathematics of quantum mechanics to tell us the simple arithmetic of fairness in voting.

Why is it that the simple demand for fair election has become a complex issue of 'national threat'?

Why is it that it cannot be discussed, debated and resolved rationally without the threat of genocidal massacre and burning of buildings?

Without arbitrary arrests and detention? Without the threat of physical and psychological torture?

Without the communist witch-hunt? Without diversion into irrelevant and dubious issues of 'waging war against the Agong'?


Without bullying and intimidation from the life-threatening mob? 


Without humiliating and debasing the opponents and the dissenters?

This is dark side of the discourse supported or expounded by the dominant elites. When they could not argue or debate further, they often raise the spectre of a bloodbath or detention without trial.

This is what can be termed as eliminationist ideology. It is not a systematised political philosophy with all the arguments and evidences. But it is something we can feel and see in many a racial or religious or political dispute.

In a nutshell, this is what it practically says: If you can't argue with them, eliminate them: Eliminate the rights and the voices (e.g. ISA and related ordinances), eliminate the peoples ( e.g. the threat of May 13 the genocidal massacre.), eliminate the property ( e.g. the threat of burning the buildings), eliminate the persons (e.g. death threats) or eliminate the national identities (e.g. revoking of citizenship).

There is certain basic ethical thinking and behaviour like non-killing or non-cruelty which are common to all peoples of all races.

However, eliminationist ideology provides a justification for acts which are not acceptable to normal human beings.

It removes or numbs the psychological revulsion of normal people to cruelty. It often carries messages of hate, and behind which is the wings of war.

It is conducted in the name of race or religion or national security.

Once an image of 'enemy' is created, all cruel acts are justifiable, the means justifies the ends. It is addictive. It is intoxicating because it gives green light to acts which are not acceptable in normal times.

It legitimises social inequalities and injustices through unequal power relations. This is a political and also a social-cultural question.

This is a land where all our forefathers centuries ago had brought along with them the great cultures and religions.

But today, we are witnessing the unfolding of primordial 'instincts' of survival, the survival of the dominant political class.

Aung San Suu Kyi had insights into the psychology of power. She asserted in her book 'Freedom from fear" that "It is not power that corrupts but fear.

Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it."

And this fear "stifles and destroys all sense of right and wrong."

And I would add that it also destroys all sense of shame. Corruption and inflicting undue cruelty to fellow human beings are not seen as shameful acts.

Over 200 people have been arrested and some under the Emergency Ordinance.

Our people are witnessing and bearing the brunt of the powerful and unprincipled not to play by fair rules and not to respect human rights. The fear of losing power make power elites not to fight fair and not to fight well.

Criminalising a legitimate aspiration for fairness is hitting below the belt. Intimidation and harassment against the leaders and supporters of Bersih 2.0 is sheer diversion of attention from the genuine desire to resolve the electoral problems.

In fact, this reinforces, if not confirms, the perception of electoral frauds and underhanded tactics used in election. It is understandable in Germany that any mugs or T-shirts bearing Hitler's image is an offence.

But it is an absurdity to criminalise someone who wears a yellow T-shirt that promotes non-violence, in particular in peaceful times.

Our PM Najib Tun Abdul Razak argued that the use of Emergency Ordinance(EO) to detain several individuals including MP for Sungei Siput Dr. D Jeyakumr is "to prevent more serious incidents from taking place."

This is a pre-emptive strike. But, it begs the question: What is 'more serious'?

Where is the smoking gun?

The evidence to justify Dr.Jeyakumar's detention under EO has yet to be seen. Our PM needs to provide more convincing and credible arguments for pre-emptive strikes as it involves punishing people for an offence yet to be committed.

Also, from the insights provided in the Just War Theory, all these important questions need to be properly addressed : right intentions (is there a just cause?), proper and legal authority (is there proper process of legalisation?), last resort (have all alternatives been exhausted?), and proportionality (Are the benefits worth the costs?).

For those who are arrested under the Siamese twin of ISA, they should be released immediately or be charged in open trial as detention without trial strikes at the very spine of human civilisation. And for all others who are detained in relation to Bersih pre-emptive arrests should also be released.

Pre-emptive strikes, if ever justifiable, have meaning only if it is humanitarian intervention. It should be used only to protect innocents from aggression and not to brutalise the citizens for the sake of narrow self-interests of dominant political class.

The simple demand for electoral fairness and a dignified existence has been demonised and criminalised. The concept of election fairness is software.

All the hardware and humanware can be imprisoned. But, the software cannot be imprisoned or crushed.

Violence can be inflicted onto hardware, but not to the software of non-violence. Unfairness in suppressing this desire creates not fear but contempt from the peoples.

Bersih is consists of many elements - non-violent people and non-
violent ideas of fairness - just like a flower has chlorophyll, water and sunlight. It is as absurd to crush the desire for fairness as to crush sunlight.

We need a new culture, a culture of non-violence, a culture that would awaken us to our greed, hatred, delusion and fear.

We need a new Code of Honour where we commit ourselves to fair play. Otherwise, it is a shame for Malaysia to be a member of the UN Human Rights Council.

'Pre-emptive strikes' should be directed at the roots of social inequalities and injustices and not at the legitimate rights of the citizens.

We need to fight fair and fight well, whichever party is in power. It is a moral responsibility to dignify our existence. Otherwise, the citizens shall have to bersih the corrupt and cruel system.

Let the Detainees GO!

Chon Kai,
Sugu
Dr Kumar
Babu
Saras
Letchu,


All our prayers and thoughts are with you in your times of trial and tribulation.


May Justice prevail ultimately and the evil that men do, be met with just retribution...

ANU Lecture: Social Justice and Political Change: The Malaysian Experience.... By Anwar Ibrahim

Social Justice and Political Change: The Malaysian Experience

By Anwar Ibrahim

 

Lecture by Anwar Ibrahim at the Australian National University, Canberra, Monday, 15th November 2010

I would like to take a moment to express our joy on the release of Aung San Su Kyi. As we all know, her right to political office was denied through the most repressive of means. But driven by her conviction for freedom and democracy, Aung San Suu Kyi soldiered on from strength to strength against all odds. This long overdue freedom will nevertheless give renewed hope for the people of Burma and she will continue to inspire freedom fighters and champions of democracy and justice throughout the world.

Speaking of democracy and justice, I see a clear nexus with the topic at hand. Here in Canberra, no doubt a shining symbol of democracy in Asia, it is apt that I begin my talk on social justice with a clear statement of what democracy entails. Apart from the fundamental requirements of freedom and the rule of law, democracy is also presumed to be defined by the conditions of a free market. And this is where the founding fathers of the French Revolution with their clarion call for liberty, equality and fraternity missed their mark.

This is because a free market is based on competition, and competition, being a zero-sum game has no truck with equality. On the contrary, free market engenders inequality so much so that even the bastions of capitalism such as America and Britain no longer ask whether states ought to intervene in order to reduce these inequities.

The question is to what extent? The invisible hand has remained invisible so often that governments in the free world have not only intervened but have in some cases staked out their territory in areas which were once considered totally off-limits.

Various explanations have been given. The most defensible at least in theory is social justice. According to one view, state intervention is advocated by a “soft-hearted majority” while a “hard-boiled minority” would willingly accept or even rejoice in the inequality.1 This seems to suggest that at least for a certain segment of society, inequality is not seen to be unjust. Defenders of the French Revolution claim that equality has less to do with wealth than with equal treatment before the law. But we all know that deprived of the basic necessities of living, the law is a luxury that the poor man cannot afford. Hence, the need for social justice.

But this begs the question: is there an objective standard of social justice? Philosophers have locked horns on this and I don’t intend to reinvent the wheel here. Nevertheless, to put the issue in proper perspective, from John Locke we are told that “every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own.” We may therefore reasonably deduce that social justice is not in the equation here. John Rawls talks about ‘justice as fairness’ and advocates the notion of distributive justice. Libertarians such as Robert Nozick contend that justice can only be attained through a minimalist state. In other words, there is no room for distributive justice let alone social justice.

In Christianity, particularly under Catholic social teaching, life and dignity of the human person is predicated on the belief that the state must play a moral role to ensure social justice. This is not far from the essence of Mencius’s teachings in advocating that actions are to be judged by their moral correctness, not mere economic benefit. And Islam enjoins that while society may pursue commerce to its fullest, justice and fairness in dealings must remain the chief criterion. Social justice is enjoined in order to establish a humane economy. The point is that advocates of social justice today are in good company and need not feel that they have to be unshaven Bohemian leftists or disgruntled anti-globalization activists to show that they are genuine.

However, you can’t be calling for social justice without expecting political change. Inequalities of wealth, power and status are certainly not the privilege of nations practicing free markets though it is true that in theory socialist states have more egalitarian policies. That’s only the theory because reality bites hard and we know the enormous price that people under socialist regimes have had to pay for the so-called egalitarian lifestyle. To be equally poor is of no consolation. As Martin Luther Jr. once said: “The curse of poverty has no justification.”

Political change is therefore a condition precedent to attaining social justice if it is shown that a society is heading down the road to greater social perdition under its present government. There must be political will to change its socio-economic policies. In this regard, the Economic Transformation Program that was recently unveiled by the Najib administration bears analysis. The numbers are impressive, if not altogether mindboggling. All told, we are looking at more than RM1 trillion in so-called expansionary development and projects calculated at transforming a middle-income economy to a high-income economy.

On closer analysis, however, we are unable to connect the dots to see that critical mass in poverty reduction programs that would be needed to narrow the current gap between the rich and the poor. To seriously address the growing GINI coefficient, general and vague expressions of targeting for higher per capita income simply won’t do. We don’t see concrete plans to address the housing problems of the poor and a blue print for universal free education. We don’t see any comprehensive health care for those who can’t afford private medication and hospitals.

What we see is a frenzied conviction to outdo the megalomaniacal visions of the Mahathir era. We see grandiose designs, humongous structures, buildings taller than the KLCC Twin Towers and other mega projects that are destined to make crony companies outperform others in the share market and the rich and powerful, richer and more powerful. On balance, we see monumental wastage at the expense of the people and the environment. We see the future of our children and the generations to come being sacrificed on the altar of greed and the illegitimate amassing of wealth.

The rent-seeking culture will continue with the manner in which multi-million ringgit contracts are doled out. The issues of governance, transparency and accountability are not addressed even as the indices on transparency and corruption continue to drive investors away. Transforming an economy cannot be done through mere theory –the litmus test is implementation. The condition precedent to passing this test is to put an end to the culture of corruption, rent-seeking, and power abuse.

Now, at this juncture one may well accuse me of being a socialist advocating a welfare state. The answer to that is simple: I make no apology for calling for a more equitable distribution of wealth in as much as I make no apology for maintaining that the safeguarding of fundamental liberties is also one of the main ends of political and social justice. These liberties are of paramount importance but as Amartya Sen has argued, other considerations including that of economic needs are just as vital.
To my mind, he has posed a stunningly simple but compelling question: “Why should the status of intense economic needs, which can be matters of life and death, be lower than that of personal liberties?”2

In my humble view, some basic formulations for the attainment of social justice may be advanced. Governments must be committed to the principle that a more equitable distribution of income is a fundamental precept for the realization of social justice. It is on this platform that I urge my government to undertake integrated plans for poverty reduction in the long run while ensuring a comprehensive support system for the poor and economically marginalized. Economic power must be checked by the principles of governance and accountability. Are we supposed to sit idly by as politicians in public office continue to renege on their promises of social justice while scandalizing the institutions of power with abuse and corrupt practices?

Finally, the discourse on social justice and political change in the context of Malaysia must also be seen in the light of our multi-cultural make up where communal tensions run the risk of being exploited by “sectarian demagoguery”.3 We must therefore reject ideological rigidity and the politics of hate and exclusiveness in all its forms. Politics of this kind engenders divisive barriers whether they are founded on ethnicity, language or religion.

When communal violence erupts and innocent lives are lost, a nation is jolted into the realization that peace and harmony among the people is always a transient phenomenon. One day, it’s there and the next day, it may just come tumbling down under the weight of sectarian strife, or religious conflict or class wars arising from social inequities and economic deprivation.

It is often only after the fact, when events of a cataclysmic nature unfold, that the policy makers and social pundits get jolted to the reality that freedom could be meaningless without food on the table or that the rule of law may still discriminate on grounds of caste, wealth and status.

This is the caveat, the mental construct we should bear in mind when we talk about social justice and political change in Malaysia. It is a stark reminder that peace in our time must be more important than just material progress. In a multi-cultural society like Malaysia’s it is therefore incumbent on leaders to shoulder the responsibility as protectors of this fragility.

In this regard we must condemn in the strongest terms the racist chanting of modern day demagogues. Playing to the gallery is well and good if all we’re looking for is just a good round of applause. But when you have at your disposal the organs of state power and the entire state controlled electronic and print media, the propagation of supremacist doctrines backed by the threat of violence is not only immoral and utterly irresponsible but blatantly criminal.

At the very least, we would expect such leaders to urge for inclusiveness and greater understanding and respect among the communities and not to stoke the fire of racial discord.

To paraphrase Macbeth, they should against the murderer shut the door, not bear the knife themselves.
Thank you.

TMI: Towards a golden age of discourse -- Ambiga Sreenevasan

Towards a golden age of discourse -- Ambiga Sreenevasan

The Malaysian Insider, October 17, 2009

OCT 17 — Fair but robust criticism of legal judgments and laws is a wholly acceptable practice. In every democratic State it is a frequent occurrence. It is what makes a system of justice and law-making stronger.

In the past it was largely lawyers at the forefront of such criticisms. However, with the information age and globalisation, there is a rising tide of awareness of such matters amongst the public in Malaysia. It is heartening to see the public join in the outcry against injustice and unjust laws. It is stimulating to read the arguments for and against a viewpoint, and with this comes the realisation that we should neither take the Malaysian public for granted nor should we underestimate their ability to reason and debate sensibly.

Which makes the lodging of the police reports against JAG (Joint Action Group for Gender Equality) on the Kartika caning issue so disappointing. I must at once disclose my interest. I am an Executive Committee member of Women’s Aid Organisation (WAO), a JAG member, and I was not present at the press conference on 1 October only because I was overseas. Nevertheless I fully endorse JAG’s stand in relation to the Kartika caning. It was a stand taken after due consideration of all legal and human rights factors and this basis is set out in full in the JAG Memorandum of 25 August.

Those persuaded by these arguments will continue to support them until and unless they are persuaded otherwise, not by threats, but by sound and logical arguments.

The aim of those who lodge police reports alleging a range of offences including sedition is clearly to intimidate and to suppress views that do not accord with theirs. Unfortunately, in today’s Malaysia, that is no longer acceptable. Forcibly shutting down discussion does a disservice to one’s cause. It gives an impression of close-mindedness and an inability to argue a case on principle or merit. I would invite them to look at things differently.

We should also deal with the all too-familiar-statements that “these are God’s laws you are questioning” and “you are non-Muslim, why are you interfering?”

Firstly, no one is questioning God’s laws. What is sought is a discussion of the human interpretation of these laws. It appears that even each Syariah State Enactment differs. So where is the seditious tendency in asking for these laws to be looked at and reviewed?

The other point about non-Muslims being involved must also be confronted. I would do that by asking in turn what the role of society at large is in the face of what they perceive to be an injustice, regardless of the religious underpinnings. Recently in Aceh, laws have been proposed that call for death by stoning as a punishment for adultery and flogging for other offences. Human Rights Watch (HRW) has condemned these laws as constituting torture. It would be wholly inappropriate to say that the HRW should not interfere because they may not understand Islamic law. We must remember that in the case of Kartika’s caning, there was international condemnation apart from the outcry amongst members of the public in Malaysia. In this day and age, what we do in Malaysia or what anyone does in any part of the world will be open to comment and scrutiny by anyone in any part of the world. We should just get used to it.

There is a more compelling response. No one can, nor should they ever be permitted to, shield from scrutiny any action that impinges or imposes on the dignity and the physical and mental well-being of another. The dangers of allowing that are obvious. Just imagine if that had occurred in the case of the Internal Security Act (ISA) in Malaysia. We all fight the ISA together even if most of us are unlikely to ever be subjected to that legislation. We fight it on principle alone and because we do not believe any of our brothers and sisters should be subjected to it.

To me it is very clear. If we do not speak up for those who are afraid or reluctant or for those who are weak in the face of what we see as unfair treatment, then we betray our covenant to each other as a society of civilised peoples.

I lament the lack of leadership from the politicians on matters that touch upon religion. Few politicians (from either side of the divide) have shown the courage to take on the task of confronting the issues. To their credit, PAS has apparently said they are prepared to hold a dialogue with JAG on the Kartika caning, and we should take them up on this offer. Surely this is a preferred option to threats and intimidation.

Amartya Sen, a nobel prize winner in Economics in his book “The Idea of Justice” attributes the absence of a backlash on the Indian Muslim population in India after the Mumbai terrorist attacks in November 2008 to a great extent to “the public discussion that followed the attacks to which both Muslims and non-Muslims contributed richly”. A valuable lesson is to be learnt from this.

We must fight the urge to constantly shut down discussion. The temptation to do so as an easy way to avoid thorny issues may always be present. However, therein lies the road to misunderstanding and isolation. We must appreciate that the world is changing and that there is a clamour for dialogue as a means of fostering understanding.

Malaysia in all its multi-ethnic glory is well placed to set an example for the rest of the world in promoting peace and understanding, where people of various cultures and belief do not merely “tolerate” each other, but live in harmony. We must leave a legacy for the generations to come that when we had to face up to a difficult task in our history, we chose the path of openness and dialogue rather than force and suppression.

Let this be the start of our golden age of discourse. Let us all talk to one another. More importantly, let us listen.

malaysiakini-Josh Hong: Fear and anxiety

Fear and anxiety

Josh Hong
malaysiakini, Mar 19, 10
3:03pm

Pastor Rony Tan of Lighthouse Evangelism in Singapore recently shot to fame for all the wrong reasons, as he was reportedly called by the island state's Internal Security Department to explain his contentious and disparaging remarks on Buddhism and Taoism at a church event, which many found offensive.

He finally apologized in order to soothe the mounting anger.

This senior Christian leader is no stranger to controversy: he was once criticized for attributing childhood abuse to homosexuality and linking gay people with paedophiles, which merely laid bare his ignorance of the sexuality issue as a whole.

Around the same time, a teenager by the name of Kenneth Lin launched a petition to demand an apology from Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew (MM Lee, 'affectionately') for telling the National Geographic that Singaporeans had become "less hard-driving and hard-striving".

When interviewed by the Temasek Review, Lin went a step further by accusing the strongman of controlling the state media "for his own greedy needs".

Such downright criticism is a rarity indeed, but it only served to unnerve the church that Lin is affiliated with.

Needless to say, pastors and elders were compelled to sit down with him to 'lance the boil'.

That the Buddhist and Taoist communities in Singapore reacted angrily to the denigration by a Christian pastor is perfectly understandable.

Still, one can see from the overwhelming online responses that cooler heads did not quite prevail.

Many used it to justify their view that such 'sensitive issues' would only 'undermine religious harmony' and 'give rise to social unrest'.The proposed solution? Public discussion on religion is a no-go area, some would say.

Searching for false conformity

Sounds familiar? The very same argument is repeatedly heard here in Malaysia too! But is it possible to create a mature and rational society without tackling openly religious differences with a view to seeking common grounds?

As for Lin's teen valour, it exposes the conservative nature and fear of politics on the part of Singapore's religious establishment to the full.

In a country where politics is the sole monopoly of the People's Action Party (PAP), religious bodies are made to behave more like a supplement to enhancing social harmony on behalf of the authorities, rather than functioning truly and freely as a vibrant part of civil society.

In Singapore, nothing demands more courage than voicing one's dissent to the ruling elite. When the PAP government decided to construct the Integrated Resort - an euphemism for casino - several years back, all the major religious communities were alarmed, seeing the move as the path to perfidy and decadence.

MM Lee, fearing that his son Lee Hsien Loong might not stand his ground but cave into the mounting pressure, came out in full support of the project.

Since then, all the discontent of the religious leaders may be expressed only "internally".

As Malaysians, we know what that means.

Shut the mouth and enjoy life

Such is the realist dilemma confronting Singapore: a model under which the powers-that-be ensure superb efficiency and the best possible quality of life, while depriving the masses of the right to genuine participation in decision-making and democratic process.

With greater material comfort comes easier manipulation, so the reasoning goes.

As the masses become acclimatized to what "should" be publicly discussed and what should not, they are also likely to expect others to 'play by the rule' instead of rocking the boat.

Such mentality is engendered by nothing but oppressive fear of 'turmoil', which prompts the majority to seek refuge in a false conformity.

While it is true that Malaysians' political awareness has vastly improved since the March 8 general elections two years ago, it does not stop Barisan Nasional - like the PAP - from resorting to fear-mongering in response to the rising calls for democratization.

Just look at the way Hishammuddin Hussein Onn reacted to the series of attacks on places of worship, when he time and again threatened the public with the notorious Internal Security Act.

Hishammuddin is perhaps the antsiest politician I have ever seen, as his unnecessarily excessive reaction is driven by a deep sense of anxiety.

Character foundation wobbly

A keris-brandisher, he is easily provoked, often allowing his fickle temperament to get the better of him. I cannot help suspecting all his antics are merely part of a feeble attempt to affirm his 'manhood'.

Just last week, Hishammuddin was again outraged, this time by a China Press headliner that Inspector-General of Police Musa Hassan was on the way out.

True to form, he went on to warn that sensationalizing any issue to boost sales could be met with stern action if proven untrue.

Hishammuddin issued the Chinese tabloid with a show-cause letter (which it has kept quite a few over the years), and reiterated the seriousness of the "unfounded" report.

Quite clearly, he worked hard to ensure the public feel the brunt of his anger and shut up under a climate of intimidation and fear.

Why such a big deal? In a real democracy, all public office bearers deserve apology when news related to them is misreported or misrepresented.

However, for a government to make a mountain out of a molehill and pursue the wrongdoer relentlessly is nothing but meanness and arrogance that borders on paranoia.

In a society where information flows freely, errors are inevitable. One may chastise, clarify or apologize, but never to throw the baby out with the bath water by curtailing freedom of speech with an atmosphere of intimidation.

Moreover, the China Press had not been completely off the mark, for Hishammuddin himself confirmed the next day that Musa Hassan is indeed to be replaced soon!

All governments are in the habit of playing on the 'vulnerability' of the masses so that they can justify their grotesque behaviour and even lunacy in the name of "protecting the public".

It would not have been possible for the Bush administration to wage catastrophic wars on Afghanistan and Iraq without the pervasive fear generated in the aftermath of the September 11 tragedy.

One must not forget too that the terrorist attacks scared the western media out of their wits that many were willing to go along with the wars, a sheer outcome of shrinking public space for rational debate.

A society living in constant fear is also unable to behave normally. I was therefore least surprised when some Malaysian Christians held the Catholic Church responsible for "blowing the usage of Allah out of proportion".

After all, they had long accepted the received wisdom of not confronting the government head-on!

In fact, the world is big and spacious enough for one to speak truth to power without being radical (though radicalism itself has been a positive catalyst for change throughout history).

Sadly, many choose to remain silent before political chaos, mostly out of fear as well as for vested interests, which only benefits the ruling elite in the long run.

In either Singapore or Malaysia, the ruling elite tend to tempt the masses into giving up their right to meaningful political participation with promises of 'social stability' and 'affluent life'.

But is it not paradoxical that a government that is duty-bound to manage the country well should not only claim the credit, but take away our freedom of thought along with it?

Listening to the opposing views and making our voices heard are conducive to our collective health. Engaging Khoo Kay Khim, Ridhuan Tee and Perkasa leaders in public debate is also vitally important to creating a vibrant civil society, which is also likely to weaken the hegemonic discourse of the powers-that-be.

But it is up to the individuals to decide if they want to be critical citizens or submissive subjects.

JOSH HONG studied politics at London Metropolitan University and the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. A keen watcher of domestic and international politics, he longs for a day when Malaysians will learn and master the art of self-mockery, and enjoy life to the full in spite of politicians.

52 years on, and still Mistrust and Communalism reigns...

This year, I greeted Merdeka amidst deep feelings of disquiet and uneasy anguish. It has become a recurrent theme of my melancholy.

31st August has come around again -- Hari Kemerdekaan, Independence Day.

Before I go on, I want to state that I am not politically-affiliated and do not belong to any political party. I consider myself a liberal Malaysian, and have always been advocating a kindlier, more sensible, more cohesive, more efficient and less corrupt Malaysia. I am passionately inclined to supporting a radical yet peaceful change for a better Malaysia.

I begin this way, knowing that in Malaysia these days, everyone is now a potentially vocal commentator with no holds barred to their freedom to express themselves!

Still, I continue to hope that more common sense and reason will prevail. I am an unabashed believer in more constructive if idealistic rational discourse and less rhetoric.

I was born two years before the Malayan liberation, too young to understand the significance of what 'Merdeka' meant. But later, my late father (one who was ever so apolitical) would remind me that it was one of those life-defining moments of epiphany, with the nationwide rousing shouts of pride of "Merdeka, Merdeka, Merdeka!..."

Now 52 years on, this shibboleth appears somewhat hollow, too meaningless, too unfelt. Was it truly freedom to decide our own fate, our own lives, our destinies? Have we really been liberated?

Or has this been replaced with an even more destructive social disintegration, political uncertainty and perhaps a growing sense of hopelessness? I wonder.

But as Malaysians, we seem to have forgotten that we did have some success, as many people around the world would gladly attest. We were among the better, more stable newly independent states, which had progressed with a decent clip of development, fairly good administration, a workable semblance of political freedom and democracy. But perhaps only just, as dictated by the reality of the times, then...

I am not sure if our history could have been much different given the circumstances, the ethnic composition, the political awareness, the communal tensions, the talents and the leaders that we have had. But then again, I am not sure if we had learnt anything at all from our unique history.

To be sure, we will all have our own passionate beliefs that our past leaders had led us down the garden path of corrupt destruction and wasted opportunities. As a whole, this would be a true reflection for many of us.

Many have lamented the fact that the mainstream establishment had been guilty of glossing over the splintering jaggedness of our incompatible perhaps ineradicable differences. Deep-seated communal bigotry and irrational ethno-religious bullheadedness continue to jar our carefully crafted Vision 2020, and the more recent if much maligned facade of 1 Malaysia.

Sadly, these tensions just refuse to go away, only to be stoked incessantly by morally-bankrupt politicians...

We clearly could not all have hoped to be taking the singular path of breakaway Singapore in 1965... Like it or not, Singapore's political reality, resource-poor island status, and their ethnic composition then, made it a particular experience at nation building, which perhaps could only have happened once in a rare while, much like the serendipitous bountiful arrows of earth's evolution, and our magnificent diversity, to paraphrase the late paleo-zoologist Professor Stephen Jay Gould.

With our greater numbers and more diverse peoples, it was unlikely that Malaysia would have achieved that identical status that is Singapore today. Yes, it is true that Singapore's economic strides: GDP growth, living standards and appreciating dollar, appear to have left us quite far behind...

Yet again perhaps, (and with due apologies to my Singaporean friends!) many Malaysians would baulk at that idea of becoming another successful if somewhat soulless and straitjacketed nation, across the Causeway -- that "little red dot", bright and lustrous as it sometimes seems...

But, it is good to imagine what might have been, if we had chosen paths of greater ethnic, religious tolerance and acceptance, 'real' unity and accommodation, greater efficiency, lesser corruptibility, less political manipulation and even less seething if undisguised polarisation.

It is increasingly difficult to be jubilant, enthusiastic, yes, even nationalistically proud when we celebrate our National Day, our independence from our long history of colonial past. 52 years now from whence we were cobbled together, in a mishmash political entity called Persekutuan Tanah Melayu and then later in 1963, Malaysia.

From colonial expediencies where the colonial masters commanded all the "divide and rule" puissance, to deviously subdue local inhabitants, e.g. Malays, Ibans, Kadazans; indenture Indians into planting and then tapping the sprawling rubber plantations, and crudely importing chain gangs of Chinese coolies to mine tin and other minerals, we were expected to arrive at a semblance of an amalgamated whole. Perhaps, this was a tall order, too tall to succeed...

Despite more than half a century of this social experiment and so-called nation-building, it appears that socio-ethno-religious fracture lines have never been truly mended, much less fused. Latterly, this frangible social contract seems to have been sundered further apart with vengeance!

Political meekness and tongue-tied obeisance on the part of the secondary parties within Barisan National, were punished by increasingly loud and resurgent anti-establishment voices, which crescendoed in the March 8 electoral gains by oppositionists.

Yet, instead of greater democratic space and hoped for change, this last year and a half, have been fraught with political uncertainties, ridiculously crude and partisan chicanery, and a rising tempo of communal and religious tensions! Every day seems consumed in politicking and more politicking!

There is great social schism in our rakyat, mounting mistrust, and a seemingly unbridgeable chasm of non-accommodation on both sides. Anything espoused by either side is quickly dismissed as inherently self-serving, misleading, wrong, devious or inept.

Oppositionists have been labeled as disloyal crypto-racists, anti-royalty, and even more viciously anti-Malay, which must be furthest from reality. Unfortunately, events of late have made this feeling even more entrenched: selective prosecution/persecution of oppositionist supporters, peace or anti-ISA demonstrators including candle-light vigil participants; Machiavellian takeover of the Perak state government; custodial deaths and torture (with the latest Teoh Beng Hock's 'falling death' from the 14th floor of the MACC building); perceived and blatantly biased actions and arrogance of our much maligned Police force; widespread misgivings on the impartiality of our judiciary, etc.

In short, to many of the growing throngs of anti-establishment Malaysians, the current government cannot be trusted, period. And all its civic institutions appear rotten to the core... There's widespread anger, indeed even rousing hatred which fuels its own vicious cycle of anarchic anomie.

The rise of the blogosphere and alternative media though the world wide web, has opened up and exposed that untameable genie in the bottle, never again to be contained. While, this ungovernable cyberspace has fostered unimaginable information traffic, and unlocked many secrets, exposes, and countless exchanges for the better, there is another sinister side which has emerged.

This unleashed genie of free expression too is fraught with disturbing inexactitudes, irrational bigotry and unrestrained viciousness of its own. Personally declared but intolerant righteousness have been spewed behind the facade of perceived anonymity of the Internet. Can anyone believe anything at all in the web? Certainly not everything, but the dilemma is knowing which is which.

Belligerent ad hominem attacks have become the preferred mode of communication for greater share of internet audiences. From rambling disorganised blogs/commentaries to incoherently twittering 'haikus', rantings and ravings have replaced civic discourse or rational dialogue.

Rumours and innuendoes have been elevated to become unchallengeable "facts", aggravated by the overzealously self-censoring main stream media, whose alienating voices are diminishingly soft and perceptibly untrustworthy...

There appears to be very little patience for compromise, for sensible meeting of minds... How do we build a republic of virtue, if we cannot at least try to work together and are almost always bogged down in the quagmire of seething hatred and mutually destructive distrust?

Although some may disagree with the middle ground of academic Azly Rahman ( in Dream of a Sincere Merdeka), I think he represents that enlightened Malaysian intellectual who espouses more dialogue no matter how trenchant the tone: "We spend too much time politicising everything and less time educating. If all that energy is used to design a better system of participatory democracy and philanthropy, and to reach out to other ethnic groups to collaborate in solving the issue of poverty, we, as Malaysians, will become a miracle nation."

I think many alter Malaysians are now so intoxicated by their own anger, hatred and righteousness that many are no longer listening, except to their own voices and other like-minded echoes they surround themselves with. We are no longer thinking about how some of these seemingly implacable problems can be resolved. We just want to see instant results, provoke instant reactions, we behave as if the politics of the land is a playground for the brave and loud. But, what about how to run, really run a government of our choice, of virtue?

An online editor has confided apologetically that: "many commentators basically rant and rave at any one who seems to be in authority... I do wonder if there is a place for genuine discourse. But I guess we live in a country where quite a lot is broken."

Conversely, pro-government politicians, administrators (police, judiciary, MACC, civil servants) and supporters are now all increasingly tainted with that huge tar brush as corrupt, venial, mercenary, totally reliant on political patronage, rent-seekers, and ineffective, without exception -- which again cannot be all the incontrovertible truth.

But the innocents are increasingly marginalised and are being pushed to smaller and smaller corners of despair, which may explain their entrenched attitudes towards some sort of subliminal retaliation. Anger and hatred breeds both ways, it is often forgotten...

Worse than that, we appear to be spiralling down that abyss of ever more provocative racist and religious extremism: the latest being that unforgivably brutish "cow head" protest against the building of a Hindu temple in Shah Alam. After initial outrage, this unspeakable bigotry seems to have receded into receiving no more than knuckle-rapping warnings and an inexplicable deafening silence from that raft of usually "legalistic" UMNO leaders.

Yet on the other side, can we not see that some Muslims and Malays fueled by politically-motivated siege behaviour, may have been 'engineered' and have banded together to fight back, to loudly proclaim their growing sense of 'loss', their perceived grievances? Never the twain shall meet, it seems...

Thus, can anyone be faulted for this sense of national despair, of hopelessness, of more of the same or worse?

But this disturbing sense of intellectual anarchy in our newfangled 'democratic' space keeps growing--our politics get murkier and murkier, with widespread and humongous allegations of bribery, corruption, counter charges of corruption; whispered vote buying of millions to reported billions of Ringgit of corporate mismanagement; shameless personal enrichment and rent-seeking cronyistic patronage and handouts; counter claims of inept, uncaring constantly politicking oppositionist state governments!

Every action appears to have been challenged by more reactions. We have now accumulated mountain piles of legal challenges and counter-challenges that appear to be the only by-product of our hard-fought democratic space.

Countless police reports, counter-reports, statutory declarations, counter-declarations, whether true or false, pointless point-scoring judicial challenges/reviews, spiralling defamation suits (100 to 500 million Ringgit! Is any Malaysian really worth that much?), accusations and counter-accusations now dot our political landscape and news, almost on a daily basis!

We are effectively stalling and stumbling at the starting block, as impasse spasms continue to paralyse our development and progress...

We trust no one, we blame and censure everyone, we continue to let our unleashed rage, our gut-instinctual righteousness, and our unyielding partisanship create this overpowering dark cloud atmosphere of gridlock and paralysis!

There appears to be no hope, the divide seems unbridgeable, the Malaysian schism further separates... So there appears to be one law for supporters and another for the others. So frustrating, so provocative, so hate-fulfilling...

A beleaguered government sensing their dismal disarray into possible irrelevance, corrals upon itself a "fight or flight" mentality, its back against the wall. It necessarily wants to fight back, and it does so with a vehemence that should surprise no one!

There appears to be no willingness to compromise, this is one fight to the 'death' so to speak! Winner takes all! But is this necessarily so?

Can we find a middle ground? Or is the only other way, a revolutionary disassembling, discharge or destruction of the other? Must this confrontational stance rise and rise to that unthinkable crescendo of social dehiscence, which can only threaten to destroy all of us, everyone of us, self-proclaimed 'true' Malaysian patriots?

We could tone down our justifiable outrage, our unforgiving tantrums, our frenzied rantings, because this would help make our arguments a tad more tolerable, even if less exciting to read. True dialogue rather than talking heatedly over each others' heads would be far more productive.

We must learn to think aloud and listen to ourselves, especially if we wish to impart and share our strongest views about others. Even if we believe that by doing so, we can hopefully help create a small glimmer of hope, to help bring about 'change' for the better.

This is not to say that we are climbing down from our precarious perch of righteousness or moral might. This is also not my 'apologist stance on behalf of the establishment'. It is a genuine call for more common sense, and less rhetoric, less posturing. Our strength of conviction will be that levelheaded perspicacity and moral persuasion that serve as the hallmark of modern democratic action.

Perhaps, I am naive, but I sense and fear the growing demise of our social respect for each other to the point of contempt and constant belittling of one another. Once we start thinking of those who disagree with us as less than human, we are really stepping down the slippery slope of dangerous no return.

We must therefore, learn to avoid these sparks of deadly rhetoric which can precipitate ethnic-religious tragedies such as has been experienced in the not too distant past, in former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

I know we all think we are contributing to this concept of change which we must begin with each and every one person in Malaysia. I believe this too, passionately, but I too must be aware of the prevailing realities and maintain a step-back patience.

Sometimes, the loudest most strident voice is not necessarily that most listened to; some people would be very quick to switch off immediately, and we would not be listened to at all, except from the already converted. The more serious consequences would be the possible repercussions of retaliatory anger, hatred, vengeance...

We can all help to lessen the tenor and the tempo of recriminations and deep-seated anger and try and temper down the growing ill will that is brewing and boiling over in our blogosphere and possibly also in our civil society!

We stand ready to lose and exclude another huge segment of our society, who are our fellow citizens too, albeit on the other side of the fence. Worse, we may be kindling something more unthinkable, more sinister and terrible! I do hope I am wrong and will be proven so!

Let's help reduce the political tension, while continuing to push our agenda with less animosity but with greater moral suasion!

God help us! Have a thoughtful Merdeka!

This article has been published in The Malaysian Insider, 06 September 2009
Also in Malaysian Mirror, 06 September 2009
Appears as a brief letter in malaysiakini Sinister side of the web, 08.09.09


--------------oooooooo00000000ooooooooo-------------------

Yasmin Ahmad, A Truer Malaysian Patriot...

Saturday 25 July 2009, 11.25pm. Yasmin Ahmad has died. Massive stroke. Brain haemorrhage. Abrupt. Mal apropos. Lethal.

Like many Malaysians, I am shocked and I mourn the untimely loss of filmmaker and creative director, Yasmin Ahmad.

Simply put, I mindfully ask why we are yet again losing so many great people, so young, so needlessly, so unforeseen—illustrious souls claimed too prematurely by the grim reaper, the proverbial 'thief in the night'.

I have never met Yasmin Ahmad. Yet, I feel a kindred spirit with this fellow Johorean, perhaps the quintessential Malaysian filmmaker within my generation.

Like many wishful and wistful Malaysians nowadays, we all continue to yearn for a lost time and era, where our ethnic diversity was our amalgamated strength and our unique sense of pride.

Yasmin, I believe, is a truer Malaysian than most of us dare to profess. She was more daring than most, to flesh out a more creative version of what it means to be a citizen of this blessed land, which we call Malaysia.

She dared to explore the darker expressions of racial bigotry within our society, which of late has been sundering our communities, in staggered if with unchecked certainty. Interracial relations have always been touchy nearly taboo subjects, which many Malaysians are at pains to sweep under the carpet of self-censored political correctness.

Publicly, we are at pains to project in most instances a tightly controlled sensitivity, and tongue-biting reservedness, which borders on impenetrable aloofness, but loudly declared if perfunctory camaraderie. However, over time, these less than robust facades get sandpapered away to expose the superficiality and the unburnished colder emotions—of barely submerged antagonism and crude stereotypic dehumanising racial slurs.

During political rhetoric and partisan outbursts, the uglier face of racism surfaces, latterly more often than not. Unleashed anger, hurt-pride, mob-instinct, explode more readily with utterances of irrational bigotry—which create vortices of vicious cycles of indignant recriminations, of plangent hurtful sectarian bombast...

Yet, in subtle contradistinction to these stereotypes, in many Petronas-funded commercials, Yasmin was able to inject a heady stream of poignancy and comic relief which showcase our unique connectedness, our inexplicable destiny, rather than spotlight our skin-deep dissimilarities. In other short films, she was able to finesse uncommonly discussed issues, considered by many to be too raw or too crude to be aired—“The Funeral” was one case in point.

Yet she was able to evoke bittersweet emotions which knew no racial or religious bounds, but which continues to showcase our human foibles and our oft-forgotten sensibilities, in a comically tender fashion, which warms the heart.

She married a Chinese (Tan Yew Leong), to wit, as if to announce to the world that she believed her destiny was meant to be—a Malaysian who was bold enough to live and practice without the oppressive constricts of social religious mores, racial taboos or unspoken frowns of politically-incorrect dissuasions...

Better than that she dared project those hypersensitive touchstones which help us all to question our irrational if misguided 'monkeys off our backs' which tether our better gentler spirit to our uglier crasser emotionalism. For many of us, this emotional stunting remains that deeply entrenched molten lava of illogical ethnocentric superciliousness, our ingrained if misguided belief in our own ethnic supremacy. "Aren't all of us racist in our own hearts?"

Yet, many of us are schizophrenic when it comes to being labelled Malaysians. While we may all look quite different, Malays, Chinese, Indians, Dusun-Kadazans, Ibans, etc., we have whenever we are in any international forum or discourse, declared our proud Malaysian origins. We sense ourselves as different, yet similar and unique in an inexplicable way, in spoken Manglish, "-lah"-accentuated speech patterns, so ingrained in our acculturated mindset that only a Malaysian can understand.

Like so well illustrated by another iconic Malaysian artist, Lat, our Malaysianness must stand us apart, if only because only we can fully appreciate the colourful nuances, the comical stereotypes which enhances rather than demeans our differences. Our uncouthness, our jagged crudities, our slapstick teeth-sucking, nose-sniffing mannerisms, our oddly juxtaposed spoken words are but cultural pearls which only our Malaysianness can decipher and find chuckling meaning and furtive humour...

Indeed, while we had been colonized serially for centuries, Malaysia had been blessed by her fecund land: first from our sequential abundance of natural resources—from tin and rubber, then palm oil, then crude oil and latterly expanding into small medium industries, led particularly by our insightful foray into the then explosive electronics industry.

But perhaps most importantly of all, I strongly believe that Malaysia benefited singularly from her peoples: our unique blend of multi-ethnicity, so jingoistically announced to the world as "Malaysia, truly Asia." It was this sensitive portrayal of the eclectic Malaysian and his/her interracial tensions that marked the genius in Yasmin Ahmad.

She had variously been branded an ethnic traitor and frequently labelled as controversial, when all she ever did was to dare to expose the fallacies and the down-to-earth idiocies of racial/religious stereotyping and bigotry.

It appears that the Malay heartland was less impressed with Yasmin's talent and derring-do than other non-Malays, who have always embraced her more readily, sensing her passionate understanding and connectedness. Perhaps not wearing her religion on her sleeves, and having married a non-Malay spouse, might have helped shaped her sense of greater ethnic openness and tolerance.

But there was more than met the creative eye of Yasmin Ahmad. I believe Yasmin was a truer patriot, more in deeds and soul-searching honesty than most. She had that extra touch of creativity and sensitivity which transcended ethnic considerations and concentrated on what truly matters, the human spirit and experience, that singular penetrating understanding of interpersonal relationships, in the unique inescapable setting of multiracial Malaysia...

“Sepet” was perhaps Yasmin's best-known work, which won her acclaim and controversial notoriety. A thinly disguised critique of interracial love and emotional relationships heavily tinged with exploits of ethnic bigotry, touched many tender raw spots which were previously considered taboo in Malaysia.

"Sepet" released in 2004, won Malaysian Film Festival Best Film Award (2005), including too several international awards, viz. the Asian Film Award at the Tokyo International Film Festival 2005, the Grand Prix Award at the 2005 Creteil International Women’s Film Festival.

Since her first movie, “Rabun” in 2003, other films followed: “Sepet” (2004), “Gubra” (2006), “Mukhsin” (2006), “Muallaf” (2008) and Talentime (2009).

Such were her magic touches that almost every film made by Yasmin had won some prize or other in the international film scene, marking her as an extraordinary filmmaker whose eye for social analyses had come of age, in an era where serious quality was often trumped for trendiness and kitsch.

In fact her style and talent so captivated Singapore's Prime Minister, that he'd invited Yasmin Ahmad to direct a film for launch at the Youth Olympics in 2010 in Singapore. Alas, this project is now in limbo...

We'd probably lost forever, the opportunity to see yet another work of a genius, of a truly international class film master...

Sleep well, Yasmin. Your films, your influence, your touch, your Malaysianness will yet outlive your short sojourn on earth. May your unswerving efforts and boldness to deconstruct ethnic taboos, religious boundaries and racial bigotry help realise a better, more united Malaysia.

Rest in Peace.

Al-Fatihah.