Archive for category Farish Noor
China-Bashing Season Has Begun
Posted by Kit in Farish Noor on Wednesday, 23 April 2008
By Farish A. Noor
While the simplistic thesis put forward by Samuel Huntington in his work ‘The Clash of Civilisations’ reads like a paltry script from a bad movie, it has to be said that bad scripts are often the most believable and effective. It was Huntington who predicted that in the wake of the Cold War a new sort of conflict would arise, namely one configured along cultural-civilisational differences between the developed Western world and the mysterious, exotic and threatening East.
The two cultural blocs that were said to be the future adversaries to the West were the Muslim world and China, respectively. In the case of the former, it was opined by Huntington that with the demise of Communism the potential threat of Islam would be realised sooner or later for the simple reason that Islam and the West shared ‘bloody frontiers’ that were marked by centuries of conflict. This thesis, however, is patently false to anyone who has even the slightest idea of the history of Islam and the non-Muslim world, for the fact is that the frontiers of the Muslim world are not marked by violence nor stained by blood, but rather remain porous horizons marked by the eclectic culture of Islamic mysticism or Sufism: From Southeast Asia to China, from Africa to Europe, the furthest frontiers of the Muslim world are precisely where mysticism and the Muslim practice of inter-cultural dialogue and cultural cross-fertilisation flourished the most.
Related to Huntington’s fear of Islam was his fear of China, dubbed the ‘sleeping giant’ by Napoleon more than a century ago and which till today has yet to truly realise and demonstrate its full economic potential. Huntington’s crude thesis argued that in time the West would have to realise that non-negotiable cultural differences exist between the Western world and the Orient, and that these cultural differences would ultimately serve as the catalyst for an all-out confrontation between the West and China. Read the rest of this entry »
A Wave of Change Across Southeast Asia? But counter-currents too
Posted by Kit in Farish Noor on Friday, 18 April 2008
By Farish A. Noor
The latest results from the governorial elections in the provinces of West Java and North Sumatra, Indonesia, would suggest that a sea-change of sorts is taking place in Indonesia. Shortly after the shock election results following the General Elections held in Malaysia earlier this year, the governorial elections of Indonesia has led to the victory of the Justice and Prosperity party (PKS) and the National Mandate party (PAN), both of which are Islamist in character and both of which trace their ideological and intellectual geneaology back to the Islamist Masjumi party of the 1950s that struggled to make Indonesia an Islamic state until it was finally banned by President Sukarno in 1960.
What do these results entail and what does it say about the state of Indonesian politics today? More importantly, should the victories of PKS and PAN be seen as the victory of political Islam, and does this signify a shift towards a more Islamist-inclined politics for the rest of the country?
For a start, we should begin with some important observations comparing the results in Indonesia with the recent results in Malaysia. In both cases, the parties that won fielded candidates who are young and relatively unknown compared to the older veterans of the more established parties like Golkar in Indonesia. Yet, as was the case in Malaysia recently, it was precisely the relatively younger age and lack of exposure that perhaps accounted for the victory of the candidates of the PKS and PAN, for they were certainly not associated with the older modes of politics in the past and were not involved or implicated in many of the long-standing political and economic scandals associated with the old regime that dates back to the time of former President Suharto. Read the rest of this entry »
So Is Islam Hadari To Be Enforced By Whipping Now?
Posted by Kit in Farish Noor, Islam on Friday, 4 April 2008
By Farish A. Noor
I am having a tough time writing this particular article as I am absolutely consumed by anger at the moment. In fact, I am livid as I have never been for such a long time.
The reason for this sudden rise in my blood pressure level is that after a two-day seminar organised by the Institute for Islamic Understanding (IKIM) and the Shariah Judiciary Department of Malaysia, it was suggested by some of those who took part that ‘non-Muslims found committing khalwat (close proximity) with Muslims (will) also be held liable’ and that they too will be under threat of punishment. (The Star, Proposal to Persecute Non-Muslims for Khalwat, 3 April 2008) According to the report ‘Syariah Court of Appeal Judge Datuk Mohd Asri Abdullah said the seminar had proposed that non-Muslims committing khalwat with Muslims should also be sentenced accordingly, but in the civil courts.’
Furthermore the participants of the seminar also proposed ‘to impose heftier penalties – of up to four times the current penalties –on Muslims caught for khalwat, prostitution, consuming alcohol and involvement in gambling activities.’
And what might these heftier penalties be? According to the same report ‘Ikim and the department were proposing that the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 (Amendment) 1984 be amended to impose stiffer penalties of RM1,000 fine, or five years’ jail or 12 strokes of the rotan for Syariah Lower Courts and RM20,000 fine, or 10years’ jail or 24 strokes of rotan for Syariah High Courts’. It then added that ‘there was also a proposal for Syariah judges to enforce whipping for these offences’ and that ‘another proposal calls for the establishment of a rehabilitation centre for those convicted of offences related to morals and faith such as prostitution and effeminate men, and enforcement of Section 54 of the Syariah Criminal Offences Act (Act 559) to set up such centres’.
So this, apparently, is what the great minds of IKIM and the religious departments have been cooking up and intending to serve to us, the Malaysian public, all along. While Muslims are angry about the portrayal of Islam and Muslims in the film ‘Fitna’ by the right-wing Dutch politician Geert Wilders, one is left with the question: As long as Muslim leaders and intellectuals remain stuck in their morass of outdated conservative thinking, would it not remain the case that Islam is seen as a religious of violence? How, pray tell, can scholars like me defend the image of Islam and Muslims when Muslim governments like ours allows such outlandish and dangerous ideas to spread, and harbour such proponents of conservative-fundamentalist Islam in the very same institutions that were meant to open up the minds of Muslims and lead us – and Malaysian society – to a more modern, progressive and liberated understanding of Islam and religion in general? Read the rest of this entry »
Linguistic Supremacy and Hegemony: The Roads Not Taken post-1969
Posted by Kit in Farish Noor, nation building on Wednesday, 2 April 2008
By Farish A Noor
(Below is an excerpt of an essay I am currently writing entitled: “The Many Roads Not Taken post-1969′)
Our failure to develop a Malaysian language for us all:
One of the most glaring failures of the Malaysian nation-building project is our failure to develop a national language that is actually used as the lingua franca of all Malaysians. While the laborious debate over whether BM should be termed ‘Bahasa Malaysia’ or ‘Bahasa Melayu’ has been raging for decades, it is clear that Malaysia’s plural society remains divided along linguistic-cultural lines. The thorny issue of what constitutes the ‘mother tongue’ of so many Malaysians has led to at least one major political conflagration among the component parties of the BN, which in turn was used as the justification for the nation-wide security crackdown called ‘Operasi Lalang’ in 1987. Ironically it is well known to all and sundry that despite the ethno-linguistic posturing of the hot-headed communitarian leaders of the BN over the issue in the 1980s, these very same elites continued to speak to each other in English in private.
The hypocrisy of our leaders – from all parties – on the issue of the national language is something that no mature Malaysian ought to be stranger to by now. In fact, the issue of our national language (or lack of) has been one of the many punching-bags of Malaysian politics and every single communitarian-minded leader has jumped on the linguistic-nationalist bandwagon at least once in his or her political career.
This is perhaps one of the saddest things about Malaysia’s postcolonial politics and the development of Malaysia post-1969: It has been the case that almost every single ambitious and aspiring politician in this country has sought to rise to power by playing the communitarian card, touching on the hot buttons of race and language. It was only recently that BM was re-designated as ‘Bahasa Malaysia’ after it had been re-defined by nationalist politicians as ‘Bahasa Melayu’. The merry-go-round turns until today, and it would be prudent for us to go back to our early history to recover the moment where this country missed the point and went off track for good. Read the rest of this entry »
Malaysia: Change is Long Overdue
Posted by Kit in Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, Election, Farish Noor on Wednesday, 26 March 2008
By Farish A. Noor
For as long as they can remember, Malaysians have been told time and again that there can only be political stability in the country as long as the status quo is defended. This rather uninspiring message was, of course, delivered by none other than those who were already in power and who had every reason to wish to remain in power for as long as humanly possible. Since it became independent in 1957 Malaysia has been ruled by the same coterie of right-of-centre Conservative-nationalist parties led by the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) and its allies in the former Alliance coalition and now the National Front. For more than half a century Malaysians were told that this was the natural order of things and that to even entertain the idea of there being a different government was tantamount to political heresy of sorts.
Yet a quick survey of the political landscape of many a post-colonial nation-state today would show clearly that almost every post-colonial country in the world has experienced a change of government, and in many cases this transition has come about without leading to chaos and tumult in the streets. The nationalists of Algeria were eventually kicked out of office after it became patently clear that their brand of conservative nationalism served only to disguise what was really a corrupt mode of patronage politics. In India the Congress party that had for so long rested on its laurels and prided itself with the claim that it was the party that won India’s independence has been soundly beaten at both the national and state level; again for the same reason. Why even Indonesia that suffered under three decades of military rule has made the slow but sure transition to a fledgling democracy of sorts, and the mainstream media in Indonesia today remains the most open and courageous in all of Southeast Asia. So why not Malaysia?
The election results of March 2008 have shown the world that in Malaysia at least race and communal-based voting may soon become a thing of the past. This may have been a protest vote against the lackadaisical performance of Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, but it did nonetheless send a very clear message to the government and all the parties in the country. It signalled that the Malaysian public was tired of empty promises and having sweet nothings whispered in their ears, while the government continues along its inebriated pace of mismanaging the country. It also reminded all politicians from all parties that the Malaysian voters will no longer vote along racial or religious-communitarian lines, and that henceforth they will vote for the best candidate who can do her or his job better than the other bloke. Read the rest of this entry »
Farewell to the Homogenous Malay
Posted by Kit in Farish Noor on Sunday, 23 March 2008
(Note: This is the English version of the same article that will published soon as part of the compilation of articles by Dr. Farish A. Noor, entitled “Di Balik Malaysia: Dari Majapahit Ke Putrajaya”)
By Farish A. Noor
‘Takkan Melayu Hilang di Dunia’ (Never Shall the Malays Cease to Be): Hang Tuah’s legendary call to arms rings a note of defiance laced with anxiety and speaks volumes about the perennial angst of a people whose place and standing in the world was never a thing to be taken for granted. Read in its proper context the full meaning of the statement becomes clear: here was the call for unity by a fabled hero that came at a time of flux and change, when the shifting fortunes of Malacca was tilting on the side of impending defeat at the hands of the Portuguese.
Yet sadly, as is always the case, the story of Tuah has been misread and mis-appropriated for other ends that have more to do with politics and less to do with history. Beloved by the right-wing conservatives among us, the dissected figure of Tuah has been robbed of his pacifist, mystical and philosophical leanings, leaving us with only the static figure of a cardboard two-dimensional ethno-nationalist who surprisingly resembles many of the Mat Rempit-wannabe types who make up the rank and file of UMNO Youth today. We forget that at the end of the Hikayat Hang Tuah epic Tuah himself abandons his keris and turns his back on his king, renouncing the world and turning his attention to the salvation of his soul instead. Yet this sorrowful figure has been cut-and-pasted today to suit the ethno-nationalist agenda of the race-warriors and demagogues.
Today that fear of permanent loss and historical erasure has gripped the hearts and minds of many a right-wing Malay communalist in the wake of the 12th General Elections and the dismal (and deserved) failure of UMNO in particular. That Kelantan could have fallen to PAS was a somewhat different matter, for the conventional wisdom that takes the place of reason in this country of ours assumes that even if Kelantan was to fall under the heels of the Mullahs, they would still be Malay Mullahs, and that the sacred soil of Tanah Melayu would still be in Malay hands.
Rather the fear we see today has been directed towards the loss of the more plural and cosmopolitan states of the West coast, where the DAP has made great (and deserved) strides in Penang, Perak and Selangor. Already the pathetic spectacle of ethno-communal fear and loathing has been played out in the public domain: Demonstrations in Penang were organised with the calculated intention of scaring the Malays into thinking that their land was up for grabs and that the vainglorious notion of Ketuanan Melayu was being eclipsed. The vernacular Malay press in particular has gone into overdrive, harping on and on incessantly about every perceived slight and injury to Malay pride, their editorials littered with the recognised markers of discontent: ‘Biadab, kurang sopan’ are the accusations that have been levelled in no uncertain terms. Read the rest of this entry »
Abdullah’s Bible
Posted by Kit in Farish Noor on Thursday, 20 March 2008
By Farish A. Noor
For a country that is not exactly known for its reading habit, we seem to be grabbing a lot of books lately. Or to put it more accurately, we seem to be confiscating and detaining an awful lot of books.
For reasons best known to themselves, the benighted authorities in this land of ours have been vigilantly manning the outposts on the frontier lest we, while sleeping, are caught unawares by the legions of dog-eared tomes that are – at this very moment – surreptitiously on their way to this country to ‘pollute, corrupt and confuse’ our minds. The list of banned books grows ever longer; and the outrages continue unabated. The latest fiasco was when thirty-two Bibles were confiscated by customs officials from a Malaysian Christian on her way back from the Philippines, to be submitted for inspection by the Ministry of Internal Security. Strange that Bibles are now seen by some as a potential ‘security threat’ that need to be confiscated upon entry into the sacred precinct that is Malaysia. But Bibles? A security threat? To whom?
All this talk of ‘dangerous’ texts and potentially dangerous Bibles in particular reminds me of one particular edition of the Bible that caused quite a stir when it first came out. In fact so controversial was this particular edition that it almost never came out at all. For here I am talking about Abdullah’s Bible; or rather the translation of the Bible by none other than Munshi Abdullah Abdul Kadir, who is universally regarded as one of the forefathers of modern Malay literature.
Now those of you who remember what you were taught at school (and believe me, as an academic I am all too familiar with the phenomenon of selective amnesia among students), will also remember the name of Munshi Abdullah. He was the Peranakan Muslim scholar and translator who served both the early British colonial administrators in Singapore and Malacca as well as the various Malay courts during the opening stages of the 19th century. Read the rest of this entry »
We Need An Intelligent Response to Islamophobia
Posted by Kit in Farish Noor, Islam on Wednesday, 19 March 2008
By Farish A. Noor
The recent declaration made at the OIC summit that calls for Muslim nation-states to act in a concerted manner and to take legal action against any country, group or individual who deliberately attacks Islam is noteworthy for the seriousness of its intent; but falls short of providing us with a real solution to the problem of racism and prejudice disguised behind the banner of Islam-bashing.
For a start, one wonders if the arena of international law even allows states to take legal action against other actors and agents on such grounds; and one wonders what the modalities of such an action might be. But above all, we need to take a calm and rational distance from the problem itself and consider methods that will work and reject those that certainly won’t.
The problem, however, is this: How can Muslims react rationally and coolly to acts of provocation at a time when even the utterance of the mutest words of protest are deemed by some as the irrational outpourings of misguided pious grief instead? The worry that some of us share at the moment is how the Muslims of the world will react to the release of the film produced by Geert Wilders, the leader of the Dutch Freedom Party. Wilders is known in Holland as a maverick politician on the make, an ambitious demagogue whose tactics are as loud as they are crude. His decision to make a film on the life of the Prophet Muhammad was calculated to raise the political temperature in Europe at a time when Muslim-non-Muslim relations have hit an all time low. Unlike the murdered film director Theo van Gogh who was a left-leaning activist and long-time supporter of minority concerns (and who, incidentally, also defended the rights of Muslim migrants in Holland), Wilders is a far-right politician who is clearly appealing to the baser parochial and exclusive sentiments of white Dutch society.
It would be hypocritical, to say the least, that Wilders’ film which presents Islam as a religious system akin to Facism and which compares the Prophet Muhammad to Hitler was meant to bring the communities of Holland closer together.
But in reacting to the film the Muslim community worldwide would have to take into account some cautionary points: Read the rest of this entry »
CMs, DPMs and PMs: Time to go beyond the old taboos
Posted by Kit in Election, Farish Noor, nation building on Monday, 17 March 2008
By Farish A. Noor
WHEN the opportunity presented itself for Malaysia to choose a Malaysian woman of South Asian origin to be made the country’s first astronaut, those responsible for the final decision stepped back before the seemingly-insurmountable wall of taboos and inherited petty wisdom. No, they opined, we should choose a Malaysian Male Muslim Malay instead, as this would reflect the demographic realities of the country. But by doing so, they not only reflected the demographic realities of the day, but also confirmed the hegemony of that reality and thus rendered it absolute and unquestionable.
Now think of the possible alternatives had the Malaysian-Indian woman be chosen instead: For a start it would point to the demographic realities many of us would have wanted to see; and it would have been such a powerful symbolic message sent to Malaysia and the world. Had the other candidate been chosen, we could have proudly proclaimed that this was a country where racial and ethnic divisions had been transcended, and where gender equality was within reach. It would also have been such an enormous boost to the pride and sense of self-worth of so many other marginalised minority groupings in the country, to see themselves mirrored in the national narrative and to be made to feel that they truly belonged to a Malaysia that was indeed a country for all races. But no: Sadly, once again, the powers that be did the familiar cop-out and conceded to their own misguided belief in the old taboos.
The debate over who should be made chief minister of Perak, which has been going on for a week now, points to the same sort of intellectual and psycho-social impasse that has kept Malaysia paralysed for so long. Despite winning the biggest number of state assembly seats in the state, the DAP was not allowed to nominate one of its own to the post. The grounds for this realpolitik consideration happens to be a legal provision in the Perak constitution that apparently precludes the possibility of a non-Malay and non-Muslim from assuming the post of chief minister, even if her/his party won all the seats in the state assembly. Read the rest of this entry »
Now see what happens when you play around with the keris?
Posted by Kit in Election, Farish Noor, MCA, UMNO on Sunday, 16 March 2008
By Farish A. Noor
As the broken remnants of the Barisan Nasional recuperate and recover what is left of their shattered pride, it would be prudent to take a step back and look at some of the factors that have certainly contributed to the dismal showing the BN component parties and the UMNO party in particular.
It is clear to many that this election was, in some ways, a singularly unique event in the same way that the 2004 elections were special. 2004’s election results could be read as a collective sigh of relief on the part of the Malaysian electorate after twenty years of rule under the Mahathir government, which witnessed a host of controversial incidents ranging from the BMF scandal of the early 1980s all the way up to Ops Lalang in 1987. The enormous mandate given to the Badawi government was a sign that the public was thirsting for change and that they were no longer willing to live with the modes of governance and politics that we have all grown sadly accustomed to for lack of a choice…
This time round, the electorate has once again spoken to signal their utter disillusionment after it became painfully evident that none of the reform policies foregrounded by the Badawi team were ever going to come true. Instead this had been an administration long on gimmicks and novelties, but short on substance and delivery. Was it necessary to send a Malaysian astronaut to space on a Russian craft, to make the vain boast that a Malaysian citizen had been there and done that? If this was meant to assuage the anger and frustration of Malaysians who lived in estates and poorly-run low-cost urban housing, it certainly had the opposite effect of driving home the point that this administration was out of touch with reality and totally disconnected with the needs and wants of the people.
But vain boasts notwithstanding, the Badawi government suffered its long-overdue shock due to the vain boasts of some of its leaders and spokesmen. Here is it worth noting the effect that UMNO’s own overheated pyrotechnics had on the sentiments and sensibilities of a significant section of the Malaysian public; namely the non-Malays and non-Muslims of the country. In particular we are referring to the repeated assertion on the part of some hot-headed UMNO leaders who continued to harp on about the notion of Malay dominance in a racially and religiously diverse and plural society. Read the rest of this entry »
‘Islam Hadari’ Cannot Correct Itself
Posted by Kit in Farish Noor on Sunday, 2 March 2008
BY Farish A. Noor
It would seem rather odd, not least for Malaysia-watchers overseas, that despite the talk of the ‘moderate and progressive’ brand of normative Islam that has been bandied about in Malaysia under the general theme of ‘Islam Hadari’ (Civilisational Islam) that the practice of normative Islam in Malaysia seems anything but moderate and progressive. Among the latest instances normalised abnormality include the seizure of Bibles from a Malaysian Christian returning from the Philippines, on the grounds that the Bibles had to be checked by the Ministry of Home Affairs for security reasons; the demolition of Hindu temples that were said to have been built illegally; the furore over the conversion of Malaysians from one religion to another, etc. Read the rest of this entry »
Revisiting the Keris: How We Betrayed Our Ancestors
Posted by Kit in Announcement, Farish Noor on Wednesday, 27 February 2008
Announcement
www.othermalaysia.org Lecture Series
Kicking off what we hope will be a semi-regular (well, sort of) series of public lectures, the team at www.othermalaysia.org invites you to a free public lecture by Dr. Farish A. Noor on the theme:
Revisiting the Keris: How We Betrayed Our Ancestors
To be held at 3.00 pm on 1st March (Saturday) at the Annexe, Central Market, Kuala Lumpur.
Deconstructing the Keris in the Context of Malaysia’s Essentialist Racialised Politics:
The keris today has been redefined as an exclusive (and sometimes violent) marker of ethnic – and specifically Malay – identity. Yet this simplification of the keris as a political symbol overlooks the fact that the keris emerged at a time when Asia was already globalised, and that the keris was in fact a product of cross-cultural borrowing and overlap. This lecture will attempt to relocate the keris in its proper cultural-historical context, calling for the de-racialisation of the keris and the reminder of our shared cultural heritage.
The talk is free and open to all.
How to Stop Cars and Win Enemies
Posted by Kit in Farish Noor, Good Governance, Hindraf, Human Rights on Monday, 18 February 2008
By Farish A. Noor
When it comes to dealing with the grouses of the Malaysian public – many of which happen to be legitimate, mind you – it would seem that the benighted leaders of our blessed country have read every single page of the stupid book.
We recall the period when we, the Malaysian public were told by our – Malaysian – government that we had the right to speak up and that our voices would be heard. We were assured that we had the right to speak, to raise our concerns, to voice our opinions and to even state our differences and disagreements in this new Utopian, idyllic public space that had appeared out of nowhere. But no sooner than had we opened our mouths to utter the first sentence beginning with “But…”, the tear gas canisters were shot in our faces, the batons were raised, the water cannons were put to work. It is hard, as I wrote not too long ago, ‘to listen to the people while you gas them in the face’.
The latest (of many) instances of back-tracking came with the defensive posture taken by the senior leadership of this country in the face of the demands voiced by the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) of Malaysia. I write this as someone who is concerned about the poverty and growing income gap among all Malaysians, and not Hindus solely. And while I cannot lend my support to any grouping that is sectarian and exclusive by nature, neither can I deny the fact that many of the complaints raised by Hindraf happen to be real – or at least really felt – by the members and supporters of the movement itself. Read the rest of this entry »
Hindraf and the Pluralisation of the Malaysian-Indian Community
Posted by Kit in Farish Noor, Hindraf on Saturday, 16 February 2008
By Farish A. Noor
Since it came to the public stage of Malaysian politics the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) of Malaysia has been cast as a troubling phenomenon, but to whom? Predictably the reaction of the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) and its leadership has been to respond to Hindraf’s demands by stating that it is a troublesome organisation that is bent on dividing (and consequently weakening) the Indian community. Hindraf however has defended its actions on the basis that the MIC has singularly failed to defend the interests of the Hindus of Malaysia, and that the leadership of the MIC is entirely beholden to the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition instead. The vernacular Malay press in turn has attacked Hindraf on the grounds that it was seen and cast as being ‘anti-Malay’; though Hindraf in turn has proclaimed its loyalty to the concept of Malaysia as a universal idea while rejecting the notion of Malay cultural and ethnic supremacy.
Needless to say, these manifold configurations and postures has made it difficult to locate Hindraf on the Malaysian political landscape; but it has also expanded that very same political landscape to include a new range of disaffected and marginalised political actors. What many critics have failed to recognise is that despite the verbal pyrotechnics employed by Hindraf, it has actually contributed to the pluralisation and complexification of the Indian minority, and by doing so has rendered the simplistic mode of race-based politics in Malaysia more and more difficult.
While Hindraf’s appeal to the Indian minority in Malaysia is primarily communal and sectarian it has also introduce a cleavage – both political and ontological – in the Malaysian-Indian community itself. Hindraf’s sustained efforts to highlight the marginalisation, alienation and discrimination in all walks of life did not merely challenge the staid rhetoric of the Malaysian state whose brand of multiculturalism dates back to the mode of race-relations first developed during the colonial era, but more importantly rendered hollow the MIC’s claim to be the main representative, patron and protector of the Malaysian-Indian community.
Many of the accusations levelled by the leaders of Hindraf towards the leadership of the MIC and its President Samy Vellu in particular were based on long-held grouses that were nurtured over Samy Vellu’s long stewardship of the party: During the time of Samy Vellu the MIC expanded its patronage machinery and used its educational outreach unit, the Maju Institute of Educational Development (MIED) to sponsor the education of more than 10,000 Tamil schoolchildren. In 1982 Maika Holdings was created by the MIC to help pool together the economic resources of the Indian minority so that they could collectively invest in Malaysia’s economic development. Maika however was criticised by some as a patronage arm of the MIC, despite the fact that it was built from the collected sum of RM 106 million that was raised by many poor Tamil families. Following a succession of mismanagement scandals, Maika faced serious losses and many of the Tamil families could not recover their investments. In the face of growing criticism of his leadership Samy Vellu maintained a strong grip on the MIC: S. Subramaniam, who was brought into the MIC during the time of former MIC President Manickavasagam, was one of the strongest opponents of Samy Vellu, and accused the latter of mismanagement of the party. Nonetheless Subramaniam was defeated at the MIC Annual General Meeting of 2006, shoring up Samy Vellu’s position in the party even further. Read the rest of this entry »
Malaysia’s Coming Elections: Between Change and Inertia
Posted by Kit in Election, Farish Noor on Thursday, 14 February 2008
By Farish A. Noor
And so, with the dissolution of the Malaysian Parliament on Wednesday, Malaysia is heading to the elections once again. The precise date of the 12th General Elections of Malaysia is yet to be known, but it is clear that this will be one of the more hotly contested elections that Malaysia has witnessed.
Over the past two years alone a string of controversies have stirred the Malaysian public’s interest in the goings-on in the corridors of power in the country: The highly publicised case of the murder of a Mongolian model has dragged many a famous name (including that of politicians) into the limelight; the revelation of irregularities in the appointment of senior judges has brought the judiciary into close focus; the destruction of a number of Hindu temples has aroused the anger of many Malaysian Hindus; while the plethora of on-going marriage and divorce cases between Muslims and non-Muslims has added to the widening of the gulf between the religious and ethnic communities in the country.
What is more, the spate of public demonstrations – many of which took place in the capital Kuala Lumpur – would suggest that sections of the Malaysian public are more politically aware and politically literate than before. The BERSIH campaign calling for free and fair elections, for instance, was a movement that is rooted in Malaysia’s civil society and which cut across the racial, ethnic and religious divides which have always been the salient markers of the Malaysian political landscape. Conversely the demonstrations organised by the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) would suggest that communitarian and sectarian political remains a defining factor of Malaysian politics until today.
All eyes will now be on the administration of Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who faces the tough prospect of retaining the public’s support for a second term. Read the rest of this entry »
The Fear of Holy Books
Posted by Kit in Farish Noor on Saturday, 9 February 2008
Not too long ago, a certain Dutch politician – Geert Wilders, leader of the far-right Dutch Freedom party – caused a stir in that rather flat country by suggesting that the Quran should be banned on the grounds that it was a ‘dangerous book’ that spread the message of hate and violence. As the rather pointless and tiresome debate took its course, other right-wing politicians chipped in, suggesting things such as new laws that forbade the reading of the Quran in public, limiting the sale and dissemination of the Quran in Dutch society, controlling the number of Qurans being brought into the country, etc. Needless to say, Geert Wilders got what he wanted, which was to project himself yet again on the national stage as a rather loud and outlandish advocate of far-right causes.
Predictably, the Muslim community of Holland and other European countries were upset by Wilders’ remarks. Many came to the fore to insist that all this talk about banning Qurans was part and parcel of a wider trend of Islamophobia in the EU; that it was essentially racist and that it was an attempt to rob Muslims in Europe of their fundamental rights and liberties. What offended many Muslims was the suggestion that the Quran could be seen by some as a ‘dangerous text’ which Wilders even compared to Hitler’s Mein Kampf: An ironic comparison to say the least considering Wilders’ own far-right political leanings.
That Muslims would be offended by such claims and demands is understandable as no doubt most faith communities regard their sacred books as precisely that: sacred arks that bear the message of God and divine revelation. To even suggest that the Quran could be read profanely as some terrorists’ manual or guidebook for fanatics was to demean the text, and by extension Islam and Muslims.
Yet the question remains: If Muslims can get so worked up by the fact that some right-wing Dutch politician hungering for publicity can stir up a debate by demeaning the Quran, why is it that so many Muslims remain indifferent to how their fellow Muslims treat the holy texts of other faiths and belief-systems? Read the rest of this entry »
Lessons from the rise and fall of Suharto
Posted by Kit in Farish Noor, Foreign on Wednesday, 30 January 2008
By Farish A. Noor
The verdict of history is still not out yet following the demise of General-turned-President Suharto. For all his achievements in putting his country on the map and leading Indonesia towards industrial development, Suharto’s human rights record remains one of the bloodiest in the post-colonial history of Southeast Asia, matched only by that of Ferdinand Marcos, who was likewise one of the great strongmen of Asia.
Suharto presided over one of the most spectacular socio-economic transformations in Asia of the 20th century: His nation of more than two hundred million souls was transformed over a period of three decades from a faltering post-colonial economy on the verge of bankruptcy to becoming one of the most attractive destinations for foreign capital investment. Yet the social and economic costs were high: Indonesia was sold as a source of cheap human labour and natural resources, to be exploited and plundered by foreign multinationals as never before. During this period normal political activity in the country came to a standstill; political parties were either disbanded or forced to merge; political dissidents were routinely harassed, silence and incarcerated, with hundreds more liquidated at will by the armed forces and security agencies of the state. The Indonesian press was stifled; students told not to enter the arena of politics; feudal structures were reinforced; while corruption was allowed to run rampant.
Even after he was deposed in May 1998 Suharto left office as one of the most corrupt leaders of the Third World, amassing wealth to the tune of billions of dollars that had been expatriated to foreign banks. Until today there is still no accounting of the exact extent and magnitude of his and his family’s corruption; and their collusion with the forces of capital and the army that kept this entire system of patronage and state violence intact for so long.
There are, however, some important lessons to be learned from this complex and often painful – and extended – episode of Indonesian history: Read the rest of this entry »
Obituary – Suharto
Posted by Kit in Farish Noor, Foreign on Monday, 28 January 2008
The ‘Father’of Indonesia
Former General and President Suharto
(b. 1921 – d. 2008)
by Farish Noor
A couple of years ago, during a visit to the Central Javanese city of Jogjakarta that had been devastated by a major earthquake which had laid waste to many parts of the special province, I overheard a conversation between two Indonesians who were lamenting the fate of their country with its ruined economy, enduring military control, civil strife and the rising spectre of religious militancy. One of them said to his sorrowful friend: “brother, you are suffering from SARS – Sindrom Aku Rindu Suharto (‘I Miss Suharto Syndrome’)”.
That some Indonesians can still look back to the Suharto era with fondness speaks volumes about the manifold achievements of the man, who lived in an age of great politics – as nothing could be greater than the two world wars and the Cold War of the 20th century – which in turn gave rise to the era of great leaders. Suharto, whose quiet death stood in bold contrast to the spectacular age he lived in and the life he led, was one such man; and like all great men his achievements as well as his mistakes, of which there were many, can only be measured in similarly hyperbolic and magnified terms.
To some (and in this case we are talking about millions of loyal followers and admirers who til today regard him as ‘Pak’ (Father) Harto) he was the man who rescued Indonesia from the teetering and ailing democracy of Sukarno, saved Indonesia from the menace of Communism, and finally brought the country into the modern age and the globalised world economy. To as many detractors, he was the American puppet-crony who sold the Indonesian economy to foreign interests, destroyed what little remained of Indonesia’s protective barriers that insulated its fledgling local industry, persecuted the country’s intellectuals, students, workers and dissidents and was primarily responsible for the deaths, torture and disappearances of half a million alleged Communists in 1965 and a quarter of a million of Timorese after the violent annexation of East Timor in 1974. Mediocre dictators are seldom accused of the deaths of millions, and in this respect Suharto was far from ordinary and he ruled over a country that is as great as it is complex. Read the rest of this entry »
Obituary – The ‘Father’ of Indonesia
Posted by Kit in Farish Noor on Monday, 28 January 2008
by Farish Noor
Suharto’s Exit: The End of the Era of Asia’s Strongmen?
Posted by Kit in Farish Noor on Thursday, 24 January 2008
By Farish A. Noor
There are strongmen, and then again there are really strong strongmen. Indonesia’s former President Suharto falls into the latter category and though the man was finally deposed after waves of student demonstrations that rocked Indonesia in May 1998, he remains – despite his ailing health – firmly planted on the map of Indonesian and Southeast Asia’s regional politics til now.
Observers of Indonesian politics have already put their pens to paper and have begun to write the obituary to what has to be one of the most important (if not notorious) and enigmatic of Asia’s leaders of the 20th century. Indeed, so long and extensive was Suharto’s period of rule in Indonesia that the man has been elevated to the level of a national icon, seen as a hero for some and as one of the most brutal dictators the world has ever seen by others. Suharto’s imminent passing marks the end of an era, a period that spanned the second half of the 20th century in the wake of the Second World War and the Cold War the quickly followed suit.
It would not be an exaggeration to say that with the passing of Suharto the age of strongmen-politics will come to an end. Suharto’s own record and personal life story reads as an epic tale of the small man made good, of the poor peasant boy who was at the right place at the right time and consequently was picked by History to play a crucial part in the drama of nations. Read the rest of this entry »
-
You are currently browsing the archives for the Farish Noor category.
