Who I am, and why I blog

Recently, a young Malaysian, who is researching citizen journalism and citizen blogging in Malaysia, emailed me with some questions to answer. After sending him/her my reply, I realised that what I wrote was a statement of why I blog, and of who I am as a blogger. I reproduce here his/her questions and my responses to them, as a statement of principles.

1. What prompted you to start blogging?

Social and political developments in Malaysia. March 8 2008 gave me a lot of hope that Malaysia was on the right track as far as our social and political growth was concerned. However, by end of 2008, cracks began to appear in the Pakatan Rakyat coalition, and Umno/BN began to make succesful attacks on the idea of a two party system, and on multiracial and multireligious cooperation in Malaysia. These attacks were also made through their Main Strean Media (MSM) and bloggers, often with dodgy evidence and very flimsy reasoning. I felt that I could do something to counter them, and to share with others my own opinions on how Malaysia should go forward.

Why is there a need to self-publish?

Before the advent of blogging, there were few economical avenues for ordinary citizens to get their views heard: letters to the editor in the MSM, or join (or form) an association and issue press statements (again to the MSM). At the end of the day, the MSM and their owners decide if your views are worthy of publication, and if your views are consistent with their agenda. Blogging allows me to avoid that "censorship", and to share my views quickly.

2. How would you categorize or describe your blog? (Is it a watchblog, political blog, community blog?)

I blog about the importance of human rights, freedom and justice in a democracy, and I blog about whenever these are threatened. The people and institutions whose actions I write about are politicians, government, MSM and other bloggers. So I guess that my blog is a socio-political watchblog.

3. Who/What are you sources of information?

1) What I personally observe and record at the events I attend, 2) tip-offs from friends and sources, which I verify first, 3) news from other bloggers and MSM, 4) the internet

Do you read news and blog about it afterwards?

Yes, but only if it is pertaining to what I write about: human rights, freedom and justice in a democracy

4. What do you understand about ‘citizen journalism’?

As I understand it, Citizen Journalism is ordinary citizens gathering news and presenting it along with their own views, using technology to reach a wide audience. IMHO, It's a democratisation of news (and views) gathering and dissemination.

5. Do you think you are practicing citizen journalism? Would you consider yourself a citizen journalist?

Yes, and yes

6. What do you hope to achieve through blogging? (Eg: To create awareness among the public?

1) persuade Malaysians as to the importance of human rights, freedom and justice in a democracy, and of the principles and values that underly them, 2) Create awareness about the ways in which MSM and other bloggers spin, lie and abuse logic to create inter-racial tension and fear for political purposes, 3) Motivate Malaysians to work together for a better future for our country

7. How would you define Malaysia’s current mainstream media?

Our MSM is 100% owned by either political parties or corporate interests. Therefore, the news they report reflects their owners' need for political and pro-corporate propaganda, not Malaysian's need for news and views on human rights, freedom, justice, good governance, transparency and democracy.

Do you still believe in their news reporting?

No. I always look for how they may be spinning the news in their interest. So should everyone else.

8. Bloggers are sometimes misunderstood for spreading non-objective (bias) commentaries. What is your take on that?

There is no misunderstanding there. There are bloggers who are very non-objective. Indeed, it may be questioned if true objectivity is even achievable. The key is for 1) Malaysians to be able to read everything critically, and 2) for all media (MSM and bloggers) to be transparent about what their position or slant is, and what they are advocating. I myself subscribe to the principles of Advocacy Journalism.

9. Are there topics/news that you choose not to blog about?

No. I believe that all topics that are in the citizens' interest can (and should) be written about responsibly.

Do you practice self-censorship?

If you define self censorship as "the act of censoring or classifying one's own work (blog, book(s), film(s), or other means of expression), out of fear or deference to the sensibilities of others", then my answer is no. However, I do subscribe to the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics, and take pains to "Minimize Harm - Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect". I also choose to present my arguments in a way that (I believe) will be understood and accepted by my intended audience (Malaysians).

10. Some professional journalists do not approve citizen journalism because they believe that only trained journalists can write objectively and ethically. What do you think?

Looking at the way some professional journalists in Malaysia write, it's obvious that professional training is no assurance that a person will write objectively and ethically. IMHO, a citizen journalist can do just as well (if not better, because he/she has no editor to report to) as long as he/she is committed to ethical and objective writing and takes the trouble to learn and practice it.

p.s: Out of curiosity, is there a reason to remain anonymous? It would help me understand bloggers better.

I choose only to identify myself as Malaysian, because our current situation is one where people judge what one writes by one's religion, age, gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status etc. I would like my arguments to stand or fall on their own merits, not my identity. As an anonymous blogger, I feel more motivated to research and provide evidence for whatever I write, because being anonymous does not provide the automatic credibility (or incredibility) that some readers are content with.

I really hope that Malaysians will achieve a stage of maturity where they can read and evaluate arguments for what they are, and not be swayed by the name (and the religion, age, gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status) of who is saying it.

Sincerely,
Malaysian Heart

If our politicians are working only for their own interests, it is because we do not make them work for ours!

Dear Readers,

Hope you all had happy and meaningful Hari Raya holidays, because now it's time to get back to the work we must all do: bringing change to our country, beginning with ourselves.

Raja Petra wrote an excellent article, "Me serve the rakyat? Nah!", published on Malaysia Today yesterday. While I can't vouch for the factuality of the specifics RPK reported as going on behind the scene of Pakatan Rakyat Selangor, on the whole it seems plausible to me. However, what struck me the most were these words (bold emphasis mine):

It is therefore not difficult to understand why there is so much chaos in Pakatan Rakyat Selangor. Not only are PKR, DAP and PAS trying to outmanoeuvre each other. Internally, within PKR, DAP and PAS, there are many factions and each is trying to kill off the other.

We have inter-party and we have intra-party wars going on. And it is all because no one is interested in bringing changes or to serve the rakyat. They are only interested in seeking power because politicians naturally lust for power.

So we, the people, need to keep them in check. If power goes to their heads they will very quickly forget that it was the people who put them there. They will forget that they are supposed to work for the rakyat. They will become just like Barisan Nasional in thinking that the rakyat are the slaves while they are the masters.

Never trust politicians. They will use us when it best suits them. Then they will turn on us and betray the trust we gave them. And that is why the need for some of us to remain as political activists and not become politicians. This is so that we can whack the politicians when they forget themselves, which will be as soon as they win the election and form the new government.

Please read the entire article here. I feel that RPK has put it in the best way possible: if we elect a particular set of politicians, and expect that they will automatically do what is right and good for our country because (we hope) that they are good people, then we are in for a big disappointment. While I believe that there are individual politicians who are principled, the prevailing political culture and system, compounded by we Malaysians' apparent apathy to values and good governance, make it difficult for them to make their voices heard over the shrill cacophony of self-interest. As Franklin D. Roosevelt told A. Philip Randolph, who had just given FDR an earful on what direction America should be taking (my bold emphasis):

"I agree with everything that you've said, including my capacity to be able to right many of these wrongs and to use my power and the bully pulpit. ... But I would ask one thing of you, Mr. Randolph, and that is go out and make me do it."

If we want our government and politicians to listen to us, and act to promote our interests and aspirations, we have to make them do it. We have to have press freedom so that what they do behind closed doors is exposed in the open. We need to tell them what we want, keep track of their promises, and hold them accountable when they don't deliver. We need to fight for what is right whenever it is right, not just when it suits us or ours. We need to unite our voices so that when we speak, they sit up and listen. We cannot do this as long as we identify ourselves by our race and religion, as Umno/BN wants us to.

Our end goal must be to establish a new political culture in Malaysia: one where the rakyat's interests come first, and one where only principled leaders have a chance of being elected to office.

I believe that the Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia initiative is an excellent platform from which to make our politicians work for us instead of the other way around. Please read their charter here, read the SABM powerpoint presentation here and see Haris Ibrahim's speech here.

Whatever we want Malaysia to be, it's not going to happen if we just watch from the sidelines. It's time to get involved, people! ARE YOU, YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS AND FRIENDS REGISTERED VOTERS?

Sincerely,
Malaysian Heart

MUST READ: What does Umno value? Another GREAT article from The Nut Graph

Dear Readers,

The folks at The Nut Graph have done it again! I reproduce here part of another powerful article from there, this time by Ding Jo-Ann. This article is sharp and incisive; it gets to the heart of the matter and drives a stake through it. It lays bare what our ruling party is all about:

"Since the March 2008 general election, calls have been growing for the BN to rethink the race-based politics that has kept them in government for more than 50 years. In the past, Umno has let its partners in the coalition, such as the MCA and MIC, speak up on Chinese and Indian Malaysian issues. This formula is not just lacking in terms of ensuring national unity; it's myopic in protecting the legitimate rights of all Malaysians.

The responses of Umno leaders to recent events prove just as much. They tell us that Umno's main priority is in ensuring that particular interests are protected. These interests, however, don't include those of minority communities such as non-Muslims and the indigenous people.

Additionally, there are many other ethnic groups that are not directly represented in the BN formula such as the Penan. There is no Penan-based party in the BN. With the current model, who then is supposed to speak up for them? Should the Penan have to set up a National Penan Party and win seats in Parliament before their plight is taken seriously by the government?"

If we find Umno/BN's values and priorities grotesque, let us remember that WE are the ones who are keeping them in power! Are we and our families registered voters? Did we vote in the last elections?

Please, please read the entire article here: http://www.thenutgraph.com/what-does-umno-value

If you like the quality of journalism practiced by The Nut Graph, please consider supporting them. Their investors cannot continue funding them, and they will have to close down if they cannot find adequate support.

As far as I know, The Nut Graph is the only Malaysian news organisation to have published a statement of their journalistic principles, that you can hold them to. If we do not support good journalism when we have it, then we have only ourselves to blame when we are left with the likes of Azmi Anshar and the mainstream media telling us what to think.

Sincerely,
Malaysian Heart

MUST READ: Would a British politician stand on stage with a weapon in hand? - Article by Dr Farish A Noor, from the Nut Graph

Dear Readers,

This is a short excerpt from a powerful article titled "Power, politicians and brutality", by Dr Farish A Noor, which was published in The Nut Graph today (bold emphasis mine):

"Southeast Asians tend to adopt a dismissive view of the West. And there are far too many right-wing ethno-nationalist leaders in our part of the world who cannot evolve any further than to continue in their nasty polemics against anything and everything Western.

But let us ask ourselves this simple question, and answer it honestly if we can: Can anyone of us imagine a British politician standing on stage with a weapon in hand? Can anyone imagine a demonstration in Europe against a mosque or a Hindu temple where a pig's or cow's head is dragged out into the streets?

Can we imagine those involved not being arrested on the spot? Can anyone imagine a press conference in any European city where a politician is publicly threatened with rape — and the police do nothing? Perchance, therein lies the difference between us Asians and the so-called secular, decadent, materialistic West."

Perchance we Malaysians have a lot of soul-searching to do?

Please read the entire article here: http://www.thenutgraph.com/power-politicians-brutality

If you like the quality of journalism practiced by The Nut Graph, please consider supporting them. Their investors cannot continue funding them, and they will have to close down if they cannot find adequate support.

As far as I know, the Nut Graph is the only Malaysian news organisation to have published a statement of their journalistic principles, that you can hold them to. If we do not support good journalism when we have it, then we have only ourselves to blame when we are left with the likes of Azmi Anshar and the mainstream media telling us what to think.

Sincerely,

Malaysian Heart

The magpie barks propaganda: How to read partisan blogs 5

For this fifth instalment of HTRPB, we'll be looking at a post by blogger Pasquale of Barking Magpie. In the past, he has posted entries titled "When will the Malays learn!!! The Chinese will and can never share power once they ARE in power!", and "CPM stands for Chinese Party of Malaya and they failed to form a Chinese entity in Malaya...cept for Penang!". The post we will be looking at is more recent, and titled "A short note on Anwar Ibrahim by a commenter using the handle "Deacon1957".

In it, Pasquale reproduces in its entirety a comment left at his blog, which accuses Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim (DSAI) (inter alia) of being:

1. A CIA agent working to destabilise Malaysia;
2. Responsible (through "his Indonesian network") for the current Indonesian "hatred for Malaysia"; and
   
3. Of working to "discredit traditional Islam and plant one of two of America's version of Islam in all Islamic states..."

If the commenter (or Pasquale himself) had any evidence for these accusations, it was not shared there. You can read the entry for yourself here, but what I want to focus on are the propaganda techniques used by Pasquale when he uses a photograph to reinforce the accusations against DSAI.

The above photograph is placed at the beginning of the article, captioned as follows:

Flanked by former US President George Bush's most right wing Jewish-Zionist American cabinet members (Cohen and Wolfowitz), and the man in the middle will sell his soul (or already sold) to the Devil, and already betrayed the Malays and will betrayed his mother, and at all cost, even destroying the country just he thinks he can be the next PM! This picture was taken in 1997 in Penang.

What we see here is a classic example of propaganda, i.e.:

"...communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda." (bold emphasis mine)

In just this photograph and its caption alone, Pasquale has managed to use the following propaganda techniques:

• Reductio ad Hitlerum (in this case, ad Bushum)
• Labelling
• Appeal to prejudice
• Big lie
• Half-truths
• Transfer
• Name-calling
• Appeal to fear

Let's see where and how he uses them. First, Reductio ad Hitlerum: Since George W. Bush is the most reviled US President in Malaysia, if not the world (imho, quite rightly so), by identifying Cohen and Wolfowitz as members of his cabinet, disapproval is cast upon them.

Second, labelling and appeal to prejudice: By labelling both Cohen and Wolfowitz as Jewish, and relying on prevailing stereotypes and prejudices against Jews, again a negative light is cast upon them.

Next, the big lie(s), which I debunk below:

1. William Cohen was never in George Bush's cabinet. He was in Bill Clinton's cabinet, as Secretary of Defense.
2. He is not Jewish. His father was Jewish, his mother was Protestant; he went to a Jewish school, but he is a Unitarian.
3. In 1997, Paul Wolfowitz was Professor of International Relations and Dean of the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University; George W. Bush was not elected President until 2000.

Next, the half-truth: Are Cohen and Paul Wolfowitz Zionists? Yes, especially Wolfowitz. Was George W. Bush a Zionist? Yes. How about Barack Obama? Not as much as Bush, but basically yes. Can you get elected or appointed to public office in America if you do not support Israel? Probably not. Given longstanding US foreign policy, it's safe to say that the vast majority of American public officials (with a some rare exceptions) are pro-Israel. Is it uncommon, unusual or somehow sinister for Malaysian leaders to have been seen with Zionist American officials? Certainly not; scroll down to the end of this post to see who else has been photographed in their company.

Next, transfer: By presenting an image of the target (DSAI) with Cohen and Wolfowitz (identified as "George Bush's most right wing Jewish-Zionist American cabinet members"), the propagandist wants to project their supposedly negative qualities onto DSAI. Note that the context of the photograph (besides when and where it was taken) has not been given.

Finally, name-calling and appeal to fear (in bold): "the man in the middle will sell his soul (or already sold) to the Devil, and already betrayed the Malays and will betrayed his mother, and at all cost, even destroying the country just he thinks he can be the next PM!"

There you have it: just take a photograph, neglect to mention it's context (what was the occassion, what was said), neglect to mention that others have been in similar situations, add some outright untruths, half-truths, racial prejudice and fear; uncritical readers will irrationally adopt a negative attitude towards the target, in this case DSAI.

So, what should critical readers bear in mind when reading anything:

1. Independently verify the "facts" presented. Propagandists like Pasquale never let the truth get in the way of a good smear.
2. Look for the half truths and selective presentation of facts, ask if any relevant information that could reframe the situation has been left out.
   
3. Be aware of any irrational, emotional response they feel; is it the result of a specific propaganda technique being used?
4. Most importantly, ask where is the evidence for the message being pushed? Without solid evidence, it is merely a smear.

Although Pasquale denies this, Malaysians Unplugged Uncensored have made (what I believe to be) a convincing case that Pasquale is actually Rusdi Mustapha (or Rosdi Mustafa). Furthermore, according to Dato' Ariff Sabri of Sakmongkol AK47 (in his post of 16/5/09), this Rosdi Mustafa "works in the PM's outfit and one of the media handlers". This is how Dato' Ariff describes Rosdi (these words were probably written in anger, so please read with a pinch of salt. I've underlined the parts I feel are relevant):

I see him loitering around Dato Najib's office engaging in whispers with other officers prompting us to believe he is privy to some top state secret. These are all symptoms of juvenile childishness. It is just his way of urinating to mark territory. I am here, you are out there kind of thing.

What do you make of someone who works in the PM's office saying the above? I can only say, this is someone who shamelessly exploits his official status to excoriate others just for the fun of it. He mistakes vile and abusive remarks for forthrightness. I am afraid that reflects his deficiency in moral and intellectual fibre.

If Pasquale is indeed a civil servant, my question is this: are Malaysian taxpayers paying for (or subsidising) a propagandist at the PM's office? While all civil servants must be free to pursue their own political beliefs on their own time (although the present DG of PSD seems to think otherwise), it is wrong for government leaders (and civil servants) to use their offices, staff and other government resources for party political purposes (even though Umno/BN seems to do otherwise). Pasquale's post was posted on Thursday, 10 September, 2009, at 11:23 am; that is well within standard Malaysian civil service working hours. Did he use a Government issued PC and internet connection? These are reasonable questions for Malaysian citizens and taxpayers to ask.

When Damian McBride, then special advisor to UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown was caught discussing the setting up of a website to smear the Labour Party's political opponents, public outrage forced him to resign. From Wikipedia:

"...he [McBride] and another prominent Labour Party supporter, blogger Derek Draper, had exchanged emails discussing the possibility of disseminating rumours McBride had fabricated about the private lives of some Conservative Party politicians. The emails from McBride had been sent from his No. 10 Downing Street e-mail account."

Gordon Brown had to apologise, and was called to account in Parliament, for his subordinate's shenanigans.

If Pasquale is a civil servant in our PM's office, shouldn't we be demanding the same of him and DS Najib?

Sincerely,
Malaysian Heart

Note: This photograph (from here) of Tun Dr. Mahathir (TDM) and George W. Bush was taken on 14 May 2002, during TDM's visit to the White House. Just obtaining an invitation for TDM to visit Bush cost RM 4.4 million (US$ 1.2 million), which was paid to lobbyist Jack Abramoff. For the record, Abramoff (who was later convicted of fraud), "diverted 'money meant for inner-city kids' to Jewish settlers occupying the Palestinian West Bank in order to help them 'fight the Palestinian intifada'", AND is Jewish. Was taxpayer money used to buy TDM's invitation? Read more about the issue here.

Is this what Rocky's Bru has turned into? How to read partisan blogs 4

(Updated Below)

The testimony of Sivanesan Tanggavelu that he was hit with a metal rod, punched, kicked, slapped all over and even caned on his genitals and the soles of his feet until he passed out from the pain, while in the custody of the ACA, should be cause for serious concern for all Malaysians. After all, we have been plagued with a series of suspicious deaths in custody, and we have seen many complaints against the high-handed tactics that Malaysian law enforcement agencies allegedly use. In the context of Teoh Beng Hock's mysterious death while in custody of the MACC (the ACA's new name), it raises an extremely serious question about the circumstances surrounding Teoh's death: did he also experience such abuse before he died?

Given the seriousness of the issue, what does Ahirudin Attan, editor-in-chief of The Malay Mail have to say about it? Here is his blog post of 9/9/09, charmingly titled "S'pender at Inquest":

NST 09/09: Beng Hock's inquest: Witness T. Sivanesan alleges he was slapped, kicked and caned on penis by MACC officer, showed underwear as proof

After all these years, many of us still can't get images of the mattress during the Sodomy Part I trial. And now we have this - a torn s'pender* at the Teoh Beng Hock inquest!

I don't know why the Coroner allowed Sivanesan's spender to the hearing. The MACC official who had caned his prick could be a rogue officer. If it's true, Sivanesan's bad experience should be brought to the Royal Commission that the
Government has set up in connection with TBH to look into the procedures at the MACC.

The Coroner must now allow for witnesses who were NOT tortured by the MACC interrogation to share their experience with the Inquest. Just a week ago, a GLC head told me of his experience. I'm sure he still has his untorn s'pender/boxer/underwear to prove his point.

* S'pender is an old slang, believed to be short for suspender, to describe underwear. It's like gostan, which is derived from go a stern, which we still use to mean reverse.

(Please read the Rocky's entire, updated post here)

Instead of being outraged and disgusted at the revelations, Rocky seems to be modeling behavour as if beating up suspects is something we shouldn't be too worried about. He seems to be more concerned about being offended by Sivanesan's torn underwear, than he is about (what is prima facie) evidence of abuse suffered by a fellow Malaysian, and serious misconduct by MACC officers, including one who was involved in Teoh Beng Hock's interrogation, done in our name.

Without offering any supporting evidence, Rocky is quick to rationalise and justify Sivanesan's ordeal as possibly the actions of a rogue officer. He makes light of Sivanesan's humiliation at the ACA hands, and to add insult to injury, he mocks Sivanesan's testimony by expecting us to believe that a GLC head would be treated the same as how someone like Sivanesan would be. Finally, Rocky chooses to enlighten us on the Malaysian slang for underwear; what an impeccable sense of priority and proportion he has!

What Rocky did is to divert our attention from the horrific implications about TBH's death which arise from Sivanesan's testimony. He did this by making fun of Sivanesan's alleged torture and humiliation by ACA officers, and focusing our attention on his torn "spender" instead. This is a common propaganda technique, namely dehumanising the victim to make their testimony carry less weight. Rocky's message is: Sivanesan's story is a laughing matter and a joke, we should all laugh at it and not take him seriously.

I'd like to know just who, or what, is Rocky spinning for this time?

From "The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should Know and the Public Should Expect", (bold emphasis mine):

1. Journalism's first obligation is to the truth.
2. Its first loyalty is to citizens.
3. Its essence is a discipline of verification.
4. Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.
5. It must serve as an independent monitor of power.
6. It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.
7. It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant.
8. It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional.
9. Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience.

There was a time when Rocky used to speak out against torture, police states and abuses of the weak by the powerful. When two Malaysians were detained at Guantanamo Bay, Rocky called upon the Abdullah administration to "demand that they are sent back here to be fairly dealt with", because (in Rocky's words), "Human rights does not exist in Guantanamo Bay". Rocky also remarked, in a post titled "torture for two", that Bush could "keep the two Malaysians - and everyone else - detained at Guantanamo Bay for as long as he wishes and also resorts to the harshest means - including torture - to get them to confess to their crimes and terror links." He also reported how Al-Jazeera accuses "the US of resorting to methods usually applied in 'police states'."

It was certainly commendable of Rocky to speak for human rights then. It is sad to see him change his tune now that his circumstances have changed. Does his criteria for what constitutes torture and abuse depend on who is signing his paycheck? Can The Malay Mail still claim to be "the paper that cares" when it's editor-in-chief does not even pretend to anymore?

Sincerely,
Malaysian Heart

UPDATED: Ong Hock Chuan from Indonesia, who blogs at Unspun, had this to say about Rocky today:

"... Rocky's Bru, a blog that used to speaks its mind, but now seems to be channeling the UMNO establishment. "

Looks like others have noticed Rocky's metamorphosis too.

What was Hindraf singing during their vigil?

Those of us who have seen the video of Hindraf's candle light vigil on 5/9/09, and the subsequent arrests by our police, would have heard the vigillers singing a song in Tamil, as they tried unsuccessfully to get to Dataran Merdeka. For the benefit of those of us who would like to understand what they were singing, and why, here is some info.

The title of the song is Tholvi nilayena ninaithaal, and it is from the 1986 movie Oomai Vizhigal. In the movie, politically connected thugs (who had earlier killed a journalist), destroy the printing press of a newspaper, in order to silence their investigative reporting. This song is what the editor sings to motivate his team after the attack. Here is a translation in English:

If we only dwell on on our defeated condition, how can we even hope of living?
If we consider this life a burden, isn't that trampling upon our mothers' dreams?

Having lost our rights, having lost our belongings, shall we give up our humanity too?
Being human, and still alive, how can we forget our dreams?

When dawn is about to break, why should our hearts be heavy?
When our hearts are full of courage, why should our eyes have tears?

Even if they oppose us, even if they spill our blood, can we ever change our path?
Our blood will only drive our fear away, then can our principles ever die?


Here is the song in full, as sung in the movie by P.B. Srinivas and Abavaanan:

Tholvi nilayena ninaithaal from Oomai Vizhigal

Some people find that anything which is unfamiliar to them makes them uncomfortable; hence they become intolerant towards it. This is especially true if there are negative stereotypes and prejudices already associated with that particular community. People like blogger Dnightcaller even go so far as to call Hindraf "biadap" simply for choosing to sing a Tamil song.

I believe that if we take the trouble to understand our fellow humans better, we will find that they feel exactly what we feel, and that what they want for their children is exactly what we want for ours. However, we first need to get over our own prejudices and speak (and act) against the subtle (and often not so subtle) racism that our fellow Malaysians still suffer in our midst.

If you would like to join them in singing this song, here are the lyrics in Romanised Tamil.

Sincerely,
Malaysian Heart

My gratitude to M.A. for providing the translation, and explaining its meaning to me.

How old is the Sri Mahamariamman temple in Section 19?

There seem to be at least two different figures quoted as the age of the Sri Mahamariamman temple in Section 19. The news media seem to believe that the temple is 150 years old, as can be seen in these reports:

• The Star: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/9/5/nation/20090905110154&sec=nation
• NST: http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/articles/7cowhead/Article/index_html
• Malaysian Insider: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/37144-khalid-samad-cow-head-will-haunt-umno-in-bagan-pinang-
• Malay Mail: http://www.mmail.com.my/content/12637-call-amicable-solution-relocation
• The Sun: http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=37742

However, Hindraf, which was formed to protect (inter alia) Hindu temples from being demolished, has a different figure. In their open letter to the Attorney General way back in June 2007, it is stated that among the thirty one Hindu temples within the Klang Valley that have been threatened with demolishment, is the "Sri Mariaman Temple (109 years old) in Section 19 which has a sacred 100 year old tree given notice to relocate on 18/10/2006." If this is true, then the temple is 111 years old now, and not 150.

So, which age is correct? Is it important? I believe that it is. While a 111 year old temple is just as worthy of protection and preservation as a 150 year old one, inaccurate reporting can be used to impugn the credibility of the people working to preserve the temple, as well as that of its devotees. This has already been done in these two pro-Umno/BN blogs: here and here.

Working to promote the human rights, including the right to freedom of religion, is not made any easier by sloppy reporting.

Sincerely,
Malaysian Heart

Democracy, according to Rocky

In Rocky's latest post, "Seksyen 23 residents prevail", he writes (bold emphasis mine):

Temple relocation shelved. Not a good day for Khalid Ibrahim. The Menteri Besar's dialogue with the Section 23 residents this morning went awfully awry.
Lessons for the govt:
1. Unilateral decisions don't pay, especially with a weak government/leadership
2. Democracy is alive (especially after a demonstration)

Is this is what he is referring to as Democracy?

What possessed the protesters? - Article by Jacqueline Ann Surin from the Nut Graph

Dear Readers,

This is part of an excellent article by Jacqueline Ann Surin, who is the Editor of The Nut Graph, which was published there today:

What possessed the protesters?

4 Sep 09 : 8.00AM

By Jacqueline Ann Surin
jacquelinesurin@thenutgraph.com

WHAT possessed them? That's the question I'd like to ask the protesters who desecrated a cow head on 28 Aug 2009 after Friday prayers to object the building of a Hindu temple in Section 23, Shah Alam.

We know that it's not Islam that teaches intolerance of and disrespect toward other religious beliefs, nor is it Islam that preaches violence or force if Muslims don't get their way. We also know that it is really not Malaysian or Malay custom at all to be so obnoxious, threatening and crude. For all my life as a Malaysian, I have known Malay customs to be gentle, sophisticated and inclusive. This is most likely because the "Malay" race was actually historically constructed; its customs weaved from a convergence of different continents and cultures.

So, if neither Islam nor Malay custom drove the 50 protesters to publicly despoil a sacred Hindu creature and to threaten bloodshed because of a Hindu temple, what was it?

Possessed by superiority

My hunch is that these protesters were emboldened by a culture of Malay Muslim superiority that has been carefully cultivated and strategically stoked by the Umno-led government, Malay Muslim politicians from Umno, PAS and Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), and by the judiciary both civil and syariah.

Please read the entire article here: http://thenutgraph.com/what-possessed-the-protesters

If you like the quality of journalism practiced by The Nut Graph, please consider supporting them. Their investors cannot continue funding them, and they will have to close down if they cannot find adequate support.

As far as I know, the Nut Graph is the only Malaysian news organisation to have published a statement of their journalistic principles, that you can hold them to. If we do not support good journalism when we have it, then we have only ourselves to blame when we are left with the likes of Azmi Anshar and the mainstream media telling us what to think.

Sincerely,

Malaysian Heart

Spinning the news for Permatang Pasir: how to read partisan blogs (and news) 2

Spin is defined as interpreting an event in a particular way so as to manipulate public opinion for or against a certain organization or public figure. It is a form of propaganda, albeit a subtle one; while some propaganda uses outright lies, spin uses half truths and concealment.

The techniques of spin include:

• Selectively presenting facts and quotes that support one's position (cherry picking)
• Non-denial denial
• Phrasing in a way that assumes unproven truths
• Euphemisms to disguise or promote one's agenda
• "Burying bad news": announcing one popular thing at the same time as several unpopular things, hoping that the media [or readers] will focus on the popular one.

Whatever its differences in method, its desired end result is the same as for propaganda:

A propagandist, in the strict sense, is not interested in the truth for its own sake, or in spreading it. His purpose is differ­ent. He wants a certain kind of action from us. He doesn't want people to think for themselves. He seeks to mold their minds so that they will think as he wants them to think, and act as he wants them to act. He prefers that they should not think for them­selves. If the knowledge of certain facts will cast doubts in the minds of his hearers, he will conceal these facts.

From The Art of Making Sense: A Guide to Logical Thinking by Lionel Ruby

With the Permatang Pasir by-elections around the corner, allegations and counter-allegations regarding the two candidates' suitability for office have been traded. In the case of the BN candidate, former lawyer Rohaizat Othman, the allegations center around his disbarment for misappropriating funds belonging to his client, the Koperasi Pekebun Getah Pulau Pinang (KPGPP).

BN tried to undo the damage by claiming that it was Rohaizat's former law partner, Yusri Isahak, who was solely responsible for the wrongdoing, and that Rohaizat was merely the fall guy. On 20 August 2009, Yusri made a statement to the press where he held that the misappropriation of KPGPP's funds was done with Rohaizat's knowledge and involvement, in the form of loans to two of Rohaizat's acquaintances, and for the management of the firm's Ipoh office. You can read his statement in full here.

Yesterday, Yusri again gave a press statement in KL, which can be read in full here. What exactly did Yusri say in this second statement? As I see it, he seemed to be saying that (and please correct me if I am doing any "spinning" myself):

1. He has not been paid to makling either of his two statements
2. Both statements were made on his own initiative, and were not influenced by any party
3. His first statement was made because he was angry and dissapointed at being made the scapegoat in the KPGPP case, and his only motivation was to defend his goodname and that of his family
4. He stands by his earlier statement
5. His earlier statement has been used to slander Rohaizat, which was not his intention
6. Yusri is saddened by the personal attacks on Rohaizat
   
7. Yusri wants to clarify his position and express his feelings on the matter
8. Rohaizat is a good man, and kind hearted, has done a lot for Permatang Pasir
   
9. Even though Rohaizat has made mistakes, he has made amends, and the cooperative has retracted their claim against him

Three questions to consider:

1. Did Yusri retract his earlier statement?
2. Did Yusri exonerate Rohaizat, clear his name, or in any way lessen his responsibility for the KPGPP case, as stated in his earlier accusation? (Let's bear in mind that to exonerate is not the same as to forgive or excuse)
3. Did Yusri take more of the blame for the KPGPP case unto himself?
   

I believe that the answers to all three questions above is no. As I see it, Yusri's second statement expressed many noble sentiments, but it never detracted an iota from the gist of his first statement, in which Yusri stated that the misappropriation of KPGPP's funds was done with Rohaizat's knowledge and involvement.

Given the above, let's see how the mainstream media (MSM) have choosen to present the story, one day before the elections, in the following articles:

Utusan Malaysia, 23/8/09: Yusri tampil bela Rohaizat
The article does not mention points 4 and 9 from Yusri's statement (in bold above). It also reports Rohaizat's response to Yusri's statement, as (my emphasis in bold):

Sementara itu, calon Barisan Nasional (BN) Rohaizat Othman berterima kasih kepada bekas rakan kongsinya, Yusri Isahak kerana tampil memberi penjelasan terbaru hari ini berhubung isu pembatalan sijil peguam sivilnya.

Beliau yang ditemui ketika menyertai lawatan Menteri Dalam Negeri, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein di Kampung Cross Street berkata, perkembangan itu membuktikan fakta sebenar isu yang digembar-gemburkan oleh Pas.

Utusan's article has spun the news for BN using two techniques: first, it has cherry picked the points which may be taken as support for Rohaizat to report, and neglected to mention the ones which suggest that Yusri still believes that Rohaizat is partly responsible for the misappropriation. Second, Utusan has allowed Rohaizat's response, which is phrased in a way that suggests and implies (wrongly) that Yusri has exonerated him, to run without verification, analysis or challenge.

The Star, 24/8/09: Rohaizat vows to bring development
The Star did not devote a full article to Yusri's second statement, but included this in the article above:

At night, Rohaizat thanked his former partner Yusri Isahak for clearing his name.

“I am very happy now that now that Yusri had cleared the air over the allegations. I saw his interview over the television.”

Unlike Utusan, who merely suggested and implied untruth, the Star has printed it outright without qualification!

The New Straits Times, 24/8/09: 'I was in charge of account'
Unlike Utusan, the NST did not start of its article by focusing on Yusri's respect and admiration for Rohaizat. It instead focused on reporting that Yusri was in charge of the KPGPP account (not the bank account, but the case). I believe that since Yusri had (in his first press statement) stated that both he and Rohaizat were co-signatories to the bank accounts, its regrettable that the journalist or editor didn't take the extra care to make that difference clear, i.e. that Yusri was not now admitting to being the sole signatory for the bank account. A quick reading of the headline and the first few 'graphs may lead one to believe that a very significant truth had been unearthed by the reporter, that represented a "twist" in the story. In actuality, the fact that Yusri was the lead lawyer in charge with dealing with KPGPP did not in any way negate or diminish in any way his earlier assertion that Rohaizat was just as involved in misappropriating the funds.

Berita Harian, 24/8/09: Bekas rakan kongsi kecewa kenyataan disalahgunakan
BH, in my opinion, does the least spinning of the four MSM newspapers. Part of what it wrote is this:

Sementara itu, Yusri mengakui fail pembelian hartanah oleh KPGNPP pada 2002 di bawah tanggungjawabnya dan beliau yang menyiapkan perjanjian berkenaan serta memanggil penjual dan pembeli terbabit untuk menandatanganinya.

“Tandatangan saya pada perjanjian itu hanyalah sebagai menandakan bahawa saya sudah menyaksikan penjual dan pembeli menandatangani perjanjian berkenaan,” katanya.

Walaupun mengakui fail pembelian hartanah oleh KPGNPP adalah di bawah tanggungjawabnya, Yusri berkata, fail berkenaan pada bila-bila masa boleh diambil alih oleh rakan kongsi lain seperti ketika beliau bercuti.

Sambil menegaskan pelanggan terbabit adalah pelanggan firma guaman dan bukan pelanggan seseorang rakan kongsi secara khusus, beliau bagaimanapun berkata, adalah tidak tepat untuk menyatakan bahawa Rohaizat tidak mengetahui atau tidak terbabit langsung.

Namun, ketika ditanya sama ada Rohaizat bersalah atau pun hanya menjadi mangsa keadaan, katanya, beliau bukan dalam kedudukan untuk menyatakan perkara itu, sebaliknya pihak yang lebih tepat adalah mahkamah dan Majlis Peguam.

Notice the use of the word mengakui (admits or confesses), thereby implying that Yusri is owning up to something that implicates him (and exonerates Rohaizat). Is this the case? Reading of the next three paragraphs shows it not to be so. Unfortunately, they have left this part to the last three paragraphs of the article!

In none of the four MSM reports above, was the fact that Yusri stood by his earlier statement, and maintained that Rohaizat was at least partly responsible, mentioned. The headlines, the quotes that were selected, the language used all give the impression that Yusri had made a u-turn in his position. The BN owned MSM have used cherry picking of facts, euphemism (in this case dyphemism), and implied assumptions to create an article favourable to BN's interests in the Permatang Pasir by-elections tomorrow.

As for the pro-BN blogs, this is what some of them said:
Shamsul Yunos (the journalist covering the Permatang Pasir elections for the Malay Mail) : ZAMBRI-NIZAR!! Yusri makes a U-turn?
Rocky (Editor-in-Chief of the Malay Mail), linking to Shamsul Yunos "U-turn": Ah, Yusri, both sides now?
A Voice: Yusri rasa bersalah dan 'akui' diguna PR burukkan Rohaizat
Parpukari: NIZAR KKK! YUSRI BUAT U TURN LAH WEI!
Pisau: N11 Permatang Pasir: Rohaizad Tidak Bersalah:Yusri
The Unspinners: KABOOM 2! Yusri ngaku urus akaun Koperasi dan diguna PAS untuk serangan peribadi

For comparison, read these reports from:
Malaysiakini: My intention was to clear my name, says Yusri
Malaysian Insider: Rohaizat’s ex-law partner says he gained nothing in revealing all

How shall we hold the mainstream media to account for spinning the news?

Sincerely,
Malaysian Heart

How to read partisan blogs 1: Shamsul Yunos and his "anger" towards lawyers

Definition of partisan adj.-

• From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition: devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause
• From the Collins Essential English Dictionary, 2nd Edition 2006: prejudiced or one-sided
  

Dear Reader,

Of late, I have been writing quite a bit (most recently here) about why I believe that our Malaysian blogosphere has become extremely partisan, and increasingly bereft of honest argument and reasoned debate. When I surf Malaysian blogs and online news, I often get an uneasy feeling that there is something very wrong with the ideas being "sold". Unfortunately, it's not always easy for me to put my finger on what's wrong (and no, it's not the tapai pulut I had this morning). I realise that I need to be better at thinking critically; therefore, I am starting a series of postings in which I shall attempt to analyse and describe the biased, prejudiced and one-sided arguments that I find in our Malaysian blogosphere. Will you to join me in this endeavour?

Let's be very clear on one thing - there is absolutely nothing wrong with a blogger or writer having strong political beliefs and affiliations, or with expressing them vigorously and with passion. However, as I have stated before, we have a responsibility to argue our cases justly and honestly; if not to our readers, then at least for the sake of our own conscience. Democracy needs a forum for honest discussion and open debate on issues of National interest; telling one's side of the story is fine, but pretending to tell both sides while misrepresenting the other is dishonest.

For this first installment, I'd like to analyse a post by Shamsul Yunos, who blogs at "My Anger, it May Be Yours Too". In his recent entry, "Did you know lawyers are special?", he criticises the Malaysian Bar Council for saying that lawyers should not be arrested while on duty. This statement was made by Bar Council president Ragunath Kesavan on 16 August 2009, during the public inquiry by Suhakam into the arrest and detention of five lawyers of the Kuala Lumpur Legal Aid Centre at the Brickfields Police Station on 7 May 2009. The lawyers were arrested when they tried to see their clients, who were among 14 arrested that day for taking part in a candlelight vigil (for arrested political scientist and activist Wong Chin Huat), outside said police station. The Bar Council's description of what transpired that day is available here, and you can read the five arrested lawyers' own accounts here, here, here, here and here. The only statement from the police (regarding anything related to the arrests) that I could find was in this video.

Let's get a few facts straight first:

• Even if the 14 arrested individuals had commited a crime by holding the vigil, they had the right of access to a legal practitioner of their choice, as per Section 28A (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) and Article 5 of the Federal Constitution. Granted, that Section 28A (8) of the CPC allows the police to refuse lawyers access to their clients, but it should be invoked only in extraordinary circumstances; such as when the delay in questioning the suspect may cause the occurrence of another crime or cause danger to others, e.g. when the client may pass harmful information to an outsider via the lawyer, or hide evidence, such as in kidnap cases. When the police were asked for the grounds on which they were invoking that clause, they were unable to provide an answer. To date, there has been no explanation from the police whatsoever as to why they invoked Section 28A (8) of the CPC.
  
• The lawyers arrested were trying to provide their clients with legal counsel in their professional capacity as members of the Bar Council's Legal Aid Centre; they were not part of the candlelight vigil. Although lawyers do take part in protests, they know how to separate their professional duties from their activism. They were in no shape or form a threat to public order or safety, or obstructing justice, which could have justified their arrest that night. In applying to see their clients in the police station that night, they were merely fulfilling their obligations as advocates and solicitors.
  
• The Bar Council did not call for blanket immunity for lawyers while on duty. They are neither seeking nor expecting preferential treatment nor exemptions from the law. They seek instead to uphold the fundamental right of lawyers to have access to their clients, a right which was arbitrarily denied by the police when they refused to let the lawyers see their clients, and arrested them instead.
  
• The role of the police in a democratic country, is to enforce the law and ensure public safety and order. To enable our police to fulfil their responsibilities, they are delegated wide discretionary powers, e.g. to deny permission to assemble and to issue orders to disperse. However, they must never forget that the raison d'etre of law enforcement is to uphold our human rights (including the right to assemble peacefully), not to deny them arbitrarily or for political reasons. They must also never forget that they are public servants, and that they are accountable for their actions and decisions.
  

So, given the above, how did Shamsul Yunos choose to comment on the Bar Council's statement? If you have read his entire post, you would have seen how he has used negative connotations and outright slurs against lawyers throughout it. In a post 313 words long, he managed to:

• Liken lawyers to "particularly odorous boogers" to be flicked out of a moving car onto gravel
• Imply that they drink lots of alcohol
• Accuse them of lying for a living
• Imply that they are too cowardly to stand up for what they believe in
• Characterise them being wealthy and stingy
• Accuse them of speaking with "forked tongues", without thinking first
  

What Shamsul Yunos has done is to use the techniques of propaganda, namely:

• Ad hominem arguments
• Appeal to prejudice
• Demonizing the enemy
• Name-calling
• Stereotyping

Techniques like these work to stir up negative feelings and attitudes (e.g. disgust) towards the targets (in this case lawyers), by appealing to the emotional and irrational side of our nature. They make the other parts of his case easier to accept.

Let's look at Shamsul's more "substantive" arguments. The first thing to note, is that he has (intentionally or not) neglected to quote from, refer to or even provide links to Ragunath's statements as reported in the news. Neither has he mentioned the context in which the statement was made, namely the arbitrary denial of a fundamental human right, the arrests of the five lawyers, and Suhakam's public inquiry into it. Why is this important? When he first refers to the statement by BC president, he follows it with "What the F does that mean?" Is he trying to imply that the Bar Council's position is unclear, unreasonable or difficult to understand? Would the Bar Council's position have been in any way unclear to anyone who had read their statements and was aware of the issues involved?

Next, he uses a "straw man" argument, i.e. by substituting a superficially similar (and weaker) proposition (the "straw man") for his oponents' real one, then refuting it, without ever having actually refuted their original position. Shamsul does this by first conceding that lawyers should not be arrested if they are not breaking any laws. Then he writes, "but I hardly think that anyone in this country should get time out just because they are on duty." The straw man that he is putting up here is that the Bar Council called for blanket immunity for all lawyers on duty, even if they break the law. A glance at this headline shows how grossly Shamsul has misrepresented the Bar Council's position, and again, he neglects to consider the human rights issues involved. Knowing the whole truth reveals Shamsul Yunos' argument for what it is.

Instead of honestly discussing the possibility that it's in the public interest that lawyers and their clients have certain rights and privileges, he goes on to use a rhetorical question to make light of the issue; he sarcastically suggests that the Bar Council asked for special treatment ("different laws" as he put it) because lawyers believe that they are superior to others.

So, what are we to make of the post in question? Should we dismiss it as the prejudiced pronouncements of a partisan propagandist? Well, Shamsul Yunos does not want us to think so; as he maintains (in response to a reader's comment to a different post) here, "I put forth both sides of the story". Yeah, right!

One thing that disturbs me very much, is that in between the put downs, slurs and hyperbole, Shamsul makes a sinister, chilling statement with dangerous implications for human rights, freedom and justice in Malaysia. He writes: "If lawyers think arrest is a risk they do not want to face, then do not accompany people who the police may want to arrest. hey a champion must make scarifices, a warrior must be brave..."

Take a moment to consider exactly what he is saying. Is he implying that if lawyers work for or defend people whom the police (or the government) do not like or approve of, then they should be prepared to face arrest and persecution from the authorities?

As a result of our 12th general elections (GE-12), Malaysia is now at a crossroads, from where, for the first time in a long while, we have a choice of taking a path to a future that we want for ourselves & our children. Malaysians from all walks of life have been increasingly vocal in expressing our dissent against racism, bigotry, corruption, oppression, bad governance, tainted law enforcement and judiciary; both individually as well as via mass protests and demonstrations.

However, not everyone is happy that we have this choice, and there are those who would prefer that we return to the days before GE-12, and even further back, to Mahathirism. I believe that there are efforts being taken that, if we are not vigilant, will roll back the progress that we have made of late. These efforts include inhibiting democratic expression and eroding the foundations of our basic human rights, by various means. Our laws and legal system (such as it is), and our lawyers, are vital elements in the defense of our human rights and freedoms. Equal protection and access to justice would be just an empty slogan without the right to legal counsel. Are people like Shamsul Yunos part of an effort to reduce our legal community's effectiveness (and motivation) in standing up for human rights? I believe so.

So, who is Shamsul Yunos? The first entry on his blog dates back to 27 April 2008 (incidentally, 50 days after the GE-12). According to Rocky, who introduced Shamsul's blog here, and regularly refers to it in his own posts, Shamsul Yunos is a journalist. Googling for "Shamsul Yunos", I found (assuming that they are all one and the same person) that he writes for the Malay Mail. I also found that a Shamsul Yunos attended the Asia Media Summit 2008, held on 27 - 28 May 2008 in Kuala Lumpur. In this list of delegates, he is referred to as a Special Writer from the Ministry of Information, Malaysia. I do not know what exactly a "Special Writer" in the Ministry of Information is, but if it's possible to define one from what one writes, then perhaps we should compare how he has written about the Bar Council's position with this description:

A propagandist, in the strict sense, is not interested in the truth for its own sake, or in spreading it. His purpose is differ­ent. He wants a certain kind of action from us. He doesn't want people to think for themselves. He seeks to mold their minds so that they will think as he wants them to think, and act as he wants them to act. He prefers that they should not think for them­selves. If the knowledge of certain facts will cast doubts in the minds of his hearers, he will conceal these facts.

From The Art of Making Sense: A Guide to Logical Thinking by Lionel Ruby

What are the key lessons to draw from reading Shamsul Yunos' post? IMHO, they are:

• Always look for the other side of the story and its context, from another source. Do not expect that Shamsul has provided it for us
  
• Look for propaganda techniques designed to evoke an emotional and irrational response to the subject of the story
  
• Look for dishonest arguments, e.g. the "straw man", and rhetorical questions used to divert attention away from real issues.
  
• Always look for affiliations and links to organisations. Such affiliations are not evidence of propaganda per se, but are a useful guide for us to look for potential bias and vested interest

The next time you read Shamsul Yunos, or any other partisan blogger, do look out for these tricks. Better yet, blog about it and let others know too! According to Rocky, Shamsul will be contributing articles daily from Permatang Pasir for The Malay Mail. Will he be putting forth "both sides of the story" from there too? Do feel free to share you analyses of Shamsul Yunos' reports in the comments section.

Sincerely,
Malaysian Heart

Why propaganda and bigotry must be exposed

In response to my previous post, You can never win with a bigot – my response to “OutSyed the Box: Is The DAP A Chauvinist Party?”, a reader who signed off as Paul Warren left the following comment at Hartal MSM:

You just wasted a some bytes writing a crtic on this guy SAA. He’s an idiot to have thought that his opnions mattered. Just as he was, I am pretty sure, unable to comment on acts against non-Muslims and places of worship as well as worship right here in Malaysia itself he seems so cncerned about behaviour elsewhere

ITs more important now for decent Malaysians to ignore these kinds of bigotted writings and racist incantations and move on to forge a better Malaysia for Malaysians.

This is the response I posted over at Hartal MSM, which I reproduce here FYI:

Thanks for your comment, Paul. Yes, it is tempting to brush aside SAA and other BN cyber-troopers as idiots. However, I can see some parallels between our situation in Malaysia today and Germany, during the rise of Nazism:

1. Political leaders who have no qualms about demonising minorities in order to hold on to power (e.g. Nazi anti-semitism)
   
2. Promotion (and acceptance) of racist and supremacist ideologies e.g. Aryan Supremacy and Lebensraum) as "OK" or necessary
   
3. Media (mainstream and cybertroopers) becoming propagandists for their ideology
   
4. The rise of organisations that threaten and intimidate other citizens with violence just to prevent them from exercising their rights (ala the brownshirts and SS)

The BN owned MSM and cybertroopers seem to be applying lessons from Nazi propaganda well; as Hitler wrote in chapter IV of Mein Kampf:

"Propaganda must always address itself to the broad masses of the people. (...) All propaganda must be presented in a popular form and must fix its intellectual level so as not to be above the heads of the least intellectual of those to whom it is directed. (...) The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses. The broad masses of the people are not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another. (...) The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning. This sentiment, however, is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but has only the negative and positive notions of love and hatred, right and wrong, truth and falsehood."

As to the methods to be employed, he explained:

"Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side. (...) The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. (...) Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must of course be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula."

Do these similarities mean that Malaysia will inevitably become a fascist state? I don't think so, but we ignore these signs at our peril. Let's not forget that the Nazis were (also) viewed with disdain as harmless idiots, just before they were able to take Germany over.

I believe that the way to pre-empt this danger to Malaysia, is not by us becoming the mirror image of the BN cyber-trooper; using their tactics for our cause. Rather, we need to "change the game" by calmly, rationally and with goodwill towards all, engaging Malaysians from all walks of life, building social capital, exposing BN propaganda for what it is, and laying out our case for change.

"Vibrant Democracy Requires Eternal Vigilance"

mh

You can never Win with a Bigot - My Response to "OutSyed the Box: Is The DAP A Chauvinist Party?"

This is my Response to "OutSyed the Box: Is The DAP A Chauvinist Party?" by Syed Akbar Ali (SAA, or Tuan Syed)

Dear Reader, allow me to to share a "joke" with you. Two waiters were talking about the diners they were serving that evening:

Waiter A: There's a large party at my table. I'll get a good tip tonight for sure.
Waiter B: Don't hold your breath, buddy. They're all X (insert name of group here), everyone knows that X are cheapskates.

Later that night...

Waiter A: Hey, I got a really nice tip from them! They weren't cheapskates at all!
Waiter B: Of course you got a "big tip", sucker. Everyone knows those X control all our money anyway!

As far as waiter B is concerned, the X are damned if they do and damned if they don't. He has made up his mind and no truth can change it. He is a caricature of a bigot, i.e. one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. Bigots never let facts, reason and logic get in the way of what they want to believe; after all, why should they, when it's so much easier to find crooked thinking and dishonest arguments enough to support their bigotry?

Bigotry is spreading fast in our blogosphere, on both sides of the political divide; I believe that SAA's blog entry of 31 July 2009 is but one example of it. The purpose of the post in question seems to be to imply that the DAP is chauvinist, anti-Malay and anti-Islam.

Let's look at some of the things SAA wrote, beginning with this about Lim Guan Eng (LGE): "Lim Guan Eng made a public display of standing up for a young Malay girl because the fellow involved was Rahim Tamby Chik, Guan Eng’s nemesis in Melaka at that time. Would Lim Guan Eng have made the same stand if it was not Rahim Tamby Chik? What if it was Chua Soi Lek?" So, according to SAA, if someone like LGE speaks up for a Malay girl, he/she is only motivated by political and/or racial motivations, never by principle or more nobler aims.

Yet, five paragraphs later, he is taking Theresa Kok to task for (supposedly) doing the exact opposite: NOT speaking up for a Malay girl! He writes: "Then it came to pass that the girl was not Chinese but actually a Malay girl, also wearing a tudung, who was a suspected drug addict. Not surprisingly that also marked the end of Theresa Kok's involvement in the matter. She dropped the case like a hot potato."

Doesn't it seem like whatever a DAP politician says or does, SAA can find a way construe it to imply that they are opportunist, racist and/or worse? How convenient!

Let's look at another example of SAA's logic. Of LGE's conviction for sedition over the case allegedly involving Rahim Tamby Chik, he wrote: "By the way none of his lawyers (or even DAP) spoke of conspiracy, crooked judges etc after the verdict. Does anyone know the name of the judge who jailed Guan Eng? Crooked judge? How come DAP never said so?" He seems to be implying that LGE, his party and his lawyers have implicitly admitted his guilt because they (supposedly) did not dispute the judges verdict. Yet, in his post "The Solution To The Perak Crisis" of 12 May 2009, SAA criticised Perak PR leaders for disputing court decisions that were unfavourable to them!

There's just no way to win with Tuan Syed, is there? We're damned if we do, and damned if we don't! Would it be in any way unreasonable to suspect that SAA would have found a way to criticise LGE, even if he (LGE) had disputed his conviction?

SAA's arguments that I've described above, are all based on just one of the 38 dishonest tricks commonly used in arguments, namely no. 38: attributing prejudice or motives to opponents, without any evidence in support. That's easy to do, but by neglecting to go beyond smear tactics, such an argument does not consider the action or argument on its own merits. It also ignores the various possible real reasons a person acts or speaks in a particular way.

Let's look at another example by SAA, based on the same dishonest trick. SAA writes this about Lim Kit Siang (LKS): "In Bamiyan the Buddha statues were blown up but no one died. 11 Press statements were made by Kit Siang. In the destruction of the Babri Mosque, 2000 people were also massacred but no Press statement from Lim Kit Siang." SAA uses these facts to imply that LKS, and by extension the DAP, is anti-Malay, anti-Islam and chauvinist.

Now, if LKS had issued a statement SUPPORTING the destruction of the Babri Mosque by Hindu fanatics and the subsequent massacre of Muslims, then SAA's implication would have been very credible. However, as it stands, SAA has merely attributed, again, without evidence, a DAP leader's action (inaction, in this case) to prejudices or dishonourable motives.

This particular game can be played, with almost any combination of organisation, person and causes, until the cows come home. To see how ridiculous SAA's argument is, let's apply his logic, along with some of his own words to, let's say, Tun Dr. Mahathir (TDM). TDM launched SAA's book recently, and seems to be a person whom SAA admires very much; as he wrote here "If we had a 100 Vincent Tans and just one more Dr. Mahathir our country will be fine".

TDM, either personally and through his organisation, the Perdana Global Peace Organisation, has made numerous statements against the Israeli oppression of Palestinians. To paraphrase SAA, I congratulate TDM for his concern. Well done. However, how many statements has TDM made against the oppression of Christians in Pakistan? Can anyone guess? The answer is none. Since Tuan Syed had no qualms about arguing thus against LKS, would he also believe that TDM is anti Christian? Of course he wouldn't; the argument is preposterous.

My question to SAA is this: WHY does the shoe have to be put on the other foot before he realises the patent unfairness of his arguments? Isn't it a moral failing if one is unable to feel the unfairness and injustice felt by others in a situation, until and unless one's own interests are affected?

To be fair, Tuan Syed has not always written like this; indeed, he used to be one of the better bloggers out there. Even when I disagree with his point of view and conclusions, I used to find his blog entries well argued and if nothing else, principled. If you don't believe me, just take a look at here, here and even here; some antipathy towards DSAI and PR perhaps, but that's not a crime, is it? I could never find a crooked thought in them. For him to have sunk this low within the last couple of months, is saddening.

In my opinion, this recent blog post of SAA's represents the worst of what the Malaysian blogosphere is becoming: a seedy back alley for spreading bigotry, with spin, smear, insinuation and dishonest arguments; all done for partisan interests. An example of this is the effort by pro-BN bloggers and the BN owned mainstream media to paint PR as anti Islam and anti Malay. Tuan Syed seems to have jumped onto this particular bandwagon with much gusto.

Democracy needs a forum for open minds to honestly discuss and debate issues of National interest, as we work towards a Malaysia that is free from racism, bigotry, corruption, oppression, bad governance and tainted judiciary. Bigotry, on either side of the political divide, will destroy our blogosphere; it has already infected our mainstream media and blighted inter-community relations in the past, with dire consequences. If we care for our Nation's future, we need to reclaim this space for enlightened public discourse.

All of us have our own political beliefs and affiliations, there's nothing wrong with that. However, whatever those beliefs are, we have a responsibility to argue our cases justly and honestly; if not to our readers, then at least for the sake of our own conscience. SAA ends his post by writing: "So this may throw some light if the DAP is anti Malay, anti Islam, chauvinist etc." No, Tuan Syed, your words do not throw any light at all on the character of your intended victims, but they do reveal much about your own.

Sincerely,
Malaysian Heart