Thought Virus

“What I was doing in the cave for the past three months”.

2010-10-05T01:50:00.001+08:00

IT is finally here. By that I mean I’m finally getting around to uploading it here.

The premier is

Oct 16, 2010, Saturday
Auditorium Menara PKNS, Petaling Jaya (in PJ new town)
8pm

Kisah Tauke Mancis dan Minyak Tumpah is a story of a temple and two communities in Shah Alam. The temple is special to its devotees but changes to the surrounding landscape have made it difficult to stay. The fight to move the temple is a lesson that all communities and local authorities should take to heart. When we ignore history and fail to manage different religious needs, we create fuel for the fires of extremism.

The film was written and directed by Sheridan Mahavera and Siti Nurbaiyah Nadzmi. We were very fortunate to have worked with some world-class talents who made this film possible. The crew comprised those who had worked on some of the most renown Malaysian indie films and those slick commercials you see on ASTRO.

Money, technical, moral and emotional support was provided by local NGO Pusat Komunikasi Masyarakat (KOMAS).

If you could spend RM20 on popcorn, parking and tikets for a Hollywood, Bollywood, Kollywood or a Hong Kong-wood film or cetak rompak DVD that tells you nothing about what happens about your own homeland, why wouldn't you come to watch a film about people who could be your own neighbours and a place that looks just like your Taman for FREE.

And not just one film but three films about your homeland that will be shown on the same night. The premier is part of the Freedom Film Fest 2010 which is organised by KOMAS.

The annual festival showcases documentary films on subjects too panas for Malaysian TV but which every Malaysian should watch.

If you can't make the PJ screening you can catch FFF 2010 at:

1. Johor Bahru
Oct 23, 8pm
Tropical Inn, JB

2. Miri
Oct 31, 2pm
Pacific Orient Hotel

3. Penang
Nov 13, 8pm
Caring Society Complex (Complex Masyarakat Penyayang), Jalan Utama Georgetown

4. Singapura
Nov 14, 2pm
Substation Arts Centre, Jalan Armenian

How to book tickets for all venues:

Reservations will be open from Oct 1 at http://freedomfilmfest.komas.org/. The tickets can be collected at the venue on the screening date. Jangan lambat kerana First come first serve.

And did we mention that admission is FREE?

Further visualisations

2010-05-18T19:48:00.025+08:00

Filem ni merupakan satu medium yang tidaklah asing-sangat tetapi tidaklah familiar bagi saya. Walaupun kita ni memang peminat filem dan selalu analyse filems yang kita pernah tonton, cara nak menyampaikan cerita melalui medium ini lain daripada medium penulisan dan kewartawanan. Duhhhh..

Film is not-that alien of a medium for me but its also not that-familiar. Even though I am a film buff and I love to analyse them, the way that the medium tells a story is different from that of writing or journalism. (I am genius, i know)

Memanglah saya pernah katakan dalam post yang lalu that a “story is a story” dan beza antara filem dan artikel adalah cara story itu disampaikan. Tetapi sebenarnya, cara story itu disampaikan boleh effect penhayatan penonton dan pemahaman stori itu.

Of course I’ve said in previous posts that a “story is a story”. That the difference between film and an article is how that story is told. But in reality, the way that a story is told will affect how the audience understands and appreciates it.

Becoz kita ni lebih-kurang-first time filmmakers, me and Siti decided to layout structure film kita secara visually. Kita buat ni dengan storyboard di mana setiap scene filem kita ni di-bayangkan dan dilakar berpandukan skrip. Setiap lakaran tu kita atur side-by-side supaya kita “nampak” jalan-cerita our filem.

Since we’re both sort-of-first-time filmmakers, me and Siti decided to layout the film’s structure visually via storyboard. Each scene is sketched out just as how it is described in the script. Once we arrange the scenes, we got an idea of how the film would be “seen”.

Setiap panel di dalam storyboard ni akan lebih kurang sama dengan apa visual yang kita akan shoot dan pakai. Paling penting, ia seolah boleh “preview” filem itu pada crew. So that bila turun shooting, kita dah tahu scene A umpamanya, kena ada elemen-elemen ni dalam frame dan sebagainya.

Each panel resembles what visuals we’ll shoot and use. Most importantly, it will preview the film to the crew. So when we go down on location, we’ll know that scene A, for example, has to contain so-and-so elements in its frame.

Dari A ke B ker? B ke A?

2010-05-13T01:15:00.027+08:00

Mungkin you ada rasa pasal aper saya ni terlalu obsessed dengan proses penulisan cerita filem. Atau you sudah bosan dengan repetition saya tentang struktur narrative dan jalan cerita.

“Mana dia cerita part-part shooting dan adegan2 giler di location”, you may ask. Atau you tak sabar nak tahu pasal selok-belok single camera production amateur seban you jugak amateur filem maker dan you tak nak la ulang mistake saya. Well you see, itulah dia.

Kalau you tak ambil masa secukup2-cukupnya untuk visualize, draft, re-draft dan mendalami jalan cerita filem you then you akan buat banyak mistake time shooting dan angkat gambar. Trust me. Saya bukanlah professional, tetapi ini yang aper professional sendiri pernah kata pada saya dan inilah mantra semua pembikin filem tersohor.

“Filem yang bagus ada tiga benda – script yang bagus, script yang bagus dan script yang bagus.”
Alfred Hitchcock (kalau you serious tentang bikin filem please look him up).

Jadi, we memang spend masa buat script. We nak dalami script sampai kita boleh huraikan dan ceritakan filem ini kepada sesiapa tanpa refer pada script tu itself.

Caranya nampak simple dan ia adalah soalan2 yang Siti tanya pada saya semasa kita mula menulis skrip.
1 – Dalam dua atau tiga ayat, apa cerita file ini? What is our story?

2- Apakah “impression” (kesan atas perasaan) yang kita nak penonton dapat selepas filem ini? Adakah mereka akan rasa terhibur? Atau marah terhadap apa yang dilihat? Sedih? Or mereka lagi faham satu issue atau tentang dunia mereka? Or adakah mereka akan rasa sesuatu issue itu ada harapan untuk masyarakat selesaikan dengan adil dan saksama?

3 – Juga penting. Kenapa orang patut datang tonton our film? Because seriously, RM10 tu boleh beli tiket tengok blockbuster hollywood/ bollywood/hong-kongwood/KLwood/peckerwood kat TGV or GSC. Or boleh beli DVD cetak rompak.

Berpandukan tiga-tiga elemen ini, kita akan decide aper isi filem. Bukan sahaja soal aper shot yang nak diambik, tapi bagaimana shot itu nak diambik. Not just siapa yang patut di-interview, aper yang harus ditanya kepada subject interview itu dan soundbite aper yang harus di dapat dari dia.

The skrip akan drive production dan post-production. But di sini saya kena masukkan satu reminder. Especially bila buat documentary.

Jalan cerita script mungkin akan lain daripada apa yang di harapkan. Ini mungkin akan berlaku selepas shooting.

I know what you’re thinking. “Oh kalau macam tu tak yahlah aku nak perah otak buat skrip becoz cerita akan tukar lepas aku shoot.”

BUKAN MACAM TU. Tanpa skrip kita takkan ada cerita langsung. Tapi mungkin jalan cerita itu akan berbeza.

In essence, cerita ni is like getting dari point A ke point B. Bagaimana kita pergi ke point B tu boleh ubah. Mungkin our first skrip lalu C,D,E dulu baru sampai ke B. The second script mungkin lalu D dulu, E dulu dan maybe menyimpang ke G kejap.
Tapi pokoknya, cerita tetap tentang A ke B. Bukan B ke C atau G ke F. Itu cerita lain. Itu kita must get right sebelum angkat camera.

Terpenting of course ialah proses ini akan tolong kita menang dana dari KOMAS.

Berjalan mencari cerita

2010-05-07T16:38:00.002+08:00

Like every story that we had done in print, our story for the film had to have a narrative. In other words, there must be a “jalan cerita”.

Kalau tiada jalan cerita, si penonton bukan sahaja tidak boleh memahami dengan penuh apa sebenarnya peristiwa dan issue di sebalik cerita itu. Mesej yang mahu disampaikan oleh cerita itu akan terbenam dan tidak terserlah.

Saya juga tidak mahu filem ini terlalu focus kepada peristiwa protes kepala lembu, siapa yang bawak kepala lembu tu, demonstrasi yang mereka lakukan di depan SUK atau persoalan tentang adakah mereka ini ‘dibiayai’ pihak2 tertentu.

Focus saya bukan perbuatan itu sendiri. Tetapi apa yang mendorong kepada perbuatan itu. Lagi penting adalah apanya kesan perbuatan itu terhadap komuniti berbilang kaum Taman Ixora. Juga, adakah retakan yang terjadi kerana protes itu telah diubati setahun selepas insiden2 itu.

Equally important, bagaimana masyarakat Malaysia boleh menanangi kehendak2 communiti-komuniti yang berbilang agama dan budaya jika kehendah2 mereka bercanggah. Di dalam peristiwa ini, pemindahan rumah ibadat Hindu ke Muslim-majority area (Taman Ixora, Section 23) di katakan mencetuskan tentangan daripada penduduk situ. In other words, keperluan agama sebuah komuniti di tentang oleh komuniti yang lain.

With this in mind, saya dan Siti turun ke Taman Ixora untuk berjumpa dengan wakil rakyat yang menanangi masalah itu dan pemimpin masyarakat mereka. Also important adalah geografi Sek 19, Sek 23 dan kuil Sri Mahamariamman. Ini kerana masalah yang berbangkit adalah masalah geografi, khususnya kedudukan kuil dan rumah2 sekeliling.

Ini dibuat supaya kita boleh mendapat gambaran yang penuh tentang ‘the dimensions’ dan seluruh aspek2 dalam insiden kepala lembu.

Recce yang kita buat juga menolong kita mengenalpasti siapa yang kita perlu interview. Daripada isi interview itu lah kita mebentuk rangka jalan cerita filem ini.

Imej berikut adalah ‘visualisation’ rangka ini. Siti menggunakan placemat makanan dan sticky notes daripada Tesco supaya kita senang atur tulang2 yang akan membentuk rangka jalan cerita.

Setiap note yang hijau melambangkan satu tulang/plot line di dalam narrative/jalan cerita.

Note yang pink adalah visual yang di perlukan untuk menyampaikan narrative jalan cerita.

“One day, they could come for you.”

2010-05-02T00:12:00.003+08:00

How I got into the story started from last year while I was in the NST. This is the article.

The news reporters from paper’s Selangor bureau had covered much ground when it came to the cow’s head protest. They had spoken to people in Taman Ixora, Section 23, Shah Alam and gotten responses to the protest.

There was also a lot of feedback about how residents felt about the relocation of a historic temple to their neighbourhood. Since it was the relocation of the temple that supposedly sparked the protest.

But my article was not specifically on the cow’s head protest and chaotic MBSA dialogue that followed. It was how that incident tied into the rise of Malay supremacist groups. The article also looked at whether such a gruesome display of civic rights meant that the average Malay was getting more intolerant and that they were prepared to resort to more vicious means to get their feelings across.

Somehow that incident never left my mind. That the cow’s head protestors were a vocal, militant minority had been established. But what I wanted to know was what the “silent majority” of Taman Ixora felt towards them.

More importantly, why did this silent majority sit back and allow the militant minority to act and speak in their name? Were they scared of them? Did they not care that a group of 10 or so men had hijacked their community and gone on to do things on their behalf?

If they could allow this group to lord over them, what happens when they do something more drastic the next time some communal issue crops up? For instance, if non-Muslims want to have special gatherings or kenduri at their houses and the noise and guests spill out into the streets? Would the community sit by while this group goes up and threatens the non-Muslim residents?

It sounds paranoid but think about it. If you sat by and allowed a group of people to carry the head of a dead cow through the streets in your name, then you’re telegraphing to them that you agree with them.

Emboldened by your permission, they’ll feel that they can do anything. The next time they won't be reluctant to start intimidating your neighbours. If you sit by, then you’re sending a message to those bullies that you’re not going to get involved. That this kind of behaviour is ok. Even worse, that you agree with them.

It’s like that saying when the Nazis started rounding up people for death camps in 1940s Germany:
“When they came for the communists, I did nothing. When they came for the Jews, I did nothing. And then one day, they came for me.”

This is what the film was going to be about. Whether the people of Taman Ixora, Section 23 will allow history to repeat itself.

ends

How I turned Siti's world upside down, again.

2010-04-30T20:13:00.008+08:00

The way her head twisted up at me when she said “WHAT?” was as if I told I was not really Muslim. Or that I was going to leave and join a Buddhist monastery and had asked her if she wanted to come.

It was like:

“what? What? WHAT? WHAAAT?”

Of course she tells it differently.

But after she said yes and we started talking about the project she immediately threw me questions that I had not thought about and which were critical to the film.

I won’t pretend that I am not a newbie. I’ve only done two films before this and they were works of fiction. This one was going to be a true story. Even though I hadn’t done any documentaries, I have wide experience doing articles on intricate social issues.

The principle is the same if you’re approaching a story in print or in video form.

Why should this story be told? And why should anyone bother reading/viewing it? I had answered these two questions but there was a third question that I hadn’t thought about but which she did.

“What kind of impression do you want to leave on the audience?”

When I’m writing for print its in 2-D. Now that the story is in 3-D there is an extra emotional dimension that you as the storyteller has to consider.

With print, you can influence how your reader feels because they have no other choice but to take what you say as the accurate representation of the story you are telling.

If you say the “man looked remorseful” then they have to take your word for it. They have no other way of independently checking it out.

With film, your subjects can be seen by the viewers themselves. They don’t need you to tell them whether someone is sad, happy or honest. They will see it for themselves. If you try to hide or manipulate your subjects, the viewer can see that too.

So the challenge is how to tell a story and leave your reader/viewer with an
impression that is true to the story. As opposed to them getting an impression that they think you conned them into.

Mencari jodoh filem

2010-04-10T17:28:00.002+08:00

It ain’t really that hard to decide on what story I want to tell. What is hard is actually how to tell it. But i have a good story for this year’s festival and there is this burning in my gut that tells me to pitch it to KOMAS.

The story’s been going around in my head for some time. I know exactly what kind of angle it should be. Probably because I wrote about it when I was in the NST sometime in September 2009. Due to space constraints I wasn’t able to really explore it in depth. I wrote about one aspect of the story and how it tied into the rise of the Malay supremacist movement. But the article concentrated on whether this small but world-infamous protest was a sign that the movement was gaining traction.

There was another side of the story that needed telling and I decided that film would be the medium.

I thought about going at it alone. I had asked my good friend Halim, who i've done two films with and he was like:

“Awww dude, why don’t we do another adaptation. I have this great book man about what it feels like to be the “other woman” in a relationship. I mean this is the story of the “other side man”.

“Dude let’s do that man. Let’s do that. It’d be awesome”.

‘Awesome’ in the same way that eating a whole bunch of strange mushrooms would feel ‘awesome’. But I wasn’t in the mood for shrooms.

Halim was also in Kelantan so that made it difficult to do it together.

But I felt that I didn’t want to go at it alone. Not because I wouldn’t be able to hack it alone but because I wanted a fresh perspective on the subject. Someone who could see the dimensions of the story that I didn’t see.

And so began the great quest of “Mencari jodoh filem”.

‘Don’t tell us how to pray,’ Borneo states say

2010-02-23T17:25:00.000+08:00

By Sheridan Mahavera

KUALA LUMPUR, JAN 12 — The battle might be between the Roman Catholic Church and the government over the right to use “Allah” but the ones most affected are those in Sabah and Sarawak.

As Sabah leader Tan Sri Bernard Dompok pointed out, they worship in Bahasa Malaysia as its the national language and Bibles are in that language because it is not feasible to print or translate it to their various dialects.

More importantly, “Allah” is their word for God, the same as for the Malays, who borrowed it from the Arabs.

Semantics aside, the people in Borneo do not see the fuss or problem over the name of God.

The Muslims in Sarawak, Jack (who asked that only his first name be used) reasoned, were not just tolerant of other faiths. They have accepted non-Muslims as a daily fact of life the same way parents accept that their children have different personalities.

A government servant, he had earlier said he hoped the spate of attacks against churches in the peninsula would not spill over into Sarawak.

Though he was upset over the broken windows of the Anglican Good Shepherd Church in Lutong, Miri, Jack’s faith in Sarawak’s Muslims has not been shaken.

“I hugely believe that this is an isolated case, and most Sarawakian Muslims and also Sarawakians are surprised that such an incident could happen at all in Sarawak,” said Jack. Many of the people interviewed for this article asked that their names be changed due to the volatility of the topic.

It is this renowned bond between the non-Muslims and Muslims of Sarawak and Sabah that has often been held up by peninsula politicians as the ultimate model of race-relations.

Yet while these politicians speak highly of East Malaysia’s ethnic unity, they seldom make any serious attempt to get peninsular Malaysians to emulate it.

Conversely, says Sabahans and Sarawakians interviewed by The Malaysian Insider, the insular race, religion and language politics of the peninsula have often been imported and forced upon East Malaysians for as long as the states have been part of the federation.

And this is what unsettles them when it comes to the turmoil about who gets to use “Allah”: that again, the peninsula-centric Federal government is telling them to change an elemental aspect of their lives that has never before been a problem.

In other words, says a Sabah Government officer, it was never a problem until the “Semenanjung” people made it a problem.

NO FURORE HERE

When his friends greet him with the salaam, Mujahid, 20, is never confused as to whether the person is a Muslim or not. Nor does it matter to him.

Neither does he or the Sarawakian Muslims he knows think to ask why Christians in the state use “Allah” in their prayers or sermons.

“It is very condescending to me when someone tells me that I will be confused when non-Muslims use ‘Allah’ because my faith (in Islam) is not weak … Me and my family are extremely disappointed by the uproar and all these attacks on churches,” says Mujahid, a university student.

Sarawakians and Sabahans are saddened by how an age-old community norm of theirs has suddenly turned into a fractious issue by those who do not understand the history of the practice.

Dayak community leader Dr John Brian Anthony explains how when Christianity was being propagated to the East Malaysian natives roughly 100 years ago, the texts that were used were imported from Indonesia.

These texts used the term Allah and were in Bahasa Indonesia, which was similar to the Melayu Kuno used by the natives.

“My elders and me use the same text till today because that is the language we know. If someone tells me that my language is wrong, then I say ‘Why?’ Is it about Aqidah (faith) or is it about form?”

The Home Ministry banned the use of Allah in The Herald’s Bahasa Malaysia section. Yet it is this version which is widely read by Catholics and other Christians in East Malaysia.

When the High Court overturned the ban in Dec 31 last year, it caused an uproar among peninsula-based Muslim groups.

However, Anthony says, East Malaysian Muslims have never opposed the use of “Allah” by Christians and other non-Muslims.

Political scientist Dr Faisal Syam Hazis of Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (Unimas) puts it another way: “The use of Allah by non-Muslims has already been embedded in East Malaysian society for more than 100 years. It has never been an issue. So why are these peninsular Muslims suddenly jumping up and down over it?”

CONFUSION

For Dr Zaini Othman of Universiti Malaysia Sabah, the “confusion” that is being felt by the Muslims he meets in the state is why the issue is being raised now.

“Based on my daily experience with Sabahans, this is what they are asking. They feel that there is a hidden political agenda behind it.”

Though the Federal government has been at pains to stress that the issue is not about political mileage, Kuching-based blogger Norman Goh doubts that the violence it has spurred is being tackled seriously.

“First you allow the protests (by Muslim groups). Then when the attacks happen, you say [you] ‘might’ use the ISA (Internal Security Act). When Hindraf, Bersih and Bar Council rallies occurred, you did not hesitate to use the ISA,” says Goh, 23.

Faisal’s colleague, Dr Andrew Aeria, was unequivocal in his reading of the debacle.

“The view here is that Umno has fanned all of this. They seek to impose their racist imaginings on the rest of Malaysia without realising that Malaysia also contains Sarawak and Sabah.”

What Aeria is referring to is the fluid, non-communal approach to ethnic relations in East Malaysia, where groups do not seek to impose their norms or beliefs onto others.

It is helped by the fact that in the historical memory and the demographics of these two states, no group has been dominant.

The ethnic demarcations are also not enforced by politics, says Aeria, where political parties are not formed just to serve one group.

“Some parties have many members of one group but they are intrinsically multi-racial. This is where you see parties like SUPP (Sarawak United People’s Party) that looks like a Chinese party but it fields Bumiputera candidates.”

PENINSULA ‘RACIST’?

Unimas’ Aeria and Faisal also dispute the views of a Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) race-relations expert who contended that for Sarawak Muslims, religion was not as important as tribal identity.

In a previous The Malaysian Insider article, Prof Dr Mansor Mohd Noor of UKM Inter-ethnic Studies Institute gave an opinion that peninsular Muslims were less tolerant when it came to questions on Islam than their Sarawak and Sabah brethren.

“For Muslims in East Malaysia, the use of ‘Allah’ by non-Muslims is not a problem because their identity is tied to a tribe rather than to a religion,” Mansor has said in the article titled “Allah unites some and divides others”.

“Saying that is almost like saying we Sarawak Muslims are less Islamic than the ones in the peninsula just because we can tolerate Christians using ‘Allah’,” says Faisal.

East Malaysians of all creeds are passionate about their faith and identity but they were more accepting of each other, says Aeria.

“If you are saying that peninsular Muslims cannot be as tolerant as the ones in East Malaysia, are you saying that peninsular Muslims want to remain racist? What is wrong with emulating East Malaysian tolerance?”

Conversely, since the debate over whether to allow non-Muslims to use “Allah” is currently being determined in the peninsula, it seems that West Malaysians have no problems imposing their beliefs on East Malaysians.

And that, says those interviewed, would be very unfortunate for Sarawak and Sabah.

First published Jan 12, 2010 The Malaysian Insider http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/49330-dont-tell-us-how-to-pray-borneo-states-say-

‘Allah’ unites some, divides others

2010-02-23T17:15:00.000+08:00

By Sheridan Mahavera

Kuala Lumpur, Jan 11 — While the despair Christians feel over the events on Friday and later over the weekend is palpable, so is the bitterness by Muslims that things have come to such a head on something they never imagined would be contested.

The official line is that the government is going after the arsonists in the attacks on churches that began Jan 8. That Barisan Nasional (BN), especially Umno, did not direct, plan or had any knowledge of the attacks.

Most importantly, Umno leaders stress that they did not incite Muslims organisations to hold demonstrations against the use of Allah by non-Muslims.

The popular and not entirely unsubstantiated view among non-Muslims and some Muslims varies between Umno creating the issue in the first place (an Umno minister had banned the Herald from using Allah in its Bahasa Malaysia section), to inciting the protests, to the party not doing enough to calm things down and thus preventing the church attacks.

It is not that absurd a view if one studies the background of the groups who protested and the events leading up to it.

This is what had BN leaders such as Ministers in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Idris Jala and Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon visiting Christian groups and meeting pastors.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has also visited and pledged RM500,000 in aid for the partially gutted Metro Tabernacle church in Desa Melawati, Kuala Lumpur.

Najib and other ministers visit the Metro Tabernacle in Desa Melawati which was the target of arsonists.
But in the perception-rules reality of Malaysian politics, BN still stands to lose much support from the urban electorate, say non-Muslims interviewed.

Yet what has not been considered is how far this issue has rankled ordinary Muslims — the thousands who did not join the protests but who put their names on petitions and joined web groups fighting for the same thing as the demonstrators.

Or the fact that the demonstrations included groups that do not traditionally support Umno.

In other words, if Umno and BN lose the support of Christians and non-Muslims, can parties who allow Allah to be used by non-Muslims, such as Parti Keadilan Rakyat and PAS, lose the support of Muslims?

Beyond these questions of political gain and loss, however, is how this issue, according to an academic, has cut deep to the elemental foundations of Malaysian society.

Church volunteer R. Williams (not his real name) started fearing the worst when he read on Thursday Najib saying that the government did not have the power to stop demonstrations against the use of Allah by non-Muslims.

“This was like a green light,” he says, adding that the next day, he almost came to tears when the three churches were torched.

“Then the next day he goes and says he will catch the culprits. What am I supposed to believe?”

Williams is not suggesting that Najib gave his approval for the protests, which took place at several mosques after Friday prayers, or that the Umno president condoned the church attacks.

What he and a Barisan Nasional Indian activist meant was that many believe the BN federal administration practised double standards when it came to the demonstrations.

"When it was Hindraf (in 2007), the government said ‘protests are not our culture.’ When people protested against the fall of the Perak government in early 2009, they said the same thing.

"But when it came to these (the Friday) demos, ‘Government has no power to stop...’ Why play different music?” says the BN activist who declined to reveal his name for fear of reprisal.

Almost all non-Muslims and some Muslims interviewed requested anonymity or a change of name for fear of their personal security.

The Indian activist claims that among non-Muslim BN supporters, the feeling is that the coalition will be punished at the ballot box.

“BN’s survival rests on Sabah and Sarawak, and now we are going to lose in those two states,” says the activist.

A Malay-Muslim government officer described the violence and anger by his fellow Muslims as “stupid and ridiculous.”

“Nik Aziz (Kelantan Menteri Besar Datuk Nik Abdul Nik Mat) himself explained that Allah is not exclusive to Islam. This issue has been played up for political mileage.”

Other non-Muslim BN activists, however, disagree, saying that it should be seen for what it is, a religious issue that cuts at the heart of Muslims.

“The term should just have been reserved for Muslims and Islam. Everyone knows that it’s sacred to them so why challenge it?” asks Kota Baru MCA division chief Tan Ken Ten.

St Francis Xavier parish priest Father Simon Yong (left) welcomes PAS spiritual adviser Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat when he visited the Petaling Jaya church yesterday.
Johor Baru MCA division official Michael Tay also does not buy the argument that Umno should be blamed for all that happened.

“If Umno spent so much time building up unity through 1 Malaysia and convincing people about it, do you think they would just destroy all of that work?

“Fanatics are hard to deal with for anyone. You can’t just tell them not to demonstrate because they get pent up and explode,” says Tay, who is deputy chairman of the division’s complaints bureau.

“At the end of it, we must respect Islam because this is the religion of the majority.”

Professor Dr Mansor Mohd Noor of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia says that Peninsular Malaysia’s Malay-Muslim majority and the centrality of religion in the community is largely why the debate is so explosive.

His research for UKM’s Inter-ethnic Studies Institute shows that different Malaysian ethnic groups have different “ethnic parameters” that form the crux of their identity. And when these parameters are crossed, it sets these groups off and emotions usually trump rationality.

For Chinese Malaysians, the parameter is Mandarin. For the Indians and Malays, it is always religion. For the indigenes of Sarawak and Sabah, it is tribal identity, says Mansor.

“For Muslims in East Malaysia, the use of Allah by non-Muslims is not a problem because their identity is tied to a tribe rather than to a religion.”

In the peninsula, a Muslim is almost always automatically marked as Malay while in East Malaysia, explains Mansor, a Muslim can either be an Iban, a Kadazandusun, a Melanau or from another tribe.

“So you cannot expect a peninsula Muslim to be as tolerant as an East Malaysian Muslim when it comes to questioning aspects of Islam.

“This is why the use of Allah in Christian sermons and activities in East Malaysia is tolerated all this while by local Muslims. But when the issue comes to the peninsula, peninsula Muslims explode.”

Mansor believes for the peninsula Muslims, the political party that is seen as supposedly defending this core identity is the one that will gain their support.

Shah Alam Pas MP Khalid Samad is aware of the political risks in the party’s stand to allow non-Muslims to use Allah.

At a protest at the Selangor State mosque in his own constituency, a group of men walked all over his picture and urged him to change his stand over the issue.

The mosque committee had even set up tables at four places where Muslims could sign a petition against non-Muslims using Allah. There were constant queues at all the tables before and after prayers.

“There is a difference in understanding among Muslims. We are interested in the textual proof in the Quran and the traditions of the Prophet. It is quite clear. Unfortunately many Muslims in Malaysia are still ignorant and kept that way by the government.

“So it is for PAS to explain this. At the same time, you cannot judge a whole community just by the actions of a few.

“Yes, they seemed many (at the demonstrations) but realise also that there are many Muslims in PAS and PKR who agree with us.” said Khalid

First published: The Malaysian Insider Jan 11, 2010

This ain't no rabbit hole

2010-02-15T17:09:00.007+08:00

The idea for it started from Alice. I can’t remember her last name but this one time furniture factory kerani proved that you can make a difference. That whatever decision the government makes, you can determine whether or not it actually gets implemented. It’s that simple and almost unbelievably true.

Her story and her successful campaign to oppose a billion-ringgit mega-incinerator in her backyard were chronicled in a film called “Alice lives here”. Watching Alice on screen is like seeing someone you know, like the kedai runcit guy down the road or the kakak next door transform into a rabble-rousing activist.

Not just any kaki demo but a social hurricane, who overnight decided that she wasn’t just going to sit by and let the government turn her kampung in Broga into Malaysia’s largest garbage dump.

Because that was the plan back in 2003. The government was going to build this monster of an incinerator because the landfills in Selangor were going to fill up in a few years. They tried putting the incinerator in Puchong. But the middle class residents put up such a fight so they had to look for another area. And that’s when they chose Kampung Broga. Probably because it was in a remote part of Semenyih and maybe because they thought them orang kampung could easily be appeased.

But no one reckoned on Alice. Which is why the incinerator project was cancelled sometime in 2004.

That’s why the film was so powerful. It showed that you didn’t have to take shit the kerajaan was shovelling out to you sitting down. You could actually get up, throw it right back at them AND make them take back.

And the most important part about the film was that it was actually made. That there were people out there who were willing to shell out money and help make a film about a story in our collective lives that needed to be documented.

So when I saw “Alice lives here” at the 2005 (I think, please correct me if i'm wrong) Freedom Film Fest, I told myself that if I ever came a across a story like hers I would do a film on it. Because such stories need to be seen.

The mind war for Perak

2010-02-06T17:36:00.000+08:00

The mind war for Perak
By Sheridan Mahavera

IPOH, Feb 6 — Standing precariously on the rotting wooden floor of a kampung house, Datuk Seri Raja Ahmad Zainuddin Raja Omar stares out at what hours ago used to be the bedroom wall.

Now, the Kubu Gajah state assemblyman is staring down into the garden at the remains of that wall, which collapsed that morning. He belts out orders to a building contractor over what he wants to see done for the house owner before nightfall.

He gets assurances that something will be done so that the whole structure doesn’t collapse but what he tells owner Khalid Osman is not very heartening.

“I’m sorry but you’ll just have to find another place to stay. I can help stabilise it so it doesn’t fall apart anymore but the house has been thoroughly eaten by termites,” says Raja Ahmad Zainuddin.

The prognosis merely confirmed Khalid’s fears but for the 50-year-old, what really mattered was that his wakil rakyat took the time to come down and see what his problem is.

And in the next elections, Barisan Nasional is betting on this to be its main selling point, that BN politicians are better at resolving the everyday problems of Ali, Ah Chong and Aru than Pakatan Rakyat.

Of course bringing development and economic progress are still hallmarks of a BN administration and the Perak government under Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abd Kadir has excelled in this.

But many BN politicians, grassroots activists and supporters say that crowing about getting RM11 billion in investments is not enough to win over rural folk.

“ADUN (state assemblymen) BN tak turun padang (did not go down to the ground),” says one long-time Umno activist in Larut on why the BN lost in the March 2008 general election.

“They became aloof and took their support for granted. Many of them don’t even live in their own constituencies and only return once in a while,” says the Umno man, who declined to be identified in criticising his party bosses.

Behrang state assemblyman Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi echoed this, claiming that Pakatan had won on “protest votes” from people disillusioned by BN’s arrogance.

“That’s why Najib (BN chairman and Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak) said that in the next election, he wants candidates who are people-friendly and who actually stay in their constituencies,” says Jamaluddin, an ex-Pakatan assemblyman who jumped ship and is now a BN-friendly independent.

Raja Ahmad Zainuddin says that the main BN approach is not to have one-off, large-scale programmes but consistent little meetings with ordinary folk to listen to grouses and help where they can.”

He thinks the “protest votes” led to an unprecedented loss in support for seasoned Umno politicians like him in seats where they had previously scored huge majorities. Raja Ahmad Zainuddin, for instance, won the Kubu Gajah seat by only 66 votes, down from the over 7,000 votes he garnered when he won the Larut parliamentary seat in 2004.

“People just wanted to teach us a lesson. They didn’t really expect that it would lead the BN to lose Perak. They are not Pakatan supporters per se and I think next time around, they will come back to us.”

And he claims to have really taken the lesson to heart. The former Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board chairman now visits his constituency’s service centre everyday.

He makes it a point to know his constituents’ latest problems and pays regular visits to the poor, the infirm and to the old.

“Even if it’s only for five minutes I turun (come down) every day. I help out everyone, be it a BN supporter or Pakatan. And I help all races,” he says.

For the folks in kampungs that are cut-off from mainstream society, such regular meet-greet-and-listen contacts go a long way to making them feel valued.

And that was proven in 2008 because that was essentially Pakatan’s approach.

“Many of my neighbours voted for Pakatan last time because orang BN didn’t come down to see them. But now, we are seeing more Umno people here in the village, so maybe next time, things will be different,” says a village official in Selama.

“Teaching Malays how to think”

There was no laughing in the ceramah crowd in Taman Meru, Jelapang when PAS’ Dr Khairuddin Abdul Malik took the stand.

It wasn’t a side-splitting speech filled with folksy humour common in a PAS ceramah. Instead the Perak PAS deputy commissioner gave a slide presentation so caustic that he had to apologise several times if his points were harsh.

The theme of his talk centred on the view that the Perak Pakatan government under Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin was pro-Chinese at the expense of the Malays.

This perception is being spread by Umno in Perak’s Malay heartlands of Larut, Bagan Datok, Parit, Pengkalan Hulu and Kuala Kangsar. PAS grassroots activists are worried that it is steadily converting Malays who voted Pakatan in 2008 back to Umno and the BN.

“I want my government to give opportunities for Malays to do business,” says a stall owner in Bukit Gantang, when asked what he wanted from the state administration.

If left unchallenged, this perception could blunt attempts by Pakatan to boast of its achievements during its 10-month term to Malays. These initiatives could be re-spun to seem like they only benefited one community.

To counter this perception, Khairuddin explained how Pakatan’s programmes benefited proportionately more Malays compared to other groups because the aim was to help the poor regardless of race.

“In the Malay community, eight per cent of all Malays are poor while Indians are two per cent and the Chinese are 0.8 per cent. So when we do programmes for the poor, of course Malays would benefit the most.

“Umno says we only give land titles to Chinese villagers. In reality we have given more titles to Malay villages but Umno does not talk about this.”

He doesn’t just blast Umno and BN. The main aim is to erase the deeply-grafted assumption in the Malay mind that only Umno can truly represent and look after the community.

It is also to refute the allegation that PAS’s partner DAP was the “Communist, anti-Malay Chinese” while MCA represented the “good Chinese.”

“Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng gave twice the amount of funds that Umno gave for the development of Islam in Penang. He even formed a Syura Council to discuss Islamic issues. Ask yourselves, is this what a communist government would do?,” Khairuddin asked the crowd.

A former senior civil servant says the perception is entrenched in the Malay psyche largely because of 50 years of communal politics.

“Malays generally don’t think far enough when they look at policy. For example, when the government cuts subsidies for boarding schools. They don’t see that it affects mostly Malay students because they are the largest group in these schools.

“And when non-Malays get a few land titles, they over-react.”

The Pakatan strategy is not just about a regular ceramah circuit to keep the memory of them and their downfall alive among the rakyat.

A DAP official explained that the parties are increasing their new voter-registration drives in all constituencies by having mini-contests that reward agents who register the most.

The three parties are also intensifying recruitment drives where they want to increase members in every area by 30 per cent, says Khairuddin.

It is going to be a battle of values in the war for political control of Perak, opined a long-time Ipoh-based Parti Keadilan Rakyat activist.

Since Pakatan and BN have chalked up their own noteworthy accomplishments whether it is helping the poor, resolving land issues or bringing in development, choosing between BN and Pakatan is no longer a choice between who has the better track record and whose ideals are better.

For the first time in their lives, Perak folk will be able to truly compare between two different ways of governance and the values that underline their policies.

Whether it is Pakatan or the BN, the ceramah and the small group meeting are tools that Perak folk will see more often as both coalitions try to sell them their values.

First published Feb 6, 2010 The Malaysian Insider http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/52169-the-mind-war-for-perak-

Pakatan could win Perak again, but…

2010-02-06T17:27:00.002+08:00

This particular story seriously pushed the boundaries as to what a "hard" story should be. The assignment was: get 100 people from all over Perak to take a straw poll in three days. Tabulate the results and write about it. What is usually forgotten is the fact that you have to approach 200 people to get 100 of them to AGREE to have their views canvassed. The other hard part is convincing people you are not from the Government, the Special Branch and that they won't get ISA'd if they say something critical. The link http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/52155-pakatan-could-win-perak-again-but contains graphics of the full results.

By Sheridan Mahavera and Choo Choy May

IPOH, Feb 6 — Though it has been a year since the elected Perak government was brought down by defections, a Malaysian Insider straw poll showed that Perak folk “tak mudah lupa”.

Many still remember the previous Pakatan Rakyat government and the changes it brought to the state. But this is not an endorsement of the Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin’s eventful but short-lived 10-month administration.

The poll showed that just as Pakatan’s contributions were fondly remembered by some, others felt left out by those same programmes.

The poll, which surveyed 101 residents from districts in northern and southern Perak, indicated that although the men on the street may not keep abreast of the latest developments in local politics, they are pretty sure of their political allegiances.

In other words, if there were state polls tomorrow, more than two-thirds of respondents have already made up their minds which coalition they would choose.

In fact, going by the poll’s results, 42 out of 101 people would choose Pakatan while 34 would choose the BN.

In terms of popularity, Nizar is slightly better regarded than his rival Datuk Seri Zambry Abdul Kadir who is the present Mentri Besar. Forty-three respondents thought he would make a better chief executive while 32 thought Zambry was better.

On the surface, these numbers are a rough gauge of what Perak folk think of both administrations but beneath that lies something more fundamentally important — that Perak society is deeply fractured.

It is not just differences between the three dominant ethnic groups in terms of who they are more likely to vote. It is about how each community perceives the other and the values of each group.

One year on and still going strong

The 101 respondents were asked six questions to get a sense of what they thought of the current political climate.

The Malaysian Insider surveyed the opinions of 46 Malays, 35 Chinese and 20 Indians in rural areas in Larut, Bukit Gantang and Kuala Sepetang, the semi-rural towns of Teluk Intan and Kampar, and around Ipoh city.

They were aged between the early 20s to the late 70s and comprised, among others, farmers, fishermen, small businessmen, civil servants and professionals.

The most obvious trend that emerged and which has been hinted at before by politicians is the difference in support of Pakatan and BN among the communities.

Support for the BN was highest among the Malays with close to half (21) of those surveyed saying they would vote BN if an election was held tomorrow, versus 15 who would vote Pakatan.

Conversely, 20 of the 35 Chinese polled said they would choose Pakatan and of the remaining 15, only four would choose the BN.

Indian support is narrowly split with nine of those surveyed saying they would vote BN and seven for Pakatan.

This pattern is repeated in how favourably each group views the two coalitions. Nineteen Malays had positive feelings about the BN administration under Zambry compared to nine Indians and only nine Chinese.

Yet, among Malays, 26 of them did not think that their lives have generally improved under BN. The main reason given for this was because Zambry’s administration has only been in office for a year.

About a quarter of the Indians, Chinese and Malays interviewed say they saw no changes under either administrations because their terms were too short.

Pakatan’s contributions, however, were well remembered by all. In fact there were more people who remembered their initiatives (54) than there were those who thought that BN had changed things for the better (37).

Yet there is an unpleasant truth to this. Though 25 Malays say they remembered Pakatan’s contributions, about 10 of them felt that the programmes were unfair to the community.

“What about us Malays?”

“Yes, I remember what Pakatan did. They let the Chinese rule Perak,” remarked one Malay respondent from northern Perak. This sentiment was echoed in other interviews with many other Malay respondents.

The views ranged from grouses about how too many Chinese villages were getting freehold titles to how preferential treatment was given to Chinese businesses in the Kinta Valley.

The sentiment has its roots in the popular and not unfounded perception that the state was run by an unofficial triumvirate that included Nizar and executive council members Datuk Ngeh Koo Ham and Nga Kor Ming.

Other respondents based their belief that it was a pro-Chinese administration based on the fact that seven of the 10 state executive committee posts went to non-Malays.

Malays who say they would vote for Pakatan also admitted to subscribing to the notion though they claimed it did not affect their support for the coalition.

A veteran Pakatan activist says these perceptions persist because the coalition itself has failed to dispel them.

The reality is that under Pakatan, Malay villages also received offers for freehold titles while the community benefited much from grants given to Perak university students and aid for funeral expenses.

These benefits, however, were never highlighted by the Bahasa Malaysia media who instead kept playing up the issue of freehold titles for Chinese villages, says the activist who requested anonymity.

“There is a drop in Malay support for Pakatan ever since the March 2008 elections. I would not be surprised that support has eroded further.”

The finding suggests that Pakatan faces a greater challenge than just winning enough seats to form the government in the next state election, as the survey shows it still has support.

Yet this is not enough to endear it to a large section of Perak Malays. The community’s support is crucial if Pakatan truly wants to realise its “new” politics of transparency and meritocracy for all.

First published: FEb 6, 2010 The Malaysian Insider http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/52155-pakatan-could-win-perak-again-but

Divided People, Shared Destiny?

2009-12-10T15:23:00.001+08:00

DEC 10 — With the impending completion and soon-to-be commissioned Bakun Dam, Malaysians will get a glimpse of yet another irony in the incongruent tapestry of their country.

A core component of Sarawak’s huge power corridor of more than 13 proposed hydro-electric dams in the state, Bakun reportedly aims to supply power to mega-industries like Rio Tinto’s aluminium smelter, and to the towns and industry of Sarawak and Peninsular Malaysia. All the former residents of the remote Bakun watershed in central Sarawak who were re-settled to make way for the huge dam will thus see Bakun’s power transported from the hydro-electric dam to other parts of the state and beyond the South China Sea — via massive overland and submarine cables.

A majority of Sarawak’s rural folk will thus see Bakun’s electricity pass them by. Many rural residents will continue to get their electricity from noisy personal generators that they have to feed with their own diesel.
It promises to be another flesh-and-blood example of the continuing tragedy of Sarawak — where the precious fruits of its resources are taken out for others to enjoy while the poor locals sit by and watch.

The story is also repeated in Sabah, where whole villages have to rely on Western NGOs to build simple freshwater supply systems while Putrajaya elites boast about how Malaysia sent a man into space.

These stories are strung together to form that collective lament that is heard every Aug 31 and Sept 16: why is it that after 46 years of Malaysia, Sabahans and Sarawakians feel no closer to Peninsular Malaysians?

Many young Sarawakians and Sabahans believe that their two homelands have given more in terms of petroleum revenues and votes for a peninsula-centric ruling coalition than they have received in terms of development.

Most importantly, many of them feel that because they are still not treated as equal siblings in the Malaysian family, the only recourse would be for Sabah and Sarawak to go their own way, apparently.

In other words, is the divide between the two regions in terms of infrastructure and culture so irreconcilable even after nearly five decades, that many feel Sabah, Sarawak and the peninsula might as well be foreign countries in the true sense of the word?

Divided by history and design

Talking about a “divide” between the three homelands is tricky. The individual histories of these regions, their multi-cultural populations and how their societies have evolved right up to 1963 makes it seem as if they were meant to be organically different from one another.

There is also the geographical distance. Universiti Malaysia Sarawak political scientist Dr Andrew Aeria points to the sea that literally separates the three areas as a factor that has widened the chasm between their peoples.

It was precisely because of these differences in terms of development between the peninsula and Sarawak and Sabah that the latter’s forefathers insisted on a set of conditions that would govern these two regions once they agreed to form Malaysia.

The 20-point agreement for Sabah and the 18-point for Sarawak allowed local leaders wide freedom to craft education, language and physical development policies that would suit the special needs of the two regions.
Some of its provisions included the freedom not to have Islam as the state religion, (point 1) the ability to manage immigration (point 6), control of revenues and where the monies are spent (point 11) and creating school systems (15) that would serve the needs of their various communities.

The agreements, says Dayak social activist Dr John Brian Anthony, would prevent both states from being colonised by peninsula-oriented Malay-Muslim interests.
Out of all the provisions, only the immigration control remains the fully functional provision, adds Anthony.
“Somehow, the federal government has ignored the agreement and even changed the ‘rules’ without the consent of Sarawak and Sabah,” he says.

Aeria however disagrees and points out that the watering down of the various provisions were accomplished through a series of bureaucratic changes and constitutional amendments agreed upon and supported by pliant state government regimes installed by Kuala Lumpur.

Sabah and Sarawak were gradually pulled into the sphere of influence emanating from Kuala Lumpur and they were made to adopt its bureaucratic system, like in education.

Most of the revenues from their natural resources were given over to the peninsula. For example, Sabah and Sarawak’s petroleum reserves are controlled by Petronas on account of the 1974 Petroleum Development Act, which handed over control of petroleum resources in the whole country to Petronas and which allocates five per cent of royalties to each oil-producing state (including Sabah and Sarawak).

Still, even though Sabah controls immigration, this has not prevented it from being flooded by illegals during the 1990s. The sudden increase of dubious citizens of Indonesian and Filippino origin has been a constant problem in Sabah society, which locals have blamed on the Barisan Nasional federal government.

But what has anguished Sabahans and Sarawakians the most is arguably the way the BN federal government has tried to insidiously change the ethnic character of both states.

In the words of Kota Kinabalu resident Dayang Yohana Awang Salleh, the federal government has “taken all our revenue but only given us racism and religious intolerance”.

Bringing closer but drifting

If the old divide was due to geography and historical circumstance, the modern rift ironically comes from how the peninsula-centric federal government has tried to bring the three regions together.

The freedom to fashion Sarawak and Sabah societies according to their needs was eroded so that they became less of the autonomous entities envisioned in the agreements to more of units within and dependent on a strong, centralised organisation headed from Kuala Lumpur.

As power receded from these states, the Federal BN began sowing the seeds of a Malay-Muslim national identity that grated with the inter-ethnic harmony in Sabah and Sarawak. “In their policies, the federal government has little appreciation of the sheer diversity of ethnicities, faiths, languages, lifestyles, dreams and hopes of Sabahans and Sarawakians,” says Aeria.

This re-engineering of their societies was felt most acutely in schools. Teachers from the peninsula, many claim, come to Sarawak and Sabah schools with high-minded ambitions to cajole, school and civilise the natives.

Dayang Yohana relates how almost overnight, the students in her secondary school had been segregated into Malay and non-Malay groups by their peninsula teachers.

“My friends used to mix freely and we didn’t even look at each other as Malay or non-Malay. But suddenly the Malay kids would be separated and put into special classes.
“They were told not to mix with the non-Malays and that they had to compete with them in the exams.
“It was distressing because these teachers were essentially telling us that it was wrong to mix with the non-Malay friends that we had grown up with,” she says.

Kuching-based photographer Norman Goh relates the same thing when speaking of his experiences as a former teacher.

“Teachers that I came into contact with from the peninsula would tell Sarawakian students and teachers that they should not mix with other races. We hate this attitude because in Sarawak we mix freely with each other.”This is not just about peninsula arrogance and the way they impose such racial attitudes upon Sabahans and Sarawakians.

Adam, a secondary school teacher in Sarawak, points to how their attitude towards ethnicity and religion colours everyday life and makes it hard for Sabahans and Sarawakians to live in the peninsula and vice versa.
“In Sarawak, you can be a non-Muslim and use terms like Alhamdulillah (praise Allah) and Allah and it’s not a problem. But I can never say these things in the peninsula,” says Adam, who declined to reveal his full identity for fear of repercussions in his job.
It also does not help that Merdeka on Aug 31 has long been given more importance than Sept 16, Malaysia Day.
“This speaks volumes about what the BN federal and state governments think of the position of Sabah and Sarawak in the federation. How else does one interpret this symbolism?” asks Aeria.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, however, recently announced that Sept 16 would be a national holiday starting from 2010 to commemorate Malaysia Day. Although belated, this announcement will undoubtedly be welcomed by Sabahans and Sarawakians.
Although a disconnect still exists, Unimas’ Aeria stresses that many Sabahans, Sarawakians and Peninsular Malaysians blend in seamlessly both ways.
Although the psychological disconnect can be disputed what is harder to ignore is the brick and mortar differences between the living standards between the peninsula and Sabah and Sarawak.
Adam cites how despite Sarawak’s natural riches, it still struggles to provide adequate health care even in highly urban Kuching.
While schools, houses, roads and towns have been built and standards of living have risen in Sabah and Sarawak says Aeria, poverty has also deepened and income inequality has increased.
“Given the resource-based structure of the economies of Sabah and Sarawak, job opportunities are severely limited and more and more natives are forced to work outside Sabah and Sarawak to earn decent incomes.
“In other words, the Barisan Nasional has delivered a very bitter-sweet form of development-deprivation in East Malaysia.”
A return to the past or leap to the future?
The majority of noise in cyberspace generated by critical Sabahans and Sarawakians is for a return to the 20- and 18-point agreements.
The full implementation of each of the points is seen as the ultimate salve for the wounds Sabahans and Sarawakians feel they have sustained over the 46 years of their association with Malaya.
The points are trumpeted as the solutions that will end the “orang Semenanjung, orang Sabah, orang Sarawak” syndrome and bring their peoples together.
Advocates for a return to the agreements claim that it would empower non-Muslim indigenous groups by getting rid of any official state religion and that natives get Bumiputera status recognition that is equal to that accorded the Malays in the peninsula.
The agreements would also stop peninsula policy-makers from coming in and disrupting the close ethnic concord between communities.
Malaysian Orang Asal Network president Adrian Lasimbang claims that peninsula-oriented federal government officers are often unaware that the many tribes of both states have Bumiputera status.
“Education and welfare aid is mainly in the hands of federal government agencies. But its officers often think that only Malays are Bumiputeras.
“We have many cases of non-Malay Bumiputeras being denied aid while new Bumiputeras get help,” Lasimbang says. He uses the term “new Bumiputera” to refer to the thousands of illegal immigrants who became citizens through dubious means in the 1990s.
The problem, he says, could have been easily overcome had the federal agencies been “Borneanised” with natives aware of Sabah’s and Sarawak’s diversity.
Anthony, who runs the well known dayakbaru.com website, claims that the erosion of the no-state-religion principle has prevented a Dayak from becoming either chief minister or Yang di-Pertua Negeri.
“When Tunku Abdul Rahman was campaigning in Sarawak to sell the Malaysia idea, he pledged that should the chief minister be Muslim, the Yang di-Pertua Negeri must be Dayak. I specifically remember this being broadcasted on the radio.”
“But ever since Islamisation crept into Sarawak, the powers-that-be insist that a Yang di-Pertua Negeri be a Muslim. This should not be.”
Building unity
Yet, despite the promise of autonomy and self-sustainability of the agreements, the question must be asked: can the people of the three regions be unified if the solution to their schism lies in implementing policies that would make life in Sabah, Sarawak and the peninsula so different from each other that they will really seem like foreign countries?
Unimas’ Aeria points to how this has occurred with immigration controls.
A foreigner under the “Malaysia, My Second Home” programme can get a 10-year residence visa in both Sabah and Sarawak. A Peninsular Malaysian, however, wanting to spend a lengthy sojourn in both states is only entitled to a three-month visit pass that must be constantly renewed by exiting and re-entering the states. As well, all Peninsular Malaysians who work in both states but who are not attached to the federal civil service are required to apply for a work visa, which must be renewed annually or every two years. All Peninsular Malaysians are required to leave the state upon retirement — the exception being only when a Peninsular Malaysian is granted PR status or is married to a local.
Sabahans and Sarawakians working and living in Peninsular Malaysia face no such hurdles.
“Immigration controls therefore no longer serve any meaningful purpose. They only reinforce the mental and psychological divides in our mind instead of building up a sense of oneness and emotional belonging. It is time we removed these barriers to unity.”
Aeria thus believes that talk of the 20-point and 18-point agreements is mere rhetoric and that the solution to Sabah and Sarawak’s woes lies in looking towards the future instead of to the past.
“What we do need today are more just and respectful policies and more development funds that deliberately aim at overturning the hitherto neglect of both Sabah and Sarawak in the national developmental agenda.
“Policies must recognise the unique religious, cultural and linguistic diversities of the peoples of Sabah and Sarawak as being as important as any other mainstream ethnic community in the country.
“Recognition of the main languages of Sabah (Kadazan-Dusun) and Sarawak (Iban) has to be officially institutionalised at all levels.”
For the youths interviewed for this article, the only lasting solution would be mutual separation although this is forbidden in the two agreements.
Marketing executive Mike Cheng points to how well Singapore has done when it left Malaysia in 1965.
“They broke away and made it big. Borneo is larger in size and we have more resources; so it is very possible that we could do just as well. Unless the federal government is sincere about doing justice to Sarawak and Sabah, we feel we would be better off on our own.”
Kuching-based Adam was ecstatic over the prospect.
“It would be the only way where we could finally control all our resources to use it for our people.
“Now we only get five per cent of the oil revenue; imagine what we could do with all of it. It’s not that I do not love Malaysia, but I feel that if we were on our own maybe the people of Sarawak can finally be the masters of their land.”
However, this option is extremely difficult. The 1963 Malaysia Act forbids secession.
A better bet to healing the rift would be for voters to enact political change on the ground, starting with their local leaders.
This is already happening as seen in the 2008 general election where support in middle-class, urban constituencies is shifting towards non-BN candidates and parties.
Aeria, however, feels that parties such as the DAP and Parti Keadilan Rakyat offer little substantial value for the electorate in terms of principles or policies.
“There is presently no opposition worth talking about to even begin contesting elections here.”
Not too long ago, people used the same line of argument when discussing opposition parties in Peninsular Malaysia, before March 2008.
In fact, much of the speculation in the run-up to that election predicted that BN would win handily in all states except Kelantan. No one, not even the Pakatan Rakyat parties themselves, expected them to keep Kelantan and take over four more states.
Though how the Pakatan administrations are currently faring is debatable, their victories have brought changes in attitude in how the BN relates to the aspirations of Malaysians.
It could be argued that the liberalisation of the economy by stripping away pro-Malay regulations and a review of the Internal Security Act could not have been done if the BN had not lost ground last year.
Though much of the rhetoric was inflammatory, the concerns highlighted by the banned Hindu Rights Action Front on behalf of the Indian community have made the Prime Minister himself pay serious attention to this ethnic group.
A loud and clear signal at the ballot box would jolt the local and federal BN that the populace rejects their current divide-and-deprive methods.
There is thus every possibility that Sabahans and Sarawakians will soon see the end of peninsula-style racism, the start of more funds to the states and more respect for indigenous rights.
But for that to happen, they have to believe that there is hope — not only for change through the ballot box but for a better shared destiny between east and west Malaysia. — aliran.com http://www.aliran.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1091:divided-people-shared-destiny&catid=90:2009-8&Itemid=45

"Food on the table more pressing than race".

2009-09-12T00:03:00.009+08:00

Sept 12 2009 This article first appeared in the New Straits Times

By Sheridan Mahavera

Dragging a cow’s head to protest against the building of a temple was the most provocative episode yet in a series of racial flare-ups SHERIDAN MAHAVERA asks whether Malay sentiment is turning away from moderation and tolerance towards bigotry and chauvinism.

THE most important question in the Section 23 temple controversy is not just whether anyone in the cow-head incident will be punished but whether the 211 residents who attended a town hall meeting with the Selangor government on the matter were a cross-section of the Malay majority.

If the answer is "yes", Malaysia has a real problem. It would mean that even after 52 years of living side by side, most Malays are still not tolerant of those of other faiths.

A "no", on the other hand, would indicate that the centre is tolerant. While that would be assuring, the fact was that two-thirds of Section 23 (population 300) was at that meeting. Of the 211, about 100 shouted expletives and called the Selangor government officials unprintable names.

The Section 23 scenario offers scant cause for optimism. Taken together with other recent spikes in inter-communal tension elsewhere in the country, it looks like the ethnic concord that has kept Malaysians together continues to fray.

Malay sentiment is said to be moving from tolerance of others to seeing them as a threat. The angst stems from perceptions of having to accede more and more to the demands of non-Malays.

This is the perspective of groups such as Pekida (Islamic Missionary and Welfare Association) and Pewaris (Ummah Solidarity Council), two organisations purportedly speaking on behalf of the Malays.

It's not just about houses of worship, or giving more opportunities in education and business, they say. Neither is it about the slaughtering of that sacred cow of Malay supremacy ("ketuanan Melayu"), privileges and rights.

Pekida president Jamaluddin Yusof thinks many Pakatan Rakyat state government decisions are worrying for the community. These include giving out 999-year leases for Chinese new villages in Perak, not giving out more business opportunities for Malays in Penang, and constructing temples in Malay-majority areas in Selangor.

But Jamaluddin insists that the organisation is not ultra-chauvinist: "We understand that Malaysia is a plural society with many ethnicities and we cannot deny them their rights. 'Ketuanan Melayu' does not mean that we deny the rights of non-Malays to education and business."

Yet they fear that the Malays will one day cease to be tuan (masters) and become hamba (slaves). "I am afraid that if we are not careful, we will lose power in the 13th general election," says Jamaluddin.

However, there is little data to indicate that most Malays agree -- or even that race relations are at the top of their minds. In a nationwide opinion poll by the Merdeka Center in June, 31 per cent of the 1,067 individuals questioned (56 per cent of them

Malays) said that economic issues such as jobs, inflation and declining incomes were their most important concerns.

Twelve per cent said social issues such as illegal racing and problems among youth were the most important, and 10 per cent cited crime and public safety.

Racial issues came next to last, with only six per cent of respondents saying they were the most pressing problem in the country. Of that six per cent, only one in six -- 13 individuals -- cited the erosion of Malay rights as a concern.

Merdeka Center director Ibrahim Supian says these findings accord with those of past surveys suggesting that racial rhetoric does not strike a chord among the Malays.

"Blue-collar and white-collar Malays are more preoccupied with stagnant salaries while food prices keep going up or they worry about their kids messing with drugs."

Professor Mansor Mohd Noor of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia's Ethnic Studies Institute thinks the problem is that politicians have gotten used to -- and good at -- playing the race card. "Both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan politicians have trapped themselves into seeing everything through an ethnic lens," he says.

By stoking hot-button sentiments among communities to gain votes, he says, politicians fuel the rise of chauvinism. Mansor stresses that moderate Malaysians must play their role to check their leaders' race-baiting.

That's easier said than done. Ibrahim points to a disturbing trend uncovered in many of their surveys -- only a third of respondents claim they understand the cultures and attitudes of other communities.

"So about two-thirds of Malaysians really have no understanding of other races, and this makes it very easy for groups and politicians to come in and rile them up."

This may explain why about 200 residents from Section 23 turned up at the stormy town hall meeting. It took a small group of boisterous individuals (some of whom were at the cow-head incident) to rouse their milder-mannered neighbours.

Shah Alam member of parliament Khalid Samad says opposition to the temple was slowly incited among residents over many months. Most of them were misinformed, he says, and those who dared speak up against the extremists were told to shut up.

Khalid believes that the Malays are easily inflamed because of prejudice indoctrinated by concepts such as "ketuanan Melayu". "There is nothing Islamic about denying the rights of other faiths," he says, "yet Umno wants the Malays to believe that by being prejudiced, they are being Islamic."

Most critically, says Mansor, the temple issue, along with those such as the economic and social woes of Indians, the Orang Asli and Penan, should never have been framed as demands from one community to another. "The temple issue is a problem of managing places of worship, and the claims of the poor should be seen as just that, not as those of poor Indians or poor Malays.

"Places of worship for non-Muslims are a basic right and it is unbelievable that after more than five decades, we still do not have comprehensive guidelines about building them.

"This whole issue and how it has blown up is a failure of management on the part of our administrators," says Mansor.But if administrators are too busy scoring political points, or even if they do get their act together, it still falls on the ordinary Malay to stand up against ethnic extremists.

"If you allow extremism to rear its ugly head," Khalid says, "those who would otherwise be reasonable will not be and they will take over and force their opinions on you."

This article first appeared in the New Straits Times, Sept 12, 2009