Or as they say here, really-ah?
When WikiLeaks put it out there that Malaysian politicians are "incompetent", there was much brouhaha from the said politicians, naturally, but amongst the actual people of the country the mood was more along the lines of tell-me-something-I-don't-know. Perhaps more revealing was the description of Anwar Ibrahim being set-up for for charges of sodomy, but having walked into it nonetheless. If we ever needed the reminder, here it was: that it's not just that bozos are in power, but bozos of a different stripe who would like to be in power.
If anything, the recent chaos in government underlined how dilute Malaysian politics lie. The ridiculous Speaker called for an oral vote amidst sheer pandemonium, and could somehow still discern that there were more votes in one direction than the other, suggesting either that he's confusing cameras in Parliament for an audition at a B-grade Bollywood flick, or he's got Superman's hearing abilities. The police - under the watchful eye of the government - had the audacity to arrest people marching to the Human Rights Commission, which sort of did the job of the protesters in half the time.
But at the end of the day, the real point has gone missing: so what if the "1 Malaysia" concept was created by the public relations company that made "1 Israel"? To equate a company with the foreign policy of a client is a silly attempt at scoring political points from - if successful - an equally silly public. The result really at the end of the day is not to show that Najib and Co. are on the side of Israel (whatever that means), but to show that we don't have a 1 Malaysia at all, and the real losers at the end of that is the Malaysian people.
Kee Thuan Chye wrote of The Day Malaysia Woke Up. Unfortunately, it looks like it woke up with a bit of a hangover, and it'll take some time for it to get sober.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Sunday, June 6, 2010
From Hero to Zero: Someone knows the cameras are running
As a rule of thumb, I think that anyone who says that they aren't really heroes are none-too-subtly hoping that they'll appear both heroic and modest. When in actual fact they are neither. Especially the ones where the first time you heard anyone calling them heroes is themselves saying that they're not really heroes.
Take for example, the Malaysian delegation of people who decided that they had extra time on their hands to get involved in the boat ride to Palestine:
Now, after the bla bla for the first four minutes or so, he finally gets to the I'm not really a hero bit. After which he calls out his fellow team-mates and talks about how, well, heroic they are. It doesn't take a semiologist to see that the message is here are these brave people, and I'm their leader.
I realize of course that international opinion is that the Israelis at best overreacted to the situation, and in the end there's unlikely ever to be a real agreement over who was right or wrong in 1967, and for that matter who is right or wrong today. I remember sometime back reading that usually everyone's at least somewhat at fault - otherwise arguments wouldn't last as long as they do.
My argument about the matter is that the people most vocal about these matters either:
1. Don't know anything more than what they choose to read
(like some dumbasses in Western-world protests)
2. Have vested interests unrelated to what's right or wrong in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict
(like the Jewish-based interests forming the basis of the US support)
3. Are bound by a religious connection that has an equal amount (i.e. zero) of relationship to what's right or wrong in the Middle East.
(Muslim communities in Malaysia being the current example)
On the last point, all you have to do is have a look at Dr Mahathir's posting on the subject (link here). He mentions that "Incidentally, the Rachel Corrie is named after a brave 23 year old American girl who stood in front of a bulldozer which was about to destroy a Palestinian house. The Israeli operator of the bulldozer simply ran over her and killed her." Heart-wrenching, right? That is, until you don't take Dr Mahathir at face value and do the most basic of background reading (link here).
However all these very complicated strands of self-interests and self-delusions play out, I can't see why Malaysians decided to promote their kaypohness to land up on a boat asking for trouble. At the end of the day you've got these people who firmly believe that Israelis are international terrorists, but if Hamas flings a bomb over the border and blows up Israeli children, then that's just self protection.
Which is a rather shaky position. The responsible thing for anyone to do before going before a camera, or on a boat, is to ask yourself whether you're impartial enough to open your mouth - and secretly pat yourself on the back. For now though, you say you're not a hero, and I'll readily take your word for it.
Take for example, the Malaysian delegation of people who decided that they had extra time on their hands to get involved in the boat ride to Palestine:
Now, after the bla bla for the first four minutes or so, he finally gets to the I'm not really a hero bit. After which he calls out his fellow team-mates and talks about how, well, heroic they are. It doesn't take a semiologist to see that the message is here are these brave people, and I'm their leader.
I realize of course that international opinion is that the Israelis at best overreacted to the situation, and in the end there's unlikely ever to be a real agreement over who was right or wrong in 1967, and for that matter who is right or wrong today. I remember sometime back reading that usually everyone's at least somewhat at fault - otherwise arguments wouldn't last as long as they do.
My argument about the matter is that the people most vocal about these matters either:
1. Don't know anything more than what they choose to read
(like some dumbasses in Western-world protests)
2. Have vested interests unrelated to what's right or wrong in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict
(like the Jewish-based interests forming the basis of the US support)
3. Are bound by a religious connection that has an equal amount (i.e. zero) of relationship to what's right or wrong in the Middle East.
(Muslim communities in Malaysia being the current example)
On the last point, all you have to do is have a look at Dr Mahathir's posting on the subject (link here). He mentions that "Incidentally, the Rachel Corrie is named after a brave 23 year old American girl who stood in front of a bulldozer which was about to destroy a Palestinian house. The Israeli operator of the bulldozer simply ran over her and killed her." Heart-wrenching, right? That is, until you don't take Dr Mahathir at face value and do the most basic of background reading (link here).
However all these very complicated strands of self-interests and self-delusions play out, I can't see why Malaysians decided to promote their kaypohness to land up on a boat asking for trouble. At the end of the day you've got these people who firmly believe that Israelis are international terrorists, but if Hamas flings a bomb over the border and blows up Israeli children, then that's just self protection.
Which is a rather shaky position. The responsible thing for anyone to do before going before a camera, or on a boat, is to ask yourself whether you're impartial enough to open your mouth - and secretly pat yourself on the back. For now though, you say you're not a hero, and I'll readily take your word for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)