Adrian Tan is a litigation lawyer at one of Singapore's leading law firms. Outside the courtroom, he is known for a variety of funny things, including The Teenage Textbook, which he wrote in the late 1980s. The book became a cult classic among students of that generation and was adapted into a film 10 years later.
Adrian was the guest-of-honour at an NTU convocation ceremony last week, and this is Adrian's speech to the graduating class of 2008:
Life and How to Survive It
I must say thank you to the faculty and staff of the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information for inviting me to give your convocation address. It's a wonderful honour and a privilege for me to speak here for ten minutes without fear of contradiction, defamation or retaliation. I say this as a Singaporean and more so as a husband..
My wife is a wonderful person and perfect in every way except one. She is the editor of a magazine. She corrects people for a living. She has honed her expert skills over a quarter of a century, mostly by practising at home during conversations between her and me.
On the other hand, I am a litigator. Essentially, I spend my day telling people how wrong they are. I make my living being disagreeable.
Nevertheless, there is perfect harmony in our matrimonial home. That is because when an editor and a litigator have an argument, the one who triumphs is always the wife.
And so I want to start by giving one piece of advice to the men: when you've already won her heart, you don't need to win every argument.
Marriage is considered one milestone of life. Some of you may already be married. Some of you may never be married. Some of you will be married.. Some of you will enjoy the experience so much, you will be married many, many times. Good for you.
The next big milestone in your life is today: your graduation. The end of education. You're done learning.
You've probably been told the big lie that "Learning is a lifelong process" and that therefore you will continue studying and taking masters' degrees and doctorates and professorships and so on. You know the sort of people who tell you that? Teachers. Don't you think there is some measure of conflict of interest? They are in the business of learning, after all. Where would they be without you? They need you to be repeat customers.
The good news is that they're wrong.
The bad news is that you don't need further education because your entire life is over. It is gone. That may come as a shock to some of you. You're in your teens or early twenties. People may tell you that you will live to be 70, 80, 90 years old. That is your life expectancy.
I love that term: life expectancy. We all understand the term to mean the average life span of a group of people. But I'm here to talk about a bigger idea, which is what you expect from your life.
You may be very happy to know that Singapore is currently ranked as the country with the third highest life expectancy. We are behind Andorra and Japan, and tied with San Marino. It seems quite clear why people in those countries, and ours, live so long. We share one thing in common: our football teams are all hopeless. There's very little danger of any of our citizens having their pulses raised by watching us play in the World Cup. Spectators are more likely to be lulled into a gentle and restful nap.
Singaporeans have a life expectancy of 81.8 years. Singapore men live to an average of 79.21 years, while Singapore women live more than five years longer, probably to take into account the additional time they need to spend in the bathroom.
So here you are, in your twenties, thinking that you'll have another 40 years to go. Four decades in which to live long and prosper..
Bad news. Read the papers. There are people dropping dead when they're 50, 40, 30 years old. Or quite possibly just after finishing their convocation. They would be very disappointed that they didn't meet their life expectancy.
I'm here to tell you this. Forget about your life expectancy.
After all, it's calculated based on an average. And you never, ever want to expect being average.
Revisit those expectations. You might be looking forward to working, falling in love, marrying, raising a family. You are told that, as graduates, you should expect to find a job paying so much, where your hours are so much, where your responsibilities are so much.
That is what is expected of you. And if you live up to it, it will be an awful waste.
If you expect that, you will be limiting yourself. You will be living your life according to boundaries set by average people. I have nothing against average people. But no one should aspire to be them. And you don't need years of education by the best minds in Singapore to prepare you to be average.
What you should prepare for is mess. Life's a mess. You are not entitled to expect anything from it. Life is not fair. Everything does not balance out in the end. Life happens, and you have no control over it. Good and bad things happen to you day by day, hour by hour, moment by moment. Your degree is a poor armour against fate.
Don't expect anything. Erase all life expectancies. Just live. Your life is over as of today. At this point in time, you have grown as tall as you will ever be, you are physically the fittest you will ever be in your entire life and you are probably looking the best that you will ever look. This is as good as it gets. It is all downhill from here. Or up. No one knows.
What does this mean for you? It is good that your life is over.
Since your life is over, you are free. Let me tell you the many wonderful things that you can do when you are free.
The most important is this: do not work.
Work is anything that you are compelled to do. By its very nature, it is undesirable.
Work kills. The Japanese have a term "Karoshi", which means death from overwork. That's the most dramatic form of how work can kill. But it can also kill you in more subtle ways. If you work, then day by day, bit by bit, your soul is chipped away, disintegrating until there's nothing left. A rock has been ground into sand and dust.
There's a common misconception that work is necessary. You will meet people working at miserable jobs. They tell you they are "making a living". No, they're not. They're dying, frittering away their fast-extinguishing lives doing things which are, at best, meaningless and, at worst, harmful.
People will tell you that work ennobles you, that work lends you a certain dignity. Work makes you free. The slogan "Arbeit macht frei" was placed at the entrances to a number of Nazi concentration camps. Utter nonsense.
Do not waste the vast majority of your life doing something you hate so that you can spend the small remainder sliver of your life in modest comfort. You may never reach that end anyway.
Resist the temptation to get a job. Instead, play. Find something you enjoy doing. Do it. Over and over again. You will become good at it for two reasons: you like it, and you do it often. Soon, that will have value in itself.
I like arguing, and I love language. So, I became a litigator. I enjoy it and I would do it for free. If I didn't do that, I would've been in some other type of work that still involved writing fiction – probably a sports journalist.
So what should you do? You will find your own niche. I don't imagine you will need to look very hard. By this time in your life, you will have a very good idea of what you will want to do. In fact, I'll go further and say the ideal situation would be that you will not be able to stop yourself pursuing your passions. By this time you should know what your obsessions are. If you enjoy showing off your knowledge and feeling superior, you might become a teacher.
Find that pursuit that will energise you, consume you, become an obsession. Each day, you must rise with a restless enthusiasm. If you don't, you are working.
Most of you will end up in activities which involve communication. To those of you I have a second message: be wary of the truth. I'm not asking you to speak it, or write it, for there are times when it is dangerous or impossible to do those things. The truth has a great capacity to offend and injure, and you will find that the closer you are to someone, the more care you must take to disguise or even conceal the truth. Often, there is great virtue in being evasive, or equivocating. There is also great skill. Any child can blurt out the truth, without thought to the consequences. It takes great maturity to appreciate the value of silence.
In order to be wary of the truth, you must first know it. That requires great frankness to yourself. Never fool the person in the mirror.
I have told you that your life is over, that you should not work, and that you should avoid telling the truth. I now say this to you: be hated.
It's not as easy as it sounds. Do you know anyone who hates you? Yet every great figure who has contributed to the human race has been hated, not just by one person, but often by a great many. That hatred is so strong it has caused those great figures to be shunned, abused, murdered and in one famous instance, nailed to a cross.
One does not have to be evil to be hated. In fact, it's often the case that one is hated precisely because one is trying to do right by one's own convictions. It is far too easy to be liked, one merely has to be accommodating and hold no strong convictions. Then one will gravitate towards the centre and settle into the average. That cannot be your role. There are a great many bad people in the world, and if you are not offending them, you must be bad yourself. Popularity is a sure sign that you are doing something wrong.
The other side of the coin is this: fall in love.
I didn't say "be loved". That requires too much compromise. If one changes one's looks, personality and values, one can be loved by anyone.
Rather, I exhort you to love another human being. It may seem odd for me to tell you this. You may expect it to happen naturally, without deliberation. That is false. Modern society is anti-love. We've taken a microscope to everyone to bring out their flaws and shortcomings. It far easier to find a reason not to love someone, than otherwise. Rejection requires only one reason. Love requires complete acceptance. It is hard work – the only kind of work that I find palatable.
Loving someone has great benefits. There is admiration, learning, attraction and something which, for the want of a better word, we call happiness. In loving someone, we become inspired to better ourselves in every way. We learn the truth, the worthlessness of material things. We celebrate being human. Loving is good for the soul.
Loving someone is therefore very important, and it is also important to choose the right person. Despite popular culture, love doesn't happen by chance, at first sight, across a crowded dance floor. It grows slowly, sinking roots first before branching and blossoming. It is not a silly weed, but a mighty tree that weathers every storm.
You will find, that when you have someone to love, that the face is less important than the brain, and the body is less important than the heart.
You will also find that it is no great tragedy if your love is not reciprocated. You are not doing it to be loved back. Its value is to inspire you.
Finally, you will find that there is no half-measure when it comes to loving someone. You either don't, or you do with every cell in your body, completely and utterly, without reservation or apology. It consumes you, and you are reborn, all the better for it.
Don't work. Avoid telling the truth. Be hated. Love someone.
You're going to have a busy life. Thank goodness there's no life expectancy.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Monday, August 11, 2008
An interesting quote to ponder...
Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels has argued that the state must have a ‘complete monopoly of truth’.
“It is vitally important for the state to use all of its powers to repress dissent as the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the state.” -- Goebbel
“It is vitally important for the state to use all of its powers to repress dissent as the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the state.” -- Goebbel
Friday, August 8, 2008
PEOPLE!!! WE NEED TO GO TO THIS!!!
Finally, something fun we can go to instead of serious and political... time to unwind!!
Da Huang Pictures and KLPac will be co-organizing a film-screening event starting from August until October. The event features a number of awards winning films produced by Da Huang Pictures, among them are FLOWER IN THE POCKET, LOVE CONQUERS ALL, James Lee's LOVE TRILOGY and a mysterious film by Amir Muhammad(It's so mysterious nobody knows what film it is, not even Amir himself. We are serious!).
Event : Da Huang Pictures Indie Film Series
Venue : IndiCine, Level 2, KLPac, Sentul, KL
Admission : FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!
Date & Time : *please check below for details of the respective films
*Screening date & time:
Sun, 17 Aug @ 3.00pm : FLOWER IN THE POCKET by Liew Seng Tat
Sun, 24 Aug @ 3.00pm : LOVE CONQUERS ALL by Tan Chui Mui
Sat, 13 Sept @ 8.30pm : BEFORE WE FALL IN LOVE by James Lee
Sat, 27 Sept @ 8.30pm : MYSTERY SCREENING!!! by Amir Muhammad
Sun, 19 Oct @ 3.00pm : THINGS WE DO WHEN WE FALL IN LOVE by James Lee
Sun, 26 Oct @ 3.00pm : WAITING FOR LOVE by James Lee (eve of Deepavali)
note: All the directors will be present at their own screening to do a Q&A session with the audience. So you could ask them any questions you like. ANY questions at all. If you feel like asking questions but do not have any idea what to ask, we've prepared some questions here for you to start with:
Liew Seng Tat, you seem to like children, how long have you been a pedophile?
Tan Chui Mui, did your mother like eating carrots? Coz you have beautiful eyes.
Amir Muhammad, why are you hanging out with so many Chinese? Is it why most of your films are banned?
James Lee, Love trilogy huh? You are obviously lack of love, can I help you with that?
People, if you have heard about the films before but have no chance to watch them, do come for the screenings(if you have the time). It's ok to waste 1 or 2 more hours of your life!
TELL YOUR FRIENDS, NEIGHBOURS AND CNN TOO. SPREAD THE WORD!!
Da Huang Pictures and KLPac will be co-organizing a film-screening event starting from August until October. The event features a number of awards winning films produced by Da Huang Pictures, among them are FLOWER IN THE POCKET, LOVE CONQUERS ALL, James Lee's LOVE TRILOGY and a mysterious film by Amir Muhammad(It's so mysterious nobody knows what film it is, not even Amir himself. We are serious!).
Event : Da Huang Pictures Indie Film Series
Venue : IndiCine, Level 2, KLPac, Sentul, KL
Admission : FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!
Date & Time : *please check below for details of the respective films
*Screening date & time:
Sun, 17 Aug @ 3.00pm : FLOWER IN THE POCKET by Liew Seng Tat
Sun, 24 Aug @ 3.00pm : LOVE CONQUERS ALL by Tan Chui Mui
Sat, 13 Sept @ 8.30pm : BEFORE WE FALL IN LOVE by James Lee
Sat, 27 Sept @ 8.30pm : MYSTERY SCREENING!!! by Amir Muhammad
Sun, 19 Oct @ 3.00pm : THINGS WE DO WHEN WE FALL IN LOVE by James Lee
Sun, 26 Oct @ 3.00pm : WAITING FOR LOVE by James Lee (eve of Deepavali)
note: All the directors will be present at their own screening to do a Q&A session with the audience. So you could ask them any questions you like. ANY questions at all. If you feel like asking questions but do not have any idea what to ask, we've prepared some questions here for you to start with:
Liew Seng Tat, you seem to like children, how long have you been a pedophile?
Tan Chui Mui, did your mother like eating carrots? Coz you have beautiful eyes.
Amir Muhammad, why are you hanging out with so many Chinese? Is it why most of your films are banned?
James Lee, Love trilogy huh? You are obviously lack of love, can I help you with that?
People, if you have heard about the films before but have no chance to watch them, do come for the screenings(if you have the time). It's ok to waste 1 or 2 more hours of your life!
TELL YOUR FRIENDS, NEIGHBOURS AND CNN TOO. SPREAD THE WORD!!
Thursday, August 7, 2008
anwar charged for sodomy
the medical report that leaked and published by Raja Petra showed that Saiful was not sodomised. then we have our smart-ass politicians saying the report cannot be considered accurate because it's not done by a specialist...
so my question is...do we really have doctors who are specialised in looking up people's arses?...and do we actually NEED a doctor who is specialised in arses to determine whether the patient has been sodomised? i don't remember we need doctors who are "specialised" in vaginas to confirm a girl's been raped.
i think i can go tell my little cousins who are still at school, "wanna earn big bucks? wanna be famous (or infamous)? study hard, earn good grades, if not, give our DPM a visit at his office maybe he can help you with a scholarship....then take up medicine...and major in an area called ANUS."
good, ay?
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
We are ONE
After the meaningful ethnicity workshp, i truly feel we are not heading towards doomsday but to a better future.. :) THANK GOD!! hahahaha! although we carry different labels, e.g. Malay, Chinese, Indian, Bumiputera etc... but we are not tied down by that..
During that workshop, i feel like home.. because that's how life in Sarawak is.. everyone mix with everyone.. there is no boundary set by the so called race or religion or wealth... the workshop rocks!! :D
Despite all the crappy work and talk by the government, Malaysia's youth still have their eyes open, mind clear, voice spoken and also faith in believing what is right and wrong.. The most important thing is, THE PEOPLE ARE NOT RACIST (or rather.. willing to not be racist! :D )HOORAY!!
I believe what we need to do now is to spread how we feel.. and our awareness to others. I believe when each and every Malaysian share the same feeling towards Malaysia, we could be more unitred, and form a better nation
"MALAYSIA BOLEH!!" :P
What do you think? :)
During that workshop, i feel like home.. because that's how life in Sarawak is.. everyone mix with everyone.. there is no boundary set by the so called race or religion or wealth... the workshop rocks!! :D
Despite all the crappy work and talk by the government, Malaysia's youth still have their eyes open, mind clear, voice spoken and also faith in believing what is right and wrong.. The most important thing is, THE PEOPLE ARE NOT RACIST (or rather.. willing to not be racist! :D )HOORAY!!
I believe what we need to do now is to spread how we feel.. and our awareness to others. I believe when each and every Malaysian share the same feeling towards Malaysia, we could be more unitred, and form a better nation
"MALAYSIA BOLEH!!" :P
What do you think? :)
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
The humanity of journalism
by Eric Loo
Jul 2, 08 12:06pm
http://www.malaysiakini.com/columns/85434
Two-thirds of the world’s poor live in Asia. But a random check on mainstream media contents shows the poor are starkly invisible.
For the past week, I’ve been chatting online with a group of Asian journalists on reporting about poverty. What would it take to return ‘poverty issues’ to the front-page, I asked. All ten of them, enrolled in the MA program at the Asian Center for Journalism, Ateneo de Manila University in the Philippines, recognise there’s no easy answer.
One says her ‘finance’ beat often isolates her from ‘poverty’ issues. Another cites space limitation. An agency reporter blames his bureaucratic editors who are more concerned with serving the government than reporting for the poor. Such is the sad state of journalism in parts of South-east Asia.
Commercial media, structurally more attuned to the fancies of the rich and famous, are breeding the socially insignificant contents we see today. It’s not for the lack of journalistic spirit that the poor are rendered invisible in our media. It’s the editorial system, driven by profits or beholden to governments, that’s prostituting the traditions of a once noble craft.
I’m reminded of a story in the New Internationalist of how a Burmese journalist tries daily to make the best of her situation despite the odds. She writes:“I love to write news stories but I hate the censor board. The censor board vets our stories and they always tell us to publish government policy and propaganda articles, week after week. My boss has two faces. One face is all smiles for the censor board, the other grimaces at us. I think many journal publishers must be similar to him. They all want to hold on to their business and so are self-interested, always ready to compromise, to give in so as to survive.”
This ought to inspire journalists in less adverse circumstances to do better than the vanity lifestyle journalism that dominates the market. We need journalists who’d challenge that which is the existing content structure - status quo journalism - to that which journalism ought to be, transformative.
One of the few transformative journalists I had the privilege of meeting is Palagummi Sainath (photo), rural affairs editor at The Hindu, author of Everybody Loves a Drought, and recipient of the 2007 Ramon Magsaysay Award for Journalism. I asked him, for my book-in-progress, about his experience in telling the stories of the poor in India:
The interview
Eric Loo: You have consistently criticised conventional journalism’s “service of power” in its coverage of the drought-stricken states in India. Evidently, this “service of power”, which often gives the last word to the authority, is the modus operandi of journalists. How can journalism educators teach their students to go beyond this modus operandi?
I think we need to make a distinction here between journalists and media. Neither is a homogenous group (though the latter moves rapidly in that direction). There have always been journalists who did not and do not believe in the service of power - those who cut through the hypocrisy of pomp and stated the uncomfortable.
I’ve always thought that the boy who said: “The Emperor has no clothes!” and who pointed to a pathetic but powerful moron who was simply starkers was one of the fine early journalists. He dragged into the public domain what others knew but would not say. Once he put it there, it made life simpler for everyone except the Emperor.
Journalism teachers are not a homogenous group either, as I can attest, having been one myself for over 20 years in schools in this country and elsewhere. There are those who squawk from textbooks (mainly establishment American books), rattling off principles that were never followed or applied to the powerful. There are those with a total emphasis on craft, teaching unburdened by moral responsibility. There are those who have taught their students to think and reason and question, who emphasise the ‘why’ of it. And some who also teach their students by personal example. So there are different kinds of teachers.
Journalism teachers have to decide who they wish to make their students responsible to - readers and people, or bosses and balance sheets. All this happens in a context. As corporate power tightens its grip on the profession, I’d like to see us make the students more and more subversive, undermining of the established order.
This April (2006) in India, the number of farmers committing suicide in just one region, Vidharbha, crossed 400. This was very poorly covered. Very few national media groups sent their reporters to this region. But they sent well over 500 journalists to cover the Lakme Fashion Week. And also gave phenomenal space to the fact that the Sensitive Index (SENSEX) of the Mumbai Stock Exchange crossed the 11,000 figure (it has since soared past 12,000 - and the farm suicides in Vidharbha past 500). This is the Great Disconnect between mass media and mass reality I spoke of. Journalism teachers should realise they are training their wards within this context.
Great journalists are dissidents
I think they all need to point out a fundamental truth to their students: the greatest journalists have been dissidents. Thomas Paine, Mahatma Gandhi, Ambedkar, you make the list. How many establishment hacks would figure on your list? The establishment hacks are best remembered as high priests or soothsayers. Who remembers those who railed against Paine? Who can recall the names of the editors of the pro-colonial stream of the press who raved and ranted against Gandhi?
Eric: In your lecture at Trinity College in Connecticut 2002 (you were then the first McGill Fellow in International Studies at the college), you were quoted in the campus newsletter Mosaic (April 2002) as saying: “When I’m covering poverty as a journalist, I go and live in the communities I’m writing about. If I can’t see the issues through their eyes, there’s no point going and perpetuating old stereotypes about poverty.”
This approach marks your journalism, for instance in the story “The bus to Mumbai” () (The Hindu, 01 June 2003) where you joined a group of migrant villagers from Mahbubnagar district on a bus in 46 degree heat. How did this immersive form of reporting evolve in your work?
I wouldn’t like to pretend this conclusion was the outcome of some sublime intellectual process. It seems to me fairly simple - where you stand is often determined by where you’re sitting. If you have not been in the hut that has no electric power, not a single bulb, how will you understand why the children in that home can never do well in studies? It’s not important to merely ‘see’ the hut, but to be there when there is no power.
I think it’s a bit fraudulent to write knowingly about their lives if you have never done so. Even if you do it several times and not every single time, you’ll be astonished at the depth it brings to your perceptions. For instance, we know that the average rural woman in India spends a third of her life on three chores: fetching water, firewood and fodder. But ‘knowing’ this is one thing. Walking with her, trying to live her day as she does - would that be the same thing? Try it once. It will give you an insight into the quality of her life that you will never forget, and that will inform your work thereafter.
Eric: Commenting on your Socratic teaching methods at Trinity, one of your students quoted you as saying, “Just having different opinions is not good enough for me. I’m not learning from your opinion if I don’t engage.” Do you see this principle of engagement lacking in the way that journalists traditionally report about poverty and social inequities?
By severely limiting the spectrum of opinion in your paper or on your channel, you can evade engaging gigantic realities. The US media are the best example of this. They steadily kept out any opinion (even from Europe, let alone the Third World) that undermined the case for war in Iraq. It’s been called a cordon sanitaire (quarantine line) by some analysts. Remember that even with Vietnam, American audiences were the last to know what was going on. They promoted the work of journalists consciously planting stories coming out of the White House and Pentagon that led their nation to invade Iraq. Later, they will give themselves prizes and awards for ‘breaking’ stories that show why the decision to go to war was wrong, and pat themselves on the back in an exercise that gives hypocrisy a bad name.
Demolished 84,000 homes
Journalists are not a homogenous group. There are good ones and bad ones like in any other profession. Yet, the demands of good journalism are difficult to meet given the milieu they work in, the demands of the media outlets they work for.
They’ll get any amount of space to cover a natural disaster. But very little to report the devastation wrought by human agency. The tsunami in India destroyed 30,300 houses in the coastal town of Nagapattinam in the state of Tamil Nadu. That was its worst destruction on that score and was, of course widely reported. The same week, the government of Maharashtra demolished 84,000 homes of poor people in Mumbai’s slums. That was barely reported at all. There were actually newspapers that told their reporters to lay off from covering that event. Mind you, 84,000 homes in a week (including some 10,000 on a single day) make the Israeli Army in the West Bank look like amateurs. Yet, it was not worthy of reporting for most media.
How can journalists better apply this principle of engagement in reporting more abstract issues such as globalisation or corruption? By telling their stories through the lives of people. And, by taking up the far greater challenge of reporting the process, not just the events. It is actually relatively easy to report events, especially spectacular ones like fires, earthquakes, etc.
Reporting processes demands a lot more hard work. Digging into things, investigating things, asking difficult questions. Process reporting doesn’t stop with ‘what’ - it digs into ‘why.’ Yet, to my mind there is enormous drama in processes.
If you take up that challenge you’ll find reporting harder, but far more satisfying. Far more educative and sensitising. It touches and deepens your own humanity. It teaches you a lot more. The more you work through the lives of people, the more depth your reporting - and your intellect - will achieve. Of course, the research and knowledge of data are vital. But so is actual engagement with the lives of ordinary people.
Eric: In your work, you travel widely, meet and live with people in different circumstances. Reading your stories, I feel the people’s state of despondency. How do you cope with the sense of frustration and helplessness, which creeps in occasionally?
I actually have tremendous faith in the capacity of ordinary people to find their way - and ours. That’s why I do this work. This country was not liberated from British imperialism by the elites. It won its freedom because of the heroic struggles and sacrifice of poor peasants, workers and other downtrodden people. Two years ago (2004), the 600 million strong electorate of this country gave a stinging rebuke to its rulers, thrashing them at the hustings for following policies that hurt and devastated the poor. That election result made the media look silly.
Astonishing resillience of ordinary Indians
Their predictions, opinion polls, exit polls et al, came a cropper. So yes, the rural poor may be in a terrible state, indeed they are. But I also see that it is they, not the chattering classes, who keep democracy alive in this country. It’s true, the stories on farm suicides indicate despondency. People take their own lives only as a very final step. However, I am also inspired each time I step into the countryside, by the astonishing resilience of ordinary Indians. For every farmer who takes his life, there are millions who don’t, but who struggle on against incredible odds. Odds which you or I would prefer to run away from. So I gain strength from that. There is plenty one can do to alleviate the sufferings of the poor and the disenfranchised.
Eric Loo: Your stories are characterised by ethnographic research, a strong sense of history, acute observations, a sharp focus on the grassroots, and listening to what they say. Indeed, it’s hard to draw the line between telling the story as you see it, and telling the story as the victims experience it. Is this a fair observation?
Yes and no. You always have to see it as the people experience it. And I’d hesitate to label them ‘victims.’ I would also not like to suggest they are always passive because they are not. What you do is to try and give their experience context and coherence.
If you meet those who have been part of my stories, you will find they are aware of what I have written and agree with it. Agree that it is a fair summing up of what they’ve told me and of their lived experience. That can never be perfect, but it aims to get close. What’s very hard is not to get crushed by some of those experiences -- which could be horrendous. Maybe that’s where your point gains relevance. That experience can be so overwhelming as to sometimes hurt the larger perspective. That line you’re talking of then makes sense: the ability to retain perspective. Sometimes it cuts both ways.
I have visited hundreds of households that have seen farmers’ suicides and have conducted very lengthy interviews and studies there. At one level, it gives the work far more depth and solidity. At another, it just kills those of us who do it. It destroys you, makes you sick physically and emotionally. Those of us doing it feel trapped. On the one hand, the story has to be told - and privileged above Lakme Fashion Week. On the other, it overwhelms you personally. At one level it enhances our understanding to do detailed work on it. On the other, we begin to drag ourselves to the next household. So it does deepen perspective.
But it also confronts you with an experience, which, however widespread, is highly personal for that family. You have to retain the perspective that this highly personal tragedy is also a part of something much higher.
How does one do justice to both? That’s the challenge.
Jul 2, 08 12:06pm
http://www.malaysiakini.com/columns/85434
Two-thirds of the world’s poor live in Asia. But a random check on mainstream media contents shows the poor are starkly invisible.
For the past week, I’ve been chatting online with a group of Asian journalists on reporting about poverty. What would it take to return ‘poverty issues’ to the front-page, I asked. All ten of them, enrolled in the MA program at the Asian Center for Journalism, Ateneo de Manila University in the Philippines, recognise there’s no easy answer.
One says her ‘finance’ beat often isolates her from ‘poverty’ issues. Another cites space limitation. An agency reporter blames his bureaucratic editors who are more concerned with serving the government than reporting for the poor. Such is the sad state of journalism in parts of South-east Asia.
Commercial media, structurally more attuned to the fancies of the rich and famous, are breeding the socially insignificant contents we see today. It’s not for the lack of journalistic spirit that the poor are rendered invisible in our media. It’s the editorial system, driven by profits or beholden to governments, that’s prostituting the traditions of a once noble craft.
I’m reminded of a story in the New Internationalist of how a Burmese journalist tries daily to make the best of her situation despite the odds. She writes:“I love to write news stories but I hate the censor board. The censor board vets our stories and they always tell us to publish government policy and propaganda articles, week after week. My boss has two faces. One face is all smiles for the censor board, the other grimaces at us. I think many journal publishers must be similar to him. They all want to hold on to their business and so are self-interested, always ready to compromise, to give in so as to survive.”
This ought to inspire journalists in less adverse circumstances to do better than the vanity lifestyle journalism that dominates the market. We need journalists who’d challenge that which is the existing content structure - status quo journalism - to that which journalism ought to be, transformative.
One of the few transformative journalists I had the privilege of meeting is Palagummi Sainath (photo), rural affairs editor at The Hindu, author of Everybody Loves a Drought, and recipient of the 2007 Ramon Magsaysay Award for Journalism. I asked him, for my book-in-progress, about his experience in telling the stories of the poor in India:
The interview
Eric Loo: You have consistently criticised conventional journalism’s “service of power” in its coverage of the drought-stricken states in India. Evidently, this “service of power”, which often gives the last word to the authority, is the modus operandi of journalists. How can journalism educators teach their students to go beyond this modus operandi?
I think we need to make a distinction here between journalists and media. Neither is a homogenous group (though the latter moves rapidly in that direction). There have always been journalists who did not and do not believe in the service of power - those who cut through the hypocrisy of pomp and stated the uncomfortable.
I’ve always thought that the boy who said: “The Emperor has no clothes!” and who pointed to a pathetic but powerful moron who was simply starkers was one of the fine early journalists. He dragged into the public domain what others knew but would not say. Once he put it there, it made life simpler for everyone except the Emperor.
Journalism teachers are not a homogenous group either, as I can attest, having been one myself for over 20 years in schools in this country and elsewhere. There are those who squawk from textbooks (mainly establishment American books), rattling off principles that were never followed or applied to the powerful. There are those with a total emphasis on craft, teaching unburdened by moral responsibility. There are those who have taught their students to think and reason and question, who emphasise the ‘why’ of it. And some who also teach their students by personal example. So there are different kinds of teachers.
Journalism teachers have to decide who they wish to make their students responsible to - readers and people, or bosses and balance sheets. All this happens in a context. As corporate power tightens its grip on the profession, I’d like to see us make the students more and more subversive, undermining of the established order.
This April (2006) in India, the number of farmers committing suicide in just one region, Vidharbha, crossed 400. This was very poorly covered. Very few national media groups sent their reporters to this region. But they sent well over 500 journalists to cover the Lakme Fashion Week. And also gave phenomenal space to the fact that the Sensitive Index (SENSEX) of the Mumbai Stock Exchange crossed the 11,000 figure (it has since soared past 12,000 - and the farm suicides in Vidharbha past 500). This is the Great Disconnect between mass media and mass reality I spoke of. Journalism teachers should realise they are training their wards within this context.
Great journalists are dissidents
I think they all need to point out a fundamental truth to their students: the greatest journalists have been dissidents. Thomas Paine, Mahatma Gandhi, Ambedkar, you make the list. How many establishment hacks would figure on your list? The establishment hacks are best remembered as high priests or soothsayers. Who remembers those who railed against Paine? Who can recall the names of the editors of the pro-colonial stream of the press who raved and ranted against Gandhi?
Eric: In your lecture at Trinity College in Connecticut 2002 (you were then the first McGill Fellow in International Studies at the college), you were quoted in the campus newsletter Mosaic (April 2002) as saying: “When I’m covering poverty as a journalist, I go and live in the communities I’m writing about. If I can’t see the issues through their eyes, there’s no point going and perpetuating old stereotypes about poverty.”
This approach marks your journalism, for instance in the story “The bus to Mumbai” () (The Hindu, 01 June 2003) where you joined a group of migrant villagers from Mahbubnagar district on a bus in 46 degree heat. How did this immersive form of reporting evolve in your work?
I wouldn’t like to pretend this conclusion was the outcome of some sublime intellectual process. It seems to me fairly simple - where you stand is often determined by where you’re sitting. If you have not been in the hut that has no electric power, not a single bulb, how will you understand why the children in that home can never do well in studies? It’s not important to merely ‘see’ the hut, but to be there when there is no power.
I think it’s a bit fraudulent to write knowingly about their lives if you have never done so. Even if you do it several times and not every single time, you’ll be astonished at the depth it brings to your perceptions. For instance, we know that the average rural woman in India spends a third of her life on three chores: fetching water, firewood and fodder. But ‘knowing’ this is one thing. Walking with her, trying to live her day as she does - would that be the same thing? Try it once. It will give you an insight into the quality of her life that you will never forget, and that will inform your work thereafter.
Eric: Commenting on your Socratic teaching methods at Trinity, one of your students quoted you as saying, “Just having different opinions is not good enough for me. I’m not learning from your opinion if I don’t engage.” Do you see this principle of engagement lacking in the way that journalists traditionally report about poverty and social inequities?
By severely limiting the spectrum of opinion in your paper or on your channel, you can evade engaging gigantic realities. The US media are the best example of this. They steadily kept out any opinion (even from Europe, let alone the Third World) that undermined the case for war in Iraq. It’s been called a cordon sanitaire (quarantine line) by some analysts. Remember that even with Vietnam, American audiences were the last to know what was going on. They promoted the work of journalists consciously planting stories coming out of the White House and Pentagon that led their nation to invade Iraq. Later, they will give themselves prizes and awards for ‘breaking’ stories that show why the decision to go to war was wrong, and pat themselves on the back in an exercise that gives hypocrisy a bad name.
Demolished 84,000 homes
Journalists are not a homogenous group. There are good ones and bad ones like in any other profession. Yet, the demands of good journalism are difficult to meet given the milieu they work in, the demands of the media outlets they work for.
They’ll get any amount of space to cover a natural disaster. But very little to report the devastation wrought by human agency. The tsunami in India destroyed 30,300 houses in the coastal town of Nagapattinam in the state of Tamil Nadu. That was its worst destruction on that score and was, of course widely reported. The same week, the government of Maharashtra demolished 84,000 homes of poor people in Mumbai’s slums. That was barely reported at all. There were actually newspapers that told their reporters to lay off from covering that event. Mind you, 84,000 homes in a week (including some 10,000 on a single day) make the Israeli Army in the West Bank look like amateurs. Yet, it was not worthy of reporting for most media.
How can journalists better apply this principle of engagement in reporting more abstract issues such as globalisation or corruption? By telling their stories through the lives of people. And, by taking up the far greater challenge of reporting the process, not just the events. It is actually relatively easy to report events, especially spectacular ones like fires, earthquakes, etc.
Reporting processes demands a lot more hard work. Digging into things, investigating things, asking difficult questions. Process reporting doesn’t stop with ‘what’ - it digs into ‘why.’ Yet, to my mind there is enormous drama in processes.
If you take up that challenge you’ll find reporting harder, but far more satisfying. Far more educative and sensitising. It touches and deepens your own humanity. It teaches you a lot more. The more you work through the lives of people, the more depth your reporting - and your intellect - will achieve. Of course, the research and knowledge of data are vital. But so is actual engagement with the lives of ordinary people.
Eric: In your work, you travel widely, meet and live with people in different circumstances. Reading your stories, I feel the people’s state of despondency. How do you cope with the sense of frustration and helplessness, which creeps in occasionally?
I actually have tremendous faith in the capacity of ordinary people to find their way - and ours. That’s why I do this work. This country was not liberated from British imperialism by the elites. It won its freedom because of the heroic struggles and sacrifice of poor peasants, workers and other downtrodden people. Two years ago (2004), the 600 million strong electorate of this country gave a stinging rebuke to its rulers, thrashing them at the hustings for following policies that hurt and devastated the poor. That election result made the media look silly.
Astonishing resillience of ordinary Indians
Their predictions, opinion polls, exit polls et al, came a cropper. So yes, the rural poor may be in a terrible state, indeed they are. But I also see that it is they, not the chattering classes, who keep democracy alive in this country. It’s true, the stories on farm suicides indicate despondency. People take their own lives only as a very final step. However, I am also inspired each time I step into the countryside, by the astonishing resilience of ordinary Indians. For every farmer who takes his life, there are millions who don’t, but who struggle on against incredible odds. Odds which you or I would prefer to run away from. So I gain strength from that. There is plenty one can do to alleviate the sufferings of the poor and the disenfranchised.
Eric Loo: Your stories are characterised by ethnographic research, a strong sense of history, acute observations, a sharp focus on the grassroots, and listening to what they say. Indeed, it’s hard to draw the line between telling the story as you see it, and telling the story as the victims experience it. Is this a fair observation?
Yes and no. You always have to see it as the people experience it. And I’d hesitate to label them ‘victims.’ I would also not like to suggest they are always passive because they are not. What you do is to try and give their experience context and coherence.
If you meet those who have been part of my stories, you will find they are aware of what I have written and agree with it. Agree that it is a fair summing up of what they’ve told me and of their lived experience. That can never be perfect, but it aims to get close. What’s very hard is not to get crushed by some of those experiences -- which could be horrendous. Maybe that’s where your point gains relevance. That experience can be so overwhelming as to sometimes hurt the larger perspective. That line you’re talking of then makes sense: the ability to retain perspective. Sometimes it cuts both ways.
I have visited hundreds of households that have seen farmers’ suicides and have conducted very lengthy interviews and studies there. At one level, it gives the work far more depth and solidity. At another, it just kills those of us who do it. It destroys you, makes you sick physically and emotionally. Those of us doing it feel trapped. On the one hand, the story has to be told - and privileged above Lakme Fashion Week. On the other, it overwhelms you personally. At one level it enhances our understanding to do detailed work on it. On the other, we begin to drag ourselves to the next household. So it does deepen perspective.
But it also confronts you with an experience, which, however widespread, is highly personal for that family. You have to retain the perspective that this highly personal tragedy is also a part of something much higher.
How does one do justice to both? That’s the challenge.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Fighting Corruption -- Talk @ UTAR
Those who want to go to the talk below, please let me know and I can sign you all up under my name. Should be verrrrrrry interesting.
INVITATION TO ATTEND COMPLIMENTARY TALK ON
‘SUSTAINABILITY FACTORS - INTEGRITY AND CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY'
by YM Tunku Aziz, Founder of Malaysian Chapter of Transparency International,
Author of "Fighting Corruption: My Mission"
Greetings from Centre for Extension Education, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR).
In our continuing support of the Government's National Integrity Plan, the Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR) through its Centre for Extension Education organises seminars, talks and forums to promote awareness of integrity, moral and ethical values among Malaysians.
The University is privileged to have invited YM Tunku Aziz, Founder of Malaysian Chapter of Transparency International, also Author of "Fighting Corruption: My Mission" as the main speaker for the upcoming talk on Sustainability Factors - Integrity and Corporate Responsibility.
We take great pleasure in inviting you to attend this talk.
The talk details are as below:
Title : Sustainability Factors - Integrity and Corporate Responsibility
Date : 19 July 2008 (Saturday)
Time : 11.30am - 1.30pm
Venue : Centre for Extension Education, PB Block
Admission : FREEEEEEE!
For enquiries and registration, please contact Eileen / Anoo at 016 2233 563 / 03-79555181 / 79572818 ext 8663. Fax: 79573818 email : cee@mail.utar.edu.my before 11 July 2008.
INVITATION TO ATTEND COMPLIMENTARY TALK ON
‘SUSTAINABILITY FACTORS - INTEGRITY AND CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY'
by YM Tunku Aziz, Founder of Malaysian Chapter of Transparency International,
Author of "Fighting Corruption: My Mission"
Greetings from Centre for Extension Education, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR).
In our continuing support of the Government's National Integrity Plan, the Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR) through its Centre for Extension Education organises seminars, talks and forums to promote awareness of integrity, moral and ethical values among Malaysians.
The University is privileged to have invited YM Tunku Aziz, Founder of Malaysian Chapter of Transparency International, also Author of "Fighting Corruption: My Mission" as the main speaker for the upcoming talk on Sustainability Factors - Integrity and Corporate Responsibility.
We take great pleasure in inviting you to attend this talk.
The talk details are as below:
Title : Sustainability Factors - Integrity and Corporate Responsibility
Date : 19 July 2008 (Saturday)
Time : 11.30am - 1.30pm
Venue : Centre for Extension Education, PB Block
Admission : FREEEEEEE!
For enquiries and registration, please contact Eileen / Anoo at 016 2233 563 / 03-79555181 / 79572818 ext 8663. Fax: 79573818 email : cee@mail.utar.edu.my before 11 July 2008.
Friday, July 4, 2008
What is not allowed on the net?
The Executive Director of the Communications and Multimedia Content Forum of Malaysia will be coming to UTAR to give a briefing on the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Content Code. This self-regulatory code of ethics affects areas such as broadcasting, advertising and online activities.
The purpose of the talk is to expose UTAR students (especially the graduating batch) to the existence and use of such a regulatory code of ethics. This is to ensure that they are aware of the regulatory framework that might affect their job performance once they enter the workforce. It is hoped that this talk will enhance their knowledge and skills so that they are better equipped when they enter the industry.
Details of the talk are as follows:
Date: Next Wednesday 9 July 2008
Time: 2:15pm-4:30pm
Venue: PC203
Speaker: The Executive Director of CMCF, En Mohd Mustaffa Fazil Abdan
FREEEEEEE! Come and give your critical views!
The purpose of the talk is to expose UTAR students (especially the graduating batch) to the existence and use of such a regulatory code of ethics. This is to ensure that they are aware of the regulatory framework that might affect their job performance once they enter the workforce. It is hoped that this talk will enhance their knowledge and skills so that they are better equipped when they enter the industry.
Details of the talk are as follows:
Date: Next Wednesday 9 July 2008
Time: 2:15pm-4:30pm
Venue: PC203
Speaker: The Executive Director of CMCF, En Mohd Mustaffa Fazil Abdan
FREEEEEEE! Come and give your critical views!
Friday, June 20, 2008
FARISH NOOR on "Of Rajas, Dewarajas, Maharajas & Kerajaan"
"Four Thousand Years of Feudal Politics from Majapahit to Malaysia today."
Hosted by:
The Annexe, Central Market
Type:
Education - Lecture
Where:
The Annexe Gallery, Central Market Annexe
When:
Sunday, June 29 from 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm
Hosted by:
The Annexe, Central Market
Type:
Education - Lecture
Where:
The Annexe Gallery, Central Market Annexe
When:
Sunday, June 29 from 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm
Vernacular Education System and the Left (Part 1)
Lee Ban Chen Sep 14, 05 5:51pm
"...That is why Russian Marxists say that there must be no compulsory official language, that the population must be provided with schools where teaching will be carried on in all the local languages, that a fundamental law must be introduced in the constitution declaring invalid all privileges of any one nation and all violations of the rights of national minorities...".
Is a compulsory official language needed? By Lenin
Introduction
One fundamental and yet unresolved agenda of the left is language. Beyond being a tool of communication languages had developed to become icons of identity and culture. This paper addresses on language as the unresolved national question and attempts to explain a case for vernacular languages.
Kamus Dewan defines vernacular as "relating to or a language or dialect commonly spoken by the members of a particular group or a community in a society. (yang berkaitan dengan atau yang menggunakan bahasa atau dialek yang dipertuturkan oleh sesuatu golongan atau kaum dalam masyarakat)
Oxford Fajar Advanced Learner's English-Malay Dictionary defines vernacular as: "language or dialect spoken in a particular country or region, as compared with a formal or written language. (bahasa atau dialek yang dituturkan di negara atau kawasan tertentu berbanding dengan bahasa yang formal atau bahasa bertulis).
The term vernacular therefore refers to a non-formal language (commonly spoken) used by a particular group or a community in a society. During the British occupation, the language system (involving language, school and education system) for the Malays, Chinese, Indians and other minorities were considered to be vernacular whereas the formal language was English. After independence, Bahasa Melayu became the national and official language of the country forming the official language system. The language system (involving language, school and education system) of the Chinese, Indians and other minorities became vernacular.
A simple analogy from the above is that language system is function of power. The one in control of power imposes the choice of his language over the others. Therefore whether a language is treated as formal or vernacular is dependant on the choice of dominant power ruling the country.
During the British occupation, the anti-colonialist left-movement had no problem in supporting the vernacular language/school/education. The multiracial left stood against the English language system alleging it to be discriminatory and oppressive against other languages. Similarly, during the Japanese occupation, the use of Japanese language system (involving language, school and education system) was opposed by the Left, based on the same reasoning.
The Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) issued a Nine Point anti-Japanese Manifesto in 1943. Item 6 of the manifesto stated that the development of a national culture should be through a multilingual system of free education. (p.77, alias Chin Peng: My Side of History, Chinese version) The CPM announced an Eight Point Programme in August 15, 1945. Item 6 of this programme stated that a democratic education system must be placed in lieu of the existing system and the development of national culture shall encompass multi languages. (p.105, alias Chin Peng: My Side of History, Chinese version)
The left view, on the equality of the languages and culture as contained in their Anti-Japanese Nine Point Manifesto in 1943 and the Eight Point Programme in 1945, was surprisingly dropped.
In 1947, through the combine effort of two progressive forces comprising Malay nationalist group Pusat Tenaga Rakyat (Putera) and the All-Malayan Council of Joint Action (AMCJA) a document called The People's Constitutional Proposals for Malaya was formulated. In this document the earlier left views on equality of languages and culture were compromised and replaced with the Malay nationalist views advocated by Putera. Thereafter, the post independent Malaya saw the replacement of the Malay language as the national and official language replacing English. The Chinese, Tamil and other languages of the minorities took a back stage.
The Alliance and Barisan Nasional governments claiming to be racially representing the races did not promote the growth of other languages. In fact the Chinese, Tamil and other minority languages faced official discrimination hampering its development in the post-independent Malaysia. Arguably the left movements can be said to have failed in its role to reach a consensus on this sensitive and controversial issue of language. Perhaps it is time for the left movements to review its position and make a firm stand through democratic debates and discussions with relevant groups. The ensuing perspective is an outline for an open discussion on this issue.
People's constitution and Malay nationalism
The People's Constitutional Proposals for Malaya was drafted jointly by Putera and AMCJA. The AMCJA was formed in Dec 22, 1946. It then had about 400,000 members representing political parties, workers unions, women organisations and youth groups from all races and all classes. Its formation was based on six principles.
1. Consolidate Singapore with Malaya
2. Election of a central government and state councils
3. Malay rulers shall have vested power and responsibility to the people through the Council Meetings.
4. A new constitution for Malaya with special provisions for the development of Malays in politics and economy.
5. Malay traditions and Islam fully protected by Malays through a special council.
6. Citizenship for all who adopts Malaya as the land of permanent residence and declares undivided loyalty.
On the other side, Putera, which was formed on Feb 22, 1947, was made up of about 150,000 members. Its membership was represented by Parti Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya (PKMM), Angkatan Pemuda Insaf (API), Kesatuan Tani, Angkatan Wanita Sedar (Awas) and some 80 other smaller organisations. It had 10 principles, in addition to the six form the above and the following four were added.
- Bahasa Melayu shall be made the national language.
- Defence and the state affairs shall be the joint responsibility of the government of Malaysia and the British government. -
The citizens of Malaya shall be named as Malays.
- The national flag for Malaya shall have red and white colours as the background.
Undeniably the four principles of Putera represented Malay nationalism. With an open mind AMCJA compromised and accepted these, which had the support of the CPM, the influential partner of both teams.
The attack on the vernacular system
Often it is stated that the vernacular system is a ‘divide and rule' policy of the British. Not denying the British intent to divide and rule, one report of the British on education in 1951, i.e. Barnes Report failed to affirm that it had such intention with regard to vernacular education
"… Chinese and Indians are being asked to give up gradually their own vernacular schools, and to send their children … to schools where Malay is the only oriental language taught…"
There were objections raised by the Chinese and Indians. This prompted the tabling of the Fenn-Wu Report in the same year. It defended the vernacular system: "… any restrictive imposition of a language or two languages upon the people of Malaya would not provide a healthy atmosphere for community understanding and national unity".
Somehow this put a stop to any effort to implement the proposal contained in the Barnes Report.
The minister of education of the Alliance government, Abdul Razak headed a committee and formulated the education policy for the soon to be free country. The Razak Report 1956 stated: ".. the ultimate objective of educational policy in this country must be to bring the children of all races under a national education system in which the national language is the main medium of interaction."
The ‘ultimate objective' policy faced tremendous opposition from Chinese educationalist movements, in particular the Dong Jiao Zong. The policy intended to close down Chinese and Tamil schools was temporarily disbanded. The lesser controversial Education Ordinance 1957 was well received by all races. But, it was not too long before the controversy erupted in the form of the Rahman Talib Report in 1960.
The ‘ultimate objective' tune was replayed again and this time it was to close down secondary schools which used mother tongue languages. The reason given was to promote national unity. The mono-language and monoculture policies became very evident in the Alliance government when the Education Act 1961 was introduced. The Act gave vested power to the minister to convert mother-tongue based secondary schools to national secondary schools and to convert in suitable time any SJKC or SJKM to national schools. The ‘ultimate objective' policy continued its existence in the Education Act 1996. The Act exempted the application of the policy to schools existing prior to 1996 or that established under the direction of the minister.
In addition to that, the 1971 National Cultural Policy was based on a mono-cultural concept of assimilation. For example, it states:
a. National culture must be based on the Malay culture
b. Suitable elements of other cultures may be incorporated
c. Islam shall be an important component in the National culture Principle of equality of races
"….Whoever does not recognise and champion the equality of nations and languages, and does not fight against all national oppression or inequality, is not a Marxist; he is not even a democrat. That is beyond doubt…" In theory, this statement of Lenin on equality of nations and languages i.e. races is readily acceptable in any rational and fair debate. But reality in a multicultural society is different.
A ruling race seldom accommodates the interests of other races for equality without discrimination in their society. This is true for even in certain socialist countries. Often the situation is that of a chauvinist or a narrow nationalist goal to oppress others in the name of assimilation. On the basis of equality of all races, Malaysia being a multicultural society should have embraced a language system of all races on equal footing. There should not have been a classification of official and unofficial languages or formal and vernacular systems. All languages have a right to exist and developed to the needs of the relevant races.
The main characteristic of a multiracial society is its plural identity. Unity in diversity is the strength that should be harnessed to forge a distinct national unity and not by an assimilated uniformity through forced integration. Confronting oppression is the most important principle to defend a race.
In this context recalling Lenin; "…What we do not want is the element of coercion. We do not want to have people driven into paradise with a cudgel, for no matter how many fine phrases about "culture" you may utter, a compulsory official language involves coercion, the use of the cudgel…"
Therefore if national unity becomes a pretext to deny rights of affected races and their vernacular system, then what is achieved cannot be termed as unity. It is fragmenting the socio-cultural fabric, which is oppressive and unfair. In a multicultural society, the characteristics of diversity must be promoted and valued as the strength of the society. Any compelling action to unify the natural diversity judicially or administratively will tantamount to racial oppression, however noble is the intention.
In short, the principles of equality of races need to be the leading principle in dealing with the relationship between races and its vernacular language system. Every race has a right to develop and promote its mother language and culture freely.
"...That is why Russian Marxists say that there must be no compulsory official language, that the population must be provided with schools where teaching will be carried on in all the local languages, that a fundamental law must be introduced in the constitution declaring invalid all privileges of any one nation and all violations of the rights of national minorities...".
Is a compulsory official language needed? By Lenin
Introduction
One fundamental and yet unresolved agenda of the left is language. Beyond being a tool of communication languages had developed to become icons of identity and culture. This paper addresses on language as the unresolved national question and attempts to explain a case for vernacular languages.
Kamus Dewan defines vernacular as "relating to or a language or dialect commonly spoken by the members of a particular group or a community in a society. (yang berkaitan dengan atau yang menggunakan bahasa atau dialek yang dipertuturkan oleh sesuatu golongan atau kaum dalam masyarakat)
Oxford Fajar Advanced Learner's English-Malay Dictionary defines vernacular as: "language or dialect spoken in a particular country or region, as compared with a formal or written language. (bahasa atau dialek yang dituturkan di negara atau kawasan tertentu berbanding dengan bahasa yang formal atau bahasa bertulis).
The term vernacular therefore refers to a non-formal language (commonly spoken) used by a particular group or a community in a society. During the British occupation, the language system (involving language, school and education system) for the Malays, Chinese, Indians and other minorities were considered to be vernacular whereas the formal language was English. After independence, Bahasa Melayu became the national and official language of the country forming the official language system. The language system (involving language, school and education system) of the Chinese, Indians and other minorities became vernacular.
A simple analogy from the above is that language system is function of power. The one in control of power imposes the choice of his language over the others. Therefore whether a language is treated as formal or vernacular is dependant on the choice of dominant power ruling the country.
During the British occupation, the anti-colonialist left-movement had no problem in supporting the vernacular language/school/education. The multiracial left stood against the English language system alleging it to be discriminatory and oppressive against other languages. Similarly, during the Japanese occupation, the use of Japanese language system (involving language, school and education system) was opposed by the Left, based on the same reasoning.
The Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) issued a Nine Point anti-Japanese Manifesto in 1943. Item 6 of the manifesto stated that the development of a national culture should be through a multilingual system of free education. (p.77, alias Chin Peng: My Side of History, Chinese version) The CPM announced an Eight Point Programme in August 15, 1945. Item 6 of this programme stated that a democratic education system must be placed in lieu of the existing system and the development of national culture shall encompass multi languages. (p.105, alias Chin Peng: My Side of History, Chinese version)
The left view, on the equality of the languages and culture as contained in their Anti-Japanese Nine Point Manifesto in 1943 and the Eight Point Programme in 1945, was surprisingly dropped.
In 1947, through the combine effort of two progressive forces comprising Malay nationalist group Pusat Tenaga Rakyat (Putera) and the All-Malayan Council of Joint Action (AMCJA) a document called The People's Constitutional Proposals for Malaya was formulated. In this document the earlier left views on equality of languages and culture were compromised and replaced with the Malay nationalist views advocated by Putera. Thereafter, the post independent Malaya saw the replacement of the Malay language as the national and official language replacing English. The Chinese, Tamil and other languages of the minorities took a back stage.
The Alliance and Barisan Nasional governments claiming to be racially representing the races did not promote the growth of other languages. In fact the Chinese, Tamil and other minority languages faced official discrimination hampering its development in the post-independent Malaysia. Arguably the left movements can be said to have failed in its role to reach a consensus on this sensitive and controversial issue of language. Perhaps it is time for the left movements to review its position and make a firm stand through democratic debates and discussions with relevant groups. The ensuing perspective is an outline for an open discussion on this issue.
People's constitution and Malay nationalism
The People's Constitutional Proposals for Malaya was drafted jointly by Putera and AMCJA. The AMCJA was formed in Dec 22, 1946. It then had about 400,000 members representing political parties, workers unions, women organisations and youth groups from all races and all classes. Its formation was based on six principles.
1. Consolidate Singapore with Malaya
2. Election of a central government and state councils
3. Malay rulers shall have vested power and responsibility to the people through the Council Meetings.
4. A new constitution for Malaya with special provisions for the development of Malays in politics and economy.
5. Malay traditions and Islam fully protected by Malays through a special council.
6. Citizenship for all who adopts Malaya as the land of permanent residence and declares undivided loyalty.
On the other side, Putera, which was formed on Feb 22, 1947, was made up of about 150,000 members. Its membership was represented by Parti Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya (PKMM), Angkatan Pemuda Insaf (API), Kesatuan Tani, Angkatan Wanita Sedar (Awas) and some 80 other smaller organisations. It had 10 principles, in addition to the six form the above and the following four were added.
- Bahasa Melayu shall be made the national language.
- Defence and the state affairs shall be the joint responsibility of the government of Malaysia and the British government. -
The citizens of Malaya shall be named as Malays.
- The national flag for Malaya shall have red and white colours as the background.
Undeniably the four principles of Putera represented Malay nationalism. With an open mind AMCJA compromised and accepted these, which had the support of the CPM, the influential partner of both teams.
The attack on the vernacular system
Often it is stated that the vernacular system is a ‘divide and rule' policy of the British. Not denying the British intent to divide and rule, one report of the British on education in 1951, i.e. Barnes Report failed to affirm that it had such intention with regard to vernacular education
"… Chinese and Indians are being asked to give up gradually their own vernacular schools, and to send their children … to schools where Malay is the only oriental language taught…"
There were objections raised by the Chinese and Indians. This prompted the tabling of the Fenn-Wu Report in the same year. It defended the vernacular system: "… any restrictive imposition of a language or two languages upon the people of Malaya would not provide a healthy atmosphere for community understanding and national unity".
Somehow this put a stop to any effort to implement the proposal contained in the Barnes Report.
The minister of education of the Alliance government, Abdul Razak headed a committee and formulated the education policy for the soon to be free country. The Razak Report 1956 stated: ".. the ultimate objective of educational policy in this country must be to bring the children of all races under a national education system in which the national language is the main medium of interaction."
The ‘ultimate objective' policy faced tremendous opposition from Chinese educationalist movements, in particular the Dong Jiao Zong. The policy intended to close down Chinese and Tamil schools was temporarily disbanded. The lesser controversial Education Ordinance 1957 was well received by all races. But, it was not too long before the controversy erupted in the form of the Rahman Talib Report in 1960.
The ‘ultimate objective' tune was replayed again and this time it was to close down secondary schools which used mother tongue languages. The reason given was to promote national unity. The mono-language and monoculture policies became very evident in the Alliance government when the Education Act 1961 was introduced. The Act gave vested power to the minister to convert mother-tongue based secondary schools to national secondary schools and to convert in suitable time any SJKC or SJKM to national schools. The ‘ultimate objective' policy continued its existence in the Education Act 1996. The Act exempted the application of the policy to schools existing prior to 1996 or that established under the direction of the minister.
In addition to that, the 1971 National Cultural Policy was based on a mono-cultural concept of assimilation. For example, it states:
a. National culture must be based on the Malay culture
b. Suitable elements of other cultures may be incorporated
c. Islam shall be an important component in the National culture Principle of equality of races
"….Whoever does not recognise and champion the equality of nations and languages, and does not fight against all national oppression or inequality, is not a Marxist; he is not even a democrat. That is beyond doubt…" In theory, this statement of Lenin on equality of nations and languages i.e. races is readily acceptable in any rational and fair debate. But reality in a multicultural society is different.
A ruling race seldom accommodates the interests of other races for equality without discrimination in their society. This is true for even in certain socialist countries. Often the situation is that of a chauvinist or a narrow nationalist goal to oppress others in the name of assimilation. On the basis of equality of all races, Malaysia being a multicultural society should have embraced a language system of all races on equal footing. There should not have been a classification of official and unofficial languages or formal and vernacular systems. All languages have a right to exist and developed to the needs of the relevant races.
The main characteristic of a multiracial society is its plural identity. Unity in diversity is the strength that should be harnessed to forge a distinct national unity and not by an assimilated uniformity through forced integration. Confronting oppression is the most important principle to defend a race.
In this context recalling Lenin; "…What we do not want is the element of coercion. We do not want to have people driven into paradise with a cudgel, for no matter how many fine phrases about "culture" you may utter, a compulsory official language involves coercion, the use of the cudgel…"
Therefore if national unity becomes a pretext to deny rights of affected races and their vernacular system, then what is achieved cannot be termed as unity. It is fragmenting the socio-cultural fabric, which is oppressive and unfair. In a multicultural society, the characteristics of diversity must be promoted and valued as the strength of the society. Any compelling action to unify the natural diversity judicially or administratively will tantamount to racial oppression, however noble is the intention.
In short, the principles of equality of races need to be the leading principle in dealing with the relationship between races and its vernacular language system. Every race has a right to develop and promote its mother language and culture freely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)