Of course this piece is not one of the best Malay poems ever written, but i'm sure Malique's follower will notice that his Malay lyrical skill has improved substantially. A word of caution, it's a bit race centric though. It's hardly surprising if we look at whose excerpt that he includes in this poem, if you know what i mean. Anyway, all the best to Malique for VIMA 2008.
Layu
Aku lihat layu dalam Melayu
Aku pasti bukan aku seorang saja yang nampak
Ada juga bercadang bertanya tuan punya
Tapi bercampur risau dengan tak tergamak
Nanti dikata tak bersyukur, dikata tak sedar diri
Jadi aku menyendiri, memerhati dan akhirnya mengakui
Yang kita sendiriMembiarkan bunga raya melayu ke kanan
Dan dibiar bunga tak cantik mekar di kiri
Aku lihat layu dalam Melayu
Tanah air kita yang punya
Kita siram, kita baja tapi angin api kita lupa
Mereka merancang masa menjilat bangsa
13 harimau bertukar menjadi mangsa
Kita lupa nenek moyang kaya-raya
Jangan sekali-kali digadai harta-bendanya
Ku lihat layu dalam Melayu
Ku lihat layu dalam Melayu
Ku lihat layu dalam Melayu
Takkan Melayu hilang di dunia
Ya... tapi apa guna tak hilang di dunia
Kalau kewujudan tidak dirasa
Petah berbahasa kudrat tak berjasa
Orang berbudi kita hanya tahu merasa
Selalu lari bila dirapat
Selalu malu bila soalan diaju
Selalu segan memberi pendapat
Rela mengikut dari meneraju
Belum nyanyi sudah bersorak
Suka berjanji dalam borak
Bukan kata tak ada otak
Cuma tak berfikir di luar kotak
Ku lihat layu dalam Melayu
Ku lihat layu dalam Melayu
Ku lihat layu dalam Melayu
Aku jadi sayu
Bunga menangis dia mendayu
Mahu jadi cantik tetapi ragu
Aku merayu
Bangunlah semula hidup kembali
Jangan tunggu matahari mati
Cepatlah mekar sebelum terlerai
Perjuangan kita belum selesai
Perjuangan kita belum selesai
Perjuangan kita belum selesai
Monday, 15 December 2008
Friday, 7 November 2008
Protest against anti-tomboy fatwa
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/92648
To be honest i was appaled by this protest. I respect their right to express their opinion as much as the right of ulamas as Islamic institutional leaders to reach consencus on fatwas regarding Islamic issues. I truly understand the intellectual argument on difference of gender expression, identity and orientation. Sexual orientation is not necessarily linked to an individual's appearance. A female who wears like a tomboy might be straight while a homosexual might in fact dress like a fine young woman. Even the tenets of femininity keep changing and are strongly influenced by cultural values.
However, i still feel that every religious institutions has a right to be strong to its faith and publishes decress as guidelines to its believers. One can't simply take it to the streets and publicly criticize other religion's decrees and strong beliefs which he doesn't belive in or feels discriminitory. For example, should someone of different faith publicly denounce the evanlagical church for not supporting homosexuality or the Mormon for being superstitious?
According to the fatwas by Malaysian ulamas, smoking is haram and also the superficial intentions of plastic surgery but all of these fatwas including the one on tomboys do not become the rule of law in Malaysia even for the Muslims . As far as i'm concerned, a decree can only become discriminitory when it becomes the rule of law and affects people of different faiths .
I don't think the ulamas who intend to help the believers among the Muslims with guidelines deserve such an overreaction. It seems like the fatwa for believers somehow disturbs a few people who are not adhered to it. Incessant criticisms of other people's faith in a racially fragile society might give unintended consequences if they can't be tolerated by many.
To be honest i was appaled by this protest. I respect their right to express their opinion as much as the right of ulamas as Islamic institutional leaders to reach consencus on fatwas regarding Islamic issues. I truly understand the intellectual argument on difference of gender expression, identity and orientation. Sexual orientation is not necessarily linked to an individual's appearance. A female who wears like a tomboy might be straight while a homosexual might in fact dress like a fine young woman. Even the tenets of femininity keep changing and are strongly influenced by cultural values.
However, i still feel that every religious institutions has a right to be strong to its faith and publishes decress as guidelines to its believers. One can't simply take it to the streets and publicly criticize other religion's decrees and strong beliefs which he doesn't belive in or feels discriminitory. For example, should someone of different faith publicly denounce the evanlagical church for not supporting homosexuality or the Mormon for being superstitious?
According to the fatwas by Malaysian ulamas, smoking is haram and also the superficial intentions of plastic surgery but all of these fatwas including the one on tomboys do not become the rule of law in Malaysia even for the Muslims . As far as i'm concerned, a decree can only become discriminitory when it becomes the rule of law and affects people of different faiths .
I don't think the ulamas who intend to help the believers among the Muslims with guidelines deserve such an overreaction. It seems like the fatwa for believers somehow disturbs a few people who are not adhered to it. Incessant criticisms of other people's faith in a racially fragile society might give unintended consequences if they can't be tolerated by many.
Monday, 28 July 2008
Flawed Excuses By A Lame MB
In the midst of petrol's price hike and preemptive measures being taken to face recession, the state government of Terengganu cuts its spending in all aspects including the allocation for the recent Sultan's birthday. Therefore, not a single title from the palace was conferred on anybody this year. Surprisingly, the manifestation of 'cost cutting measures' also includes the purchase of 14 E-Class Mercedeses to replace the existing Perdanas used by the state executive councilors. One of the reasons given to justify this purchase is that the Perdanas were incurring high cost of maintenance thus the state state councilors found this purchase as necessary. I beg to differ due to a few reasons.
Firstly, i'm skeptical with the figures published pertaining to the cost to maintain these perdanas. Although a few of my friends themselves do face the same problem of gearbox, i just think that it's not enough to contribute to such high figures. I'm more skeptical with the fact that such high cost to maintain perdanas is only incurred on those owned by Terengganu's state councilors. Majority of cabinet members and state councilors throughout the country also use the same model of Proton, but they do not spend as much as the Terengganu's state councilors did on their cars. Perhaps these models owned by the Terengganu's state councilors are Proton Perdana 'special edition' or maybe the MB travels to and fro everyday on unpaved roads? My suspicious mind keeps saying that that the flaws in claim system and procedures of these cars are the ones that contribute to the high cost, not the cars themselves. If this were to be true, a more scrupulous claim system would save the state government from purchasing new cars.
For argument's sake, even if it's true that old Perdana cars require high maintenance , there is still no justification for them to be replaced by E-Class Mercedeses. Why must they be so rigid by defending their position to buy these cars? Why must it be E-Class? Why not Toyota Camry, Honda Accord or even lower end of Mercedes such as C-Class? If low cost is the main criteria of this purchase, Japanese cars which are known as requring low maintenance and fuel consumption would be the best choice then, not continental cars.
I'm also appalled by the statement of its MB that he needs a comfortable ride such as E-Class to travel from his house to Kuala Terengganu. Other state councilors and even the PM found that they are more than able to perform their duties by just traveling in a Proton Perdana, but maybe some breed just requires a better car to be able to do so. Whatever reasons the state councilors gave to support their action, people will still get the perception that cost was never the real reason, but their desire to use a luxury car is. I'm also amused by their determination in defending their decision and possession of the cars, the sort of vehemence which the rakyat have been waiting to see in their state councilors when they perform their public duties. However, the rakyat are too lucky to see it prevails in this cars issue.
I believe that the decision to keep the Perdanas for excos' use and the Mercedeses for state guests as beating the purpose of the initial purchase of these Mercedeses. Now, the state will have to maintain all of them. There is no cost saving at all in the long run.14 Mercedeses to be used by the state guests. Isn't this superfluous? Unless the excos are the state guests themselves, the number 14 will start to make some sense. I also feel that the best decision was to dispose the Mercedeses. Although the state will have to bear some losses, at least it will allay damage on the party's image and send a clear signal to the rest of the states that same action will be taken against them if they were to repeat the same mistake. Dear Prime Minister, please give a succinct message to the rest of the MBs that if they ever wish to use a S-Class or Bentley, please leave the public office and just be a CEO of their company to be able to buy it on their own capacity. As long as they are in public office, just forget such dream. At least have the courtesy to not do so during tough times like these when rakyat are facing the heat of the current food and oil price.
With all due respect, any sort of political compromises to strengthen or garner supports prior to party's election must not be at the expense of the rakyat. As petty as this issue may seem, it will do nothing less in providing more bullets to the opposition especially PAS to wrest the state from BN . Juxtaposition of this issue with the others is a perfect remedy to put the ruling state government on a slippery slope prior to the next general election.
Firstly, i'm skeptical with the figures published pertaining to the cost to maintain these perdanas. Although a few of my friends themselves do face the same problem of gearbox, i just think that it's not enough to contribute to such high figures. I'm more skeptical with the fact that such high cost to maintain perdanas is only incurred on those owned by Terengganu's state councilors. Majority of cabinet members and state councilors throughout the country also use the same model of Proton, but they do not spend as much as the Terengganu's state councilors did on their cars. Perhaps these models owned by the Terengganu's state councilors are Proton Perdana 'special edition' or maybe the MB travels to and fro everyday on unpaved roads? My suspicious mind keeps saying that that the flaws in claim system and procedures of these cars are the ones that contribute to the high cost, not the cars themselves. If this were to be true, a more scrupulous claim system would save the state government from purchasing new cars.
For argument's sake, even if it's true that old Perdana cars require high maintenance , there is still no justification for them to be replaced by E-Class Mercedeses. Why must they be so rigid by defending their position to buy these cars? Why must it be E-Class? Why not Toyota Camry, Honda Accord or even lower end of Mercedes such as C-Class? If low cost is the main criteria of this purchase, Japanese cars which are known as requring low maintenance and fuel consumption would be the best choice then, not continental cars.
I'm also appalled by the statement of its MB that he needs a comfortable ride such as E-Class to travel from his house to Kuala Terengganu. Other state councilors and even the PM found that they are more than able to perform their duties by just traveling in a Proton Perdana, but maybe some breed just requires a better car to be able to do so. Whatever reasons the state councilors gave to support their action, people will still get the perception that cost was never the real reason, but their desire to use a luxury car is. I'm also amused by their determination in defending their decision and possession of the cars, the sort of vehemence which the rakyat have been waiting to see in their state councilors when they perform their public duties. However, the rakyat are too lucky to see it prevails in this cars issue.
I believe that the decision to keep the Perdanas for excos' use and the Mercedeses for state guests as beating the purpose of the initial purchase of these Mercedeses. Now, the state will have to maintain all of them. There is no cost saving at all in the long run.14 Mercedeses to be used by the state guests. Isn't this superfluous? Unless the excos are the state guests themselves, the number 14 will start to make some sense. I also feel that the best decision was to dispose the Mercedeses. Although the state will have to bear some losses, at least it will allay damage on the party's image and send a clear signal to the rest of the states that same action will be taken against them if they were to repeat the same mistake. Dear Prime Minister, please give a succinct message to the rest of the MBs that if they ever wish to use a S-Class or Bentley, please leave the public office and just be a CEO of their company to be able to buy it on their own capacity. As long as they are in public office, just forget such dream. At least have the courtesy to not do so during tough times like these when rakyat are facing the heat of the current food and oil price.
With all due respect, any sort of political compromises to strengthen or garner supports prior to party's election must not be at the expense of the rakyat. As petty as this issue may seem, it will do nothing less in providing more bullets to the opposition especially PAS to wrest the state from BN . Juxtaposition of this issue with the others is a perfect remedy to put the ruling state government on a slippery slope prior to the next general election.
Tuesday, 24 June 2008
Pengurangan Subsidi
Kepulangan saya ke tanah air sempena cuti musim panas ini disambut dengan kenaikan harga petroleum kepada harga baru RM 2.70 seliter. Memang benar bahawa rasa perit sudah mula dirasai di saat saya menatap angka yang meningkat dengan begitu pantas sewaktu saya pertama kali mengisi minyak setelah pengenalan harga baru ini. Kini saya sudah mula berkira dan berjimat setiap kali ingin bergerak dengan menggunakan kereta. Walau bagaimanapun, rasa perit ini sudah mula meimbulkan beberapa persoalan baru buat diri saya. Bukankah sepatutnya rasa perit dan berkira dengan perbelanjaan petroleum sudah patut bermula sejak pertama kali saya menggunakan kereta? Bukankah selama ini saya sepatutnya membayar harga minyak yang sebenar di pasaran? Mengapakah selama ini sebahagian perbelanjaan bagi kemudahan peribadi saya ditanggung oleh pihak lain?
Subsidi minyak selama ini yang mengekalkan harga minyak di paras yang rendah telah mewujudkan satu budaya baru dan corak keperluan yang salah. Pada pendapat saya, perbelanjaan untuk tujuan kenderaan telah dijadikan prioriti utama oleh kebanyakan keluarga di malaysia, mengatasi perbelanjaan untuk tabung pendidikan dan kesihatan. Hampir setiap individu yang bekerja, daripada pemandu kereta hingglah kepada tuan besar yang dipandu dan duduk di belakang, semuanya memiliki kereta. Bahkan terdapat segilintir mereka yang menghuni kawasan perumahan setinggan turut memiliki kenderaan. Di sini jelas bahawa wujudnya satu prioriti perbelanjaan yang kurang tepat. Harga minyak sebelum ini yang rendah akibat subsidi telah meletakkan kepentingan untuk memiliki kenderaan mengatasi tujuan-tujuan yang lain. Setelah peningkatan harga minyak, sudah mula terdapat pihak yang mengambil inisiatif untuk mengguna pengangkutan awam. Suasana di mana ramai eksekutif muda yang bergegas ke tempat kerja di stesen-stesen keretapi bawah tanah di London seolah-olah sudah mula menunjukkan bibit budaya yang sama di stesen-stesen LRT atau bas di Kuala Lumpur. Walaupun syarikat-yarikat pengangkutan awam di Kuala Lumpur melaporkan bahawa terdapat peningkatan dalam jumlah penumpang mereka, ia masih terlalu awal untuk dijadikan konklusi bahawa peningkatan ini mempunyai kesan langsung daripada peningkatan harga minyak. Kesan-kesan positif seperti ini turut timbul akibat peningkatan harga minyak.
Walau bagaimanapun, untuk berlaku adil saya harus juga mengkritik beberapa kelemahan yang saya rasakan wujud dalam mengimplementasi langkah-langkah kenaikan harga minyak ini. Ke manakah perginya peningkatan kualiti pengangkutan awam di Lembah Klang berikutan pengumuman kerajaan untuk memperuntuk RM 10 billion bagi tujuan ini pada sesi belanjawan lepas? Isu merosotnya jumlah simpanan minyak dunia dan ramalan peningkatan harga minyak telah mula diperkatakan sejak beberapa tahun yang lalu, tetapi kenapa langkah-langkah awal tidak diambil untuk memperbaiki sistem pengangkutan awam secara agresif di Lembah Klang? Jikalau langkah-langkah tersebut diambil, sudah tentu bahang yang dirasai rakyat dapat dikurangkan dan penjelasan bagi tujuan menjustifikasi langkah penarikan subsidi minyak kepada rakyat dapat dilakukan dengan lebih mudah.
Dari segi prinsipnya, saya amat bersetuju dengan penarikan subsidi minyak. Subsidi minyak bukan saja mengekang pasaran bebas dan hukum 'supply and demand', ia juga turut mewujudkan ilusi corak permintaan dan penggunaan petroleum yang salah. Mengikut teori yang simplistik, jika tiada satupun kerajaan di dunia yang mengsubsidi minyak mereka, harga minyak dunia akan mengikut hukum 'supply and demand' di mana setelah harga minyak dunia melambung tinggi, permintaan terhadap minyak akan mula berkurang dan pasaran bebas akan memainkan peranannya dalam menstabilkan harga minyak. Langkah negara-negara seperti China, India,Indonesia, negara-negara Arab mahupun Malaysia untuk mengsubsidi minyak mereka hanya menggangu usaha untuk menstabilkan harga minyak dunia kerana di saat penduduk di negara-negara lain berjimat untuk membayar harga minyak mengikut pasaran dunia, permintaan terhadap minyak di kalangan pengguna di negara-negara yang menerima subsidi minyak,kekal ataupun meningkat tinggi. Apakah kita masih mahu membayar harga minyak yang murah akibat subsidi sedangkan perbuatan kita ini turut menyumbang kepada peningkatan harga minyak di negara-negara miskin dan menambah keperitan pengguna di negara-negara di Afrika? Jikalau saya berkata ya, saya kini sudah tergolong dalam kumpulan orang yang mementingkan diri sendiri.
Mengikut statistik Bloomberg, Merrill Lynch, Malaysia membelanjakan lebih 10 billion ringgit bagi tujuan subsidi minyak pada thun 2007 yang merupakan kira-kira 1.5 % GDP negara. Jikalau Malaysia ingin terus mengekalkan harga lama pada harga pasaran dunia yang melonjak sekarang, Malaysia harus pula menanggung lebih 70 billion ringgit setahun melebihi jumlah perbelanjaan tahunan bagi sektor pendidikan, kesihatan dan pertahanan yang telah digabungkan. Sudah tentu ia menjangkaui batasan logik jika perbelanjaan bagi tujuan kemudahan peribadi melebihi perbelanjaan bagi tiga kemudahan asas yang lain. Mungkin pada peringkat individu pula, pengurangan jumlah subsidi minyak akan membuatkan kita mengikut langkah yang sama. Jumlah pendapatan yang sebelum ini banyak disalurkan kepada kenderaan milik peribadi, kini akan digunakan dan disimpan untuk tujuan pendidikan, kesihatan dan kecemasan yang lebih tinggi prioritinya.
Biar apapun hujah yang menyokong atau membidas pengurangan subsidi minyak, saya begitu pasti dengan kesan positif ini. Malaysia tidak lagi dari segi teorinya menyumbang kepada kenaikan harga minyak dunia dan membantutkan usaha pasaran untuk menstabilkan harga minyak.
Subsidi minyak selama ini yang mengekalkan harga minyak di paras yang rendah telah mewujudkan satu budaya baru dan corak keperluan yang salah. Pada pendapat saya, perbelanjaan untuk tujuan kenderaan telah dijadikan prioriti utama oleh kebanyakan keluarga di malaysia, mengatasi perbelanjaan untuk tabung pendidikan dan kesihatan. Hampir setiap individu yang bekerja, daripada pemandu kereta hingglah kepada tuan besar yang dipandu dan duduk di belakang, semuanya memiliki kereta. Bahkan terdapat segilintir mereka yang menghuni kawasan perumahan setinggan turut memiliki kenderaan. Di sini jelas bahawa wujudnya satu prioriti perbelanjaan yang kurang tepat. Harga minyak sebelum ini yang rendah akibat subsidi telah meletakkan kepentingan untuk memiliki kenderaan mengatasi tujuan-tujuan yang lain. Setelah peningkatan harga minyak, sudah mula terdapat pihak yang mengambil inisiatif untuk mengguna pengangkutan awam. Suasana di mana ramai eksekutif muda yang bergegas ke tempat kerja di stesen-stesen keretapi bawah tanah di London seolah-olah sudah mula menunjukkan bibit budaya yang sama di stesen-stesen LRT atau bas di Kuala Lumpur. Walaupun syarikat-yarikat pengangkutan awam di Kuala Lumpur melaporkan bahawa terdapat peningkatan dalam jumlah penumpang mereka, ia masih terlalu awal untuk dijadikan konklusi bahawa peningkatan ini mempunyai kesan langsung daripada peningkatan harga minyak. Kesan-kesan positif seperti ini turut timbul akibat peningkatan harga minyak.
Walau bagaimanapun, untuk berlaku adil saya harus juga mengkritik beberapa kelemahan yang saya rasakan wujud dalam mengimplementasi langkah-langkah kenaikan harga minyak ini. Ke manakah perginya peningkatan kualiti pengangkutan awam di Lembah Klang berikutan pengumuman kerajaan untuk memperuntuk RM 10 billion bagi tujuan ini pada sesi belanjawan lepas? Isu merosotnya jumlah simpanan minyak dunia dan ramalan peningkatan harga minyak telah mula diperkatakan sejak beberapa tahun yang lalu, tetapi kenapa langkah-langkah awal tidak diambil untuk memperbaiki sistem pengangkutan awam secara agresif di Lembah Klang? Jikalau langkah-langkah tersebut diambil, sudah tentu bahang yang dirasai rakyat dapat dikurangkan dan penjelasan bagi tujuan menjustifikasi langkah penarikan subsidi minyak kepada rakyat dapat dilakukan dengan lebih mudah.
Dari segi prinsipnya, saya amat bersetuju dengan penarikan subsidi minyak. Subsidi minyak bukan saja mengekang pasaran bebas dan hukum 'supply and demand', ia juga turut mewujudkan ilusi corak permintaan dan penggunaan petroleum yang salah. Mengikut teori yang simplistik, jika tiada satupun kerajaan di dunia yang mengsubsidi minyak mereka, harga minyak dunia akan mengikut hukum 'supply and demand' di mana setelah harga minyak dunia melambung tinggi, permintaan terhadap minyak akan mula berkurang dan pasaran bebas akan memainkan peranannya dalam menstabilkan harga minyak. Langkah negara-negara seperti China, India,Indonesia, negara-negara Arab mahupun Malaysia untuk mengsubsidi minyak mereka hanya menggangu usaha untuk menstabilkan harga minyak dunia kerana di saat penduduk di negara-negara lain berjimat untuk membayar harga minyak mengikut pasaran dunia, permintaan terhadap minyak di kalangan pengguna di negara-negara yang menerima subsidi minyak,kekal ataupun meningkat tinggi. Apakah kita masih mahu membayar harga minyak yang murah akibat subsidi sedangkan perbuatan kita ini turut menyumbang kepada peningkatan harga minyak di negara-negara miskin dan menambah keperitan pengguna di negara-negara di Afrika? Jikalau saya berkata ya, saya kini sudah tergolong dalam kumpulan orang yang mementingkan diri sendiri.
Mengikut statistik Bloomberg, Merrill Lynch, Malaysia membelanjakan lebih 10 billion ringgit bagi tujuan subsidi minyak pada thun 2007 yang merupakan kira-kira 1.5 % GDP negara. Jikalau Malaysia ingin terus mengekalkan harga lama pada harga pasaran dunia yang melonjak sekarang, Malaysia harus pula menanggung lebih 70 billion ringgit setahun melebihi jumlah perbelanjaan tahunan bagi sektor pendidikan, kesihatan dan pertahanan yang telah digabungkan. Sudah tentu ia menjangkaui batasan logik jika perbelanjaan bagi tujuan kemudahan peribadi melebihi perbelanjaan bagi tiga kemudahan asas yang lain. Mungkin pada peringkat individu pula, pengurangan jumlah subsidi minyak akan membuatkan kita mengikut langkah yang sama. Jumlah pendapatan yang sebelum ini banyak disalurkan kepada kenderaan milik peribadi, kini akan digunakan dan disimpan untuk tujuan pendidikan, kesihatan dan kecemasan yang lebih tinggi prioritinya.
Biar apapun hujah yang menyokong atau membidas pengurangan subsidi minyak, saya begitu pasti dengan kesan positif ini. Malaysia tidak lagi dari segi teorinya menyumbang kepada kenaikan harga minyak dunia dan membantutkan usaha pasaran untuk menstabilkan harga minyak.
Sunday, 18 May 2008
Radical Feminism
I'm just taking a day off from revision for my final paper. In the midst of keeping myself updated with the latest news, i found an old article instead written back in July 2007 by a well known feminist/activist. Having such high expectation for this reputable activist who champions human rights, press freedom and efforts against moral policing, i ended up being appalled at the article. The full article can be read here. Here are some of the excerpts:
First of all, i would like to reassure that i support the noble cause of feminism to bring gender equality. In fact, i support all efforts to reduce disparity between different gender, races, countries and classes. However, i have to differ with such generalization of male's characteristics in this article. To start with, I have to acknowledge the fact that this survey was done on a few schools and the writer was giving her views on the males and females within these samples, which means that she might not generalize males as a whole. It's not the findings that i wish to dispute. It's the perception of the findings. It's hard for me to believe that none of the boys in these schools are ambitious enough. I would have bought a statement where majority of boys in a particular school have low desire to succeed in life, but claiming none of the boys in this school want to go to university? That's pure nonsense.
By generalizing that boys have low ambition and are fully dependent on their parents, one also implies that females are more superior than males. It's evident that throughout this article, the writer tries to show that most of the females possess more qualities needed to succeed in life compared to males. The writer also persistently praised the qualities in girls while pointing at the flaws among boys. I disagree with such claim that all boys are lazy and short sighted as much as i object someone generalizing beautiful girls as not intelligent,having no intention of getting a degree, hoping that they will one day marry a rich guy and be able to share the wealth of their spouse. Besides that, if one is deluded to allege that all boys are so lagging behind and not smart, how could the exact same group also be regarded as the future oppressors and barriers to women's success? To be honest, i have never found someone who could show the true meaning of generalization until today. Thank you dear writer for giving such a perfect example of this word.
Despite having many kind-hearted and honest activists on the right platform of feminism, we cannot deny the existence of the few radical feminists. They believe in female superiority as much as as the Nazis believe in Aryans supremacy. Sometimes, it left me wondering whether they want to get rid of a patriarchal society or are they trying to replace it with a matriarchal one. Putting all the blames pertaining to gender inequality on men and failing to recognize the different experiences and problems faced by various groups of women, will not contribute towards settling this issue, but instead prolong it.
As Rosemarie Tong put it in 1998: " Far from believing that the liberated women must exhibit both masculine and feminine traits and behaviour, these radical- cultural feminists expressed the view that it is better to be female/feminine than it is to be male/masculine. Thus women should not try to be like men."
Taken to the extreme, some radical feminists even believe that true feminists should reject men's assistance in their struggle to achieve the rights they seek and be fully independent of men. If that's the case, only lesbians can be true feminists since only they can be fully independent of men.
It's hardly surprising how the few deluded feminists can instead be the true sexists by believing in gender superiority. Now dear friends, just look in the mirror and ask yourselves this. Do I believe in gender equality or the simple fact that women are better than men? If it's the latter , congratulations my friend! You are the lucky few who made it to the 'Deluded Feminists Club'.
"A recent gender analysis research of classroom and school processes done by another friend, Maria Chin Abdullah, bears out the underachievement of boys. This study was done in four schools in a northern state, two rural and two urban.
The most outstanding feature of her findings is the drive and ambition of girls compared with boys. Most girls want to go to university, get a PhD, have a career, be a professional. They have clear goals, a career path and know what they need to do to achieve their aspirations.
But none of the boys in the two rural schools she studied want to go to university. At best, they aim to be soldiers and teachers. Most want to get out of school and work immediately. It is only in an elite all-boys boarding school that the boys show similar drive and ambition as girls.
And yet all the boys are socialised to believe that they would grow up to be leaders in the family and society, and to be providers and protectors of their wives, children and parents. But their lack of drive and sense of responsibility place a heavy burden on their shoulders, which alienate them further from the school system."
First of all, i would like to reassure that i support the noble cause of feminism to bring gender equality. In fact, i support all efforts to reduce disparity between different gender, races, countries and classes. However, i have to differ with such generalization of male's characteristics in this article. To start with, I have to acknowledge the fact that this survey was done on a few schools and the writer was giving her views on the males and females within these samples, which means that she might not generalize males as a whole. It's not the findings that i wish to dispute. It's the perception of the findings. It's hard for me to believe that none of the boys in these schools are ambitious enough. I would have bought a statement where majority of boys in a particular school have low desire to succeed in life, but claiming none of the boys in this school want to go to university? That's pure nonsense.
By generalizing that boys have low ambition and are fully dependent on their parents, one also implies that females are more superior than males. It's evident that throughout this article, the writer tries to show that most of the females possess more qualities needed to succeed in life compared to males. The writer also persistently praised the qualities in girls while pointing at the flaws among boys. I disagree with such claim that all boys are lazy and short sighted as much as i object someone generalizing beautiful girls as not intelligent,having no intention of getting a degree, hoping that they will one day marry a rich guy and be able to share the wealth of their spouse. Besides that, if one is deluded to allege that all boys are so lagging behind and not smart, how could the exact same group also be regarded as the future oppressors and barriers to women's success? To be honest, i have never found someone who could show the true meaning of generalization until today. Thank you dear writer for giving such a perfect example of this word.
Despite having many kind-hearted and honest activists on the right platform of feminism, we cannot deny the existence of the few radical feminists. They believe in female superiority as much as as the Nazis believe in Aryans supremacy. Sometimes, it left me wondering whether they want to get rid of a patriarchal society or are they trying to replace it with a matriarchal one. Putting all the blames pertaining to gender inequality on men and failing to recognize the different experiences and problems faced by various groups of women, will not contribute towards settling this issue, but instead prolong it.
As Rosemarie Tong put it in 1998: " Far from believing that the liberated women must exhibit both masculine and feminine traits and behaviour, these radical- cultural feminists expressed the view that it is better to be female/feminine than it is to be male/masculine. Thus women should not try to be like men."
Taken to the extreme, some radical feminists even believe that true feminists should reject men's assistance in their struggle to achieve the rights they seek and be fully independent of men. If that's the case, only lesbians can be true feminists since only they can be fully independent of men.
It's hardly surprising how the few deluded feminists can instead be the true sexists by believing in gender superiority. Now dear friends, just look in the mirror and ask yourselves this. Do I believe in gender equality or the simple fact that women are better than men? If it's the latter , congratulations my friend! You are the lucky few who made it to the 'Deluded Feminists Club'.
Saturday, 10 May 2008
Press Reform
Way to go KJ. Finally, he's the one within UMNO who has the courage to publicly speak about press freedom. His statement can be read here. Many leaders can suggest such thing, but only a few would be able to come up with pragmatic solution like he did when he suggested the setting up of a Press Complaints Commission as the early mechanism towards the long term goal of abolishing the Printing Presses and Publications Act. Nazri who was known as a pugnacious and staunch government's backbencher also admitted that he personally supports AUKU to be repealed. Things can only get better. Hope that prevailing reforms and moves towards greater transparency will not be temporary.
Monday, 5 May 2008
Ethical Tortuting?
It has been a while since I last went to Leadership in Action lectures. Topics for the past few weeks are too lame to my liking, making me prefer to slip under the blanket instead of going all the way to the south campus by bus. However, I was fortunate enough to attend the lecture this week on ethics. After the reiteration of the concept of ethics, we were given a hypothetical situation where a bomb was planted in the city centre and the only way to know its exact location is by torturing the suspect under captivity.
It’s not a coincidence that this issue was raised amid allegations against the M15 for turning a blind eye on the ferocious torturing of British citizens by the Pakistani intelligence agency. As expected, we were left with a difficult decision to make on whether to proceed with the torture for the purpose of national security. To my shock and dismay, almost all of the students raised their hands, giving their consent to the torture. Less then ten students of the class of a hundred plus were firm with the no answer. Most of them were foreigners except two who are most likely to vote for Liberal Democrats in the next general election.
I would have to say no to the collusion of torture for the purpose of national security. In this case, I would say it’s a right cause with a questionable implementation. I appreciate the noble cause of protecting the lives of many but not a single reason can justify the right to torture another human being. Any type of torture for whatever reasons one believe in is unethical. I believe that I would be undermining one’s individual right by upholding the right of the majority to get security but denying the right of the terrorist suspect to a fair treatment and trial. I would also have to bear in mind that the one under captivity is still a suspect. If I were to torture him to obtain crucial information on the location of the bomb, it is as if I have made up my mind that he’s definitely guilty. I definitely want to hold to the principle of a civilized society where one is innocent until proven guilty, won’t I? Would I hurt a less valuable life to save the more valuable lives of many? I’m definitely not in the right position to do so because I think t it’s morally wrong for me to play god by choosing lives that I feel more valuable. Besides that, if I choose to torture a particular person to safe the life of others, I would also indirectly agree to the tyranny of majoritarianism. I have a very firm belief of a balance between majoritarianism and individualism. Decisions made by a numerical majority must not deny rights to a particular individual.
It also doesn’t make me any better than the terrorist suspect if I were to torture him. In fact, we both hurt people albeit through different ways. This leads both of us to have a common standard of illegality and immorality. Perhaps after having so many things in common, both of us might become friends and have a chat over coffee. Some might also believe that the raison d’etre of torturing these suspects might indeed be similar to the one of ferocious terrorism acts. Both quarters try to protect their own kind by hurting other people. The element of selfishness comes in when both groups try to put their interests ahead others instead of choosing to fight their cause without hurting anybody. This is not an act of just saving people, but the art of protecting a group at the expense of the other one.
In any interrogation, one thing always leads to another. Many are bound to be suspects to a particular investigation. There’s ample of space for new leads to be found which lead to new suspects. Maybe tens or even hundreds more suspects need to be arrested and tortured to collect all the pieces needed to find the exact location of the bomb. Instead of hurting one to save hundreds, we might already hurt far too many. Looking at this more globally, I believe that war on terrorism is an ongoing process. As long as there are conflicts throughout the world, there will always be the oppressors and the oppressed. The latter might resort to terrorism. One might lose his rationale and do the unexpected after being pushed to a certain end. In war of terrorism, every second is crucial for the authority to block the movement of the terrorists. This means that there will always be new suspects throughout this war and torturing might not be a temporary measure.
Some one innocent might also admit to the allegations being made against him after succumbing to the slow pain and pressure during the torturing. This method can instead increase the number of the wrongfully accused and is not a reliable way to find the real terrorists. Those wrongfully accused and tortured are victims of terrorism themselves. Therefore, torturing might hurt a person to safe lives of the possible victims of terrorism, but it destroys the lives of the victims that we don’t really notice in the first place.
It makes me wonder whether many would still support torturing for the purpose of national security if it were to happen outside of Manchester, far from our own backyard. For example, would we support the torturing of someone innocent in Burma by the military for quite the same reason of protecting the majority and restoring stability of the county, or would we start championing back human rights in Burma like we used to when our security is not at risk and the threats do not involve us? However, I hope that the decision made by the majority during lecture was out of pure conservatism instead of that thin line which separates self belief and racial factor.
It’s not a coincidence that this issue was raised amid allegations against the M15 for turning a blind eye on the ferocious torturing of British citizens by the Pakistani intelligence agency. As expected, we were left with a difficult decision to make on whether to proceed with the torture for the purpose of national security. To my shock and dismay, almost all of the students raised their hands, giving their consent to the torture. Less then ten students of the class of a hundred plus were firm with the no answer. Most of them were foreigners except two who are most likely to vote for Liberal Democrats in the next general election.
I would have to say no to the collusion of torture for the purpose of national security. In this case, I would say it’s a right cause with a questionable implementation. I appreciate the noble cause of protecting the lives of many but not a single reason can justify the right to torture another human being. Any type of torture for whatever reasons one believe in is unethical. I believe that I would be undermining one’s individual right by upholding the right of the majority to get security but denying the right of the terrorist suspect to a fair treatment and trial. I would also have to bear in mind that the one under captivity is still a suspect. If I were to torture him to obtain crucial information on the location of the bomb, it is as if I have made up my mind that he’s definitely guilty. I definitely want to hold to the principle of a civilized society where one is innocent until proven guilty, won’t I? Would I hurt a less valuable life to save the more valuable lives of many? I’m definitely not in the right position to do so because I think t it’s morally wrong for me to play god by choosing lives that I feel more valuable. Besides that, if I choose to torture a particular person to safe the life of others, I would also indirectly agree to the tyranny of majoritarianism. I have a very firm belief of a balance between majoritarianism and individualism. Decisions made by a numerical majority must not deny rights to a particular individual.
It also doesn’t make me any better than the terrorist suspect if I were to torture him. In fact, we both hurt people albeit through different ways. This leads both of us to have a common standard of illegality and immorality. Perhaps after having so many things in common, both of us might become friends and have a chat over coffee. Some might also believe that the raison d’etre of torturing these suspects might indeed be similar to the one of ferocious terrorism acts. Both quarters try to protect their own kind by hurting other people. The element of selfishness comes in when both groups try to put their interests ahead others instead of choosing to fight their cause without hurting anybody. This is not an act of just saving people, but the art of protecting a group at the expense of the other one.
In any interrogation, one thing always leads to another. Many are bound to be suspects to a particular investigation. There’s ample of space for new leads to be found which lead to new suspects. Maybe tens or even hundreds more suspects need to be arrested and tortured to collect all the pieces needed to find the exact location of the bomb. Instead of hurting one to save hundreds, we might already hurt far too many. Looking at this more globally, I believe that war on terrorism is an ongoing process. As long as there are conflicts throughout the world, there will always be the oppressors and the oppressed. The latter might resort to terrorism. One might lose his rationale and do the unexpected after being pushed to a certain end. In war of terrorism, every second is crucial for the authority to block the movement of the terrorists. This means that there will always be new suspects throughout this war and torturing might not be a temporary measure.
Some one innocent might also admit to the allegations being made against him after succumbing to the slow pain and pressure during the torturing. This method can instead increase the number of the wrongfully accused and is not a reliable way to find the real terrorists. Those wrongfully accused and tortured are victims of terrorism themselves. Therefore, torturing might hurt a person to safe lives of the possible victims of terrorism, but it destroys the lives of the victims that we don’t really notice in the first place.
It makes me wonder whether many would still support torturing for the purpose of national security if it were to happen outside of Manchester, far from our own backyard. For example, would we support the torturing of someone innocent in Burma by the military for quite the same reason of protecting the majority and restoring stability of the county, or would we start championing back human rights in Burma like we used to when our security is not at risk and the threats do not involve us? However, I hope that the decision made by the majority during lecture was out of pure conservatism instead of that thin line which separates self belief and racial factor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)