OUTSPOKEN: A very wise old man a long time ago had told the story about a shoal of swordfish that had attacked Singapore. The ruler of the day ordered the people to line up by the shore and asked them to offer their legs for the swordfish to ram through and they could then kill the fish while they were still dangling from their legs.
A young boy, however, told the people that they should instead go and cut banana trees and stick them along the shore so that the fish would poke through these trunks and the people could then easily slaughter them.
The people followed the boy’s advice and were happy that nobody got hurt and there was plenty of fish to eat. The boy’s brilliant idea caused the ruler to be very angry and disturbed. The boy was too clever for his own good and he had him killed. This anecdote has of course entered into Malay folklore under “Singapura dilanngar todak” (Swordfish attack on Singapore).
The narrator had to remain anonymous as during that period of time, stories told must only glorify the ruler. Stories must be told how brave he was and how full of mysticism his character was. No one else must surpass his standing, be it the mind or the might of his power.
Today Umno Baru is suffering from this very same syndrome. No member should be cleverer than the leader. Thus Khairy Jamaluddin, the Oxford educated head of Umno Youth, had to act stupid so as not to offend the leadership. Forthright personalities who could not pretend to be stupid to accommodate the lack of intellectual culture of the leadership would simply be passed by like Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah, the former Temerloh MP and a liberal. The party must simply be happy that he lost in the 13th general election.
Today, we witness the result of this cultural trait.
The loss of MH370 had brought out the most bizarre array of contradictions ever displayed by any group supposedly responsible for the investigation into this loss. The Inspector General of Police contradicted the Director General of the Department of Civil Aviation and also that of Malaysia Airlines.
KAMPAR (PERAK): Anggota Parlimen (AP) Bukit Gelugor dan pemimpin pembangkang veteren DAP, Karpal Singh, meninggal dunia selepas terlibat dalam satu kemalangan trafik dekat Gua Tempurung, awal pagi tadi, Khamis.
Encik Karpal, seorang peguam, dan pembantunya, C Michael, meninggal dunia di tempat kejadian, lapor akhbar The Star Online.
Anak lelaki beliau, Ramkarpal dan pemandu kereta terbabit, C Selvam, cedera dalam kejadian sekitar 1 pagi itu.
Mereka kemudian telah dikejarkan ke Hospital Kampar.
Kereta yang dinaiki Encik Karpal dan tiga yang lain telah bertembung dengan sebuah lori.
Beliau dikatakan sedang menuju ke Pulau Pinang untuk menghadiri satu kes mahkamah.
He described Singapore as “sometimes inconsistent” with its own belief, saying that the country had often championed meritocracy but would settle for “mediocrity” in terms of what was taking place in neighbouring countries including Malaysia.
“We the opposition are not totally against the initiative taken by the Malaysian government, but we question the lack of transparency.
“And Singapore should not infer us the opposition as being irresponsible in its criticism.”
SERI ISKANDAR: Former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad today suggested the removal of the Johor causeway in order to build the Friendship Bridge proposed by the government.
He said the Johor causeway causes various problems, mainly involving environmental issues and traffic congestion, in Johor Baharu.
“If it is a bridge, then what need is there for a causeway? The causeway prevents water from flowing across and also it is very dirty.
“It causes the sea to be very dirty, and there is a very big traffic jam in Johor Baharu because the bridge not being built,” he told reporters after giving a public lecture on ‘Leaders in Today’s Society: Issues, Challenges and the Way Forward’ at Universiti Teknologi Petronas here.
Mahathir said he hoped that the government would not build a bridge elsewhere and then leave the present bridge in place because that would not solve the problem of traffic congestion in Johor.
The Nahdatul Ulama and Muhamadiyah organisations will probably remain on their paths as modernist Muslim movements that address the challenges of modern Indonesia.
INDONESIAN POLLS: Can the state forestall the proliferation of new radical groups that chip at the country’s plural and democratic culture?
AS Indonesia heads to the polls next month, a range of political actors and parties have come to the fore to defend the country’s image and standing internationally, and to emphasise yet again the pressing need for Indonesia to defend its tolerant culture and beliefs.
More than a decade ago, it was feared that Indonesia would have been swept towards a rising tide of exclusive communitarian thinking that seemed poised to spread across that vast country.
Groups like the Laskar Jihad were waging what they regarded as a holy war against infidels, and Indonesia was hard-pressed to defend its reputation as a bastion of moderate Islamic thought and praxis.
Yet, despite the fears of many, Indonesia has been able to maintain its own cultural-historical course, and it remains a country where normative religiosity has not been overwhelmed by the culture of violence.
This is largely due to the important role played by the country’s mainstream Muslim organisations, notably the Nahdatul Ulama (NU) and the Muhamadiyah.
Today, as we watch the election campaign intensify, it is interesting to note how groups like the NU and Muhama-diyah remain steadfast in their stand against all forms of religious communitarianism and intolerance.
Take for instance the party-political TV ad for the Partai Kebangkitan Bangsa (PKB, National Awakening Party), which is the party-political offshoot of the NU.
The PKB’s ad features prominent leaders of the party reminding the viewers that Indonesia is not “like other Muslim countries”, and that Indonesian Islam has evolved along its own trajectory and has its own local character.
This is in keeping with the position taken by successive generations of the NU’s leadership, who have argued tirelessly that Southeast Asian Islam has to adapt to the realities of pluralism and diversity that is the norm in our part of the world.
It reminds us of the slogan coined by the late leader of the NU, Abdurrahman Wahid, who spoke of Indonesian Islam as being warna-warni: complex and with many hues. Today, that legacy of pluralism and diversity is being defended still by the NU and its party, the PKB.
The same can be said of the Muhamadiyah, that has been a reformist Islamic movement from the outset, and which has laid great emphasis on modern education, the sciences and a pragmatic approach to dealing with the question of diversity in culture and society.
Both the NU and Muhamadiyah have created a vast network of think tanks, publishing houses, intellectual and activist circles, etc. to consolidate their hold on the country’s Muslims and to disseminate ideas related to their vision of a modern, dynamic Islam.
Via bodies such as the LKiS research unit and publishing house and circles like the Jaringan Islam Muda Muhamadiyah (JIMM), the two mass movements have been defending Indonesian pluralism and diversity for decades.
But Indonesia today is a very different country than what it was two decades ago, and gone are the days where the NU and Muhamadiyah could propagate their brand of religious and philosophical thinking without being challenged.
In short, their view is no longer hegemonic and pervasive as it once was, and the reason for this lies in the erosion of state power as well as the opening up of public domains.
Since 1998, the once-invincible Indonesian state, that was centralised with power in the hands of the political-military elite, has been challenged by new political actors and agents across the country. The demand for more decentralisation of power has led to the emergence of competing power-bases and sites of discussion, and also opened the way for the rise of many smaller, yet vocal and demanding Islamist groups across the country.
Today, Indonesia’s Islamic arena is still dominated by the NU and Muhamadiyah, but it is being contested by groups as diverse as the Front Pembela Islam (FPI), the Hizb’ut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI) and even quasi-state bodies like the Majlis Ulama Indonesia (MUI) that has been busy issuing judgments on things as diverse as yoga and Facebook. As these new actors and agents enter the contested discursive arena, new debates are emerging and new concerns being raised.
Here lies the concern of many Indonesia watchers who wish to see Indonesia remain a peaceful and diverse country, for these new groups present a different, if somewhat homogenous and monolithic vision of what Indonesia should be.
Though they are small in number, their reach is greater thanks to the manner in which they have managed to capture the imagination of the young, poor, disenfranchised and the media. It is worrisome indeed when small groups of hardliners are given so much attention in the media, and when it is clear that such radical clusters have learned the art of media manipulation themselves. Over the past few years, these are the groups that have captured the headlines for their attacks on intellectuals, minorities and even other schools of Muslim thought.
As long as the public arena remains an open one where any new actor can enter and enunciate a different — sometimes provocative — stand on issues, groups like these will continue to thrive. The NU and Muhamadiyah may be able to command the loyalty and support of more than 70 million Indonesians, but it has to be remembered that in predominantly Muslim Indonesia today, there are around 200 million Muslim minds to win over.
So the question arises: Can Indonesia retain its reputation as the bastion of Muslim tolerance, pluralism and diversity?
The answer lies as much in mathematics as it does in ethics, for in the final analysis it is numbers that count. The NU and Muhamadiyah can, and probably, will remain on their appointed paths as modernist Muslim movements that address the challenges of modern Indonesia.
But if the state does not prevent or forestall the proliferation of the new radical groups that continue to chip at the country’s plural and democratic culture, this bastion, too, might fall in the future.
With these factors in mind, the coming elections in Indonesia will serve as a useful barometer of public sentiment and Muslim sensibilities, and so once again, I state the obvious: Indonesia’s coming elections are important not only for that country, but for the region and the Muslim world as well.
