Blog

  • PRC Netizens Irked By Dr Mahathir’s Remarks On Forest City Project, Wants To Boycott Malaysia

    PRC Netizens Irked By Dr Mahathir’s Remarks On Forest City Project, Wants To Boycott Malaysia

    BEIJING — Chinese netizens have criticised former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad over his comments that China’s investment in the Forest City property project in Johor Baru is a threat to Malaysian sovereignty.

    “Being an old friend for over a decade, Dr Mahathir had turned on China. It’s a big deal,” influential state-run tabloid Global Times quoted netizen yuchundaxianglianzhuli as saying.

    “Shall we boycott Malaysia for this?” netizen jiemohu wrote on Sina Weibo.

    Writing in his blog, Dr Mahathir had attacked the Forest City project as a “foreign enclave”.

    “Much of the most valuable land will now be owned and occupied by foreigners,” noted the 91-year-old, who was current Malaysian premier Najib Razak’s former mentor and now one of his biggest critics.

    “In effect, (land occupied by the Forest City initiative) will become foreign land,” Dr Mahathir added.

    He also claimed that more than 700,000 Chinese nationals will be brought into Forest City, alleging that the Chinese citizens would be given identity cards to enable them to vote in the coming general election.

    The Chinese embassy in Malaysia has criticised Dr Mahathir’s remarks.

    In a statement released on its official website, the embassy said: “Somebody applauded Sino-Malaysian relations in office but fanned the flame of anti-Chinese sentiment after.

    “We can expose the lie behind claims that Chinese investment is stealing job opportunities from Malaysia.”

    Sultan Ibrahim of Johor has also reprimanded Dr Mahathir over his Forest City claims.

    “He is giving the impression that Johor is surrendering land to the Chinese and that we are giving up our sovereignty, comparing even how we gave up Singapore to the British, the sultan told The Star.

    Sultan Ibrahim also accused Dr Mahathir of fearmongering by playing racial politics that he said had no place in Johor.

    Forest City is a US$100 billion (S$143 billion) property development by Chinese firm Country Garden.

    The firm has partnered Esplanade Danga 88, an associate company of Kumpulan Prasarana Rakyat Johor, which is the southern state’s investment arm. The largest shareholder of Esplanade Danga 88 is Sultan Ibrahim.

    The 1,386ha Forest City encompasses the development of facilities for business, tourism, hotel, residence, services and others, built on four man-made islands in Iskandar Malaysia.

    Construction began in February last year and about 8,000 apartments have been sold, the company said.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • Former Certis Cisco Convicted For Playing Russian Roulette With Service Revolver

    Former Certis Cisco Convicted For Playing Russian Roulette With Service Revolver

    A former auxiliary police officer from Certis Cisco who fired his revolver in a game akin to Russian roulette was convicted on Tuesday (Jan 24) of committing a rash act endangering human life.

    Gregory Lai Kar Jun, 23, was on duty at Tuas Checkpoint on Aug 13, 2015, when he emptied the revolver of five bullets and placed them on a table. He loaded the weapon with one bullet, pointed the revolver towards the ground and squeezed the trigger.

    When nothing happened, he squeezed the trigger again. This time, the weapon fired. Lai had fired the weapon in a confined space – a small room measuring about 2.7m by 1.7m with his colleague standing about 1m away.

    Lai and his colleague Muhammad Dzul Adhar, then corporals with security firm Certis Cisco, found the spent round and hid it inside a traffic wand. To cover up his tracks, Lai went to a restroom at the checkpoint and threw a second bullet into a toilet bowl.

    The next day, he reported the loss of two bullets to the Tuas Checkpoint operations room.

    In the meantime, Dzul agreed to help Lai dispose of the spent round. He transferred the bullet from the traffic wand to a cigarette box, before throwing the round into Bedok Reservoir in the early hours of Aug 14, 2015.

    Dzul was last year jailed for three weeks and fined S$2,000 for intentionally obstructing the course of justice and for failing to give information to the police about Lai’s crime.

     

    Source: www.channelnewsasia.com

     

  • Four Decades Of A Malay Myth

    Four Decades Of A Malay Myth

    Masturah Alatas takes a close look at the legacy and impact of her father’s seminal study of ‘Malayness’, The Myth of the Lazy Native, which turns 40 this year.

    “Our Production Manager estimates that we would very likely have finished copies of both books in December, and would therefore be able to publish in January, 1977.”

    With these long-awaited words that reached Singapore in a letter dated 14 September 1976, Malaysian sociologist Syed Hussein Alatas (1928-2007) received confirmation that his books, The Myth of the Lazy Native and Intellectuals in Developing Societies, would finally be published in London by Frank Cass.

    Murray Mindlin was the Cass editor who wrote the letter. He also happened to be the Hebrew translator of James Joyce’s Ulysses, a fitting fact since The Myth of the Lazy Native (henceforth Lazy Native) was caught up in its own, long-drawn-out publishing odyssey. Shunned by publishers in Malaysia and Singapore, Alatas first submitted Intellectuals to Frank Cass in early 1972 at the suggestion of social anthropologist, Ernest Gellner. In corresponding with Cass editors about that book, later the same year Alatas casually mentioned that he was completing the Lazy Native that he had started working on in 1966.

    “At the moment I am finishing a manuscript of about 100,000 words on the myth of the lazy native in the Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia, from the 16th to the 20th centuries. It is a study of the function and origin of this myth in the colonial ideology. Dutch, Malay and English sources are used. The discipline applied is the sociology of knowledge. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first work of its kind,” Alatas wrote.

    Young editor Jim Muir, who would later become the BBC’s correspondent for the Middle East, immediately asked to see the manuscript. Struck by the title and subject, he felt Lazy Native “would probably fit very well into our Library of Peasant Studies.”

    The story of the publishing vicissitudes of Lazy Native is documented in my book, The Life in the Writing (2010), as is the work’s international reception by the likes of Victor Gordon Kiernan, Edward W Said, Ziauddin Sardar and many others.

    There are several ways to assess the status of Lazy Native in the 40 years of its existence. We can check databases to see where it has been cited and syllabi to know where it is taught. Social media will give us an idea of who is reading it, talking about it, and going to conferences, seminars and festivals where it is studied.

    One could say that a revived interest in the book is due, in part, to the efforts of his son and my brother, Syed Farid Alatas, a sociologist at the National University of Singapore, not just through teaching, public speaking and his own writing but also because he solicited a reprint of a paperback and more affordable edition of Lazy Native from Routledge (2010). Malaysians will remember that the hardback Cass edition of Lazy Native once went for over 400 ringgit (roughly $US90 in today’s money). Syed Farid Alatas was also proactive in getting a second edition of the Malay translation of the book, Mitos Pribumi Malas, reissued with Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka (2009).

    It is worth mentioning—as translation studies scholar Nazry Bahrawi has noted—that the Malay translation, or rather adaptation of Lazy Native from the 1987 Indonesian translation, contains some omissions, including excluded lines and passages that are present in both the English and Indonesian versions. One omission is the line “The degradation of the Malay character is an attempt by the ruling party to absolve itself from blame for real or expected failures to ensure the progress of the Malay community” (Lazy Native, 1977, p 181). The book contains no note from the translator, Zainab Kassim, as to the reasons for these omissions.

    Whatever the case, we can conclude that irrespective of the availability of the book in English and Malay, what the quality of the Malay translation is, or how much or little it is actually read and talked about, Lazy Native seems to have found its place in the sun as a classic, and not just because Bahrawi and other scholars recognise it as a seminal text located within postcolonial theory. Not only has the Lazy Native walked right out of the Library of Peasant Studies into the libraries of Malay studies, cultural studies, sociology, history and literature—not to mention the personal libraries of many Malaysians— the book also seems to be sitting in the collective Malaysian imagination as a disgruntled trope, even though Syed Hussein Alatas himself had doubts about how many people had actually read and understood it.

    It is therefore legitimate to ask: after 40 years, is the myth of the lazy native still a myth? Former Malaysian Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad seems not to think so. According to him, the Malays are lazy because they don’t study hard enough, they can’t master English and they prefer to become Mat Rempit (motorcycle gangsters). What is missing from the narrative is if it is laziness or hard work that has to do with how the current Prime Minister, Najib Razak, was able to allegedly channel more than $1 billion into his personal bank accounts.

    Historian Zaharah Sulaiman, instead, believes that if “Malays are called lazy and not innovative, it’s because the knowledge, the peoples who have the knowledge have gone extinct,” and that ‘foreign invasions’ that led to the ‘grabbing’ of riches has a lot to do with the extinction of this knowledge.

    But in the chapter “The disappearance of the indigenous trading class”, Alatas does not so simplistically attribute the destruction of the trading class to foreign invasion. If anything, he provides sociological analysis showing how local rulers were sometimes complicit with colonial masters in bringing about the disappearance of the native trading class — for example when local chiefs acted as agents for the Dutch East India Company.

    Alatas framed his critique of colonial capitalism that exploited the image of the lazy native with economic and sociological analyses. Indeed, he called it “colonial capitalism” and not white capitalism. And nowhere in Lazy Native does he blame the other ethnicities of Malaysia—the Chinese or the Indians—for the condition of the Malays.

    It is important to understand this to distance the kind of critique Alatas performs in Lazy Native and the language he uses from, say, rants about  “Chinese privilege” in Singapore, in which the term itself makes a direct link of ethnicity—one ethnicity in particular—to majority class and political privilege, and abuse of power. If Alatas has tried to help us see the wrongness in the ideological necessity of giving laziness a Malay face, we are invited to think about the wrongness in the ideological insistence of giving a Chinese face to privilege.

    Finally, Lazy Native has inadvertently generated it own myth that needs to be debunked if we are to understand what unique scholarship really means— the claim that the book contributed to Edward W Said’s thesis on Orientalism. This claim has been made by several scholars all over the world.

    Orientalism (1978) was already written and sent off to the publisher when Alatas’ book came out the year before Said’s did. At the time, the two men never even knew or corresponded with each other.

    I know this because both men told me so.

    Masturah Alatas is a writer and teacher who lives in Macerata, Italy. She is the author of The girl who made it snow in Singapore (2008) and The life in the writing (2010), a memoir-biography about her father, Syed Hussein Alatas.

    The Myth of the Native Lazy marks 40 years of publication today.

     

    Source: www.newmandala.org

  • Ong Ye Kung: Multi-Party Democracy Is Not The Way Forward For Singapore

    Ong Ye Kung: Multi-Party Democracy Is Not The Way Forward For Singapore

    Speaking at the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) conference, Education Minister Ong Ye Kung warned that democracy would ruin Singapore, and claimed that his ruling party is Singapore’s success formula and that having opposition parties impedes decision-making.

    “The Republic’s formula for success could well be a one-party system. A multi-party system could slow down decision-making and nimbleness while navigating an ever-changing world and environment. Imagine, if we have a multi-party system back in 1965, will we have come so far so quickly?”

    According to Minister Ong Ye Kung, a democracy with multiple political parties will create racism and politics will become a “toxic mix” and “nasty”:

    “Should the political landscape here evolve into one with more than one dominant political party, it could mean a lot more jostling on the ground as unions and various associations and even the media become split as parties seek support. Should political parties align themselves along sinister lines, such as by race, language or religion, this toxic mix could leave the country broken. Even as political parties represent diverse views, that very same essence can take a nasty twist, sowing discord and dividing societies.”

    The Minister who shares half the education ministry profile also said that Singaporeans are the ones who chose PAP as the single ruling party and that they reject having a multi-party government:

    “But a single-party system in the case of Singapore is not a prescription but an outcome of choice resulting from elections. If the people of a country wish for a multi-party system, it will be so.”

    Minister Ong Ye Kung also dismissed the role of Opposition parties as critics, and that they do not have the nation’s interests at heart:

    “The job of the opposition parties is to point out the risks of a single-party rule. That is their job. But the job of the PAP (People’s Action Party) is to make sure that Singapore continues to flourish. We will also point out the risks of a multi-party system and, most importantly, we must always keep out the ills of complacency, elitism and corruption.”

     

    Source: http://statestimesreview.com

  • Muslims Must Find Allies Among Non-Muslims In Fight Against Islamophobia

    Muslims Must Find Allies Among Non-Muslims In Fight Against Islamophobia

    Possible lessons from the Linda Sarsour episode:

    (For those who are unaware, she is a Palestinian-American and a social activist who participated in the women’s march held a few days ago. She gave a rousing, inspiring speech. Unfortunately, but predictably, she was slammed by many people; those on the far-right, but also, some Muslims.)

    1) Some men just cannot stand strong women, who have loud voices and are not afraid to articulate their opinions. This is regrettably still true, and it is really futile to pretend that it is not.

    2) As long as Muslims do not conform to certain expectations held by others, there will be efforts to ‘reform’ Islam and ‘modernize’ it. Can’t help but feel there would be fewer criticisms if she had not donned the hijab, or if she was a self-styled Muslim ‘reformer’.

    3) We should always challenge terminologies that are put forth by others. When others use the term ‘moderate’, or ‘progressive’, or ‘conservative’, do not let that slide, or worse, embrace them uncritically. This is not a matter of being an ‘academic exercise’; rather, it could have real-life implications.

    In this case, the term ‘anti-Semite’ was bandied about casually. Is she anti-Semitic because she is Palestinian? Aren’t Arabs Semites in the first place???

    Do not let others define the terms of discourse for us.

    4) Muslims should be aware that many of those who are defending Linda are those from other/no faiths. Yes, in the Western world, there are plenty of Islamophobes who wish to see Islam disappear from the face of the earth, and/or want Islam to be changed wholesale.

    At the same time, there are many who are allies and potential allies, who have stood up and will continue to stand up for us. It is crucial to recognize this.

    Muslims hate it when people paint us with the same brush. We, of all people, should know not to do that with ‘people in the West’, ‘Jews’, ‘the right’, and the like.

     

    Source: Walid J. Abdullah

deneme bonusu