Indian Democracy

Based from my observation, when asked, a lot of people cannot named the largest democracy in the world. They thought it's either the US (obvious choice) or Europe (as if the whole continent is a one big unified country) or stranger still, Canada (yeah, the country's big but moose outnumber people here by ten to one!). People, the answer is INDIA.

Unless if the person has a keen interest in current affairs and politics, India as the largest democracy in the world is a fact that seems to elude most people. Most people have a Western-centric view of democracy that it is solely the creation and the standard political practice of the West. Democracy is not something one can easily associate with the so-called "Eastern values," with its rigid social hierarchy, abject deference to authority, forced conformity, and aversion to differing and opposing ideas and points of views.

While there's no denying of democracy's Western (Greek) root but its practice is universally believed to be the best form of governance that transcends the East-West divide. As people move away from the feudal mindset of authority-worship, divine rights of the rulers and mass repression, democracy offers them an alternative socio-political system that is both egalitarian and empowering.

The recent legislative election in Indonesia (another large Muslim-majority democracy) and the on-going general elections in India are perfect examples of Asian countries breaking away from the shackles of their authoritarian and politically-backward past. In the case of India, it has been a vibrant democracy since its independence in 1947 except for the brief interregnum of Indira Gandhi's Emergency Rule from 1975-77. Indonesia, on the hand, had a brief flirtation with democracy in her early years (1949 to 1957) when it adopted the parliamentary system, that was until Sukarno consolidated his authority through Guided Democracy (Demokrasi Terpimpin) and ruled by decree. It wasn't until 1998 that Indonesia finally became a democracy again.

Anyway, happy Election Week to the citizens of India, the world's largest democracy. Yep, it's a week of voting for the lucky Indians since the country is so huge and disparate. Total eligible voters for this election is more than 700 million people. That's like the populations of the US and Europe combined!

Creative Counter-insurgency?

Now this is a funny news bit: CIA offers Viagra to win support from older Afghan warlords. I don't really know what to make of this new development in fighting terrorism in Afghanistan. Will it be successful or will it join the long list of CIA's tactical blunders over the years? But the Viagra strategy smacks of the discredited age-old imperial indirect rule through the heads of clans. Back in the days of colonial yore former imperial powers such as the British and the Dutch ruled their colonies through control of local leaders by bribing them with wealth and power. It worked for a while until the people got tired of the exploitation and corruption and rose up against both their leaders and the colonial powers. The rationale behind this colonial strategy is the assumption that people are docile and absolutely submissive to their leaders and that the leaders have the moral legitimacy to rule, whether it's divine or hereditary. Maybe it holds true to a certain extent but there comes a time when the abuses of power become too much to bear and the exploitation draws blood a pint too much, the people are left with no option but to cross the threshold of unquestioned fealty and rebel against their leaders. This is especially so when there is a presence of a catalyst with an alternate power center that offers superior moral legitimacy, derived from, say, religion or political ideology. Anyway, I hope these Viagras, in addition to being used to stroke the warlords' aging libidos, can also help to open up the tribal societies for development in education, infrastructure and gender issues. Winning hearts and minds, as cliched as it sounds, is still an integral part of the war on terror and it has to be handled with acute sensitivity and empathy for local idiosyncrasies.

The Jolly Ol' Coup

When the news broke, it did come as a surprise. Military coups just don't happen a lot nowadays, compare to a few decades ago at the height of the Cold War. At least that was my impression. The last major coup I know was when General Pervez Musharraf took over the government in Pakistan in 1999. There had been feeble attempts by factions of the Philippines army to stage coups but failed ignominously. So when the news about the Thai coup reached me, it sounded almost surreal. At the same time, in the back of my head, I thought: "Hey, after all, this is Thailand. Those people over there have coups almost as often as people change underwear." Certainly not a politically-correct sentiment to have, but then I don't want to assume to know what's best for the Thai people, as if the kind of soft authoritarian rule in Malaysia is significantly better. Still, the coup didn't come as a total surprise for the Thai people; the rumor mill had been whirring on for quite a while, spreading morsels of half-truths about possible intervention of the military to break the political impasse. But then, after fourteen years of democratic lull, people didn't really lend much credence to the possible reassertion of military in Thai national politics. I bet it was still somewhat a rude awakening when people got out of bed that morning (the coup happened at night).

What's even fascinating and a bit frightening is that an overwhelming majority of Thai people support the coup. I was at aacaan Kannikar's house having dinner last Friday and I was a bit surprised that she and Laa (another native Thai) evinced an implicit support for the coup throughout our conversation on the topic. Both of them are educated and enlightened enough that one think they would be quick to condemn anti-democratic maneuvering in any manifestations. Prajaak, another Thai friend of mine who was also at the dinner, shared his discomfort of this outpouring of support for the coup. He said that most Thai people called it a "democratic coup," the coup to save Thai democracy. This is wrong on so many levels. In a literal sense, the term "democratic coup" itself is an oxymoron. If one practices democracy, there will be no coups. If coups exist, then there is no democracy. And the carousel goes on. Democracy should be, to use a hackneyed political science dictum, "the only game in town," in which the rules of political engagement have to be respected and obeyed by all, winners and losers alike. And the phrase "the coup to save Thai democracy" is so damn lame, just like the infamous WWI epithet "War to end all wars." There will never be any more coups in a democratic Thailand, just like we never again have to suffer through any wars after WWI.

I don't want to sound pessimistic but if this is the excuse for the coup, Thai democracy is in for a long, drawn-out struggle. How can one have a fully functioning democracy when the military comes storming in at the slightest bit of trouble? This coup will set a bad precedent for the future. It means that democracy is NOT "the only game in town," and its rules can be subverted at will by any non-democratic elements in the society. One must remember that democracy is not all bed of roses, and it cannot be simply assembled and dissembled like blocks of Lego; Iraq's case is a perfect example. Democracy is about negotiation and compromise; though frustrating at times, there are no other options unless if one regresses to absolute rule. I'm sure there are forces within the Thai society and the royal palace that long for the golden days of absolute monarchy. Will that be you, Privy Councillor Prem? Still, no coup could ever be carried out without the consent of the King, and the question remains if this coup was personally engineered by King Bhumibon himself or by his royal consorts and the pro-royalist faction? The answer is irrelevant; the bottom line is it's undemocratic and it should be roundly condemned.

Note: Both pics are from the NY Times. The first one shows the military junta giving press conference in a very austere and spartan (how apt!) room (except for the Thai military emblem in the background). The second pic shows a couple of monks taking pictures with the tank as a way to symbolize the widespread and popular support of the people for the coup.

The King who is not

I feel a bit less pressured now since the deadline for my research paper has been pushed for another four days. Good job, Sinae, for lobbying on our behalf. The paper's presentation will just be among grad students (there are nine of us in the class) with pizzas, sodas and alcohols (for those who drink); it'll be very informal and low-key for sure in a room overlooking the majestic Lake Mendota. It'll be fun. Anyway, this new deadline allows me some free time to stray from my paper and do a bit of fun writing on the side--well, fun for me at least.

The social unrests in Nepal right now got me thinking about the role of monarchy in a democratic system of governance. The prevailing wisdom of the day says that we don't need them anymore; they serve no purpose whatsoever in the democratic scheme of things. And I agree with this truism 101 percent. As an unelected institution whose authority is derived from hereditary claim, it certainly does not bode well with the principle of government for, by, and of the people. For me, the monarchy is simply a relic of the past, which has long outlived its societal function. Imagine if T-Rex still roam the earth to this very day and how unfitting and awkward these dinosaurs would be in our highly evolved ecological system: the species who were supposedly eliminated by the virtue of evolution suddenly find themselves in an environment that is inhospitable and a habitat uninhabitable. To put it plainly, it's just weird to see dinosaurs in your backyard jungle--and that's exactly how I feel about monarchy.

If it's up to me, that is, if I have the opportunity and the political power to do so, I'd abolish ALL forms of monarchy, period. I don't care if they are Louis XVI l'etat, c'est moi types like the Sultan of Brunei or titulary like Queen Elizabeth II or the Malaysian kings. Boot them off their golden pedestal into the multitudes of unwashed masses on the ground. Nobody's THAT special!

This brings up another issue: the royal institution in Malaysia and its relevance to the Malaysian democratic life, or the semblance of democracy we have right now. My short answer: IRRELEVANT. My long answer: the royal institution in Malaysia is ostensibly tied up with the idea of Ketuanan Melayu, which means that in order to justify the special privilege of Malays in the country, the royal institution has to be preserved at all costs. Sounds ridiculous? Yes, it is absurd. It serves as the Malays' link to our purported historical dominance of the country, the proof that we were here first and we have this cultural artifact--the royal institution--as an evidence. To all the people who wonder why haven't we abolish monarchy in Malaysia, well, here's why. One can also argue that we followed the British system to a tee when we were preparing for independence and that was why we adopted the constitutional monarchy system. But remember, who was the first PM of the newly independent Malaya? Yes, a member of the royal family. It'd be crazy for him to de-royalize himself and abolish his own privileged livelihood, right?

I realize it's so much harder to get rid of the monarchy if the institution is bound up with human primordialism, like religion (Thailand) or race (Malaysia). The two are perceived as one of the same. So, what to do? Well, I don't have the answer to this question. At least nothing short of a bloody revolution, that's for sure. But it's doubly hard in Malaysia because we have two royal institutions: The symbolic one that takes turn every 5 years to be the King of Malaysia; and the UMNO ruling elite who reign like the kings of the past, dispensing patronage, only without the veritable royal heritage. If somebody can offer me a solution to get rid of these two feudal institutions--not the kind of Solution Hitler used during WWII, though it's tempting--I'm all ears.

p/s: Also, look at the smug face of the Nepalese king in the pic above and don't tell me you don't want to overthrow the guy and kick his bitchy ass while you're at it. His name is Gyanendra, by the way, if anyone's interested in bitch-slapping him. One observational note: The Nepalese riot police are dressed up like Kendo practitioners. Maybe Huda and Deya would like to join them if they're recruiting. I'm sure they could use more fresh recruits as the protests swell up.

Addendum to the previous post

Here's an interview with Dr. Osman Bakar in Berita Minggu. Dr. Osman is a highly esteemed Malaysian Islamic intellectual whom I've had the pleasure of knowing for quite some time especially during my stint in Washington, DC when he was teaching at Georgetown University's Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. I have learned so much from him from his bi-weekly usrah and our countless conversations on Islam and Malaysian politics. Truly an intellectual idol of mine. I also have to say that his wife, Kak Bada, is a phenomenal cook, especially when she makes her native nasi kandaq and laksa penang.

The freedom to incite violence?

Here are the despicably vile Danish cartoons that manage to stir the hornet's nest within the Muslim ummah and whip some into destructive fanatical frenzy. While any acts of violence in response to this inane provocation cannot be justified, the fact remains that the publisher's "freedom-of-speech" defense is simply lame and has left much to be desired.

Freedom of speech is the bedrock principle of democracy, without which the process will be rendered meaningless. But as with any other types of freedom, a line has to be drawn to delineate of what is proper and what is not. The question that has persisted since Hobbes first wrote his philosophical treatise "The Leviathan" more than 400 years ago is how much freedom is too much; or in a communal sense, how much freedom one has to give up for the sake of collective security and stability? Unfettered freedom, according to Hobbes, will lead to his famous dictum of "a war of all against all" (bellum omnium contra omnes). Thus, how does one balance this delicate equation of freedom and security? Who gets to enforce the rules that ensure stability and punish any would-be violaters? Hobbes was an ardent supporter of the monarchy and he used this treatise to provide a theoretical framework to prop up the dwindling legitimacy of the monarchs: his conception of the omnipotent Sovereign--"The Leviathan"--who possesses the unbridled authority to enforce the rules and maintain collective security and stability. This I'm vehemently opposed to, but it is generally agreeable that some kind of a structure has to be set up for the sole purpose of maintaining this tenuous equilibrium.

Back to the questions of how can the freedom of speech be restrained, what are its limits, and can the limits be effectively imposed so as not to possibly degenerate into abuse of power and authoritarianism? I know it is such a cliché but I believe that the most effective restraint comes from the individuals themselves. No, I'm not advocating self-censorship; only the hope that one can exercise this hard-earned freedom with great care and utmost resposibility. What is the intention of this Danish newspaper in publishing these inflammatory cartoons? It said that it was a public satire, which might or might not be true. I can definitely see satirical value in at least one of them, the one that shows a suicide bomber gets up to heaven and the angel tells him that there are no more virgins left. It pokes fun at the ridiculous incentive that supposedly awaits wannabe suicide bombers--quite a hoot, if you ask me. But, where is the razor-sharp Swiftian satire in the depiction of Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h) wearing a bomb turban? Now, that is just a sophomoric, and to add, moronic, act that serves nothing but to stir up cheap, sensationalistic controversy to sell more papers.

Another point of refutation is the frivolous claim made by some of the prominent Zionists, particularly Abe Foxman at Anti-Defamation League (ADL), that Muslims, especially in the Arab countries, don't hold themselves to the same standard they demand from other religious groups vis-à-vis the issue of freedom of speech. As the claim goes, major newspapers in Arab countries frequently run cartoon prints that caricature and ridicule the Jewish people (read: Israel) inasmuch as equating the state of Israel with the murderous Hitler's Third Reich.

One such print I've seen is an image of the Israel's Star of David superimposed on the Nazi's Swastika flag. While this might be considered a bit over-the-top but there are parallels between the two regimes that are worth looking into. For one, the current ghetto-ization of the Palestinians in West Bank is creepily similar to what happened to the Jews in Germany sixty years ago. Gaza Strip, for all intents and purposes, is the world's largest prison. While it is by no means comparable to the ghastly nature of the WWII Jewish concentration camps of Dachau, Treblinka, Auschwitz and others, it is only a short slide away down the slippery slope of semantics for history to perversely repeats itself.

Moreover, I don't see much difference between the ethno-nationalistic makeup of the present Jewish state and the Aryan-based state of the Third Reich idealized by Hitler. Both champion a nation-state that is entirely made up by, ideally, a single ethnic group; and both states are racial chauvinists, projecting superiority over others, and even more ironic, both claim to be God's "chosen people." Israel for Jews and Germany for Aryans--like fucking peas in a pod! By the way, all Jews in the Diaspora have automatic Israeli citizenship whether they want it or not. It's their so-called God-given right, a right that is obviously not bestowed on the Palestinians who were expelled from their ancestral land in 1948.

On the flip-side, the acts of violence in retaliation to these idiotic caricatures perpetrated by some quarters of the Muslim ummah are simply morally indefensible and reprehensible. The same principle of freedom of speech applies to the protesters as well, and it behooves them to be peaceful, responsible and decorous in exercising their rights to dissent. How can one preach limits to free speech when one does not abide by it? It's eeriely ironic to see the same people who call for checks on unfettered free speech to say nothing of the wanton destruction of public and private properties from the ensuing protests. There are other non-violent avenues that people can pursue in order to register their grievances and to make their feelings known. Going down this path of senseless violence is definitely not one of them, and it is certainly playing into the hands of these provocateurs. Islam is a peaceful religion that respects all, and it is imperative that we claim the moral high ground amidst this maelstrom of controversy. Why stoop to their level?

Anyway, one of the photos in the NY Times coverage of this hulabaloo shows a protest in Jakarta and the people in the photo are unmistakably clear: they are members of the Fron Pembela Islam (FPI), a formerly powerful and well-organized Muslim organization/militia in Indonesia comprised of mostly street thugs, urban toughs, criminals and other unsavory characters which last prominent act was to sabotage the pro-democracy movement in the aftermath of Soeharto's fall in May of 1998. To expect acts of random brutality from them is nothing new but so far I haven't heard anything more than orderly street protests in Jakarta. Good for them!

The State and us sheeps

I do find this news pretty disturbing. It's about the guy who was shot to death by air marshals at the Miami International Airport recently.

Okay, granted that any bomb threat should not be taken lightly, but c'mon, this is just a bit much. There are some details that went curiously missing or simply did not get explained enough in the description of the incident.

First of all, how the heck did the carry-on bag, that allegedly contained the explosives, get through the security checks? Shouldn't the X-Ray machine had detected this explosives first? Well, it did, and only that it did the job too well--there weren't any explosives! Also, where were those imposing TSA (Transportation Security Agency) agents who love to check people's belt buckle and shoes for bomb?

Also, would a person with a bomb strapped to his/her body be running up and down the aisle screaming: "I HAVE A BOMB!!!" Otherwise, he would have been a very confused suicide bomber instead. First rule of suicide-bombing (yes, there is a non-denominational, inter-faith ten commandment stone tableux for the United World Temple of Suicidal Terrorism): Thou shalt draw attention attention to thyself AFTER the deed, not before--all the attention your charred, blown-to-smithereens corpse care to receive!

Anyway, I know that this news is sorta stale but it has been saved as a draft for a while and I figure it's time that it gets published. I just got sidetracked by a bunch of papers this past week that I didn't have time to wrap up this post.

The Myth of Nationalism

This topic sprung to mind after I read Howard Zinn's piece about the scourge of nationalism in the latest issue of The Progressive. Here's the Wikipedia definition of NATIONALISM: An ethno-political ideology that sustains the concept of a nation-identity for an exclusive group of people. It is the discrete or implied doctrine which holds the preservation and independence of its distinct identity, in all its aspects, and the "glory and wellbeing" of the nation as core aspects of its fundamental ethos.

Ever since the incipient concept of nation-state (by extension, nationalism) was first brought to being after the signing of the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, it has been nothing but a destructive force that has wrought untold deaths and misery throughout its history. Countless wars, battles, massacres, and genocides have been perpetrated all in the name of nationalism. And for what? Defending empty meaningless symbols and perceived traditions that supposedly make up the uniting force that binds us all? Nationalism, as it stands, allows the formation of an "in-group" and excludes the rest. Another chief requirement of nationalism is the creation of the "Other," to which the nationalist group can juxtapose itself against. To rally people under the nationalist banner, they will have to be made to believe that their existence is being mortally threaten; thus, the concocting of the "Other" to act as the bogeyman to scare the wits out of these people. Who is this "Other," anyway? Anybody who falls outside the "in-group," that is. Does any of this sound familiar? Hitler did it in Nazi Germany, Mussolini did it in Italy, Franco did it in Spain, Milosevic did it in Yugoslavia, and these are just the most prominent--and extreme--examples in recent history. Very bloody examples indeed. Just ask the six millions Jews and the rest of the untermenschens who were exterminated in Auschwitz, Treblinka and other concentration camps.

No doubt that nationalism, in its capacity to unite previously disparate people, did play an important role in anti-colonial struggles and in liberating people from the yoke of subjugation. Through the idea of nationalism that people like Mahatma Ghandi, Jose Rizal, Chandra Subhas Bose, Ahmad Boestamam, Burhanuddin al-Helmy, Ishak Haji Muhammad, Soekarno, Hatta, Ho Chi Minh (Nguyen Ai Quoc and dozens of his other nom de guerre), Kwame Nkrumah, Nelson Mandela, Patrice Lumumba, Ahmed Ben Bella and other anti-colonial leaders were able to form united, encompassing and sustainable movements to withstand against and prevail over the Western imperial juggernauts. However, nationalism should not be the end in itself; it should be used as a springboard to a much greater purpose: the respect for all humankind and that all is equal, irregardless of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender or sexual persuasion (am I missing anyone here?).

Anyway, there are plenty of academic books out there that deal specifically with the topic of nationalism, especially the ones that attempt to deconstruct the idea through the post-modern/post-structural theoretical framework. Chiefly among these academic works is the highly illuminating book "Imagined Communities" by Benedict Anderson. If I have an all-time favorite books list, this book has to be on it. Here's a quote from Ben Anderson: "Only face-to-face contact can sustain community: nations are in some sense an illusion." Or to put it in a more grotesque medical context, here's a quote from Albert Einstein: "Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."

The "Nee" and "Non" aftermath

Both the French and Dutch voters soundly rejected the European Constitution this past week. France voted "Non" by the margin of 55 to 45 percent, while the Netherlands overwhelmingly voted "Nee" in a 62-38 percent landslide. Both referendums had relatively high turnout of over 70 percent.

I'm, of course, a little disappointed by this drastic turn of events but as the French would say, "c'est a vie." It seems for now that the European constitutional project has suffered a catastrophic setback since the Constitutional Treaty has to be unanimously ratified by all 25 member states. The fact that it was rejected by two of the six original members of the EU adds insult to injury.

What explains this obstinate opposition to a deeper regional integration? Some of the reasons are well-worn such as fear of erosion of the generous social welfare system, fear of the influx of cheap labor from the East, fear of the Muslim barbarians flooding the West (tied to the possible accession of Turkey into the EU), and fear of unchecked capitalism. What do all these reasons boil down to? FEAR and fear-mongering by the opposition to this regional project.

These are the same excuses being ferreted out every time Europe faces a new challenge. A mere cursory look at the history of the EU from the signing of the 1952 Paris Treaty to the 2001 Nice Treaty has witnessed the employment of the same old tired counter-arguments. Every time, these fears were laid to rest and were proven to be unfounded.

In both countries, an unholy alliance exists between the far-left and far-right groups. In France, the Communists and some of the Socialists (led by former French PM, Laurent Fabius) formed a strange bedfellowship with the far-right groups led by the likes of the fascist Nazi sympathizer and failed Presidential candidate, Jean-Marie Le Pen of the National Front. I saw Monsieur Fabius on PBS a few months ago explaining his opposition to the Constitutional Treaty; while I do agree with him ideologically, but for the sake of pragmatism, it's akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water. I share his contention that the Constitution is not as far-reaching as he would have hoped for, but to derail the whole project in the name of preserving ideological purity is simply irrational and counter-productive for Europe as a whole. Not much can be said of the ultra-nationalists on the far-right other than the defense of their cultural purity from the corrupting influence of diversity and cosmopolitanism takes center stage, however narrow they define it and how often it's used as a thin cover for all sorts of bigotry--namely, preserving the European "Christian tradition" and keeping the Muslim hordes at bay.

On the bright side, there are already "big thinking" chatters among the editorial pages and the "cheerleaders" of Europe, that is, to use this political setback as an opportunity to revamp the Constitutional Treaty into a much simpler, more significant, idealistic, people-oriented document. It'd do one of the founding fathers of the EU, Jean Monnet, proud if this perceived disaster can be turned into an opportune moment for an even deeper integration in Europe--Monnet was well-known for his diplomatic dexterity in converting disaster into success. Perhaps a person of Monnet's caliber will rise up from the ashes of the failed Constitution and will again propel the EU forward. Will the real Monnet please stand up?

Poochie wins...

The Blairs (Tony and Cherie) in post-election victory. Yep, four more years for the New Labour but your days in 10 Downing Street are numbered, Poochie!

Potpourri, Smogarsbord, Mish-Mash...whatever!

I haven't been really diligent in updating my blog lately. Rest assured that in two weeks I'll be writing at a regular pace again but as of now, I do wish that there are more than just 24 hours in a day. Anyway, out of the guilt for not being up-to-date with the blog, I just want to include some of the current events news I've been reading today.

1. The Brits have their election today. No surprise that Labour will win convincingly but most likely its majority in the House of Commons will be sizably reduced, though some sanguinely predict that it will still hold a triple-digit margin (ranging from 90 to 110.) Also, majority of people being polled said that they wanted Blair to step down after two years and be replaced by less flamboyant Gordon Brown, the current Chancellor of Exchequer aka Minister of Finance. Hear that, Poochie?

2. Diesel and petrol prices in Malaysia go up again. RM1.52 per litre for premium petrol--ouch! Another reason to lower the LRT and Monorail fares.

3. Only the small fishes get caught in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal--yes, the same white trailer-trash folks--Pfcs Lynddie England and Charles Graner--with sadistic complex you see in the infamous pics. Rummy and Wolfie for war crimes tribunal, anyone?

4. Rev. Pat Robertson called the "liberal judges," or so-called "activist judges" the greatest threat to America, even worse than the Nazi and "few bearded men who flew planes into the building." Mind you that this is on the national TV in an interview with George Stephenopolous on ABC. Pat, you crazy old coot, you!

5. Just another round of news about ethically-challenged Tom DeLay and his double-dealing lobbyist buddy Jack Abramoff--I read somewhere that presently, DeLay's name recognition among the American public is at 70 percent since his repugnant foray into the whole Schiavo controversy. Not since Gingrich back in 1994 has any relatively obscure Republican Congressman gets this much attention. Any bad publicity about DeLay's exploits is always welcomed. "The Hammer" (DeLay's nickname in Congress), you're about to get smashed!

6. A Pentagon analyst is charged with divulging national secrets to two employees of a pro-Israel organization. Well, it's AIPAC. American Zionists within the government ranks sharing secrets with pro-Israel groups...what else is new? Gosh, this is so stale! Everybody knows the Pentagon, NSA, CIA, State Dept. are mere extension of the Israel Embassy here in the US.

7. Finally, banned books in Malaysia in April 20th! C'mon now. The last time I checked this is not the Middle Ages. I know this is not really a current news by regular standard but I just have to register my indignation here. What's even more absurd, Karen Armstrong's book "History of God" is on the list even though the book has been sold in Malaysia for the past ten years! Democracy, my ass! By the way, I do have a copy of the Karen Armstrong's book and also a copy of Salman Rushdie's "Satanic Verses," which is not that great, I might add. What's next? Harry Potter? Nancy Drew? Hardy Boys? Jalil, Gopal & Ah Meng? Bujal?

Truth is the greatest enemy of the State

Nothing especially special about this post other than it has something to do with PROPAGANDA. No, I'm not going to delve deep into the very definition of "propaganda"; I just thought it'd be interesting to post some of the propaganda posters in the 20th Century.

By the way, here's the Wikipedia definition of "propaganda": Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation aimed at serving an agenda. At its root, the denotation of propaganda is 'to propagate (actively spread) a philosophy or point of view'. The most common use of the term (historically) is in political contexts; in particular to refer to certain efforts sponsored by governments or political groups.

Also, I kind of like the anti-Nazi poster about Joseph Goebbels. As a perfect specimen of the Aryan race, Joseph Goebbels stood at a towering five feet tall with a congenital defect that gave him a limp. To those who don't know who Goebbels is, he's the Nazi Germany master propagandist, appointed by Hitler to be the Third Reich's Minister of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment. The title of this post is a quote attributed to Goebbels, as a clear testament of his contempt for an enlightened masses.

Finally, let history be set that it was V.I. Lenin who made long-flowing trench coat en vogue, long before Neo of The Matrix made it tres cool, or the Columbine school shooters, for that matter. Who would have thought Lenin was the original "The One"? Well, obviously the millions of people who used to live behind the Iron Curtain. By the way, the Cyrillic words on the poster say, "Lenin lived, Lenin lives, and Lenin will live." At least in Russia, with Lenin's statues seem to be the most popular form of outdoor art--and his enbalmed body in the mausoleum--it's as if Uncle Vladimir have never left.

The rise of the Islamo-fascism?

To be honest, I hate the word "Islamo-fascism," in no small part due to its much-maligned and abused status. It seems like the term du jour to use to define political Islam in a simple and neat package.

The balance of global power has shifted significantly in this post-Cold War period as the US becomes the last standing superpower amidst the rubble and ashes of old Soviet Union. A new enemy has to be found, the much-hated "Other" has to be invented; hence, the term "Islamo-fascism" is born.

The threat of a highly politicized Muslim ummah to the Western civilization is nothing new; Samuel Huntington has been hyping this threat for years with his book "The Clash of Civilizations," and leading Western Orientalists like Bernard Lewis, Ernest Renan and others, have been propounding the same "exotic Other," "us-vs-them" cockamamies for decades--read the late Edward Said's seminal book "Orientalism" for a more thorough and trenchant analysis of the Western perception of the East.

It all finally culminated in the 9/11 attacks and a new enemy of the "much-enlightened" Western civilization is officially born. I remember the leftist turncoat, Christopher Hitchens, used the term "Islamo-fascism" repeatedly in his defense of the US decisions to invade Afghanistan and later Iraq, and also in his spirited arguments with Noam Chomsky in the pages of The Nation magazine.

The so-called religious elites in Muslim countries are just as bad as their purported nemesis. They are trying to impose a strict, narrow and myopic religious codes in such fashion that it lends total credence to the term "Islamo-fascism." What a way to make your enemy feels validated!

Anyway, I'll put Farish Noor's article in MalaysiaKini about Islamo-fascism in my next posting. Dr. Farish, as usual, makes a compelling and cogent argument about the pressing needs for moderation, tolerance, and transcendental values within the Muslim ummah.

Other pics of Yulia

Damn those Ukrainians

As if being a fledgling new democracy is not enough, now, the recently emancipated people of Ukraine gets to have the most gorgeous Prime Minister in the world, hands-down. I am totally green with envy right now. Well, traditionally, the role of a Ukrainian PM is titular but I'm sure that will change when Yulia Tymoshenko takes over the office, possibly rivaling the powerful nature of the role of the PM in France. Rest assured that the new President, Viktor Yuschenko, is still the most powerful politician in Ukraine but Yulia is definitely the most popular (and the most good-looking too.)

Anyone that knows a senior minister of any country in the world that rivals the beauty of Yulia Tymoshenko please indulge me at once. No, Claire Short of the UK is not cute, and neither does Condi Rice, the US's new Secretary of State, or Chandrika Kumaratunga of Sri Lanka. I think Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan is quite beautiful but she is out-of-power now and living in exile in London.

Anyway, I've been reading about Yulia for the past few years now since the day I was so awe-struck by a picture of her in the NY Times back in 2001 after she was released from prison-- a stunningly beautiful female politician does exist! Also, there was this Ukrainian woman that used to work as a part-time bookkeeper in my old office and it was kind of cool engaging her in talks about Ukrainian affairs, especially when she hasn't been back there in ages.

The Times at the time did a large piece on the opposition political forces in the Ukraine that were up against the iron-fisted rule of Leonid Kuchma. Yulia was this fiery, feisty, almost demagogic opposition leader, who broke away from the ruling coalition in the Parliament and formed her own political bloc.

I still cannot imagine this sweet and innocent-looking 44-year old mother of one standing up on the podium giving grandiloquent fire-and-brimstone speeches about the Ukrainian rotten state of affairs.

Yulia, you can talk my ears off any time, babe! Especially when my Russian vocabulary only comprises of three words: Da (Yes), Nyet (No), and Dosvidaniya (Good-bye).

Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité

The powerful refrain from the 1789 French Revolution echoed in my mind--Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood--as I walked across campus in the frigid sub-zero day searching for any signs of life (or any unlocked building, so I can warm myself up.) I didn't know how the deceptively simple yet beautifully profound revolutionary slogan--and also the national motto for the French Republic, and a zillion times more inspirational than Malaysia's "Bersekutu Bertambah Mutu"--crept into my head since I was cussing profusely under my visibly cold breath at all the locked buildings on campus while looking for a warm place to temporarily defrost. Anyway, I wonder who came up with this slapdash, utterly unimaginative Malaysian cogankata, or even the national anthem for that matter? The only reason why I remember the Malaysian motto so vividly is because I always associate it with the notorious blood-sucking insect, kutu, or head lice as you Westerners might call it.

It suddenly dawned on me that today is Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day; hence, a public holiday. I felt so stupid for being unreasonably mad and I was also angry at myself for going out of the house in the blistering cold for nothing. I knew that today is Dr. King's day but that fact somehow eluded me when I got out of the bed this morning. What does this has to do with the French Revolution? Not much, I guess, other than it is an apt metaphor for such an important day: In July 14, 1789, the French Revolution, precipitated by the storming of Bastille, toppled the long-entrenched ancien régime of the powerful clerics and nobles; in 1964 and 1965, due to long and tireless efforts by Dr. King and other civil rights revolutionaries before him, the US Congress finally passed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act respectively that radically changed the socio-political landscape of America.

Well, realizing that there wasn't anything much I can do around campus, I decided to hop on the bus and swing by Rochambo for some coffee and crosswords. Finally, in honor of Dr. King's day, I'd like to include some excerpts from his various speeches and letter.

Excerpt from the "I Have A Dream" speech (Aug 28, 1963: Washington, DC)

"This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring." And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania! Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado! Let freedom ring from the curvaceous peaks of California! But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia! Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee! Let freedom ring from every hill and every molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

Excerpts from his various letters:

"Democracy is the greatest form of government to my mind that man has ever conceived, but the weakness is that we have never touched it. Isn't it true that we have often taken necessities from the masses to give luxuries to the classes? Isn't it true that we have often in our democracy trampled over individuals and races with the iron feet of oppression? Isn't it true that through our Western powers we have perpetuated colonialism and imperialism?"

"There's another reason why you should love your enemies, and that is because hate distorts the personality of the hater. We usually think of what hate does for the individual hated or the individuals hated or the groups hated. But it is even more tragic, it is even more ruinous and injurious to the individual who hates. You just begin hating somebody, and you will begin to do irrational things. You can't see straight when you hate. You can't walk straight when you hate. You can't stand upright. Your vision is distorted."

And his other quotes that resonate the most with me:

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly."

"Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon. which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals."

"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

Damn you old man winter!

I'm feeling so tired and lethargic right now. It is convenient to blame it on the weather--who actually wants to get out of the bed and do something when the temperature outside is below freezing? Even when I'm at home I don't feel like doing anything other than sprawling out on the sofa watching TV and/or doing the daily crosswords puzzle. What makes it worse is that everytime I indulge in this loafing activities--watching TV and sleeping--I keep getting pestered by the constantly annoying guilty conscience (yeah, that tiny voice in your head) telling me there are still shitloads of schoolwork to do.

I do question myself if I'm making the right decision by going back to school, instead of working full-time. I was so gung-ho about going back to school and now, barely past midterm, I'm feeling so burned out and somehow missing the routine and mundane aspects of working life. When I was working full-time I missed the intellectual stimulation of academia, in which I currently enjoy immensely, but the life as a student doesn't stop once you leave the campus--the fact that escaped me before I went back to school. There are plenty of pages to read, papers to write, research to do, and to top it off, a part-time job that most students have to go to.

I still love the intellectual challenge that comes with being in school but the coerced nature of it--like exams, deadlines etc--seems to put a little damper in my enthusiasm. It's not that I'm doing bad in my classes--I'm actually doing quite well and is in position to get straight As this semester. It's just that I feel the focus of learning is shifted from attainment of knowledge to getting good grades in class.

I do talk about this issue with my professors and they assure me that gaining knowledge in class is not exclusive of getting good grades. If you enjoy your course readings and participate actively in class--basically immersing yourself in the learning environment--you should be able to get good grades. I don't doubt this fact but can we all just have fun learning without the pressure of doing well in exams and writing brilliant term papers? I know some universities, like the Yale Law School, have abolished the letter-grading system and have substituted it with the Pass/Fail system. Now, wouldn't that be nice?

Anyway, one has to do what one has to do and I just have to deal with it for now. On the bright side, the grades do provide me with some sense of where I stand relative to the rest of the class. At the risk of sounding smug and boastful, I do have to admit that it feels good to score better than most of my classmates.

The olive and the gun

Yasser Arafat was officially declared dead today. Note the word "official" because nobody knows exactly when he died since his overbearingly bitchy wife Suha refused to release any info regarding his health status. I was never a fan of Arafat; I always thought of him as this corrupted and authoritarian leader of the people who had no other choice but to resign their collective fate to him. Most of my Palestinian friends hated Arafat and his despicable cronies and sycophants with all their guts--almost as much as they hate Ariel Sharon. I realize that this is really not a good eulogy for Arafat but then again, this is not an eulogy.

He might had started out brimming with revolutionary zeal dedicated towards liberating the Palestinians from the ghettoes of West Bank and the world's largest prison, the Gaza Strip; but, by 1990s, the nationalistic fervor that had been at the heart of the movement had all but fizzled out and Arafat seemed out-of-touch with his people and becoming all too complacent. It was as if he had all but given up and seemed content to simply exist.

It culminated in the raw deal--the 1996 Oslo Peace Accord--that he signed with Yitzhak Rabin in the White House's Rose Lawn while Clinton looking on adoringly. Poor Arafat! Keep trusting his American, Israeli and Arab "friends" and keep getting royally screwed over and over again. Despite all these character flaws, I still think the Palestinian people has lost a great leader that had somehow managed to push the issue of the Palestinian plight from the shadows of obscurity to the glowing light of the world stage--mainly through his penchant for shocking antics and constant publicity.

The title "The olive and the gun" refers to the Arafat's first speech at the UN in 1974. He walked into the gallery, all decked out in his green fatigue and the ubiquitous checkered keffiyeh, to give his speech while holding a gun's holster in one hand and an olive branch in the other. His memorable words were, "Please help me not to drop this olive branch I'm holding in my hand" or something close to it. May you rest in peace, Yasser. Innalillahi-wainna-ilaihirojiun.