You are currently browsing the monthly archive for February 2007.
The most interesting discussion this week to me would be the one revolving around the issue of race and racism. Living in a society where racial politics and polarization is institutionalized, I could never view race as anything less than a political and social construction. As a Malaysian, I always find it amusing to tick the box that spelled out Malay as my ethnicity in those formal forms. I wondered why I must reinforce my “Malay-ness” everyday. Isn’t it enough that my identification card spelled out my ethnicity and my brown skin and flat nose is a standard Malay feature? Each time, I tick off that box which says I am Malay, I felt myself consciously falling into the trap of racial polarization. Sometimes, I get cheeky and create another category under the “Others” category and scribble a big tick beside it. The category is “Malaysian only”.
Well, at least I have brown skin and flat nose. Look what happens here, when you don’t look the look. Sorry, Harith Iskandar and Paula Malai Ali, you guys are difficult to categorize. ;-)
Since the May 13 racial riot in Malaysia, the fear among the people to openly challenge racial polarization embedded in the national policies served to preserve the interest of a group of powerful wealthy minority. It is also a great strategy to maintain the status quo of the powers that be. Hence, we see the establishment of neo-divide and rule phenomena. Sadly, this time, it’s no longer an instrument of control of the colonizers but rather, a product of the present ruling party.
Regulating race relations in Malaysia is best described in this over-used sentence: “It is an offence to touch on sensitive issues related to race and religion which may disrupt national security and harmony”. Well, the good news is nobody insults or attacks anyone on regular basis, on the ground of race. The bad news is nobody actually says anything at all. It’s a subtle social conditioning which indoctrinates people into accepting their racial compartments and comfortably falls into the trap of racial polarity. In the event that any misunderstanding or conflict arises, it is dealt with polite escapism or quickly concealed by the State as a small hiccup that needs no serious attention. People after a while learned to suppress their anger, dissatisfaction or confusion in the face of racial conflict. But who knows how high are the piles of suppressed feelings being swept under the carpet. That is the horrifying part. Nobody knows.
As reiterated by the class we had on Race and Racism, the whole debacle about whether race is a biological or social construction would continue and evolve along with the progress of science and technology. What remains for us to deal with (rather urgently) is the impact that the idea of “race” has on our society. As much as academics try to dismantle the misconception that race is a concept associated to your genes, the growing feeling of threat and animosity towards others who are different from us are trumpeting deafening sound of racism in our heterogeneous society. The UNESCO 1950’s Statement on Race for example, amongst other, reaffirms “race” as a social concept and the international human rights framework seek to combat the effects of racial discrimination beyond any academic discourse on the meaning of “race”. As much as the concept has been a contentious subject in the academia world, States are nevertheless required to seek ways on addressing the social impact of racial discrimination prevalent in their society.
In the UK, the increase of immigration and asylum seekers give rise to various violent incidents. In 1993, the brutal death of Stephen Lawrence, an 18 year old Black British living in London allegedly at the hands of a gang of white youth raised national alarm and caused civil disturbances. The case also served as a catalyst which changed the legal landscape of race relations.
The case probed the need to re examine the role and function of police and justice system as public pressure mounted for the perpetrators to be charged and brought to justice. A public inquiry which is well known as the Stephen Lawrence Report suggested amongst other, that the police are institutionally racist and failed to serve competently in race-related incidents. As the result, the Race Relations Act was amended in 2000 to incorporate recommendations made by the Report especially in holding public authorities responsible for any direct or indirect victimization of any persons on the grounds of race. As much as this step is welcomed in the light of securing justice for victims of racial discrimination in the UK, racial discrimination remains a social tumour that needs to be remedied more effectively. The law may set a good example or present a healthy warning to the public on the punitive effect of being “racist”. But it does not really touch base with the root causes entrenched in the society which triggers racial discrimination. The UK Government and civil society have a bigger task at helping the society to erase their own prejudicial mindset and difficulties in embracing diversity in the light of the growing number of migrants and asylum seekers entering their country. The Government too, has to review its policy and law related to terrorism and asylum seekers in order to give some “teeth” to the Race Relations Act. Human Rights groups have voiced their concern over UK’s draconian terrorism law and strict regulations for asylum seekers. As such, the government should not overlook the fact that the three pieces of law which deal with the so-called “the others” carry similar task if not in the same context. In preventing non-discrimination and promoting equality for all, there is no excuse for the government to advocate for the eradication of racism in one hand, whilst at the same time, acting on grounds of suspicion and pre-emptive judgment in handling asylum seekers, refugees and immigration. It will only defeat the whole attempt of curbing institutional racism in the UK! Stephen Lawrence’s mother remembered well one thing about her son. She said “He sees people as people”. Well, isn’t that the best way to approach race relations?
I skipped my thoughts onLondon for MANY reasons. I meant to talk about it at the end of the course, to sum up my experience and final thoughts altogether. Hence, I shared the lessons I learned from the weeks after the London trip in this amateur attempt of looking at the potential of regulating the watchdogs in Malaysia. A tribute to this week’s lessons theme.
REGULATING THE WATCHDOGS? My friend, PH who just came back from a Conference in Bangkok months ago confided in me before I came for this course, on how upset she was when the NGOs she met during the Conference slammed the National Human Rights Commissions in Asia from various perspectives. I told her;“Take it easy, we are always answerable to them and the people, so what’s new?”“Sure, and who are they answerable to?” I could invent 1001 comforting excuses for my dear colleague but she just made an important query that left me wondering, “Who are these NGOs answerable to? Their funders? Their target beneficiaries? These questions are not meant to get back at the civil society that has been watching every step that the government made and OUR steps, too, being the creature of Parliament. But is the question of accountability and transparency reserved only for the State and its apparatus? Are NGOs, the watchdogs of the government, free from corruption, unjust practices or any form of misuse of power or abuse of public confidence? I could swear the moment I throw these sorts of questions to my fellow friends in the civil society, they would immediately conclude that I had lost my mind or was brain washed into thinking about regulating the NGOs.
REGULATION: A HISTORY OF SUPPRESSIONWell,it is unthinkable. But not without any apparent reasons. Fear and reluctance of being regulated among the NGOs are not merely impromptu instincts or a display of defensive ego. It is deeply rooted in lost of trust, collapse of confidence and ever growing suspicion that has been marring the relationship between the State and civil society for decades. In
Malaysia, regulation associated to right to association or assembly has evolved as an instrument of control that stifled the voice of dissent in the society. In the 70s, the student movement, renowned during that era for their radical voice and action in resisting unjust State policies were dismantled by the government with the enforcement of Universities and College Universities Act 1974. Even before that, Internal Security Act 1960, an act enacted to prevent Communist insurgency outlived its objective when it is also used to detain social and political activists in the country. In the contemporary era, I remember how the act was affectionately refer to as a counterpart of U.S‘s Patriot Act post 9/11 tragedy. Dear god, of all things. Many of the senior activists in
Malaysia could also still recall the Lalang Operation, a national level state operation in 1987 where mass arrest of opposition politicians, activists, journalists and human rights advocates was conducted in the name of national security and peace. Historically, state regulation, to the civil society, symbolizes state control, draconian laws and wide arbitrary power. It is difficult then, in such “tradition” to be optimistic about any attempts at regulating civil society. It could only spell “trouble” with capital T. But the question of regulating civil society must be attended to as an urgent agenda. And the agenda itself must be inherently rooted in the basic principles of accountability and transparency. Yes, regulation of civil society must never attempt to infringe on the people’s human right to association especially for the public good but at the same time, it must also ensure that the civil society is accountable and transparent in the course of their work.
ET TU, NGOS?Many stories either substantiated or sans evidence, were spread about how NGOs can also be “fallen angels”. Complaints on misuse of funds, improper accounts, corruption or the trend of joining NGOs as a stepping stone to achieve better salaries and elite lifestyle are there on the table. Even though not all NGOs are involved, it actually demonstrate the very fact that NGOs are not immune from wrong doings and just as imperfect as a government‘s ministry or human rights institution and deserve some kind of regulation. A close friend told me excitedly how she got an offer to work in a regional NGO. “The pay is good, gee, and I get to go to Geneva annually!” I waited for her to say something like “I really want this opportunity to work with people in the slums” but of course who am I kidding? Is it her fault that she approaches her job with a human rights organization just as she will approach a corporate portfolio? Or is that the kind of image and culture that the NGOs are giving to the public? This scenario obviously give rise to the question of NGOs reputation and also credibility. I am not sure how regulation might improve this situation. But this scenario to me reflects that NGOs are a bunch of ordinary human beings doing a great job for human kind but not without human flaws. Hence, they should not get so worked up upon the idea of holding them accountable via regulation.
NICE .vs. TROUBLEMAKERSOne aspect of regulating NGOs that was discussed this week was registration of NGOs. The formal act of registering NGOs should also be seen as recognition of their work in the society and not an attempt of spying the organization or putting them on a legal leash. I foresee the government opening their arms to recognizing the work of cultural, sports, women, children or artistic organizations. But the willingness perhaps will not be just as great if they have to open the doors to civil and political rights advocate groups. To them, these groups are always the troublemakers and rebellious ones. Well, if that will be the case, I am afraid we will be back at square one. Unless and until the government could reconcile their indifference with these groups and try to seek a middle ground, any attempt at regulation could just aggravate the hostility that the present government and civil society is experiencing in their relationship. In fact, groups approved by the government would be seen as the “nice” organizations whereas the groups government is finding hard to recognize would forever be the social pariahs and troublemakers. It’s a tough decision for both sides. One that if not approached with honesty and integrity, would be recorded in history as another sad case of law that lacks conscience and consideration of democracy and human rights.To gain civil society’s trust, government must be ready to LISTEN and prepare to do some system cleansing wherever necessary. An effort to regulate civil society must also be viewed by the government as an opportunity to reform its laws and policies related to freedom of association.
TO-DO LIST
- Must not sit on the research to review Societies Act inMalaysia. There are a lot of great materials gathered throughout this week.
- Must check out on the Youth Organizations Act 2006 duly enforced this year.
- Must discuss with Commission on the possibility of organizing a workshop exploring NGOs view on the most effective framework to regulate civil society in contrast with the existing law.
The only person in my family that had voiced his pride in my political and social activism has left this world last week.
Tok Ayah as my grandfather was affectionately known passed away on Friday night, leaving me in an unresolved grief and unspoken guilt. Throughout my life, I only get to meet him thrice of which two out of the three meetings were during my honeymoon and when he was in
Kuala Lumpur last year for his medical treatment. Due to a family feud that spawned for more than a decade, I never get to understand and knew this one guy that had influenced my characters in many ways.
A long time freedom fighter from Sumatera;A persistent politician;A walking arcade of the country’s history;A loving grandfather; My guilt derived from the fact that I promised him something. And it remains a promise until now. When I went through his black and white pictures at his home in 2005, and saw how every single picture creates a beautiful gallery of a man’s courageous journey, I told him this, “I would love to write your story one day, from the point of view of a grandchild that just knew who her grandfather is,” Sadly, I never made the trip up north again. I never get to do all the interviews I wish to do. I never did. And because of that, I grieved more. After I met him, I am more at peace with who I am. I guess when you identify your roots; it affects your present outlook on life greatly. It sort of explains who you are, why you are somehow… the person you are.
At least I knew all this before he left us. At least I knew that I can still grief for him despite the awkward reunion we had one and a half years ago. At least I know I can still love him and remember him as a great influence to who I am today. At least I know. And I forgive myself and my parents for the terrible past which separated us for almost 21 years. And because of that, letting go feels liberating. Al-fatihah.
Post 9/11 witnesses a global struggle among the Muslims worldwide to resist the label of terrorist wantonly associated to their faith. Amidst campaign 
against terrorism waged by warmongers that need no further introduction, a handful of Muslims seek to confront this new uprising of hate within and against Islam by reinventing the Islamic outlook on various political and cultural concerns. Going by the names of Farid Esack, Farish A. Noor (Both of which I had met and talked to), Khaled Abou El Fadl and Ebrahim Moosa, these names are known for their frank views and calls for reform of Islamic values and interpretations not only in their respective countries but also at the international level. Far from trying to be apologists for the so-called rise of fundamentalism or radicalism among the “ummah”, these progressive Muslims try a much more difficult but crucial path. They courageously speak up on issues such as gender justice, democracy and feminism and highlight the debates in progressive Islamic thought related to these key areas. Some of them are controversial in their action but Islam, being a religion widely interpreted and practised around the world, requires Muslim to be analytical and open their mind to 1001 of possibilities and changes that is taking place in the global setting including progressive attempts at initiating discourse within the Islamic sphere. There is no Muslim community surviving in the world today that is homogenous in nature and detached from the social reality today. Hence, the scholars that contributed their essays for this book are doing just that. They are proposing and in fact advocating for a more socially relevant Islam. Many would ponder and say “But isn’t Islam is just that? A religion that defends the marginalized and a religion that emphasis on social justice?” Apparently, it is not that easy, nowadays. The aftermath of 9/11 and the rising critique of Islam encouraging radicalization, create a complex obstacle that diverts the world’s attention from how Islam is a religion of peace to Islam as a subculture of violence and hatred. We may not agree with all that’s been poured into this compilation of interesting articles. But any questions, doubts and objections we may have towards any of the essays may open more doors to constructive dialogues on “If this is not true or unacceptable, than what is? What should we do next?” Sometimes, the most contradictory view that provoke the ideas or thoughts that we conform to, could wake us up from our slumber of complacency. That could help the “Ummah” more than just slamming close our minds and hearts to new arguments or ideas just because it does not coincide with how we think or feel. I recommend this book for those who want to be challenged or maybe, need to be challenged?
These two weeks have been tremendously tiring but nevertheless interesting and challenging for me. Part of it was about seeing democracy in action, whereas the other half was on learning and understanding the political structure of UK’s decision and policy makers and examine closely how the structure and the civil society may influence each other in the course of their work. Not easy, I must say. So, this is the first part of that ie. Edinburgh and the second part would be on
London.Our fourth week was dedicated to
Edinburgh. We visited the Scottish Parliament, a result of the
Scotland’s devolution from the Westminster Parliament. I digged these interesting papers for your read, here and here. The Parliament building is trendy with modern stylish structure but the most important aspect of the building is that it is very accessible-in terms of physical structure and concept. We went in to see the Petition Committee in sitting, where MSP/MPs devoted their time to listen and address petitions brought forth by the members of the public. Any kind of issues-roads, euthanasia, listed castles….well, we get to hear a handful of issues. Apparently, the Parliament is also made up of several Committees supervising various concerns- development, agriculture, human rights, law and many more. The good thing is that rather than being a two dimensional structure, made alive by the parliamentary debates only, the Parliament also seeks to make it relevant to the causes and problems of the people. It may also reduces bureaucracy that public might have to confront with government bodies. Another interesting feature of the Parliament is how it also promotes political education and awareness for the mass via campaigns and public activities. One example is the Festival of Politics which garnered wide interest not only from the people and political parties but also celebrities. Mainstreaming citizen politics could never be this refreshing if you ask me!After attending the Petition Committee’s session, we also get to see
Scotland’s First Minister (equivalent to a Prime Minister) in action in the Parliament, answering questions left and right from the other MSPs. Again, it was a demonstration of professionalism and wit. We stayed to the end before we are privileged to have the opportunity to meet the First Minister in person. A visit to the Scottish Council of Voluntary Organisations (SCVO) was another interesting feature of the trip. An umbrella body that comprise of 25,000 voluntary organisations, SCVO is perhaps a very simple concept but with complicated task to undertake. We were briefed on several crucial issues that SCVO dealt with such as networking, funding, international cooperation and the works. Being an informal structure as opposed to a Scottish Voluntary Organisations Regulator, for instance, SCVO has to not only become accessible to local VOs in terms of network and membership but also be able to accommodate arising issues or communicate effectively with VOs in order to sustain its relevance and functions. Well, that’s how I see it, anyway. The challenge with setting up an umbrella structure is to me, about how the structure could create a level field for all organisations to access, cooperate or carry out their missions in the best interest of the society with the support of the umbrella structure and not so much about the personal gain either for the organisation or the umbrella structure. I know, I am finding it complicated too.Anyway, next week is
LONDON! (The Clash’s London Calling at the back playing real loud). Excitement Number 1:
London, you guys, enough said! Excitement Number 2: Getting to know other fellows- keyword: networking. Excitement Number 3:
Camden
Town! I can do body piercing! ops did I say that outloud? Oh, of course there’s excitement number four and the premiere of all excitements: The Westminster! Let’s see how well London goes next week…P/S- A note to Manic Street Preachers- could you please, please play your gig in April and not May???????
Week three is so far the most interesting week compared to the previous ones. This week, the fellows were exposed to community development and planning by civil society in Glasgow. We were brought to Easterhouse, an area in Glasgow which is supposed to be socially and economically deprived. In Easterhouse, we visited the Citizens Advice Bureau in that area. The main task of the bureau is to advice community on civil matters. The bureau is run by a small number of staffs and volunteers from the community itself. The bureau also runs trainings for the volunteers, though I also wish they could do some public outreach and education programme on various issues that affect the community. Perhaps, the limited number of manpower and lack of resource (as many NGOs faced) have also limited their course of work. Despite that, their digital data system is very impressive and act as the bureau and also the community‘s source of reference on diverse categories of issues. Check out this website for further information on Scotland’s Citizen Advice Bureau.
Later in the week, we visited Dumfries, a rural area bordering England in the south of Glasgow, where we underwent group work with students from Glasgow’s Community Development faculty and the students from Dumfries’s Crichton Campus. We did a research exercise which required us to asses the local community’s views on themes of our choice. It was a nice coincidence that me and Nadiah, the fellow from Sudan were assigned to conduct the assessment in the Crichton Campus‘s area. We formed a group of five people where two were from Dumfries and one from Glasgow. Apparently, a public protest was held by the students of the campus against the decision to close the Glasgow University. Check out the news here. We chose this particular issue as the topic of our research. We observed the rally closely, interviewed the protesters and also university staffs that we encountered. Being an outsider, its easier for me to sympathize with the cause of the students and university staffs. However, during debriefing session, it was also revealed that the group lobbying for the university branch to stay did not identify the more strategic parties responsible for the decision. This was reiterated by Kate in our class. Perhaps, then the next question would be; can they addressed the issue successfully if they are not aware of the important parties that they should influence in the course of their lobbying? This and a lot more of other experiences I get while chatting with the locals demonstrate an important point to me; people sometimes are not apathetic. Can they afford to be so if they have crucial issues that scream for attention or solution? Hence, sometimes, people just don’t know where or how to channel their voice. Maybe, in
Glasgow, a lot of the community planning efforts have put up a framework for community involvement or consultation, but it is either the public is a)-unaware, b)-cynical about these efforts especially if it is by the local authorities, or c)-couldn’t be bothered. But in
Malaysia, efforts to involve community in policy making or development programmes are yet to see the light of the day. Sad to say, even if there are such attempts, it was easily dismissed as an act of tokenism. Difficult, don’t you think so? Well, nobody say being government of the day is going to be an easy task!
Well, all I can say is that be it a third world or developed country, community planning does give rise to few common problems and perhaps we need just the same kind of strategies to address it? Well for example, there are many reasons that cause poverty and yet there is only one kind of poverty. The kind that need immediate and effective attention and strategies from all of us!
