Our Three Merdeka Challenges

On the 15th September 2009, I was invited to give a talk on the formation of Malaysia in 1963. Other speakers who were invited were Ansari Abdullah, a prominent lawyer and PKR supremo, Datuk Kalakau Untol, the President of USDA (United Sabah Dusun Association), former member of the Dewan Negara, Datuk Karim Ghani , former PBS Supreme Council Member and human rights activist, Dr. Chong Eng Leong, and MD Mutalib, a writer who is known for his works on illegal immigrants in Sabah. Here's the English translation of my speech. Comments are welcome.

**********

First of all, I would like to thank the committee of this merdeka celebration for inviting me to give a talk. It is indeed an honour for me to share my thoughts on the meaning of merdeka particularly on the significance of the formation of Malaysia in 1963. But before I continue, let me be honest with you all that I do not intend to re-interpret the history regarding the formation of Malaysia in 1963. I think everyone of us here knows the significance of the event that led to the formation of our country we call Malaysia. But here’s what I want to share with you today: I want to share with you the three main challenges that we as Malaysians will face as we move forward to realise our dream of becoming a developed nation by the year 2020. I think our merdeka celebration will be meaningful if we mobilise our efforts in overcoming these challenges. The meaning of merdeka for me is not just about freeing ourselves from the yolk of colonisation or being empowered to decide what is best for our country; merdeka for me is more than that: it is about realising the challenges that are real to our nation and focusing our struggle on findings ways and means to overcome those challenges. Let me warn you that Malaysia as a nation is doomed to fail if these challenges are not addressed.

The first challenge that we will be confronted with is how to maintain the inter-racial and inter-religious harmony in our country. To me merdeka means nothing if we are still unable to live in peace and harmony despite our racial and religious differences. The key to achieve this is tolerance. Tolerance means “the willingness to accept other people’s behaviour and beliefs, although one might not agree with or approve of them”. The recent controversy over the relocation of a Hindu temple in Selangor shows that the message of tolerance is still not widespread among some segments of society. To make matters worse, some politicians show no sensitivity over the issue. To say that a cow’s head symbolises the stupidity of the Selangor Government, in itself, is an act of stupidity of the highest order. Don’t these people realise that a cow is considered sacred by the Hindus? I still remember that when I was in secondary school, I learnt how to be tolerant to my Muslim friends. My room was located next to a surau. When the azan prayer was performed, I was the first person to wake up. At first, it really annoyed me and I didn’t know how to complain. But living in a multi-racial and multi-religious country, I taught myself to be tolerant. And I was able to tolerate the azan prayer for years until I left boarding school. A couple of years ago, I went to Sibu to do a field research. I had a chance to visit the Sibu night market. What I saw in the market was really interesting: a Muslim woman selling her kuih-muih next to a Chinese who was selling pork meat. Just several days ago, I visited one of the prominent Muslim political figures in Sabah. What surprised me was that he asked his wife to prepare coffee and biscuits for me! When the wife came, she “accidently” offered a drink to her husband. And her husband cheekily said, “kau tidak taukah kita puasa?” The wife responded, “oh…ya…kan, lupa pula, nilah orang tua”.

We are fortunate that in Sabah the different ethnic groups are able to live peacefully and harmoniously. We should maintain this reciprocity among races and avoid making any attempts that could cause racial and religious conflicts. As long as the 1Malaysia expression in Sabah is intact, I can foresee that Sabah will remain a model for inter-racial and inter-religious harmony in Malaysia. But we may not be able to achieve this if the present political culture remains. This brings me to my next point.

The second challenge is our readiness to move from communal politics to a multi-racial one. Let me explain to you what I mean by communal politics using a very simple illustration. So many people in Sabah are quite critical of UMNO. They say that UMNO is a Malay party and should not meddle, for instance, in the affairs of the Kadazan, Dusun, or Bajau people. But if UMNO is sincere in fighting for the well-being of the indigenous people, I think, it is fairly justified for the party to spread its wings in Sabah. It is good to see that more and more Kadazan, Dusun, and Bajau leaders are now in UMNO. This means that they want to use a powerful party like UMNO to help develop their respective communities. Whether they are successful or not is for the people to judge. The point that I want to make is we can use any party as our platform to pursue our struggle provided we are sincere and honest. But sadly not many politicians nowadays are willing to set aside their personal agenda and be honest and sincere in their struggles. The calls to put the people first is indeed laudable but let us be honest and look around us: how many politicians out there are really serious in putting the people above anything else?

I hope to see a Malay leader, for example, that understands the plights of the Kadazan and Dusun people and is ready to fight for them. In the same way, I hope to see a Kadazan or Dusun leader that fights for the Bajau and Murut people; and a Christian wakil rakyat that sincerely represents his or her predominantly Muslim constituency in parliament. If there is one party that can serve Malaysians well, in my humble opinion, it should be a party that fights for the rights of all ethnic communities in Malaysia. We have seen the struggle of some of the great leaders in our country such as the late Syed Hussien Alatas who co-founded the Malaysian People’s Movement. Alatas was committed in forming a political party that catered for the needs of all ethnic groups and one that cared for social justice and equality among races. Even though he is no longer with us, his ideas on multi-racial politics live on. We should also not forget the struggle of the founding members of Malaysia for their success in gathering people from all walks of life to agree on what our country should be like. Sadly, many of us today choose not to honour the foundation that our founding fathers had laid down for us. That is why, I think, it is critical for the younger generation to re-read and understand the historical background of the formation of Malaysia. When I say re-read, it means asking critical questions and demanding answers from the powers-that-be because they are the ones who normally distort historical facts.

Of course, it is difficult to “re-programme” our minds not to look exclusively for the interests of our own ethnic groups. But if we want to see a sustained racial and religious tolerance in Malaysia, we do not have any other CHOICE but to ABANDON our penchant of using race and religion to win political support.

The third challenge is to maintain racial and religious diversity in Malaysia. Malaysia’s strengths lies in its racial and religious diversity and nothing else. In order to do this, the government has to take several steps. First, efforts have to be made to ensure that all the ethnic groups are adequately represented in the civil service and related government agencies. If the government is serious in wanting to transform 1Malaysia into reality, it has to make sure that no ethnic groups are left out in the decision-making process of the country. The private sector has to follow suit. It has to make sure that employment opportunities are given to all irrespective of race and religion. Secondly, economic opportunities have to be based on healthy competition and not preferential treatment. The decision to abolish the 30 percent equity in foreign companies is laudable but it has to be extended in small medium industries and other direct dealings between the government and private individuals. The country’s economic development has to reflect the participation of various races.

I am not saying that the NEP or NDP is no longer relevant. It is relevant if it is meant for all indigenous groups in Malaysia including those in Sabah and Sarawak. Many of the Kadazan, Dusun, Murut and Iban people in the rural areas are still grappling with the issue of poverty. We cannot deny the fact that NEP/NDP has been successful in reducing poverty level among some segments of society, but there is evidence to suggest that the policy has created a widening economic gap between the so-called Bumiputeras in Sabah and Sarawak and the Malays in Peninsular Malaysia. Instead of focusing on inter-ethnic disparity vis-à-vis Chinese and Malays, the government has to turn its attention on the economic problem that occurs at the intra-ethnic level. The point that I am trying to make here is that it is time for the government to bring these policies to the people in the two East Malaysian states. Otherwise, NEP/NDP will continue to be branded as a tool to enrich certain politically well-connected individuals and an affirmative action policy that is specially designed for only one particular ethnic group.

The formation of Malaysia in 1963 was one of the greatest moments in our history. But the younger generation of Malaysians including some in the corridors of powers have forgotten the significance of the event. Our gathering today shows our seriousness in wanting to honour what our founding fathers had laid down for us. But by just remembering what they had done is not enough, we need to look at what lies ahead for Malaysia and mobilise our efforts in overcoming the challenges that we will be confronted with. We do not have any other alternative but to cease thinking that we are different from each other despite our cultural and religious uniqueness. As a young Malaysian who is keen on seeing peace and harmony are maintained in our country, I call on all of you today in this gathering to join me to reject all forms of racial and religious extremism, and the use of race and religion for political expediency. Thank you for listening and Selamat Menyambut Hari Malaysia.

**********

Dealing With Malaysia's Racial and Religious Diversity...Part 3

The decision by Syed Hamid Albar, the Minister of Home Affairs, to overrule the earlier gazette which allows the Christians to use the word Allah did not help calm the religious tension in Malaysia. As a result, more and more people in-the-street feel that the government is trying to hide something and that it seems to be influenced more by religious bigots in an otherwise secular Malaysia. But I am optimistic that the recent religious issue can be solved if right thinking Malaysians start to think beyond race and religion. This would involve several steps, some of which are as follows:

• let the Christians use of the word Allah. The earlier precedent must be used as a point of reference. There is no evidence to point the use of the word Allah as a means to confuse the Muslim community. However, it must be stated that the word Allah has its own theological and doctrinal underpinnings that are especially held by the Christian community regardless from which denominations they come from. The Christian leaders must convince Malaysians that their use of the word Allah is not meant to confuse anyone. I would suggest an open dialogue between the Christian and Muslim leaders (including those affected by the issue) to create better understanding among them. The dialogue should not be an avenue to determine who is right or wrong. It is a first step towards educating Malaysian that a civil, responsible and intellectual dialogue can be held in Malaysia.


• once the government allows the use of the word Allah, the Christian leaders must withdraw their suit against the government. This is to show that they are serious in maintaining inter-religious harmony in Malaysia. Bringing the case to the court will further antagonise the respective parties and this is not healthy to Malaysia in the long run.


• the government must consider establishing a National Religious Council (NRC) to advise the government on how to handle religious sensitivities. Its chairmanship must be rotated among leaders of the main religions in Malaysia. This council is to act as religious adviser to the government.

I believe a majority of Malaysians want to see peace and harmony are maintained. I hope to see more and more progressive Malaysians to come forward and support the country's religious freedom and at the same time "tame" the the movement to turn Malaysia into a theocratic state. Let us put a stop to the Allah issue and start concentrating on more important issues such as reviving the economy and developing the people's socio-economic well-being. I would like to end by appending a piece of writing by a Sabahan which I think knows pretty well how a petty issue such as the Allah issue will not do any good but harm to racial and religious harmony in Malaysia.

**********

Wrangling over a word

By: Amde Sidik

LET me share my experience on the current controversy over the use of the word "Allah".
I'm not arguing about the legality of it since the case is pending before the courts. I'm merely talking about people who I knew for a long time now - the Lundayeh from Sabah, and the Lunbawang from Sarawak. The two are actually of the same ethnicity, but called by two different names in these two different regions. I don't mention other ethnics here, which share the same predicament. The Lundayeh, aren't permitted to use word "Allah" in their prayer book because they are Christian.

This is going by the reason offered by the Home Minister, Datuk Syed Hamid Albar.
The Lundayeh comprise mostly followers of Sidang Injil Borneo (SIB), a relatively new group who professed Christianity due to the efforts of the Borneo Evangelical Mission (BEM).
Hudson Southwell pioneered the mission with his two friends from Melbourne, Australia, who landed in Kuching from Singapore in 1928. They met one of the Rajah Brookes and were given permission to establish this mission. Before Sabah's independence through the formation of Malaysia in 1963, Bahasa Malaysia was already widely spoken throughout Borneo island.
Thus, in mid 60s, BEM changed its name to Sidang Injil Borneo, shortly as SIB.

By the late 50s and early 60s, the religion quickly spread throughout the Brunei Bay region (South West of Borneo). It found its way into Sipitang district, Lawas and Limbang in Sarawak.
The Lundayeh preachers concentrated on their own ethnic group before heading to the interior of Sabah, especially Kota Marudu and Kudat. When I was a child, I used to hear my Lun Dayeh relatives joke about how unsure they were about their new religion, because prior to 1920s most of Borneo people who lived in the interior were animists, and Lundayeh were in the same category until the late 50s.

SIB preachers trained in various places in Sarawak and also in Kalimantan, Indonesia.
Once graduated, these preachers are called Gembala. Linguistically they are very fluent in Bahasa Indonesia. Hence, their Bible came to contain terms very similar to the Malay Muslims like, dosa, syurga, neraka, roh, kiamat, and so on. During my schooling days, especially living in boarding school in the 70s, many of my Lundayeh schoolmates, who were also my relatives and cousins, used to keep their prayer books under their pillows. It was written in Bahasa Indonesia, unlike the Quran, which is written in Arabic.

Hence, in their Bible is mentioned "Allah" in numerous accounts and many other similar terms.
The Kadayan have always been linked with Lundayeh, so too Murut Tagal, Kelabit in Sarawak, and Brunai (Malay Brunei's race). At one time, all except Brunai, were called Orang Darat or people of the interior. My grandfather was a Lun Dayeh adopted by a Kadayan family. He became Muslim, married my grandmother a Kadayan from Sarawak. In Sipitang district, the Lundayeh intermingled with the Kadayan and Brunais since time immemorial and lots of intermarriages have taken place over the centuries. So much so, one can hardly recognise, based on appearance and complexion, whether one is Muslim or not. Even the names sound very much Muslim, Yusuf, Aini, Musa, etc. The modern names of the Lundayeh very much sound Western, such as George, Hendricks, John, etc.

But their last names can be classical, like, Labo, Balang, Singa, Agong, Selutan, Pengiran, etc. My younger brother, a few of my first cousins and I too, have our own Lundayeh name.
Not long ago, if one went to Lawas, in Sarawak, one would find my Lunbawang relatives wearing songkok. Those unfamiliar with the place thought they were Muslim, but they were not.
But my question is, why is it that as time goes by religion becomes a sticking point to our harmony? Political leaders are so bogged down about it when 50 years ago, it was non-issue.
Many of the issues originate from the peninsula and not in Sabah or Sarawak and get blown out of proportion. We end up squabbling over issues which I consider a waste of time and energy when they should be spent on resolving the country's economic problems, unemployment, rising cost of consumer goods, bad roads, toll hike, illegal immigrants etc.

Source: Daily Express, March 15, 2009

**********

Dealing with Malaysia's Racial and Religious Diversity...Part 2

It was kind of surprising that the issue regarding the use of the word Allah was allowed to be discussed live on tv. I watched yesterday a discussion about the issue on TV1. The three panelists seemed agree with the view that the word Allah should not be allowed to be used by Christians. They argued that the Muslims have the exclusive right to use the word Allah based on "historical evidence" and the concept of "tauhid" (divinity) taught by the Islamic religion. They were also with the view that allowing the word to be used by Christians would cause confusion among Muslims in Malaysia. One of the panelists further noted that the word Allah is being used by the Catholic Church as part of its strategies to spread Christianity among the young segment of the Muslim community.

It is good that the government has finally relaxed its censorship on issues related to religion to be discussed live. But it is a bit disappointing that the yesterday's discussion did not involve "experts" from other religions such as Christianity and Sikh. It would have been more interesting to listen to their views why the Bahasa Malaysia speaking Christians prefer to use the word Allah and not Tuhan. An avenue must be given to them as well to explain the issue. The Christian Indonesians use the word Allah in their worship and interestingly some of them have different views about the divine nature of Jesus (as some Muslim cannot accept the idea that Jesus is God). Some Christians and Muslims in Indonesia appear to have developed a mutual understanding about who Jesus is and his divine nature (this group of Christians hold the view that Jesus is not God per se but the "word" that became flesh (human) that is Jesus himself). I recently watched a CD where a Christian reverend speaks about the "meeting point" between Christians and Muslims.

He says that instead of debating about who is right and wrong, he suggests that Christians and Muslims take a closer look at how the Prophet Muhammad thinks about Jesus and how the latter possibly thinks about the former. He starts by saying that actually Christians and Muslims share the same God (Allah). He refers to a verse in Genesis which points to the fact that Ishmael and Isaac were given the same teaching from their father Abraham (the father of all nations). The speakers asks his audience: how can it be possible for Abraham to give Ishmael and Isaac a different set of teaching? If Abraham taught his two sons that they were to worship only one God (Allah), is it not plausible to conclude that Muslim and Christians are in fact worshipping the same God (Allah)?

In Sabah, the bahasa Malaysia speaking Christians have never had any problem using the word Allah. Many of them use the Indonesian translation that uses the world Allah to refer to God. The issue became prominent when the Sabah SIB under the tutelage of NECF brought the case to the court. In the meantime, the government has allowed the Herald Bulletin to continue its publication in bahasa Malaysia without using the word Allah until the court decides otherwise. The implications of the Allah issue to Malaysia are enormous:

• if the court decides that Allah can only be used by the Muslims, would this mean that the Christian holy book--the Bible--would have to be re-translated and the word Allah changed? The Christians, I suspect, would consider this unfair as others cannot tell them what word they should use in calling their God


• if the court decides that the word Allah can be used by the Christians, the Muslim would probably be unhappy as they would think that the Christians are challenging the position of Islam as the official religion in the country


• the court's decision may be a victory to one particular group and not the other. But either way, it will certainly create ripples here and there and could possible lead to unmitigated disaster

The way forward to solve any racial and religious issue, to my mind, is for all the concerned parties to go to the negotiating table and talk things over in a responsible and civil manners. I remember the Ibans were the first who felt that their religious rights were taken away from them when their Bible--the Bup Kudus--was confiscated by the Home Ministry as it contained the word "Allah Taala". The matter was resolved when the then acting Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi intervened. If I am not mistaken, the Bup Kudus can retain the word "Allah Taala" but with a caveat that it is strictly for private use only.

I am a firm believer in a consultative process and reaching a middle ground in solving a sensitive issue. I believe that this is the way forward in managing a multiracial and multireligious society. Using a confrontational approach will not do any good to anyone. In Part 3, I would like to offer solutions to the religious impasse.

of pairin and sabah issues

after months in "elegance silence", the huguan siou pairin kitingan has finally spoken up. in a report carried by the daily express (21 october 2008) pairin "revealed" that it was mahathir who had bullied the pbs when the former was still a prime minister. pairin was responding to the speech delivered by mca former president ong ka ting who took the umno leaders to task by saying that the malay-based party has become too dominant and thus causing uneasiness among the bn members. pairin's statement came as no surprise to anyone who understands sabah politics. and it is no secret that mahathir had indeed treated sabah with an iron fist especially when the state was under pairin's pbs control. the question is, why did pairin suddenly come out in the open and launch such an attack on mahathir? of course pairin and mahathir have had love and hate relationship. when pairin decided to abandone the bn in 1991 just at the eleventh hour before nomination, mahathir swore not to forgive pairin or admit the pbs into bn. mahathir called pairin's act as a "stab in the back". a stab in the back it was indeed as before pbs's pull out, pairin and mahathir were seen campaigning together for the bn.

so what might have driven pairin to suddenly "spar" with mahathir, his former foe? in order to answer this question perhaps it is best for us to gauge the perception of the man-in-the-street about pairin's leadership. while having a lunch with a friend yesterday, i asked what he thinks about pairin now. his answer was plain simple: pairin is not as what he used to be before; he has lost his credibility as he prefers kowtowing to his political masters rather than speaking up for a number of issues critical for sabah. another friend told me that he was leaving pbs simply because the party has lost its grassroots appeal and that its leaders are no longer respected. another friend took a drastic move. he was supposed to join pbs but changed his mind to join the opposition.

pairin may have realised that being critical at this juncture will not be wise for pbs that had had the experience of being deserted from the mainstream malaysian politics. he may have thought that it is better to support the government this time. it may not be a wise move to critic pak lah and his government as this would eventually put pbs in a bad light among the bn members in sabah. pairin and his key followers are clearly enjoying the partnership formed with musa and sabah umno. no one knows yet what pbs' real agenda is. much of the critical views on sabah now conveyed either by sapp or upko. the sapp is no longer in bn and upko has been rather cautious about its membership status. dompok recently threatened to pull out from bn if the pipeline gas project from sabah to bintulu in sarawak is not scrapped. fortunately, the federal government listened and sabah got a petrochemical industry instead. such is the political bargaining now being played out by state and federal leaders. of course, the federal government cannot afford to lose sabah particularly after the state became a strong power broker in the previous elections.

change may not be forthcoming in sabah just yet. the opposition led by pkr seems to be silent if not mellowed down a bit. if change was to happen in sabah, it must begin from the individual sabahans themselves followed by the leaders whom they elected in the elections. the opposition needs to really work hard to prove that they can become a better alternative to the present government. the bn in the meantime must wake up from its slumber and start fulfilling its election promises. i must admit that i voted for the bn in the previous elections and i hope the bn would live up to my expectation failing which will cause it to lose my precious vote in the next election.

how will i remember pak lah and what najib should do to be a better prime minister

pak lah has finally made a decision to quit as prime minister in march next year. for many malaysians, this came as no surprise as calls for his resignation grew loud and clear right before the announcement was made. when pak lah took over the government in 2004, expectation was high that he would change the course of malaysian politics marred by incompetence of the civil service, high level of corruption and the deeply ethnicised malaysian society. perhaps, pak lah only managed to catch the small fish but not the big ones as many have complained. the arrests of several high profile public figures failed to ease the demands for pak lah to do something fundamentally drastic to end corrupt practices. pak lah did manage to allow some democratic spaces for malaysian to enjoy but his refusal to put to an end the use of several repressive laws made him look like unwilling to seriously address changes that many malaysians want to see.

despite all the criticims to his leadership, i think pak lah deserves some respect for his courage in admitting his mistakes and his willingness to bring reforms to malaysia. one of the most important marks that he has left and one which he will be best remembered for is his effort in ensuring the more open malaysia: blogs critical to his leadership are allowed to operate (except those that are truly radical ones); newspapers reports condemning his leadership weaknesses are not outrightly dismissed; and we, the malaysians, are given the avenues to express our dissatisfaction on a number of critical issues. pak lah listened. had he decided to let his ego reigns, he would pretend to not knowing what is happening around him and he would use whatever ways and means (including the wicked ones) to hold on to power. but he did not. he was willing to step aside and pass on the baton to his controversial number two najib razak. or maybe this is just pak lah's political game as many have suggested. i personally do not know. i hope pak lah is sincere.

now that najib will be given the top job come march next year. others are still not convinced that the deputy premier are free from all the scandals implicating his name. here is what najib should do to be a better prime minister: a) clear up his name and use the approriate laws to convict those who are out to destroy his reputation (he should not just simply use the isa to shut their mouths up); b) continue all the reform promises made by pak lah; c) bring back the confidence of the chinese, indians and minorities that malaysia is for all irrespective race and religion; d) revive the economy so that it can be more resilient to challenges such as the current economic meltdown in the us; and e) perhaps the most important is not to let mahathir influence his mind.

i am skeptical that pak lah will be successful in initiating some changes he promised to make in his remaining five months in office. perhaps what pak lah must do is to put back his reform agenda in proper perspective and start looking for trustworthy talents to execute the plan. to najib, i wish him all the best in bringing malaysia to greater heights and to pak lah thank you for all the good things that you have done.

dealing with malaysia's religious and racial diversity...part 1

it is said that multi-ethnic diversity is malaysia's strength, more than anything else. but it has also become the country's liability, as current events suggest. when ahmad sabri said that the chinese are "pendatang' and thus do not deserve equal status as the bumiputeras, he was summoned by the prime minister and a scores of other malaysians demanded a public apology from him. sabri said that he was being misquoted by a chinese newspaper and what he said was based on historical fact. as the dust of the ahmad sabri saga has about to settle, the outspoken mp for seputeh teresa kok angered the muslim community in selangor when she lodged a complaint on behalf of her constituents about the "nuisance" created by the azan prayer. teresa was then arrested under the controversial isa but only to be released indefinitely later. what do these episodes tell us and what lessons can we learn from them?

first, the ideal of creating a bangsa malaysia will remain an elusive dream as each of the ethnic groups still insists on defending its own religious and racial characteristics. the bangsa malaysia dream, if achieved, will see malaysians of all races putting their religious and cultural differences aside while at the same time recognising themselves as a one "race" called "malaysian race". by race here i do not mean that we abandon our racial distinctiveness and "embrace" a new one. i mean how many malaysians out there are willing to put their beloved country, malaysia, first, then after that, their own ethnic group? may be we should learn from the indonesians. during my recent visit to jakarta, i came across with a few chinese who conversed in indonesian languange among themselves. and it is quite rare to see a chinese using his/her chinese name as the indonesian name is preferrable, may be for integration purposes. it is indeed an envious sight to begin with. in malaysia, one normally shifts to english when meeting with the chinese; and the chinese to bahasa malaysia when meeting withnon-chinese. may be we should re-look our language policy and use it as a tool to unify malaysians.

second, "change" is not forthcoming in malaysia for there are certain people who still think along the ethnic and religious lines. while other countries are in the aggresive drive to modernise their economies, educate their people to be competitive and to accept each other's differences with an open mind, malaysia is still grappling with the ethnic and religious issue. if nothing concrete is achieved to tackle this malaise, i am afraid that malaysia would not be able to move forward, what more achieving the visions 2020 (do not forget that the first challenge in the vision is to create an integrated and united society that shares a common vision). while the word "change" is a powerful mantra in the united states nowadays, it is, however, seen in the negative light by some especially those in the corridor of power. this brings me to my next point.

while much has been said about the need to reform the judiciary and to tackle the problem of corruption and inefficiency, little attention has been given on the issue of how to educate malaysians to think beyond the ethnic and religious lines. the government's decision to come up with an act (race relations act) is laudable but its details must be thoroughly debated and scrutinised before it is passed. some in sabah and sarawak have lamented that there is no need to come up with a law to regulate race relations; in fact these people say race relations in both states have remained all time high. the problem i see here is not one of legal or lack of spaces to inculcate the spirit of acceptance and tolerance among races. but what is lacking is the political will of those in power to effect changes. it is sad that zaid ibrahim had to quit the cabinet after his plan to reform the judiciary was seen as too radical by his comrades in the government. the crucial question that needs to be asked here is: are our political leaders willing to abandon their exclusive ethnic and religious thinking and start fighting for other races?

the pensiangan woe

when the high court declared joseph kurup’s victory in pensiangan null and void, there is a sense of euphoria among some segments of the society. this would perhaps be the second straight mother of all by-election (if kurup fails in his bid to appeal against the court’s decision) in malaysia after the permatang pauh by-election. why? a party president will have to defend his seat against a more popular opposition figure. losing the seat will mean a possible disbandment of pbrs and winning it will give a boost to kurup--the only sole pbrs representative in the parliament.

already, jeffrey kitingan—kurup’s arch-rival who almost defeated the pbrs president back in 2004—has lobbied himself to be selected as candidate should there be a by-election. if jeffrey and kurup contested, chances are high that jeffrey might be able to wrest the seat from the latter by means of individual popularity.

andipai, the disgruntled pkr candidate whose nomination paper was rejected by the returning officer has shown interest to contest, saying confidently that the candidate must be someone who understands the pensiangan constituency better. if there is such thing as a better candidate, then, it might be bernard maraat who was dropped from the pbrs list due to his conflict with kurup. the sentiment on the ground indicates that maraat is strongly tipped to contest under the pbs ticket (after withdrawing from pbrs, maraat chose pbs as his new party).

if maraat is selected, then pkr’s desire to make inroads in pensiangan would be difficult. surely, top bn leaders will have a hard time deciding who should stand representing the bn in pensiangan. if kurup is dropped for fear of losing face to pkr, then it would probably be the end of the road for the veteran politician who is struggling to survive amid dwindling support. the beneficiary will be pbs though pkr will also stand a chance to winning pensiangan. so far, upko, the second biggest kadazandusun-based party has been silent. the bn and pkr will brace for another new round of political battle. it is a battle that everyone cannot wait to watch; it is also a battle that allows pensiangan voters to decide who should be voted in and who should be voted out. this is democracy sabah style!