Arkib Karya

Mengenang H. M. Dahlan

2007-10-30T22:38:00.000-07:00

[Kertaskerja yang dibentangkan pada “Kolokium Sehari Satu Dasawarsa Allayaraham H. M. Dahlan” anjuran Program Sains Pembangunan, Pusat Pengajian Sosial, Pembangunan dan Persekitaran, Fakulti Sains Soaial dan Kemanusiaan, UKM, pada 27 Oktober 2007, di Bilik Senat, UKM, Bangi.]

Prof H. M. Dahlan: Teman Seiring dalam Kembara dari Pengajian Budaya ke Sains Sosial

Oleh Rustam A. Sani

Saya mulai bertugas sebagai Pensyarah di Jabatan Antropologi dan Sosiologi (JAS), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), pada tahun 1976. Pada waktu itu UKM masih belum berpindah ke kampus tetapnya di Bangi, masih menjadi “setinggan” di Jalan Pantai Baru, Kuala Lumpur, dan masih berjiran dengan Universiti Malaya. Namun, pada ketika itu JAS bukanlah sebuah jabatan baru – sudah enam tahun umurnya sejak JAS ditubuhkan pada tahun 1970.

Meskipun pada waktu penyertaan saya itu Ketua JAS adalah Sdr Dahlan Haji Aman, namun usaha untuk “menggoda” saya supaya menyertai JAS telah dilakukan oleh seorang teman lain, yakni Saudara Hairi Abdullah. Pada waktu itu saya baharu sahaja pulang dari England (memperoleh Postgraduate Diploma in Theoretical Sociology dari University of Reading dan MA in South East Asian Studies dari University of Kent at Canterbury) – dan baru menyertai Pusat Bahasa UM untuk mengajar Ilmu Penterjemahan.

Pada ketika itu JAS sedang menghadapi masalah mencari tenaga pengajar, khususnya dalam bidang-bidang tertentu seperti Teori Sosiologi dan Antropologi. Tambahan pula pada ketika itu terdapat tenaga pengajar dalam bidang tersebut yang memutuskan untuk berkelana ke lapangan-lapangan lain yang lebih mencabar dan lebih “exciting”. Oleh itu, salah satu tarikan besar bagi saya menyertai JAS pada ketika itu ialah kemungkinan yang ditawarkan kepada saya untuk mengajar dan memperkembangkan bidang-bidang pengajaran yang saya gemari – Teori Sosiologi dan Sosiologi Politik.

Namun, aspek yang lebih menarik bagi saya tentang JAS ialah suasananya – sebahagian besar tenaga pengajarnya terdiri daripada teman-teman yang memang sudah saya kenali dan dapat dianggap seangkatan dengan saya dari zaman kami menjadi siswa di Jabatan Pengajian Melayu, Universiti Malaya, pada akhir tahun 1960an. Oleh yang demikian, saya tidak menghadapi banyak masalah dalam menyesuaikan diri dengan JAS maupun dengan ketuanya, Dahlan.

Bilangan para pensyarah JAS pada ketika itu tidaklah terlalu banyak – mungkin sekadar memenuhi tiga lantai sebuah blok bangunan rumah pangsa di Jalan Pantai Baru itu. Namun, bidang pengajaran yang dibebankan kepada para pensyarahnya cukup luas, meliputi bidang-bidang Psikologi, Antropologi dan Sosiologi. Bidang Psikologi berkembang menjadi sebuah Jabatan sendiri beberapa tahun kemudian di kampus baru UKM di Bangi – namun Antropologi dan Sosiologi terus menerus tidak diasingkan, meskipun gagasan dan pertukaran fikiran ke arah itu pernah tercetus.

Sebagai sebuah Jabatan akademik yang muda dan kecil pada mulanya, pada hemat saya salah satu “kekuatan” JAS itu ialah sifat introspektif dan “self-conciousness” sebagai pendukung sebuah bidang baru yang sedang cuba diperkembangkan dalam sebuah suasana akademik yang baru (yakni UKM yang ketika itu sedang diperkembangkan sebagai sebuah IPT yang secara experimental menggunakan bahasa kebangsaan Malaysia sebagai bahasa pengantarnya).

Bukan semua, tetapi sebahagian besar, para pensyarah di JAS mempunyai latarbelakang akademik yang agak sama. Sebahagian besar daripada mereka datang dari latarbelakang bekas pelajar “dewasa” yang terlatih di Jabatan Pengajian Melayu, Universiti Malaya – khususnya dari Bahagian Kajian Budaya Melayu – dan kemudiannya meneruskan pengajian mereka pada peringkat Sarjana di jabatan-jabatan Antropologi dan/atau Sosiologi di universiti-universiti di luar negara (khususnya di AS, UK dan Australia).

Latarbelakang latihan para pensyarah JAS yang dapat dikatakan tidak begitu mantap dari segi bidang-bidang Sosiologi dan Antropologi semasa seperti yang terdapat di Barat itu dari satu segi sebenarnya merupakan suatu rahmat. Para pensyarah pada peringkat itu sebenarnya menyedari tentang “kelemahan” mereka dari segi itu dan berusaha untuk memantapkan latarbelakang konsep dan teori mereka dalam pengajian mereka di luar negara. Keadaan ini juga menjadikan mereka begitu insaf tentang betapa perlunya menggubal semacam pendekatan dan tradisi sendiri dalam memperkembangkan semacam ilmu sosial dalam suasana akademik yang amat tebal sifat penerokaannya itu.

Dan semua ini dilakukan dengan kepekaan teoritis yang amat jelas. Bagi saya, inilah salah satu kekuatan dan keistimewaan Dahlan dan teman-temannya, yang merupakan para pensyarah peneroka dan pemula JAS. Dua tahun sebelum saya menyertai JAS, teman-teman peneroka itu sudah menganjurkan suatu seminar bagi membincangkan halatuju JAS dan orientasi sains sosial di negara ini pada keseluruhannya. Kertaskerja-kertaskerja dan hasil persidangan itu kemudiannya diterbitkan sebagai sebuah dokumen yang saya kira boleh dianggap sebagai dokumen penting yang menggariskan pemikiran para anggota peneroka JAS dalam memperkembangkan bidang mereka.

Pengalaman latihan pasca-sarjana Dahlan sendiri memperlihatkan ciri ini. Pada tahun 1973, beliau mengemukakan tesis MA yang bertajuk “Theories and Policies of Modernisation: An Application of A. G. Frank’s Critique with Particular Reference to West Malaysia” kepada Jabatan Antropologi dan Sociologi, Universiti Monash, Australia. Kelihatan di sini bahawa beliau telah memperkembangkan lagi suatu topik yang amat diminati di Jabatan Pengajian Melayu UM ketika itu, tetapi menganalisisnya berdasarkan pendekatan teori Sosiologi semasa yang amat populer ketika itu.

Oleh itu, saya melihat perkembangan sains sosial (khususnya Antropologi dan Sosiologi) di JAS sebagai semacam penerokaan yang bertitik-tolak daripada pendekatan Kajian Budaya Melayu (sebagai sebahagian daripada Pengajian Melayu) dalam kerangka kajian yang pernah diperikan oleh sarjana Josselin De Jong (1984) sebagai “bidang kajian etnologi”. Bidang kajian ini kemudiannya dipadukan dengan pengaruh yang diterima daripada perkembangan bidang Antropologi dan Sosiologi yang mutakhir di Barat.

Bagi saya, inilah sumbangan yang amat bererti yang telah diberikan oleh golongan para pensyarah peneroka di JAS terhadap perkembangan dan pertumbuhan sains sosial setempat. Sumbangan itu merupakan sumbangan kreatif dalam melahirkan suatu tradisi ilmu yamg tersendiri, yang tidak secara bulat-bulat menyalin begitu sahaja tradisi kajian etnografi Kajian Budaya Melayu atau meniru begitu sahaja perkembangan mutakhir Antropologi dan Sosiologi di Barat.

Menurut hemat saya, sifat introspektif dan kreatif para pensyarah peneroka ini merupakan salah satu sebab penting mengapa pengasingan sepenuhnya dua bidang Antropologi dan Sosiologi tidak pernah terjadi di JAS maupun melahirkan dua Jabatan yang berasingan. Pada intinya, para peneroka ini berpendapat bahawa dua bidang tersebut lahir sebagai kesan daripada sejarah pertumbuhan ilmu sosial yang dipengaruhi oleh pertumbuhan sosial masyarakat Barat sendiri – Sosiologi merupakan hasil pendekatan yang positivistik tentang masyarakat mereka sendiri dan Antropolgi berkembang pada sebahagian besarnya sebagai hasil daripada pertembungan dengan “budaya-budaya lain” yang lebih bersahaja dan lebih primitif.

Seperti yang pernah saya catatkan di tempat lain (A. Rahman Embong, 1995: 92):

“Apabila leluhur ilmu yang berlainan ini kita terapkan dalam situasi kita …tidak relevan sekiranya kita mempertahankan pengasingan kedua-duanya … Kedua-duanya patut diterapkan dalam satu bidang dengan memakai satu nama sahaja … [B]ukan sahaja namanya mesti baru, tetapi isinya juga harus menggambarkan integrasi kreatif kedua-dua disiplin itu.”

Unsur-unsur perkembangan dan pertumbuhan ilmu yang mendorongkan berlakunya integrasi dan pemikiran kreatif ini sebenarnya memang wujud – khsusnya kerana keperluan melaksanakan pertumbuhan itu (baik dari segi penyelidikan, penulisan maupun pengajaran) dalam bahasa Malaysia. Malah inisiatif JAS menjalin hubungan dengan para akademik bidang sains sosial di Indonesia (khususnya di Universitas Padjajaran Bandung dan dalam siri Seminar Kebudayaan Indonesia-Malaysia (SKIM) anjuran bersama dua universiti itu) merupakan sebahagian daripada usaha meneroka dan meninjau kemungkinan-kemungkinan pertumbuhan bidang ilmu tersebut yang sedang diungkap dalam kerangka bahasa setempat dan serantau.

Namun dalam hal ini juga, Dahlan dan teman-temannya di JAS tidaklah berasa puas dengan sekadar bidang ilmu itu diungkapkan dalam bahasa tempatan, kerana yang mungkin dilahirkan hanyalah sekadar suatu bidang “ilmu sosial terjemahan” (a translation social science) dalam bahasa Malaysia dan Indonesia, dan bukannya suatu pengungkapan teoritis dan substantif yang sebenarnya (lihat Judistrira Garna dan Rustam Sani (ed), 1990). Amatlah menarik bahawa SKIM1 yang bersidang di Bandung pada 8-11 Disember 1985 membincangkan topik: “Antropologi-Sosiologi di Indonesia dan Malaysia: Teori, Pengembangan dan Penerapan.”

Dalam menyeramakkan pertumbuhan sains sosial yang khusus bersifat tempatan ini, salah satu kegiatan yang diberikan perhatian oleh Dahlan, baik sebagai Ketua JAS maupun sebagai individu akademik, ialah bidang penerbitan akademik. Sekitar pertengahan tahun 1970an dan 1980an, para anggota JAS telah memainkan peranan yang aktif lagi konsisten dalam kegiatan-kegiatan penerbitan akademik bukan sahaja pada peringkat jabatan, malah pada peringkat Fakulti dan Universiti juga – antara lain mengendalikan jurnal-jurnal seperti Akademika dan Jurnal Antropologi dan Sosiologi. Malah para anggota Jabatan turut memainkan peranan penting dalam penerbitan jurnal Ilmu Masyarakat (terbitan Persatuan Sains Sosial Malaysia).

Di JAS sendiri, Jawatankuasa Penerbitan Jabatan telah memainkan peranan yang aktif dan konsisten. Selain menerbitkan buku proceedings tentang persidangan Jabatan pada tahun 1974 dan siri SKIM, turut diterbitkan pada tahun 1976 buku yang diedit sendiri oleh Dahlan: The Nascent Malaysian Society: Development, Trends and Problems. Yang dimuatkan dalam buku itu ialah hasil penyelidikan (atau nukilan tesis) para pensyarah muda JAS – dan buku itu telah diulang cetak (edisi kedua) pada tahun 1986.

Satu persoalan penting berkaitan dengan perkembangan bidang Antropologi dan Sosiologi dalam konteks Malaysia ialah persoalan sifat disiplin itu sendiri, yakni apakah bidang itu harus bersifat ilmu “tulen” atau ilmu “terapan” (applied). Persoalan ini sekurang-kurangnya merupakan persoalan yang harus kita hadapi dalam konteks pengajarannya di universiti. Dari segi konteks leluhurnya di Barat, jelas sekali bahawa ilmu-ilmu tersebut telah berkembang sebagai ilmu tulen dengan latabelakang falsafah sosial yang kritis. Namun dalam zamanya sendiri, Dahlan dan rakan-rakannya terpaksa berhadapan dengan cabaran yang dihadapi universiti untuk menjadi “socially and politically relevant.” Tekanannya ialah supaya Antropologi dan Sosiologi dijadikan ilmu terapan sepenuhnya, sehingga mengorbankan sama sekali unsur-unsur “ilmu tulennya” yang terdapat sebelum itu.

Dalam menghadapi cabaran yang dihadapi ilmu sosial dan oleh institusi universiti sendiri dari segi kerelevanannya ini, pada hemat saya, Dahlan telah memperlihatkan kemampuannya untuk bersikap kreatif tetapi realistik. Dilihat dalam kerangka kegiatan pentadbiran ilmu (sebagai Ketua Jabatan, Dekan Fakulti), pengajaran, penulisan, penyelidikan dan penerbitan, kecenderungan Dahlan terhadap aspek-aspek ilmu tulen Antropologi dan Sosiologi dari segi epistimologi dan teorinya tidaklah pernah luntur. Namun dia juga dapat melihat kemungkinan ilmu-ilmu tersebut “diterap” demi keperluan amali masyarakat dan demi pembangunan dan pertumbuhannya.

Dalam kerangka inilah kita melihat ikatan yang semakin meningkat antara kegiatan akademik Dahlan dengan keperluan amali Kerajaan Negeri Sabah yang memerlukan input sains sosial dalam merangka perancangan pembangunan ekonomi dan sosialnya. Dahlan telah menemukan kegiatan akademik dan pentadbiran ilmunya di Jabatan dan Fakulti untuk melancarkan projek penyelidikan dan penerbitan yang agak besar yang dinamakan Kajian Etnografi Sabah. Projek tersebut amat jelas unsur ilmu terapannya, namun jika pendekatan dan rasionale projek itu dikaji secara mendalam maka akan jelaslah bahawa pendekatannya maupun asas teoretisnya amat teguh sifat-sifat ilmu sosial sebagai ilmu tulen.

Sebagaimana yang kita ketahui, minat serta penglibatan Dahlan dalam projek Kajian Etnografi Sabah ini semakin lama semakin menjurus ke arah terbentuknya semacam suatu bidang baru yang dinamakan “Sains Pembangunan” dan dari suatu segi semakin membawa beliau lebih jauh terpisah daripada JAS – pada suatu ketika beliau menjadi Dekan, Fakulti Sains Pembangunan, UKM Cawangan Sabah.

Dalam kertaskerja ringkas ini saya tidak bermaksud untuk melakukan suatu taksiran, apa lagi taksiran kritis, tentang pencapaian dan kejayaan (atau kegagalan) sains sosial, khususnya Antropologi dan Sosiologi, sebagai suatu bidang khusus dalam suasana dan bidang akademik di negara ini. Apapun pencapaian bidang tersebut, saya ingin menekankan betapa besarnya peranan yang telah dimainkan oleh Allahyarham Prof. H. M. Dahlan sebagai salah seorang pelopornya. Peranannya itu tidak sekadar penting dalam kerangka sumbangannya sebagai seorang “pentadbir ilmu”, yakni sebagai Ketua Jabatan Antropologi dan Sosiologi, sebagai Dekan FSKK, dan sebagai Dekan, Fakulti Sains Pembangunan.

Namun, bagi saya, peranan lebih penting yang telah dimainkan oleh Dahlan ialah sebagai seorang penggiat dan pemikir (yakni pemimpin cendekia) bidang tersebut pada tahap-tahap awal pertumbuhannya. Dahlan merupakan seorang pemikir dan pelaksana cita-cita tentang usaha mewujudkan ilmu sosial yang bukan sekadar mantap dari segi teori dan epistemologinya, tetapi dapat pula dimanfaatkan demi keperluan dan kesejahteraan masyarakatnya yang juga sedang membangun.

Zamannya telah meletakkan Dahlan dalam suasana melaksanakan kegiatan ilmunya itu dalam kerangka suatu pengembaraan cendekia dari bidang kajian budaya yang berteraskan etnologi dan etnografi kepada bidang-bidang sains sosial tahap yang lebih mutakhir. Dari segi ini, kecemerlangan peranan Dahlan amatlah jelas terserlah.

Kajian yang lebih mendalam diperlukan untuk mentaksir sejauh mana peranan Dahlan itu telah mendatangkan kesan terhadap pertumbuhan sains sosial seterusnya – baik di UKM maupun di negara ini pada keseluruhannya. Tambahan pula, saya sendiri agak jahil tentang apakah yang telah berlaku kepada bidang akademik ini seterusnya, setelah saya meninggalkan JAS pada tahun 1988 – pada mulanya untuk turut mempelopori Jabatan Sains Politik UKM dan kemudiannya malah pergi lebih jauh daripada itu.

Pengetahuan saya tentang kegiatan dan peranan Dahlan sebagai pekerja ilmu selepas tahun 1988 itu juga tidaklah begitu mendalam. Namun demikian, saya cukup tertarik dengan bukunya yang telah diterbitkan setelah beliau meninggal dunia, Urbanisani: Alam Kejiwaan Sosial dan Pembangunan, Bangi: 1997). Bagi saya, buku ini memaparkan intipati daripada pengembaraan cendekia Dahlan tersebut: bagaimana dia memadukan ciri-ciri ilmu sosial sebagai ilmu tulen, menerapkan kaedah dan pendekatan sains positivis di mana perlu, bersuluh dengan pencerahan yang dapat dimanfaat dari perenungan para ahli filsafat seperti Alisjahbana dan Spangler, dan menyumbang terhadap keperluan pihak pentadbir negara dalam memahami isu yang perlu mereka fahami.

Namun, sebagai seorang yang turut mengalami dan turut terlibat dalam kegiatan Dahlan di JAS pada tahun 1970an dan 1980an, saya berkeyakinan bahawa sumbangan beliau itu amatlah besar dan sukar dapat dinafikan. Oleh yang demikian, saya amat bersyukur kerana dapat kesempatan untuk bergiat dalam bidang Antropologi dan Sosiologi pada waktu yang sama dengan Dahlan, lebih-lebih lagi kerana kesempatan untuk menjadi sahabat karibnya pada tahun-tahun yang dilalui dengan penuh kegairahan itu, baik dari segi kecendekiaan maupun dari segi-segi lainnya.

Why Singapore-KL ties will stay volatile

2007-10-08T04:44:00.000-07:00

[The Stratis Times (Singapore): 18 July 1998]

By Rustam A. Sani

In Jerusalem, the Israeli regime has built a museum and a memorial with “the eternal flame” as its main feature. It is a very symbolic reminder of a terribly supreme suffering – the Holocaust – that the Jewish race in Europe experienced during World War II.

The eternal flame will never perish, just as the Holocaust will never perish from our memory. A sinister reminder like the Holocaust is an extraordinarily powerful political force to unite a group.

It is not surprising, hence, that Singapore, an island state with a largely immigrant population that is constantly anxious over its survival, needs a historical symbol no less magical than the Holocaust incident.

The Government needs the symbol to rally the people to be on constant guard against a lurking enemy, and the people need the symbol as a rallying call for unity in facing the enemy. Like “the eternal flame”, the symbol should not perish from the memory of the Singapore “race”.

The flame shall burn brighter when it faces the occasional extraordinary threats, such as when the Government feels threatened by increasing opposition influence.

Unfortunately, the symbol the Singapore Government chose to use to symbolise the existence of the country and the unity of its people is its negative approach to ties with our country – its closest northern neighbour. Every time it feels the need to rally the populace to unity, Singaporeans receive dire warnings about the “dangers from the north”.

Ties between Singapore and Malaysia have again moved into a difficult phase.

We can feel the chill in the bilateral friendship over the different views held by the two countries on issues and disputes, despite the lack of official statements.

Leaders at high levels (but not at the summit) trade accusations and demands for apologies; criticisms that do not go through proper channels and get press coverage earn admonitions and outright condemnation, while assumptions of ill will and jealousy abound. Allowing these disputes to go no further than this level will ensure that they will not go beyond the phase of mutual insinuations and criticisms – and my even die a natural death a few weeks later.

However, allowing the mutual criticisms to go to higher levels runs the risk of the strained ties gathering “official” status and generating harsher political statements from both sides, which was what happened in early 1997. Hence, the door to a solution will always be there, regardless of what is done to the relationship.

This pattern shows two important truths about ties between the two countries. First, the ties are a special relationship that both sides affirm and appreciate. Second, though both sides will work for a solution to any dispute, there have never been attempts to fully resolve the basic contradictions in relations between the two neighbouring countries.

We can roughly assume Singapore-Malaysia ties will turn bitter every 1½ to two years; that each time Singapore faces an internal integration problem, its relationship with Malaysia will turn sour.

We can trace the roots of the soured ties between Singapore and Malaysia that erupted early last year to the Singapore general election that analysts characterised as one in which the ruling party faced a serious threat from opposition parties.

The senior leaders of Singapore had to remind Singapo9reans of the need for upholding national unity and defending the existence of the Government. The alternative was re-absorption into the Malaysian entity.

And within the framework of selling that alternative as unacceptable, Malaysia was in variably depicted as something bad and sub-standard, as an unjust system of government, racist, inefficient and so forth.

When it (the People’s Action Party) defeated a feared opposition leader during the general election and he took refuge in Johor, it had to depict Johor as a place unsafe and crime-infested.

The indirect criticisms by the senior leaders of a neighbouring country sparked off highly emotional and irrational sentiments from several political groups in Malaysia.

The dispute later ended with several insulting statements against Johor by (Senior Minister) Lee Kuan Yew in his court affidavit being “retracted”; and the tendering of apologies by several circles in both countries.

However, as usual, the resolution was a resolution of that particular episode only – not a lasting resolution on the basic contradictions in international relationship between two neighbouring countries.

As long as the basic contradictions are not resolved, relations will erode again when certain conditions arise that will spark off change or internal threats, as happened in early 1997.

Such a set of circumstances has lately appeared. Although the Singapore economy has withstood the Asian economic crisis, the Singapore Government is admitting that the Singapore economy is feeling the effects of the crisis. Several off-budget measures have been implemented, and the country is warning its citizens of the severe effects of a recession next year.

Singapore Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong stated recently: “Asia is facing a crisis. How can Singapore defend itself? As long as Singaporeans, regardless of race, language and religion, work together to make this country an outstanding homeland, we will survive. This is the most important lesson we can learn from our history”.

What he meant as the historic lesson – or a Singapore Holocaust – is the series of racial riots that occurred in the 1960s. In 1964, when Singapore was part of Malaysia, two racial riots broke out in July and September.

When Singapore had already gained its independence, racial disturbances broke out in 1969; and they were alleged to be an overflow from the May 13 incident in Malaysia.

Mr Goh regards deep understanding of the riots as very important in shaping the consciousness of Singaporeans that their country is a multi-racial country. Hence, the incidents are featured as key materials in the National Education Exhibition that he launched, particularly in the multimedia theatre tracing The Singapore Story.

Interestingly, amidst the new enthusiasm for Singapore’s “history”, for its emergence as a just and multi-racial society after freeing itself from the communal clutches of Malaysia, The Sunday Times (Singapore) ran a weekly series of extracts from a book by Dr Albert Lau, entitled “A Moment of Anguish: Singapore in Malaysia and the Politics of Disagreement”.

From the angle of an academic contribution to history, I see nothing special about the book. Its approach is nothing more than an interpretation of history according to the Singapore Government’s angle.

The bias in the choice of reference materials is very clear, Western sources were emphasised over sources from politicians and written materials in Malaysia of the era.

Even more interesting is that the writing and emphasis of the book, and the choice of quotations for serialisation, are clearly intended to describe certain parties and political figures in Malaysia as protagonists hostile to Singapore and key players in the Malays’ oppression of other communities.

When some of the parties and figures subjected to the lopsided depiction are bodies and figures that still exist and remain active – or at least are still remembered in a positive light in this country, such as Syed Jaafar Albar – the presentation of a writing in the form that is not entirely academic will invite a reaction that is not entirely academic. This will particularly apply, considering that most people in Malaysia have an interpretation and memory of the historical incidents totally different from those interpreted and portrayed by the Singapore historian.

I predict that the relationship between Singapore and Malaysia will always remain volatile.

This will always be so if Singapore continues to use the history of its participation in Malaysia and its separation as its own holocaust that will unite its people in sharing a common historical experience.

Ties between the two countries will always remain so, as long as Singapore feels that to upgrade the level of its internal integration, the country must play the Malaysia bogey card, like Germany under the rule of Hitler.

Such historical interpretations will continue as long as Singapore adheres to historical interpretations that are propagandistic, one-sided and reject the possibility of the interpretations of others as more accurate.

In view of the arrogance and dogmatic interpretation, Singapore and Malaysia “are fated to remain in a state of hostility” to eternity. It is only when both of us feel less threatened or when the internal unity considerations of our respective countries are beyond dispute, will we learn to cultivate mutual tolerance, and continue the hostility in slightly better circumstances.

Voice of the people

2007-09-30T16:35:00.000-07:00

By Helen Ang

Malaysiakini.com
27 September 2007

There are 27 million of us populating Malaysia according to the Department of Statistics. So it’s impossible to aggregate public opinion despite agents of Barisan Nasional putting up a valiant ventriloquist act as the people’s voice.

Though the cat has generally got our tongue, a few segments of the public are willing to speak for themselves. Yesterday’s Walk for Justice was one significant, heartening instance.

The march in Putrajaya was an expression of the Malaysian Bar’s effort to nudge the judiciary back on track. It was a best foot stepping forward on the proverbial thousand-mile journey to reform.

Abdullah Ahmad Badawi as prime minister and First Gentleman (correspondingly, given that his wife has been fawningly anointed First Lady) naturally had first dibs on the Lingam tape. His all too predictable response a week ago was: “I am disappointed. The video was released with the aim of getting the people angry with the country’s judiciary system” (reported in The Sun, Sept 21).

True to form, the PM was ‘disappointed’ that the tape surfaced but did not convey dismay at its contents. Anwar Ibrahim released the video on Sept 19 and because digital technology is lightning fast, it was immediately the talk of town.

Interestingly enough, the Star’s top news on Sept 20 – this is Malaysia’s largest circulation English tabloid and a media organisation that styles itself ‘The People’s Paper’ – was a banner headline meant to get people angry … but not at the judiciary.

The Star had screamed “Get the beasts!” (I think ‘scream’ is a fair description given the paper’s use of the large and bold exclamation mark). The bloodcurdling cry is like something Goebbels (that would be Joseph, Nazi Propaganda Minister) would shriek to galvanise Brownshirts and a lynch mob.

‘Beasts’ is how the People’s Paper calls perpetrators of the torture on the little girl whose body was found in a sports bag. It’s easier to sound the horn against mere animals than VVIPs and I suppose after the beasts are ‘gotten’, the next logical step would be to draw and quarter the suspect(s).

Channelling public anger

The poor girl had been subjected to an appalling death and a lot of Malaysians sympathise with her bereaved family but not it seems the Inspector-General of Police who announced police was investigating the parents for negligence or de facto Law Minister Nazri Aziz who concurred that the said parents could be charged with negligence.

I do wonder how malleable public opinion is and in what hither-thither direction the Star and other mainstream media had been trying to shepherd this perplexed flock called public opinion over the murder.

Killers who commit depraved acts on their victims in addition to murder are an aberration or at least one would hope so. There is the Altantuya trial now in progress but the last I can remember of another sensational killing was bomoh Mona Fandey and her accomplices years ago chopping up an overly ambitious Umno state assemblyman into pieces.

On the other hand, corruption – which is what the Lingam tape could be evidence of – is not an aberration but has instead been described as ‘systemic’.

That our country is suffering from systemic corruption is the belief of Transparency International-Malaysia founding president Tunku Aziz Ibrahim.

In his keynote address yesterday in conjunction with the release of TI’s annual corruption perception index, Tunku Aziz said, “Today, we are in the grip of widespread institutional fatigue” and that every major institution of governance in Malaysia had been ethically compromised to the point where “public confidence in these institutions has all but evaporated”.

Tunku Aziz and former UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Param Cumaraswamy, had jointly lodged a report with the ACA over alleged judicial impropriety last week. But from the mainstream media’s agenda setting on big news, Malaysia appears to have no more serious problems than ‘negligent’ parents who lose their young children, flag burners and YouTube rappers.

Shaping public opinion

Recently I came across a posting which so cogently encapsulates my own thoughts on the shaping and shapers of public opinion that I’ve sought permission of its author, the noted intellectual Rustam Sani to reproduce his writing here.

‘I am not an “objective” blogger – and not apologising for it’, Rustam confesses in his blog ‘Suara Rakyat’ (Vox Populi). He explains: “Sadly enough, the majority of the so-called professional journalists serving our mainstream media – both print and electronic, even digital – have been so indoctrinated to believe in this erroneous perception of objective journalism.

“Wittingly or unwittingly, to these journalists a piece of writing that supports the status quo is generally considered to be neutral and is not questioned in terms of its objectivity, while one that challenges the status quo tends to be perceived as having a ‘point of view’ – and therefore ‘biased’. Statements and assumptions that support the existing power structure are regarded as ‘facts’ while those that are critical of it tend to be rejected as ‘opinion’.”

My opinion, then, is that mainstream media playing down the gravity of Batu Burok earlier, and the Lingam tape and the Walk for Justice presently, while conversely and one-dimensionally playing up sensational crime stories is an indication of their BN-serving subjectivity.

My other opinion is that reporters have played it too safe by functioning as stenographers. Rustam provides an insight into why our local brand of journalism tends to dispense with interpretation and analysis: “Journalists who accurately report what their sources say can effectively remove responsibility for their stories onto the people they interview and quote.”

“The ideal of objectivity [in Malaysian terms] therefore encourages uncritical reporting of official statements and those of authority figures. In this way, the individual biases of individual journalists are avoided but institutional biases are reinforced,” he writes.

Ensuing from this orientation where the establishment is ensured the right of reply (or avenue for their excuses), government and corporate interests are “guaranteed access to the media, no matter how flimsy their argument or how transparently self-interested” while “no such access is guaranteed to critics, however”.

Burying scandals under sand

Institutionalised superficiality inherent in reportage on scandals potentially damaging to the BN incumbency (if and when it becomes impossible any longer to pretend ostrich-like that nothing happened) works to the advantage of official obfuscation and defusing public anger by watering down and diffusing the real foci of issues.

Rustam has observed that “to counter claims that society was being, in effect, brainwashed by this media monopoly, government-controlled corporate publishers – and to a certain extent the journalists themselves – promote the idea of ‘professional journalism’ (a concept defined narrowly to be confined to journalistic activities of those who work full-time in newsrooms of the mainstream newspaper establishments).”

It is a situation of government-sanctioned journalists qualifying themselves and at the same time trying to disqualify others.

Others refer to ‘unprofessional’, unaccredited with Ministry of Information news sources like web portals and blogs, and the ragtag of online writers and bloggers, i.e. ones targeted in Umno’s cyber war against monkeys.

These are the two sides of the government-legitimised-and-not divide currently tugging at public opinion.

The pro-establishment point of view is that the three-member ‘independent’ panel announced by Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak to probe the authenticity of the Lingam tape is proof of the government taking action and there is no further need for any royal commission of inquiry as the PM says.

The alternative point of view is that the panelists, like the rest of our fatigued institutions, do not inspire public confidence and this muhibbah Malay-Chinese-Indian panel is a delaying tactic to fob off more pressing demands. After a suitable interval enough for Malaysian memory to recede, the matter will be housekeeping as usual – swept under the carpet.

If you are willing to challenge the status quo and assumptions supporting the existing power structure, please walk to the People’s Parliament here. Find there a people’s petition drafted by civil rights lawyer Haris Ibrahim to the Yang Dipertuan Agong.

You are public opinion. We have a voice.

A time for Malaysian nationalism?

2006-10-06T15:09:00.000-07:00

By Rustam A. Sani

[New Straits Times: November 12, 1991]

When Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad presented his working paper, “Malaysia: The Way Forward”, before a gathering of corporate leaders at the first meeting of the Malaysian Business Council his purpose was, among other things, to present his “thoughts on the future course of our nation.”

Of the nine challenges that he thinks the nation must face in its path of becoming a fully developed industrial nation by the year 2020 (i.e. one generation from now), he considers the challenge of establishing a united nation as “the most fundamental, the most basic.”

To the Prime Minister, this particular challenge entails the establishment of “a united Malaysian nation with a sense of common and shared destiny”.

“This must be a nation at peace with itself, territorially and ethnically integrated, living in harmony and in full and fair partnership, made up of one ‘Bangsa Malaysia’ with political loyalty and dedication to the nation.”

The statement sounds very much like a call for us to embark on a Malaysian nationalist movement. Why do we need a nationalist movement, you might ask, 34 years after we have achieved independence?

Why not? Nationalism is, after all, an ideology that strives for the creation of a nation on behalf of a people. To have established an independent state does not necessarily mean that a nation has been created as well.

When a group of people is perceived by some of its members (or leaders) to constitute a nation – based on whatever political rationale or sense of common identity – then its normal for those members to launch a movement (i.e. a nationalist movement) to strive for the realisation of their perception of nationhood.

When the people concerned happens to be still under foreign domination, then the nationalist movement could constitute an anti-colonial movement as well. Establishing the nation would entail freeing it from foreign domination so that it could it assume its rightful place with equality and dignity in the world community of nations.

But nationalism need not always be anti-colonial in nature, especially in historical cases where a nation has not been established for the people despite the absence or termination of foreign rule.

Being members of political communities appears to be almost a “natural” state for man. Since antiquity man has lived in one form of political community or another –a community from which he draws his sense of identity and the authority that governs his behaviour, and to which he gives his loyalty.

But being a citizen of a nation-state may not be that natural, for the dominance of the nation as a form of political community is of comparatively recent origin.

To citizens of many post-colonial nations, the idea of nationhood itself has been acquired, in fact, as a by-product of comparatively recent colonial experience. For instance, there is no such thing as India or Indonesia before those geopolitical domains so designated today were brought together by their respective colonial masters.

What is crucial in forging a sense of nationhood among a people is a shared sense of common identity and destiny.

A certain “myth” of common origin – such as the belief that the people historically belonged to one cultural or racial group – could greatly help in creating such a “nationalist” sentiment, but it need not necessarily always be so. The search for (or the creation of) unifying national symbols is, however, always crucial in the establishment of a nation.

There are people who question the relevance and viability of nations and nationalisms in the future. After all, long established nations (such as the Soviet Union and Canada) are showing signs of breaking up into their constituent units.

What is often overlooked, however, is that even if these nations are breaking up, they are giving way only to the creation of yet other (albeit smaller) nations. With the probable continuing relevance of national symbols, the foreseeable future is most likely to remain a haven for flag-makers and designers of national emblems.

It is therefore quite safe to predict that the world of the next century is likely to remain a world of nation-states, even though the boundaries seperating them may have been changed or redrawn.

In a world where ideological rivalries would have ceased to define relationships among nations, it would be the economic advantages of nations, as well as the internal cohesion of each one of them, that are likely to determine the cause of international relations.

It is, therefore, good enough reason for nation-states, specially a developing one like Malaysia, to give at least equal (if of greater) emphasis on programmes of nation building.

The task of nation building is especially difficult in cases such as Malaysia, where national identity would have to be “creatively” carved out of a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural plural society bequethed upon it by its colonial historical experience.

As the social framework that we have inherited from the colonial period is delicate and explosive in nature, in the past one generation of our post-colonial history little, if any, political and intellectual initiatives were devoted to debating and formulating a notion of the nation that we wanted to create.

Almost all our energy was spent instead (perhaps rightly so) on the management of the physical development of the state and on efforts at reducing the possibilities of inter-ethnic tensions in the post-colonial era.

We embarked on a post-colonial policy of national unity, with the Rukun Negara as its ideological statement, which is far from constituting a nationalistic ideology of a “new” national identity.

On the one hand, there was the social inertia of the original notions of Malay nationalism. Malay nationalism may have been the only “true” form of nationalist movement that we had in our colonial history, but it was also a movement that “failed” to realise its dreams of establishing a Malay nation in the context of the multi-ethnic post-colonial state.

The Malay nationalistic tradition, however, never really developed into a vibrant intellectual movement after independence to strive for the reformulation of its former nationalistic notions into a new conception of Malaysian nationalism – in which elements of Malay nationalism could be utilised as the defining elements.

On the other hand, there was also a marked intellectual failure among the non-Bumiputeras to reformulate the old perception of their role in the “plural” society of the colonial period.

There have only been hazy indications of political and intellectual willingness to creatively rethink the notion of their social integration into a new cultural identity within a new concept of nationhood.

Any suggestion of any form of national integration would be simply and summarily dismissed as an attempt to dominate them culturally.

As a reaction to the perceived domination, purely political actions have been initiated in the name of the cultural freedom of defending ethnic identity (often poorly conceptualised and hardly understood by the “defenders” themselves). Often the sentiment that comes out clearly is a sense of longing to return to the plural society milieu of the colonial period.

The “Malaysian Malaysia” concept is the most lucid expression of such a sentiment, an expression of a longing to return to the “cultural laissez faire” milieu of the colonial era, of unwillingness to submit to any creative notion of nation building – in short an antithesis to what a concept such as “Bangsa Malaysia” should mean to us today.

With our political thinking influenced by such a political culture, many concepts – so crucial in the formulation of a specifically Malaysian notion of the nation building process – continued to be perceived in a mind-set established in the context of the colonial social matrix.

Take the case of the national language. Until today, the task of developing the Malay language into a modern “national” language, a language defining all aspects of our national life and therefore defining the “identity” of the nation, is still predominant the concern of the Malays (a concern which I must add is definitely waning).

As a consequence, the language has not developed into anything more than an “official” language – a language to be used grudgingly in official situations.

Like the national language, a number of other “symbolic” elements of our nation building concepts – such as national culture, national education system, etc. – are in need of being freed form the matrix of our colonial plural society thinking, to be understood anew outside the divisive idioms of out ethnic political culture.

There is a need for them to be reconceptualised and reformulated in a more intellectually informed discourse of a Malaysian nationalistic ideology.

Out past practice of “nationalistic substitution” – of simply managing, or avoiding, possible sources inter-ethnic strains – is inadequate for the purpose of charting our future.

Perhaps in the light of the emphasis given by Dr Mahathir to the notion of “Bangsa Malaysia” in his Vision 2020, the nineties may be an opportune time for us to embark on a Malaysian nationalist movement.

As usual in the history of nationalisms, the movement could perhaps be preceded by an intellectual discourse, in order to clarify our notion of “the (Malaysian) nation of intent”.

Kassim Ahmad, Doktor Persuratan Kehormat UKM (1985)

2006-09-30T21:13:00.000-07:00

PIDATO UMUM:
Penganugerahan Ijazah Kehormat
Doktor Persuratan
Kepada Kassim Ahmad

Majlis Konvokesyen Ke-13
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
17 Ogos 1985

Disampaikan oleh
Rustam A. Sani
Ketua
Jabatan Antropologi dan Sosiologi

Dengan nama Allah yang maha pemurah lagi maha penyayang.

Seorang sarjana yang berpendidikan tinggi belum tentu berhak dianggap seorang intelektual. Seorang intelektual secara jitu dan mendalam memikirkan persoalan-persoalan yang dihadapi masyarakatnya. Dia harus turut terlibat dalam persoalan-persoalan itu dengan menyalurkan hasil pemikirannya melalui tulisan atau kegiatan, untuk manfaat masyarakatnya. Peringkat pendidikan formal yang dicapai tidaklah ada kena mengenanya dengan keintelektualan. Seorang yang berpendidikan tinggi tetapi hanya menggunakan pendidikannya itu untuk kepentingan peribadi atau kerjayanya bukanlah seorang intelektual.

Kassim Ahmad sekali gus merupakan seorang sarjana dan intelektual. Sebagai seorang sarjana dia telah memperoleh pendidikan formal yang tinggi. Telah banyak sumbangannya dalam pengkajian sastera Melayu. Sebagai seorang intelektual, dia secara cekal dan berani telah turut terlibat dalam memikirkan persoalan-persoalan yang dihadapi masyarakatnya. Telah dipersembahkannya kepada masyarakat sumbangan bakti hasil pemikirannya melalui kegiatan-kegiatan sebagai penulis sastera kreatif, sebagai ahli teori dan kritik sastera, sebagai penulis esei falsafah dan politik, dan sebagai aktivis politik.

Namun demikian, nilai sumbangan Kassim dalam semua lapangan itu tidaklah dapat secara dangkal diukur dengan menghitung bilangan dan menyukat timbunan. Meskipun bilangan puisi yang dihasilkannya tidaklah seberapa, namun nilai intrinsik sumbangannya terhadap perkembangan puisi Melayu moden telah muafakat diakui oleh para pengkaji. Kegiatan politiknya mungkin tidak mempunyai kesan secara langsung terhadap proses perundang-undangan negara ini, namun peranannya dalam memperjuangkan keadilan sosial untuk golongan tani dan proletar tidaklah dapat disangkal lagi.

Barang siapa yang mengenal Kassim secara peribadi tak dapat tiada akan merasa kagum oleh sifatnya yang sederhana dan bersahaja. Puisi-puisiya mungkin indah dan mendebarkan, pemikirannya mungkin kritis dan menggemparkan, namun Kassim tidak pernah berasa perlu untuk melahirkan perasaan dan pendapatnya dengan gerak yang tangkas atau gaya yang gagah. Kesederhanaan ini mungkin hasil dari asal usul sosialnya yang serba sederhana. Namun kesederhanaan itu tidak pula pernah menjadi penghalang baginya untuk dengan cekal meneroka belantara hidup samudera maya yang penuh cabaran ini.

Kassim Ahmad dilahirkan dalam sebuah keluarga sederhana di Lepai, Bukit Pinang, Kedah pada 9 September 1933. Oleh yang demikian, dia dilahirkan sebagai anggota masyarakat Melayu-Muslim yang tertindas wujud lahiriahnya dan tercengkam kesedaran nuraninya oleh belenggu penjajahan. Ayahnya yang berlatarbelakangkan masyarakat tani itu terdidik menurut cara pendidikan Islam yang tradisional, yakni menurut sistem pondok. Dari pangkalan sosial yang demikianlah Kassim melepaskan dirinya bebas utuk menyelam dalam dan menjengah jarak di alam ilmu dan pendidikan. Dia tidak pernah takut membiarkan dirinya terbuka luas kepada segala macam pengaruh. Malah dia sendiri secara sedar membenamkan dirinya ke dalam kancah pemikiran asing yang ditemuinya dalam pengembaraannya itu.

Kassim yang pada mulanya mendapat didikan di Sekolah Melayu Bandar Baru (1939-46), kemudian melanjutkan pelajaran ke Maktab Sultan Abdul Hamid, Alor Star (1947-54). Ijazah Sarjanamuda Satera diperolehinya dari Universiti Malaya (Sigapura) pada tahun 1959, dan Ijazah Sarjana Satera diperolehi dari Universiti Malaya (Kuala Lumpur) pada tahun 1961. Sebagaimana yang disimpulakan oleh Kassim sendiri: “Saya menghadiri sekolah menengah Inggeris dan universiti Inggeris yang mengajar nilai-nilai dan ilmu-ilmu moden Barat yang kadang-kadang mengandugi faham dan semangat anti-Islam … Tetapi bagiku, sifat-sifat rasional dan saintifiknyalah yang menarik dan memikat hatiku”. Oleh yang demikian, meskipun pendidikannya menyebabkan Kassim jauh meninggalkan pangkalan budaya masyarakat tani Melayu-Muslimnya, namun akar umbinya tidak pernah tercabut dari pangkalan tersebut.

Sebagai minat kesarjanaannya, dia mengkaji sastera klasik bangsanya. Tetapi untuk itu dia mempergunakan sepenuhnya perspektif ilmu Barat yang diperolehinya. Dalam melaksanakan kerja kesarjanaannya, Kassim tidak pernah bersikap sebagai ahli teknik dan pengkaji naskah semata-mata. Implikasi sosial daripada hasil sastera klasik itulah yang cuba difahami dan diserlahkannya. Untuk latihan sarjanamudanya, Kassim telah menghasilkan satu pendekatan kajian yang baru lagi segar tentang Hikayat Hang Tuah. Dikemukakannya gagasan pandangannya, dari sudut Marxisme, tentang erti sosial daripada watak-watak yang bertingkah laku dan bertindak tanduk dalam hikayat tersebut.

Minatnya terhadap hikayat tersebut kemudiannya diteruskan dengan melakukan suntingan teks yang kini telah diterbitkan oleh Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka sebagai edisi yang dianggap berwibawa. Untuk ijazah sarjananya, Kassim telah mengkaji dan menyunting Syair Musuh Kelantan. Sesuai dengan sikapnya yang menentang koservatisme dalam masyarakatnya, maka karya Abdullah Munsyi juga menarik perhatiannya. Lalu dikaji dan disuntingnyalah Kisah Pelayaran Abdullah. Dalam rangka minat kesarjanaannya itu, Kassim pernah bertugas sebagai Pegawai Penyelidik di Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka (1960-62) dan kemudian menjadi pensyarah yang mengajar kesusasteraan Melayu di School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London (1962-66).

Menelaah dan menyerlahkan erti baru khazanah sastera klasik bangsanya tidaklah memadai bagi seorang cendekiawan berjiwa seni seperti Kassim. Ada rasa terpemdam dalam dadanya yang meronta-ronta minta dilepaskan ke tengah-tengah masyarakat. Seorang seniman memerlukan saluran karya kreatif untuk melahirkan rasa yang demikian, seperti yang diucapkannya dalam sajak “Pidato”:

beri aku lidah
aku mau berkata-kata
seperti laut yang menghempas
di pantai merdeka.

Maka “lidah” bagi Kassim terjelma dalam bentuk sejumlah karya-karya puisi dan cerita pendek yang telah mulai dihasikannya sejak tahun 1952. Sebahagian besar karya-karya itu kini terkumpul dalam antologi Kemarau di Lembah (1967).

Karya-karya kreatif Kassim memperlihatkan penglibatan sosial yang amat jelas lagi mendalam. Sebahagian besar karya-karya itu menggarap tema kepincangan masyarakat: penindasan kelas, ekploitasi buruh dan petani, dan ketidakadilan sosial. Namun demikian, karya-karya tersebut tidaklah merupakan tulisan propaganda yang kaku dang dangkal. Malah, karya-karya kreatif Kassim (terutama pisinya) merupakan pengucapan seni yang amat halus, segar nadanya, dan berjaya pula mencungkil kemungkinan-kemungkinan puitis yang terdapat dalam bahasa Melayu moden. Sesungguhnya, karya-karya kreatifnya melibatkan pemaduan yang mesra antara ide yang progresif, pengucapan yang berani dan bentuk yang indah.

Dilihat dari segi isinya yang terlibat dan memihak kepada rakyat tertindas, maka karya-karya Kassim tampaknya meneruskan tradisi Angkatan Sasterawan ’50 yang memperjuangkan “seni untuk masyarakat.” Namun demikian, dari segi pengucapannya ternyata bahawa Kassim secara sedar berusaha menyumbangkan kuntum-kuntum baru yang segar kepada khazanah sastera bangsanya. Akan tetapi, ide-ide revolusioner yang sering terpancar dalam puisinya kadangkala dipetik di luar konteks lalu digunakan untuk menuding jari yang penuh dakwaan ke arah Kassim. Misalnya sajak “Sidang Roh” pernah digunakan dalam kempen pilihanraya untuk menyelar sikap dan keperibadiannya -- malah mempersoal akidahnya. Percubaan pertama untuk menghasilkan novel telah dilakukannya sewaktu dalam tahanan antara tahun 1976 dan 1981. Novel itu diberinya judul Zaman Pacaroba. Sayangnya, apabila Kassim sendiri kemudiannya dapat menikmati kebebsan kembali, novel tersebut telah dijatuhkan hukuman bunuh sewaktu masih dalam bentuk mauskrip lagi!

Ciri-ciri karya kreatif Kassim ini tentu sahaja amat kuat dipengaruhi oleh sikapnya mengenai fungsi sastera sebagai seorang ahli kritik dan teori sastera. Dalam bidang kritik sastera Melayu moden, yang sering ketandusan para penyumbang yang berwibawa, Kassim tegak sebagai salah seorang penyumbang yang mantap lagi gigih. Sebagai ahli teori sastera, Kassim pada asasnya menyarankan penciptaan karya sastera yang dari segi isi dan bentuknya menggambarkan gerakan masyarakat dengan jujur lagi benar. Baginya karya sastera memikul tugas sosial yang berat untuk golongan rakyat terbanyak. Sejak akhir-akhir ini Kassim mulai pula bergiat menghuraikan pemikiran dan melontarkan gagasan tentang ciri-ciri sastera Islam. Melalui polemik yang hebat tetapi terhormat dengan Shahnon Ahmad dan beberapa penulis lain, Kassim menganjurkan sifat sastera Islam sebagai karya sejagat yang mendukung unsur-unsur nilai Islam yang progresif, tanpa mengira apakah karya tersebut dihasilkan oleh sasterawan Muslim maupun tidak.

Keghairahan Kassim akan pembelaan nasib golongan rakyat yang tertindas itu sesungguhnya bukanlah sekadar impian romantis seorang seniman. Di ringga dadanya terpendam tekad waja seorang pembela rakyat yang berani lagi gigih, seperti yang diucapkannya dengan penuh optimis dalam sebuah sajaknya:

… Ada besok maka pasti ada suria
aku akan pergi
dengan seribu jebat si anak tani
sekian lama kita mati dalam setia
kali ini kita hidup dalam durhaka

Dan kecekalan jiwa pejuang ini disalurkannya melalui politik. Meskipun sewaktu bertugas di London, minatnya terhadap politik tanah airnya tidak pernah luput. Selain berfikir dan menulis tentang persoalan tersebut, dia bersama-sama teman-teman sealirannya pernah mengirim memorandum bantahan kepada Setiausaha Agung PBB, U Thant, menentang gagasan pembentukan Malaysia. Dalam konteks analisis hubungan-hubungan neo-kolonial sedunia pada waktu itu, implikasi gagasan tersebut amat dikhuatiri oleh Kassim.

Sekembalinya dari London, setelah berkhidmat sebagai guru selama beberapa bulan, Kassim mulai secara aktif terlibat dalam kegiatan politik parti. Selaras dengan keghairahannya akan penderitaan rakyat, maka parti yang disertainya ialah Parti Rakyat Malaya yang menganut faham sosialisme dan dipimpin oleh Ahmad Boestamam. Pada tahun 1968, Kassim mengambil alih pimpinan parti itu, lalu menamakannya Psrti Sosialis Rakyat Malaya. Penyertaanya dalam kegiatan politik ini tidaklah memberikannya kedudukan mahupun kemewahan. Malah kegiatan dalam parti yang serba kekurangan itu menuntut segala macam pengorbanan daripadanya dan keluarganya. Kemuncak pengorbanan itu ialah penahanannya selama empat tahun di bawah Undang-undang Keselamatan Dalam Negeri.

Percubaan yang dilakukan Kassim beberapa kali untuk memperoleh hak menjadi penyambung lidah rakyat di parlimen tidak pernah mencapai kejayaan. Namun demikian, dari segi sejarah sosial dan sosiologi politik orang Melayu, pimpinan politik yang telah disumbangkannya itu dapatlah dianggap sebagai penerusan tradisi pimpinan para intelektual golongan rakyat yang telah dirintis oleh tokoh-tokoh seperti Ibrahim Yaacob, Dr. Burhanuddin Al-Helmi, Ahmad Boestamam, Ishak Haji Muhammad dan lain-lain. Kini Kassim sudah tidak lagi menganggotai parti yang pernah dipimpinnya itu, namun minatnya terhadap persoalan politik bangsanya belumlah malap.

Dalam segala bentuk penulisannya, Kassim mempunyai sikap yang bebas, berani menimba pemikiran dari pelbagai sumber, dan dengan berterus terang menentang unsur-unsur kekolotan yang dianggapnya mencengkam dan melemahkan perkembangan intelektual masyarakatnya. Sikap yang demikian sering menyebabkan Kassim dislah tanggap sebagai telah tercabut akar umbinya daripada unsur-unsur budaya masyarakatnya, malah menentang masyarakatnya. Demikianlah halnya hubungan Kassim degan Islam. Sebagaimana yang telah diakui sendiri oleh Kassim, dia memang telah sejak lama mengembara mencari falsafah yang amat memuaskan jiwanya. Pengembaraan itu membawanya kembali kepada Islam sekitar pertengahan tahun tujuh puluhan. Namun demikian, dia tidak dapat berpuas dengan sikap seorang pengembara lelah yang telah mencari perlindungan redup di bawah ketenangan prasangka seorang Muslim baka.

Dia berusaha mencapai pemahaman yang mendalam tentang falsafah tauhid Islam melalui pendekatan yang rasional, saintifik lagi kreatif. Kajiannya itu menemukannya dengan jawaban-jawaban agung yang terdapat dalam Al-Qur’an terhadap persoalan-persoalan besar yang dihadapi oleh manusia dan dunia moden. Tetapi penemuan itu tidak pula membutakan mata hatinya terhadap kelemahan-kelemahan teori sosial Islam yang diakibatkan oleh berkuasanya semangat taklid anti-rasional dan anti-sains sejak abad kesebelas. Oleh yang demikian, dalam tulisan-tulisannya mengenai Islam, Kassim tidak sekadar berpuas mengemukakan pemerian tentang falsafah tauhid dan teori sosial Islam. Sebaliknya, Kassim menganggap sebagai kerja besarnya untuk menyertai tradisi beberapa orang para pemikir Muslim untuk memehami faham taklid dan membuka kembali pintu ijtihad – dan dengan itu kembali kepada keagungan intelektual pada abad-abad awal Islam. Pemikirannya itu pada mulanya dikemuakakan dalam sebuah risalah yang berjudul Masalah Teori Sosial Moden Islam (1977) dak kemudiannya diperluaskan dalam buku yang berjudul Teori Sosial Moden Islam (1984).

Demikianlah, dalam segala bidang kegiatannya Kassim merupakan seorang pegembara intelektual yang berpergian jauh tetapi tidak pernah terputus hubungan nuraninya dengan masyarakat dan budayanya. Sesungguhnya, pemgembaraan itu memberikannya ketajaman perpektif untuk melihat masyarakatnya secara objektif, sehingga tidak dapat dia memejamkan matanya kepada unsur-unsur kejelekan dan kekolotan yang melemahkan masyarakat itu. Lalu bergiatlah dia untuk memerangi kelemahan itu dengan kecekalan moral yang luar biasa.

Melancarkan perang intelektual dengan collective conscience sebuah masyarakat yang konservatif ternyata merupakan kerja yang amat berbahaya. Socrates yang berbuat demikian beberapa abad yang lalu telah dihukum oleh masyarakay Athena dengan memaksanya mereguk racun hemlock. Masyarakat kita juga telah memberikan hemlocknya kepada Kassim dalam pelbagai bentuk – tuduhan dan tohmahan, pengharaman karya, penahanan, penindasan, dan sebagainya. Semoja masih wujud kewarasan dalam masyarakat kita untuk mengizinkan pintu ijtihad dibuka dan menghargai serta menghormati kejituan intelektual dan kecekalan moral seperti yang diperlihakan oleh Kassim Ahmad.

Rustam A. Sani
17 Ogos 1985.

Points of contention in Bahasa Baku

2006-09-29T15:39:00.000-07:00

By Rustam A. Sani

[New Straits Times: Thursday, Februaury 4, 1988]

If you were to converse informally in Malay with some Malay writers of the 1950 generation (Asas ’50) – such as A. Samad Ismail, Usman Awang and Asraf – you would find that the language they use is not any different from that used by an average native speaker of the language.

But give them the rostrum to address a formal gathering, you will immediately notice a change in the language they use. Not only do the sentences become more structured, but the words and intonation too undergo a marked transformation.

Because of the /a/ sound at the end of every word ending in an open vowel /a/ (and there is a large number of such words in Malay), listeners tend to think that they are Indonesianised or Indonesian-influenced.

Indeed, in certain aspects, the formal language that they use shows close affinity with the formal and official Indonesian language (or Bahasa Indonesia which originated from the Malay language, anyway).

But it is certainly not “Indonesian” in the strict sense of the word. Words of strictly Indonesian usage, such as bisa (able to) and kebutuhan (needs) are never used.

The best way to describe the language would be to take a formal piece of writing in Bahasa Malaysia in the new standardised spelling system and to read it exactly as it is written (i.e. phonemically).

And, lately that mode of pronouncing Bahasa Malaysia has become the centre of a fresh controversy as it has been adopted as the standard form of pronunciation for Standard Bahasa Malaysia (or Bahasa Malaysia Baku) in schools.

What seems to be the major point of contention among the opponents of Bahasa Malaysia Baku (BMB) is the adoption of the /a/ sound in the final open vowel /a/, a move alleged to be the subjugation of Bahasa Malaysia by Bahasa Indonesia.

The form that is considered by these opponents to be the proper standard Bahasa Malaysia is the one based on the Johor-Riau dialect, in which the final open vowel /a/ is pronounces as /e/. They contend that it is this feature that makes Bahasa Malaysia distinct from Bahasa Indonesia.

While the final open vowel /a/ is hardly the sole feature of BMB, it is certainly an integral aspect of the language if we intend to be consistent in the application of the principle of phonemics in its formal usage: that words be pronounced exactly as they are spelt, and vice versa.

Proponents of BMB, however, reject the notion that the final open vowel /a/ is exclusively Indonesia, or that the Johor-Riau dialect should be the basis for a formal and standardised Bahasa Malaysia.

They contend that the Johor-Riau dialect is but another dialect in Malaysia, just as there are other dialects found in Kelantan, Kedah, Perak, Sarawak, Negeri Sembilan, and elsewhere in the country.

Just as the final open vowel /a/ is pronounced differently in different corners of the Malay world (including Singapore, Brunei and Indonesia), it is also pronounced differently in the spoken dialects of different areas within Malaysia: /a/ in Kedah, Perlis, Pulau Pinang, Sabah and Sarawak; /o/ in Negeri Sembilan, parts of Melaka, and Kelantan; /e/ in Perak.

However, the adoption of the final open vowel /a/ does not in any way imply a preference for the dialects of Kedah and Sabah, for example, over that of Johor.

In applying the principle of phonemics in the pronunciation of BMB, no one dialect is going to emerge the “victor”. Every dialect will find any one of its features that is not consistent with the pronunciation system of BMB dropped in its formal usage.

The Kedah dialect may find its pronunciation of the final open vowel /a/ consistent with the BMB usage, but would find its /gh/ sound in place of /r/ (as in /oghang/ for /oghang/ not consistent with the BMB pronunciation.

Likewise, the Johor-Riau dialect will find some features of its pronunciation that is consistent with BMB retained in its formal usage.

One very convincing argument for the rejection of the final open vowel /a/ sound of the Johor-Riau dialect is the difficulty in explaining its inconsistencies in applying the principle of phonemics in systematic language teaching in schools.

One of the results that the implementation of BMB hopes to achieve is the standardisation of the pronunciation of foreign loan words in BMB.

In the case of foreign loan words, too, the principle of phonemics shall apply: that the words shall be pronounced exactly as they are spelt in the official Bahasa Malaysia spelling system and not as they are pronounced in the language of origin; therefore /teknologi/ will not be pronounced /teknoloji/, /industri/ will not be pronounced /indastri/, and /rakyat/ will not be pronounced /ra’yat/.

Based on such a principle, it would certainly be confusing for students in schools to be told to pronounce a word that is spelt as s-a-y-a as /saye/ or a word spelt l-a-m-a as /lame/.

Moreover, it becomes doubly confusing when the Johor-Riau dialect itself does not have a really consistent rule on the pronunciaition of the final open vowel /a/. For example, words like asrama, wanita, bola, sandiwara are always pronounced exactly as they are spelt and never asrame, wanite, bole, sandiware.

One other argument that is usually offered in opposing BMB is its alleged novelty; the idea is said to have come rather suddenly and people are unprepared for it.

Such an argument is however not quite correct. In fact, the idea of a standard formal pronunciation system for Malay had been discussed and resolved by experts at the third Malay language congress in Johor Baru in 1956. The idea was again upheld at the fourth congress in Kuala Lumpur in 1986.

Moreover, the prononciation of Bahasa Malaysia with the final open vowel /a/ is not really something novel in its formal usage. Besides its usage among certain intellectuals and writers, that mode of pronunciation has for some time now been the acceptable form in poetry reading and in songs.

Francesca Peters and Sheila Majid, for example, certainly cannot be dubbed “Indonesian” singers simply because they do not render their songs in the Johor-Riau dialect.

Another point that must be underlined is that he implementation of BMB does not entail drastic changes in the syntactic structures of Bahasa Malaysia that its users would have to relearn the language anew, in its entirety or in parts. All it entails is the standardisation and systematisation of its pronunciation in formal usage.

Consequently, therefore, the implementation of BMB is not designed to “eliminate” any or all dialects as the mode of informal communication among people in their daily primary social interactions.

People who habitually use the BMB pronunciation in formal discourse, such as the academician Prof. Awang Had Salleh, the linguist Prof. Nik Safiah Karim, and the poet Usman Awang, can always switch to their respective Kedah, Kelantan and Johor dialects when interacting with their children and spouses at home.

The opposition to the implementation of BMB seems to come mainly from native speakers of Malay who hold the erroneous notion that formal BMB should be exactly the same as their colloquial mother tongue.

The fact is that their colloquial mother tongue is best left a tool with which to converse with their mothers, as it is totally unsuitable and inadequate for the purposes of formal, intellectual and sophisticated discourse – a role for which the BMB is being prepared.

The difference, even disjuncture, between a formal language and an informal dialect is more readily recognisable in other languages. In Bahasa Indonesia, for example, people move back and forth from their bahasa daerah or bahasa sukuan (area or ethnic dialects) to the official language with ease, depending on the situation in which they are communicating.

In England, even those with a Cockney (of London) social origin would be using the King’s English for purposes of formal discourse.

In the English language, the spoken form of the formal and standardised King’s English is often refered to as the BBC English, as it is the pronunciation form adopted by the broadcasting corporation.

Unfortunately, RTM does not seem to be too keen on the BMB idea, because it is more concerned with efficient and immediate transmission of information rather than with the development of a standardised modern official language. With efforts that are being taken at TV3, however, it is not unlikely that the spoken form of BMB could in future be known as Bahasa TV3.

It is difficult to understand why the linguistic affinity that could develop between BMB and the official Bahasa Indonesia is causing anxiety in some quarters.

Undeniably, the affinity could lead to greater interlegibility between the two languages, even perhaps with those of Brunei and Singapore, too.

Such a development can only be beneficial to all parties concerned I their efforts to modernise their respective official languages – and perhaps develop them into a common regional language for the twenty-first century.

It is perhaps appropriate that the first step towards such a development is being taken in our schools.

Phoenix-like, a new kind of Malay arises

2006-09-27T23:52:00.000-07:00

[Business Times (

Singapore

), Weekend Edition, March 27-28, 1993]

The controversy surrounding the constitutional amendments aimed at eliminating the legal immunity of the Malay rulers – which was recently passed by the Malaysian parliament after incorporating certain counter amendments by the Yang DiPertuan Agung – is not merely political and legal in nature.

The open debate on the position of the Malay rulers generated by the controversy – especially the series of ‘exposures’ in the Malay press – was interpreted by some as a manifestation of profound cultural change being experienced by Malay society.

Such a debate would have been unthinkable a few years ago, because it would have been considered politically too sensitive for the Malays, who have always considered their rulers as the symbol of their unity and political dominance in the context of Malaysia’s multi-ethnic society.

But this time around, the situation is quite different. Not only was the issue openly discussed, but a group of about 100 Malay intellectuals who met in Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka to discuss the matter, defiantly declared that “the future of the Malays does not depend on the rulers, but on leaders who are morally upright and intellectually dependable”.

Excesses in the lifestyles of the Malay rulers that were tolerated for years have suddenly become the subject of vicious attacks.

Why has such a radical change in Malay political attitude suddenly emerged? One explanation is that the change is indicative of a profound cultural transformation among the Malays that has been brewing for some time now and has started to erupt in the 1990s.

Whereas Malay political attitudes since the time of independence in the late 1950s had been marked by a lack of confidence – by a need to be constantly reassured of political dominance through asserting cultural symbols of distinctively Malay identity – the Malays of the 1990s are politically and economically more confident.

At the heart of this previous “lack of confidence” had been a keen awareness of Malay economic backwardness, and frustration with being unable to come out of the cocoon of rural peasant economic conditions maintained by the colonial structures of the past. Malay self-perception has always been that of a group within a multi-ethnic society unable to participate as a full partner in the modern economic life of the post-colonial state.

It was this structural social imbalance, perceived to be the cause of ethnic riots in 1969, that the New Economic Policy (NEP) of the early 1970s was supposed to address – and eradicate.

Whether the NEP has been able to bring the Malays squarely into the mainstream of modern economic life in post-colonial Malaysia is still a matter for debate. But one thing is certain: 20 years of the implementation of the NEP, with its plethora of measures designed to enhance the economic position of the Malays, has instilled a greater sense of Malay confidence – a sense of satisfaction that the degree of participation in the economic life of modern Malaysia is now commensurate with their bumiputra (native) status.

A number of social indicators of this new sense of confidence can be discerned. The National Development Policy (NDP), introduced in the early 1990s to replace the NEP, while retaining its basic thrust, seems to show greater concern for the economic plight of other ethnic groups, such as the Indians.

The Third Bumiputra Economic Congress held in Kuala Lumpur in January 1992 was quite different from previous congresses in the sense that there was less emphasis given to the exclusive enhancement of Malay business and economic interests. Greater emphasis was instead given to enhancing economic cooperation among the ethnic groups.

Even Umno, the dominant Malay political party, has become distinctly less “exclusive” in its perception of what constitutes Malay identity. With the entry of Umno into the Sabah political arena, the party has now accepted non-Muslim bumiputras in Sabah as full members of the party.

Recently, there have been moves to accept Portuguese from Malacca into the party as well.

Malaysia’s vision of its political future into the next century has been formulated in a paper entitled “Malaysia: The Way Forward” presented by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad at the inaugural meeting of the Malaysia Business Council in Kuala Lumpur on 28 February 1991.

The crux of the vision is that Malaysia should be a fully developed industrial nation (bangsa Malaysia) within one generation – that is, by the year 2020.

The reaction of the Malays to Dr Mahathir’s vision – dubbed “Vision 2020” – is also somewhat indicative of their newly-acquired confidence. There has not been any conspicuous objection to the idea of cultural transformation needed for the creation of a fully developed industrial society, nor creation of a new “national identity” – the bangsa Malaysia.

Even Malay opposition political parties were merely expressing their sense of apprehension that Malays may not be fully prepared to participate as equal partners in the project – and may, in the process, lose their dominance and even their identity.

Dr Mahathir himself seems to share that apprehension, seen in his constant calls to Malays to change their ways and values, urging them to take part in modern business activities, and to work doubly hard so as to compete with the other ethnic groups.

In his Presidential Address at the Umno General Assembly on Nov 8, 1991, the Prime Minister went even further by emphasizing the need to create a “new Malay and bumiputra race” (bangsa Melayu dan Bumiputra yang baru) which is both psychologically and culturally prepared to enter the 21^st century.

His definition of the new Malay seems to be a “cultural” one – “an ethnic group whose culture is in keeping with the times, who (is) capable of facing all challenges, who (is) willing to compete without enjoying special privileges, who (is) educated and learned, sophisticated, sincere, disciplined, trustworthy and efficient”.

Are Malaysia’s Malays ready for the cultural transformation demanded of them in realizing Dr Mahathir’s Vision 2020? Cultural transformation is an abstract concept which is very difficult to put a handle on. “Melayu Baru” as a concept, however, has certainly gained currency among today’s Malays – both as an excuse and an explanation for doing things differently from the ways that they have always been done in the past.

When some Malays in Kuala Lumpur were recently accused of being “un-Malay” for the way they criticized the Malay rulers, their answer was: “Of course we are being un-Malay, we are the new Malay (Melayu baru).”

Pertembungan dengan Barat dan krisis intelektual kita

2006-09-27T15:34:00.000-07:00

Oleh Rustam A. Sani

[Dewan Budaya: April 1985]

Pada waktu ini sudah menjadi suatu langkah yang “fashionable” untuk menyalahkan Barat bagi segala kebobrokan yang kita temui dalam kehidupan masyarakat kita sendiri – dari keruntuhan moral hinggalah kepada kenakalan remaja.

Sebagai peradaban yang dihasilkan oleh masyarakat manusia, sudah pasti peradaban Barat itu tidak sempurna dan murni, dan mempunyai banyak sifat-sifat negatif atau sekurang-kurangnya bercanggah dengan nilai budaya bukan-Barat.

Akan tetapi, sebagai budaya yang menjadi teras beberapa peradaban – dari peradaban Hellenistik hinggalah kepada peradaban moden kontemporari – maka tentulah tidak mungkin peradaban Barat itu terbina atas asas yang jelek semata-mata.

Bukan sedikit pencapaian Barat dalam bidang pemikiran, ilmu pengetahuan, teknologi, kesenian, kesusasteraan dan sebagainya yanng tak dapat tidak harus kita kagumi.

Oleh beberapa hakikat sejarah, peradaban Barat telah sejak lama bertembung dengan dan meninggalkan kesan terhadap budaya-budaya bukan-Barat di seluruh dunia, terutamanya sejak pertengahan dan akhir abad yang kesembilan belas.

Masyarakat-masyarakat Islam di seluruh dunia telah terlibat dalam hubungan budaya yang pelbagai bentuknya dengan Barat sejak beberapa lama.

Dalam hubungan tersebut – yang terjelma dalam bidang perdagangan, kolonialisme, peperangan dan sebagainya – Islam bukan sahaja dipengaruhi tetapi telah bnayak pula memberi dan mempengaruhi. Malah tradisi dan keagungan peradaban Islam itulah yang telah diwarisi dan diteruskan Barat (setelah “kemerosotan” Islam pada abad ke-13 dan ke-14) untuk dijadikan asas bagi perkembangan peradaban moden.

Mulai pertengahan abad ke-19, hubungan Barat dengan bahagian dunia lainnya telah menjadi mantap dalam bentuknya yang tidak seimbang itu.

Barat yang telah melalui revolusi industri itu menguasai teknologi yang lebih maju dan peradaban dunia – dan kedudukan yang superior ini telah dilembagakan dalam bentuk kolonialisme.

Hubungan yang tidak seimbang inilah yang telah mencirikan hubungan Barat dengan masyarakat-masyarakat Islam di seluruh dunia sejak pertengahan abad kesembilan belas itu.

Di mana-mana pertembungan dengan peradaban Barat yang perkasa itu merupakan suatu dilema intelektual bagi masyarakat Islam dalam usaha masyarakat itu memasuki peradaban moden.

Di mana-mana tampaknya masyarakat-masyarakat Islam mengalami krisis intelektual dan keperibadian dalam menentukan sejauh mana unsur-usur daripada peradaban Barat itu dapat diserap atau ditolak tanpa menjejaskan kemurnian ciri keislamannya sendiri.

Pelbagai formula sosial telah berlangsung dalam masyarakat-masyarakat Islam dalam menghadapi dilema tersebut – dengan akibatnya yang berbagai-bagai pula. Ada masyarakat Islam yang menyisihkan dirinya sama sekali daripada arus peradaban Barat itu (misalnya Afghanistan) lalu berundur ke bawah tempurung konservatisme sendiri.

Formula yang demikian hanya berhasil menjadikan masyarakat Islam itu sendiri terlalu lemah sehingga dapat dengan mudahnya ditundukkan oleh kuasa-kuasa ekonomi dan politik Barat.

Selain itu ada pula masyarakat Islam yang membiarkan dirinya terserap sepenuhnya ke dalam arus pembaratan (seperti Turki), dan dalam proses itu kehilangan sebahagian besar ciri-ciri murninya sebagai sebuah masyarakat bukan-Barat.

Dalam sesetengah masyrakat Islam Islam (seperti Iran sebelum revolusi) kita dapati pula kadar pembaratan yang amat berlainan antara kategor-kategori sosial yang berlainan – misalnya satu golongan kecil elit yang bersifat Barat di tengah-tengah majoriti rakyat yang konservatif.

Formula yang demikian juga tampaknya telah menghasilkan krisis sosial yang melemahkan ketahanan masyarakat itu terhadap kuasa-kuasa politik dan ekonomi Barat.

Dalam memasuki era moden dan untuk mengambil tempat yang sewajarnya dalam dunia moden ini, saya kira masyarakat-masyarakat bukan-Barat tidaklah dapat menafikan begitu sahaja kedudukan Barat yang telah ditentukan oleh sejarah dunia.

Yang perlu dilakukan ialah mencapai suatu ketetapan intelektual bagi menentukan unsur-unsur mana daripada peradaban Barat itu yang dapat diserapkan, sehingga tidak menjadi sekadar suatu salinan daripada Barat. Persoalan inilah, umpamanya, yang telah menjadi topik berdebatan yang agak “enlightened” di kalangan para intelektual Indonesia dalam “Polemik Kebudayaan” pada tahun-tahun lima puluhan yang lalu.

Dalam konteks kebangkitan Islam yang sedang berlaku dalam masyarakat kita kini, saya kira terdapat sikap yang tidak begitu sihat terhadap Barat. Tanpa pemahaman yang sewajarnya akan peradaban Barat itu, kita langsung menolak Barat dan menyalahkannya sebagai bertanggungjawab bagi kebobrokan kita sendiri.

Apabila dakwaan-dakwaan itu dibuat tanpa pemahaman yang sewajarnya maka sikap itu lebih merupakan “memfitnah Barat” daripada “menolak Barat.” Hal ini mungkin ada hubungannya dengan bentuk dan ciri kebangkitan Islam yang sedang berlaku dalam masyarakat kita kini.

Amat terasa bahawa “kebangkitan” out berlaku sebahagian besarnya pada peringkat bentuk dan tidak pada intinya – oleh itu begitu banyak diperkatakan tentang hukum dan fikah. Perbincangan yang bersifat falsafah, akidah dan teologi amat terbatas.

Oleh kerana itu, penolakan terhadap Barat itu juga tampaknya berlaku pada peringkat yang dangkal sahaja.

Saya kira penolakan Barat yang dangkal seperti ini tidak ada manfaatnya – malah counterproductive pula – bagi masyarakat kita dan masyarakat Islam umumnya dalam usaha masyarakat-masyarakat itu mengambil tempatnya yang sah dalam dunia moden ini.

Kita seharusnya berusaha meningkatkan visi tentang masa depan masyarakat kita ke pringkat pemikiran yang lebih sofistikated – dan dari perspektif itu membentuk pertimbangan wajar tentang unsur-unsur daripada peradaban Barat yang dapat kita manfaatkan tanpa melenyapkan keperibadian sindiri.

Journalists urged to test limits of Press freedom

2006-09-26T19:50:00.000-07:00

By Carolyn Hong

[New Straits Times: Tuesday May 5, 1998]

The media should progressively test the limits of critical analysis and reporting as well as educate the people on the importance of Press freedom.

Speaking at a panel discussion on Press freedom, social critic Rustam A. Sani acknowledged that this could be “highly dangerous work” but said it could be done slowly and with wisdom. “It’s not just a matter of pushing the parameters for its own sake but to educate the people on the importance of having the freedom to criticize,” he said, adding that it should also be done without malice.

His view found agreement from the other speakers at the discussion held in conjunction with World Press Freedom Day. It was organized by the Asian Institute for Development Communication and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. The session was moderated by New Straits Times managing editor Zainon Ahmad.

NST Group Editor Datuk A. Kadir Jasin said some journalists were not willing to push the parameters of Press freedom because of a close relationship forged with the Government over the last 20 years. He said they were also hampered by the reluctance of people to talk to the Press. “There seems to be a culture of fear,” he said.

Rustam also said people had lost the art of articulating or opposing. “Society must love the idea of Press freedom,” he said. “Press freedom is not just about freeing the Press or the lack of laws. Even if we repeal all the laws, it’s not already part of the culture.”

Kadir, tracing the recent history of the Malaysian media, said the pre-1969 period saw a very free Press but the May 13 racial riots brought in many changes, including that of the media taking on the role of an agent of development. “There was a merging of interests between the media and Government and a comfortable relationship was built, coinciding with the period of rapid economic growth and a strong Government,” he said.

However, during the economic slowdown of the mid-1980s, racial tensions and an internal challenge to the leadership backed by a segment of the media arose. The subsequent closure of several newspapers left an indelible effect on the media’s mindset.

The Nineties, a decade of strong economic growth and widespread public support for the Government, ushered in a more confident administration. “There was a slightly higher degree of freedom and acceptance of criticism by the Government,” Kadir said.

Another panelist, Tan Sri A. Samad Ismail, chairman of the National Information Policy panel, said parameters should be tested as “freedom is not given on a silver platter”. He said the Press must spur critical thinking and be the people’s conscience. He urged the mass communication studies be widened to teach not just skills, but also critical analysis.

Asked about an article in a British newspaper accusing Malaysia of poisoning Indonesia illegal immigrants, he said this was an example of sensational reporting designed purely to sell more copies.

Sin Chew Jit Poh senior writer James Wong who was also on the panel, said local journalists were “too polite” and reluctant to ask difficult questions because they did not regard themselves intellectual equals of the country’s leaders.

Earlier, when delivering his address, 1961 Magsaysay Award recipient Amitabha Choudhury said the Press could only be as free as society wanted it to be. He also observed that the public had not demanded more freedom despite technological advances and the print media’s growing wealth.

He questioned if this apathy was the result of society becoming a victim of its own affluence. “What portion of the younger public would rise and battle for freedom of the Press or of other institutions, if they were threatened?” he said.

He said no freedom could be without its price or practiced without caution. “It takes long learning both in personal life and as a journalist, to know how not to trip over the fine line of caution and fearlessness,” he said.

Outline of public intellectual culture only dimly visible

2006-09-26T18:05:00.000-07:00

By Joceline Tan

[New Straits Times: January 10, 1999]

Malaysians do have strong opinions – but only in the coffeeshops and their bedrooms. Private debate leaves much to be desired and the overall result is a weak public intellectual culture.

About a week ago, a Chinese academic met up with friends for brunch at a coffeeshop where, as usual, they argued about everything from politics to the economy. Everybody at the table, he recalls, had an opinion. “Pretty strong opinions too,” he said.

But these people, the academic included, are only frank and outspoken among their own little circle. Outside the familiar circle, they either clamp up or tone down their views. “It’s one of our problems as Malaysians … that we have opinions only in our bedrooms, and in the coffeeshop,” says the academic. The “coffeeshop internet” still rules the day, yes, but the last 10 years or so – give and take the periodic clamp here and there – have seen a more intelligent and intellectual trend of discourse emerging in the public domain.

There is no distinct public intellectual culture as yet but the outline is there as are the handful of public intellectuals. In fact, what seemed evident while writing this was how very few people actually seemed to fit the category.

Only three names were consistently mentioned by those interviewed as public intellectuals: Rustam A. Sani, Prof. K. S. Jomo and Prof. Chandra Muzaffar. The rest (see story below) were more unevenly mentioned and several were even disputed. It took a while to realise there aren’t that many at all.

In fact, the term “public intellectual” is still relatively new for a large number of Malaysians. Very briefly, a public intellectual is someone who thinks about issues of public concern and makes thoughts and opinions accessible to the public; a degree is not a prerequisite.

As in the case of truly respected intellectuals, the public intellectual is also expected to be intellectually honest, to be true to themselves and to what they believe in. As the well-known Palestinian intellectual and writer Edward Said insists, independence is a sine qua non of any public intellectual. Or his other famous quote: “to speak the truth in the face of power.”

But, and quite unfortunately so, the role of public intellectuals is also partly defined by the media because it is the chief access to the masses. Thus, media space tends to go to those whose views are considered newsworthy, have broad ramifications or – and this is a sore point among several quarters – does not contradict the media’s own special interests.

Thus, a mathematician may be doing path-breaking work but his findings are far less likely to be of public interest than, say, a sociologist’s view on why unmarried girls abandon their babies in public toilets. So why is there a paucity of public intellectuals in our midst? It’s usually the same few people who are quoted by the media and the same few faces appear on talk shows.

Or at least these are the same few people who make sense, who actually have an interesting or original point of view and who do not make a career of parroting the official line; the others, as a fellow journalist says with a sigh, mostly make noise.

Says think-tank head Razak Baginda: “There are many intellectuals with strong views but not many are willing to take the risk of putting their views under public scrutiny.” Besides, many intellectuals especially those in academia, tend to turn up their noses on the idea of popularising their opinions in the media. It’s just not on for them.

But national laureate Prof. Muhammad Haji Salleh insists that not all of it has to do with intellectual snobbery. The priority of most academics is to write for a higher audience – refereed journals and scholarly publications. Not only does the university expect it of them, this is what propels them up the career ladder.

“I think Malaysian papers suffer for that. But somehow, Kompas (an Indonesian broadsheet) can get the academicians to contribute and, my God, the big names who write for the paper!” says Muhammad. Nevertheless, Muhammad, literary awards and all, confesses that he himself has never been tempted to stray into a more public domain. “Research, writing, teaching – that’s my life … very simple. I can’t even get used to this new corporate mood in the university.”

The truth is that very few intellectuals are keen or prepared to venture into the public domain. Of those willing to do so, a number turn out a bit of a disappointment. They have little new to contribute, are too conservative to be interesting and some are barely analytical let alone intellectual. And sometimes, they are reminiscent of some of those orators who wax eloquent at Umno general assemblies – breathtaking phrases, witty pantuns, grand words but quite limited content. Journalists have often sat spellbound through such flowery oratory only to look at their notes later and realise that there is so little substance they can report on.

“Good quality intellectuals are relatively few,” says economist Dr. Zainal Aznam Yusoff. He goes on to complain presumably tongue-in-cheek, that intellectuals “are barbers as they like to split hair” and ambidextrous, “always arguing on the basis of ‘on the one hand’ and ‘on the other hand’ and usually falling in between their hands”.

They are also prone to long-windedness, suffer from “paralysis of analysis” and generally waste time by talking too much and doing too little. And to rub salt into injury, he thinks they are somewhere at the bottom of society’s pecking order. (Incidently, more than a few people find Zainal intellectual.)

On a more serious note, the well-known educationist Tan Sri Prof. Awang Had Salleh attributes the poverty of real opinion among even the intelligentsia to the school system. “More people have access to education than ever before. But the emphasis has been on conformity rather than being different, on answers rather than the process of thinking,” he says.

Another disturbing thing about some of the discussion taking place in the mainstream media is the uniformity of ideas and opinion. They avoid contradicting others in public and opt for politeness over argument. Not only is it a big hundrum to hear different people say more or less the same thing in different ways, but monotony is a pretty scary thing.

Of course, it is possible that all these people may actually share a common view on issues, but a more plausible reason may be the old rice bowl hang-up. This is not a big country. People know they cannot shatter someone else’s rice bowl without cracking their own or as a Kuala Lumpur lawyer puts it: “There’s this gravy train and people want to stay on it.”

Part of the problem, too, is the highly personalised nature of the Malaysian political culture. Political personalities dominate and too often the direction of a debate is determined by who one supports rather than the facts and the issues at hand. Says the lawyer: “You forestall intellectual debate which is issue-driven.”

So a lot of people end up saying what they think others, especially those who have influence over their lives and career, want to hear, and the result is described as consensus, agreeing to disagree, or the Malaysian way of doing things.

Political parties and their supporters are perhaps most guilty of this. According to Gerakan’s Dr. S. P. Chong, most political parties still feel that grassroots patronage and PR will carry the day. “It’s time that political parties seriously think of presenting their views with solid arguments rather than glossing over the facts … concentrate on intelligence rather than propaganda,” says Choong.

“There’s also self-censorship,” notes sociologist Rahman Embong. Then again, as Rahman points out, the lack of frank and polemic debate in the public domain does not mean that it is not taking place in the universities. It is, but probably on too intellectual a level to interest the layperson or media.

“But I see more and more people are coming out to express their views in public forums, the media, conferences. In fact, they even want more space, more open discussion.” The trend – what Rahman calls social transformation – is inevitable with higher education and a greater awareness of issues locally and elsewhere. In fact, the same lawyer above insists Malaysians have to get more involved in public debate.

“There’s a watershed sort of feeling in the country, a sense that the future of the country is being decided … even among the establishment, there’s a deep sense that certain things have to change,” says the lawyer. And hopefully, part of this change will encompass more space for more open airing of opinions and discussion on issues affecting the Malaysian society.

And unless and until that comes along, the public intellectual culture will remain vague and indefinite while the “coffeeshop internet” continues to buzz like crazy.

Three top names on intelligentsia list

2006-09-26T17:01:00.000-07:00

Three names crop up without fail among those asked to name who they thought fit the category of a public intellectual. They are:

Rustam A. Sani (well-known social critic and now a Universiti Malaya academic);
Prof. K. S. Jomo (Universiti Malaya economist noted for his multi-disciplinary intellect);
Prof Chandra Muzaffar (former Aliran president, Just World Trust president and Universiti Malaya academic).

All three are authorities in their respective field of knowledge and respected – though not neccesarily liked – by their peers. What makes them lead the pack is their ability to apply their knowledge to issues which are of relevance to the general public in an intellectual yet engaging way.

Others named:

Tan Sri Prof. Awang Had Salleh (educationist);
Martin Khor (Consumer Association of Penang);
Dr. Kua Kia Soong (New Era College director);
Kassim Ahmad (publisher and writer with controversial religious viewpoints);
Prof. Syed Hussein Alatas (academic still known for his writing on the culture of corruption);
Prof. Ungku Aziz (former Universiti Malaya vice-chancellor);
Amir Muhammad (playwright/columnist);
Razak Baginda (surprisingly frank despite heading a think-tank linked to an Umno figure).

Apart from the above, several other names (below) were proposed but drew some degree of contention. Those in the pro-group say these figures are rightly public intellectuals for their role in public discourse. Those in the con.group point out that these figures are more activists too closely associated with political parties and this has diffused their public intellectual role.

They are, anyway:

Dr. Syed Husin Ali (former academic and Parti Rakyat Malaysia president);
R. Sivarasa (lawyer and Suaram chairman);
Dr. Noordin Sopiee (head of the government think-tank, ISIS);
Sisters-in-Islam (like Kassim Ahmad, their views on Islam do not always go down well with the Muslim bretheren but they go ahead and say it);
Gurmit Singah (enviromentalist).

The picture would not be quite complete without mentioning an earlier era of public intellectuals who were not highly educated, but who were very much intellectuals in the way hey spent time thinking about and articulating their thoughts on society and politics.

Many of them were journalists and several were leading lights of the Malay literary group Asas 50: Tan Sri A. Samad Ismail, Ishak Haji Muhammad, Datuk Usman Awang, Dr Burhanuddin Al-Helmy, Ahmad Boestamam, Asraf Wahab, Keris Mas (Kamaluddin Muhammad), Ariff Ahmad, Masuri S. N., and Said Zahari.

[Joceline Tan]

Mencipta gerakan pembaharuan intelek Asia

2006-09-24T15:25:00.000-07:00

Oleh Mohd. Taib Osman

[Dari kolum “PTO Menulis” dalam Berita Harian: 16 Julai 97. Rencana ini melaporkan forum tentang buku Anwar Ibrahim, The Asian Renaissance, yang telah berlangsung di Universiti Malaya.]

Rustam A. Sani menganggap konsep kebangkitan semula Asia seperti dalam buku The Asian Rennaisance sebagai tidak mempunyai “empirical validity.” Tidak ada keseragaman maupun aliran, baik dari segi pemikiran tokoh besar Asia mahupun dari segi pencapaian ekonomi dan aspek ketamadunan lain yang boleh mencetuskan suatu “rennaisance Asia.” Daripada perspektif ini, rangkaian ciri yang boleh boleh menjadi panduan atau kesatuan di Asia sebagai pusat satu-satu kebangkitan semula itu, memang tiada kelihatan.

Apa yang diajukan Rustam ada kebenarannya. Memang tidak ada satu aliran yang menyeluruh kerana akar untuk bangkit semula itu memang tidak jelas. Tidak seperti “Renaissance Eropah”, jika “Renaissance Asia” hendak dimodelkan kepada metode yang sama, kerana akarnya dikatakan tradisi Greco-Roman, iaitu penemuan kembali pemikiran terbuka ahli falsafah zaman itu, kekalutan menyelubungi Eropah lebih 1,000 tahun terkongkong oleh pemikiran ahli gereja yang berputik bukan kerana penemuan semula keterbukaan intelek tradisi Hellenistic sahaja, tetapi pengaruh peradaban Islam dari Spanyol serta pertumbuhan segar perdagangan dan penerokaan.

Perkataan “renaissance” sendiri mula digunakan pada 1836, iaitu sebagai menilai kembali apa yang berlaku di Eropah beberapa abad sebelum lahirnya pusat pembaharuan di selatan Itali. Anwar sendiri menyatakan “Renaissance Asia” seperti yang dikonsepsikannya tidak serupa dengan “Renaissance Eropah”, sekurang-kurangnya dalam konteks kebebsan manusia daripada himpitan penindasan agama. “… The Asian Renaissance, however, differs fundamentally from the European in that it has its foundations in religion and traditions – Islam, Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity being the major ones (hal. 18)”.

Mungkin apa yang hendak dilihat Rustam ialah satu pergerakan, tetapi Anwar lebih menekankan terhadap kebangkitan itu. Dan kesedaran itu mula berputik daripada keyakinan pencapaian ekonomi pesat di Asia. Katanya: As the fresh blossoms of the Asian Renaissance are only beginning to appear, it is crucial that the maturing process is sustained if it is to be brought to fruition (hal. 19).

Bagi Anwar soal kontradiksi Asia serta ketidakseragaman dan lain-lain memang disedarinya, tetapi ciri kebangkitan semula mengatasi segala itu kerana ia berdasarkan visi tumbuhnya “multiculturality”: masyarakat yang memperdanakan kebenaran; cintakan ilmu, keadilan dan keikhsanan; hormat menghormati; bertanggungjawab serta beragama. Pandangan Rustam berbeza daripada Muhammad Abu Bakar, Ketua Program Sains Politik di Fakulti Sastera UM yang terkenal dengan tulisannya, terutama mengenai kebangkitan Islam di Asia Tenggara.

Melihat buku The Asian Renaissance sebagai suatu wawasan pemimpin politik yang tidak terhad kepada Malaysia, tetapi Asia seluruhnya, ia adalah gagasan yang boleh dijadikan “blueprint” perjuangan politik masa depan Asia. Tambah lagi ia datangnya daripada seorang pembuat dasar yang mempunyai penghematan “olympian”, iaitu dapat melihat dari atas yang orang kebanyakan tidak berpeluang berbuat demikian.

Dengan kedudukan strategik itu, menurut Mohamad, Anwar dapat melihat apakah “the economic miracle” yang berlaku itu, yang menjadi asas kebangkitan semula itu, boleh membuahkan sesuatu yang positif mengikut tafsirannya sebagai suatu “renaissance?” Sememangnya begitu, kerana Anwar sendiri berkata: By Asian Renaissance we mean the revival of the arts and sciences under the influence of classical models based on strong moral and religious foundations; a cultural resurgence dominated by a reflowering of art and literature, architecture and music and advancement in science and technology (hal. 18).

Dengan kata-kata lain, bagi Anwar pencapaian ekonomi sebagai dasar memberi keyakinan, tetapi untuk mengisi ketamadunan mengikut wawasannya mestilah diisi dengan higher ideals in life melalui keluhuran agama, ilmu dan moral. Perspektif Muhammad terhadap The Asian Renaissance berbeza daripada Rustam. Baginya buku itu sekadar menyedarkan Asia kepada kekuatan baru dikenalinya melalui economic miracle, tetapi soalnya adakah materialisme yang mungkin timbul akan memusnahkan apa yang luhur daripada tradisi besar Asia?

Anwar sendiri menggesa supaya ada simbiosis berimbang antara dorongan ekonomi dengan keluhuran pada ciri ketamadunan Asia. Saya kira kesangsian Muhammad bukan bercanggah dengan pandangan Anwar, bahkan mengukuhkannya. Dengan adanya kesedaran terhadap kemungkinan itu, apa yang ditakuti Muhammad, mungkin menggalakkan usaha mewujudkan keseimbangan dan simbiosis seperti saranan Anwar.

Memang renaissance di Eropah ada kaitannya dengan kebangkitan nilai niaga, tetapi nilai niaga itu juga menyemarakkan tradisi kesenian dan kebudayaan luhur warisan Eropah. Tetapi gejala yang diperlihatkan di Asia dengan kebangkitan ekonomi tidak begitu: ia lebih menampakkan kedangkalan terhadap keluhuran ciri ketamadunan. Bahkan di negara kita sendiri fenomena ini terserlah. Sejauh manakah ikhlasnya gergasi ekonomi menyokong kegiatan kebudayaan atau tamadun?

Muhammad sempat mencelah kesangsiannya terhadap kemampuan tenaga budaya memperjuangkan kecemerlangannya tanpa dukungan atau sokongan korporat. Beliau merujuak kepada kepada badan budaya seperti Gapena atau Persatuan Linguistik Malaysia sendiri menjalin hubungan simbiotik untuk kegiatan mereka dengan badan korporat yang kaya. Tidakkah ini mengkompromi pertumbuhan budaya luhur, seperti yang disangsikan Muhammad?

Seperti kata Muhammad: “Renaissance di Eropah boleh diibaratkan kuntum bunga yang mengepal dan mengembang sambil disimbah dan dibasahi sinaran matahari pagi; sementara renaissance Anwar diibaratkan putik bunga dalam taman yang tidak berpagar, ketika binatang ternakan baru dibebaskan dari kandangnya, Apakah gejala materialisme akan akan memusnahkan perkembangannya?”

Dasar gagasan Anwar, pada saya, adalah kesedaran harus dipupuk di atas kekuatan ekonomi baru yang dikecap oleh negara di Asia kerana pembangunan ekonomi saja tidak akan membawa Asia ke mercu peradaban manusia seperti yang wujud pada zaman silam. Sebab itu pencapaian ekonomi memerlukan pemupukan the higher ideals of life. Maka itu, seperti kata Muhammad, gagasan The Asian Renaissance adalah “permulaan kepada suatu permulaan. Jika Barat mengambil masa 300 tahun, daripada kurun ke-14 hingga kurun ke-16, untuk menjelmakan renaissancenya, kita mempunyai masa yang masih banyak untuk meneroka dan menempa Renaissance Asia.

Seperti yang saya sendiri bangkitkan dalam majlis itu, sesuatu renaissance tidak dapat dianggap sebagai suatu entiti yang terjelma begitu saja; ia adalah satu proses. Apa yang diutarakan Anwar berdasarkan model yang sudah wujud, iaituRenaissance Eropah yang mengambil masa tiga abad untuk keluar daripada zaman kegelapan hingga berkelopak menjadikannya peradaban agung dan berpengaruh ke seluruh dunia.

Tetapi apa yang ditunjukkan oleh pencapaian peradaban barat tidak sempurna, banyak cacat celanya, terutama dari segi kemanusiaannya, walaupun pencapaian sains dan teknologi begitu penting kepada kehidupan manusia kini. Jika Renaissance Barat adalah sesuatu yang dicetuskan oleh penolakan terhadap gereja, Anwar tegas menyatakan kebangkitan semula Asia mestilah bermula daripada ajaran agama, kerana itulah inti The Asian Man, kerana “at heart (he) is person religious” (hal 19).

Muhammad juga membangkitkan mengenai kontradiksi dan keragaman dunia Asia seperti yang disentuh juga Firdaus dan Rustam, namun Muhammad lebih spesifik apabila dikaitkannya dengan apa yang pernah dibangkitkan oleh Dr Mahathir mengenai perpecahan dan pertelingkahan di Asia, iaitu suatu pertelingkahan politik masa kini. Sebenarnya Dr Mahathir menyangsikan fungsi Asia dalam pertumbuhan dunia abad ke-21, seperti katanya abad ke-21 bukan abad bagi Asia tetapi abad pembangunan seluruh dunia.

Bagi sesetengah teman di UM, apa yang dibangkitkan oeh Dr Mahathir sebagai suatu sanggahan pada gagasan seperti Asian Renaissance Anwar, tetapi saya sependapat dengan Muhammad bahawa ia tidak semestinya benar. Sambil menerima ada benarnya apa yang apa yang dikatakan Dr Mahathir itu, tidak bermakna “segala idealisme yang terungkap dalam Asian Renaissance semestinya salah.”

Pada saya apa yang disangsikan Dr Mahathir terhadap kemampuasn Asia sebagai tenaga berpadu terbit daripada pandangannya yang praktikal dan pragmatik, tetapi gagasan Anwar adalah sesuatu yang mengandungi harapan dan memberi keyakinan kepada Asia mengenali serta yakin kepada potensi yang menunggu untuk disegarkan kembali. Jadi kedua-duanya saling melengkapi, bukannya bertentangan.

Apa yang dipetik Anwar daripada Iqbal (hal.19) sebenarnya boleh dipadankan pada dirinya dengan menulis The Asian Renaissance:

That I may lead home the wanderer
And imbue the idle looker-on with restless impatience
And advance hotly on a new quest
And become known as the champion of a new spirit in Asia.

Pengunduran Mahathir bukan akhir perjuangan

2006-09-24T15:15:00.000-07:00

[ Harakah: 16 Februari 2001]

“Undur, Mahathir, undur” memang merupakan salah satu slogan yang sering dilaung-laungkan dalam perhimpunan gerakan reformasi di negara ini. Dan kini kemungkinan terjadinya pengunduran itu kelihatan semakin jelas.

Sejak beberapa minggu terakhir ini tuntutan terhadap Perdana Menteri yang sudah berkuasa sejak tahun 1981 itu supaya mengundurkan diri kelihatannya semakin lantang – dan datangnya dari dalam Umno sendiri. Tentangan yang agak terbuka daripada para pemimpin Umno peringkat pertengahan terhadap usaha pimpinan atasan parti itu mempertahankan kedudukannya melalui pindaan perlembagaan baru-baru ini merupakan pertanda awal tentang protes tersebut.

Yang terakhir sekali, akhbar The Straits Times (Singapura) melaporkan tentang mesyuarat Majlis Kerja Tertinggi Umno di Putrajaya baru-baru ini. Dalam mesyurat yang disifatkan sebagai “bergolak” (stormy) itu dikatakan seorang anggota MKT yang juga seorang bekas menteri telah secara terbuka mengkritik pimpinan Mahathir dan menyifatkannya sebagai halangan besar dalam usaha memenangi kembali sokongan orang Melayu terhadap parti itu.

Peristiwa itu tidak dilaporkan sama sekali oleh akhbar-akhbar tempatan, dan kebanyakan “khabar angin” yang kita dengar tentang sidang itu sukar dapat dibuktikan ketetapannya. Namun laporan ST(S) itu menyatakan bahawa Mahathir tidak menolah saranan agar beliau berundur – beliau dikatakan sekadar mengemukakan alasan bahawa kini waktunya tidaklah sesuai untuk berbuat demikian. Malah cerita-cerita khabar angin tentang sidang itu ada yang mendakwa bahawa Mahathir telah bersetuju meletakkan jawatan, asalkan ada jaminan bahawa kepentingan anak-anak serta para kroninya akan terus dilindungi.

Walau apapun yang berlaku dalam sidang tersebut, suatu perkara amatlah jelas kini. Masa depan politik Mahathir sudah terlepas kini dari tangannya sendiri atau dari kemampuannya untuk memanipulasi sokongan dalam parti itu menurut sesuka hatinya. Masa depan politiknya kini semakin bergantung pada kecekalan beberapa pemimpin “berani” yang masih bersisa dalam Umno dan pada kemampun mereka untuk memperluas ruang protes terhadap Mahathir dalam Umno sendiri.

Banyak langkah desperate sudah dicuba oleh Mahathir untuk mengatasi masalah yang dihadapi kepimpinannya. Antaranya ialah menimbulkan keresahan kaum dengan melaga-lagakan pelbagai kelompok kaum melalui badan-badan perkauman seperti Dong Zhoa Jong, Pemuda Umno, Suqiu, GPMS dan sebagainya, dan mencuba mengadakan “muzakarah” bagi membincangkan perpaduan Melayu di kalangan Umno, PAS dan KeADILan.

Namun semua usaha ini setakat ini diterima dengan sikap sinis, kalau pun tidak dengan sikap curiga yang sepenuhnya. Oleh yang demikian, banyak para penganalisis yang berpendapat bahawa tidak banyak pilihan yang masih dapat dilaksanakan oleh Mahathir dalam mengatasi krisis kepimpinannya. Antara yang dapat dilakukannya ialah (1) tunduk kepada tuntutan umum yang kini telah menular ke dalam Umno sendiri supaya beliau berundur, atau (2) melakukan satu lagi langkah desperate dengan melancarkan suatu “operasi lalang” dengan menangkap para pemimpin pembangkang.

Langkah yang kedua itu sebenarnya lebih mudah dilakukan – boleh dilaksanakan dengan sekadar melaksanakan peruntukan-peruntukan Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri (ISA). Yang diperlukan dari Mahathir hanyalah menebalkan mukanya terhadap kritikan masyarakat setempat dan antarabangsa serta tidak mengendahkan reputasi dirinya sebagai diktator yang sudah tersepit.

Bahayanya langkah yang demikian ialah jika kesan yang dingini tidak tercapai, maka tuntutan supaya beliau berundur akan berterusan dan mungkin juga menjadi lebih lantang – termasuklah dalam Umno sendiri. Langkah pertama, meskipun lebih mudah dilaksanakan, menimbulkan pelbagai kemungkinan dari segi tatacaranya – memandangkan keperluan untuk menyelamatkan pelbagai kepentingan dalam situasi KKN (Korupsi, Kolusi dan Nepotisma) negara ini kini dan situasi “reput di dalam” yang kini sedang dihadapi oleh Umno.

Jika Mahathir sungguh-sungguh memikirkan untuk berundur, dia perlu memikirkannya dalam kerangka suatu cara melakukan “clean break” yang akan menyelamatkan kepentingan keluarga dan kroninya dan memastikan Umno dan BN tidak ditinggalkannya dalam keadaan menanggung reputasi sebagai parti yang sudah melakukan pengkhianatan yang besar terhadap rakyat negara ini – baik Melayu mahupun bukan Melayu.

Pada hemat saya, tidak ada suatu cara yang sempurna lagi selamat bagi Mahathir untuk melakukan semua ini kini.

Bagi pihak pembangkang dan para pejuang reformasi di negara ini, persoalan besar yang dihadapi kini ialah bagaimanakah mereka harus bersedia menghadapi situasi yang akan ditimbulkan oleh keputusan Mahathir untuk berundur, walau apa pun tatacara berundur yang akan dipilihnya kelak.

Hakikat berundurnya Mahathir dengan sendirinya tidak merupakan suatu “kemenangan” bagi gerakan reformasi dan pembangkang di negara ini. Malah peristiwa itu sebenarnya boleh pula digunakan sebagai suatu lagi “hujah” untuk menyeru orang Melayu agar berbondong-bondong mencari perlindungan kembali di bawah payung Umno, “demi menyelamatkan hak dan ketuanan Melayu”.

Pada ketika itu kelak para pemimpin tidak kredibel yang bakal mewarisi Umno akan mengenengahkan hujah bahawa masalah sebenar kita selama ini adalah Mahathir, bukannya Umno atau BN atau sistem KKN yang ditunjangi oleh parti dan barisan tersebut. Oleh sebab Mahathir sudah berundur kini, maka sudah tibalah masanya untuk kembali kepada Umno dan BN yang mereka warisi itu.

Pada hemat saya, setelah Mahathir berundur kelak tuntutannya akan menjadi malah lebih besar bahawa gerakan pembangkang dan reformasi di negara ini mempunyai konsep dan tanggapan yang jelas bahawa yang menjadi musuh kita adalah suatu sistem politik dan sosial bobrok yang ditunjangi oleh Mahathir, Umno dan BN.

Meskipun setelah Mahathir berundur, kita perlu meneruskan tuntutan supaya keadilan ditegakkan di negara ini. Mahathir dan para kroninya disiasat dan dibawa ke muka pengadilan, institusi-institusi pemerintahan negara ini dibersihkan dari segala kepincangannya, dan demokrasi yang tulen diberikan martabat kembali dalam masyarakat dan negara kita.

Mengkritik Mahathir, menegur Abdullah

2006-09-24T03:40:00.000-07:00

Oleh Ahmad Zaki Yamani

RESENSI BUKU:
Rustam A. Sani, Bercanda dengan Mahathir,
2006: Kuala Lumpur, 231 hal., RM20.00.

“Perbalahan” yang kini sedang terjadi antara bekas PM Mahathir Mohamad dan PM Abdullah Badawi mempunyai implikasi yang agak besar terhadap politik negara ini. Setelah agak lama mendiamkan diri (elegant silence?), Abdullah (dan jentera kerajaannya) nampaknya sudah mulai memberikan jawapan. Beberapa dokumen yang selama ini dilindungi oleh Akta Rahsia Rasmi sudah mulai dideklasifikasikan “untuk mendedahkan segala-galanya” kepada rakyat.

Namun terdapat implikasi yang lebih jauh dalam perbalahan ini. Ada orang yang melihat terdapatnya “perpecahan besar” dalam kepemimpinan Umno dan wujudnya suatu konspirasi untuk menjatuhkan pemerintahan Abdullah setelah beberapa tahun sahaja memegang tampuk kuasa. Malah yang lebih menarik lagi perbalahan ini berkemungkinan pula menyebabkan perpecahan di kalangan parti-parti pembangkang – khususnya di antara pihak yang “menyokong” Mahathir dengan pihak yang menganggap perbalahan ini sebagai perbalahan dalaman Umno dan tidak perlu disertai pihak pembangkang.

Dilihat dalam konteks ini, buku terbaru Rustam ini amatlah menarik. Sebagaimana yang dijangkakan, buku ini memang merupakan sebuah kritikan yang agak keras terhadap Mahathir dan zaman pemerintahannya yang sudah berlalu itu. Pada asasnya buku ini mengandungi 33 rencana “semasa” dari zaman pemerintahan Mahathir tersebut. Sebagai seorang penulis kolum dan ahli sosiologi politik yang telah dimusnahkan peluangnya untuk berkarya dalam akhbar-akhbar “arus perdana” (baca: dikuasai pemerintah) sejak tahun 1998, maka rencana-rencana dalam buku ini semuanya dipetik daripada akhbar-akhbar pihak pembangkang dan gerakan reformasi, seperti Detik, Suara PRM, Suara Keadilan, dan Harakah.

Rencana paling baru dalam kumpulan ini dipetik daripada akhbar Siasah keluaran 22 Jun 2006. Oleh yang demikian, tulisan Rustam dalam buku ini tidaklah merupakan “sumbangan” beliau terhadap perbalahan Mahathir-Abdullah yang terakhir itu, tetapi merupakan kritikan Rustam yang berterusan terhadap pemerintahan Mahathir – bukan sebagai imbasan kembali tetapi sebagai ulasan semasa ketika terjadinya apa yang dinamakannya sebagai “kebobrokan” pemerintahan tersebut.

Pada asasnya, Rustam melihat kebobrokan itu sebagai ciri pemerintahan Mahathir yang dianggapnya berbentuk demokrasi tempang atau illiberal democracy, yang dicirikan oleh upaya untuk menindas pelbagai bentuk kebebasan dan hak asasi yang sepatutnya dihormati dalam sebuah sistem demokrasi yang tulen. Sistem yang tidak demokratis ini, menurut Rustam, diperlukan bagi menghindarkan sebarang bentuk halangan bagi Mahathir dalam melaksanakan dasar-dasarnya yang dicirikan oleh KKN: korupsi, kronisme, dan nepotisme.

Bagi sesiapa yang berminat hanya kepada perbalahan Mahathir-Abdullah yang sedang berlaku kini, beberapa kritikan Rustam yang ditulis pada zaman pemerintahan Mahathir itu amatlah menarik. Jika kini Mahathir mendakwa bahawa pada zamannya media lebih bebas, maka kritikan semasa Rustam memperlihatkan bahawa penindasan media sesungguhnya merupakan warisan zaman Mahathir.

Jika Mahathir kini membuat pelbagai tuduhan tentang nepotisme yang melibatkan anak dan menantu Abdullah, maka beberapa rencana Rustam dalam buku ini merupakan dakwaan “semasa” terhadap kemungkaran yang sama yang telah dilakukan anak-anak (dan teman-teman karib) Mahathir sendiri pada zaman pemerintahannya. Jika Mahathir kini menuduh orang-orang yang mempertahankan Abdullah semata-mata sebagai “yes men”, maka rencana-rencana Rustam dalam buku ini memperlihatkan bahawa peranan yang sama pada zaman Mahathir itu telah dimainkan para menteri, para ahli perniagaan, para pentadbir, malah para ahli akademik juga.

Namun “indictment” (dakwaan) Rustam terhadap pemerintahan Mahathir ini tidaklah pula bermakna bahawa beliau menyebelahi Abdullah dalam konteks perbalahan yang sedang berlaku sekarang. Malah Rustam berpendapat bahawa Abdullah tidak mempunyai kekuatan politik maupun ketabahan moral untuk menyimpang, melakukan clean break, daripada kemungkaran dan kebobrokan Mahathir.

Sebagai seorang yang politiknya dipupuk dan dibesarkan di bawah Mahathir, Abdullah mungkin tidak berusaha bersungguh-sungguh untuk menyanggah kebobrokan yang diwarisinya. Sebaliknya beliau seperti sangat selesa dengan keadaan tersebut, malah menggunakan sistem operasi yang sama untuk memperkukuhkan kedudukannya sendiri. Ini sekaligus membuktikan penegasan Rustam bahawa pengunduran Mahathir bukanlah akhir perjuangan, sekali gus memberi makna kepada seruannya agar “institusi-institusi pemerintahan negara ini dibersihkan daripada segala kepincangannya, dan demokrasi yang tulen diberikan martabat kembali…”

Jika sekalipun kita bersangka baik terhadap Abdullah, bahawa beliau tidak mengingini keadaan yang buruk dan busuk ini tetapi tidak mampu mengubahnya, maka kita tidak ada pilihan selain menganggap Abdullah pengecut, dan sebenarnya seorang pemimpin lame duck yang tidak ada sebarang asas kekuatan politik. Sebagai seorang yang telah menerima mandat besar dalam pilihanraya yang lalu, citra Abdullah ini amatlah mengecewakan. Malah “mandat” itu sendiri boleh dipertikaikan, khususnya berdasarkan tunduhan tentang penipuan-penipuan yang dikatakan berlaku dalam pilihanraya umum tahun 2004.

Gambaran sahsiah Mahathir yang terjelma daripada buku Rustam ialah seorang pemimpin yang bersifat manipulatif, sanggup memperalatkan sesiapa sahaja, melakukan dan menyatakan apa sahaja demi mencapai kehendak politiknya sendiri. Bagi saya beberapa rencana dalam buku ini merupakan analisis yang amat menarik tentang sahsiah politik Mahathir dalam dua zaman: zaman kemerosotan pengaruh politiknya selepas pilihanraya umum tahun 1999 dan zaman setelah Mahathir mengumumkan tarikh pengundurannya.

Kebanyakan asas analisis Rustam dalam rencana-rencana dalam buku ini adalah peristiwa-peristiwa politik dari zaman berkenaan, khususnya ucapan-ucapan dan tindak-tanduk Mahathir dalam kerangka politik Umno. Selain itu, dianalisisnya juga hubungan Mahathir dengan beberapa “tokoh” seperti Mugabe, Castro, dan malah seorang yang cuba menonjolkan dirinya sendiri sebagai tokoh – Ibrahim Ali. Selain itu, saya dapati amat mengasyikkan juga analisis Rustam tentang pelbagai upaya Mahathir untuk terus-menerus merapati kepemimpinan PAS sejak selepas pilihanraya umum tahun 1999 – termasuklah pentas bersama yang sanggup diperkongsinya dengan PAS di Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka dalam “memperjuangkan” nasib rakyat Palestin.

33 rencana dalam buku ini didahului dengan sebuah Kata Pengantar baru (30 halaman) yang bertajuk “Dampak Mahathir Terhadap Masa Depan Politik dan Masyarakat Malaysia”. Fokus Rustam dalam kata pengantar tersebut ialah tentang betapa mendalamnya kesan buruk zaman pemerintahan Mahathir yang telah berlangsung selama lebih dua dekad itu. Selain itu, Rustam menperincikan lagi pandangannya tentang Mahathir sebagai seorang ahli politik yang manipulatif – secara tidak langsung menyokong pandangan mereka yang menganggap perbalahan terbaru itu sebagai suatu persekongkolan untuk menjatuhkan Abdullah Badawi.

Sesuai dengan sifatnya sebagai seorang intelektual dan bekas ahli akademik, tulisan Rustam mungkin agak analitis sifatnya. Tetapi sesuai dengan sifat tulisan-tulisan itu sebagai rencana untuk akhbar semasa, analisisnya itu bagi saya tidaklah sukar difahami dan dinikmati.

Ayahku, Ahmad Boestamam

2006-09-24T00:12:00.000-07:00

Oleh Rustam A. Sani

[Rencana ini pada mulanya diterbitkan dalam majalah Massa (Isu Khas Hari Kebangsaan): 29 Ogos – 4 September 1998]

Meskipun saya anak lelaki tunggal Ahmad Boestamam (selain adik perempuan saya, Norliah), namun saya yakin bahawa saya bukanlah orang yang terbaik untuk menulis tentang beliau. Saya tidak mengenal beliau secara peribadi, kerana sepanjang hidup saya tidak pernah tinggal bersama beliau untuk jangka waktu yang lama untuk memungkinkan saya mengenal beliau dengan cukup mendalam.

‘Kerjaya’ politik dan kewartawanan beliau bermula sejak umur yang masih muda. Beliau ‘mengorbankan’ pendidikannya di Sekolah Anderson, Ipoh, untuk menceburkan dirinya dalam dua bidang tersebut. Ahmad Boestamam lahir (sebagai Abdullah Sani bin Raja Kechil) pada 30 November 1920, dan seawal tahun 1941 beliau telah ditahan oleh pemerintah kolonial Inggeris kerana kegiatan politiknya – hanya dibebaskan oleh pemerintah Jepun pada tahun berikutnya.

Pada tahun 1946 beliau mulai memimpin Angkatan Pemuda Insaf (API) – yakni gerakan pemuda (sayap Parti Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya (PKMM)) beraliran nasionalis yang bersifat ‘kiri’ dan radikal – dan menerbitkan Testamen Politik Api yang mengajukan gagasan ‘merdeka dengan darah.’ Kerana karya tersebut, beliau dihadapkan ke mahkamah atas tuduhan menghasut pada tahun berikutnya, dan beliau dikenakan denda $1,200.00.

Penahanan beliau yang lama pertama kali terjadi pada tahun 1948, ketika saya berumur kira-kira empat tahun. Oleh yang demikian, saya tidak mempunyai ingatan yang jelas tentang peristiwa tersebut mahupun tentang diri beliau sebagai bapa. Meskipun keluarga kami dibolehkan melawati beliau sekali sebulan namun, kerana kemiskinan, lawatan itu hanya mampu dilakukan sekali dua sahaja setahun. Tambahan pula, tempat tahanannya senantiasa berubah-ubah dari satu tempat ke satu tempat yang agak jauh dari Tanjung Malim, kampung kami.

Satu peristiwa yang entah kerana apa hingga kini tidak pernah dapat saya lupakan terjadi di Kem Majidee, Johor Bahru, sewaktu saya berumur kira-kira enam atau tujuh tahun. Dalam pertemuan itu, ayah saya yang berdiri di belakang pagar besi menudingkan jarinya ke arah saya lalu bertanya kepada anggota-anggota keluarga yang lain: “Yang ini, anak siapa?”

Demikianlah, pengetahuan saya tentang Ahmad Boestamam tidak mungkin merupakan pengetahuan intim seorang anak tentang keperibadian ayahnya. Sebahagian besar pengetahuan saya – malah kekaguman saya juga – tentang beliau sekadar merupakan hasil kajian dan renungan saya sebagai seorang pelajar ilmu politik dan sejarah politik Malaysia moden, khususnya nasionalisme dan gerakan politik radikal Melayu.

Dalam hubungan ni, saya amat setuju dengan pandangan Professor Khoo Khay Kim dalam catatan belasungkawanya sewaktu kembalinya Ahmad Boestamam ke rahmatullah taala (Mingguan Malaysia: 23 Januari 1983). Berkata Khoo: “Kini beliau telah pergi. Satu era dalam politik Malaysia telah tamat. Ramai berjuang dalam [tahun] empat puluhan dan lima puluhan namun tiada antara tokoh-tokoh zaman itu yang lebih berjaya melambangkan gaya dan corak perjuangan golongan radikal Melayu.”

Apakah ‘gaya dan corak’ pejuangan golongan tersebut yang terpancar pada kehidupan Ahmad Boestamam? Pada hemat saya, gaya dan corak itu tidaklah terlalu berbeza daripada gaya dan corak perjuangan para pemimpin dan gerakan-gerakan nasionalis lainnya yang banyak muncul di seluruh rantau Asia dan Afrika pada tahun-tahun empat puluhan dan lima puluhan itu – gerakan-gerakan yang telah mengakhiri pemerintahan kolonial dan melahirkan sebilangan negara-negara bebas di rantau ini yang kita kenal hingga ke hari ini.

Kebanyakan gerakan tersebut merupakan gerakan anti-kolonial dalam ertikata yang visionary (berwawasan). Penolakan mereka terhadap kuasa penjajahan itu tidaklah didorong oleh rasa benci yang bersifat perkauman, tetapi didorong oleh fahaman tentang keadilan, demokrasi dan kesamarataan yang amat kuat.

Pada hemat saya, jika Ahmad Boestamam menerapkan gaya yang demikian dalam perjuangannya, maka hakikat itu sebahagian besarnya dipengaruhi oleh gaya perjuangan yang biasa di kalangan teman-temanya di negara ini sendiri, seperti Dr. Burhanuddin Al-Helmi, Ishak Haji Mohamad dan lain-lain.

Para pemimpin nasionalis rakyat seperti Ahmad Boestamam biasanya melihat usaha mencapai cita-cita fahaman nasionalisme – yakni cita-cita membentuk sebuah nation (negara-bangsa) bagi kelompok rakyat yang diwakilinya – sebagai suatu cabaran kecendekiawanan untuk mencari dan merumuskan kembali gagasan jati diri bangsa itu dari hakikat sejarahnya, bukannya sekadar suatu usaha mudah untuk meneruskan ‘pentadbiran kolonial’ wilayahnya oleh anak negeri.

Dalam hubungan inilah saya berpendapat bahawa beberapa gagasan yang telah mereka ajukan – misalnya konsep ‘Melayu Raya’ – perlu kita kaji dan kita fahami dalam pengertian ideologi nasionalisme yang lebih mendalam dan tidak sekadar menanggapnya sebagai kesan ‘pengaruh Indonesia’ seperti yang sering dikemukakan oleh beberapa ahli sejarah yang amat dangkal perspektifnya.

Kedudukan rasmi tertinggi yang pernah dicapai oleh Ahmad Boestamam ialah sebagai Ahli Parlimen bagi kawasan Setapak (di Kuala Lumpur) (1959) – tempoh jawatan yang tidak sempat diselesaikannya kerana pada tahun 1963 beliau sekali lagi ditahan di bawah Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri (ISA) selama empat tahun berikutnya.

Ahmad Boestamam menghembuskan nafasnya terakhir pada 19 Januari 1983.

Rustam Sani’s Vox Populi

2006-09-24T00:05:00.000-07:00

[The piece was posted by Dr M. Bakri Musa in his blogsite: http://www.bakrimusa.com on September 17, 2006]. Malaysian-born Bakri writes frequently on issues affecting his native land, Malaysia. Bakri’s day job is as a surgeon in private practice in Silicon Valley, California. He and his wife Karen live on a ranch in Morgan Hill. E-mail: bakrimusa@juno.com.]

One heartening development in Malaysia (and elsewhere) in the last few years is the emergence of personal blogs and the Internet news and commentary portals. This development may prove to be even more transforming socially, politically and in many other ways than the introduction of the printing press five centuries ago.

Rustam Sani’s Vox Populi (http://www.suara-rustam.blogspot.com) is the latest. He came on aboard a few weeks ago, and has been busy updating it regularly. His recent essays dealt with the current political leadership crisis, as well as commentaries on such topical issues as education.

A sampling of recent topics includes “The Silat Bunga of Abdullah and Mahathir,” and “Something is Rotten in the Kingdom of Higher Education.” Rustam is indeed the voice of the people.

As elsewhere, blogging is now fast becoming mainstream in Malaysia. This process is hastened considerably by the many bloggers who were once mainstream journalists, beginning first with the late MGG Pillai, and later with the likes of Kadir Jasin, (www.kadirjasin.blogspot.com) and Ahirudin Atan (www.rockybru.blogspot.com) entering the scene.

The younger pioneers like Nizam Zakaria are still there, active as ever and expanding their field of commentary. I particularly enjoy his take on the local arts scene and his excerpting his new novels.

Even more encouraging is the appearance of many blogs and Internet portals using the Malay language, as with Kassim Ahmad’s (www.kassimahmad.blogspot.com). His website also serves as a readily accessible repository of his earlier essays and commentaries, including his banned works like Hadith: A Re-Evaluation. Kassim, like Rustam, is facile in both Malay and English. Unlike many, they both stick to one or the other language with their essays; there is thankfully no jumbling mixture of rojak that I find so irritating and difficult to read.

The appearance of many blogs in Malay indicates that the Malay masses are now no longer captive to the mainstream media and government propaganda machinery (they are both the same). My favorites include Laman Marhean and Agendadaily.

While many are lamenting the current political leadership crisis in UMNO, there is already one positive consequence to this: the spawning of many new websites and blogs in the Malay language.

These enterprising and productive individuals are doing more than those bureaucrats and pseudo scholars at Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka and other public agencies to project our national language globally. Unlike Dewan’s glut of salaried men and women, these cyber contributors cost the government not a penny!

Introducing Rustam Sani

I first heard of Rustam Sani in 1985 when he delivered the public oration on the occasion of Kassim Ahmad receiving an Honorary Doctorate of Letters from Universiti Kebangsaan. That Kassim deserved the honor was beyond question, nonetheless I found the university’s action surprising, although a very pleasing one. Kassim had then just released his harrowing account of detention under the ISA, Universiti Kedua (Second University).

Kassim is an independent thinker; it must have taken great courage for those at the university to so honor him. Rustam was then head of its Department of Sociology and Anthropology, and who nominated Kassim. I was heartened that at least there was one soul at the university brave enough to go against the grain and managed to convince his colleagues in the university senate to go along.

Rustam and I share many commonalities. We both attended English schools in our respective little towns (Tanjong Malim for him, and Kuala Pilah for me). We then went on to the “big school” for our Sixth Form, the venerable Victoria Institution for Rustam, and Malay College for me.

From the University of Malaya Rustam went on to Reading and Kent in Britain. Later as a Fullbright-Hayes scholar, he obtained double masters from Yale. Like me, he returned home, but unlike me, he stayed and put up with the system.

Ponteng (opting out) was never a consideration for him; the nationalist’s blood runs too deep in Rustam’s veins. His father, the late Ahmad Boestaman, was a firebrand nationalist and an early leader in the movement for Merdeka. Firebrand is an apt adjective, for Boestaman was active in API (lit. fire), the acronym for Angkatan Pemuda Insaf (The Committed Youth Movement).

Boestaman later founded the socialist Parti Rakyat Malaysia and served in Parliament in the early 1960s. It was tribute to the way things were then that young Rustam did not suffer the consequences of having a father active in opposition politics. How different things are today!

Tribulations of A Social Scientist

Life as a social scientist in Malaysia must be terribly trying, both professionally and personally. Your field of enquiry touches on so many “sensitive issues,” at least sensitive to the establishment. You cannot follow your intellectual interests, unless the authorities grant you permission. That is quite apart from the funding issue.

When you have someone like Rustam who dares to think differently, life could be even more difficult, on as well as off campus. Rustam was lucky to have been spared the harsh fate meted out to Kassim Ahmad, Syed Hussin Ali, and others. Perhaps Allah in His Infinite Mercy and Wisdom decided that the Boestaman family had suffered enough, and thus spared Rustam the fate endured by his father. The British detained Ahmad Boestaman for eight years for his leftist activities during the Emergency. Just to show that Malaysian leaders did learn a thing or two from their British masters, the Tunku later jailed Ahmad Boestaman for four years under the ISA in 1963. He became the first sitting Member of Parliament to be so detained. That is a mark of distinction and honor in my book, not a blemish.

On campus, unless you toe the official line you would definitely be sidelined no matter how productive you are. Rustam was one productive academic; I came across his writings many times when researching for my books. Unfortunately, on Malaysian campuses intellectual productivity is not valued. To advance, suffice that you are an enthusiastic cheerleader for the authorities.

Far from being satisfied as a detached scholar-analyst, Rustam was actively engaged as a political practitioner and activist with Parti Rakyat Malaysia. He walks the talk; he practices what he preaches.

Off campus, the same oppressive atmosphere prevails. The pages of the mainstream publications and airtime of radio and television are the exclusive preserve of unabashed supporters of the status quo. To these pundits, their sultans would always be donning a samping sutra (silk cummerbund) even when they are wrapped in bark loincloth. Once that sultan is out of power, these cheerleaders would, without skipping a beat, go on praising the next one and unhesitatingly damning the old one. Witness the current vulgar vilification of Mahathir by his once ardent supporters.

The mainstream media have lost their precious credibility, as well as balance and objectivity! In the end it is their readers (and thus the nation) who are not being well served. It is not a surprise that the blossoming of the Internet news portals and blogosphere coincides with (or perhaps the cause of) the decline of the mainstream media.

When Gutenberg introduced his printing press five centuries ago, he did more than simply made reading materials readily available for the masses. He emancipated them, freeing them from the tight controls of the clergy and ruling class who then had exclusive access to written works. They were the exclusive arbiter and interpreter on matters religious and others. The masses need only follow them meekly, as a flock of sheep would their shepherd.

The ready availability of the printing press upended all that. The resulting mass literacy made possible the reformation, and an end to the Medieval Age.

The Internet, by democratizing news, information, and commentaries, would have a similar if not far greater transforming effect. Rustam Sani’s Vox Populi (Voice of the People), and others like his, would ensure that we would not regress.

Excerpts from Suara Rasa: Voices from Within (1993)

2006-09-23T20:31:00.000-07:00

[The following are some excerpts from the pages of Usman Awang, et al (editors), Suara Rasa: Voices from Within, Kuala Lumpur: 1993. (Pages 132, 133, 134 and 225)].

RUSTAM A. SANI

(Born in Ipoh, Perak, 11-08-1944)

He writes regularly for Utusan Malaysia, a Malay daily, and for Dewan Masyarakat, a DBP monthly magazine. He has won the Malaysian literary award several times for his essays. He also translates foreign works, literary and non-literary, into Malay. His anthology of poems is Riak-riak Kecil (Ripples) (1977). A former lecturer with the Department of Anthropology and Sociology at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, he is now an Executive Director with the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia.

Lagu Pesawah Turun Ke Tanah

Lagu pesawah turun ke tanah
Melenggok bajak di dada bumi
Kerbau menyapa menguak ramah
Berpadu tenaga membongkar umbi

Kepalang bangun anak bangsa
Biar berbelulang segala cengkaman
Petani gagah berurat sasa
Bangun berjuang bersilang lengan

Kepalang berbatas dua zaman
Hati lelaki melangkahi kebebasan
Sekali bernyanyi si anak tani
Garang merentas seluruh berani

Haraplah subur padi semaian
Biar buahnya megah keemasan
Jaminan anak kasihnya bernyanyi
Kemegahan desa hati petani

Lagu pesawah turun ke tanah
Menemukan tuai di tangkai padu
Tuah tanah terjelmalah sudah
Sumber tenaga umat sebumi

Ulas padi untuk bumi
Balasnya mewah emas sepeti
Ulas padi untuk manusia
Balasnya lemas di padi kunca

Mogalah hancur segala tekanan
Tanah yang subur hatinya kempunan
Mogalah makmur yang hidup derita
Berkat rahmat kebenaran merdeka

1963

The Farmer’s Song

A farmer sings
As he makes his way
Down the lane to his rice field to toil
His buffalo lows a greeting

And together they work the land
Sons of the soil
Arise and shake off
Those shackles of inertia

Oh men of strength and pride
Arise and fight side by side
This is an era anew
To begin afresh and to strive

Brave men would be free
When the farmers begin to sing
There shall be no reason to retreat
May the rice plants thrive

May the crop be in glorious gold
That children may be secure
And farmers can walk tall

The farmers sing
As they reap the harvest
The glorious gift from the soil
A spring well of energy for all
Its gift of life to this blessed land

A gift of grains to the earth
Begets a reward worthy of the peasants’ toil
A gift of grains for humanity
Gives them a reward named oppression

May this injustice end
With soil so fertile may the farmers not despair
May the down-trodden see affluence
As the true gift from this land’s freedom

1963

[Note: I have reedited this English translation from the version published in the book]

Surat buat paman

Tak usahlah keutuskan, paman
Surat berkajang-kajang
Bagaimana akan kuhuraikan
Sebuah dunia yang tak pernah
Melintas ceruk-ceruk khayalmu

Di sini tak luput kerut keningmu, paman
Menemani rinduku pada kampung
Menjelma di sudut-sudut kota
Yang tak pernah dijengah sesiapa
Ketika siang, apa lagi malamnya
Melainkan mereka yang telah terjebak
Untuk menikmati deritanya

Bagaimanakah seorang pengembara
Yang sukar berasa tenteram
Dalam sebuah kota yang getir
Akan memalingkan mukanya
Dari pahit khayalmu, paman
Yang menjelma di mana-mana

A letter to an uncle

Let me not send you, uncle
A letter several pages long
How would I even begin to explain
A world you could not comprehend
That appears strange even to your dreams

Your grief follows me, uncle
Accompanying my yearning for our kampung
Greeting me in nooks of the city
That no one cares to set foot
By day and certainly by night
Except those who are trapped
To enjoy and endure the pain

How does a wanderer like me
Who can find no peace to devour
In this painfully heartless city
Would turn his face away
From those bitter imaginings of yours, uncle
That spring their greetings at every corner

[Note: The English translation has been reedited from the version published in the book].

Extracts from Emas Tempawan/Burnished Gold

2006-09-23T20:17:00.000-07:00

[The following are some extracts from the pages of Muhammad Haji Salleh (Editor), Emas Tempawan/Burnish Gold (An Anthology of Contemporary Malaysian Poetry), Kuala Lumpur, Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka: 2004. (Pages 175-176).]

RUSTAM A. SANI: Rustam A. Sani was born in Tanjung Malim, Perak, in 1944. He grew up in a world of political struggle, and eventually became the Deputy President of Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM). He studied at the University of Malaya, University of Kent at Canterbury and at Yale, specializing in political sociology. Rustam is a well known political analyst and translator. His only published book of poems is Riak-riak Kecil (1977)

A Poem for Azrani Rustam

Forgive your dad
for at the moment of your birth
he did not build you a palace of dreams
of cold bricks and stones
eerily fashioned out of chants of praise

He was on a journey
when you arrived
looking for illusive shadows
of the dreams he has destroyed
but yet to bury

The misty darkness of London
promised an unending pasture of mystery
at your first cry
the autumn wind did not subside
but incessantly rocked
to the rhythm of the dance of the mirage
tormenting the lone traveller.

London,
1974.

The Monotonous Plain

Tulips in a festival of colours
shyly swaying in the breeze
that turned the sails of the windmill
struggling to hide its own face

Everything seems powerless
to prevail over this boredom
on yet another inch of level ground
to traverse

Here the inhabitants have dammed the sea
in order to become man
for nature has failed to offer mountains
for him wrestle with.

Amsterdam,
1974

Mahathir menghina nasionalis Melayu

2006-09-23T19:45:00.000-07:00

[Rencana ini telah disiarkan dalam majalah Detik (1 Julai 1999), dan merupakan reaksi saya terhadap ucapan penutup Mahathir di Perhimpunan Agung Tahunan Umno sebelum itu].

Sehingga kini saya masih tidak tahu siapakah sebenarnya yang menjadi sasaran kemurkaan Dr. Mahathir Mohamad: saya atau Allahyarham ayahanda saya, Ahmad Boestamam.

Dalam ucapan penutupnya pada Perhimpunan Agung Umno yang baru berlalu, Dr. Mahathir telah memerikan ayahanda saya sebagai terlibat dalam “politik tepi jalan” – dan seterusnya dalam nafas yang sama telah menyatakan bahawa saya sendiri tidak ada ubahnya daripada ayahanda saya itu. Mungkin tidaklah terlalu sukar untuk memahami jika Dr. Mahathir tidak begitu senang terhadap saya dalam situasi kerjaya politiknya sedang gawat seperti sekarang ini. Keterlibatan saya dalam gerakan reformasi dan kritikan saya terhadap amalan kronisme, nepotisme dan korupsi di negara ini dalam zaman pentadbirannya tentulah bukan sesuatu yang akan menyenangkan hati Dr. Mahathir terhadap saya.

Oleh itu, saya tidaklah begitu terperanjat jika selain kata-kata yang menghina diri saya pada akhir ucapannya itu, Dr. Mahathir juga telah “mendedahkan” nama saya di kalangan nama-nama para “kroni” Anwar Ibrahim yang telah mendapat manfaat daripada dasar penswastaan dan penganugerahan projek-projek yang diamalkan oleh kerajaan sekarang. Nyatalah bahawa sekali ini saya memang merupakan salah satu objek serangan dan fitnah Dr. Mahathir – meskipun saya tidak akan mendapat kesempatan untuk mempertahankan diri saya melalui media massa arus utama yang begitu kuat dikongkong dan dipasung kerajaan negara ini. Yang lebih sukar saya fahami ialah mengapa kerana kemarahannya terhadap saya itu, Dr. Mahathir merasa perlu untuk menghina dan memperleceh ayahanda saya yang sudah hampir dua dasawarsa meninggalkan kita.

Saya kira tidak wajar baginya menghina ayahanda saya jika beliau berasa kurang senang terhadap saya, kerana beliau sendiri begitu marah kepada Sasterawan Negara Prof. Shahnon Ahmad yang dikatakannya telah menghina ibunda beliau. (Padahal, bagi seseorang yang benar-benar memahami budaya Melayu, perkataan yang tidak disenangi oleh Dr. Mahathir itu adalah kata kesat yang biasanya ditujukan pada seseorang, dan tak ada kena mengenanya dengan ibu seseorang).

Sebenarnya, dengan penghinaan yang telah dilemparkan oleh Dr. Mahathir terhadap ayahanda saya itu beliau juga telah turut menghina dan menafikan sumbangan para nasionalis yang sejenis, seangkatan dan sealiran dengan ayahanda saya. Sedangkan sumbangan mereka itu terhadap mencetuskan perjuangan memperoleh kemerdekaan negara ini (termasuklah usaha membentuk dan melancarkan badan politik Melayu yang kemudiannya dikenal sebagai Umno) sudah diakui oleh para ahli sejarah dan tercatat dalam buku-buku sejarah.

Oleh yang demikian, memang sudah dijangka bahawa para pejuang dari zaman tersebut akan begitu tersinggung oleh sikap sombong dan menghina yang diperlihatkan oleh Dr. Mahathir itu. Lihatlah sebagai contoh nada penulisan kolumnis (penulis lama) Ibnu Muslim di akhbar Harakah baru-baru ini tentang perkara tersebut. Kolum tersebut juga melaporkan bahawa seorang pelopor nasionalisme Melayu dari zaman itu yang banyak berkorban tetapi tidak pernah berkesempatan mengaut untuk dirinya kekayaan negara ini – Ustaz Yahaya Nassim namanya – begitu marah dengan kenyataan Dr. Mahathir itu sehingga beliau menyatakan kesediaannya untuk berdebat dengan Dr. Mahathir tentang nasionalisme Melayu.

Memanglah benar perjuangan politik ayahanda saya dan para pelopor nasionalisme Melayu lainnya itu tidak pernah membawa mereka ke tengah-tengah koridor kuasa pemerintahan negara – melainkan telah membawa mereka ke dalam belenggu dawai berduri penjara pemerintahan penjajah untuk puluhan tahun lamanya. Memanglah benar bahawa kerjaya politik mereka tidak sampai ke tahap “kejayaan” yang memungkinkan mereka mengaut kekayaan besar untuk diri mereka sendiri dan seterusnya mengagih-agihkannya secara yang tidak halal kepada para teman, saudara mara dan anak pinak mereka sendiri.

Jika itulah yang dimaksudkan oleh Dr. Mahathir dengan ungkapan “ahli politik tepi jalan” itu, maka anggapannya memanglah benar dan tepat. Namun, apakah itu bererti bahawa ahli politik tepi jalan itu lebih hina daripada ahli politik yang akhirnya berhasil merebut kuasa dan kemudiannya memanfaatkan kuasaan itu demi kepentingan dirinya sendiri menurut cara-cara yang tidak diredai dan diizinkan oleh rakyat?

Dengan penghinaan yang telah dilemparkannya terhadap ayahanda saya itu – dan secara implikasi terhadap para nasionalis radikal Melayu lainnya juga – Dr. Mahathir telah memperlihatkan kejahilannya yang amat menyedihkan tentang sejarah politik dan gerakan nasionalisme di negara ini. Namun dalam hubungan dengan hal ini juga timbul sedikit keraguan kepada saya tentang apakah motif Dr. Mahathir yang sebenarnya: Apakah beliau memang sebenarnya jahil atau sengaja mencuba memutar belit sejarah demi memberikan dirinya monopoli kedudukan sebagai penyumbang gemilang terhadap proses pembentukan negara ini?

Baru-baru ini akhbar Harakah telah mendedahkan bahawa dalam bukunya yang terakhir dalam bahasa Inggeris Dr. Mahathir telah membuat beberapa dakwaan yang sukar diterima dan sukar dipastikan tentang “sumbangannya” sendiri sebagai pelopor beberapa gerakan politik nasionalis awal di Kedah. Tidaklah dapat dipastikan apakah dengan membuat dakwaan tersebut Dr. Mahathir sebenarnya mencuba memperlihatkan bahawa sumbangannya tidak kurang pentingnya berbanding sumbangan tokoh-tokoh yang memang telah diakui sejarah pelopor gerakan nasionalisme Melayu di Kedah, seperti Senu Abdul Rahman dan Mohd. Khir Johari yang jauh lebih tua usianya daripada Dr. Mahathir.

Apakah Dr. Mahathir mencuba memperlihatkan niat dan sikap yang sama terhadap para pelopor nasionalisme Melayu dari golongan kiri seperti Ahmad Boestamam, Ishak Haji Muhammad, Dr. Burhanuddin Helmi, Ibrahim Yaacob dan sebagainya? Padahal sumbangan mereka ini telah sejak lama diakui dan dihormati oleh para pemimpin Umno sendiri yang lebih “senior” daripada Dr. Mahathir, seperti Datuk Onn Jaafar, Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra, Tun Abdul Razak, dan Tun Dr. Ismail.

Walau apa pun motif sebenar Dr. Mahathir memperlecehkan sumbangan para pelopor gerakan nasionalisme Melayu itu, saya kira pendorong utamanya tentulah kejahilan beliau sendiri tentang sejarah politik gerakan nasionalisme tersebut. Apakah yang menjadi punca kejahilan beliau itu – latar belakang keluarganya, latar belakang pendidikannya, atau sekadar sikapnya terhadap perjuangan orang Melayu pada ketika itu – perlulah diselidiki dan dikaji dengan lebih mendalam.

Yang nyata ialah: jika tidak kerana kejahilannya beliau tidak akan tergamak memperkecil-kecilkan dan menghina sumbangan seorang pelopor gerakan nasionalisme Melayu seperti Ahmad Boestamam semata-mata kerana dia berasa marah terhadap anaknya yang hanyalah seorang manusia kerdil yang tidak bertaraf “tokoh” dalam arena politik tanah air hari ini. Jika tidak kerana kejahilannya, masakan Dr. Mahathir tergamak menghina para pelopor gerakan nasionalisme Melayu itu semata-mata kerana beliau merasakan bahawa sumbangan beliau lebih besar daripada sumbangan mereka.

Salah langkah yang dilakukan oleh seseorang yang jahil itu biasanya tidaklah sukar untuk kita maafkan dan kita lupakan begitu sahaja. Yang sukar kita maafkan adalah tindakan orang jahil yang melakukan kesalahannya dengan niat jahat dan tanpa usul periksa terlebih dulu akan apa yang diucapkannya. Saya rasa inilah yang telah dilakukan oleh Dr. Mahathir apabila dia memperlecehkan peranan politik Allahyarham ayahanda saya dan diri saya sendiri. Itulah juga yang telah dilakukannya apabila dia mencuba menggambarkan saya sebagai kroni Anwar Ibrahim.

Tanpa melakukan terlebih dahulu kajian yang mendalam tentang peranan Ahmad Boestamam dalam gerakan nasionalisme Melayu atau mengkaji hakikat sebenarnya tentang peranan Rustam Sani dalam syarikat sendirian berhad yang telah dianugerahkan projek penswastaan pada tarikh yang tidak memungkinkannya dianggap sebagai penganugerahan oleh Anwar Ibrahim kepada kroninya, Dr. Mahathir sebenarnya telah mendedahkan niat buruknya dan sahsiahnya sendiri. Itulah sebenarnya yang tidak mudah dilupakan dan dimaafkan begitu sahaja.

Rustam Sani is Senior Fellow of ISIS Malaysia

2006-09-22T17:44:00.000-07:00

[The following piece is from ISIS FOCUS (September 1990) to announce the appointment of Rustam Sani as Senior Fellow of the institute on September 1, 1990.]

Associate Professor Rustam A. Sani, formerly of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia’s Department of Political Science, has joined the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia as Senior Fellow in its Bureau of Nationbuilding Studies.

Assoc. Prof. Rustam, who is well-known in academic, government and media circles for his critical ideas on Malaysian nationalism, Malay society, Malay intellectual tradition, and the importance of cultural literacy, will undertake studies on all aspects of nationbuilding, including such areas as ethnic relations, nationalism and national ideology.

Since 1976, Rustam has been teaching at UKM’s Anthropology and Sociology Department and later at the Political Science Department.

He has edited various journals and magazines, and is currently a columnist for Dewan Masyarakat and Utusan Malaysia, and a member of the Editorial Board of Tenggara: Journal of Southeast Asian Literature. He is also author of an anthology of poems, Riak-riak Kecil (1977).

Rustam is the Advisor/Consultant for both the ‘Know Your Neighbour’ Translation/Publication Programme among South East Asian Countries and Japan, a project sponsored by the Toyota Foundation of Japan.

He has previously served as Editor at Oxford University Press (Kuala Lumpur Branch), and Assistant Registrar and Secretary of the Central Universities Admissions Unit at Universiti Malaya.

He has also taught Translation at the Language Centre, Universiti Malaya, and was Head of the Department of Anthropology and Sociology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

He received his BA (Hons.) in Malay Studies from the Universiti Malaya, Postgraduate Diploma in Sociology from the University of Reading, Britain and MA in Southeast Asian Studies from the University of Kent at Canterbury, Britain. He has also received an MA (1981) and MPhil (1982) in Political Sociology from Yale University, United States.

Role of ethnic-based groups in global trade

2006-09-22T16:47:00.000-07:00

[The following is from Kamal Salih’s column, Economy, in the New Sraits Times: May 7, 1993]

By Datuk Dr Kamal Salih

IT was just pure coincidence. I ran into Rustam Sani in the departure lounge of the Penang International Airport on Wednesday while en route from Kota Baru to Kuala Lumpur.

Rustam was returning to Kuala Lumpur too. We both had given a lecture that morning, he in Kulim (or its whereabouts), I in Rantau Panjang. He also writes an occasional column in another paper.

As Rustam was commenting on my weekly pieces, which he said he found interesting (believe me, this is not self-advertising!) little did he realised that he was to be featured in this week’s instalment.

He was commenting a new book he had been reading called Tribes, about ethnic-based trading groups that had been playing a significant role in the expansion of the global economy for centuries – the Jews, the British, the Chinese.

The subtitle of the book is How Race, Religion and Identity Determine Success in the Global Economy.

I was intrigued, because this had been a subject of much interest because of the current focus on the Chinese diaspora in this part of the world. I quickly made a mental note to pick up the book for myself.

The author of Tribes, Joel Kotkin, was posing the thesis that in the late 20^th century, new tribes, including Japanese, Chinese and Indians and potentially Lebanese, Armenians and Palestinian were emerging as the new driving force in moving the world economy forward, as the Calvinists had done centuries ago.

These tribes all share a strong work ethic and intense ethnic solidarity which transcends their global diaspora. A reviewer of the book, Thomas Hall, summarised their modus operandi thus: by working hard, pooling resources, reinvesting in business, exploiting new opportunities, and with a willingness to do business with anyone, they come to dominate various sectors of international trade and gain great personal wealth.

The ability to balance ethnic solidarity with an open-mindedness towards others is only crucial to their success.

The author based his thesis on journalistic accounts and interviews with ethnic leaders. He drew on several social science contributions that had been grappling with but did not quite resolve the role of ethnicity in economics and development

Thus he was not seen to sustain a consistent argument. Hall was also concerned about the misuse of the word “tribe”, the latter being reserved normally for the more or less autonomous society held together by kinship built through amalgamation of simpler bands or disintegration of more complex chiefdoms or even states.

While the tide may be a misnomer, Kotkin’s real intent was to focus on a detailed reporting and historical review of how trade-based ethnic groups form and maintain an identity by making a living by dealing with outsiders, and often not living in their homelands.

Hence the term diaspora whose economic power and influence often far exceeded their proportion in the societies of their domicile.

Hall says that the role of ethnic stranger is the basis of their success, and often the source of their destruction. Jews in Europe, Chinese in South East Asia, East Indians in Africa, Armenians in the Islamic world and Koreans in Los Angeles have played these roles.

And he says, all of them have paid dearly when one or both of the groups for which they served as go-between turned hostile.

We did not get to discuss these in the short spell waiting for the boarding call, but Rustam had obviously enjoyed his read. Quite pointedly, I saw too that he was holding the latest issue of the Economist magazine which had on its cover the title of its lead article on Asian networks.

As columnists, we both agreed that the London-based magazine is the epitome of fine English prose, with lovely punny subtitles. Rustam’s vision goes beyond his training in political science, and he delights in good writing. I find in him a kindred spirit.

But, intriguing though Kotkin’s thesis is, I still find it incomplete. In fact I concur with Hall about the reverse: that instead of an ethnic group’s values that generate its success in international business, it is the opportunity structure of the global market that converts ethnic solidarity into a comparative advantage in the form of transaction and opportunity costs.

Thus, as Kotkin himself concluded, future global tribes like Armenians and Lebanese, may be able to exploit newly created opportunities in the global capitalist economy, namely opportunities generated by the intensification of capitalism, technological change and the end of the Soviet empire.

At this sage I pondered at the state of the Malay tribe. The great historian Wertheim has written some time ago about ancient Malay trading regimes in Southeat Asia that existed before the arrival of the European colonialists.

A Malay diaspora might have developed on the early footholds beyond the archipelagoes in Sri Lanka, Madagascar and Cape Town, and in the Kingdom of Champa, Taiwan and the Phillipines. But there it got stuck in history.

The modern Malay tribe, in seeking nationhood in its own land, and a rediscovery of civilisation has only now begun to find its feet and its self-confidence.

The path to economic success and the global recognition is still threatened by a lack of ethnic solidarity, but it is guided now by a new vision and sense of purpose.

In a world full of challenges and opportunities, under the weight of a homogenising liberal ideology of market and driven by new powers of technology, the marshalling of the Malay tribe for the new century calls for a reinforcement of culture and ethnic identity.

But the challenge of the global market does not call for inwardness, but a new industrialisation of the Malays in language, intellectual pursuit, economic relations and political assertions.

It demands continuity of the struggle for recognition, and strengthening of leadership and commitment as that struggle passes from one generation to another.

We are at one point of history, and must move on to another.

At this point, the announcer called for transit passengers to return to the plane. I said my goodbyes to Rustam. I thought it was a pleasant Wednesday afternoon interlude meeting him. I hope it was the same for him.

Senarai kroni dan niat jahat media

2006-09-22T07:33:00.000-07:00

[Rencana ini telah disiarkan dalam Harakah (28 Jun 1999) sebagai reaksi saya terhadap penyiaran nama saya dalam senarai “para kroni Anwar” yang dipaparkan kepada para perwakilam Perhimpunan Agung Tahunan Umno. Selaras dengan itu dikeluarkan juga sebuah Kenyataan Media yang bertarikh 25 Jun 1999].

Dalam Perhimpunan Agung Umno tahun lalu (Jun 1998), berikutan dengan kehebohan yang dicetuskan Ketua Pergerakan Pemuda Umno ketika itu, Ahmad Zahid Hamid, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad telah mengarahkan supaya senarai semua penerima manfaat daripada penganugerahan projek dan saham didedahkan.

Kononnya langkah itu bertujuan untuk membuktikan bahawa amalan kronisme yang didakwa oleh Zahid Hamidi itu sebenarnya tidak wujud. Namun, sesiapa yang mengkaji senarai yang dikeluarkan itu sukar dapat menerima alasan tersebut. Malah ternyata bahawa bukti tentang amalan kronisme dalam kerajaan amatlah jelas dan terang. Jelaslah bahawa, dengan mengeluarkan senarai tersebut, Dr. Mahathir sebenarnya tidak mencuba menyatakan bahawa “saya tidak mengamalkan kronisme, nepotisme dan korupsi”. Mesej yang cuba disampaikannya hanyalah: “Bukan saya sahaja yang melakukan kronisme, nepotisme dan korupsi; orang lain juga melakukannya: Anwar, Daim, Rafidah, Megat Joned, dan seterusnya... dan seterusnya ... dan seterusnya ...” Malahan KKN merupakan darah daging sistem pentadbiran yang diamalkan pemerintahan BN pada keseluruhannya.

Dalam Perhimpunan Agung tahun ini senarai yang seperti itu dikeluarkan lagi. Tetapi kali ini senarai itu agak lebih selective (terpilih-pilih) sifatnya. Tujuannya kali ini agak sedikit berlainan, yakni untuk membuktikan bahawa “para kroni Anwar Ibrahim banyak yang mendapat manfaat daripada amalan menganugerahkan projek penswastaan dan pemberian saham”. Pendedahan dan senarai itu dapatlah dianggap sesuai dengan tema “tidak rasmi” perhimpunan agung UMNO tahun ini – yakni “Menghadapi Hantu Anwar Ibrahim Yang Amat Digeruni”.

Bagi saya sendiri penerbitan senarai kali ini mempunyai kesan tertentu, kerana nama saya terpampang sebagai nama terakhir dalam senarai tersebut. Secara implikasinya saya kini sudah diumumkan secara rasmi sebagai kroni Anwar Ibrahim yang turut mendapat manfaat daripada amalan kronisme, nepotisme dan korupsi yang didukung oleh Umno itu. Sebenarnya kira-kira seminggu sebelum perhimpunan agung Umno itu berlangsung saya sudah tahu bahawa nama saya akan diikutsertakan dalam suatu senarai para kroni penerima anugerah projek penswastaan yang akan diterbitkan semasa perhimpunan itu. Menurut sumber-sumber saya sendiri di EPU, mereka telah menerima satu senarai nama dari pihak atasan dengan arahan untuk menyediakan senarai projek-projek penswastaan yang melibatkan orang-orang yang namanya tertera dalam senarai itu. Oleh sebab itu, begitu saya mendapat laporan dari sumber-sumber saya sendiri di perhimpunan agung Umno itu bahawa senarai yang turut memaparkan nama saya telah dinaikkan di papan kenyataan, saya segera mengeluarkan kenyataan media yang bertarikh 19 Jun 1999.

Dalam kenyataan itu saya menjelaskan bahawa projek yang dimaksudkan itu bukanlah dianugerahkan kepada saya secara peribadi, tetapi kepada sebuah syarikat sendirian berhad yang telah saya dirikan bersama beberapa orang teman sejak tahun 1994. Tidak mungkin syarikat ini dianggap syarikat kroni Anwar, kerana ada pemegang sahamnya (yang pemilikan sahamnya jauh lebih besar daripada saya sendiri) bukan sekadar merupakan pembenci Anwar tetapi hingga kini memainkan peranan terbuka dalam sebuah syarikat media dalam kegiatan mengampu Mahathir dan memfitnah Anwar secara berlebih-lebihan. Selain itu saya menyatakan bahawa dalam kegiatan-kegiatan perdagangan, saya bergantung sepenuhnya kepada rentak pasaran bukan kepada “ehsan” para ahli politik yang saya kenali secara peribadi. Meskipun saya mengenali secara peribadi hampir semua ahli politik kanan negara ini – termasuklah Dr. Mahathir, Anwar Ibrahim. Abdullah Badawi, Najib Tun Razak – saya meminta mereka menyatakan jika ada barang sekalipun saya mencuba mendapat sokongan mereka untuk kepentingan perniagaan saya.

Hakikat yang lebih penting lagi yang saya tekankan ialah bahawa bukan sahaja Anwar tidak tahu menahu setelah permohonan syarikat saya yang telah dikemukakan kepada EPU sejak tahun 1995 itu, malah saya tidak pernah membincangkan hal itu dengan beliau. “Kelulusan secara prinsip” terhadap projek itu kami terima dalam surat rasmi EPU yang bertarikh 17 Oktober 1998 – setelah Anwar disingkirkan malah dipenjarakan. Pada waktu itu Menteri Kewangan adalah Dr. Mahathir sendiri, dengan Mustapha Muhamad merupakan menteri kedua.

Sebagai yang telah saya jangkakan, media arus utama negara ini telah menyiarkan senarai itu secara besar-besaran. Namun memeranjatkan saya juga bahawa selain menyiarkan senarai itu, tidak banyak ulasan bertele-tele dilakukan oleh media tersebut tentang senarai tersebut. Ada orang berpendapat bahawa akhbar-akhbar dalam kumpulan NST tidak membesar-besarkan isu itu untuk mengelakkan perhatian berlebihan terhadap beberapa para tokoh kumpulan akhbar itu sendiri yang namanya sepatutnya turut tersiar dalam senarai itu – tetapi entah bagaimana hilang tidak kelihatan dalam senarai tersebut. Ulasan dalam akhbar The Star juga boleh dianggap agak sederhana. Akhbar-akhbar utama berbahasa Cina juga tidak memberikan ruangan yang begitu penting kepada senarai tersebut, kecuali mungkin Nanyang. Namun Nanyang pada hari berikutnya menyiarkan berita panjang tentang kenyataan media yang saya keluarkan itu.

Akhbar yang tidak mengecewakan saya ialah Mingguan Malaysia (yakni edisi hujung minggu Utusan Malaysia). Akhbar yang terkenal kerana ketiadaan pertimbangan etika dan nilai kewartawanannya itu benar-benar berpesta besar dengan berita dan senarai tersebut. Motifnya amatlah jelas, yakni untuk menunjukkan bahawa Anwar Ibrahim mengamalkan kronisme dan telah memberikan manfaat kepada para kroninya. Sehubungan dengan perkara ini, motif Utusan dengan motif Dr. Mahathir tidaklah selaras seratus persen. Menurut laporan NST, Mahathir menjelaskan bahawa motifnya ialah untuk menunjukkan bahawa kerajaan tidak mengamalkan pilih kasih dari segi penganugerahan projek – orang-orang yang diketahui mengkritik kerajaan dan menyokong Anwar juga boleh mendapat manfaat daripada dasar kerajaan tersebut. Namun Utusan menekankan amalan kronisme yang diamalkan oleh Anwar untuk mengkayakan para kroninya.
Bagi saya ini merupakan satu lagi contoh tentang si pengampu yang bertindak berlebihan dan tanpa kefahaman mendalam, sehingga memudaratkan pemimpin yang diampunya dan malah dirinya sendiri. Statusnya samalah seperti beberapa tindakan melampau Rahim Noor, Noordin Sopiee, Ibrahim Ali, misalnya, yang sering kali memudaratkan nama baik Mahathir sendiri. Utusan tampaknya “bermurah hati” terhadap saya dalam perkara ini. Dalam Mingguan Malaysia keluaran 20 Jun 1999, nama saya disebut dalam kepala berita di muka 1, dijadikan bahan lelucuan pada strip kartun di muka 1, dan diperkatakan lagi (berserta gambar) dalam satu item berita di muka dalam. Tujuannya jelas: untuk memerikan saya sebagai kroni Anwar, untuk men”discredit” nama saya sebagai seorang pengkritik dasar kerajaan yang terlibat dalam gerakan reformasi, dan memperlihatkan bahawa saya sendiri terlibat dalam kegiatan kronisme untuk kepentingan diri saya. Tetapi, Utusan sedikit pun tidak melakukan kewartawanan bertanggungjawab dengan menyelidiki latar belakang penganugerahan projek kepada syarikat sendirian berhad yang saya pernah menjadi Pengerusi Eksekutifnya itu.

Pada 21 Jun 1999 saya sekali lagi mengeluarkan satu kenyataan media menghuraikan perkara tersebut dalam hubungannya dengan cara pemberitaan Utusan itu. Di akhir kenyataan itu saya menyatakan:

“Oleh sebab para pedagang lain yang pernah digambarkan sebagai mendapat manfaat yang bersifat kroni dalam kegiatan-kegiatan perdagangan mereka yang bersifat kroni telah membuat tuntutan mahkamah yang bernilai beratus juta ringgit terhadap akhbar-akhbar dan para penulis, maka saya juga telah meminta para peguam saya untuk mengkaji cara pemberitaan dan niat penulisan Utusan tentang perkara ini” – dengan maksud untuk melihat kemungkinan mengemukakan tuntutan mahkamah yang sama terhadap akhbar tersebut.”

Dengan ancaman tersebut, mulut luas akhbar yang tidak beretika itu tampaknya telah dapat ditutup selama-lamanya daripada mengulang-ulang perkara tersebut!

KENYATAAN KHBAR: 25 JUN 1999 Tentang Senarai Penganugerahan Projek-projek Penswastaan

Saya telah dimaklumkan bahawa nama saya turut tertera dalam nama-nama ‘penyokong Anwar Ibrahim’ yang telah dianugerahkan projek-projek penswastaan yang dikeluarkan bersempena dengan Persidangan Agung Umno yang berlangsung minggu lalu. Senarai itu dikeluarkan oleh Unit Perancang Ekonomi (EPU).

Oleh sebab pengeluaran senarai ini mempunyai implikasi politik, dilakukan dalam persidangan agung sebuah parti politik, bermotif politik, dan amat rapat hubungannya dengan isu politik berhubung dasar ekonomi-politik (kronisme, nepotisme dan korupsi), maka sedikit penjelasan saya kira diperlukan untuk menjelaskan kedudukan projek swasta yang dikatakan telah dianugerahkan kepada saya itu.

Pertamanya harus dijelaskan bahawa projek penswastaan tersebut bukanlah dianugerahkan kepada saya secara peribadi tetapi kepada sebuah syarikat, Pascabaru (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. Syarikat yang telah saya dirikan bersama beberapa orang teman pada tahun 1994. Saya sendiri merupakan salah seorang anggota Lembaga Pengarah, dan hingga tahun awal 1997 menjadi Pengerusi Eksekutifnya.

Sejak penubuhannya, Pascabaru telah menjalankan pelbagai macam kegiatan hartanah dan pembinaan (terutamanya kegiatan subkontrak) dan telah mengalami perkembangan yang sederhana. Bagi diri saya sendiri, kegiatan syarikat ini hanyalah merupakan salah satu kegiatan perniagaan yang telah saya ceburi pada ketika itu, di samping beberapa kegiatan lain seperti percetakan, penerbitan buku dan penerbitan komik. Dalam melaksanakan kegiatan-kegiatan perniagaan ini saya sepenuhnya bergantung pada rentak pasaran, tanpa sedikit pun mencampuradukkan kepentingan perniagaan dengan kontak saya atau sebarang anggota lembaga pengarah lainnya dengan sebarang ahli politik mahupun pegawai kanan kerajaan.

Pada tahun 1995 Pascabaru telah mengemukakan suatu kertas cadangan untuk memperoleh anugerah projek penswastaan membina Kompleks Imigresen Selangor di Shah Alam kepada Unit Perancangan Ekonomi (EPU). Sejak mula, syarikat kami bermaksud untuk memperoleh projek penswastaan itu semata-mata atas ‘kekuatan’ (merit) kertas cadangan dan rekod kami. Kami telah mengemukakan kertas cadangan yang amat terperinci dan telah menghadiri beberapa sesi temuduga dan taklimat di EPU, tetapi kami tidak pernah mencuba menggunakan pengaruh sesiapapun.

Ternyata proses tercapainya kelulusan projek penswastaan itu memakan waktu yang agak lama, sehingga kami sendiri hampir pudar minat terhadapnya. Sementara itu, sekitar 1997, dengan kelembapan suasana ekonomi serantau dan kematian Fujio F. Fujiko, pencipta komik Jepun Doraemon (yang hak cipta terjemahannya bagi negara ini kami miliki), perkembangan kegiatan-kegiatan perdagangan syarikat-syarikat yang saya sertai tidaklah serancak sebelumnya – sehingga ada aset syarikat-syarikat yang perlu dijual atau dilepaskan. Meskipun kegiatan-kegiatan perdagangan tersebut masih dapat diteruskan oleh teman-teman lain, namun saya sendiri mulai mengalihkan perhatian kembali kepada kegiatan-kegiatan akademik dan penulisan.

Namun demikian, pada bulan Oktober 1998 saya (sebagai Pengerusi Eksekutif Pascabaru yang telah mengemukakan permohonan pada tahun 1995 itu), telah menerima surat tawaran penganugerahan projek penswastaan Kompleks Imigresen Selangor tersebut dari pihak EPU. (Harus dicatatkan pada waktu itu Anwar Ibrahim sudah disingkirkan dari jawatannya dan sudah berada dalam tahanan). Saya telah diberitahu oleh teman-teman saya yang masih bergiat dalam syarikat tersebut bahawa secara tekniknya projek itu masih belum dianugerahkan kepada Pascabaru – syarat-syarat secara terperinci masih lagi dalam perundingan antara kedua pihak dan surat perjanjian anugerah projek penswastaan masih belum ditandatangani secara rasmi.

Tujuan saya mengeluarkan kenyataan ini hanyalah untuk menjelaskan kedudukan sebenar penganugerahan projek swasta ini kepada sebuah syarikat yang saya mempunyai kepentingan yang bukan bersifat penentu. Saya memang mengakui bahawa saya mengenali secara peribadi sebilangan para tokoh politik kanan negara ini – dari PM, TPM, timbalan menteri, bekas TPM, hinggalah Ketua-ketua parti pembangkang, para pegawai kanan kerajaan, dan sebagainya. Namun saya tidak pernah sekali-kali memperalatkan perkenalan tersebut untuk meningkatkan kepentingan perdagangan saya.

Malah saya sama sekali tidak akan berasa perlu membuat penjelasan ini jika sekiranya senarai yang melibatkan nama saya itu tidak berkemungkinan dimanipulasi oleh pihak-pihak tertentu untuk menunjukkan penglibatan orang-orang tertentu dalam kegiatan-kegiatan yang bersifat kronisme, nepotisme dan korupsi – yakni keburukan-keburukan masyarakat yang saya yakin perlu kita hapuskan terlebih dulu dalam usaha kita melahirkan masyarakat Malaysia yang lebih adil dan saksama.

Rustam A. Sani
Gombak, Kuala Lumpur

25 Jun 1999.

Usman Awang, penyair terbesar negara

2006-09-22T07:05:00.000-07:00

[Belasungkawa untuk Usman Awang sewaktu kembalinya penyair besar itu ke rahmatullah taala. Tulisan ini mulanya diterbitkan dalam Suara PRM: 15 Disember 2001]

Oleh Rustam A. Sani

Pada 29 November 2001 Malaysia kehilangan seorang puteranya yang benar-benar agung. Hari tidak hujan atau mendung pada tanggal tersebut. Hanya sehari kemudiannya baru hari mendung sepanjang hari -- seolah-olah alam sendiri memerlukan waktu untuk menggarap erti sebenar tamsil ibarat kehilangan besar yang amat ruwet maknanya itu.

Sepanjang waktu menziarahi rumah keluarga Usman Awang pada hari pengebumian itu saya merancang untuk menulis sebuah "belasungkawa" yang agak peribadi nadanya tentang beliau. Memang hubungan saya dengan beliau tidak sekadar hubungan persahabatan biasa. Allayaraham dapat saya tuntut sebagai teman yang agak akrab dengan keluarga saya sejak sewaktu Allayarham ayah saya masih hidup lagi.

Malah sewaktu saya agak rapat dengan Usman, ketika saya masih agak muda, ada lelucon antara kami tentang persahabatan itu. Leluconnya ialah bahawa Usman pernah "keluar" bersama ayah saya, tetapi bila ayah saya sudah tua dan perlu beristirahat Usman "keluar" pula dengan saya. Ketika itu waktu untuk saya beristirahat sudah hampir tiba, dan Usman tak lama lagi akan "keluar" pula bersama anak lelaki saya, Azrani.

Saya dapati bahawa terlalu banyak belasungkawa bersifat peribadi telah dihasilkan oleh pelbagai penulis -- tua dan muda -- yang lebih menarik daripada yang mungkin dapat saya hasilkan. Ternyata Usman terlalu luas tebaran jaringan persahabatannya. Pershabatannya selalu amat mengesankan, memberi erti yang dalam kepada sesiapa yang disahabatinya.

Membaca semua belasungkawa itu tambah meyakinkan saya bahawa beliau sesungguhnya seorang manusia dan sahabat yang luar biasa. Pastilah hidup saya dan keluarga saya telah menjadi lebih bererti dan lebih kaya kerana telah berpeluang mengenal dan bersahabat dengan beliau.

Usman Awang sebagai manusia telah menyentuh lubuk rasa dan degup jantung pelbagai manusia dari pelbagai latarbelakang, khususnya kerana sifat kemanusiaannya yang tidak berbendung itu -- rasa cinta sesama manusianya yang begitu bersahaja lagi langsung, yang sekaligus ruwet tetapi sekaligus juga mudah terserlah. Oleh kerana itu, puisi-puisi Usman menarik kerana kelangsungan dan kebersahajaannya, namun sekaligus juga menggoda dalam segala keruwetan nuansanya.

Oleh itu, betapa banyak sekalipun kita menulis tentang beliau, tidak akan habis segi-seginya yang masih belum kita perkatakan. Namun sebaliknya terasa bahawa segala-galanya tentang beliau telah kita perkatakan, dengan rasa cinta yang benar-benar mendalam dan kelangsungan rasa yang tidak sedikitpun memerlukan kita secara sengaja memuluk-mulukkan rasa maupun menggubah-gubah kata yang tak perlu.

Oleh itu, setiap orang yang mengenalnya akan tersentuh oleh sekurang-kurangnya suatu aspek kecil kemanusiaan dan peribadi Usman Awang. Namun setiap orang akan tersentuh pula oleh segala sudut kemanusiaannya yang luas dan dalam itu. Oleh kerana itulah, manakala Usman Awang merupakan manusia moden yang paling "Melayu" rentak dan alun suara bicaranya, dia juga merupakan seniman yang paling moden dan metropolitan nadanya, paling mudah diselami lubuk rasanya oleh sesiapa dengan apa latarbelakang budaya sekalipun.

Usman Awang dalam karya dan kehidupannya merupakan manusia yang paling bersahaja dan “primitif” pengucapannya, namun paling canggih dan ruwet kesannya. Dia dapat menangkap sifat primitif jiwa dan citarasa manusia Malaysia moden dan dia bercanda langsung dengan jiwa tersebut dari jiwanya yang tulus dan berterus terang dalam segala keindahannya.

Proses komunikasi yang kompleks ini telah dilakukannya dengan kelangsungan mudah yang luarbiasa, suatu teknik yang tidak banyak dikuasai oleh orang lain di negara ini -- baik di kalangan wartawan, penyair, ahli politik maupun para pejuang hak asasi manusia.

Tidak syak lagi beliau merupakan penyair terbesar negara ini.

Namun karya puisinya tidak sebanyak mana -- tidak lebih daripada 200 halaman buku yang diperlukan untuk menghimpunkan segala karya puisinya. Tidak ada penyair negara ini yang telah meninggalkan karya, bahkan baris-baris puisi, yang sebegitu mengesankan kepada semua orang. Siapa di negara ini yang tidak mengenal, dan tersentuh bawah sedarnya, oleh barisan kata-kata indah dan sentimen sajak “Ke Makam Bonda” atau “Kekasih”, misalnya?

Dilihat dalam konteks ini, Usman bukanlah sekadar seorang penyair. Sebagai penyair dia sebenarnya merupakan seorang pelopor yang telah memberi bentuk dan struktur kepada bahasa Melayu moden. Dia dan beberapa orang temannya dalam ASAS 50 telah memberi bentuk moden kepada bahasa tersebut, menjadikannya pengucapan politik, kewartawanan dan wacana moden yang efisien.

Usman sendiri memberikan bahasa itu bentuk modennya yang paling halus dan mendalam -- yakni sebagai bahasa puisi dan sastera moden. Daripada penyair ini kita mendapat alat pengucapan moden yang efisien, tanpa sedikitpun merasa bahawa kita telah mengabaikan -- atau membuang -- kelunakan nada dan alunan bahasa Melayu lama yang sebenarnya. Ada para pengkaji puisi yang memerikan fenomena ini sebagai penerapan teknik puisi tradisional, seperti pantun umpmanya, dalam pembentukan wacana moden sastera Malaysia.

Namun sebenarnya, sumbangan ini merupakan sebahagian sahaja daripada sumbangan Usman Awang dan rakan-rakan seangkatannya terhadap proses pertumbuhan sosial dan budaya kita menjadi sebuah bangsa moden. Usman Awang dan rakan-rakannya tidaklah datang dari golongan elit masyarakat kita yang paling tinggi kedudukannya, paling besar penguasaan sumber ekonominya, paling tinggi pendidikannya, maupun paling terdedah kepada budaya moden dunia dan Barat.

Namun mereka secara naluriah dan penuh tanggungjawab telah memikul beban pembinaan budaya dan tradisi kecendekiawanan moden kita.

Satu cara untuk menanggap ASAS 50 yang dipelopori kelompok itu ialah sebagai penerus jalur nasionalisme Melayu atau pertumbuhan politik yang telah dipelopori oleh golongan rakyat progresif seperti Ibrahim Yaacob, Burhanuddin Helmi, Ishak Haji Muhammad, Ahmad Boestamam, Abu Bakar Al-Bakir, dan lain-lain. Kelompok Usman tidak membentuk sebuah parti politik, namun sikap dan pengucapan politik ASAS 50 dalam zaman “interegnum” politik kiri Melayu yang ditindas melalaui “Darurat” itu tidak kurang jelas dan lantangnya.

Melalui akhbar yang mereka kendalikan dari tengah-tengah milieu masyarakat proletar dan golongan pekerja di Singapura, mereka sebenarnya melaksanakan suatu “renaissance” budaya Malaya, khususnya usaha melahirkan budaya Melayu moden. Tulisan mereka menggarap pelbagai aspek kehidupan – namun sastera (bagi Usman khususnya puisi) adalah bahagian yang besar daripada “renaissance” tersebut.

Dalam kebanyakan masyarakat yang sedang tumbuh dan sedang terbentuk di luar kerangka sosial masayarakat terjajah, kebangkitan budaya yang demikian itu biasanya dipelopori oleh suatu golongan elit tempatan yang terpelajar dan terdedah kepada pendidikan dalam bahasa-bahasa Barat.

Di India, umpmanya, golongan yang demikian telah memulakan sebuah tradisi penulisan dalam bahasa Inggeris yang begitu mantap – dengan kesannya terhadap kejayaan tradisi tersebut menyumbang kepada sastera berbahasa Inggeris dunia hingga ke hari ini.

Fenomena sosial yang demikian tidak pernah terjadi dalam masyarakat kita. Golongan elit kita tidak pernah mendapat pendidikan Barat yang sempurna, hanya pendidikan kolonial yang dicipta untuk menjadikan mereka aparat setia penjajahan Barat. Oleh yang demikian, anggota masyarakat kita yang memperoleh pendidikan tersebut bukan sahaja tidak mampu mencetuskan tradisi penulisan bahasa Inggeris yang mantap dan kreatif di negara ini. Mereka malah menjadi beku dan bungkem dalam bahasa dan budayanya sendiri.

Peranan mereka inilah yang telah diambil alih oleh Usman Awang dan teman-temannya dalam ASAS 50, meskipun mereka dihalang dan dihambat oleh pelbagai kekurangan. Oleh kerana pendidikan bahasa Inggeris mereka bolehlah dikatakan amat asasi atau minimal sifatnya, maka keberhasilan mereka melahirkan sebuah tradiri sastera Melayu moden sungguh mengkagumkan. Manakala golongan elit masyarakat kita terkepung oleh pendidikan kolonial yang amat sempit, golongan ini terdedah kepada keluasan dan kedinamisan seni dan budaya Barat melalui suatu sumber lain.

Sumber lain itu ialah kesusasteraan moden Indonesia yang sedang diperkembangkan oleh beberapa angkatan para penulis Indonesia yang bukan sahaja terdedah kepada pengaruh Eropah yang lebih luas, tetapi sedang bereksperimen dengan giatnya dalam membentuk sastera moden Indonesia dengan menggunakan bahasa Melayu dan dipengaruhi oleh pelbagai bahasa daerah di kepulauan itu. Karya-karya mereka ini telah menjadi universiti bagi Usman dan rakan-rakannya dan melalui mereka menjadi saluran masuk pengaruh moden ke dalam pembentukan budaya moden kita.

Sewaktu menziarahi jenazah Usman Awang tempoh hari, peranan besar Usman Awang dan angkatannya inilah yang amat kuat mengganggu pemikiran saya. Kebanyakan teman-teman seangkatan Usman Awang – khususnya Asraf dan Keris Mas – malah telah lebih dulu meninggalkan kita. Yang saya lihat masih ada di rumah itu untuk menyampaikan penghormatan terakhir mereka kepada Usman semuanya sudah melewati tahap umur yang memungkinkan mereka memberikan sumbangan aktif terhadap masyarakat.

Pemergian Usman itu benar-benar telah mengingatkan saya bahawa kita kini telah memasuki ambang baru dalam perjalanan bangsa kita. Dalam saat yang genting dan penting ini apakah kita sudah mempunyai daya kecendekiawanan untuk memahami sebenarnya sumbangan Usman dan generasinya. Lebih penting lagi, mampukah kita dari titik ini untuk meneruskan jalan yang telah dirintis oleh para cendekiawan dan seniman agung kita itu?

We want a healthy Malaysia

2006-09-22T06:33:00.000-07:00

By Goh Chok Tong

Business Asia : Oct 26, 1998

Singapore and Malaysia have endured a tempestuous relationship since their split in the 1960s. Singapore's Prime Minister GOH CHOK TONG comments on the complex relations.

Some people have likened the bilateral relationship between Singapore and Malaysia to that of a husband and wife – you quarrel then you make up, you quarrel again, then you hug and make up again. But the metaphor is not accurate. Singapore and Malaysia were married, found irreconcilable differences, broke up and went their separate ways.

Malaysian columnist Rustam Sani recently argued that the relationship between Singapore and Malaysia would always remain volatile because “there never have been any attempts to fully resolve the basic contradictions in relations between the two neighbouring countries”. He did not explain those basic contradictions. From his comments on how Singapore is interpreting its history during its Malaysia years, it is clear that he was referring to race, and to the two countries' different approaches in handling race relations.

He quoted me from a recent speech. I said:

“Asia is facing a crisis. How can Singapore defend itself?. As long as Singaporeans, regardless of race, language and religion work together to make this country an outstanding homeland, we will survive. This is the most important lesson we can learn from our history.”

He called these events a “Singapore’s Holocaust” because Singapore uses them the way the Israelis use the Holocaust as “a very symbolic reminder of a terribly supreme suffering”. He went on to say that I regard “a deep understanding of the riots as very important in shaping the consciousness of Singaporeans that their country is a multi-racial country”. He is right.

Race relations are always sensitive in a multi-racial society. I do not want racial riots ever to take place again in Singapore, either through our own stupidity or through spill-over effects from outside. We have always stressed that the majority Chinese community must make special efforts to give our Malay, Indian and Eurasian communities an equal place in Singapore.

Rustam Sani asserted that we use Malaysia as a bogey to unite Singaporeans and to win elections. There, he is wrong.

Singapore and Malaysia are partners as well as competitors. We take Malaysia seriously as a competitor in many fields, and welcome healthy competition. Recently, Malaysian newspapers have carried absurd allegations that Singapore is happy that Malaysia is experiencing economic difficulties, and that we are sabotaging them or even stealing their cargoes.

They are totally wrong. Our economy is closely intertwined with Malaysia's. If Malaysia gets into serious trouble, Singapore will also be affected.

Malaysia is Singapore's second-largest trading partner, and we are their third-largest trading partner. Half the tourists who visit Malaysia are Singaporeans. Fifteen per cent of our exports go to Malaysia. Malaysia is also Singapore's top overseas investment destination.

Interest rates are set by the market. This has nothing to do with the Government.

As close neighbours, Singapore and Malaysia will not always see eye to eye on every issue.

When relations are going through a rough patch, we must deal with the difficulties rationally and soberly. We should not over-react or let disagreements on individual issues spill over to affect the overall relationship. We should try to resolve, or at least contain, the issues.

Malaysia’s turning point?

2006-09-21T18:29:00.000-07:00

[The New Paper (Singapore): September 7, 1998.]

The political crisis sparked by last Wednesday’s sacking of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim as Malaysia’s Deputy Prime Minister shows no sign of abating. In this commentary written exclusively for The New Paper, well-known Malaysian political analyst Rustam A. Sani says the crisis is a sign that the country’s political culture is changing.

Mr. Rustam A. Sani, a well-known Malay sociologist and political analyst was mentioned by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in his National Day Rally speech last month. Mr. Rustam has written a commentary, ‘Singapore and the Holocaust’ in Utusan Malaysia, a newspaper in which he writes a weekly column.

In it he argued that the relationship between Singapore and Malaysia would always remain volatile because “there never have been an attempt to fully resolve the basic contradiction in relations between the two neighbouring countries.”

Apart from writing for Utusan Malaysia, Mr. Rustam has also contribute articles in Malay and English to ther publications such as The New Straits Times and Singapore’sThe Business Times. He also edits, and contributes to, academic journals in the social sciences.

Mr. Rustam, 54, is currently the deputy president of the Malaysian Social Science Association. He is married and has two children.

By Rustam A. Sani

ONE day after Anwar Ibrahim was sacked by the Prime Minister as Malaysia’s Deputy Prime Minister, he was dismissed from Umno of which he was the deputy president.

The mood at the venue of the party’s central working committee meeting that Thursday evening was rather tense. A crowd of about 1,000 people had assembled since early evening.

The crowd was evidently “pro-Anwar.” By the time the meeting was over in the wee hours of Friday morning, and the committee’s decision to dismiss Anwar from the party confirmed, the mood was definitely boisterous and abusive.

Umno president (Prime Minister Datuk Seri Mahathir Mohamad) and other senior members of the committee on the way back to their respective cars were showered and hurled with paper balls and drink cartons.

The incident shocked many, even those who sympathise with the crowd’s sentiment.

It is almost unknown in the recent history of Malay politics that senior politicians in power are treated the way they were that day. It was indeed untypically Malay, in fact untypically Malaysian, form of political protest. In other words, it is a manifestation of some kind of change in Malaysian political culture.

But then it is this “cultural change” that may indeed be the explanation for the “stand-off” that is now taking place here.

Since Anwar’s sacking, a crowd between 500 and 2000 people had been forming at his residence.

What could be the “profile” of the crowd that is constantly milling around Anwar’s home?

They appear to be a rather young crowd, mainly in their 20s and 30s. Anwar’s popularity within the Umno withstanding, the crown is hardly a typically Umno crowd – many are not even members of any party.

They are politically aware though, being members of non-government organisations (NGOs) or “politicised” student bodies in institutes of higher learning.

Many could not even be categorised as “pro-Anwar” or “anti-Mahathit” in the context of Umno factional politics. But most of them are totally opposed to the various measures that have been taken in the run-up to the sacking itself – such as the removal of newspapers editors and other media executives aligned to Anwar.

Many of the young people I talked to readily accepted the need for “national unity” in finding a solution to the economic crisis. But they rejected the idea that such notions of unity should equated with the absence of and suppression of alternative views and active debates.

Many find it totally unpalatable that there are senior Umno leaders who unthinkingly lend their support to the Prime Minister in taking important decisions such as Anwar’s sacking without really offering convincing reasons for doing so.

Many young people I talked to said they could understand if feudalistic views, such as the need to go along with the decision of “one leader” still dominate the thinking of “older” party leaders such as Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. But they find it frustrating to hear similar arguments echoed by much “younger” leaders, such as Najib Tun Razak and Hishamuddin Hussein Onn.

Many young “followers” that are still crowding the residence of the ex-Deputy Prime Minister are not there merely because of blind loyalty to the charismatic leader.

Many are even willing to end their support for Anwar if, finally, he is properly proven to be guilty. But the way his dismissal was carried out is considered to be of the same genre ad earlier “undemocratic” actions, such as the removal of editors, and the imprisonment of politicians such as Lim Guan Eng.

It is obvious that in Malaysia these days there exists a younger group of citizens quite committed to the notion of a democratic and open society.

In a way, this generation is a creation of PM Mahathir himself, as an unintended consequence perhaps of his effort in bringing the nation into the post-industrial era.

Now that the nation is facing some setbacks in its participation in the global order, the government must find its decision to adopt an approach of economic nationalism and near isolationism difficult to sell to a younger population greatly exposed to an open democratic global culture.

Perhaps this element of generational change in the political culture of modern Malaysia deserves closer scrutiny in understanding the support that Anwar seems to be enjoying at the moment.

Perhaps it is inadequate to confine our perspective just to the rift between Anwar and Mahathir in the context of factional rivalry within Umno or to the economic policy differences between them.

Malaysia: How far can the media go?

2006-09-21T18:09:00.000-07:00

[The following is an excerpt from the transcript of an interview program of Radio National Australia, aired on Thursday, October 22, 1998]

Robert Bolton: Today on The Media Report, new directions for BBC News; and the media in Malaysia: government controlled, or self-censored?

Peter Cave: Malaysia is in its deepest political crisis in decades, and the climax of the Commonwealth Games has run a poor second place to the spectacle of balaclava-wearing troopers smashing their way into a news conference to arrest the former deputy Prime Minister, Anwar Ibrahim.

Man: We are against law of the jungle! We are against dictatorship! We are against the few [indistinct - ed.] We want Mahathir to resign! Resign!

[CROWD YELLS]

Robert Bolton: The arrest of former deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has challenged Malaysia's media. How does a formerly complaint media deal with the issue of outspoken dissent?

Newspapers in Malaysia are linked to political parties and business people. And apart from two government TV stations, television networks have similar affiliations.

Rustam Sani is, (or was, as you'll hear) a newspaper columnist with Utusan Malaysia, one of two mass circulation Malay language newspapers. It's connected to the ruling UMNO party. Recently its editor was sacked for supporting Anwar Ibrahim. So does Malaysia have a free press?

[Rustam Sani.]

Rustam Sani: If you ask me whether there is press censorship in Malaysia, I would answer No, because I would regard censorship as a situation where you have somebody from the government sitting with the editors to select material and to determine which is good for publication and which is not. But if you say there is free press in Malaysia and I said there is none, because I think the newspapers and the other media is obviously very pro-government in orientation and very anti-opposition too.

Robert Bolton: So what you're really talking about is self-censorship.

Rustam Sani: I think there's a lot of self censorship going on in the running of editorial policy of the media in Malaysia. But there is also the fact that the newspapers and the TV stations, the private ones, belongs to a company closely related to the ruling political party. There's also the fact that the company is run by almost a representative if you like, of the political party. And also the fact that I think the appointment of its editors and people make decisions in the editorial section of the newspapers is technically a political appointment in the sense that their appointment is not officially approved by politicians, but certainly approved by politicians in a more informal way.

Robert Bolton: So in fact the politicians have total control over the media in Malaysia.

Rustam Sani: Yes, I think so. That's my assessment, yes.

Robert Bolton: But how do they affect the news in a day-to-day way if they're not actually intervening with censors?

Rustam Sani: The people who run the newspapers and make editorial decisions in the newspapers as we have mentioned just now, do exercise a lot of self-censorship, and there is I think an unspoken understanding of what can be done and what cannot be done, or what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. And I think the difficulty comes when they have to move with the changes in the political arena when a certain politician is suddenly out of favour in the political structure and an editor is caught because he has been a supporter of that particular politician and is not aware of the changes, or he decided to speak to that man, then his career can be in danger. It's the difficulty that editors are working under.

Robert Bolton: So let's talk about the former deputy Prime Minister, Anwar Ibrahim. When he was sacked, were newspaper editors sacked for supporting him?

Rustam Sani: You can't put it in that way, but during his better days in the government, he was given I think quite a lot of freedom to decide on - I think there were even people who think that some of the more important editors in Malaysia were his men, as it were, and a few months ago especially after the UMNO General Assembly where there was the problem of cronyism and things, riots... we had the so-called resignation of the two editors of the major Malay newspapers, then there was restructuring of the newspaper and at that time I know Ibrahim was still deputy Prime Minister, but obviously something was going on and new people were appointed to replace the editors and there was obvious changes in the editorial policy, there were emphases given on certain issues like the importance of leaders who are morally upright, like the question of leaders who are loyal to the country, who do not commit treason and things like that, were being discussed in the newspapers. And suddenly you have an editorial emphasis on certain things. And a lot of people didn't know what was going on, until the deputy Prime Minister was sacked, it was obvious that the newspapers had been working on this issue, preparing people for this situation, even before it happened.

Robert Bolton: You used to have a column in the Utusan Malaysia newspaper; you now no longer write that column. Is that because you were writing things that were considered not favourable to the government?

Rustam Sani: My column has always been considered rather critical of government; that had been something of a trademark of my column for a long time. But then during these changes, the resignation of editors and all that happened a few months back, I continued sending my weekly column but at one stage they just stopped publishing it.

Robert Bolton: So did anybody say anything to you? Any of the editors? What did they say to you?

Rustam Sani: Not formally, but some people down the line, people who do the sub-editing, did tell me, you know, asking me to keep my column shorter and to be more favourable and that sort of thing. But there was no formal communication from the top editor actually to me.

Robert Bolton: But now what about the people who used to read your column? Surely they must have said 'Where is the column?' surely they must have protested to the newspaper.

Rustam Sani: I don't know if they do protest to the newspaper, but people do come up to me even on the streets and say 'What happened to your column?' and I say, 'I can't write any more'.

Robert Bolton: Where can people read views that might be contrary to those of the government?

Rustam Sani: I think there are publications like the organ of the opposition parties for example, there is a newspaper called Harakah which is published twice weekly, published by the Islamic party, PAS and there is another one in English published by the DAP, the other opposition party, called the Rocket. These are some of the sources that you can get the alternative information from. But then there is a ruling also in this country that party organs are not supposed to be sold to the public, it is only supposed to be distributed to the members of the party.

Robert Bolton: So there's no public journalism which is against the view of the government?

Rustam Sani: Only small ones. NGOs have been publishing monthly magazines like [indistinct ed.] monthly, but those are basically articles and opinion pieces and all that.

Robert Bolton: Of course it has to be said it's a complicated situation because Dr Mahathir Mohamad is re-elected in a democratic process, and the opposition to him comes principally from within his own party, so it is a complicated political structure, isn't it?

Rustam Sani: It is complicated in the sense that up till now I think the opposition from outside the party is not such a big concern, that it does not really matter to the government. But obviously it's opposition from within the party. For example, the Anwar Ibrahim case is of much more importance, and the media, interestingly enough, is directly drawn into that battle.

Robert Bolton: But the editors won't allow commentary on this factional fighting in their newspapers.

Rustam Sani: They do a lot of commentary, as long as it is on the side of the Prime Minister, or whoever is having the upper hand at a particular juncture in the struggle.

Robert Bolton: Well now, are there other forms of media where there is a voice of independence or opposition, or anti-government?

Rustam Sani: There is now the Interment, in the form of web pages; there are a number of web pages and its links are established under the Anwar Ibrahim "Reformasi" movement and all the other opposition movements. So that's becoming very popular.

Robert Bolton: I've heard there's a bit of a crackdown on the Internet though in Malaysia, is that correct?

Rustam Sani: At one stage they accused the Internet, especially the email, being used for transmission of rumour-mongering which is dangerous to the security of the country, and people were charged in court for using the Internet in that way.

Robert Bolton: That's extraordinary, because of course until very recently the whole direction of the UMNO government was to support the creation of Internet superhighways throughout Malaysia.

Rustam Sani: Yes, and we thought because there was so much freedom being promised to the international community, especially the investors, the Internet and the development of the information technology will be freed from all sorts of restrictions from the government. Obviously under this very great political pressure they're not keeping their word, a lot of people are even wary about using the email to communicate subjects.

Robert Bolton: Now the foreign media was watching Malaysia with great interest at the time of the Anwar Ibrahim crisis, partly because it was there for the Commonwealth Games. What is the feeling of the Malaysian people towards the foreign media?

Rustam Sani: For a long time I think the government has been telling people to be wary of the foreign media, they are after something, there's an agenda and a conspiracy going on. So people tended to believe all this, but I think recently there's a tendency to treat the foreign media as an alternative source of information, especially when what is published by the foreign media is available locally now through the satellite TV as well as through the Internet.

Robert Bolton: Rustam Sani, former newspaper columnist

The Goh Chok Tong’s National Day Rally Speech (1998)

2006-09-21T17:36:00.000-07:00

[The following is an excerpt the speech by the Prime Minister of Singapore]

… Turning to Malaysia, some people have likened our bilateral relationship to that of a husband and wife – you quarrel then you make up, you quarrel again, then you hug and make up again. But the metaphor is not accurate. Singapore and Malaysia were married, found irreconcilable differences, broke up and went their separate ways.

"Singapore and the Holocaust"?

Straits Times (18 July) recently reprinted a commentary by Rustam Sani, a Malaysian columnist. It had originally been published in Utusan Malaysia, a Malaysian newspaper, with the title "Singapore and the Holocaust". It argued that the relationship between Singapore and Malaysia would always remain volatile because "there never have been any attempts to fully resolve the basic contradictions in relations between the two neighbouring countries."

Rustam Sani did not explain what the basic contradictions were. From his comments on how Singapore is interpreting its history during its Malaysia years, it is clear that he was referring to race, and to the two countries’ different approaches in handling race relations.

He quoted me at the opening of the National Education Exhibition on 7 July. I said, "Asia is facing a crisis. How can Singapore defend itself? As long as Singaporeans, regardless of race, language and religion work together to make this country an outstanding homeland, we will survive. This is the most important lesson we can learn from our history."

Rustam Sani commented that what I meant as the historic lesson is the series of racial riots that occurred in the 1960s – the two racial riots in 1964 when Singapore was part of Malaysia and the 1969 racial disturbances which spilled over from the May 13 riots in Malaysia. He called these events a "Singapore Holocaust" because Singapore uses them the way the Israelis use the Holocaust as "a very symbolic reminder of a terribly supreme suffering".

He went on to say that I regard "a deep understanding of the riots as very important in shaping the consciousness of Singaporeans that their country is a multi-racial country." He is right here.

Race relations are always sensitive in a multi-racial society. I do not want racial riots ever to take place again in Singapore, either through our own stupidity or through spill-over effects from outside. Rather than sweeping sensitive problems under the carpet, we discuss them openly but sensitively and constructively, at the right time and in the proper context. By getting Singaporeans to understand the causes and costs of racial riots, we minimise the chances of riots ever happening again.

We have always stressed that the majority Chinese community must make special efforts to give our Malay, Indian and Eurasian communities an equal place in Singapore to enjoy security, progress, opportunities and prosperity like all others.

Rustam Sani asserted that we use Malaysia as a bogey to unite Singaporeans and to win elections. There, he is wrong. In fact, we had first planned to do the recent National Education Exhibition in late 1996. It would have been just before our general elections. We did not want Singaporeans to misinterpret and discount it as a pre-election ploy, so we postponed it till this year. The NE Exhibition was a serious effort at nation building, as the 600,000 Singaporeans who watched the show found.

Competitor and Partner

Singapore and Malaysia are partners as well as competitors. We take Malaysia seriously as a competitor in many fields, and welcome healthy competition. But in this dynamic global economy, our toughest competitor is not each other, but the rest of the world. We regularly remind Singaporeans of what other countries, including Malaysia, are doing, so that Singaporeans will work harder and smarter to stay ahead.

Recently, Malaysian newspapers have carried absurd allegations that Singapore is happy that Malaysia is experiencing economic difficulties, and that we are sabotaging them or even stealing their cargoes. They are totally wrong. Our economy is closely intertwined with Malaysia’s. If Malaysia gets into serious trouble, Singapore will also be affected.

Malaysia is Singapore’s second-largest trading partner, and we are their third-largest trading partner. Half the tourists who visit Malaysia are Singaporeans. 15% of our exports go to Malaysia. Malaysia is also Singapore’s top overseas investment destination. We have more than S$10 billion invested there, spread over 1,000 companies. The investors include Government-linked companies like DBS Land, Keppel Land and Pidemco. Our banks’ exposure is another $21 billion.

A Malaysia in recession means reduced returns and opportunities for Singapore investors. Our manufacturing investments in Malaysia, which are mainly export-oriented, have already been hit by Malaysia’s credit crunch and higher import costs arising from the weaker ringgit. Several companies have reported that their operations in Malaysia face financing problems.

Some Malaysians believe that banks in Singapore are deliberately offering high interest rates for ringgit deposits in order to sabotage Malaysia. Finance Minister Richard Hu has explained in Parliament that the Government does not determine interest rates of foreign currency deposits in Singapore. Interest rates are set by the market. When banks in Singapore offer high interest rates on ringgit, it means that someone else wants to borrow ringgit from them at even higher interest rates. Otherwise, the banks will lose money paying these interest rates on ringgit. This has nothing to do with the Government. But despite Richard Hu’s explanation, the issue has not been put to rest.

This apparent lack of understanding of how the markets work has complicated our relations with Malaysia. Our inability to interfere with the market is misinterpreted as sabotage. But far from wanting Malaysia to stumble, I am anxious that it recovers quickly.

Improving Bilateral Relations

That was why I met Dr Mahathir at Sebana Cove in Johor in January. I met him again in Sentosa a few weeks later, and followed up with a working visit to Kuala Lumpur from 16 to 17 February, plus another visit to Johor Bahru on 18 April. In between, I saw Dr Mahathir in London on 2 April. Five summits in four months. For what purpose, if not to improve ties?

Ties did improve, for a time. Dr Mahathir and I issued a joint statement after my KL visit to affirm our mutual desire to work towards realising the full potential in the relations between our two countries, based on the principle of "prosper-thy-neighbour".

We have tried to resolve bilateral issues and enhance relations within a wider framework of cooperation. We discussed Pedra Branca, the Points of Agreement on Malaysian Railway land, CPF withdrawal for West Malaysians, water and financial co-operation. Dr Mahathir assured me that Malaysia would continue to supply water to Singapore after the existing water agreements have expired. I reciprocated by offering financial support to Malaysia.

We have yet to close the deal. But Singapore has already helped by holding on to several billion ringgit in our foreign reserves, even though we could see the ringgit steadily depreciating. Had we sold them, the ringgit would have depreciated further. In addition, we have deposited some of these ringgit with Malaysian banks in Malaysia, even though the interest rates are much less than we could earn by leaving the ringgit offshore in Singapore.

Meanwhile, relations have changed from summer to winter. Several issues arose or resurfaced and caused friction. They include the CIQ, CPF withdrawal, Clob International, Rotary Club tour programme, and airspace. Most were old issues.

As close neighbours, Singapore and Malaysia will not always see eye-to-eye on every issue. When relations are going through a rough patch, we must deal with the difficulties rationally and soberly. We should not over-react or let disagreements on individual issues spill over to affect the overall relationship. We should try to resolve, or at least contain, the issues.

We may not always succeed, in which case we will let the facts speak for themselves, and stand our ground firmly, but quietly and calmly, on the side of the law. We have to adhere to national and international laws, and to agreements reached by both sides. Otherwise we will have no basis for resolving conflicts. Commitments solemnly given will have no meaning, if they can simply be set aside later whenever one side is unhappy with them. The CIQ issue is a case in point.

Rustam Sani is correct to note that basic differences between the two countries will make their relations always sensitive and complex. But I do not share his pessimistic conclusion that bilateral relations will therefore always remain volatile. Both sides have much to gain by pragmatic win-win co-operation. Over the long term, we should work for better relations based on equality and mutual respect. I hope that both countries can provide Malaysians and Singaporeans a new basis for long term co-operation and competition that is open, equitable and fair.