The trouble with most politicians is that they lose the connection with the people after a while. They forget the people who put them in their positions in the first place. 

IT is the kind of news that is guaranteed to go global. Reports of Indonesian President Joko Widodo (pic), or Jokowi as he is more popularly known, and his wife Iriana queuing at the Jakarta airport like ordinary passengers before taking their seats in economy class have become world news.

The Indonesian people have been given yet another moment to savour – and their new president has certainly endeared himself to the voters with his modest lifestyle.

The couple was taking a short flight to Singapore to attend the graduation ceremony of their 19-year-old son from the Anglo-Chinese International School, a Methodist secondary school.

Jokowi did not exactly make a big fuss about travelling economy but his publicists certainly did a good job in making sure the Indonesian people, and the rest of the world, knew about it.

As Jokowi explained later, this was strictly a private affair and there was no need to make use of government facilities for what was essentially a personal matter.

Jokowi, of course, is still on what is known as the “honeymoon phase” of his presidency.

The Indonesians find him refreshing. He is the direct opposite of many of the Indonesian politicians who are seen as corrupt, arrogant and patronising.

The news of Jokowi travelling economy class has gone viral but, as to be expected of social media, there are also many counter reports that question his motive and play up the fact that the couple stayed at an expensive five-star hotel along Orchard Road.

Some viewed it as nothing more than a publicity stunt.

“Why should he go through the metal detector, join the queue, etc? Sir, stop polishing your image, just act natural,” Rangga Aditya commented on news portal Detik.com.

Harry Azet tweeted: “Living a fake life is difficult: Jokowi went to Singapore flying economy but slept in an expensive hotel.”

Well, that’s social media for you. Everyone has an opinion and is more than happy to share it with the rest of the world.

As a journalist who has seen enough of politicians and their publicity-seeking stunts, I often observe such news with a healthy dose of scepticism. But seeing the approach that Jokowi has adopted since taking over the presidency, I do hope that it can be sustained.

Not only will it be good for his country, but he can also be a good example to other world leaders who sometimes forget the very people who voted them into power.

Actually, in Malaysia, it is rare to see our politicians doing things like the common people. Where they go, they are usually accompanied by some form of entourage. They never seem to walk alone.

For example, our politicians just love to have an entourage to send them off at the airport for their travels, and an equally big-sized crowd to welcome them back.

This is perhaps some kind of assurance that they still have power, although the people who are part of the crowd may also want to be seen to be there for different reasons.

What is clear is that when they lose power, their supporters are usually nowhere to be found. Many of them will probably think it is a waste of their time and money to go to the airport to see a former powerful politician off.

The same rules also apply to the corporate world, I am sure.

Interestingly enough, we now have budget airlines like Air Asia and Firefly, and it is normal for the politicians to be together with the other passengers on short flights from the capital to their respective hometowns.

But their aides surely make a big fuss of how these politicians, from both sides of the divide, are so in touch with the common people and are prepared to make such sacrifices.

Anyone who enters the political arena must be prepared to take the good with the bad.

It is a matter of time before Jokowi’s opponents may want to question him on why he sent his son to study in Singapore instead of letting him study at home.

The Anglo-Chinese International School was recognised as an International Baccalaureate (IB) World School in 2005. It is consistently ranked among the top three schools worldwide that offer the IB, with score averages as high as 42 out of a total of 45 points, according to one report.

In Malaysia, there are politicians who love to attack Malaysians for sending their children to vernacular schools instead of national schools.

Then they quietly send their own children to international schools or even boarding schools in the United Kingdom and Australia.

And these are often the same politicians who wax poetic about the importance of the national language and criticise those who want to promote the wider usage of the English language.

But back to air travel, we have to get real about how our high-ranking political leaders should travel.

Going economy on short flights may be fine, but I don’t think they should fly economy if they are on a 14-hour long haul flight to London, or a 22-hour journey to New York.

While we can cope with a non-stop crying baby a few seats away or, horror of horrors, next to us, we wouldn’t recommend it to a head of government who needs to read up on his working papers ahead of an important meeting.

There would be serious implications for the nation if he were to arrive in a foreign capital exhausted after a long economy-class trip.

For sure we do not want our Prime Minister to be forced to make small talk with a busybody fellow passenger or take pictures with everyone on the plane over the next 14 hours.

That’s not how a clever leader should operate even if we want him to be down-to-earth.

But we must salute Jokowi for saying that he did not use the presidential private jet or the VIP terminal because he was travelling for personal reasons, adding that “I am going for family matters, a private agenda, not a state visit – so why should I use the facility?”

We’ve got to love him for that, don’t we?

Other populist buttons pressed by Jokowi included, as reported by Tempo.com, both he and his deputy Jusuf Kalla wearing shoes ordered from a local producer in Cibaduyut – a district in Bandung famed for producing leather goods, including shoes – for the swearing in ceremony. It wasn’t Italian made, for sure.

Rather than revelling in her new status as Indonesia’s first lady, Jokowi’s wife was also quoted as saying that she would maintain her current style, except on formal occasions when she needs to coordinate with her husband.

The trouble with most politicians is that they lose the connection with the people after a while. They forget the people who put them in their positions in the first place.

No one would begrudge them the perks and privileges that come with the office, but many of them just get too used to such benefits and do not know how to draw the line between what is official and what is personal.

And we certainly will not appreciate the pompous display of extravagance, especially in tough economic times when the people struggle to pay the bills.

We also need to cut down on unnecessary practices each time the political elite are in attendance.

Granted that we respect titled people, but ordinary Malaysians often wonder why we need to devote so much time to address the many Tan Sri and Puan Sri, Datuk Seri and Datin Seri, Datuk-Datuk and Datin-Datin in the salutations before every speech.

And the VIPs also like to be kept in a “holding room” before the function, which, of course, needs to be paid for by the organisers.

This is where all the small talk is carried out until such time as when they make their grand entrance to the function room. If it’s a dinner, the guests are sometimes subjected to horribly long speeches before dinner starts at 9.30pm.

In many countries, especially in Europe, the guest of honour arrives on time and simply proceeds to the function room without any need for such formalities.

The person delivers the speech, do what’s necessary and then just depart to save everyone’s time, so we can all get back to work.

The world has changed. The old ways don’t work anymore because every word and action is being scrutinised in real time, and flashed to the world instantly.

All politicians will get a better report card if they are serious about their work and are able to get the job done well for the benefit of the people.

If not, they will only be remembered for putting their country in the news, for all the wrong reasons.

Our real problem isn’t Bahasa Malaysia but English and it is incredible that so many of us have refused to acknowledge this or even want to address it.

THERE have been so many silly remarks and statements by some Malaysian politicians and one-man show non-governmental organisations that it is becoming impossible to keep track of their comedy acts.

There is a saying: “There are people who are only good at making the news but cannot make a difference to the wellbeing of society.”

Well, in Malaysia, there are certainly many of them.

Last week, Johor state assemblyman Datuk Dr Shahruddin Salleh suggested that students who fail to master the national language be stripped of their citizen­ship. Yes, revoke, lucut, tarik balik, batal!

The Barisan Nasional representative for Jorak alleged that many students were not able to master the language, and this was even prevalent among the Malays. He didn’t say how many. Like one, 10, 20, hundreds or thousands, but was quoted as saying “many”.

“Even my own neighbour, whose father and mother are Malays, but because their child goes to international school, the child is unable to converse in Malay,” he said, adding that students were now more interested in mastering English and do not take the learning of Malay seriously.

The situation was prevalent in the vernacular schools, he added, because the use of Mandarin and Tamil made the students weak in the Malay language, which was further compounded by the fact that many of the teachers there are also not well-versed in Malay.

We’d like to think that Dr Shahruddin has a sense of humour but, seriously, what does he really mean when he said students who do not master the Malay language should be stripped of their citizenship?

How does one define mastery at the school level? Is it by the grades they score at the public examinations, like the UPSR, PMR or SPM? We know that these are just examination grades. A student can score a distinction or even fail miserably, but that in itself does not reflect his language proficiency in the real world.

To take an extreme example, some foreign workers who are in the country for just a few months can speak like a Malay, but do you think they will be able to pass the BM paper at SPM level? Or that they should therefore be accorded citizenship because they have mastered our national language?

We are not sure if Dr Shahruddin is having a bad patch with his neighbours because I do not think that his neighbours, who would have read his remarks by now, would be amused.

The reality is that there are many Malay households where English is prominently used because of a variety of reasons.

The children of diplomats, for example, because they are schooled in international schools, will definitely be more comfortable in English.

What about the children of politicians, especially those who send their children for better education overseas and then make a lot of noise about our local education system?

The assemblyman may want to project his nationalistic credentials ahead of his party general assembly, and he has conveniently used his whip at English and, of course, vernacular schools, the current flavour of the month.

There are enough statistics to show that many of our students and teachers are struggling with English in schools, especially those in the rural areas. Just Google.

The Malaysian Employers Federation secretary Datuk Shamsudin Bardan reportedly said that a survey a few years ago among its members found that 60% of them identified low English proficiency as the main problem with young recruits.

A similar survey in September last year by online recruitment agency JobStreet.com found that 55% of senior managers and companies considered poor command of the English language among graduates to be the main reason for their difficulty in finding employment.

Sabah Tourism, Environment and Culture Minister Datuk Masidi Manjun had said that 70% of Malaysian graduates are having a hard time finding jobs in the private sector due to poor command of English.

Citing his past work experience with a multinational company in peninsular Malaysia, Masidi said 70% of those interviewed did not make it through to the second round as they could not converse well in English.

Second Education Minister Datuk Seri Idris Jusoh had said that about two-thirds of English Language teachers in the country have been classified as “incapable” or “unfit” to teach the subject in schools. These teachers, he said, have been sent for courses to improve their proficiency in the language.

It has also been reported that about 70% of the 60,000 English Language teachers who sat for the English Language Cambridge Placement Test performed poorly.

Granted that there are students who fare badly in Bahasa Malaysia, but we do not think the numbers are big. Instead of making such a generalisation, we expect the Jorak assemblyman to back up his claim with more substantial findings and figures.

Neither has he been able to support this pathetic claim that “the use of Mandarin and Tamil by teachers in vernacular schools is another reason for students being weak in Malay, adding that the teachers are also not well-versed in Malay.”

Our real problem isn’t Bahasa Malaysia but English. It is incredible that so many of us have refused to acknowledge this problem or even want to address it, lacking the political will, unfortunately.

There is no point in deceiving ourselves by allowing our children to easily pass the English tests in schools and in public examinations.

There may be a huge number of students scoring distinctions in English at the SPM level but their real ability is revealed when they enter tertiary education and, later, the working world.

The MEF’s Shamsudin told a news portal in April that there are those with As and Bs in English at the SPM level who cannot even hold a conversation in English.

“Which is why we were excited when the government decided to teach Mathematics and Science in English (PPSMI), as we felt this could boost their command of English. Unfortunately, it was cancelled after seven years when we should have allowed it to continue for 14 to 15 years to see the results.

“The inability to converse and understand English (among young school-leavers) is a constant complaint among our members,” said Shamsudin. The MEF has 4,800 direct members and 21 affiliated trade associations.

In the end, it will be the rural students who will suffer the most. These are the very people that our elected representatives claim to represent and fight for their rights and interests.

Do we need to check how many of our Honourable Members are sending their children to private and international schools even as they wax eloquence about the importance of the national schools?

Actually, we should all be concerned about proficiency in English, an issue that has also been recently taken up by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, who can see the value of the English language without undermining the stature of the national language.

As Dr Mahathir rightly pointed out, the rich go to private schools while the poor go to national schools at home, adding that “I must confess that although my children all went to national schools, my grandchildren all go to private schools in the country and abroad. They do speak the national language but their kind of schooling widens the gap between races as well as between the rich and the poor.”

Well, it looks like the only thing that we have fared consistently well in is the comic relief provided by some of our politicians. And we can be sure the curtains will never come down on these comedians as they continue to seek out non-issues to put themselves in the spotlight.

All ironed out: Mais chairman Datuk Mohammad Adzib Mohd Isa (second from right) returning copies of the Bibles to Association of Churches in Sarawak chairman Archbishop Datuk Bolly Lapok at Istana Alam Shah in Klang. Looking on are Sultan Sharafuddin and Mentri Besar Azmin Ali.

The return of the seized Bibles has proven that rational Malaysians are still the majority, and there is no place for extremists who call for the burning of Bibles, or any holy book for that matter.

COMMON sense has finally prevailed with the return of the Bibles to the church, the rightful owner of the Holy Book.

It may have taken a longer time than it should, and there are still questions as to whether the Bible should have been seized in the first place. But that’s a moot point now. 

The pertinent point is that the issue has been resolved through reasoning, compromise, patience and tolerance – which are surely the values of both Islam and Christianity. 

The announcement is certainly timely as the world marks International Day for Tolerance today. It is a significant day, more so for a country like Malaysia.

The 351 copies of Al Kitab and Bup Kudus, the Bahasa Malaysia and Iban Bibles, were seized by the Selangor Islamic Department (Jais) from the Bible Society of Malaysia (BSM) office in Damansara on Jan 2.

More than 10 months later, on Friday, these Bibles were returned to Christians in Sarawak through the Association of Churches in Sarawak (ACS) in a formal ceremony at the Selangor palace. 

As part of a compromise deal, the Bibles were handed directly to Sarawak (where the Bibles were meant for in the first place) and not to the peninsula-based BSM, and with the understanding that such material were not to be distributed in Selangor, especially among Muslims.

The public debate over the issue was intense as everyone – politicians, religious authorities, lawyers and the common practitioners of both faiths – wanted to have a say.

Unknown to most people, there were plenty of behind-the-scenes steps being worked out to ensure that the parties involved were amicable and able to accept the final solution.

As in most organisations, there would always be those who were more prepared to compromise while there would be strong personalities who would insist on holding to what they perceived as their rights and principles.

Months earlier, even when Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim was still the Selangor Mentri Besar, various approaches were made to the BSM, Jais and the Selangor Islamic Religious Council (Mais).

The most trusted aides and friends of His Royal Highness Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah worked, without the glare of publicity, to prepare the ground to end the impasse.

No politicians were involved, for sure. It was the wisdom of His Royal Highness who initiated the reconciliation process.

The proposal to return the Bibles was made known to the stakeholders but they were also told that a third party should come into the picture – in this case, the Sarawak Christians.

The Malaysian Bible Society, it was learnt, did not have a branch in Sarawak or Sabah. If there was one, the return could have been expedited.

There was scepticism and even signs of hostility towards those who moved quietly to work out the solution. So much anger had surfaced publicly that it would be difficult for those who were vocal to make the necessary compromise. 

There were doubts over the clout of the “emissaries” and whether they represented the palace.

Understandably, there was also the question of wounded pride involving all sides.

But they had to be impressed upon that the prolonged crisis needed to end. Rightly or wrongly, the fact remains that in the state of Selangor, the distribution as well as the printing of Bibles that contain the word “Allah” is an offence under the Non-Islamic Religious Enactment (Control Development Among Muslims), 1988.

But the Attorney-General had also said there was no basis to charge BSM as the Bibles were not a threat to national security.

It made little sense for Jais to defy the orders and not return the Bibles. The two religious bodies, Jais and Mais, may be able to ignore the state government and the former mentri besar but when the palace came into the picture, the mood changed dramatically – or to put it in a better perspective, more positively.

The church groups were also advised about the futility of pursuing any form of legal action, which would not help resolve the issue.

The BSM and the Association of Churches in Sarawak chairman, Archbishop Datuk Bolly Lapok, worked hard to ensure the formula worked.

The Archbishop is a highly respected church leader. He is the acting president of the Council of Churches in Malaysia and a member of the Anglican Community’s Team to the Christian Muslim Dialogue at Egypt’s Al-Azhar University.

Jais and Mais, too, understood the significance of the compromise.

In the meantime, the Chief Minister’s office in Sarawak was kept informed of the matter so that the return of the Bibles could be smoothly carried out.

It has taken almost a year to close this chapter but it is important that the controversy has come to a harmonious end.

There is a lesson to be learnt here – moderation works. This episode has proven that rational Malaysians are still the majority, and there is no place for extremists who call for the burning of Bibles, or any holy book for that matter.

The role of the palace, especially the wisdom of the Sultan of Selangor, must be recorded. Without his intervention, all this would not be possible. 

And it should also be put on record that the support of Mentri Besar Azmin Ali made this whole endeavour a real success. Azmin had earlier made clear his administration’s stand that the Bibles belong to the Christians.

At the same time, we must not forget the role of Khalid as it was during his tenure that he made the decision to let the Sultan decide.

There are issues that we still need to resolve, of course, such as the huge number of Sabahans and Sarawakians who work or study in the peninsula, especially in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor.

They attend church service in Bahasa Malaysia, where the word “Allah” is used, and they cannot be expected to use the English Bibles. For them, it would still be the Bible in Bahasa Malaysia or in Iban.

In fact, the Al Kitab is available online, so how does one ban the Internet version?

These are realities which all sides must learn to accept as Malaysia evolves. The growing use of Bahasa Malaysia is also the result of the education system where most people, especially the young, prefer and are more comfortable with the national language.

We cannot now tell them that when it comes to the Bible, they have to read it in another language.

What is important is the respect and sensitivity we must have for one another, so that in fully practising our faith, which is a right extended to all citizens under the Constitution, we do not intrude or cause consternation among our fellow citizens of different faiths. This has always worked well in our country where places of worship can co-exist side by side without any problems.

All Malaysians, regardless of race and religion, have a stake in this beautiful country. Let moderation prevail.

WE have got to get used to it – a real democratic society can be a noisy one as each and every one of us has the right to speak and is free to exercise this right.

And this is something that some of our politicians and self-proclaimed race and religious champions need to also understand, and accept.

A true democratic society is never quiet, unlike authoritarian and theocratic societies where only the leaders have the right to speak.

But this is Malaysia. We may not yet be a shiny example of a democracy but it is maturing. Malaysians have become more educated and are not only more exposed to differing opinions and information, but know how to seek them out. We are no longer like the proverbial katak di bawah tempurung but have travelled far and wide to see the world. And we are certainly better off.

No one should expect middle class Malaysia, especially, to pay homage and reverence to politicians, as in a feudalistic society. Our leaders should no longer think they are all mighty and powerful, where the people must submit to their every command, and that no one can have an opinion except themselves.

In a true democracy, we should respect, and accommodate, every view even if they are in direct contrast to our own. That’s how democracy works and it is still not too late for some of our politicians to accept this new reality.

As The Nation’s columnist, Supalak Ganianakhundee, rightly wrote, “A society in which people have to comply with their leader’s commands is an authoritarian one.

“The process of reform towards demo­cracy needs to be an inclusive one and for this process to be efficient, it should allow every faction in the system to participate.”

In his message to the Thai military govern­ment, Supalak reminded them that “maybe the junta should stop and realise that bringing about reform will be very difficult if it forces all the citizens to have just one political opinion”.

Meanwhile, in our own backyard, we are still grappling with certain personalities who cannot articulate and argue their case convincingly to win over the electorate. The easiest way out, to make up for their lack of grey matter, is to continually spew remarks that intimidate or instil fear among the people.

In any democracy, we can expect such an approach from the really fringe groups or ultra lunatics whose views are often ignored. But it is sad that in our country, political bullying gets national prominence, whereby certain groups and individuals with their political links not only shout down those who do not share their views, but also play the race and religious cards to threaten them.

The country’s political future is determined by Malaysians of all races and religions. Politicians who think they are the only ones who shape and decide Malaysia’s future need to see their shrinks quickly. They need serious help.

All of us have the right to speak up and tell our politicians and government officials what we desire for our country now and in the future.

We have the right to tell leaders, politicians, officials, and journalists off if we think they are not doing their jobs right. It is fundamentally wrong to think that elected representatives and civil servants cannot be told how to do their jobs.

Our job, as concerned citizens, is not just to mark a cross on the ballot paper. The people we vote into power must be held accountable all the time. The civil servants may be unseen but they exist to serve the people in the correct manner, all the time too.

For sure, the media has a right to comment on current issues and to also allow ordinary Malaysians to articulate their views – so long as it is within the boundaries of the laws.

They must be responsible for what they write or say, and if it affects the nation’s security, then they must be prepared to face the consequences, be it via the Sedition Act or other laws. But expressing an opinion is surely not seditious.

Opinions need not be right, or popular. And even if it is the opinion of one person, it is still his right within a democracy. Because of the ever-changing scenario, especially in the political domain, the media has to allow room and space for decent and rational debate. Views from opposing sides should be encouraged, provided they are not racist or extremist.

Some of the politicians in our country have still not woken up to the reality that “government” and “opposition” are no longer labels that apply only to specific parties. Barisan Nasional, for example, is the federal government, but in Selangor, Penang and Kelantan, Barisan representatives are in the opposition.

There are still politicians from the Pakatan Rakyat coalition parties, even though they are now government leaders in the respective states, who are still talking like opposition underdogs in a ceramah.

But more worrying is the increasing number of voices outside the mainstream political arena who are challenging the accepted norms of public discourse with their strident and extremist views.

These uncouth personalities may not be directly linked to any political party but their antics occasionally give some politicians aspiring to be noticed by their party leaders the opportunity to jump onto the bandwagon.

In the process, these individuals actual­ly make the few MPs who are known for their controversial outbursts in the Dewan Rakyat look like harmless angels. At least, their circus acts are good for laughs in the sombre settings and they get their two minutes of fame to justify their MPs’ allowances.

But the increasing number of personalities and ordinary Malaysians, of all races, spewing hate comments is seriously worrying.

Some have argued that it is better to ignore these political weaklings but many Malaysians are worried over where the country is heading, where seemingly powerful characters who taunt the public with their skewed racist and religious remarks seem untouchable.

The country’s leadership is sending the wrong signals to the people.

To be moderate, open minded and liberal seems to be politically incorrect now. How things have developed in Malaysia.

Malaysia’s democracy is growing up fast with some of us even arguing that it is maturing. But we hope some of our politicians would start growing up equally fast, and stop throwing tantrums like spoilt kids.

IT smacks of double standards and no one can fault moderate-minded Malaysians, who have some sense of justice and fairness, to feel that the statement from the Attorney-General’s Chambers lacks any conviction.

The ordinary Malaysians are finding it difficult to be convinced by the legal arguments put up by the Attorney-General on why Perkasa chief Datuk Ibrahim Ali, who had called for the burning of the Bahasa Malaysia Bible, has not breached sedition laws.

We are now told that Ibrahim was merely defending the sanctity of Islam. No one can accept this mind-boggling spin, more so when it comes from the principal legal adviser to the government.

It is appropriate that former Court of Appeal judge Datuk K.C. Vohrah and the former head of the prosecution division of the AGC, Datuk Stanley Isaacs, have put forth their views (The Star, Oct 23, Oct 31 and Nov 1) on why the A-G’s legal reasoning cannot stand. Vohrah had also served in the AGC and is fully aware of how the system works.

The A-G’s decision not to file charges against Ibrahim based on “context” and “intention”, which are actually matters for the court to decide under the Sedition Act, is a dangerous precedent.

In future, any extremist, of whatever faith, can call for the burning of any holy book, and then cite the same pathetic reason that he or she was merely defending the sanctity of his or her religion.

It is simply unacceptable for anyone to belittle another religion, and worse still, in this particular case, even calling for the burning of a holy book.

We were already shocked by the reply from the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nancy Shukri in Parliament and the A-G’s statement justifying Ibrahim’s action certainly made matters worse.

We are now told that we must read Ibrahim’s remarks “in the entire context”. Going by the same argument, how then does the A-G justify the other recent sedition cases?

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has also weighed in with a comment that Ibrahim “was giving an opinion that could be accepted by Muslims as it was not seditious”.

Those of us who have followed closely the political career of the former prime minister would know that he has always stood by his supporters, in this case, Ibrahim. But with due respect to Dr Mahathir, we believe he should and would also stand by the side of justice and fairness, as we are sure he would oppose any form of extremism.

But the statements from the A-G and Dr Mahathir are unacceptable because what they are saying, in short and simple layman’s language, is that Ibrahim has done no wrong and they wonder what the fuss is all about.

Ibrahim can actually now say that he can carry on with what he has said. After all, the A-G, who is the sole authority in deciding who to prosecute, has not only let him off, but given us reasons that basically open the door for similar actions in the future. And it certainly does not help that Dr Mahathir, with his own way of reasoning over the burning of holy books, has stood by him.

The A-G’s argument on “context” and “intention” sounds more like what the defence counsel for Ibrahim would say if he had been charged. And even then, going by the provisions of the Sedition Act, such a defence would probably be struck down.

So we are to believe that Ibrahim is merely expressing an opinion which is not seditious. How convenient.

My fellow columnist in The Star and Universiti Malaya law professor Azmi Sharom has been charged with sedition for expressing an opinion which is not even about religion or race.

Many Malaysians are still wondering how Azmi’s opinion could have caused offence or threatened national security, while a number of high-profile and consistently recalcitrant extremists continue to get away with their offensive statements.

Who can blame Malaysians if they deem that the authorities are being selective in who they haul up for sedition.

If anyone dares to call for the burning of the Quran, I am confident that all rational-minded Malaysians will rise up and ask for the person to be arrested immediately and be charged with sedition.

If there is any non-Muslim stupid enough to make such a call, then all the non-Muslims in this country must speak out. No non-Muslim should remain silent if such an offensive remark is made to cause offence to their fellow citizens who are Muslims.

Likewise, I think Malaysians expect the same response from non-Christians when someone calls for the destruction of the Bible.

And the ordinary people’s response must be supported by the politicians and the leaders. It is very sad for Malaysia when politicians keep a deafening silence when gross injustice is done.

We expect our politicians to be the leaders of all Malaysians, regardless of their race and faith, and not to merely represent the interests of their own race.

No one should have the suspicion or perception that only the feelings of one race matters in Malaysia.

All it takes is for one individual or one NGO to express a negative view on the activities of another community, be it with regard to Oktoberfest, Halloween, Valentine’s Day, a concert or whatever, and suddenly the whole nation is engulfed in a major debate which takes up so much valuable time and resources, especially from the authorities who have more serious matters to deal with.

In a maturing democracy, we cannot prevent anyone from articulating their views and beliefs, even those that we find most objectionable.

Our challenge is to remind ourselves that while they do not represent the majority view, they must not be allowed to gain ground because the majority has chosen to remain silent. The voices of moderation must ring out loud and clear, all the time.

In a plural society like ours, everyone has the right to practise and celebrate any occasion. It is certainly far-fetched and even laughable to suggest that there are atheists and non-Muslims who want to weaken the faith of their fellow Malaysians.

Events like Halloween and Valentine’s Day do not even have any religious significance. In fact, they are nothing more than commercially driven opportunities for the entertainment and food outlets.

We should be thankful that we are a nation where religion is paramount. The first principle of our Rukunegara espouses our “Belief in God”.

But our faith is not just about religious rulings and paraphernalia. It is in the way we live our lives – how we exhibit compassion, mercy, justice for fellow human beings, and in our concerns over what is wrong and unjustifiable in our country, be it with regard to corruption, intolerance, violence, and the growing divide between the rich and the poor.

These should be the concerns of all religious leaders in their sermons and statements, instead of dwelling on petty issues. They should focus on common values shared by all Malaysians instead of dividing us further.

The Kelantan PAS state government is now determined to go ahead with the implementation of hudud law and again, non-Muslims are expected to believe that they would not be affected by these Islamic laws.

Whatever our faith, we are all closely linked in our daily lives. The laws peculiar to one faith, if implemented in a plural society, will have implications for everyone. To even suggest non-Muslims are not affected is laughable but there will be non-Muslims, because of their anger towards the federal government, who would actually want to believe so and even vote for PAS, which has never hidden its Islamist plans and ambition.

Let’s get our priorities and bearings right.

Malaysia is at the crossroads. We can, as a united people, go straight and take the middle path, and be sure we are on the correct track where we support one another.

Or we can allow ourselves to be divided and take different roads, which will mean we no longer believe in a common destiny.

Our choice is simple — we must all fight to keep Malaysia moderate and inclusive, and fully embrace the vision of our founding fathers.

Many businesses are suffering even as the ordinary people grapple with daily bread-and-butter issues in a weak market. But incredibly, all these concerns do not seem to bother the hate mongers who are hell-bent on sowing disunity.

IT’S incredible how some Malaysians can dedicate so much of their energy on issues, or more precisely non-issues, that really bring no benefit to the country.

This country has already got enough religious and racial bigots, whether they are politicians, retired politicians, half-baked politicians or ordinary Malaysians.

These are the characters who have no ability to make any meaningful changes to Malaysia except to generate some news in the portals.

I really feel pity for this pathetic lot. A few of them have excelled in their work, despite their somewhat limited academic qualifications, and should be remembered for their contributions to society. Instead, in this new phase of their life, they re-emerge sordidly as racists.

One personality who tried to pass himself off as an academic amazingly wondered why he has not been accorded any respect by moderate Malaysians. Well, maybe the real reason is he has been creating headlines for his outrageous remarks instead of his research work.

But the man at the centre of the storm now for making silly remarks is Gerakan’s Johor delegate Tan Lai Soon, who implied that Indians, Chinese and Malays are “pendatang” or immigrants.

At the party’s 43rd National Delegates Conference on Sunday, Tan chastised Umno members for calling Chinese and Indians “pendatang” and said that Malays were no different as they too were “pendatang” who came from Indonesia.

Tan said only the orang asli and natives in Sabah and Sarawak could be considered the original inhabitants of the land.

What’s wrong with this guy? By using the “pendatang” label in this manner, he is no different from those who call the Chinese and Indians as such.

And, seriously, what’s the point of making that remark and what can he get out of it except to generate more hostility and, worse, give the bigots more grounds to up the ante with their hate rhetoric?

The Gerakan central working committee, after an emergency meeting on Monday that was called in response to complaints by 14 of its party members, has rightly decided that Tan would be suspended. He has been issued a show cause letter.

Gerakan deputy president Datuk Dr Cheah Soon Hai reportedly told reporters on Monday that the party condemned the remarks made by Tan.

“It is not the party’s stand, we are all Malaysians and no Malaysian is a ‘pendatang’ or an immigrant.

“All Malaysians who are born here are Malaysians. I think that if a Malay called a Chinese ‘pendatang’ it will hurt and vice versa,” Cheah said, adding that “we have taken note that Tan has retracted his remarks and apologised for it”.

I am sure the Gerakan delegates do not want members from other parties to bring up such an offensive remark at their AGMs.

Such an amateur anthropological claim has no benefit and does not serve the interests of the nation. It is precisely this trend of unrestrained statements coming from all sorts of people, including at forums that we least expect, that is worrisome.

Likewise, there is no reason why the vernacular schools, which have been in existence for over six decades, should continue to be an issue.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak has already given his assurance that these schools remain protected under the Federal Constitution, and in the 2015 Budget, RM50mil has been allocated for Chinese schools.

The controversy, in the words of Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin, has been “canned” and certainly there is no need for anyone to reopen the issue, especially senior ranking ones.

With two months left of the year 2014, we can say that it has been a horrible year for Malaysia.

To borrow the Latin phrase made famous by Queen Elizabeth II in her 1992 speech, it is befitting to describe 2014 as “annus horribilis” for Malaysians.

The slew of issues and non-issues continue to grab the headlines in a year when we have suffered terribly from two air crashes involving our Malaysia Airlines.

The market is still weak, judging from the quarterly results announced by many public-listed companies. In short, many businesses are suffering even as the ordinary people grapple with daily bread-and-butter issues. And the outlook for 2015 does not look too good either.

Businesses now in the midst of making their budgets for next year are taking a hard look at how they can perform better next year.

Most are predicting a tough year ahead with cuts on their operating expenses, which would have a painful impact for many, especially the wage earners, with the inflationary rate expected to go up.

But incredibly, all these concerns do not seem to bother the hate mongers. How can we blame them, as they are idiots after all, with little intellect to grasp the economic issues ahead?

We can, and we should, come together to face the challenges ahead in an unpredictable year.

How can we convince investors, in the wake of competition from our neighbours, to put their money in Malaysia if they keep hearing about the silly antics of these self-appointed heroes of their race and religion?

We should not waste our time on these political wannabes and minnows whose only talent is to create disunity among us.

We are sending a seriously flawed message if those who are perceived to be close to the government are spared the full wrath of the law.

IF anyone of us is stupid or crazy enough to call for the burning of the Quran, we can be sure that the person would be immediately hauled up and charged with sedition. And rightly so, too.

If the call were to be made by a non-Muslim, whether a politician or even an ordinary individual, we wouldn’t dare to think of the consequences. Such is the fragile nature of anything to do with religion.

But in the case of Perkasa chief Datuk Ibrahim Ali, who has called for the burning the Malay language Bible, a fact which he has not even denied, he is let off scot-free.

More incredibly, he has the privilege of having a minister to defend him in the Dewan Rakyat, when she reportedly said the decision not to charge Ibrahim under the Sedition Act was made “fairly and without favouring any parties to ensure justice for the victim, witness, accused and the public.

“The decision by the Attorney-General’s Chambers to not prosecute Ibrahim was because the context of his speech was in line with the spirit in Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution.

“Hence, the decision to not charge Ibrahim was taken after considering the outcome of the investigation by the police.”

We do not know whether Nancy Shukri, the de facto law minister, knew what she was reading out, but any level-headed Malaysian would surely not accept her reasoning.

With the slew of recent sedition cases over a wide variety of issues, can Malaysians be blamed if they are sceptical over how the law is applied without fear or favour? Or are there different laws for different people? Or do we simply accept that Perkasa, despite the controversial racial and religious stand its leaders have made, has special protection from the authorities and is immune from prosecution?

According to one media report, “Nancy hoped that people could see the government’s transparency in handling the legal process and for them to stay calm and not to issue statements or do things that could undermine harmony and hurt the feelings of the country’s multi-racial community”.

Oh yes, thank you very much. Of course, Ibrahim has not issued any statement that can be deemed as undermining harmony and hurting the feelings of the other races. It’s very convincing and we are supposed to accept all this without questioning it.

This writer has consistently written that it is not just the politicians, retired politicians and individuals who have been playing with fire. Because they seem to be able to get away with their inflammatory remarks, even ordinary Malaysians are joining in the fray.

These people from all races are spewing clearly racist remarks without much thought. The seditious remarks on social media, especially Facebook and certain blogs, have gone out of control because they think they can never be arrested.

One retired politician incredibly claimed in a blog that the Chinese were the biggest giver of bribes in this country. Obviously he has not heard of the reported practice of money politics in political parties, including Umno, which has been brought up by party leaders themselves. And what about the takers? There can be no bribery without the giver and the taker.

Surely there are elements of sedition in such claims when they are not substantia­ted by any evidence except for a sweeping racist accusation.

We are sending a seriously flawed message if those who are perceived to be close to the government are spared the full wrath of the law. It will give rise to accusations, even if they are not justified, that there is a selective form of prosecution involving sedition cases.

This writer has gone on record to support the existence of the Sedition Act to stop extremists from making remarks that can threaten racial harmony.

Many of us in our 50s or older have seen how dangerous the effects of a racially charged environment can be for this country, what more if religion also comes into play. That is why most of us know we have to be sensitive in what we say or do.

The irony of the situation is that even Ibrahim agrees that the Sedition Act should be kept intact, but that has not stopped him from making outrageous remarks.

He also has the company of controversial lecturer Ridhuan Tee aka Tee Chuan Seng, who reportedly claimed that “Malaysia did not have the characteristics of an Islamic country due to the increase in the number of temples and churches”.

And we do not know whether to laugh or cry at Ridhuan’s latest column where he raised his concerns over there being more pigs in this country than other livestock.

Many of us would certainly like to know whether such remarks will foster greater racial and religious harmony. Just do a Google search and judge for yourselves how many of Ridhuan’s statements are seditious.

He has been investigated by the police before and even moaned that no one came to defend him the way they stood up for Universiti Malaya lecturer Azmi Shahrom. Well, Ridhuan should just be thankful that he has not been charged.

Under fire from critics, Nancy, a first-term minister, repeatedly told her Twitter followers that she had “never defended” Ibrahim but was merely passing the message by government agencies on what actions had been taken against the outspoken Malay rights group leader.

And in a report in The Borneo Post, the minister stressed that she does not support Ibrahim Ali and would never agree with any religious or racist action against non-Muslims.

Nancy said she grew up in Sarawak in a multi-racial family and as such, race and religion were non-issues to her.

“I never dreamt that one day I would be branded as someone who is anti-Christian or a supporter of those calling for Bible burning,” she said in the report.

Well, Malaysians, especially Sarawakians who pride themselves as the model for inter-racial and religious harmony, expect her to do better. She shouldn’t be reading an answer that she does not believe in, and she would not get any respect for defending herself on the sidelines. As a public official, what she says in public must be consistent with what she says in private.

In our parliamentary system of demo­cracy, we understand that the ministers have to depend on the civil servants to supply the answers to many of the questions raised by the MPs. But once these answers are in their hands, they have to take full responsibility for what they say.

The same applies to ministers or CEOs who make speeches at public forums. You cannot blame the civil servant or the speech writer.

Our diversity is our strength, and we should be thankful that the majority of our people want a peaceful and harmonious society. But justice is blind, and as a nation where the Rule of Law is paramount, we want to make sure that justice is dispensed fairly, without fear or favour.

As the highly respected British judge Lord Hewart said way back in 1923, “Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”.

It is bewildering that vernacular schools should be made the scapegoat for race relation issues in this country when our greatest asset is our multi-racial society, which puts us above our Asean neighbours in competing for the economic pie. 

MY father sent me and my two elder brothers to study at the St Xavier’s Institution in Penang because he felt we all needed a good education in an English-medium school.

My eldest brother studied at a Chinese school and did not fare well. It was enough for my dad to be convinced that we should all be in a missionary school.

My father Wong Soon Cheong spoke fluent Malay with a thick northern accent and had taught himself to read and write English while he improved his command of Chinese.

Like many Chinese in his time, and even now, they knew that the key to success was education, and the best education facilities were found in the English-medium schools.

When I entered Year 1 in 1968, England was still the economic powerhouse of Europe, and mastering the Queen’s English would be the passport to a brighter future.

Fast forward to 2014 – the economic balance has shifted. China has become a superpower and besides being the biggest producer of just about anything, it is also the biggest market for anyone from anywhere wanting to sell anything.

My biggest regret now is that because I am a product of the English-medium system, I am unable to speak or write in Chinese. The dialects I am able to use, the smattering of Hokkien and Cantonese, is of little value in mainland China.

Anyone who wants to do business in China needs to speak Mandarin. It’s as simple as that, and this writer will be shoved out of the door if he cannot go beyond the initial greetings.

Even in Kuala Lumpur, I would never be employed in any company that has business dealings with China. This is not discrimination as, in the business world, my linguistic handicap cannot be ignored.

By the time my daughter had to be enrolled in a primary school, the scenario had changed. There were no more English-medium schools and the national schools were no longer the first choice for many Chinese parents. They were not only concerned about the quality of education but everyone also knew by then – that was in 1998 – that China would be the country to watch.

This, of course, led to many households being rather mixed up as the English-speaking parents had to grapple with their children being schooled in Chinese.

But it was a simple economic decision, nothing more than that. Most of us had no relatives in China and certainly no political sentiments whatsoever towards China.

As someone who spent all his years in the then English-medium school, I had no affiliation for many things Chinese. I am what many would call a “yellow banana” – a yellow-skinned Chinese but one who is white-hearted. But the global future of China was there for all to see.

When my daughter went to England to do her A-Levels, her school had a full class of students from different nationalities wanting to sit for the Chinese language examination. The school appointed the best teacher to teach the class. Such was the importance it placed on its students acquiring the language skills.

My daughter left for England before the SPM but she returned to Kuala Lumpur to sit for the examination. We wanted to make sure that she cleared this examination and also get a credit in Bahasa Malaysia, which is necessary if she wants to be a lawyer in Malaysia.

Her school in the United Kingdom frowned on her taking leave of absence to take the SPM. After all, how she fared in the BM paper (she got a distinction) would have no bearing on her ongoing studies for the A-Levels.

The Chinese can be described as being very practical people, and we needed to cover all our bases.

The fact is that 90% of Chinese parents today send their children to Chinese primary schools in Malaysia, and that 15% of students studying at the nearly 1,300 Chinese primary schools in the country are non-Chinese.

Even my personal driver, an Indian, sent his daughter to a Chinese primary school. It must have been tough for the parents but she speaks Mandarin fluently, besides Bahasa Malaysia, English and Tamil. It will certainly benefit her in the long run.

Schools in the UK, the bastion of Anglo-Saxon culture, know the global economic value of Chinese. They are making plans to ensure that their children study Chinese so that they won’t be left out.

London Mayor Boris Johnson has been quoted as saying that all students in the UK should study Chinese.

Johnson, who is studying Chinese himself, reportedly suggested that Britons should be learning as much as possible about China, as the East Asian giant continues to expand its global influence.

He said the children would grow up naturally knowing about China’s importance. When quizzed on whether they should also learn Chinese as a standard subject in schools, he told the Press Association: “Why not? Absolutely. My kids are learning it, so why not? Definitely, definitely.”

The mayor told the press he was learning Chinese “from the beginning” as he showed the journalists a folder on which he had written the words “Middle Kingdom” or “China” in the language. He told university students in Beijing that his 16-year-old daughter was learning Chinese and was due to visit China.

Singapore is often used as an example of a nation, despite its Chinese majority population, not having Chinese primary schools. The fact is that every Singaporean has to be schooled in English, and then it is compulsory for them to be schooled in their mother tongue. With special permission, they can also take up an extra subject in one another’s mother tongue languages.

Chinese is therefore a compulsory subject for Chinese students in Singapore while the non-Chinese can choose Malay or Tamil as options. English is a compulsory subject to pass over there.

Now we come to the point I am leading to – why is there a need for anyone to suggest that Chinese and Tamil schools be closed down, supposedly because they are the source of disunity in this country?

It is bewildering that vernacular schools should be made the scapegoat for race relation issues in this country.

I do not think anyone would be so naïve and simplistic, especially politicians, as to actually believe that by abolishing these schools, all the problems will disappear.

Many mono-ethnic countries are highly divisive even though they have the same language, religion or culture, particularly in Eastern Europe and parts of Africa.

Our biggest problem is not whether we are using Bahasa Malaysia, Chinese, English or Tamil to teach – we should be worried over the falling quality of education in our schools and in universities.

We should be losing sleep that 70% of our teachers teaching English actually failed in the competency tests.

And why isn’t anyone worried that our public universities have still not made it into the top-ranked universities in the world?

Or why our students, despite their string of distinctions, are now not getting into Ivy League universities in the United States.

Mandarin, in fact, isn’t enough. We should all be able to speak Arabic because the richest countries are in the Middle East. With so many Arab tourists visiting Malaysia, are there enough Arab-speaking tour guides?

Malaysia’s greatest asset is its multi-racial society, which puts us above our Asean neighbours in competing for the economic pie.

The Mandarin speakers can penetrate markets in China, Taiwan and Hong Kong, the Malay speakers can look after Indonesia, the biggest market in the Asean region, and the Malaysian Indians can make their mark in India. When we work together, we can become very powerful. We should make full use of our combined strength.

Languages are assets, not liabilities. I understand that there are those who believe that only a single-stream school system would unite our young.

Those who called for the closure of Chinese schools should talk to the parents of non-Malay students who study in such schools. Can our politicians just listen and not talk for just a moment, so perhaps they can learn something?

Walk around these schools, see the facilities, check out how discipline is instilled or why parents are called up by the school authorities when their children do not do well.

Certainly, the history of Communist China is not taught there. Neither is anyone brainwashed into voting for the DAP if that’s what the suspicions are all about. The national schools in predominantly Malay Kelantan and Terengganu are the same elsewhere and yet, many of the parents and school leavers have always voted strongly for PAS. Would these schools be regarded as a source of disunity and anti-establishment?

The English-medium schools in my time were regarded as neutral ground, where children of all races came together. But that’s history and our country’s standard of English has taken a free fall since then.

And for the record, before I am accused of being a racist, I wish to emphasise that I voluntarily studied Malay Literature and Islamic History in Sixth Form. When I went to Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, I signed up for courses at the Malay Letters Department.

The Islamic Civilization course at UKM is compulsory and I have written many times that fears expressed by some non-Muslim politicians about this course, which they wrongly claimed as a religious indoctrination course, are unwarranted and silly.

We must never be afraid of quality education and the study of multiple languages. How many of our elite politicians send their children to private or international schools in Malaysia or even to the UK or Australia? Some even pack them off to study at the secondary school level overseas, despite telling ordinary Malaysians to study in our schools.

This debate on vernacular schools should not go any further. We have bigger problems ahead to worry about, like the cost of living, the inflationary hike and the weak market sentiments. We are all in the same boat together.