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.

Pro-democracy protesters flash lights during a rally to protest the violence seen in Mong Kok, in Hong Kong, China, 4 October 2014. – EPA/ALEX HOFFORD

Despite the tension in Hong Kong, both sides have exercised tremendous self-restraint, which must be unusual, if not unprecedented, when seen through Western eyes. 

THERE has been plenty of restraint by both the protest movement and the authorities in Hong Kong. The threat by some student leaders to storm government buildings did not take place after the midnight deadline on Thursday.

If the international media still expect to see a serious clash between the protesters and the police, then I believe they will be disappointed.

Beijing must surely be aware that the world is watching. They would never want a repeat of the Tiananmen Square incident in 1989 where many protesters, mostly students, were reportedly killed. Until today, no one knows exactly the actual number of casualties.

The Chinese government has also not used harsh or emotive language except to say that the gathering is illegal and the crowd should disperse. The protesters are angry at China’s plan to vet election candidates for the first direct election of the chief executive in 2017.

Beijing had ruled at the end of August that while Hong Kong residents would have a vote, their choice of candidates would be restricted by a committee. The protest began on Sept 22 when student groups launched a week-long boycott of classes.

On Sept 28, Occupy Central and student protests joined forces and took over central Hong Kong in what is now dubbed as the “umbrella revolution”.

Despite the tension, both sides have exercised tremendous self-restraint, which must be unusual, if not unprecedented, when seen through Western eyes.

The protest was orderly, and quite extraordinary, based on the news reports which showed how protesters collected garbage and separated them into recycling bins and how the police held up placards warning of impending tear gas action. And there was even a poignant picture of a policeman helping a protester hit by tear gas.

There are good reasons – the people of Hong Kong are fully aware that nothing that they demand, at least for now, will be fulfilled immediately. They are practical people but they want their voices to be heard by Beijing.

The people have also accepted the fact that Hong Kong is part of China. The British returned Hong Kong to China in 1997 and nothing is going to change that. The future of Hong Kong is in the hands of China – not the United Kingdom or the United States.

But the locals are also angry at the huge number of mainlanders crowding into tiny Hong Kong. The pressure on the housing, health and education sectors has led to great resentment.

There are plenty of video clips on YouTube posted by Hong Kong people on what they see as the crass and rude behaviour of the less-polished mainlanders, which ranges from eating in the underground train to defecating in the streets to loud chattering. These have led to scuffles between Hong Kong people and mainland tourists and these are well documented.

There has been retaliation, in the apparent clash of cultures, except for the fact that both are ethnically Chinese. One professor appeared on Chinese TV and called the people of Hong Kong names while claiming that they were paying homage to London. He also hammered the Hong Kong people for preferring to speak Cantonese instead of Mandarin.

On the other hand, advertisements have appeared in Hong Kong newspapers, referring to the mainlanders as locusts who hog the resources of Hong Kong.

As far back as January, the South China Morning Post had reported on protesters who marched along Canton Road, a luxury shopping street that is a popular destination for mainland tourists, holding up signs that read “Go Back to China” and “Reclaim Hong Kong”.

Xenophobia seems like an oxymoron because the Hong Kong residents and the mainlanders are all Chinese and belong to the same country.

Ironically, Hong Kong’s retail sector is crying at the missed business opportunities of the Oct 1 China national day. This is when mainlanders flock to Hong Kong for long holidays and, of course, to dine and shop. This time they have stayed away as a result of the protests and it is Hong Kong that is paying the price. Shops have been forced to shut because of the protests and businessmen are blaming the student leaders.

In fact, Beijing does not have to do anything against the protesters. The central government can afford to sit it out because the students will eventually have to go back to classes, the protesters need to report for work, and businesses must go on.

This is Hong Kong after all, where the cost of living is among the highest in the world. Sitting on the road will not last long when there are hefty bills to be paid.

A middle-ground solution to allow both sides to back down without losing face looked possible, but the plan for the students to talk with Chief Secretary Carrie Lam appears to have been scuttled by the clashes in Mongkok.

Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying has said he would not negotiate with the student leaders, nor would he resign.

Now, the students have called off the talks with Lam, claiming that the police had allowed “triad” gangsters to infiltrate their protest camps.

But the talks will have to eventually be held because it is the right thing to do. Any dialogue between them will reflect the genuine desire of both sides to end the impasse. It will also show that Beijing is prepared to hear and respect the voices of the young people in Hong Kong, which is an autonomous territory.

This is an opportunity for the students to put on record that they accept Beijing. The reality is that their anti-communist China slogans, which may be morale-boosting during their protests, won’t change a thing. It is better that these students be practical instead of being too idealistic.

Business Hong Kong will not allow students to lead at the expense of Hong Kong and China, it is as simple as that. The clashes between the students and the traders in Mongkok on Friday are a sign that patience is wearing thin for those who need to earn a living.

Interestingly enough, most of the student leaders in the Tiananmen protest are now growing old in exile in the US, UK and France. Unable to return home, they could never have imagined how Beijing has embraced capitalism and the speed of economic progress as China’s middle class expands.

As academics Chen Dingding and Wang Jianwei of the University of Macau correctly pointed out in an article, “The English word ‘crisis’ in Chinese actually consists of two words: danger and opportunity. A crisis itself is not necessarily a bad thing – it also presents an opportunity to solve the problem.”

I agree. In the case of Hong Kong, it is better that Beijing let Hong Kong grow at its own pace and in its own way. And the people of Hong Kong can protest, but they should not go overboard.

We can claim that we did our part to help make Malaysia moderate, even if it is seen as just a small step.

THANK you to the majority of Malaysians who supported and encouraged us on the Voices of Moderation campaign in the run-up to National Day and Malaysia Day.

The campaign, which urged Malaysians to emphasise on commonalities and shared values instead of differences, certainly struck a chord among most of us.

It was clear from the many messages we received that Malaysians, regardless of their race or religion, were fed up of politicians, or any group or individuals, who used race and religion to win support. They were likewise fed up of those politicians who maintained a deafening silence as the voices of some racist personalities and groups grew louder.

Many also found it disturbing and sad that it was the private sector and concerned individuals who took the lead to push the message of moderation in this season.

As with all initiatives, it is not always possible to please everyone. One complainant who sounded educated alleged that the Voices of Moderation campaign was a subtle anti-Malay and anti-Islam move.

Another reader wrote a stinging message to me pointing out that the campaign was pro-Malay as the majority of writers and personalities featured were Malays! He pointed out that there were only two Chinese and one Indian writers while criticising me in the same breath that I am racist and unable to think as a Malaysian despite what he admitted was a noble campaign.

One well-intentioned gentleman tried to call me many times, insisting on speaking to me only and no one else, because he was upset that there was no Sikh writer. I wish to thank all of you for your feedback, if you are reading this.

A small number of right-wingers, known for their ultra-nationalistic views, posted angry statements on their blogs but offered no rational and balanced view apart from making sweeping personal remarks.

Again, I wish to express my appreciation for the oftentimes humorous remarks, which have made Malaysian politics more colourful.

On the plus side, there were a few people who wanted to sign up as members, thinking that the Voices of Moderation campaign was a movement. No, we are not, and we have no intention of going into politics.

A group of young talents comprising graduates from prestigious universities here and in the United Kingdom and the United States, offered to be writers and speakers for our campaign, saying we must not stop.

To these fresh faces, you guys are certainly the beacon of hope, and the people we want to pass the baton to in our efforts to make Malaysia a better home for all.

Meanwhile, some even called us up to purchase our posters, saying that they wanted to put them up on their office and home walls.

One tycoon offered to let us use his hotel for future meetings and public forums, saying he was committed to the cause, as he, too, believed in moderate Malaysia.

BritishIndia, an upmarket chain of fashion clothing, supported us by creating a unique visual display of the campaign’s personalities at its store windows as part of the National Day celebrations. Thank you for shouting for us and believing in us.

At Taylors University, a group of multi-racial students spent their lunch time listening to my views and that of Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah, head of the Global Movement of Moderates Foundation (GMM).

They were clever, articulate and attentive and it was encouraging to meet these students who shared with us what they want to see for Malaysia.

How I wish our politicians would spend more time listening to these young moderates instead of just making speeches and doing all the talking most of the time.

The first phase of the campaign has ended. We need to take a breather and assess what we have accomplished.

Our next move would be to reach the young in our colleges and universities, and together with the GMM, we are now charting our plans on how we can reach the 60 tertiary institutions spread across the nation.

It is a long-haul campaign and we all need to sustain the momentum to make it effective and at the same time, interesting.

The message of moderation should never become a blind spot. At the same time, we do not want to be preachy, nor do we want to reach out only to those who are already converted.

What is important is that most of us should, in our lifetime, be proud to support and be associated with the Voices of Moderation campaign. We can claim that we did our part to help make Malaysia moderate. Even if it is seen as just a small step, at least we walked that journey.

We are Malaysians. To quote the late civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. “We may have all come on different ships, but we’re in the same boat now.”

As Malaysians, regardless of our race and religion, we share a common destiny. Let us keep fighting for a moderate Malaysia.

There are Malaysians, unfortunately, who cannot draw the difference between loyalty to the country and loyalty to the government.

THE Member of Parliament for Kuching, Chong Chieng Jen, may have apologised for his Facebook posting about the playing of Negaraku in the cinemas, but it would not be wrong to say many Malaysians are still furious with him for his utterly stupid remarks.

The tone of his remarks before he took down his post also reflected his arrogance on the issue. The impression he has given is that he only removed the posting and apologised after the barrage of criticisms, rather than a sincere acknowledgment of his own folly.

His remarks certainly border on pure contempt. The Sarawak DAP chief asked in his post, before it was taken down, “Is Malaysia heading towards the communist Mao era where everywhere you go you must shout out loud and show you are a patriot?”

And what made us disgusted were his further remarks that if the playing of the national anthem continued, it might even continue “before dinner, before bedtime and before S..” We are sure “sleeping time” and “supper” are not what he meant.

And we do not think that you deserve to be addressed as the Right Honourable or Yang Berhormat. You have just joined the ranks of some of those MPs in our Dewan Rakyat who love to grab the headlines with their outrageous remarks and circus antics.

Let us remind him that the playing of the national anthem at cinemas (during the current Merdeka and Malaysia Day season), like what is done at stadiums and concert halls before the game or show begins, is normal and not a “disgrace and ridiculous” – to use his exact quote.

In fact, if he were to go to the famous Chatuchak market in Bangkok, he would see how the Thais and foreign tourists would stand still in respect when the Thai national anthem is played before the weekend market closes.

In the United States, before any game begins, The Star Spangled Banner is sung. At the Super Bowl, which marks the final of the National Football League, a different celebrity is invited to sing the national anthem each year.

So there’s no need for Chong to feel this is something that he will find difficult to explain to his “friends overseas”. In fact, we believe they would be embarrassed with him over his ignorance as an MP.

To refresh his memory, the playing of the national anthem during the month of the National Day and Malaysia Day celebrations at the cinemas is not a recent phenomenon. Perhaps Chong has not been watching movies like many ordinary Malaysians do.

At the Istana Budaya in Kuala Lumpur, it is customary, and most Malaysians sing aloud when the Negaraku is played. I wonder if the MP has watched any of the local productions there.

In fact, I joined many parents and friends to attend a fantastic children’s kindergarten concert of the Peter and Jane school at the Petaling Jaya Municipal Council auditorium recently and the national anthem was played before the show began.

It was such a delight and certainly emotionally moving for me to see the multi-racial crowd, and some foreigners too, standing at attention to sing the Negaraku. And the kids, being kids, they weren’t singing but “shouting” to sing. What a delight! Chong needs to learn from these preschool children.

No doubt there is a debate among Malay­sians over whether the playing of the national anthem in cinemas would serve its purpose to unite the people or if this is nothing more than a symbolic gesture. The same arguments are in fact being discussed in India.

There is nothing wrong with discussing this issue and most of the Malaysian media have given space to such debates. But what irks most Malaysians is the tone, or more accurately the harshness, of Chong’s language. He has failed to articulate his views rationally, preferring to sound like he is speaking at a ceramah, or perhaps feeling that he needs to maintain his rebel opposition image.

His language and timing have certainly been bad, at a time when race relations are being put to the test. We do not know whether he is aware, but his comments have put many Malaysian Chinese in a spot because of the strong support from the community for the DAP in the last general election.

In fact, this is a good opportunity also for me to put on record that extremists, ­racists and bigots come from all communities and religions. They may not get the same amount of space in the mainstream media but their presence is very real in the social media. Our campaign to encourage ­moderate views is to drown out the extreme views from all sides.

Such views, even if Chong merely wanted to question the effectiveness of the playing of the national anthem in cinemas, can give rise to the perception that the Chinese community is not supportive of such display of patriotism at all.

There are Malaysians, unfortunately, who cannot draw the difference between loyalty to the country and loyalty to the government. Politicians come and go, political parties can win and lose, governments can change, but the country remains. We remain loyal to the country but we may not have the same sense of conviction towards the ­leader or political party that forms the government of the day. Therein lies the difference.

Standing at attention for the Negaraku is not the same as standing up for the Umno, MCA, PKR or DAP party anthems.

The UPSR leak fiasco seems to suggest we are in a real state of crisis and we are sending out a wrong message to our kids – it is okay to cheat. 

IT’S really incredible how so many of us have reacted over the leaked examination papers of the UPSR, which is merely an assessment examination for Year Six pupils. Yes, for 12-year-old pupils who are taking their first public examination.

The UPSR, to put it bluntly, has no serious bearing on how these kids will perform in future examinations nor will it have any impact on their careers.

But I guess not many would agree with my somewhat frivolous perception of the UPSR, judging from the kind of reaction that seems to suggest we are in a real state of crisis.

Education Ministry officials have been suspended, there are allegations of sabotage, possibly even political ones, and the police have been called in.

We hope the Inspector-General of Police won’t have to personally head a task force to nab the culprits.

I am not sure whether parents are upset that the papers were leaked, which in itself is incredulous, and a resit would mean the children having to go through another round of pressure, or is it because their holiday plans are now ruined?

The sad reality is that this is a country where parents and students are obsessed with the number of distinctions that one gets in public examinations.

Nowhere in the world, except perhaps in some other East Asian countries, do examination results hit the front page of the newspapers, or lead off the prime time news on national television.

And each year, we compare results like the way public companies compare their profit margins. The pressure is always to trend upwards. So, the focus will invariably be about how many more students have the perfect string of As as compared to the year before, giving the impression that we are in the business of producing super achievers.

Although the majority of students do not belong in this category, the perception is created that super-duper results are the passport for our children to become doctors, lawyers and engineers, and nothing less.

And every year, we have the same problem where the demand for places in universities for these courses far outstrips supply simply because there are so many students with the “right grades”.

Yet, many employers and top-notch foreign universities do question whether their grades actually match their abilities, and have their own ways to sieve out the real talents.

There are suspicions that we have lowered the passing marks and compromised our standards and in the process allowed more students to get these distinctions.

Of course, there are many who truly deserve the As, but it is most unfortunate that there are also those whose As can be questioned.

Forgive me if I sound dismissive and cynical because I come from the old school where we took our first public examination at Standard Five. That was the assessment examination and most parents would not get excited over the outcome of our performance.

It was kid’s stuff and they knew there was little bearing on our future, except perhaps to be enrolled into better classes or schools at the secondary level.

But when we took the Form Three Lower Certificate of Education, which is today’s equivalent of the PMR, it was real serious. You got kicked out from school if you failed.

That’s how it worked at that time with no free ride to the Fifth Form. The LCE required compulsory passes in Bahasa Malaysia, English and Mathematics.

The maximum number of As one could get was eight. If you got 5As, your name would probably show up in the newspapers.

But the standards were such that the grades truly reflected your real ability. An A in English for the LCE meant that you were speaking and writing the Queen’s English at that age already.

Today, most of our Form 3 students cannot even string a sentence together in English correctly. The fact that we are now considering including a compulsory pass in English at university level indicates that an A in that subject, whether at the UPSR, PMR or SPM level, is no longer an accurate reflection of one’s English proficiency.

After the LCE, we sat for the Malaysian Certificate of Education (MCE) where the maximum number of As was nine. It was a time when many Malaysians found places, on scholarships, to Ivy League universities in the United States and to Oxford or Cambridge in the United Kingdom. Yes, our MCE grades were deemed equal to the internationally-acknowledged O-Levels.

Now, despite the proliferation of the super achievers, we are told that fewer Malaysians are being admitted into these top universities.

And our students now have to prove their English proficiency to handle tertiary education overseas by taking the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) paper.

Let’s get our priorities right. The fact that the English paper was leaked even at Year Six level suggests that students are looking for help to pass a subject which they know is important.

What a contrast from those days when we had English-medium schools and getting a pass in English was not all that difficult.

And it is not just about the students. Two years ago, it was revealed that two-thirds of the 70,000 teachers who teach English in the country failed to meet the proficiency level in English for the Cambridge Placement Test.

The findings were revealed by the then Education Ministry deputy director-general Datuk Dr Khair Mohamad Yusof.

“When we did the initial profiling of the English teachers in Malaysia, we found that two-thirds of the teachers did not meet the proficiency level,” Dr Khair, who is now the director-general, was quoted as saying.

We really should be worried about how we can improve the standard of our education. There are many who love to score political points out of issues that affect our children’s education, including the UPSR leak fiasco.

We should start by doing a survey on how many of these politicians actually send their children to the government schools. Or are their own children not part of the system, but are instead in private or international schools, or even boarding schools overseas?

Let’s not play around with our children’s future. Year Six students shouldn’t be subjected to pressure cooker conditions in preparing for the examinations. And with this leak, we are now sending out a message that it is okay to cheat, even at this tender age.

Dr Azmi Shahrom

If we pride ourselves as a democracy and believe that civil society is an essential part of it, then surely a dissenting view should be tolerated, even encouraged. 

I WOULD not regard law lecturer Azmi Shahrom as my buddy, but he is someone I have engaged with regularly on a professional level.

The Universiti Malaya don isn’t your conventional academic. He keeps a long ponytail and is usually dressed casually in T-shirt and jeans. That’s a pretty cool image for a lecturer in a campus.

He is articulate, clever, open-minded and certainly opinionated. And now he is in trouble with the law.

Last week, Azmi, a long-time columnist of The Star (his column, “A Brave New World”, is published fortnightly on Wednesday), was charged with sedition.

All he said was that the way the Perak crisis back in 2009 was resolved was legally wrong. That was enough to be deemed seditious by the Attorney-General’s Chambers.

Azmi was charged under Section 4(1)(b) and Section 4(1)(c) of the Act for the comments which had appeared in a report in an online portal titled, “Take Perak crisis route for speedy end to Selangor impasse, Pakatan told” on Aug 14.

Now, the last time I checked, having an opinion, even if it runs contrary to the official view, is not a crime.

If we pride ourselves as a democracy and believe that civil society is an essential part of it, then surely a dissenting view should be tolerated, even encouraged.

Or have we come to a point where we have to succumb to the intimidation of the right-wingers, who cannot carry out a discourse intelligently and intellectually without rudely breaking into name-calling, with their favourite “anti this and that” labels?

For the record, I disagree with Azmi’s interpretation of that particular case in relation to what is going on in Selangor.

I am not a law graduate, nor am I a journalist specialising in legal matters, but I am still entitled to my opinion.

As a matter of fact, even lawyers cannot agree on the interpretation of any set of laws. That’s why they are in business. Furthermore, our judicial process is such that what is decided by one court can be overruled by another, so differing opinions will continue to flourish.

In my opinion, the law is pretty clear in the ongoing controversy over the position of the Mentri Besar in Selangor.

Under Articles LI (1), LIII (2)(a), (4) and LV (2)(a) of the Selangor State Constitution 1959, the Sultan of Selangor is given absolute discretionary power to appoint a Mentri Besar for the Selangor state government who, in the Ruler’s opinion, has the majority support of the State Legislative Assembly.

The keywords here are “absolute discretionary power” and “in the Ruler’s ­opinion”.

But Azmi is a law professor. He would probably disagree with me and ask that I read these provisions alongside other laws and precedents.

He is entitled to give his views in the lecture halls, forums and even at the campus canteen, but the moment he speaks to the press, he opens himself up to being slapped with these sedition charges.

Many of us are probably unaware of the Sedition Act, a law that was promulgated back in 1948 during the Emergency.

It has undergone revisions but broadly speaking, any act, speech, words or publication are seditious if they have a tendency towards any of the following:

> To bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler or government.

> To excite subjects to seek alteration other than by lawful means of any matter by law established.

> To bring into hatred or contempt the administration of justice in the country.

> To raise discontent or disaffection among the subjects.

> To promote ill will and hostility between races or classes.

> To question the provisions dealing with language, citizenship, the special position of the Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak and the sovereignty of the Rulers.

Seriously, most of us would find it difficult to accept that Azmi’s two sen’s worth of comments would cause Malaysians to tear one another apart, plunging the country into chaos. Most of what Azmi has written, in many publications and portals, may irritate some quarters, but it is Mickey Mouse stuff compared to the poison being spewed by some individuals who seem to have lost their sense of self-restraint.

In the Selangor saga, for example, some of the remarks made in the heat of the politicking may well fall within the ambit of “To bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler or government”.

For sure, those individuals who criticise the Rulers and call for the setting up of a republic are open to being charged with sedition.

Let me put on record here also that this writer believes the use of the Sedition Act is necessary to stop the avalanche of hate comments that have flooded our social media by people of all races and religions, who do not seem to care that their careless comments can hurt the feelings of others.

We are not talking about glory-seeking politicians who know the consequences of their actions, but even ordinary Malaysians who think they can say anything they like in cyberspace. And now we even have those in Sabah and Sarawak who have called for secession, with little inkling that their remarks are seditious. In fact, the law regards it as treason.

Those are clear-cut cases, but certainly in the case of Azmi, the authorities should seriously reconsider their position to charge him with sedition.

He was making a comment in an area where he has the expertise, whether we agree with him or not. We know that in the most vibrant law classes, students are encouraged to argue against each other, and also against the professor. Open discussion in the media about legal issues is also one way to educate the public about the laws we live under.

Some of the best columnists in the world are professors of world-renowned law schools. In the United States, every decision of the Supreme Court is openly discussed in the media.

In The Star, we are proud that apart from Azmi, we also have Emeritus Professor Datuk Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi whose “Reflecting on The Law” column on Thursdays sheds light on many of the legal issues of the day.

I am an optimist. I like to believe that Malaysia still embraces divergent views, more so in our universities. The world has changed and, yes, Malaysia has changed.

In the course of my work, I have been praised as well as heavily criticised.

I appreciate the views of those who have made me better informed. But some of the views laced with outrageous and personal remarks had me in stitches. I guess it is better to laugh it off than to get angry with these individuals.

Yes, we understand realistically that in a complex country like Malaysia, there can never be uncontrolled open expression, like in the West. But we pray that those empowered to investigate and prosecute cases of sedition will be rational and allow common sense to prevail.