What’s to become of Shah Alam?
As published in Sunday Mail
The philosophy behind Shah Alam’s urbanisation strategy is fairly simple: just build whatever je-lah (as you please), it should be okay…
Some might attribute this to the Shah Alam complex. No, not the PKNS one near the famous lake, but a psychological one: we are a city, but don’t look it yet. So, the more concrete blocks we erect the more legitimate our claim to “cityship” becomes.
When my folks decided to uproot the family from Subang Jaya to Shah Alam, my sisters and I – then hardly half-way through primary school – thought: “What the…?”
Firstly, we didn’t know where Shah Alam was. What’s more, Subang Parade had only just opened with the heavenly Toys ‘R’ Us outlet. Who in their right mind would want to live away from that?
Nevertheless, in 1985 we moved into a home somewhere between thick forestation and oil palm plantations. While all that was ulu (rural) for us kids, our folks enjoyed the fact that we lived far away from the increasingly maddening traffic and claustrophobia of Kuala Lumpur, Petaling Jaya and Subang Jaya.
In retrospect, childhood in Shah Alam wasn’t bad at all, as we were pacified with cheap bicycles for our amusement. Also, we looked forward to the roti (bread) man who came by with goodies in the evenings.
But the next thing we knew, someone had torn down the forest, the oil palm plantation gave way to the Concorde Hotel and Shah Alam was declared a city. Our “pekan” (small town) with only roundabouts now has many traffic lights and is fast becoming the kind of place my parents tried to escape.
Today, we have our very own Makro-Giant-Tesco borough where the notoriously middle-class Shah Alam population buy their foodstuff. Nearby you can find our “sporting” section where we have the 70,000-capacity outdoor stadium and an indoor stadium.
Unlike the hypermarkets, these are usually lifeless concrete structures. The parking lot is more happening, with a go-cart circuit, weekly pasar tani, super-sprawling Ramadan food fair and all. Okay-lah, Akademi Fantasia popped by the indoor stadium last year and boosted Shah Alam’s coolness level several notches for a few months.
The stadiums aren’t the only under-utilised facilities. So many new buildings have been constructed in the past 10 years, but a drive around town and a step into existing commercial blocks suggests vacancy. Yet, we are still building new ones.
Shah Alam’s urbanisation craze has also brought about very serious environmental problems. It’s true, even the Prime Minister came by to see for himself! I wonder what Pak Lah would say if he knew that an enormous, exiled male beruk (monkey) with fangs had ventured into our compound late last year because someone had destroyed its home.
Owls, eagles and many other colourful birds that used to fly graciously around our area have also disappeared. Besides that, we have floods.
Back then, Shah Alam residents only had to brave the Motorola flood on Federal Highway. Of course, 20 years and millions of ringgit later the Motorola stretch is still flooding, and worse still, so are the Batu Tiga and Bukit Jelutong areas.
The recent flood that hit much of TTDI Jaya was so bad, thousands of residents had to be evacuated. Precious and important belongings like photo albums and birth certificates were destroyed. Those who have lived in Shah Alam long enough will remember that the very segment of the Sungai Damansara that overflowed was diverted some time ago to make way for the widening of the Federal Highway and other construction.
The flood, and a near accident with a huge DEAD beruk in front of Concorde Hotel, made me wonder about the future of Shah Alam. Are we going to continue to just build je-lah? At what cost and whose expense?
Hail the Zapin man
As published in Sunday Mail
I found myself in Johor recently at a zapin dance festival organised to promote the traditional Malay dance as part of our every day Malaysian life.
I had never been to a zapin concert though I’ve always enjoyed watching it performed on TV. Despite lots of hopping around and scooping-water-out-of-an-invisible-pond movements, the dance is extremely genteel. Even the way the dancer moves with his head bowed low as he gets into position demonstrates traditional Malay sopan-santun-ness which we rarely see today.
The festival saw the dance performed mainly by young Malay guys. When there were ladies on stage, there was a lot of respect in terms of physical space between the men and women. No touching yet the dance was personal and highly interactive. The partners communicated through the hopping, scooping and bobbing about, as well as through smiles and eye contact – a formula that will never make a hip-hop video.
Zapin got me thinking about the meaning of Malay male masculinity.
Zapin seems to embody the primordial masculine qualities of the Malay man – it is not brash, testosterone-driven or authoritarian. Rather, it is gentlemanly and dignified, yet buoyant and friendly.
The zapin man still exists but mostly in the forms of grandfathers and granduncles. Few contemporary Malay dudes possess zapin-man qualities.
These days you hold the door for the mat rempit (colloquial for illegal bike-racer but in this case, the ill-mannered Malay man) behind you and he doesn’t even say “thank you”. He’s also the kind to buat buta (play blind) and not press the “open” button in lifts upon seeing you scamper to get in.
And then there are those who beat queues at cashiers, escalators, or when boarding public transport and Air Asia flights. And don’t we know the kind who shamelessly cat-call – you know, the foul-mouthed ones who carry themselves in the most unflattering posture.
Perhaps what impressed me about the young zapin dancers in Johor was not only their moves, but also their dress. It was a rare and memorable occasion to see so many young Malay guys dressed in full baju Melayu in broad daylight instead of just the top mismatched with slacks or cargo pants.
They even wore their samping neatly with the length falling below the knees, like how the menfolk wore it back in the old days. Looking dignified with their towering songkok slightly tilted on their heads, the young lads had the image of the primordial zapin man.
Living in the age of mat rempit, the sight of respectably dressed and seemingly well-mannered Malay guys was like a breath of fresh air. Sadly, it seems as though time has emasculated the zapin man. Could he have deteriorated with the upsurge of urbanisation?
For the average Malay guy, urban life can be difficult. High cost of living entails him to stretch every ringgit of his salary as far as possible to sustain himself, and perhaps even his family. In the case of Malaysia, we all know that the standard salary sometimes barely pays the bills.
What’s more, with the workforce increasingly populated by qualified women, he now has to compete for jobs, promotions and salary increments. These realities seem to have upset the status quo in Malay society that generally bestows authority and privilege to men.
It appears that the Malay man is now forced to redefine his role as well as reinvent his masculinity. Meanwhile, perhaps due to insecurities and the need to reassert himself, he can be found brute, indecorous or brash.
He could very well have been one of the dancers at the zapin festival, disguised in elegant baju Melayu and choreographed dance moves. After all, it was only a performance. But the dance was so convincing, it feels like there is hope for the revival of the zapin man.
Well, at least I hope so…
Two steps back …
As published in Sunday Mail
This could affect YOU. Those very words at the end of an SMS informing me of a public briefing by Sisters In Islam (SIS) about the amended Islamic Family Law last Sunday found me making frantic phone calls telling family and friends, “we MUST go.”
Admittedly, I know little about the Malaysian Islamic Family Law, but all the hype about the new law intrigued me. I come from a family of three girls, and an extended family of mainly women too. Most of us work and are financially independent. We were taught not to depend on anyone, certainly not men.
Up until the new amendments were announced, I never knew, for example that a husband could, under the new Law, claim a share of his wife’s properties upon a polygamous marriage [Section 23(9)b]. Last I checked, a woman is entitled to her own wealth and property, which she has no obligation to share with her husband. On the contrary, it is the religious duty of a husband to provide for his wife and children.
The voices of protest became too loud to ignore, so Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi decided to “put on hold” the implementation of the Law. The deferment, however, only applies to the Federal Territories since other states in Malaysia (save Kedah and Terengganu) have already adopted the amendments without seeking public consensus.
So off I marched, with sisters, mum, aunt, cousin and neighbour, to the gathering, joining some 150 others who listened intently to the panel’s explanation of what the new laws entail. The talk made me wonder about the fate of my mother and siblings should anything happen to my father.
If it is true that women are given the run-around by the courts, who then will act on behalf of our father or be our spokesperson considering the fact that Papa has no brothers?
The SIS talk revealed some disturbing details of the amendments, but there were a few that really made my bulu roma naik (gave me goosebumps).
For example the above mentioned Section 23(9)b. Likewise Section 23(9) that forces a woman to choose between maintenance (nafkah) or part of the matrimonial property upon her husband’s polygamous marriage, when in fact the religion accords her the right to both for as long as they are still married. Section 107A similarly implies that a husband can get a court order to stop his wife from disposing of her property, when again, the religion entitles her to her own assets.
If educated, urban women, who usually can get what they want are feeling the constraints of the law and are affected by the way they have been treated by the courts, imagine our sisters from low-income groups and rural areas who might not even be able to afford legal representation. One wonders whether the Government, through grassroots channels such as Wanita and Puteri Umno, has attempted to inform these women about the changes in the law.
These developments in Malaysia have resulted in Islam being seen as repressive, when in fact Islam is a liberating religion. Relevant examples include Prophet Jesus (PBUH) allowing women to join his congregation when it was not the norm of his time. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) too played a revolutionary role in his society. The Arabs, who traditionally kept up to 10 wives, were restricted, conditionally, to a maximum of four at a time.
Note, though, that Chapter 4:3 of the Quran states that “if you cannot maintain equality among them, marry only one…”
Islam also elevated the status of women by giving them the right to property and inheritance, a privilege that was once enjoyed only by men. Recent developments in Malaysia’s Syari’ah courts, however, seem to contradict what the religion stands for – justice, independence, liberty and respect.
It is sad indeed that in this case, we are responsible for the unflattering image of Islam in Malaysia. The question is, what are we going to do about it?
Stop White House madness, say ‘traitors’
As published in Sunday Mail
In April 1961, John F. Kennedy was humiliated in front of the whole world when the Bay of Pigs invasion led by CIA-trained Cuban exiles failed miserably to overthrow Fidel Castro.
Although unsuccessful and embarrassing, the event rallied public support at home for the Kennedy administration.
In his book An Informal History of America in the 1960s: Coming Apart, William O’Neill highlights that violent conflict with other nations unites citizens in backing their leader. When the president declares war, he is drawing a distinct line that separates the patriots and the traitors.
This way, the people are somewhat forced to support the government for to do otherwise would make them unpatriotic.
This is precisely the case in George W. Bush’s “War on Terror”. Bush has played the war rhetoric game on Americans to rally them thus far into launching a preemptive strike on Iraq.
Unable to see the imminent threat of Saddam Hussein and with the economy in shambles, Americans have taken a step back to evaluate the President’s motives. Is the attack necessary at this point in time or is this a desperate attempt to keep public support from declining due to the economy and corporate fraud?
As many Americans started to see steady progress made by the United Nations Security Council in disarming Iraq, they also became more opposing to the notion of a preemptive war. This anti-war sentiment, shared by most people outside the US, motivated thousands of Americans to take to the streets in protest.
I attended a protest in Washington D.C. on March 15, just two days before Bush announced his ultimatum to Saddam. About 100,000 people gathered at the Washington Monument at noon urging Bush to “stop the madness” and marched for 20 blocks and in front of the White House.
Organised by International A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism), the event started with a long list of speakers from various organisations including the US Labour Against War, Iraqi-American Anti-War Coalition, Jews for Peace in Palestine & Israel, Kids Against the War, Partnership for Civil Justice, Queers for Peace & Justice and the Support Network for Armed Forces.
Amongst prominent public figures present were Michigan congressman John Conyers and Reverend Jesse Jackson from the Clinton administration. Also present was Ramsey Clarke, former US Attorney General who is leading a case towards impeaching Bush for launching an “unconstitutional” pre-emptive war.
The crowd responded to Clarke with chants of “Vote to Impeach!”. The crowd and organisers also held strong that the core of the Middle East crisis is America’s biased policies towards Israel. Anti-Zionist sentiments soared even amongst Jews present as they condemned Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s aggressive settlement projects condoned by the US.
The protesters were also apprehensive about the military’s plan to use its latest 9,500kg satellite-guided Massive Ordinance Air Blast Bombs (MOAB) – also known as the Mother of All Bombs – in its “Shock & Awe” campaign that could cause mass destruction to the Iraqi people, 50 per cent of whom are below the age of 15. Many speakers consider this campaign an act of genocide. Rallying for peace, the crowd applauded the French and Germans for pursuing a more peaceful solution through disarmament by the Security Council. Strong opposition from major political players such as France, Russia and China further intensified anti-war sentiments amongst the protesters.
As I walked the compound of the Washington Monument, I saw people of all ages, colours and from all walks of life. It was heartening to see them making the effort to attend the rally.
It was especially moving to see so many Vietnam war veterans expressing their concerns about their country’s first-ever, pre-emptive war. These protesters considered themselves the United Nations of Peace, opposing the
US-led Coalition of the Willing.
The chant “No Blood for Oil!” reflects their scepticism of American-British intentions in Iraq.
Even though they all opposed Saddam, they do not think he is an imminent threat to the American homeland. Therefore, they demanded that funds used for military activities in the Arab region be used at home where jobs are scarce, Medicare ineffective and education budgets reduced.
However, taking this stand has caused war advocates to call them “traitors” for turning their backs on the President in times of crisis.
One day after Bush announced his ultimatum, public support increased slightly, as expected.
However, even as late as the first strikes on Iraq, the American public remains divided with at least 34 per cent opposing pre-emptive military action.
The morning after the war unfolded, Congress deliberated on a testimony of support for the President as Commander-in-Chief but some members in the House of Representative argued to dismiss any statement in the letter praising Bush’s leadership.
Families of 9/11’s victims also issued a statement condemning the war, saying that they do not want Iraqi civilians to experience the trauma of terror that they themselves have seen.
Furthermore, thousands in Boston, New York City, Chicago and San Francisco took to the streets for an emergency protest. Many made their statements clear carrying signs that read “We’re Not Against Our Soldiers! We Just Want Them To Come Home!”
Protesters also convened in Washington, D.C. causing massive traffic jams in areas around the White House. Many walked out of schools and workplaces in an organised “If The War Breaks Out, Walk Out!” peaceful act of civil disobedience.
Peace activists have planned to launch nationwide protests throughout the weekend and coming weeks if the war continues. Those who oppose the war consider themselves American patriots like those who spoke against King George in the American Revolution.
