When I get to the polling booth this coming general elections, the question among others that I will ask myself will be: Which of the two contesting political party coalitions will be more likely to truly promote harmony among all Malaysians and show themselves willing to move against those who have incited hatred and fear against the multi-ethnic, multi-religious fabric of Malaysian society?

It is dangerously unhealthy that in our multi-cultural context we are now being subjected to news about non-halal (non-kosher) and therefore offensive items, animate or inanimate, being provocatively placed in places of worship or practised and served in public functions. This issue is not just about any one animal, colour (of gift packets) or religious sentiments or customs of any one religious faith or culture. At stake here is the very basis of our national integration. And no amount of semantics or cleverly-couched slogans will heal the fracture we are now being subjected to.

To be, in a political sense, anti-Muslim, anti-Christian, or anti any other person’s religion is unbecoming of any one individual or group especially when the perpetrators claim to be representing or defending their respective religion and culture. Nor should we be anti-Eurasian, Aborigine, Kadazan, Iban, Malay, Indian, Chinese, or for that matter anti-Semite or Arab or Palestinian. The Bible teaches that all human beings have been made in the image of God and therefore endowed with dignity to whom respect is due.

Thankfully, God needs no defender nor protection. A genuine faith will usually show and demonstrate itself through changed lives. And changed life is better expressed in one’s love for one’s neighbour. Words, actions and manner of love by its very nature cannot be represented by agrression but genuine respect and concern for others.

When human beings try to politically defend or protect their respective faiths, more often than not they misrepresent the truths and values their respective faiths espouse. Those who want to safeguard the position of their own religion or culture can better do so by safeguarding religious and cultural freedom of others. Respect for all human beings is respect for their common Creator. By disparaging what others hold dear and sacred for the express purpose of promoting the supremacy of one’s own culture or belief will only serve to place our faith and culture under question, even making it the scorn of others as is now the rampant case in our country.

Promoting harmony among all the people should be the urgent task of the next government of our country. Failure is not an option. Accordingly, when I get to the polling booth this coming general elections, my vote will not go to those who are likely to fail to truly promote harmony among all our people.

In this respect, the proper numerical for effective use in promoting real harmony is not “one” but “all”.

(from http://ongohing.wordpress.com)

The timing is perfect. The question was posed on January 17 and this answer (albeit inadvertently) came in within two days. What remarkable service! I have no doubt whatsoever that the minister was honest and open in making the point. The reason he reportedly gave was that such revelation regarding assets of ministers and their immediate family “may endanger them” (again as reported by Malaysiakini.com). Here again I am not questioning the minister’s concern; in fact to a certain extent, I can even agree with him on his concern.

What concerns me is that in being open in the way he had spoken about the issue of asset declarations by government ministers, the prescription he made, nevertheless, was to revert to the practice of secrecy. According to reports, the minister had said that such asset declarations by cabinet ministers are to be made only to the prime minister and only if there are allegations of corruption, also to the MACC (Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission). I am afraid that this falls far short of required good governance protocols and such a prescription gives little if any confidence or satisfaction to many already very concerned Malaysians who fear for the resources, financial or natural, which they have entrusted to the powers that be.

Like anybody else, including cabinet ministers, I too believe that we human beings need and should have a certain degree of privacy without which life will be rather uneasy and troubling. But personal privacy can never be absolute. Certainly not to the extent that personal freedom and privacy will engender as well as hide crimes committed against others. Many countries including our own are fond of telling other countries to mind their own business or back yard and not try to sound the alarm about dirt in our garden. While there is some credibility in such arguments, if I should be committing spouse or child abuse in the privacy of my own house, should my neighbours who come to know about this remain forever silent? Is this good neighbourliness? If there is a fire in my neighbourhood, I shouldn’t call the fire brigade because it isn’t my own house on fire?

Self-monitoring or internal monitoring isn’t sufficient to fight crime or put out fires (of all kinds). Prevention is better than cure. If given the choice, and we do have the choice in a democracy, I would prefer that the government in my country does not have the choice to monitor itself. I say, to “SAVE THE PEOPLE’S MONEY” which is critically important for our present generation as well as our future generations, holders of public office must be required to publicly declare assets in their names as well as their immediate family members’ names.

If I can’t or won’t do this, then public office is not for me. To a certain extent, it may be unfair that servants of the people are forced to surrender their right to privacy. For certain, there are out there unfair critics who will abuse good governance practices and processes for their own benefits. Indeed, some critics will abuse such or for that matter whatever available facility to put others down. In this respect, education is required by people on both sides of any argument.

Be that as it may, to fight corruption involving public money and other resources, self and internal monitoring isn’t enough and cannot be a safeguard. If the people’s resources are to be secured, we will need the resolve to have public disclosure of personal assets alongside other effective instruments of accountability to ensure that no sin against the people will be effectively kept from exposure and discovery. In this matter, secrecy will only encourage more crimes against the people with impunity.

(from http://ongohing.wordpress.com)

When I get to the polling booth this coming general elections, the question among others that I will ask myself will be: Which of the two contesting political party coalitions will be more likely to move against those who have allegedly committed crime against the country by misusing the people’s financial resources?

This issue concerns me because, despite the fact that I myself may no longer be poor, it is unconscionable that so many Malaysian families are today still deprived of so many essential goods and services in their daily lives while some in positions of power or have connections with those in positions of power seem to be able to live it up either by paying themselves exorbitant salaries, packages and bonuses or awarded contracts which are worth a lot.

Bona fide business must of course be given space to start and grow to create jobs and enhance taxes to increase the nation’s wealth which in turn can generate work opportunities and more essential goods and services for all our people. But there must be opportunities for qualified Malaysians to bid for government contracts through openly conducted open tender.

Issues of good governance are of great consequence because no country is so wealthy that it can allow an unmitigated drain on the people’s resources and yet not have adverse effects on national development and impact on its people. If we have “Save Water” and “Save Electricity” campaigns which we as the people must take very seriously, can we as a nation afford not to have a “Save the People’s Money” campaign?

In a “Save the People’s Money” campaign, we should not just be so zealous about going after pick-pockets while neglecting to focus on those who go after very much higher stakes whose targets are the country’s resources no less. Call it “gravy train” or any other name, this is sinful by God’s value and poor families are our constant reminder that we cannot allow this practice to continue.

It is no use comparing our country favourably with other peoples’ countries. I don’t want my country just to be better off than a country like ….

When I get to the polling booth this coming general elections, I will be asking myself how much better off my country can be and how many more poor families can be alleviated from their daily hardship and anxieties if only we stop powerful people from putting their fingers into the people’s coffers.

The way to this desirable and necessary goal is that I join other Malaysian voters to return the next government of Malaysia who is more likely to bring those guilty of sinning against the people’s resources to book. Let the investigation and the subsequent trial be fair. Accord those accused proper and full opportunity to defend themselves. Let there be no lynching, libel or character assasination but a fair investigation, prosecution and trial.

But there must be guarantee that crimes against the people will face just retribution so that such crimes against the people will be stymied.

(from http://ongohing.wordpress.com)

From reported accounts, a brother of the parent as well as neighbours and even the police have spoken well of the parent concerned. If so, are these chains for reasons of love or callousness?

The usual reaction following first reports of the case naturally and understandably condemned the unconscionable act. My concern is how frequently this kind of incidents may be happening and whether, given the fiercely guarded privacy of modern society, such things may be occuring in my own neighbourhood without my knowledge since I too strive to lead a very private life (as in minding one’s own business).

If indeed such things are happening, then helpless children may be subjected to unimaginable and indescribable suffering which will not only cause immediate painful hurts but also long term emotional scars.

Known cases can be dealt with by rescuing the children and seeing to their safe keeping while bringing the parent involved to justice. But, as in this particular case, separating the children from a parent they know and love, and rehabilitating him may prove to be a very difficult and long process traumatising the children further and also rendering the parent jobless and thus, setting the family finances into a far worst situation.

What about cases that have not being uncovered in time or cases that is ongoing without public knowledge? Prevention is indeed better than cure and education for parents, rich or poor, is urgently needed and should be widely accessible. In addition, child-minding services and facilities especially for parents in poorer income groups will be more effective to save the children from such plights than just the usual rounds of public condemnation of guilty parents each time a child abuse case is uncovered. Talk no matter how right is cheap.

Here, child-minding facilities in government offices is a good and thoughtful initiative which should be expanded further and also emulated by private corporations as well. Residence associations, churches and other charitable organisations could further enhance accessibility of such facilities to desperate parents by starting similar programmes.

Making New Year resolutions as individuals alone is seldom enough. In this matter, we the neigbours, public, government and civil society must also be similarly resolved to deal with this social problem. Safeguarding helpless children should be a very high priority in the home, school and society at large.

(from http://ongohing.wordpress.com)

But that’s where the similarities end. Indeed, the contrasts between these two heads of state scream so loudly that the whole world must but hear. It is this constrast between them that we must pay serious heed to if we as nations in this world are to see through our remaining years with some practical semblance of freedom and justice.

One fought against and suffered under soviet communist rule (1945-1989) and became the first president of Czechoslovakia in the aftermath of the bloodless 1989 Velvet Revolution which saw the end of repressive rule; the other succeeded his father as president to perpetrate a hardline authoritarian rule.

One lived, worked and fought for himself and his people to be freed from iron rule; the other conspired to ensure that the people will still stay unfree, the better to scare, manipulate and domesticate.

One was a poet, playwright, and a writer of treatise with such titles as The Power of the Powerless (1985), Living in Truth (1986), Towards a Civil Society (1994). The other was written about by his state-controlled media in some such fashion: “ … a spring of prosperity under socialism will surely come to the country thanks to the patriotic devotion of Kim Jong-il who blocked the howling wind of history till the last moments of his life”, when in reality, the nation with the world’s fourth largest army with a reported annual budget of US$6 billion has been for these past many years seen the ravages of famine among so many of its people. (The same state press agency also reported that

“ … in 1994, the Dear Leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea picked up a golf club for the very first time, and – as witnessed by 17 security guards- shot a smooth 38-under-par round of 34, including 11 holes-in-one.”)

One would be farewelled by his family and his people and then buried; the other “will likely be embalmed and put on display as a lasting reminder of the bloodline of the family that founded one of the world’s most reclusive states.”

In a sense, this sharp contrast between these two departed heads of state presents a kind of microcosm of political leadership intentions and styles in the world of human beings. In recent history, both nations were in fact in much the same boat; both societies were suppressed and repressed with the power elites in complete command of the political, economic and military institutions and the people were mere tools of the state, to do as the power elites desire, plan and implement. Then in 1989, one of these two nations saw the people wresting back their freedom in a largely bloodless revolution. But up till this day, the other nation remains resolutely in the same situation since the partitioning of the Korean Peninsula after the Korean War of 1950–53.

The human struggle is between freedom and control, participation and monopolization, truth and dissimulation, integrity and dishonesty. In the political process, the purpose should not be the formation and consolidation of power elites or the monopoly of political and economic processes and resources. The governing authorities are not the masters but servants of the people of a given nation.

This past week, sadly, a third person in political office passed on. This is Malaysia’s own Edward Lee. He was not a head of state or government, just a humble state assemblyman for Bukit Gasing, Petaling Jaya, Selangor. He was neither an internationally-acclaimed writer nor a superlative golfer. He commanded no army nor is known outside his own state of Selangor. He will not be sent off through a state funeral. But he was known in civil society circles and the corridors of the various town councils and municipalities taking up the causes and seeing to the needs of the people. Before contesting and winning a state assembly seat four years ago, he was a leader in his residence association, and a campaigner to save his beloved Bukit Gasing (Gasing Hill), a cause he was still pursuing days before his passing- a grassroot, neighbourhood man. The country is blessed to have such a representative of the people. Go on your way, good brother, into the arms of your Creator and find your peace, joy and grace in His embrace. May God bless his loved ones bereaved of son, husband and father.

(Please read “The power of the powerless”, an extract from extract from, The Power of the Powerless, by Václav Havel written in 1985, four years before the Revolution which ended communist rule.)

(from http://ongohing.wordpress.com)

Unfortunately or otherwise, my brush with the law and court trials all took place in-country and my learning curve was entirely fed by the fare which still goes on these days in our courts. So after a long day yesterday, I found myself lazing on my easy chair, switching between the sports and news channels, when suddenly, well after midnight, I came upon the opening statements of the prosecution in the trial of MJ’s personal physician live on international news channels.

Not intending to stay long with this news, I soon found myself completely hooked and only eventually went to bed at around two. It was an (belated) education to follow the prosecution’s case. The level of competence of the chief prosecutor’s presentation was such that even as an uninitiated, untrained onlooker, I found myself able to follow even the technical parts of his presentation and able to see his points very clearly. Quite obviously, the defendant had a case to answer to. Thus, even before the defence presented their opening statements, I could see what their defence would have to be to overturn the prosecution’s case. I watched with incredulity (so little was the sum total of my in-country education in court craft) in the first instance, how the trial judge had been absolutely clear in his brief at the very beginning. Overnight (literally), I suddenly found an admiration, respect and confidence in the justice system which, hitherto, I had not had the opportunity to feel so. Yes, of course, like many others in Malaysia I had been enrapt by the fabulous court proceedings and scenes produced and directed by Hollywood! But besides Hollywood, my only experience of court trials have been in-country and that too, only very occasionally.

It was a relevation therefore to see some other models of court craft and decorum last night. A life has been lost, not to mention the professional talent and continued prospective contribution to society by the departed. As we would say here, “Sayang sekali”. Whenever death occurs, especially if suddenly and without seeming warning, reason or need (as in falling out of windows and bullet wounds on minors driving illegally or when on assignment as a journalist to cover humanitarian aid events), loved ones are left bewildered and shattered, looking for, but not finding, satisfactory answers. So inquests and royal commissions have been conducted and findings announced which more frequently than not leave gaps which understandably sow even more incredulity.

How will the physician’s trial in Los Angeles be conducted and what would be the outcome? Quite obviously it is too soon to tell. But I woke up this morning with one very strong thought which dominated my mind. Whatever the final verdict of this trial watched and followed by many throughout the world, unlike a justice system which is solely based on the decision of the trial judge at every turn of the proceedings, this one is a TRIAL BY JURY. Already, it seems to me, it goes a long way in terms of process, to provide a fair and just hearing. There is, of course, no guarantee of perfect justice, since no human effort or enterprise, no matter how well-intended and well-meaning, can be absolutely right.

It sets me thinking: When so much depends on the verdict of a court trial, can any one person, no matter how fair or learned, capture every phase, perspective, twist and turn of a court trial? In our country, why was trial by jury not instituted throughout the states but only Penang and Malacca? And why, oh why, was trial by jury abolished wherever it was practised in 1995, including the provision of a trial judge sitting with two assessors to help him in capital cases? Instead of extending it to the entire country, trial by jury was pulled from even the states where it was practised. Why? Would it be too far-fetched to think that a justice system based on trial by jury would have come to certain conclusions which would be different from a trial by one person? Does not the process affect the outcome of any court trial?

Come to think of it, it seems that in our country, a lot of things, in fact, the most important things, seem more often than not decided by the 1Person or 1Organization system. We seem to have a propensity to rely on the One’s and Two’s or Three’s, the Favoured Ones, rather than in a corporate transparent system. Yes we have the appearance of joint action and joint decision-making such as in parliament, etc., but it seems to me that more often than not, in the end, some very key decisions have been made by the powerful few. An arbitrary manner of decision-making seems to be preferred to a corporate decision-making process. Yet such decisions involve the country’s resources and the shaping of major programmes. In this vein, arbitrary decisions are oftentimes also short-term decisions which do not solve the root causes of problems but in time further feed the root problems instead, making matters worse.

I hope I am wrong on this score and I am earnestly praying that those better trained, educated and experienced will please wake me up from my nightmare and show me that the truth is not what it seems to me. THE WHOLE TRUTH and NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. For the sake of bereaved, shocked, grieving and despairing families as well as poorer people who will be hardest hit by inflation.

(from http://ongohing.wordpress.com)

It is very sad to see the Quran treated in this manner. Sacred Books of any religious faith should always be accorded proper respect and dignity by people of all religious faiths. This incident is not an isolated one. Such treatment of Sacred Books shows that too many people are paying too little or no respect to religious sentiments and values. This speaks ill of a nation and may even lead to the breaking up of a nation. No individual, business enterprise, service provider or government officer or department should ever conduct itself, himself or herself, with such disregard for what others hold sacred. The same goes for the departed loved ones. Despite their departure from this life, their remains are sacred to their respective families and therefore must be treated with the utmost dignity and respect. The families of the departed must be treated with respect too. It is best that we all learn to “do to others what we would have others do to us”.

”… the top anchors at all the networks had scurried into the briefing room. Once there, they received a presidential scolding for their concern with ‘silliness.’ Obama began his five-minute statement with the complaint that he wouldn’t be able to get the networks to break into their regularly scheduled programming for a speech on policy proposals. “I know that there is going to be a segment of people for which no matter what we put out, this issue will not be put to rest,” Obama said. “But I am speaking for the vast majority of the American people as well as for the press. We do not have time for this kind of silliness. We have better stuff to do. I have got better stuff to do. We have got big problems to solve. We are not going to be able to do it if we are distracted, we are not going to be able to do it if we spend time vilifying each other… if we just make stuff up and pretend that facts are not facts, we are not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by side shows and carnival barkers.”

The New York Times editorial on this press conference was entitled, “A Certificate of embarrassment”. It says in part:

”With sardonic resignation, President Obama, an eminently rational man, stared directly into political irrationality on Wednesday and released his birth certificate to history. More than halfway through his term, the president felt obliged to prove that he was a legitimate occupant of the Oval Office. It was a profoundly low and debasing moment in American political life… It was particularly galling to us that it was in answer to a baseless attack with heavy racial undertones. Mr. Obama practically begged the public to set aside these distractions, expressing hope that his gesture would end the “silliness” and allow a national debate about budget priorities. It won’t, of course.”

Sounds familiar?

In today’s Malaysia, there seems to be a parallel situation and the above words of an American president and an editorial from an American leading newspaper could in fact just as well be describing a prominent news report in our own country about something rather similar in terms of the degree of its silliness. Except for the fact that in the Malaysian context it is not the sitting government leadership who are needing to get their citizens and politicians off silly things. Believe it or not, the twist here in the Malaysian story is that many seem to think that it is the sitting government itself who is putting these silly things on show to distract the populace from more important issues which impact everyday life and the long-term prospect of the nation!

How else are Malaysians (not to mention visitors to our country) to think when so many incongruous things have happened (or not happened) in the drag out case of a certain video?

Granted that there may be several targets and several layers of motives which this low-class strategy and methodology is serving, just as there may be several layers of perpetrators behind this evil scheme. But as a country we deserve better and we can surely do better.

From experience we know that those who are responsible will never voluntarily or sensibly stop. The media can choose not to carry or deliver such sordid, low-class products and stop giving space and credence to the crude works of evil doers. But even if the media, like the shameless perpetrators, would not stop, we the public can stop reading and watching what they put before us. As consumers, we control the market, we can send a signal to the supply and demand chain. The heads of our collective religious communities can warn the authorities as well as those responsible that “Enough is enough!”

In the words of Bishop Dr Paul Tan, SJ:

”No person of conscience can fail to deplore this permissiveness, this inaction in the face of a puerile voyeurism that has now reached a nadir.”

We as a nation will be examined and graded according to how we deal with this wicked episode: as government and enforcement officers, as politicians across the board, as media, as religious heads and communities, as people and citizens.

NB. Of course (in a lighter vein) it is foolish of me to post this article today of all the days! Why so? Because no one will read it. And why not? Because half way across the world, two young people are getting married and practically the whole world would be watching the event live on TV. Talk about distraction! But at least this live coverage will be for General Audience, and seriously, marriage is never trivial or insignificant. May God bless this matrimony.

As reported in The Star, 15.04.2011

KUCHING: The Association of Churches Sarawak has expressed regret that DAP, PAS and PKR leaders held a press conference on the association’s meeting with them Thursday concerning the Bahasa Malaysia bibles issue.

ACS secretary-general Ambrose Linang said the breakfast meeting was held behind closed doors after the leaders agreed to the association’s request not to hold a press conference regarding it.

“Our association received an invitation from Selangor state executive councillor Teresa Kok to have a breakfast meeting with the leaders of these opposition parties and agreed on condition that political issues would not be discussed as we are non-partisan.

“Shortly after the meeting we left. However, we were disappointed to learn that these leaders held a press conference later,” he said when contacted by Bernama.

Ambrose said the association would study the statements made at the press conference, and if there were political elements, it would issue an official statement. (Bernama)

As clarified by YB Teresa Kok, 15.04.2011, 1.30 am

Association of Churches Sarawak (ACS) whacked Pakatan Rakyat (PR) as reported by Bernama. My response when asked by The Malaysian Insider on this is: We have agreed to have a closed door meeting and not to have press conference with the church leaders but we were never asked not to disclose issues that were being discussed to the media. In fact even if we (PR) don’t have a meeting with ACS, all leaders in the Pakatan have been saying all these issues in our political rallies and meeting the people sessions during the elections campaign. We just repeated the same thing when we met with ACS leaders.

However, we appreciate the meeting with ACS leaders and we understand their situation. I believe they are under tremendous pressures and that is why they made such a statement (as reported in Bernama).

We were told not to allow the media to come in to take photos and to make our meeting with ACS a closed door meeting. We have done that.

But how can we not speak to the media after the closed door dialogue session when the media were waiting outside? All the church leaders have seen the presence of the media when they arrived and they have seen us not allowing the media to enter the room to take pictures too. It is understood that we will have our own press conference after meeting them and reiterate our stand on issues related to Christians and churches.

My take

I am laying the Bernama report and YB Teresa Kok’s response side by side for Christian leaders to have their respective two perspectives because during this Sarawak elections campaign, the playing field has not been level. On TV and the printed media, the Malaysian public have not been given more than perfunctory coverage of the opposition campaign and statements; it has been pretty much only the BN campaign that has been relayed by the mainstream media.

On the PR-ACS meeting, despite Bernama’s prompt objective or insistence to report ACS’ unhappiness about PR’s press conference after the meeting, in fact whatever PR said of the meeting at the press conference was not reported in the mainstream media. So what is there to object to? Even the Bernama report about this meeting only carried the ACS’ reaction to the press conference held by PR and that too because Bernama specifically asked for a comment from the ACS secretary.

And what do we as a Christian community in Malaysia find so wrong about PR taking up the issues which CFM and MCCBCHST have been raising? The main message PR has declared on this issue is that short of the attorney-general withdrawing the appeal to the High Court’s ruling on the “Allah” issue permitting Herald to use the word, the problem will remain regardless of the so-called government’s 10-Point solution. Quite frankly, if PR has not voiced these sentiments, the Sarawak elections campaign and the Sarawak voters will only have the federal government’s side of the story. How will this benefit the Christian community?

I am taking the trouble to communicate this especially to Christian leaders because I hear the voice of anguish in Teresa Kok’s 1.30 am phone message to me. In a democracy, the voters must have the prerogative to decide who they want to be their representatives in the next state legislative assembly. That can only happen when voters have the opportunity to hear both sides’ story.

The Christian Church can only be heard and seen as being truly non-partisan during an electoral process when it treats both sides of the campaign equally. Pardon me if I am wrong but I did not see this equal treatment in Sarawak this past week.

(from http://ongohing.wordpress.com)

What do we, can we, say? For all these many years, that city like so many others in the human world was functioning normally with few if any extraordinary event ever happening. Then this thing happens and loved ones, colleagues and neighbours are taken from this life in a twinkle of an eye leaving behind heartache, anguish and bewilderment. Even those who are left without loss of loved ones face months if not years of rubble—physical and emotional—to cope with. Normalcy and routine as one resumes one’s life under these circumstances are not possible for a while.

Then, we hear that the man in Libya has arranged for live bullets to be fired at street protestors, and in at least one instance, even worshippers who were coming out of the mosque after Friday prayers. In his televised speech, he said that the arsenals will be opened if need be so that loyal supporters of his regime can be supplied with weapons and ammo to wage a patriotic war against the enemies of the country, that is, those out there who are demanding his removal. To date, more than 1,000 have lost their lives many of whom were where they were when killed by their own decision, seeking freedom from despotism and the suppression and corruption which come with it.

What do we, can we, say? Especially when each new day will see many more deaths in this fashion.

In the case of natural catastrophes, there is little if indeed any room for argument or debate. Death comes when it comes. If one happens to be there, the scene of the happening, one is there at that particular time of the catastrophe. Victims were not taking a conscious risk. It could not be said of them that they knew the risk involved. They were not going anywhere which could be regarded as a place of present or perpetual danger. To say that the place one is in is within the ring of fire (that is, earthquake prone) does not necessarily mean that nobody should be staying on there. If that were so, whole human populations (not to mention, animals) in countless number of places the world over would have to be moved or resettled. But where to, how to?

Obviously, the predicament faced by protestors against despotism is in a very different category of equation altogether. The danger to one’s wellbeing, limbs and life is clear to all such protestors especially in the case of Libya. Unlike in the case of the Philippines in 1986, you won’t get nuns (of any religion) going around and quietly, slowly, deliberately placing a stalk of bright flower into the barrel of each gun pointed at the protestors. To go against this particular man, you would have to be making a conscious decision; you are putting yourself at great risk.

Clearly, for any person to go on the street who is not an obvious supporter of the power that be, would be to place him- or herself in clear and present danger. The chances of being hit by a live bullet or beaten up or arrested and shut away are bound to be very high.

It is a very humbling sight to behold these people who are intentionally placing themselves in the line of fire. Humbling precisely because these people don’t have to be in a desperately dangerous place but knowingly choose to do so. It is a very sobering thought for us who view such scenes on television to know that this or that face we are seeing may be the next victim of a brutal act, may have lost his or her life in the next moment.

Fastforward from Benghazi, Az Zawiyah and Tripoli to our own situation in Malaysia where the challenge we face is not guns with live bullets or any life-threatening or even necessarily job-threatening or captivity-threatening. The task before us seems very much easier, so much more doable. Like for instance, if I am not already registered to vote, I must do so immediately. If I am already eligible to vote, to just make sure I turn up to vote, despite the traffic or the queue or the weather. If any of the by-elections happens to be in my constituency, I must make sure that my name is not transferred to some other polling station without my knowledge. When I vote, I should bear in mind what my vote involves and I am ready to vote with good reasons and at least in a deliberate, intentional way, knowing who, why and what I am voting for.

Just taking a little trouble to think through certain things in the midst of my daily schedule, at work or at home. To think about the nation, where it is going and where instead it should be going.

Itu pun tak boleh. Even this little we are unwilling to do?

Come to think of it, there is a third way of dying. That is, dying in effect by not living in a responsible, thinking way. Doing by not doing.

(from http://ongohing.wordpress.com)