The Malaysian Insider :: Opinion
The Malaysian Insider :: Opinion |
| Posted: 08 Sep 2012 05:21 PM PDT SEPT 9 — I find there is a lack of love in the world today and I don't just mean the romantic late night car rides with your boyfriend or watching football at a mamak with your loved ones. I'm referring to all kinds of love; parents and children, between siblings, friends and even pen pals. Recently, I had the misfortune of hearing about a friend's problem with his loved ones. Instead of setting aside petty issues, everyone seems to be keeping score. Of course, this led me to notice the fact that there seem to be no love lost when it comes to political representatives who hop to another party. Facebook has been a good tool for communication but too many people on Facebook are going for idle chatting with no real substance. Nowadays, we wish someone "Happy Birthday" on their wall post in Facebook. Gone are the days when you personally sent them a birthday card or made a phone call (or even SMS) to wish someone a Happy Birthday. Relationships seem more distant than close in the age of technology. It is no surprise then that political parties are actively using technology such as social media to sow distance between supporters of different political parties. In the US, both Republicans and Democrats are able to work together after an election, despite who wins. And their politicking doesn't seem to be as dirty as ours where name calling is the norm, stepping on leaders' pictures (or mooning them) make headlines and every proposed changes by one party is opposed by the other – simply because they're from opposing camps without taking into consideration the validity of the suggestion. I wish politicking in the country doesn't have to lead to hating the other party. Disagreeing is fine. Not supporting is fine. But why are people being encouraged to hate the other party? Both sides are guilty of doing this. They trumpet their own success and criticise the other as if it's the devil. (Or in one case, call themselves the devil). The truth is, both sides need each other to survive. We live in a democracy — where check and balance by at least two different sides is what keeps the racket happy. But look at the way we treat our friends on Facebook. A small handful are the ones we keep dear to our hearts even after two years of not meeting. While hundreds more are the ones we pick up from god knows where without so much of an occasional hello. If we as mere mortals can trust so few people to be close to us, it's not that difficult for a political party to sow discontent, distrust and hatred for the other party. I believe it all boils down to leadership. How our leaders practise relationship building (and relationship destroying by some other parties) consequently affects how we treat people. If we believe that relationships come and go, why isn't the ruling coalition going yet? Clearly, some of us believe in relationships that stay — apparently for decades. Which begs the question, can a relationship only stay if there is sufficient effort to destroy other relationships? Yes, I am referring to the constant hate-waging between political parties. These people believe that in order to ensure loyalty (which translates into votes), one must constantly close communication with the other side eg. by having its own newspaper to voice its primary agenda, sing praises about itself while demonising the other side and disallowing any display of discontent in the name of stability. Disagree with your own party and you are deemed disloyal. When you look at it, the actors on the stage of politics are people, like you and me. When we start thinking about voting, we should ask ourselves the same question we are faced with every day. "Do we want a lasting relationship — despite some downside — believing that a stronger relationship means communicating our needs and slowly changing ourselves for a mutually satisfying relationship?" "Or are we tired of the person we're with and want to try something new altogether?" It's not difficult to decide who we want to vote for when we put it in that context. Unless politics is that high school friend you added in Facebook but never made real contact with. Where indeed then is the love? * The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the columnist. |
| Standing up to national education Posted: 08 Sep 2012 05:14 PM PDT SEPT 9 — My friend pumped her arm up and down and grimaced when I asked her what she thought of the latest subject to be introduced with the start of the new school term this week. "I should have worn my black T-shirt," she said referring to the chosen uniform worn that Friday afternoon by those opposing national education. She disagrees with the syllabus of the national education which is seen to be singing praises of China's ruling party while ignoring problems it has encountered in the past. Her seven-year-old son has just begun primary one and is among the first batch of students to study the all-new national education subject, which is being introduced for the very first time this week. National education is taught every Friday. Primary and secondary schools are encouraged to begin teaching the subject this year but it will not be a required subject until 2015. There will be no exams. Children will learn about China's political leaders, the contributions they have made and the difficulties they have encountered. The syllabus will focus on "building national harmony, identity and unity among individuals." Watching the news, it looks like Hong Kong has been hit by a black wave. As I write this, the night air has reached fever pitch with thousands gathering outside Tamar, the government headquarters in Admiralty, where protesters — students, parents, teachers — are dressed in the colour of mourning. Protestors are calling for the subject to be scrapped. Widely seen as Communist Party propaganda, fears abound that the subject is designed to brainwash young minds. Voices of dissent have been growing louder over the past week. Central to the protests are 13 hunger strikers among whom is retired teacher James Hon, 63, who had not eaten for six days at the time of writing. Prior to this week's protests was the July 29 "stroller rally" where 90,000 parents and students (32,000 according to police figures) with some pushing their young children in push chairs took to the sweltering streets to protest national education. While my friend is opposed to the notion of the subject being a vehicle to garner support for the Communist Party, she is satisfied with the content taught at her son's school. "The teacher sent me a copy of the syllabus and I noticed it was fair, with a balance of positive and negative aspects of China," she said. The subject is compiled by each school's own teachers who are free to decide on the content. Are these protestors, and other ordinary Hong Kong people for that matter, trying to disassociate themselves from China? It would seem so, based on the findings from a survey on Hong Kong people's ethnic identity conducted by the University of Hong Kong in June. The people's identification with "Chinese citizens" has dropped to a 13-year low. They feel strongest as "Hong Kong citizens" followed by ''members of the Chinese race", "Asians", "Chinese citizens", "global citizens" and lastly, "citizens of the PRC." Running in tandem, though unrelated, to the calls for national education to be scrapped is the decision to suspend the issue of multiple-entry permits to China nationals in response to a public outcry about the influx of tourists. The plan to loosen visa requirements to allow more mainland tourists to visit Hong Kong would have allowed four million Shenzhen residents to get multiple-entry permits. Chief executive CY Leung said Hong Kong's handling capacity would have to be studied first. Last year 28 million mainland Chinese visited Hong Kong, four times the size of this city's population. Then we read about the plan to restrict the sales of property to permanent residents of Hong Kong. The "Hong Kong Land for Hong Kong people" policy is aimed at boosting housing supply for locals, who are angry about the upward spiral of property prices driven by wealthy mainlanders. Resale of the units will be restricted to local people for 30 years. As I watch the news, I am proud that such large-scale protests are able to take place peacefully. Organisers tagged tonight's crowd at 120,000 (police figures 32,000). These are exciting times, watching and waiting to see if the people get what they want from their new chief executive, which is the opportunity to hold a dialogue in public. One dark cloud hovers over the issue though: the Education Bureau has asked headmasters to observe teachers who boycott national education classes. Meanwhile I will never forget the first time I heard my son sing clearly. These were the words sung last year in his first formal year of kindergarten: "Qi lai, qi lai, qi lai!..." I had no clue then that that was the national anthem for the People's Republic of China. * The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the columnist. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from The Malaysian Insider :: Opinion To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan