The Malaysian Insider :: Opinion
The Malaysian Insider :: Opinion |
| Posted: 29 Oct 2012 05:19 PM PDT OCT 30 — So the last of the US presidential debates is done and for us who live beyond the borders of America, we can finally take stock of what's at stake for us when this contest comes to closure next week on November 6. If there was any moment in this campaign when I felt a partisan twinge, it was when the Republican candidate Mitt Romney said he would pull funding for the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). He invoked the name of Big Bird, a character from Sesame Street, a TV series emblematic of what good can be achieved by public funding of the media. While Big Bird and Sesame Street would continue to be produced in the event that Romney can deliver on his televised promise, defunding PBS would meaning significantly reducing the show's dissemination and therefore the chances of American children, especially the underprivileged, from accessing the show. I confess, I am from the first truly TV generation of Malaysia. And apart for a load of rubbish I consumed in my youth, I also was nurtured by shows like Sesame Street with its motley cast of monsters, children and super nice adults. It was a central part of my life, I grew up with its characters and it shaped my sensibilities perhaps much more than Disneyland, that other child-friendly, if ideologically dubious, American export. Admittedly Sesame Street characters were not the people who I met when walking down the street, but in my youth the show and America seemed like it was just a neighbourhood away. It made for feelings of amity. I am happy to note that Americans incensed by the threat of defunding PBS are organising what they dub a Million Muppet March on November 3. I wish them the best but that is their cause. I want to march for something else. My moment of partisanship, however, passed quickly and gave way to a commitment I made some years ago to view the Obama administration (indeed any US administration) through a cold, objective lens and not the soft-focused, rose-tinted optics of American self-perception. And if there was one moment in this campaign that confirmed that I was right to not join the many in drinking the Kool-Aid (an expression roughly translates as swallowing someone's spin), it was when Ronmey in the third debate threw his unconditional support behind Obama's expansion of the drone policy. The barbaric drone policy and the bloody "collateral damage" it has caused is one of the big under-reported stories of the last few years. Pakistanis have suffered significantly from this policy but it's stories like the shooting of women's education advocate Malala that grabs the spotlight. Needless to say the Malala story deservedly demonises the Taliban but it also shores up the completely hypocritical view that "the West" is the standard bearer of civilisation. Would the media follow with such attention to details the broken bodies, families and communities caused by America's drones? We must recognise that in the eyes of US politicians, we, the rest of the world (especially those from geopolitically powerless nations), are nothing but "collateral damage." For us, there is, and can be, no difference between a Romney and an Obama. (I know that Romney has a curious sense of Middle-East geography, famously arguing that Iran needs Syria for a route to the sea. But after George "Dubya" Bush why should one expect much more?) Remember the "hope" that then candidate, then President presumptive Barack Obama represented? It won adoring fans across the world (Malaysia included). We thought that he was going to usher sanity back into how Superpower America would relate to the world. It won him a completely undeserved Nobel Peace Prize. (Needless to say the fault lies with the folks in Stockholm who wanted to be part of the global hoopla. Now the Nobel committee has an alumnus who advocates a new and extraordinarily vicious form of warfare. Drones of peace, anybody? Serves the committee right.) I confess, I was caught up in the global hoopla. While it went against my better judgment — despite reading critical commentaries on CounterPunch.org (a political webzine) which characterised Obama as the "Black Hilary" — I drank the Kool-Aid. Heck, I gulped it down. I swallowed the spin: the American fantasy of its better self. I was primed for it though. I have been consuming America all my life from cotton candy Disneyland to the bitter, but ennobling, stuff of the struggle for civil rights. I have been moved by literature — from historian Vincent Harding's "There is a River", Ralph Elison's "Invisible Man", E.L. Doctorow's "Welcome to Hardtimes" to Alice Walker's "The Colour Purple". I have been moved by America's intellectual culture especially that of its political left, by thinkers like Noam Chomsky. In a sense I was primed to understand the 2008 presidential election in terms of grand narrative of American social progress that of increasing equality. But what I was witnessing in fact was a performance put on by America's elite; a political duopoly and its attempt at product differentiation. He is what one commentator on CounterPunch.org called him during the Democratic primaries of 2008: the Black Hilary. While it might seem so, in actual fact the world is no safer from US military adventurism because a Democrat is in power. The good news is that thoughtful, informed Americans see through this ruse. While I watched the third presidential debate, it was the post-debate discussion on Huff Live — part of HuffingtonPost.com — that I found more enlightening and real. These commentators didn't have their set pieces and they too were distressed by the real lack of debate or differences in foreign policy. Unfortunately, these American voices — like that of the third-party candidates — are not part of the spectacle of the American presidential elections that we witness from afar. We have little access to these conversations so I plead that the only appropriate response to have is agnosticism. Simply put, when it comes to this spectacle, my only advice is don't drink the Kool-Aid. * Sharaad Kuttan is a producer with BFM radio. He produces a show on the media The Week in Review on Saturday mornings at 10am and a cultural show on Sundays at 5pm called A Bit of Culture. He was recently on a US State Department reporting tour and covered the first of the three US presidential debates. His Twitter handle is @sharaadkuttan. * The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the columnist. |
| Posted: 29 Oct 2012 05:00 PM PDT OCT 30 — The spark of this train of thought stemmed from a recent question posed to one of our leaders. It was basically a question which required this leader to define his identity. Stripping away all the unnecessary descriptions, his response was "I am Malaysian first." The purpose of this write-up today is not to criticise or praise this response. I feel that underneath all that, there is a crippling mentality that needs to be addressed. There is an inherent danger in defining myself as a "Malaysian first." For in doing so, I allow myself to be defined as being something else second. More often than not, this secondary identity would be defined by our ancestral origins. It is this latter definition that has been the root of all our problems. What makes the situation more difficult is this: that the root of our problems is also the cause of our strength. The reason for this division in Malaysia is also the reason for our diversity. The question then is: what do we do? The only solution seems to be for us to define ourselves as "Malaysians", but what does that involve? My suggestion is this (and that in simple terms): we have to move away from this ingrained 3-in-1 mentality to a 1-with-3 mentality. I have thought long and hard about the best way to explain this without being confusing, and the best I have come up with is something I've coined. I call it "Coffee Philosophy." I apologise for the cheesiness, and I have to forewarn you that this philosophy grows within itself. You'll see what I mean! Before Malaysia, coffee powder, milk and sugar existed in jars of their own. Each had its own function, and each was unique in its own way. But the obvious point is this: each of these elements is absolutely different from one another. The point when Malaysia came together was when the coffee powder, milk and sugar decided to dive into the same cup. This is the 3-in-1 stage: there are three elements in one cup, but despite co-existing in the same place, each remained separate from the other. The problem with this stage is this: that the coffee powder, milk and sugar tried to call themselves "coffee" without realising that there was something missing. And for the purposes of coffee we all know what that "something" is (and yes, it is water, in case anyone has any doubts). This is the very stage that Malaysia is at now. Coffee Philosophy is this: that water can only be poured into the cup when every single grain of the coffee powder, milk and sugar realises that this is the only way that it can truly become what it desires to be. There is a fear in doing this, for when the water enters the mug, everything within it becomes wholly different. Coming back to Malaysia — what this means is that this would potentially be quite a painful process for many, as it involves leaving much that we are familiar with. It is only when we've done this that we have progressed to the 1-with-3 stage, and it is only at this stage that we can really be Malaysians. Here comes the slightly mind-warping bit — for this stage to succeed, one more condition is necessary, and it is this: that each and every one of us would have to individually embody the essence of being this mug of coffee. What this means in practical terms is that, as a mug of coffee we would seek to carry the story of the coffee powder, the story of the milk, and the story of the sugar, and celebrate the fact that it is because of each of these stories that we are who we are today. Now, consider that we are all at a stage where we choose to embody this essence, and that we have allowed water to be poured in. As several mugs of coffee that we currently are, we may very well realise that we have too much coffee powder, a drop of milk, and no sugar. The balance just isn't right. This may mean that we are very well informed of the coffee powder's story, but not so well informed about the milk's story, and certainly not informed about the sugar's story. This realisation is where we want to be. For it is when we realise that we are deficient that we seek to inform ourselves of the other part that makes us who we are. But as we listen to these stories, we may hear of things that we do not like: to illustrate, we may realise that the coffee was once an ugly bean; that the milk came from an odd-looking animal; and that the sugar came from a land of uncanny culture. But these stories make these elements what they are. Being selective about what we want to embody and what we do not want to embody would not allow us to be that mug of coffee. In sum, for the sake of Malaysia, we need to learn to accept each other's past. And as to the present, we would need to tell each and every one of our stories, and only our full stories, with tremendous pride. It is only with this that we develop hope for the future — the hope that a new Malaysia will begin. * 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