The Malaysian Insider :: Opinion

Posted: 12 Nov 2012 04:21 PM PST

Nov 13 ― It has been psychologically proven that it is human instinct to attribute anything bad to one's surrounding. For example, if I baked a cake and it failed for whatever reason, I would instinctively and firstly seek out the problem from the ingredients that I've used, or a bad oven, or the recipe.

It will usually take a while before I would acknowledge that the failure was due to a mistake on my part, or maybe, that I simply lack the necessary skills. Again, note that the aforesaid relates to human instinct.

One may acknowledge personal fault at a later point, but the first reaction would always usually be to seek the problem in one's surroundings.

So, coming back to the topic ― what is Malaysian democracy?

To break the question down a little ― where does Malaysian democracy take place? The first answer to this would be that it is exercised at the ballot box. The second answer to this may be that it is exercised when there is a protest.

But is that all there is to Malaysian democracy? Surely, its exercise cannot be so occasional.

Yet, if Malaysians have been exercising their right to democracy, why and how have we been subject to a degenerating regime for the past 50-odd years? We speak of change, but our concept of change can only materialise at the ballot box. In other words, we can only change once every five years.

What about protests? Must democracy only happen when a group of people decides to take the people's voice to the streets? And say, if no one decides to rally up the people, is our only other option for change at the ballot box? Is representative democracy our only option?

Our reaction to this degenerating regime would instinctively be the fact that our leaders are lacking in competence, and that it is their fault that we are in the position that we are in. But, tying this back in with the opening paragraph of this article ― is this really the case?

Is Malaysia degenerating because of what our leaders are doing to us? Or are we degenerating because of what we fail to do?

In a situation where the Malaysian leadership does not change, what other option do we have?

A simple analysis of our leadership structure will show that there are several avenues for the lay Malaysian to be involved in our country's policy-making decisions. All of us have been allocated one member of the state legislative assembly and one Member of Parliament to speak on our behalf at the different levels of government.

With this in sight, participatory democracy becomes far more feasible. Opinions of local communities can simply be gathered and submitted to the leader that the community has voted in. Contrasting this to our former idea of democracy, this other option for continual accountability would seem more manageable and therefore feasible.

Putting the effect of the aforesaid into perspective – what this means is that the needs and wants of local communities for specific policies will be heard by the designated leaders. There will be a clear request from the voters of the constituencies to hold their leaders accountable to.

And depending on what the leader says or does in reaction to these requests, local communities can then decide on what else to do – should the leader respond favourably to the request, the community would have reason to be satisfied with his leadership; and should the leader decide to not respond to the request, the community can properly seek out the reasons for such decisions and correspondingly take further action or make the necessary assessment of his leadership.

The important point, therefore, is this: that by doing so, communities will be able to measure the performance of their leaders, and leaders will be able to measure the specific needs of their communities. In relation to communities – they will then be able to determine how and why the leader has succeeded or failed; and in relation to leaders, they will then know whether or not they have failed.

As to the latter, should the leader be put in the realisation that he has failed his community, he will likewise be put in the lingering realisation that his future as a leader may come to an end.

In short, we can only say that one has failed to fulfill our request when there has been a request made in the first place. Malaysia, there is a need to depart from our unrealistic and immature ways of putting the onus on our leaders to gauge our interests and needs when we to not take the personal responsibility of voicing them out in the first place.

Democracy is a two-way communication. It is a continual two-way communication. Malaysia, we say that this is our country. It's time to start acting as we claim.

* The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the columnist.

What’s in a title?

Posted: 12 Nov 2012 04:14 PM PST

Nov 13 ― I have to admit that I am not really big on titles and honorifics, though I certainly have appreciation for the traditions and institutions behind them. That said, however, I can be quite a stickler for correctness.

I always try, wherever possible, to address or pronounce people's names correctly. After all, it is the least we can do to respect an individual. As a result, I am often vexed whenever I hear the many mangled ways names like Yves, Zegna, Gullit and Solksjaer are pronounced.

And of course, being Malaysian means that my compulsion for correctness is tested on a nearly daily basis, due to the myriad of titles and styles that our class-obsessed society has to deal with. After all, as they say in our country, throw a stone and one is bound to hit a Dato'. Or a Datuk. Now, which exactly is it?

This quandary is a common one that perplexes many Malaysians – what on earth is the difference between Dato' and Datuk? The answer is really quite simple (okay, maybe not that simple). They are both different and the same.

Technically speaking, Dato' and Datuk are both spelt and pronounced the same way in the Jawi script. The problem actually arises from its Romanisation. Yet if it is a simple matter of transliteration, then they should logically be interchangeable. However, this isn't the case because there are some semantic nuances involved as well.

For the sake of correctness, Dato' actually denotes a title awarded by one of the nine Malay Rulers, while Datuk is a title awarded by the Agong or his Governors in the other states. Be that as it may, one would not find this difference in the local newspapers, which use Datuk regardless of origin. This is because the press, for the sake of uniformity, uses a standardised spelling. Presumably so as not to confuse, though I am tempted to say that it probably works to the contrary.

Now that the difference between Dato' and Datuk is clear, can we assume that it is the same case between Dato' Sri and Datuk Seri? Not quite, as it turns out. This is because Dato' Sri is only conferred by the Sultan of Pahang, while the other eight Rulers award Dato' Seri. The equivalent award from the Agong or a Governor would of course be Datuk Seri. Hence, we have Dato' Sri Najib Razak and Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Unfortunately, it does not get any simpler for women. The title used for awardees of the fairer sex is usually the same as their male counterparts – either Dato' or Datuk, though an exception arises when the honour is bestowed by the Sultan of Selangor, in which case it becomes Datin Paduka. The latter, however, should not be mistaken for the wife of a Dato' Paduka from Perlis.

It is slightly less complicated for wives, as they are generally called Datins across the board, regardless of whether their husband is a Dato' or a Datuk. That is, unless the husband received his Dato'ship from Terengganu, in which case the Datin would then be called To' Puan, a title that is not to be confused with Toh Puan (the wife of a Tun).

Subtle differences also exist in the case of the hereditary royal titles of Tengku and Tunku. Like Dato' and Datuk, the Jawi form of these two titles are exactly the same. Similarly as well, they also carry different traditions. With some exceptions, Tunku is generally used by heirs of the royal houses of Kedah, Johor and Negeri Sembilan. The other royal houses use Tengku, except when they use Raja or Syed.

Now that we have the Datuks and Tengkus sorted out, we shall discuss honorary styles. A Datuk is given the style YBhg (Yang Berbahagia) while a Tengku is styled YM (Yang Mulia). But of course the most recognisable style to most Malaysians would have to be YB (Yang Berhormat), which is accorded to members of the federal and state legislatures. Generally, people do not face many problems with the use of styles, except when it comes to translating them into English.

The conundrum that arises is one of context. The question is, should the styles be mere transliterations or should they follow the correct British usage? Being that we are members of the Commonwealth, I would argue for the latter. In which case, ordinary MPs and state assemblymen in Malaysia should not be addressed as The Honourable, as such a style is not used by British MPs. This is a popular misconception arising from the way British MPs use the phrase "the honourable member" as a courtesy when addressing each other in Parliament. In actual fact, a typical British MP is simply addressed as, for example, Mr John Smith MP. It is a solecistic mistake to append the style The Honourable as a direct translation or replacement of the Malaysian style YB.

In our local context, The Honourable as a style is actually only reserved for members of the Federal or State executive, such as Ministers and Executive Council members, as well as Senators and judges of the High Court and above.

Furthermore, and this is where most people get it wrong, our prime ministers or chief ministers should not be referred to as The Right Honourable, which is a style that is only confined to members of the British Privy Council.

So while the British prime minister and Opposition Leader, by virtue of their membership in the Privy Council, are styled The Right Honourable, our own prime minister and chief ministers should only carry the style The Honourable.

This problem derives from our egregious attempt to translate YAB (Yang Amat Berhormat), which is the Malaysian style for PMs and CMs. If so, then the translation should correctly be The Most Honourable rather than The Right Honourable.

This article is not meant to be exhaustive, as it would take a whole tome to explain the proper usage of every Malaysian honorific. I have merely listed some of the more common misunderstandings associated with the various titles and styles used in our society.

And so to cap it off, for the benefit of anyone who may have to emcee an official function or write a letter to a multi-titled individual in the near future, the basic guideline for order of styles and titles in our country is thus: honorary style, professional rank, royal hereditary title, federal title, state title, non-royal hereditary title, Doctor (of medicine or philosophy), Haji or Hajjah, before finally, the least important bit of all in the Malaysian scheme of things, the poor fellow's name.

But if one finds that it is too difficult or cumbersome to remember how who should be called what, then one merely needs to know this general rule of thumb: when in doubt, just call them Dato'. Or Datuk.

* The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the columnist.

Kredit: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com

Selasa, 13 November 2012

The Malaysian Insider :: Opinion

The Malaysian Insider :: Opinion

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan