Long Live P. Ramlee

Fellow comrades,


On Tuesday, we marked the 34th anniversary of P. Ramlee's passing. The brilliant/legendary/genius composer/actor/director/musician has entertained millions of Malaysians and others around the world with his acting/songs/movies and continues to do so ever since his untimely death on 29 May 1973 at the age of 44. He was, is and will always be loved by everyone especially Malaysians and particularly for his wonderful movies. My earliest memories are of the funny scenes and catchlines from Bujang Lapok, Madu Tiga, Tiga Abdul, Ahmad Albab, and many, many more. His shows remain fresh and hilarious, despite being rerun every year by the RTM1. And I do mean EVERY year. His dramas touched on the hardships of life faced by the ordinary bloke in the days of yore Malaya and even today the problems he showcased can still be related to.

I only realised the moral messages hidden among the quips and wisecracks in his movies a few years ago when I bought a whole bunch of his movies on VCD to bring to Canberra. As I sat in the Burton & Garran Hall computer lab watching Pendekar Bujang Lapok, trying my best not to burst out laughing at almost every sentence uttered by Ramlee, Sudin and Ajis, I began to realise the lessons that P. Ramlee was trying to convey. Ethnic relations, marital problems, post-colonial development, familial ties, religion, et cetera. All these issues were touched upon one way or another in his movies. Be it in the witty remarks (e.g. Apa oi oi oi oi. Lu taktau ka bahasa melambangkan bangsa?) or the more dramatic ones (e.g. Mengapa tidak kau dilahirkan sebagai binatang?) every sentence had its purpose and beckons the audience to think. If I were a lecturer, doesn't matter what or where I teach, I'll be sure to include a scene or two from one of his movies. I'm sure we can all learn more on how to be a better person watching his movies than listening to a lecture on Neo-Cons for an hour.

Oddly enough, I find a divergence among my peers on the level of interest that they have on P. Ramlee's works. There are those who say his flicks belong to the era that they were made; that we can no longer subscribe to any of the message that his movies bring, regardless of whether they've actually watched a single scene. Although they seem to be able to appreciate the works of Charlie Chaplin, Noel Coward and Beethoven. Budget modern/Western laa konon.

Yet, thankfully, there are still those who are wise enough to appreciate P. Ramlee's oeuvre and the gems that are hidden in every scene in his movies and every line in his songs. Although most of those who do are from P. Ramlee's generation, I do hope that his works will continue to inspire and engender greater understanding among Malaysians in the future. Probably continuing to rerun his movies every year and/or naming an airport after him will do the trick. Heck, if it was up to me, when I go back to Malaysia this year, I'll be landing at P. Ramlee International.

For more insights into his personal life, here's a very recent interview with his son, Nasir. Also, transcripts of his movies are currently being compiled and kept for future references. I'd love to see it be made public on a website or sold as a book. I'll be first in line on the day it's released. Sadly, I'll never be able to get it signed by the author.

Godspeed,
Fadli

One who cannot be patient for a moment will have days and months of trouble (Chinese proverb)

Fellow comrades,

An update on the impending Singaporean PM's visit to Malaysia quoted our Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar as saying that another issue that will be discussed won't be as contentious as the others but is just as important: the Iskandar Development Region. Not knowing that much about the IDR, I visited its website. The layout of the webpage was nice although the content was slightly amatuerish. On the right hand corner, the IDR was said to offer investors, among other things, "our resources" and that "we are pro business" (surprisingly blatant). The website seemed up-to-date and had a link to a recently updated (19 April 2007) FAQ section. From the website, I understand that the IDR's main purpose are to fully exploit the logistic triangle: Senai Airport (North), Port of Tanjung Pelepas (South West) and Johor Port (South East) as well as allowing foreign companies to take advantage of the Indonesia-Malaysia-Singapore Growth Triangle (IMS-GT) around it. Having a free trade area of sorts may lure in foreign investors, pretty much like Hong Kong. Nevertheless, prudence is necessary. Already there are discontent among certain sectors of the community, namely the Malays and more particularly Tun Mahathir, when the government decided to make the IDR truly adopt the ideals of a "free trade area" and not have any affirmative action policies in place. The government gave ground and set up a "Social Action Fund" that will be managed by the Iskandar Regional Development Authority. Investors might be a little worried about this and, with the ease of capital flight nowadays, decide to invest elsewhere. Although, "elsewhere" might need 'patient capital' as well.

Godspeed,
Fadli

Eye on Singapore

Fellow comrades,

NST reported today that Pak Lah and Singaporean PM Lee Hsien Loong have decided on having a cruise together next Tuesday at Langkawi. According to our Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar, the "get together" was held because "the Singaporean Prime Minister expressed a desire to visit Malaysia" and Pak Lah decided to invite him over. Considering the current "warm" relations that we're having with the island Republic, the FM suggested that it was pertinent that the "outstanding" issues that we have with Singapore i.e. water sold to Singapore, KTM Berhad land in Singapore and the use of Malaysian airspace by the Singapore Air Force; be resolved. Although he said that no set agenda was planned, the mentioning of these issues seem to suggest that they would be the hot topic during the get-together. It would be hard to expect much from this meeting as PM Lee will only be here for a night. Lets look at the outstanding issues and see how important they are to our interests:

1. Water sold to Singapore - Half of Singapore's water comes from Malaysia through agreements that runs until 2061 and 2061. We've been selling it at $0.007 per 1000 gallons while they've sold treated water back to us for $0.13 per 1000 gallons. Although they've been accused of profiteering from this deal, Singapore has argued that the cost of treating water is much higher and in fact they're the one who's losing money. Most recently, when the crooked/scenic/farcical bridge negotiations were at its peak, Singapore's Second Foreign Minister Raymond Lim mentioned how the demolition and replacement of Malaysia's side of the causeway would result in the disruption of the pipeline that has been used to send our water to Singapore. Pak Lah mentioned back then that they've always been worried about us cutting their water supply although it has never been our policy to do so. I've remember clearly reading in a foreign publication that we've actually been using the water issue as a bullying tactic to force Singapore in submitting to our every wishes. Clearly, our Cabinet's decision to scrap the bridge plan dismisses this suggestion. Singapore has been building water recycling and desalination plants in order to alleviate its dependence on our water supply. We may lose this bargaining chip in a few years since they've been so good at making their own water to the point where they might even be exporting them soon.

2. KTM Berhad land - I remember reading in a foreign publication once that we've removed a sign that said "Selamat Datang ke Malaya" from that plot of land as a nice gesture to the Singaporeans. Now they want us to remove everything else that we own there. This is a very complicated issue that can find its roots from the days of yore when the Brits were still in power. This article has a very detailed explanation in the last few paragraphs. Suffice it to say and if I'm right: we have land there that we may not legally own if we don't use - they want it - they're willing to exchange it for another plot of land that's of equal value - for some reason we don't want to let go of it. Beats me.

3. Use of Malaysian airspace by the Singapore Air Force - this issue probably gained prominence most recently when Singapore wanted it as part of the bridge agreement. Our FM has reportedly said that allowing this won't affect our sovereignty. How that can be justified is unclear to me. Although I would have to say that should the roof on my house be invisible, I'd be a tad worried. And allowing my neighbour to watch me from above while I'm on the throne is the least of my worries.

An additional issue brought up by former Culture, Arts and Tourism Minister today:

4. The return of Central Provident Fund (CPF) to Malaysians who were employed in Singapore - reportedly, Malaysians have contibuted RM$2 billion to Singapore's CPF. Legally, Singapore is on the right as the pensioners agreed to having the CPF taken from their wages before being employed. So, what they actually want is for Singapore to be nice and give them back that money for them to live out the rest of their days in comfort.

Clearly, there have been plenty of mistrust and disagreement between our two countries even before our separation in 1963. Hopefully the future bodes well for us. Our people share a lot of things in common, last of which is hatred for one another. Should our leaders take note of this, maybe the rhetorics can be toned down and the benefits that a closer partneship can bring about, particularly on both our economies, will be realised.


Godspeed,
Fadli

Sukhoi Sensation

Fellow Comrades,



Tun Mahathir's interview with Malaysiakini, published on 9 May 2007, provided an interesting note on the Defence Ministry's "purchase" of 18 Russian-made Sukhoi jet fighters supposedly worth $900 million. Tun M said that the purchase was made through "local agents" appointed by the Russians. Who are these "local agents"? We probably won't know for sure. But this is probably one of many questions that I, along with the public, ponder upon about this purchase. Probably it's one of those deals that shouldn't have been known to the public in the first place.

This article made me think about several things: Were the $900 million the total sum of 19 jet fighters or part of a bigger deal which involved sending our first astronaut into space? Or more simply, what is the breakdown of the $900 million? If the sum total of the 18 jets is $900 million, which makes each jet worth $50 million, how come the Vietnamese only got the same type of jets for $30 million? On the other hand, if the deal included the astronaut's flight ONLY, then wouldn't that make the cost of sending the astronaut $360 million? Or was the higher cost for the jets due to the extra requirements of the Su-30MKM jets that we asked for e.g. replacing the Israeli electronic countermeasure in the jets with those from South Africa? On another note, who had the last word in making the purchase? Was it really agreed upon after Russian President Vladimir Putin met Tun M in Kuala Lumpur? Was it Najib's decision? Was it the Defence Ministry's decision? The answers to these questions might not be known to the public for a very long time, if ever. This is probably the first arms purchase that has generated so much attention in Malaysia. That's only because the Defence Minister has somehow been implicated and charged with profiting from the deal. Did he really? The questions just keep coming.

Godspeed,
Fadli

Greg Sheridan (heart) Pak Lah

Fellow comrades,

I haven't blogged for a loooonggg while. But here goes.

The opinion page in The Australian a few days ago had Greg Sheridan, " the most influential foreign affairs analyst in Australian journalism", writing about his latest interview with Pak Lah. As before, he praised Pak Lah's calm, pragmatic and dignified demeanour. It seems typical of Western analysts to praise those they deem to be "moderate" or, more correctly, "quite". They despise of loud and tough leaders like Tun M and Robert Mugabe.

Rightly so. It is clear that those gung-ho leaders speak as they do just for their respective domestic audience. Sure, they'll get the respect and fear they crave, but this also risks scampering away foreign investors. Nevertheless, their ideas and words should not be disregarded completely eventhough its primary purpose is as rhetoric.

The injustices that the First World has imposed on the Third World should not be taken lightly and seen as an argument for a bygone era. In fact, it is now more pertinent than ever that we question the underlying purpose of First World exports. And I don't mean Big Mac or IPOD. I mean liberal democracy and free trade. Not to say that the imposition of these ideas as part of Third World government policy has not been beneficial. But it is necessary to consider the impact that it has had when imposed fully and freely. Indonesia's racial riots in 1998 serves as a good example of what can happen. Probably Mohammed Ayoob's idea of subaltern realism or Amy Chua's thesis in her book "World on Fire" can serve as thinking points for those Western analysts and Malaysians espousing the goodness of having full-fledged democracy in Third World countries.

That's all for now folks.

Godspeed,
Fadli