REVIVAL OF COMMUNISM

by K.Siladass

There is a call to resist the revival of Communism in this country. Communism was popular (clandestinely popular) in many parts of the world in the beginning of and up to the time requiem mass was said, in the now defunct Soviet Union on the Boxing Day of 1991. We cannot ignore the fact that this sudden attention towards Communism is indeed baffling; because, Communism is not an attractive political ideology anymore. There is ample evidence that the anti-Communist feeling has always been strong especially when the issue of God and religion come into play or freedom of thoughts seem inevitable. Because, just like religious indoctrination, communism too believe in similar process, to keep its adherents in tow. Aside that, British colonialism did not tolerate communism in any of its colonies especially in Malaysia, although it had no qualms with the existence of that movement in its own country. In the current political and global scenario there has been significant shift against communism.

If we look at the development of Communism in other countries we could see that, where democratic rights are not suppressed and oppression is not the order of the day, Communism seems not to have been an attractive ideology.

In the Indian state of Kerala, Communist party was voted in to form the State government in 1957. In subsequent elections the party had mixed fortunes - winning and losing. There were also other Indian States where communism was popular but it is no longer the case. The Indian communists are divided, and their popularity had been declining. And they are not a force in India anymore, as they used to be decades ago.

Soviet Union which adopted communism after the First World War, ceased to be a Communist State. East European countries have discarded communism. What happened? Communism could not flourish in a country where the people are able to voice their grievances, and freedom of thought has not been abused or denied, and democracy is respected and is allowed to function.

It is clear that, Communism cannot survive in a country where there is freedom, and the freedom we are talking about is social-economic freedom and freedom of thought and expression, which in turn, assure the people a non-corrupt government, absence of abuse of power; no State inspired racial and religious discrimination. These are the essential qualities that defeated communism everywhere although Malaysia is deficient in all these qualities. Fear in God has also been a decisive factor but not the sole factor. If Malaysia could understand this and act, there is no chance for communism to rise like the mythical phoenix.

Don't look for a fight with them when they no longer exist: to do so is akin to shadow boxing; instead, introduce economic reforms, respect human rights, honour human values and dignity. A dead communism can never be revived.

It is in fact easy to whip up communistphobia to distract the people from the actual issues that are plaguing the country. The government should not cry wolf, and there should not be any attempt to create fear, which could give the government reason to unleash repressive measures.

Just look at the way political opponents were dealt with in Nazi Germany.

On January 30, 1933, Adolf Hilter was named the Chancellor of Germany. The following day, Joseph Goebbels recorded in his diary of the meeting he had had with Hitler when the threat by communists of a revolution was discussed. But, since nothing had happened, it was best not to take any action, they decided. The Bolshevik’s attempt at revolution must first burst into flames. If it could not be provoked, might it not have to be invented? (See William L. Shirer. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, pages 190-191). It can be seen that the Nazis with the aim of destroying the communists were prepared to invent circumstances to give them the necessary grounds to take action against them. We are also told that the fire which destroyed the German Reichstag (Parliament) was the work of the Nazis, but the communists were blamed. (See William Shirer above at page 191).

In the late forties upto the time when Malaysian Communist Party (MCP) signed the Accord with Malaysian Government, our politics was centred around anti-communism. Anything said against the government was branded as communist inspired. The demonisation exercise of political opponents was effectively carried out. But, those days are gone; communism has not any place in our country, and it cannot be our way of political life. If new lesson is needed, look at Hong Kong, where communism has not been able to gain a foothold? There the cry for greater freedom, is loud and clear. We too want our basic freedoms enshrined in our constitution not only honoured but protected.

Therefore, the present Communist revival-fear could be a ploy for fulfilling some other objectives.  There is something more sinister than that what is being represented. It seems that Communistphobia is being resurrected to speed up race and religious based programmes. These are the sinister elements we ought to be very careful. Malaysians will never love communism, but they will fight for their promised constitutional rights.

Fortify and respect the constitutional guarantees, Malaysia will have a perfect Parliamentary democracy. It is when the powers to be ignore basic human rights, evil forces gain upperhand. That should be prevented.

Date: 21.01.2020

MAHATHIR AND TRANSITION OF POWER

by

K.Siladass

"We don't know if the country is ready for a transition of power." So says Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. It must be shocking to many why he said this, and say it at this time. The country will want to know what he meant by, “if the country is ready for transition of power.”

When Mahathir decided to be part of Pakatan Harapan, and showed determination to bring change in the government, the people were ready for the change and indeed voted in PH instead of BN. That, in Malaysian context in no uncertain terms, confirmed the Malaysians' desire to effect and accept a change. A transition from corrupt government to incorruptible government. And where rule of law will be upheld.

We must also remember that on 8th March 2018 writing the Foreword for BUKU HARAPAN Mahathir wrote, among other things:

* we will rebuild the nation and fulfil the hope of the people;

* offer ourselves to shoulder the heavy responsibility of saving the country;

* we are always willing to listen to the advice and opinion of the people;

And most importantly Mahathir concluded by stating that we "cannot hope this regime (Najib's regime) will correct itself. The only way to correct the situation is by bringing in a new government that has the credibility to implement the promises in this manifesto. A CHANGE OF GOVERNMENT WILL CORRECT THE MISTAKES OF THE CURRENT REGIME (Najib 's regime) (Words in brackets mine).

Thus on 9th May 2018 the people accepted the promise Mahathir made on behalf of Pakatan. They wanted the change. They were ready and showed their determination for change of power from the kleptocracts to those who were ready to do the cleaning and provide a government with justice.

Have the people changed their course? No they have not; instead, it was the government under Mahathir’s helm that had deflected from some of the important promises which could have been avoided. 

The Tanjung Piai by-election should be treated,as the people's reminder that, "if we have the courage, and were ready for a change, we still have the courage to whip you back to the correct way should you stray away.

The country was always ready to deny BN power, that is why PH is in. Only you can lose it if people's aspirations are ignored.

Go back to BUKU HARAPAN. Only that can help you back to sustain the trust of the people.

No one needs to fear to do the right thing.

Let fear haunt the wrong doers.

ZAKIR NAIK MUST LEAVE MALAYSIA

By K.Siladass

It is strange that Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad was very quick to accuse Gong Dong, the Chinese educationist group as racists but maintains absolute brutal silence on the daring, mischievous and venomous accusation heaped by the Indian fugitive Zakir Naik on the Malaysian Indians. He has not spared our Chinese brethren, for he brazenly tells them to leave Malaysia. A foreigner whose purported criminal activities had prompted the Indian Government to initiate extradiction proceedings, has the temerity to challenge Malaysians. A foreigner is questioning the Indians’ loyalty and demanding that the Chinese should leave are matters that could ignite racial tension, yet there is no response from the Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs.

The Indian run away fugitive who has been given Malaysian permanent-resident-status had been denied entry in many countries, and Mahathir himself has confirmed this. Mahathir should have studied the reasons why he is denied entry in various countries. The suggestion that foreign criminals could be safe in this country just as other criminals, or those who are suspected to be criminals, seems too real.

Zakir who has no respect for the laws of his country of birth has no qualms to question Malaysian Indians’ loyalty. By abusing the hospitality extended to him,he has thereby shown that his motive is to create discontent among Malaysians. Mahathir is not concerned about this and has not seen it important to condemn Zakir Naik, and he has not come to the defence of Malaysians from the unjustifiable attack by a foreigner, fugitive, wanted by his country.

It is heartening to note that not all Malaysians share Mahathir's intolerable silence. The President of the Persatuan Patriot Kebangsaan, retired Brigadier-General Datuk Mohamed Arshad Raji has condemned Zakir Naik and warned him to keep away from controversy. Zakir Naik is dishonest with hidden agenda. Those who have joined in calling for his removal from Malaysian soil are Tan Sri Rais Yatim, a prominent lawyer, and former cabinet minister, the present minister for Youth and Sports, Syed Saddiq Abdul Rahman, and Mahathir’s daughter Marina. The warning is timely and clear. Zakir has no place under the Malaysian sun. He has to go.

Mahathir should appreciate that Gong Dong is Malaysian by origin, it exists legally and is managed by Malaysian citizens and its concern should be treated with respect. Hurling insensitive remarks would not help.They are not fugitives or the likes of foul and venom spewing Zakir Naik.

Who should leave Malaysia, Kit Siang or Zakir Naik?

Ahmad Fadhki Shaari, MP for Pasir Mas wants Lim Kit Siang, DAP veteran and who has served, and continues to serve as a member of parliament since 1969 to leave Malaysia. This call comes in the wake of Kit Siang urging controversy-prone-preacher Dr Zakir Naik to leave Malaysia and return to India. The call by Pasir Mas MP as a comparison falls flat.

Kit Siang is a Malaysian citizen by virtue of his birth. Zakir Naik is an Indian citizen by birth and he has been given permanent resident status to live in Malaysia. Zakir Naik is a fugitive who had run away from law. Kit Siang is not a run away staying in Malaysia. People like Ahmad Fadhli who languish in false, fabricated and laughable history should know, or at least attempt to learn the truth, the historical truth.

When May 13th riot riots broke out in Kuala Lumpur Kit Siang was away in Kota Kinabalu. He heard of the riots whilst he was there. He could not return as Kuala Lumpur was under curfew, therefore he landed in Singapore. It was then evident that many politicians have had been arrested and detained under the much hated Internal Security Act. And it was very obvious that Kit Siang would be arrested. Here comes the crux of the difference between Kit Siang and Zakir Naik. Kit Siang braved the arrest and returned to Kuala Lumpur fully aware that he will be arrested and detained without trial for an indefinite period. He could have stayed away by not returning to Malaysia. He desisted such a notion.

Now let us look at Zakir Naik's position. He is wanted by Indian authorities to answer criminal charges that had been made against him. There is a warrant for his arrest. He will get a trial, not that he will be detained without any trial. The whole world is watching and is monitoring the Zakir Naik show. Zakir himself has imposed conditions to the effect he should not be detained on arrival in India. So what we have is a situation where Zakir Naik chickens out when it comes to facing the realities of law; but not Kit Siang who bravely walked into facing harsh detestable laws knowing too well he will be detained without any trial.

Member of Pasir Mas (Ahmad Fadhli) should go and read history and learn to distinguish between sand and gold. Sand will be washed away but gold will remain where it is. Zakir Naik is sand, Kit Siang is gold and will remain where he rightly belongs.

K. Siladass

AGEISM-NEED FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION LAW

Speech by K. Siladass

at MCHA Conference on 24^th July 2019 on Healthy Ageing

The general consensus is that it is not the culture of the Asians to be disrespectful to the elders – be it the parents or grandparents, or generally, elderly persons. The younger generation revere the elders, and hold them in high estimation. There is an Arab proverb which says, if you do not have an old man at home buy one.

The great Roman statesman, orator, lawyer ad philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero tells us that during the great Olympiad all seats in the stadium had been occupied, and when an elderly person showed up, the youngsters stood up as a mark of respect and offered their seats. These were the common features in a civilized society. It was unnecessary to enact laws to teach, regulate and instil good manners, to honour the elderly.

Today, even Asian countries are enacting laws to protect their senior citizens. Was it necessary? If that is a wrong question to ask, would it be proper to assume that Western education has actually altered Asians’ mindset, especially relating the veneration extended to the elders, generally. In dealing with the Western education I am mindful of the benefits the human kind had derived through it: but what could be very distressing is the changes that had occurred after two world wars which had indeed caused attitude related difficulties that seem insurmountable.

We, Asians know that there were discriminations everywhere, even after countries had been decolonized the new national government were slow or totally disregarded any notion to eradicate every form of discrimination. And discrimination were of varied kind, and nationalism was gaining popularity. And there was strong movement towards racism, and racism blended with religion became too popular. And because popular too. We were growing accustomed to racism, and sexism. The West was arming itself against discrimination wherever it may be found. United Nations and human rights organization were devising methods to combat discrimination of every form. And Asians too were looking at the ways discrimination could be arrested: notwithstanding the fact, in Asian countries legalized discrimination was a norm, in the name of race or religion, or both.

There was one area where US seemed uncomfortable and that is the abuse and discrimination against elders. Although, race discrimination was rampant one incident showed that discrimination is not confined to race, or religion for that matter. The elders were being discriminated in a subtle manner and this was highlighted by Robert Neil Butler in his article “Age-Ism: Another Form of Bigotry.”

Butler referred to the National Capital Housing Authority’s proposal¹ to purchase Regency House, a high-rise apartment building in Chevy Chase for the elderly poor, and held hearings on its proposal. The hearings were attended by middle class and middle-aged white citizens of Chevy Chase and they were against the purchase of luxury housing with a swimming pool on the roof of the Regency Hotel for older people who were not accustomed to luxury. Some of the statements made at the hearings were published in the local newspapers and they were:-

                        “You would open the door for people who don’t know how to live.”

“Slums are made by the people who live in them.”

“It (public housing) has to come sometimes but not this time or in this place.”

“I am not against old folks, believe me.”

“Who wants all those old people around?”

Butler went on to explain that the use of Regency House for the elderly poor carried implications beyond Chevy Chase: The classic or scapegoat explanation for prejudice turns upon the unconscious effort to justify one’s own weaknesses by finding them in other – in other races, religious, or nationalities. Personal insecurity, once generalized, becomes the basis of prejudice and hostility.²

Butler added:

“Age-ism describes the subjective experience implied in the popular notion of the generation gap. Prejudice of the middle-aged against the old in this instance, and against the young in others, is a serious national problem. Age-ism reflects a deep seated uneasiness on the part of the young and middle-aged-a personal revulsion to and distaste from growing old, disease, disability; and fear of powerlessness, ‘uselessness’, and death.

“Cultural attitudes in our society reinforce these feelings. We have chosen mandatory retirement from the work force and thus removed the elderly from the mainstream of life. Age-ism is manifested in the taunting remarks about “old fogeys,” in the special vulnerability of the elderly to muggings and robberies, in age discrimination in employment independent of individual competence, and in the probable of inequities in the allocation of research funds.”

At that time, in 1969, Butler confined ageism as parallel to racism. But in 1987, Butler defined ageism “as a process of systematic stereotyping and discrimination against people because they are old, just as racism and sexism accomplish this for skin colour and gender.”³

Butler did express his concern about “the probable inequities in the allocation of research funds.”

Since the term ageism had evoked considerable attention, as the literature on ageism had been steadily increasing, but not plenty as that on racism or sexism. The database Psychinfo, contained 3,111 articles on racism, 1385 articles on racism, 1385 articles on sexism and only 294 articles on ageism.⁴

The articles on ageism devote much attention on examining Butler’s definition which seemed too wide. There are suggestions that ageism should be restricted aimed at protecting the elders from abuse and humiliation. And in deserving cases they should be respected and their talent recognized with proper reward.

There is admittedly some confusion as to the definition of the term ageism, and it has been pointed out that it “is distinct in many ways from other isms.”⁵ I am inclined to this view as racism is against other races altogether whereas sexism is against women generally. Ageism is relative to age. A person when he is young, strong and useful society will like him or her: but, when aging process reaches a point of no return the discrimination is too obvious. This could be seen from some of the ways elderly people had been dealt with.

A letter to The Guardian in 1989 complained that the writer’s aunt sought medical treatment from the NHS for her varicose veins which had begun to be painful. The specialist told her that she could not have the operation to replace the damaged veins with artificial ones because it was not advisable for a person of her age to have an operation! Furthermore, the operation for varicose veins was essentially a cosmetic one and therefore normally reserved for younger women who needed to keep their husbands happy. The letter ended with a question: “Is this official NHS policy?” ⁵

We are not to be left out in this type of saga in Malaysia. Thomas Foo in his letter to New Straits Times wrote:

“A week ago, my wife, who is in her 70s, had a fainting spell after her walk. I took her to a private hospital, where the doctor recommended that she be admitted for some scans and tests. It turned out that there was nothing serious. I went to the admission counter to process her admission procedures. In spite producing a credit card to pay for the bill, I was asked to act as a guarantor and to produce another guarantor. My sister-in-law, a retired headmistress, offered to be a guarantor, but she was rejected since she was above 60. This requirement is disturbing as elderly people without children or those with children living abroad will have problems looking for guarantors.”

There are a plethora of description demeaning the elderly: for example: “dirty old man”; “second childhood”; “old age symptoms showing”; “fussy old man”; “grey tsunami” and other terms.

Aside the demeaning description of the elderly there have been remarks suggestive that the elderly had outlived their usefulness. The improved life span, to those who complain that the elderly are a burden on the economy have not been very kind. We have a British novelist Martin Amis who compared the growing army of elderly to “an invasion of terrible immigrants, stinking out the restaurants and cafes and shops.” Christopher Buckley, is an American author, and both, Amis and Buckley encourage euthanasia. Amis has offered “a Martini and a Medal,” and Buckley suggested “tax breaks” for euthanasia volunteers.

The Economist editorial pointed out that “Amis and Buckley are right to warn about the threat of the ‘Silver tsunami’. Most people understand about the ageing society in the abstract. But few have grasped the size of tsunami or the extent of its consequences.”

The comparison of aging with tsunami was indeed distressing least to say; for, how could one equate the natural aging with disaster which is also natural. Tsunami causes disasters, and how could old age cause similar violence. Was the editorial suggesting that aging would have terrible consequences such as that of tsunami in Japan?

But, it would be wrong to single out Economist alone who had embarked on a journey to vilify the elderly people: In June 1989, The Guardian in its editorial categorically stated that, “we must see old men, constitutionally and not in further chaos, defeated and removed.”

If we look at all these we could reasonably conclude that abuse against elderly person is rampant in this country. And ageism has also entered into Asian region.

India, which is known as the bastion for respecting and honouring elderly people had to pass laws to protect the elderly. The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 makes it a legal obligation of children to provide for their elderly parents, abandoning them is a criminal offence. The Indian law aim to protect biological, adoptive or step-parent, grand-parents, or senior citizens over 60 years who cannot maintain themselves, can claim maintenance.

Senior citizens who do not have children can claim maintenance from an adult relative who is in possession of their property or will inherit the property on their death.

Malaysia too has similar problems. Children abandoning parents after taking away their savings or have property transferred to them. Most of the disabled old parents end up in charitable homes. I would urge the Government to look to India as a model to enact similar law as the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 so that the elders will not be left in the lurch.

……       end      ……

Notes:

¹See Age-Ism: Another form of Bigotry

²ibid

³In the Encyclopedia of Aging

⁴Thomas Nicolai Iversen, Lars Larsen, Per Erik Solem: A conceptual analysis of Ageism

⁵Quoted by Bill Bytheway and Julia Johnson in their article On Defining Ageism