BAT TOWN PROJECT

(speech delivered by K.Siladass to officiate this event on 22^nd December 2013)

I am very delighted that a group of youngsters from Kluang have shown immense creativity in thought and action by organising this Bat Town Project. These youngsters of Kluang have shown that there is always a correct way in life and pursue that course to better and reach greater heights. A very thoughtful attitude and approach at a very young age.

It is not an exaggeration if I were to say that we see youths in great numbers who have lost their way and found themselves in activities which are socially and legally incorrect. The organizers of this event have shown, given a chance their energies individually and jointly could be directed to activities which could benefit the society, and the country as a whole.

By dedicating their energy in re-discovering Kluang, I believe it is the first step in right direction to acquire more knowledge and bring it to the notice of the whole Malaysia and the world. History is all about the past. Sometimes history is lost under the weight of ignorance and disinclination to know and understand the past. These children are indeed reminding us of the necessity to understand, appreciate and treasure the past. I am confident that other towns would emulate our young organisers.

When I first came to this town in the mid-fifties I was just
passing by which was forced upon me. The train service between Labis and the south had been interrupted because of derailment caused by terrorist activities. We had to travel in military truck from Labis to Kluang and here I had to take a cab. At that time it was a small town
surrounded with many plantations of rubber trees. When passing by it did not strike me I will return to Kluang one day.

However, a few years later, may be at the end of 1957 I returned to Kluang and not long after that I began to work as clerk in a law firm along Jalan Ismail. I am told by the organisers of this event that they have begun their discovery along Jalan Ismail.

It is in No. 19, Jalan Ismail, I first met the late Chelvasingham McIntyre, who was then the High Commissioner for India. Before entering the diplomatic services, McIntyre was an active lawyer with an office in Kluang and that too at Jalan Ismail. McIntyre would, in later years, become the judge of the High Court in Malaya and the Federal Court. He also served as the head of the Industrial Tribunal.

It is at No. 19, Jalan Ismail, I began my legal career.

Along the same road, just beside the Chinese School there was a law firm of M.P.D. Nair & Co. M.P.D Nair was a prominent politician in Singapore and he had also served as a Minister in the Labour Front Government in the
mid-fifties.

Jalan Ismail is noted for its other important occupant. Dr. Wee Lee Fong, my friend, practised medicine on one of the premises along Jalan Ismail. Dr. Wee Lee Fong, a soft spoken medical practitioner, was the Secretary-General of the Labour Party of Malaya and a very fiery speaker.

I left Kluang in the late fifties and returned in July 1964 and continued as a legal clerk at 12, Jalan Lambak, Kluang. Once again I left Kluang in the early seventies to read law. My law firm began the practice on the same premises in 1987 and continues to be there. The number of premises had changed but not the structure.

Perhaps the youngsters who have boldly ventured into this marvellous project must also give impetus to nature and beautify the town. Nature by itself is beautiful and let us not destroy it. It is nature which gives us the encouragement to see things in better perspective. Nature is a great artist and we all derive our inspiration from it. So let us not destroy it. Gunung Lambak is a natural beauty providing immense rich scenes in the mornings and evenings when lights add further glamour to the town. Another important feature we need to acknowledge is the significant role played by Kluang Rail which had its humble beginning at Kluang Railway Station in 1938, and the aroma of its coffee has spread throughout the country. There are many out of Kluang who express their enthusiasm to visit Kluang just to taste the rail coffee.

One of the direct descendants of the founder of Kluang Railway Station Coffee Shop, Mr. Jack Lim, still holds the family tradition and had indeed spread the aroma of rail coffee to various places in Kluang itself. Kluang Rail has become synonymous with Kluang Town.   

I wish the organisers the best in their endeavour and I am confident they will succeed. And I am also confident that the citizens of Kluang will wholeheartedly support this project and the organisers.

These are the youths with whom the future of Malaysia is destined. And I am confident that these youngsters are the symbol of the future with dynamic mind and dynamic future.

I am glad and honoured to declare open this worthwhile project.

MANDELA A BEACON FOR MALAYSIA

K. Siladass

The sad news that Nelson Mandela had become part of nature would bring sadness to those who had vigorously opposed racism, religious fanaticism and views based on colour of the skin and continue to do so. When the minority white regime in South Africa practised apartheid thus suppressing and oppressing the basic rights and dignity of the majority black race Mandela fought against it and for that he was incarcerated for more than a quarter of a century.

Upon his release from prison, considering the welfare of South Africa and the people he sowed the seed of reconciliation and found oneness in the people and in South Africa.

It is said that at one time when the South African Constitutional court declared that a law approved by Mandela, when he was President was a nullity, he instructed his legal advisers that the court’s decision should be followed. This illustrates the respect he had for justice. He did not condemn those (judges) who nullified his legislation, and his acceptance of the verdict brings out the magnanimity that resided within him. He believed in justice and justice can only mean that it is for all.

Unlike those, who, once having achieved power refused to let it go this Nobel prize la ureate served as President of South Africa only once and retired, spending the rest of his life serving the country and the people. He showed the world that political power is not the only means by which good things can be done.

The most important treasure Mandela had bequeathed to the human race is his ever oozing humane consideration. Although he was deprived of liberty at a young age by forces which implemented racist policies, but upon attaining freedom he did not show any animosity or hatred towards the minority white race which was instrumental to those ignominious laws: instead, he brought them into his fold and showed the world all can live happily as one family. This is a lesson to racists and religious fanatics.

Should Malaysia follow Mandela’s broad minded, meaningful and  useful approach it can achieve national reconciliation. On the world stage Malaysia claims to be a modern country. This is not enough, it must have the political will to declare and implement laws to show that there is no place for racism or religious fanaticism in this land of multiple races, religions and cultures.

It is no use crying over Mandela’s death or giving lip service to racial and religious understanding. Would his sacrifice and devotion to peace and human understanding be respected and his efforts carried on? Looking from that point of view one could say in a multi-racial, and multi-religious and multi-cultural Malaysia Mandela can be a beacon.

                           

Mandela is a time which had merged with nature. Memories remain. His work and his thoughts towards a better human relationship must continue. If the human race could continue that journey of Mandela that would be the greatest respect the human race can show Nelson Mandela.  

Dated: 11.12.2013

FRAUD AND MALINGERING IN THE

DISABILITY - COMPENSATION PROCESS

K.SILADASS

of Lincoln’s Inn Barrister-at-law;

of States of Malaya,

Advocate and Solicitor

Many years ago a person who suffered fractures to his tibia, fibula and femur in an accident called on his solicitor on the eve of the trial. He had recovered well from his injuries. He could walk without the aid of crutches, although there was slight noticeable limp. However, on the day of the trial he arrived in court on crutches. His lawyer was shocked; pulled him aside and asked: “What happened? You were perfectly alright yesterday, you had no use of the crutches: but why today?”

The answer the injured gave was: “The judge must know how painful it is to suffer injuries to the legs!”

Counsel realised that if he were to put his client in the witness box he would damage his own case. Hence began a quick negotiation with the defence counsel, conceded insignificant degree of contributory negligence and settled the matter. After settling the matter counsel for the defence remarked: “Your client was seen playing football without crutches last evening.” 

The word "fraud" means criminal deception, the use of false representation to gain an unjust, advantage, a dishonest artifice or trick; hence the word imports criminal intent. It is not my intention to give the word fraud its meaning as it is understood in the ordinary way, but to look at its function in claims for damages whereby the word ‘fraud” could have a meaning bordering an intent which is avarice with a shade of deception.

The word “fraud” used here does not refer to the “fraud” defined as having criminal intent; but, we must look at that word within the context of personal injury claims where it could acquire a meaning identifying an intent to lie, malinger to enhance one’s claim for damages resulting from accidents. This fraud and malingering, to my mind, are two words with the same intent and that is to magnify the pain and suffering and the resulting physical disability to an extent which is ordinarily unthinkable. If a person does a thing knowing it is wrong yet does it with the intention to deceive, if it is not cheating than what is it?

Needless to say that where the injuries are severe and expert evidence is sought in order to measure the level of pain and suffering: that, I believe is entering into a subjective arena. We are unable to ascertain the extent of the pain an injured person undergoes and the suffering resulting from the pain. The medical experts could carry out various tests to ascertain, verify the extent of the pain and suffering resulting from disabilities, but if the injured person feigns pain which is not there how could the medical expert confirm that a person degree of pain. I am not aware of any equipment that could be used to measure pain and suffering.

In normal parlance the word "pain" is defined as a strongly unpleasant bodily sensation such as is produced by illness, injury, or other harmful physical contact etc., the condition of hurting. Examples are given of a particular kind or instance of pain and that is suffering from stomach pains, mental suffering or distress. Turning to the word "suffering" we find it means undergoing pain, grief, damage. Thus, we can come to the conclusion that pain leads to suffering and suffering emanates from pain and both pain and suffering come from one source and that is injury.

We also know that an injury will cause pain but suffering could be different because of the nature of the injury or injuries the pain could be lingering on with the attendant suffering. Therefore, lawyers and judges decided that pain and suffering should go together. Thus, in law pain and suffering are fused and indivisible[1].  However, when it comes to a person who is paralysed, he no longer experiences pain but would suffer psychological discomfort for being unable to move around. Where it is paralysis, or where the injured person had suffered severe injuries it is possible he or she may have lost the sensation: thus, no pain, but the element of emotional pain and strain cannot be discarded, and we are in a dilemma as to how to assess the emotional pain, yet the law recognizes the fact that the suffering in such cases is inevitable.

Let us take the case of a person who is paralyzed from waist downwards. There is no sensation and he experiences no physical pain; but when he thinks of his disability the emotional stress is a terrible pain which needs to be compensated and that is the best the law could do.

On the other hand a person would have suffered serious compound fracture to his femur and tibia and fibula, they may have healed with the bones united but the patient could continue to complain that he experiences pain on and off. The doctor believes him and prescribes some pain killer. Today, with the advancement of physiotherapy, the patient could be advised that he should go for some simple exercise which could eventually alleviate the pain. Would the patient go for physiotherapy or would he be contented by taking pain killer retaining the pain so that he could get better compensation?

We all know that doctors will give their opinion based on the patient's injuries, how well the wounds have healed satisfactorily and when he should be fit to resume his duties.

Can doctors go wrong in their findings? The quick answer should be: No. Doctors only record the findings of the injuries to the body. What about the damage to the mind? I believe this may take some time to evaluate with constant observations on the behaviour of the patient. But, there have been cases where doctors too had gone made incorrect findings. There was a case when a young man of eighteen years old suffered fracture to his leg tibia, fibula and femur. They were very bad. The orthopedic surgeon who examined him noticed that the young man spoke with a stammer, and strangely he concluded that the stammer was a result of the injuries he had sustained. When checked with the young man’s father he confirmed that his son had the stammer since childhood.

So what do we so? We could go back to the surgeon and point out that the stammer was there before the accident, and this would embarrass the doctor. Since this expert opinion had already been forwarded to the insurer’s solicitors what would be their opinion if we were to hold on to the report and go to court. It was obvious the whole of the surgeon’s report would have been subjected to critical scrutiny and the chances of it being totally discarded were staring at us. A quick conversation with the insurer’s solicitors was had and a compromise reached. The stammer would not be taken into account and the matter was settled on the basis of the injuries to the fractures.

The patient is gainfully employed. Because of the accident his income is not reduced, as he is paid; but will not the subjective element of pain and suffering lead him to mislead everyone and feign pain. This kind of situation arises where the patient's doctor gives one opinion and which opinion is doubted (or challenged) by the insurers' doctors. Perhaps we should find a median course to have specialist appointed by the court to assess the extent of the disabilities, in case the parties themselves cannot come to decision on the selection of a neutral expert. This is the recommendation made at the convention of a similar seminar a few months ago.

The present problem is that those who have suffered injuries in an accident do not see the situation as a misfortune. They think it is a God sent or windfall. Perhaps a lottery.

The rational underscoring the concept of damages is to compensate the victims which would help to rehabilitate them and return to society with hope to continue to enjoy life as before. Compensation is meant to help recover from a hopeless situation into a hopeful future.

I would say that when an injured person exaggerates, or feign continuous pain and suffering that is in fact malingering, and to some extent committing a fraud they go hand in hand.

It is true that accident victims tend to imagine incapabilities and illness thinking that the state of affair would increase the amount of damage. Partly this is due to the fact that solicitors themselves who are acting for injured persons in order to retain their clients’ confidence give false hopes and they in turn become a source of infinite irritation.

As I have pointed out earlier the compensation for injuries are meant to help the victims to return to society; although they may have suffered serious incapacities. Incapacities could be either transients or permanent. What is happening is that transient disabilities turn out to be permanent disabilities and this could only happen when the injured person with a view to increase his chances of better compensation feign his physical disabilities. This has been said to be a sort of compensation neurosis, meaning, because of the compensation he is expecting the injured person is unable to accept the fact that he has been cured but imagines that his disabilities are continuing and are severe. You can send him to the very best physician or surgeon in the country but the psychological compensation neurosis is hard to be cured. It can only  cured with the compensation and that too with huge compensation. I believe he should be the best candidate for few visits for psychiatric evaluation. 

Pure malingering is a situation when the injured person anticipating compensation would stay away from work. But, look at a situation where a person falls off at his home and fractures his leg. He cannot go to work, and since the accident happened outside the place of employment and not during the course of employment he will not get any compensation. He would not be entitled to social security benefits. Perhaps, social security should also consider claims of this nature. But, let us see the victim’s right as it is. He has no personal accident insurance coverage, no hospitalization benefits. He has a family to support. What would he do? He will want to get back to work as quickly as possible. That is the position, I believe, when one is in real distress. Compare his position with an injured person in a road accident involving a motor vehicle you can see the different mental attitude.

Another common area where insurance claim fraud could be very prevalent but gone undetected is the damage to vehicle. I have in one of my essays titled: “Accident victims and Their Plight” highlighted the problems that haunt the legal profession [and fortunately here the doctors are spared of their opinion] and the insurance companies.

In his keynote address at a similar seminar held recently Tun Hamid Mohamad, the former Chief Justice of Malaysia pointed out that:

“The claim ratios for the third-party bodily injury and death have exceeded 200% since 2006. For the year 2012, the premium received by the insurance and takaful industry for third party bodily injury is RM832.6 million while claims amounted to RM2.02 billion which gave the claim ratio of 242.1%.[2]”

This is a daunting figure and we must ask the question who is at fault? In personal injury cases one judge canvases magnanimity in awarding damages without realizing accidents are facts of life and in a world imbued in science and technology accidents have become part of the natural hazards and perfect compensation is not the answer. Equating damages for personal injury with defamation, that is to say, injury to one’s reputation is wide off the mark. Physical damage to the body and injury to reputation are poles apart. Bodily injury would heal but the injury to one’s reputation inflicted by word of mouth or by writing can never be equaled; for defamatory injury is deliberate whereas bodily injury is accidental. This distinction should not be lost sight of.

Returning to the manner repairs to damages vehicles I would relate a couple of cases which have been brought to my notice.

In one instance there was an accident and the front part of the car was damaged. The insurers decided to write off. Paid off the insured. As far as the insured was concerned the matter ended there; but it did not. A few years later a letter comes stating that road tax and insurance had been renewed and that too under his name who had transferred away all his interests in the car. The insured wrote to the Road Transport Department and placed it on record that he is no longer the owner having signed away ownership some years ago. No response. Letters to the insurance company too produced total silence.

After another few years arrives another letter indicating the renewal of the insurance and road tax under the name who had parted with his interest. He decided to go to court and get a declaration that he is no longer the owner of the vehicle. The insurance company appeared and finally settled the matter on paying costs. The consent order was sent to the Road Transport Department. Some years later arrived a letter from the Road Transport Department and the insurance about the renewal of insurance and the road tax. Once again the Road Transport Department was reminded of the sequence of events and the order of the court that had been obtained. I leave the entire matter to your imagination.

The second case is where there was an accident and the coverage had excess clause. The repairer ensured that the insured need not pay the excess, he would take care.

I could not think of any better examples but to show how deep fraudulent activities have seeped into the area of damage to vehicles and the cost of repairs. How do you think this sad state of affair could be avoided?

Would it be appropriate that anti-corruption legislation should be extended to private sectors too?

I would conclude my presentation with two cases: One was a lady of about thirty odd years. She met with an accident when she was about twenty eight years old. She was married and had children. Her main injuries were to her leg which had healed without any residual disability. The other injuries were, according to the medical reports to her forehead. She was offered a sum of thirty thousand ringgit, and this is in the mid-eighties and the offer was fair; but the client was not happy and she came to me. She complained about the injuries to her face. I took a closer look but could not trace any scar. She was still with her husband and they were living happily. I brought out a file on a girl of less than eighteen years old a victim of hit-and-run. Her two legs had to be amputated. MIB offered an ex-gratis payment of ten thousand ringgit. I showed this young lady sitting in front of me of the agony the little girl is going through and having  lost her two legs she is only offered ten thousand ringgit whereas you should be more that satisfied with the offer made compared to the girl’s injuries yours were indeed insignificant. She said she will accept.

In another case a young man from Singapore was injured very severely in an accident. Completely paralyzed from the waist below. Although he was awarded a substantial sum he donated the entire proceeds to charitable organizations.

I started off by telling you about a Claimant who had suffered injuries to his lower limbs. I will conclude with an anecdote of a person who had injuries to his upper limb.

A plaintiff whose hand was injured in an accident was giving evidence in court on his claim for damages. His counsel asked him: “After the accident how high can you raise your arm?” The plaintiff with great difficulty and grimace on his face raised his arm upto shoulder high. In cross-examination he was asked: “Before the accident how high could you have raised your arm?” He raised his arm to the fullest.

Ladies and Gentlemen that is the inherent hazard in legal profession.

---

[1]   See H. West & Son Ltd v. Shephard [1963] 2 All ER 625 at 633

[2]  Infoline January, 2011

FOREIGN MUSLIMS & SYARIAH

A foreign Muslim seems to be immune to all the Syariah laws that are applied against Muslims in this Country. For instance, (khalwat) proximity between Muslim and non-Muslim is an offence. Many people, from ordinary to law makers and enforcement officers have had been hauled before Syariah courts for their amorous activity within the four-walls away from the public eye. But, a foreigner, a Muslim, who had lived with a non-Muslim and had a child by such a relation in this country, Syariah seems hesitant to act.

If it was a Malaysian Muslim, the Islamic Religious Department would have acted like speed of wind to haul the Muslim man (or woman) for breaching the Syariah law. It would not end there, for the Islamic Religious Department would try to snatch the baby born out of wedlock between a male Muslim and non-Muslim female as it must be treated as a Muslim, so goes the argument.

Is it the contention of Malaysian Syariah law that its powers only extend to Malaysian Muslims living in this country but not to foreign Muslims? In other words, no action can be taken against foreign Muslims living in this country notwithstanding their flagrant violation of Syariah laws. And the foreign Muslim seeking remedy from his (her) lover whether it be a Muslim or otherwise could do so in the civil court, but which remedy is not available to local Muslims.

K.Siladass

Malaysians’ Verdict

by

K.Siladass

Malaysians have decided as to who should rule for the next five years this country full of natural wealth, colourful mixture of diverse races, of religions, of cultures, of languages, of political leanings and manifold ambitions. The anticipation of the political parties in the 13^th General Elections was apparent; the BN was confident that it would, and could muster two-third majority in the next parliament. Aside from that, it also believed that it could re-capture Penang, Kedah, Kelantan and Selangor. On the other hand Pakatan Rakyat (PKR) was oozing with confidence that it will capture Putrajaya and add few more states to its existing numbers.

The popular belief is that the election results of 5^th May show the electorate’s mind to be different reflecting maturity. Although BN’s lease for power for the next five years has been renewed; but it was denied two-third majority it eagerly hoped for. In the state elections BN re-captured Kedah but not Penang, Kelantan and Selangor. PKR which retained these three states has in fact improved its strength there. Besides these states, PKR has also made remarkable progress in Perak, Negri Sembilan, and Johore: and these are states considered to be BN’s traditional strongholds. In Perak the BN has retained its hold and PKR has not lost its influence.

The slim majority of BN in Parliament and its inability to recapture Penang, Kelantan and Selangor and PKR’s failed attempt to unseat BN from Putra Jaya are results which can happen in any democracy. Whether the contestants were ready to accept the people’s verdict is the disturbing question.

When all the results were in and it was apparent that BN had won the right to form the next central government albeit with a slim majority, Prime Minister Dato Seri Najib Razak’s cautious acceptance was understandable. Following that, his call, obviously a sort of plea towards reconciliation was also politically correct. However, the subsequent launching of a frontal attack that the Chinese electorate had rejected BN and labeling it with “Chinese Tsunami” was the most inappropriate course. Having wisely said that he would work towards reconciliation, the attack on Chinese voters seems to be an obvious contradiction. It can also be described as aberration in the face of defeat. Many have taken this “Chinese Tsunami” as a war-cry castigating the Chinese Community for not supporting MCA and through it BN which act is unfair and totally unacceptable.

If a section or a large number of Chinese voters had voted in favour of PKR it is a normal trend in a democracy. However, it is totally unacceptable to say or condemn the Chinese for not supporting the BN. It is now claimed that PKR and more particularly DAP played upon racial sentiments. It is doubtful if DAP or PKR was the main cause; but it is clear that BN too had a lion share for the election campaign to course through racial lines.

Nobody with rational mind wanted disturbing racial issues raised during the election campaign, however, it became starkly clear it was one of the trump cards BN seemed inclined to use; or use it in a way the ghost of May 13^th would return to haunt the voters.

The false move by BN was apparent when it chose to pit Dato Abdul Ghani, the then Menteri Besar of Johore against Lim Kit Siang whose candidacy for Gelang Patah was announced long before the nomination day. It was a notorious fact that Gelang Patah was MCA’s stronghold yet BN took a gamble in naming Ghani, an UMNO heavyweight as its candidate. This was the most ill conceived move and a disaster as no prudent politician would venture into such a political suicide.

It was widely rumoured long before the announcement of the General Elections that Ghani would not be a candidate or would not offer himself as a candidate. Hence, what prompted him to accede to a request fraught with the prospects of defeat? Besides, what was the motive of BN, or was it MCA’s idea to field Ghani against Lim Kit Siang, who had been portrayed by BN as a racist and DAP as a Chinese based party? The move was flawed, for Gelang Patah was used as a testing ground as to whom the Chinese voters would support-Ghani backed by MCA or Kit Siang? It was definitely a bad plan and the leaders should not have embarked on this acid test.

Having named Ghani as a BN candidate the next thing was to level charges against Lim Kit Siang as a racialist and DAP as a racist party: thus racial politics became a life issue and featured prominently in the campaign. It did not stop in Gelang Patah as it spread like a forest fire throughout Peninsula Malaysia. BN did not hesitate to bring in the former Prime Minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, to campaign for BN’s Ghani. This was also a poor move because Mahathir used racism, a pet subject of his in his campaign supporting Ghani, and he turned out to be a liability for BN. To put it primly BN scored its own goal.

Further, what explanation does BN or UMNO has for the losses suffered in Penang, Kelantan and Selangor? Would it not be correct to say that Malays themselves have drifted away from UMNO?

BN leaders have been very critical of the Chinese voters as if they alone were responsible for BN’s losses. In Peninsula Malaysia the combined non-Malay votes do not exceed the total number of Malay votes. Simple arithmetic will show that even in constituencies where the majority are Malays, BN or UMNO to be precise, had not been able to win all the Malays. In areas where the Chinese were in the majority the number of votes cast shows the Malay swing to the opposition. Therefore, it is very wrong to criticize the Chinese community entirely.

Another thing BN has to bear in mind is the fact that in democracy voting is the voter’s right and whom he votes for cannot be dictated. Political parties are entitled to use their powers and art of persuasion but the final decision lies with the voters. If BN or MCA were to ask the Chinese voters: “Why did you abandon us?” could not they turn around and retort by saying: “You abandoned us so we looked elsewhere for support.” Surely, BN is not expecting this answer.

The way BN has been going around castigating the Chinese community, UMNO especially, all those who narrowly escaped and those who have been jettisoned, reminds of a husband who had been bullying his wife for many years. Once she decided enough was enough and went away with another man, the husband began to weep and wail complaining to the whole world that his wife had run away with another man: she is a whore and so on and so forth. He forgot his own misdeeds.

Looking at the overall results, BN is indeed fortunate to have garnered simple majority with the help of Sabah and Sarawak. In Peninsula Malaysia UMNO had suffered unexpected losses even in areas which have been considered by it as safe.

Najib must also remember that some of BN’s decision had indeed yielded negative results such as giving away Pasir Mas constituency to PERKASA stalwart Ibrahim Ali who was wholeheartly supported by Tun Dr. Mahathir. Mahathir had in fact remarked that leaders like Ibrahim Ali are needed to protect Malay interests. Similarly, another person who had been overly abusive of Hindu religion and its practices was given a parliament seat to contest. Either Najib has poor memory or he must be thinking that this is what is meant by equality and freedom of expression whereby the minority groups have no choice but to accept such humiliations and live with them. This is another course adopted by the BN that had caused fear in minds of the voters.

Another factor which may have cost BN its votes is its willingness to align itself with political opportunists who had earlier been so critical of BN and the Government and who had gone in a rampage against Malaysia on foreign soils. This new friends did more harm than good for BN.

It is an incorrect or very presumptuous for BN to act as if the Malaysians from every walk of life owe allegiance to it; instead it has to be pragmatic and accept the position that it has to work hard to win the respect and the support of all Malaysians. BN should stop thinking that it is entitled to unflinching loyalty from the citizens. No such right exists. In democracy the voters have both the rights to empower and to put paid to that power. BN should therefore stop this blame game and get on with tackling problems that are troubling every section of the Malaysian society.

Turning to Pakatan, they must be disappointed as they could not capture Putra Jaya. They complain that there have been serious violations; if they have a case with reliable evidence, then they should go to the court, and the court will not be testing the people’s verdict but will look into the illegal methods exercised to collect the votes. From People’s verdict to Court’s verdict. This could have been avoided had the Election Commission discharged its duties in a professional manner. PKR must also consider whether it is apposite to prolong the agony and keep the election issue alive when it should settle down and begin to work at grassroot level to improve its position.

Malaysians do not desire to prolong controversies. There got to be an end and we must move on. PKR should consider on working to improve electoral registers fraught with irregularities. It should consider what steps may be appropriate to clean up the electoral registers that allegedly contain voters who are not qualified, especially those illegals who became citizens with the blessings of Mahathir.

Overall both sides can claim they have been victorious, or both have lost. Much will depend how they analyze the results. True Malaysians will be happy that the ruling party has been denied two-third majority. This election also had categorically sent the message that Malaysians will no longer tolerate racial as well as religious abuse.

This general election had in fact put all the parties on notice that racial and religious politics are definitely out and telling the politicians that it is time to change their attitude. It is evident that the mindset of the Malaysian voters had changed, thus the political parties have to change. Are politicians ready? This is also a parliament alike the previous one. Both sides will have to work together for the good of the country and the people, without discrimination. This is also another experiment, or a test which both parties have to go through and satisfy the Malaysians that they will put aside party interests and sectional interests and work towards better, harmonious Malaysia. You can only save Malaysia if all are treated as Malaysians and respected as Malaysians.  

KNOWLEDGE AND RELIGION

K.Siladass

How do we evaluate or deal with those people whose irrational behaviour coupled with senseless babblings are bordering on idiocy? It is not easy though, but understandable; for these are the people who have been treated to false or distorted versions of history by so-called historians whose credibility is suspect.

        It is indeed improper, in a multi-racial and multi-religious society, to cast aspersions on others, or behave in a manner which hurts, or could be construed as a design to hurt other religions, their followers and their practices; more so in a country that professes tolerance and accept the existence of other religions which are clothed with constitutional protection. Therefore, in Malaysia, it would be the height of folly to be critical or to demean any religion or it practices. This is a good philosophy and a best way of life: and it is true that no law is needed to re-affirm this norm, common sense and common decency would be sufficient to reiterate the dignified respect for human values which may not be in consonant with one’s own beliefs. Live and learn to live in differing conditions and under variegated circumstances. Needless to say that this is the trend which we should inculcate in everyone. Strangely, before Merdeka and for many years thereafter, the people never ventured into such abusive, and mean conduct.

        If we argue about religion and what they stand for we cannot find any well-reasoned answer because of the warped nature of the education that has been instilled in us. The system of education we have does not allow us to get out of the box within which our thoughts are fastened. We are told to accept, without demur, what had been taught. Freedom of thought is confined to the box-thinking-method ensuring you do not go out of it: but function like a machine programmed to operate in a certain manner. A machine cannot think, which, having been programmed can only perform a particular function. Alike those machines, the present education system prepares us to believe certain things and we are warned not to think anything to the contrary.

        The mechanical type of learning allows us with no freedom to think because those who taught us are fearful that we may go against their teachings upon proper and deeper investigation. They do not want us to get out of the box but they tell us to think, which in fact is, the way machines perform, behave the way the machines had been programmed. Yes, our education system’s aim is to programme us right from the day we begin to speak, to learn, go to school and to places of worship our parents took us.

        Thus, those who recklessly hurl abuses at other religions and their practices must first seek answers to the questions, whether they are free to discuss their own strength and weakness before embarking on a frontal assault on the faiths of others and their practices. A person of a certain faith must search for an answer within his own order whether he has the freedom to discuss about his own religion and himself apart from what he had been taught before attacking others. And before attacking others how much does he or she know about other faiths? 

        While it must be admitted that religions came into being for certain benign purposes, it cannot however be denied that they have also vastly contributed towards the growing distrust and hatred and violent conflict among the human race. They have been the fertile source for growing discontent and endless troubles in the world; thus continue to be the bane fettering freedom for knowledge, disrupting peace and harmony in every sphere of human life. While the initial endeavour must have been to unite a group of people subjecting them to some form of orderliness giving it a colour of divine sanction that objective has been destroyed. With the seed of hatred sown in every form of conceivable human relationship the human race led by politico-religions men has lost its ability to reason, debate in a less emotive manner the cause for the conflicts in their thoughts. This religious shackle on the thoughts of the human race remains the primary cause preventing the debate with reason in every aspect of people’s life.

        Mark Twain encapsulated the position when he wrote that man “is the only animal that has True Religion-several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbour as himself, and cuts his throat if his theologies are not straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother’s past to happiness and heaven.” [Letters from Earth (1974) p. 180].

       

        It will be emphasized that one can only  get out of the realm  of ignorance if he or she is prepared to seek knowledge and understand its implications from wherever it may emanate. Enhancement of knowledge begins within yourself and not by destroying the accumulated and well established knowledge of other races, countries and religions. Any action aimed at destroying the wealth of knowledge of other races, religions and the mines of literature created, may, no doubt, yield transient victory by bringing happiness to those who venture into such sickening anti-human and anti-knowledge conduct. But that would not last long. Calls to destroy books of other religions is nothing but a semblance of immaturity and weakness. They believe in violence : “If I cannot have my way then everything must be destroyed”. In the modern world this kind of thinking cannot be countenanced.  

        Let us consider the destruction of the seat of learning, Nalanda, which, according to Charles Allen, the author of Ashoka, “contained the most extensive repository of Buddhist knowledge in the world…” (Ashoka, p.3)

        “Surprise and terror”, writes Charles Allen, “were the twin pillars of Muhammad Baktiyar’s success as military commander.” Muhammad Baktiyar sent a messenger wanting to know whether the “libraries contained a copy of the Quran.” Having learnt that a copy of Quran was not there, he ordered the “destruction of the Great Monastery and all it contained” (Ashoka p.4). A similar story prevails in connection with the destruction of the Alexandria library in Egypt. Prophet Muhammad would have not tolerated this course of action.

        It must be reiterated that destruction of an existing knowledge will not help build another however attractive it may be. Aside from this, we really cannot claim that we are far superior than our ancestors who graced this world several millennia ago.   We, like our immediate ancestors, are continually  marvelled at the works that were produced five millennia ago. Have we achieved anything new in the field of philosophy or religion other than the existing ones, except science which again the fundamentals are traceable to the past?

        The Mughals who invaded India destroyed  Hindu temples and founded mosques on the same sites, had only limited success; but the Hindu religion did not perish, although many, under different and trying circumstances, did embrace Islam. Whatever the ordeal may be, Hinduism and Buddhism have survived the fierce onslaught and had remained a force to be understood, reckoned with and respected. Thus, the traditions, practices of Hindus are not of recent origin but of thousands of years ago. The Hindu religion and civilization continue to be fascinating compared to the ancient Greek, Babylonian, Egyptian and Roman civilizations which have been superseded by religions. The Hindu civilization continues with  its splendor to this day in the same manner as they were in the distant past, however antiquated and perplexing they may be.

        One particular quality among the Hindu stands out very glaringly, it is the tolerant attitude and the desire to learn. Hindus have never shut the doors of knowledge and this insatiable thirst for knowledge has opened up the doors for other religions to find a place under the Hindu Sun. Buddhism which arrived later was eventually accepted by the Hindus, as was Sikhism and other old religions. The aeonian strength of the Hindu religion is its in-built psychological fortitude.

        When Jews came after their trying experience and ordeal in their homeland, they found a save haven in Kerala, and other parts of Northern India. This was followed by Christianity, and last but not least, Islam.

        N.S.Xavier, M.D. in his book the Holy Region (p. 57) tells us that “the Cheraman mosque of Kodungallur is reputed to be the first mosque in the Indian sub-continent. It was established in 629 AD, according to Muslim tradition. Some sources say that a Hindu king gave an existing temple-possibly a Buddhist temple that was not in use-to be used as a mosque.”

        Xavier goes on to say that, “this mosque is unique in that it does not face Mecca as other mosques do. This might indicate the flexibility in earlier times in such traditions as to which direction a mosque faces.”

        Perhaps it is now observable that Hinduism did not latch its doors to prevent the entry of other religions into its realm of knowledge. This is what we may properly call a tolerant attitude imbued with a desire to acquire more knowledge. It is a misconceived notion to allege that an aggressor who had blundered and imposed his beliefs on the inhabitants of the conquered land had been tolerant to other religions. Having taken positive steps to destroy other religions and their works it is strange that they can unabashedly claim to have tolerant attitude - it is a sheer abuse of the term tolerant attitude. Whether other religions had been able to substitute the Hindu philosophy or not is a question which requires a very mature study; however, it can be seen that notwithstanding the violent attack by the Mughals  Hinduism still remains a strong fort as ever not fearing the fiscal strength nor the scientific advancements from other regions.

        Emperor Ashoka (Ashoka means-without sorrow) in his edict 12 declared:-

        “… that there should be growth in the essentials of all religions. Growth in essentials can be done in different ways, but all of them have as their root restraint in speech, that is, not praising one’s own religion, or condemning the religion of others without good cause. And if there is cause for criticism, it should be done in a mild way. But it is better to honour other religions for this reason. By so doing, one’s own religion benefits, and so do other religions, while doing otherwise harms ones’ own religion and the religions of others. Whoever praises his own religion, due to excessive devotion, and condemns others with the thought ‘Let me glorify my own religion’ only harms his own religion. Therefore contact (between religions) is good. One should listen to and respect the doctrines professed by others. (Emphasis is mine)

        Ashoka also added that he desired all should be well learned in the good doctrines of other religions.

        “Those who are content with their own religion should be told this”: said Ashoka that he, “does not value gifts and honours as much as he values that there should be growth in the essentials of all religions. And to this end many are working-Dharma Mahamatras, Mahamatras in charge of the women’s quarters, officers in charge of outlying areas, and other such officers. And the fruits of this is that one’s own religion grows and the Dharma is illuminated also.”

        Religion might be good provided it does not operate in a manner aimed at destroying human values, rational thoughts, friendship and the harmony amongst all races, It should not turn out to be the poisoned chalice.

        What is needed today is the political will to understand others, their way of life, their culture, their religion and at the same time learn to co-exist in a peaceful environment; failing which unbearable disaster and catastrophe will ensue. The hope for happiness will perish and that is the last thing any religion wants. Power and opulence cannot bring harmony for they somehow function to destroy humane feelings and considerations. We need to avoid such consequences.

J.P. Vaswani writes in Sufi Saints of East and West (p. 15):-

       

“The world, today, is smitten with hatred between creeds and classes and countries. We are passing through a period of darkness, and each day the darkness deeper grows. What the sad world needs, today, is living light of love. With it are illumined the lives of the ‘Friends of God’. For they touched the depths where no separation exists, where East and West unite. In this unity is still the hope of a broken, bleeding humanity.”       

Tariq Ramadan, a philosopher, writes in his book The Quest for Meaning”, (p.16): “What does my path say about paths, and what does my singular universal say about diversity? What, for instance, does this Quranic assertion-revelation say to the Muslim consciousness and to believers in general: ‘Had God so willed, He would have made you a single community’ [The Table Spread V 48] this implicit recognition of diversity seems to echo the essence of the ancient teachings of Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism. Knowing that we are on a quest, recognizing the existence of many different ways, and doubting the essence of our way, as opposed to that of others: these are the three basic elements of humility.”

The message is very clear. Religions must begin to think about sharing the experience and bring happiness to all people and not create deeper abyss. They should begin building bridges to understand one another, respect one another not to demolish the already existing fragile bridges.

        

WEAKNESS AFFECTING SOCIETY

Speech delivered by K. Sila Dass on 11^th November, 2005 to a group of Undergraduates.

The topic I was asked to address is weakness.  The word “weakness” standing alone would seem to have the effect of penetrating into every pore of human life and, therefore, I was told to address the weakness affecting  the society.  So we have a topic : Weakness affecting society.

          The root word for weakness is “weak”.  That word “weak” has been defined, amongst other things, as “wanting in moral strength for endurance or resistance; lacking fortitude or courage, strength of purpose or will; unsteadfast and wavering.”

          It also means actions or attributes of features, expression of countenance, indications, weaknesses of character or intention.  Deficient to control emotions, unduly swayed by grief, compassion or affection.  When talking of a person it is common to refer to weak bodies, limbs deficient in muscular strength, inferior in respect of physical strengths. 

Therefore, the word “weakness” represents the quality or condition of being weak, deficient in strength or force.  The term can be seen applicable to describe a certain state of mind; certain factors that prompt a person to arrive at a decision.  Thus the words,  “weak” and “weakness”  in their diverse applications are susceptible of covering physical as well as psychological attributes.

With these myriad meanings staring at us, I had to look in what way I have to deal with this topic – weakness affecting society.

I have looked at the words “weak” and “weakness” as the inherent force within us.  I have,  for a considerable period of time thought about it and my understanding of these terms through experience clearly shows the element of weakness in us has been the cause for our own difficulties, our own down falls, our own unpleasant state of affairs.

In this context it would be a useful exercise to find out how weakness works in us and ultimately destroys  us systematically.  The discussion we are to embark upon will also raise a very pertinent question and that is: whether weakness is relative to a particular ethnic group or is its effect universal.

It has been said very generally that fear is the source of weakness.  Fear is the worst thing you can have in your life.

-                     Fear destroys everything good in you.

-                     Fear destroys reason in you

-                     Fear destroys courage

-                     Fear destroys the innocence in you

-                     Fear, the root of evils is the dominant factor which   destroys                                                         your thinking ability

-                     Fear prevents you from thinking rationally

-                     Fear destroys your capability to act freely

Fear is identifiable in people we hear of, or see everyday.

Leaders fear they will lose their leadership and with that the power to command the lead.

America fears that it will lose its world domination.

Britain fears that its intellectual market will be threatened.

Japan fears it will not be able to flood the world market with electronic goods produced through cheap labour.

World countries are divided into developed, developing and under developed countries because of their fear that they will lose out to powerful countries whose technical advancement is far superior than theirs.

So fear is not unique to individuals alone.

Individuals lose out because they fear to think.  Our student population is told to read a particular topic and is warned that it is the  examination topic so learn it and get it into your system - you will pass.  You are not asked or required to think.  You may pass the examination but you would have lost; for, the fear that had developed in you is the examination fear.  So long you pass it you are happy.  Your parents are happy and those who taught you are happy; but, has the passing of the examination made you a perfect person- a person who could think?

Our forefathers lost because they were illiterates and that was the deficient factor that contributed to their weakness of not being able to think. You have managed to acquire education the objective of which has not been to get rid of the weakness inherent in you but to mature in a modern way and enslave you with promises of materialism but not the ability to think.  You will lose and continue to lose because you dare not think.

The modern education has all the trappings to entrap you with false objectives whereby you are guided to think the best way of living and what could that be?  Good position.  Good income.  Car, and all the luxuries that could make you comfortable and at the same time subject you to bothersome liability. 

Your weakness for luxury leads you to indebtedness and that keeps you busy and in fear how to repay.  As a result of this additional burden one has no time to think about improving the knowledge by reading literature which would help.  Modern way of life cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered as a qualitative life, instead it is full of problems.

          In a homogenous country, generally weakness of any type would be viewed as if it is quite natural unless such has the effect of destroying the very substratum of the society  and the country.  There could be an element of tolerance in these types of visible weaknesses and  attributing them to be natural.   Thus the admitted or apparent weakness would be treated with sympathy by rational minded persons or those who have the ability to correct it.

          Such may not be the case where multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-cultural and multi-religious  ingredients are present.  Here, in most cases, the weakness in the minority groups will be exploited by those who are strong enough to formulate laws and implement them.

          Thus it would seem weakness is  not confined to an individual but has the capability of becoming a national, international, societal, or religious issue.

We could begin with an individual.  I remember an incident some fifteen years ago.  I was appointed as a legal adviser to a multi-national Japanese firm, and during one of my visits to the factory I met a young man whom I knew as  my law firm was handling some legal matters of his family.

I was obviously delighted to  learn from the young man that he had been working for the Japanese firm for almost a year as supevisor.  I congratulated him and  told him : “Good!  This is a good start for you.  Learn the Japanese language and it will be an asset.  And you can progress steadily in the firm.”

My initial delight turned into absolute horror on hearing this young man’s reply.  “Why should we learn Japanese?’  he asked and he himself provided the answer :  “If we learn  their language we will be influenced by their culture and we will lose our own identity.”

For a moment I could not believe that our country being a multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious could have people with such warped ideas.  The first question we have to ask is : whether learning another language could destroy your identity?

The answer, to my mind, seems to depend of the mind set of an individual. The general view is that learning more than one language would help to broaden one’s knowledge and provide an opportunity to understand others and of  other people’s  different cultural and religious beliefs.  However, if we take the young man’s attitude toward a foreign language it can be seen that there are certain factors which could have impeded him to venture learning any language than his.

There are few factors we should consider. 

Firstly, the fear in one’s mind, it is fear that breeds weakness.  What sort of fear did this young man have?  His fear was: Should he learn the Japanese language, he would be influenced by Japanese culture and thus lose his own cultural identity.  Was he correct in thinking the way he did?

His fear of losing his cultural identity led him to believe that the knowledge of other ethnic group was no good – short of saying, my cultural heritage entwined with religious teaching are far superior than other cultures and other religions.

By accepting such a course he was in fact barricading himself from the flow of knowledge available in other languages.  By doing so he was unwittingly demonstrating the weakness in him, namely his inability to distinguish the differences between the various thoughts that develop through knowledge.

He was not prepared to let his mind wander and seek the knowledge available in other languages.  How do we explain this enigma?  Should we consider this as a sign of fear crystallizing in weakness whereby he has not the ability to hold fast to his own views however strongly instilled in him?  Or, could we consider his position as that being full of uncertainty and doubts of the thoughts in him?  Would we be correct in assuming that the fear he has prevents him from getting out of the frog pond he is accustomed to and prefers to remain in the same frog pond because the moment he is out of that frog pond he will be confused and lost because intellectually he is not strong.

Assuming he is thoroughly grounded in his culture, religion, he need not fear at all because no influence could sway him away from the knowledge he already has.  The acquisition of additional knowledge  would have helped him to broaden his vision;  it would have helped him to see the differences in opinions.  He would have realised that he is not a frog in a frog’s pond.

Secondly, our friend was restricting his thinking process within the ambit of the knowledge he already has.  He is scared that learning a foreign language and the knowledge acquired through it would destroy the knowledge he has however limited it may be.

This shows narrow-mindedness or bias to knowledge generally.  He closes his mind from receiving any information that could upset his beliefs.  His thought process is like a tunnel-vision.  Only one vision.  It has no ambulatory strength to see what is floating around him.  He remains what he is with very little knowledge of the outside world.  Here again we see that it is own weakness which hindered him from attempting to acquire knowledge in a general way.

         

          Thirdly, he believes that whatever knowledge he has is sufficient and there is no reason to expand it.  Why?  Again a fear that acquisition of new knowledge could destroy the beliefs in him.  We could look at this as a fear that had generated over the years and strengthened the weakness.  To him that weakness is his strength because he could proudly claim that he has not deviated from the teachings he had received however deficient it may be.

          Looking at it very broadly  we could discern a pronounced pattern which could be classified as culture cum religious prone behavioural syndrome which rejects the reception of any knowledge that is capable of leading to enlightment and better understanding of our fellow beings.  This culture cum religious behavioural syndrome creates a wall of suspicion against all other knowledge however good, or thought provoking it  may be.

          The mind set of the person under scrutiny is that it is so weak saturated with the fear that any outside knowledge is bad, questionable, and is capable of destroying the so-called equilibrium he has falsely grown accustomed to.  A well read person whose knowledge is immense and is open minded will rarely fear the pervailing dissemination of knowledge that could be new  or thought-provoking  because he is inwardly strong and is receptive to all knowledge the source of which does not bother him for he has the courage and ability to sieve through them, analyse, accept which he feels is worth further consideration or reject those he thinks are inconsistent with established principles or with his own views.  Here again, a person whose intellectual capacity is strong  would be prepared to deal with new ideas albeit unsettling,  yet with an open mind to investigate further because it is knowledge.

          For thousands of years the popular belief was that the sun was rotating the earth.  This thought prevailed since the time of Aristotle, a philosopher of excellent genius who built a monumental literature of the whole physical universe and it was the basis of Greek logic.  His ideas had travelled and found lasting  impression in the Western civilisation through the Arabs.  Although two thousand years later it was discovered some of his views were antiquated and seemingly erroneous, in   particular, the religious denominations which had found harmony in Aristotle’s views and had adopted them into their doctrine, refused to accept any challenge to the views that had become deeply embedded in human mind.¹

1. The First Freedom. A History of Free Speech, Robert Hargreaves

          The Greeks had found that the world was round, both from the spherical shadow it threw on the moon during an eclipse and by the fact that different stars are visible in different latitudes.  But Aristotle supposed that the earth was at rest and the heavens revolved around it.  Because the constellations did not alter shape, they must rotate around the earth, just like the sun and the moon.²

          The Egyptian astronomer, Ptolmey, a disciple of Aristotle, constructed an elaborate universe around a stationery earth surrounded by a series of fifty-five  invisible rotating spheres, which carried with them the sun, moon, the various planets and the stars.³

                Strangely it is the false version of the universe survived but not the other versions also formulated by the Greek astronomers. ⁴ The theories of Democritus and Aristarclus  of Samos were lost although theirs were closer to truth.

In May 1514, Nicolaus Copernicus,  a Polish wrote Commentariolus

2. Op. Cit at pp 67, 68

3. ibid

4. ibid

and circulated it discreetly.  This was to be the foundation of his work : On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres published in 1543.  In this work Copernicus distributed the geocentric cosmology that had been accepted since Aristotle’s time.  Copernicus, contrary to popular belief  has postulated a simpler explanation for the movement of the heavenly bodies.  He placed the sun at the centre of the universe and had the earth rotate around it. ⁵  This was not acceptable to the church and for fifty years his enunciation was scoffed.

                According  to Robert Hargreaves,  “ …the church fathers refused to take seriously this adventurous speculations into the ‘divine Secrets.’  It was enough to follow the teaching of St. Ambrose that “to discuss the nature and position of the earth does not help  us in our hope of the life to come?”

                Copernicus died on May 24 1543.  Twenty years later Galilee Galilei was born.  By 1597, Galileo had studied Copernicus’ discovery and came to the conclusion that it must be true.

                Galileo devised a mechanical calculating devise now called the sector,

5. ibid

worked out a mechanical explanation of the tides based on the Copernicus motions of the earth.  He produced a treatise on mechanics illustrating that machines do not create power but merely transforms it.

          By the end of 1609, Galileo had 20-power telescope which he used to see the lunar mountains the starry nature of the Milky Way, and previously unnoted ‘planets’ revolving around Jupiter.

          Galileo’s continual exposition of Copernican theory was not one the Holy official Rome  would countenance, and had, in 1616, issued an  edict against Copernicus.

                The Church would not allow Galileo to pursue an investigation which was opposed to the divine revellations.  In  1632 he wrote Dialogue which became famous.  In 1633 he was condemned to life imprisonment for “vehement suspicion of heresy.”  He died in 1642.

               

                Galilieo showed to the world, like Socrates before him “Mere authority cannot suppress the search for truth.”

          The journey into the lives and enunciations and brave search for truth by Copernicus and Galileo is deliberate  to show that views are likely to change but the quest for truth will never end.  It is the weak mind that abandons the truth and find solace in antiquated theories however doubtful they may be.  As indicated, earlier it is  the fear that breeds  this weakness eventually trapping the individual into beliefs that may not be correct but call for or demand infinite enquiry.

How do we get rid of this fear that generates weakness?  This is not an easy task, yet it is something which we have to look into.  When a person has sound education, that could help him or her to amass knowledge.    So, the question arises what sort of education helps to acquire or enhance knowledge.

This question about education has its own trappings.  When the world was imbued with spiritual motives the system of education was aimed at improving the spiritual aspect of the  pupil.  When ideological politics became the core of a government, they formulated policies consistent with their objectives.  The ideology may have flourished but the education and the minds of the pupils suffered.

 In a world where  materialism has been given a prominent part to play, the education system seems to work in a vicious way.  The colonialists when they introduced  their language they were motivated by a desire to have the locals to learn and write their languages so that the administration could be oiled to function smoothly.  The best educated who came from the colonialists homelands sat at the apex of the administration to control.  They did not think it prudent that the colonial subjects should have the best education, instead only some education the purpose of which was to serve the colonial masters.  Only the opulent class from the locals have had the best education but then they were inclined towards aping the colonial masters.

Generation after generation  the under privileged have been given false hopes in the name of education, the purpose of which has been to inculcate in them a keen sense of reliance and that is to serve the objective of those in power: or those who could wield power, and these unfortunate people remained where they were, languishing in false hopes.

The biggest problem that irked society is the fears of survival; and this in turn becomes the weakness whereby the person’s mind abandons thinking.

There are those who attribute to a community’s failure because of the violence it had grown accustomed to and to an extent this may be true.  However, if an attempt is made to enquire into the underlying reasons for such a state it could be discovered that violence becomes true once a person is deficient and is unable to control his emotions.  If he is educated in a proper way he would have acquired the ability to control his emotions and refrain from violent conduct.  This will, therefore, show that violence is not the main reason for a community’s failure but the failure of those who ignored to provide effective education.

The problems we face today are problems that had arisen as a consequence of defective  education system.  The system does not inculcate the culture of thinking.  It does not dare you to think.  The system has not shown the best part of acquisition of knowledge instead it had encouraged false concepts with false remedies and they are producing devastating results.

Another area where weakness is so glaring is the calculated move to encourage the younger generation to spend more time on cinema.  This I can tell you is a blatant design engineered to effectively kill any inclination towards better knowledge.

Take the youngsters and give them ten questions on general knowledge, and you will find to your horror that hardly one would be able to answer.

The next thing you should do is to ask ten questions based on cinematic culture and you will find to your shock that all ten may give correct answers.

Now, ask yourselves how did this come about?  One would wonder whether this is a deliberate attempt to divert the attention of the young to illusion, whereby they will not think about substantial issues affecting them, their community and their role in the country’s affairs.

Think of another concept at work, perhaps a ploy.  The power-to-be is prepared to dish out some benefits and privileges to keep you contented but does not want you to get advanced knowledge because they fear the moment you become knowledgeable you will begin to think and that is not good for them for you will begin to ask all the questions for which they have no answer and even if they answer your questions they will be couched in vague and ambiguous language.

A sense of greediness, selfishness is encouraged whereby the people or a section of the people and mostly the illiterates and the poor are made to believe that if they follow the advice of the powerful ones they are safe and their enjoyment however idiotic it might be will not be interfered with.  This is the weakness the power-to-be with their secret and obnoxious agenda want and cherish.  Once we fall for it we are doomed and that is precisely  what is happening.

Everywhere in the world you turn you can see this exploitation, but those in power know how to devise the means to perpetuate this exploitation.

 Therefore, weakness is everywhere and it is only a question of degree. The weakness that attacks the people could vary from people to people from class to class.

Weakness that numbs the rich people is their insatiability for more wealth, the greed never ends.  A leader’s weakness is  seen when he fears that his own position is challenged and is always looking at the rung of the ladder below him.  He wants to hold on to power infinitely and that is his weakness.  Rich countries fear that their wealth will dissipate and they would like to lead to poor countries so that there will be attractive returns. So weakness is everywhere; in you and in others.  How to get rid of it?  Amass vast knowledge and never close your mind to enquire.  Knowledge is your strength, and that will help rid of weakness and prepare you as a perfect person to analyse any event, any view or opinion and then be able to control your emotions.  Once you are able to control your emotions, weakness would disappear.