Can We Mind Our Language

CAN WE MIND OUR LANGUAGE!




Nathaniel Tan said in his blog posting "I applaud the surprising restraint showed by the police."



Malaysiakini carried its report on that same night by Andrew Ong and Rahmah Ghazali thus, "About 2,000 people staged a peaceful march through the busy streets of Kuala Lumpur tonight calling for the abolishment of Internal Security Act and freeing detainees under the Act"



On Badawi's Open house on the first day of Hari Raya, The Star had reported with the following headline:"Hindraf commotion at govt’s Raya open house"



Further in that report it had the following statements from various Ministers:
Ayed Hamid Albar: " “This is not the time, this is not the correct venue. They can come to wish Selamat Hari Raya and shake hands, but the rest of it, different time, and different date.
“If they come in peace and harmony there shouldn’t be any problems,”



Unity, Culture, Arts and Heritage Minister Datuk Seri Mohd Shafie Apdal "Hindraf members should have known their limits and not turn up at an open house “like this”.
“There are platforms for you to make your submission. This is not the proper way of doing things. I mean, it’s a Raya do. Today is Hari Raya, it’s got nothing to do with memorandums."



Tourism Minister Datuk Azalina Othman "such behaviour would reflect poorly on Malaysia’s image to tourists.
“If you are here as a guest, then behave as one. Parliament will convene on Oct 13. They can do so (submit their memorandum) then,”



Can you see how in our writings we all commit a common cardinal sin?



Nat want's to applaud the polices' restraint. What would have caused them to lose that restraint? Malaysiakini suggested that the rally was peaceful. But aren't all the rally's by this multi-faceted movement peaceful? Why the need to make this redundant statement?



On the Open House, The Star attempts to discredit "the commotion" by suggesting that it was an HINDRAF affair alone. Well, I guess the reader is supposed to assume that this would be typical uncouth behaviour of Indians. They completely ommitted the fact that along with the HINDRAF crowd there was also Haris Ibrahim and the Anti-ISA crowd. In any case if it was such an auspiscious occassion why all those men in blue in any case? Why did Haris not suggest that there was any commotion in his posting? Neither did Zorro! So, maybe Haris and Zorro are spinning as well?



And then those statements by the Ministers!



Like as if they can tell you when it ever was that the "protestors" referred to have ever caused disharmony or been violent or had contributed towards any kind of racial or religious disharmony. And obviously they are also suggesting that it is quite normal for them to receive memorandums of this nature on gentlemenly kiss on the cheeks basis. And where is that platform they were referring to? How so quickly they forget that they had water canons and FRU's tear gassing when little children wanted to hand the Prime Minister flowers at the Parliamet House.



They want to continue to suggest, subliminally, if necessary, that any such assembly, being illegal because they do not have a police permit, must naturally be "not peaceful" and a "threat to the security of the nation"



Nat applauded the police for their restraint. But why? Was the rally boisterous, noisy, threatening, unruly, destructive, or made up of thugs who carried weapons with them so that the polices' restraint deserved or earned them an applause? Was it even necessary for the police to have been there if indeed their presence was to stop the rally turning to become a threat to the security of the nation?



Malaysiakini found it necessary to prefix the rally with the adjective "peaceful". Are they suggesting that rallies otherwise are not peaceful? Or are they suggesting that the peacefulness of this rally was something unique? I thought Bersih and Hindraf's rally of 1011 and 2511 were also peaceful. The water canons and the tear gassing only tried, oh so hard, to define those rallies in terms that provided satisfaction only to the UMNO led BN.



You see when you have pictures of water canons and FRU men shooting tear gas, of course it suggests the necessity for such devices being used. To the vast ignorant majority who confine their information source to MSM only, these rallies must have been totally unthinkable threats to their usual way of life. And that is how the UMNO led BN wants the people to view these rallies, protests or demonstrations or even attempts at handing over memorandums.



But what are we doing ourselves in trying to paint a different picture?



Obviously in all this we are painting the police and the FRU as the frontline enemy. But really they are not. They are only carrying out orders. So were the KGB, East German Secret police, and Romania's secret police as well. But can you recall the indignity of the fallen dictators and the regime that held all that power on the day it all fell? It seemed all so sudden didn't it?



I still remember Christmas day 1989. Nicolae Ceauşescu appeared indestructive and strong in the morning. I guess his armoured guards were still protecting him. By late afternoon he was shot dead together with his wife like a dog by the enraged people and strewn on the streets. Where were his secret police? Why did they abandon their post? Certainly it was not because the people were better armed or that their voilence was overwhelming.



I would like to think reason finally got to them and the inevitable was upon them.



Are we, in our approach so far, going about it on the presumption that the police are a homogenous lot acting according to the wishes of the IGP, and/or those at the top, for whom perpetuation of UMNO's rule is a compromised goal?


Maybe its about time we consider addressing the men in blue at the front. Do they necessarily know that national security and the perpetuation of UMNO led BN's rule are not exactly one and the same thing? Wikipedia has it that as part of the programme for the National Service one module - the Nation Building Module (Kenegaraan) - Classroom based. Nation's history, sovereignty and dignity, Malaysia and international affairs, Defence and National Security and Citizen's responsibility to the nation, and loyalty towards the current government, Barisan Nasional - has it that loyalty to Barisan Nasional government is a necessary attribute of a good Malaysian citizen. Do the Malaysian police see the perpetuation of the UMNO led BN is synonymous to national security and national perpetuation?



May I suggest that in our writings too, reference to the government be very specifically addressed as the UMNO led BN government. What we all really want is the over-throw of the UMNO led BN. The government then becomes a PR ruled government. This needs to be repeatedly said so that those who form the instruments of government or are part of the apparatus of government once again retrieve for themselves their professionalism and become impartial to the political shenanigans to which they presently dance to. It is imperative that this be achieved immediately even before PR takes over.



The Star's report on the government's Raya open house at PWTC was mischievious. By their willful omission of the presence of the anti-ISA group they have tried to confine any protestations to HINDRAF only. Adding "commotion" to their attempts to access the premises where, they too were invited, The Star carried out Joseph's Goebel's instructions to the letter. After all to non-Indian Malaysians this Indian crowd is looked upon as belonging to the estates with no sense of decorum and city slick ways. They are supposed to be an uncouth lot and certainly a little less civil for the occassion.



The Star has certainly inherited Joseph Goebel's legacy for how a corrupt and evil propaganda machine should be. How they should write so that they define each and every event and happening according to what favours their leaders.



The problem in our circumstances, we too, the bloggers, the alternative press and the NGO's that may be opposed to the evil in this UMNO led BN government are quite careless in the use of our language. We may not even be saying it when we say ,"the rally was peaceful". Yet in what we did not say, we have suggested a whole lot more. Personally I think to even say that it was a peaceful rally is redundant. Why is it, when we read of a 50,000 people rally in London we do not even think of anything that might suggest insecuity?