The New Straits Times of June 7, 2011, on page 18 under the main heading of ‘Obedient wives’, had carried four articles responding to something said by a Dr. Rohaya Mohamed, Vice-President of something called the “Obedient Wives’ Club” after the launch of its Malaysian chapter. Apparently she had said that, “A man married to a woman who is as good or better than a prostitute in bed has no reason to stray”. (Microsoft Word set to U.K. English, corrected “as good or better” to “as good as or better”.)
Poor Dr. Rohaya. Maybe she had hoped for some attention, but I do not think that she expected the vitriolic response. “An insult to women” read the heading of the response from K.T. Maran. “Insult to men, too” was the heading of the response from D. L. (Daniel Lim? Daud Lokman? Or David Lazarus?) “Its not a case of master and slave” was the heading of the response of Jose Mario Dolor De Vega, lecturer, Department of Social Science, School of Humanities and Social Science, Nilai University College, Bandar Baru Nilai, Negri Sembilan. “It’s against Islam’s teachings” was the heading of the response from Ainul Khairil Ezral, the only responder (or is the correct word ‘respondent’? Microsoft Word could not tell) whose name sounded like a Muslim.
I had been wondering about what had actually transpired at the occasion; what was this international organization called the “Obedient Wives’ Club” that has just launched its Malaysian chapter, and who were the members of this club. I was also wondering why this very public outcry about the formation of a private club and what its vice-president (don’t read: president in charge of vice) said to its members. To me, this is a free country (at least in matters that do not “threaten national security”) and people of like minds are free to associate with each other. Likewise, those wives who believe that wives should be disobedient (disobedient being the opposite of obedient) can go ahead and form an international “Disobedient Wives’ Club”. And then, wives who believe that they should be obedient and disobedient at the same time (although I do not know how that can be realised) can form the “Obedient Disobedient Wives’ Club” or “the Disobedient Obedient Wives’ Club” whichever the founding members prefer. And what about the wives who believe that it is the husband who should be obedient to their wives and should perform like the gladiators of ancient Rome in the clandestine sexual service of their respective dominas (the Roman ladies who owned them or whose husbands own these gladiators); do they not want to form an international “Wives of Obedient Husbands’ Club”? If all these separate groups were to form separate clubs with large memberships and hold regular tea meetings to gossip or do whatever else women do at such women-only get-togethers, they would significantly boost the Malaysian economy.
Today, Tuesday, June 14, 2011, my question was partly answered on page 5 of the New Straits Times. Under the heading “Sharizat: OWC a stain on Muslims”, it was reported that the club was founded by a private limited company that was the off shoot of the now defunct Al Arqam movement. No wonder the outcry. Once an organization is banned, its members is supposed to disappear altogether and never again surface, never again associate with each other for any purpose whatsoever, and never again should its members be allowed to amount to anything in society. It does not matter if the offending element has been discarded. I wonder who among the four commentators above was there at the function. Or was the honourable minister there? Otherwise, whatever their comments were, such comments were all based on hearsay and therefore inadmissible.
I am still trying to figure out which are the elements that are regarded offensive here and therefore constitute a stain on Muslims. Is it the idea that a wife should be obedient to the husband (that alone and by itself) that is offensive? Or is it the idea that a group of women who holds to that belief should form a club and make their views public? Or is it the idea that there is here an educated woman suggesting that it is alright for a woman to behave like a prostitute in the privacy of her own bedroom if it pleases her man, although she is supposed to present a picture of modesty to the public. Or is it really the idea of being like a prostitute only for one man exclusively that offends. I do not hear much protest about women who appear quarter dressed or three-quarter undressed in public. In many places over the world, including in this country, women sometimes behave like prostitutes with different men in public, but there is no hue and cry about it, at least not from the quarters making noise in this instance. I know at least one case of the wife of a taxi driver forbidding the husband from working on Wednesday evenings (ladies’ night at the clubs). On ladies night she assumes, there would be many women of easy virtue prowling the streets of Kuala Lumpur.
By the way, I do not think many men would baulk at the idea of behaving like a male prostitute for the wife, if it pleases her. In fact I think some if not most modern men may find such behaviour erotic. I am of course assuming that he can carry the part; not everybody is well enough endowed, in build and stamina, to be a male prostitute. There is of course an underlying assumption of what behaving like a prostitute means here, which may or may not be the same as the interpretation of the commentators above. I would assume that the good doctor had meant seductive and erotic behaviour, and love making in uninhibited abandon. From the kinds of garments and undergarments displayed in shop windows to those peddled, advertised and modeled in glossy magazines, and from the kinds of contents graphically portrayed in printed literature to the movies with lines like, “What does a girl have to do to get laid around here?” shown on local television, I thought that such was the attitude towards sex promoted in many parts of the world. The only difference in this instance is its exclusivity.
The idea of an obedient wife was long ago already considered politically incorrect in the West and among those enamoured with anything originating in the West. The Christians in the advanced countries (I do not know if this applies to all Christian communities, including those belonging to the orthodox eastern churches), have long ago dropped the words “to obey” from their marriage vows. Nevertheless there are still a lot of people in the world, besides the conservative Muslims (who follow faithfully what they believe to be required by their faith), who believe in the idea that the wife should obey the husband; for one, the Hindus. Then again, how about those Japanese practicing Shinto Buddhism? If this idea of a wife’s obedience to her husband is all that is supposed to be giving Muslims a bad image with them, then as far as I am concerned they can go jump in the lake. All that it is is that we espouse different views from them and we do not apologise for our beliefs. Are we always to tailor our views according to what they believe?
Anyway, where did this idea (that if you are obedient to someone then you are his slave) come from? I have always been obedient to whoever I am expected to be obedient. That included my parents as their son, my teachers as their student, my instructors as their instructed, my superiors as their subordinates, my coaches as their player and my leaders as their follower etc., etc., save when obeying one would mean disobeying another that is higher. Did all this obedience make me a slave to any one of them? I certainly do not think so.
Through all that had been written in the newspaper reports cited above, I had not seen anywhere the presence of a man telling the women assembled that their husbands had a right to treat them like prostitutes. It was one woman, presumably also a wife (and I assume more educated and therefore more exposed than many or most of those in the assembly) telling the other women to be like prostitutes, when in bed with their husbands. So where did the idea that husbands in Malaysia were treating their wives like mere prostitutes and sex slaves come from. A women behaving like a prostitute in bed is an idiomatic way of saying that she is erotic, seductive and makes love with abandon and no inhibitions, game for anything. Treating a woman like a mere prostitute means that she is being treated with complete disdain. The word prostitute thus carries different nuances in the two situations above.
I was not there, so I did not personally hear what she said, did not personally see her body language, nor the response of her audience. Did she in fact speak Malay and used the word “sundal” or “pelacur” or “jalang”, which was translated as “prostitute” in English. Other words of similar import in English include “whore’ and “slut”. All these words carry slightly different nuances. Did she say these words naughtily tongue in cheek? Was she greeted with a burst of laughter with the women giggling under their purdahs? Was it in fact the case of a more exposed member of a group of women in effect saying to the other purdah clad members, “Now look here girls, there is nothing wrong with enjoying sex. Leave your inhibitions behind. Don’t just lie there like a third rate prostitute. Go ahead, be naughty. Behave like a slut. You are allowed to enjoy it, you know?”?
Maybe this, maybe that and maybe the other. Whatever it was that actually transpired, can’t we just leave them alone? They did no force anyone to join them. And behaving like a slut in the privacy of the bed chamber with your husband is certainly not a felony. And friend, a woman enjoying wild uninhibited sex with her husband in the privacy of their own bed chamber has not gone against the teachings of Islam, not unless they transgress the limits set by Allah. In fact Islam recognises sex as something to be enjoyed, besides being a means for procreation, even by women. They do not have to be prudes. Remember the case of the woman married to this sahabat (companion of the Prophet) who fasted every day and spent every night at prayer? What it means here is that he never had time for sex with her. When she complained to the Prophet, did he not remind the sahabat that his wife too has need of him? It reminds me of the story of a young couple from Sarawak. The husband was somewhat pious for a young man of that period. This was in the early seventies. For a few months he had been making love to his then new wife as if he was afraid he would break her (those were her words). She was getting impatient since after awhile she really did not fancy the lights-off-under-the-sheet type of very careful sex. So one Saturday, (in those days, we worked half day on Saturdays) she waited for him to come home in the afternoon, stark naked in the sitting room, spread eagled on the sofa, facing the door. Well, he got home to the biggest shock of his pious life. They even forgot to close the door properly. The wife told my wife and my wife told me, but they do not know that I know, I think.
Tuesday 14 June 2011
Monday 13 June 2011
Malaysians As A People
Thanks to a number of great leaders in the past, we have fared better than many (dare I say most) of the other former colonies of European imperial powers. Thanks to the likes of Tun Razak Hussein and Tun Dr Mahathir, ably supported by a few great though relatively faceless (faceless to the general public) civil servants, Malaysia is on the way to becoming an economically developed country. Most certainly there are other countries that have done better than ourselves, but I think we should not be too disheartened when comparing ourselves to city states with near homogeneous populations that you can jog around. As a country that includes territories separated by a thousand miles of the South China Sea, with a peculiar set of political demands, we have a lot more variables and issues to contend with and are therefore that much more difficult to manage.
Materially, the average Malaysian now lives very much better than the average person in many other countries. We eat so much richer now that we now have a problem of obesity. Whereas the average Malaysian did not own cars in 1957, even my driver had two cars and a motorcycle in 2007. Our network of roads and highways is as good as any in the world. Then again there are the schools and universities, the hospitals, the sports and leisure facilities, the Petronas Twin Towers, etc., etc. As for leisure, do you know that there are cabbies in Malaysia who actually play golf?
Even as recently as the mid-1970’s very few people outside of South East Asia even knew that a country called Malaysia existed. Those of us who for one reason or another had to go overseas, invariably had to explain that Malaysia was a country north of Singapore and south of Thailand, or that Malaysia was not the capital of Singapore, or that Malaysia was not in China or in Vietnam, etc., etc. I have even heard of an instance when an African diplomat asked a Malaysian diplomat about how bad our last winter was, to which the naughty Malaysian replied that we had six feet of snow in the capital city. The last time I was in Europe however, I was only asked if I believed that our former Deputy Prime Minister actually committed sodomy. Asked the same question, I believe that some of us would maybe reply,’ Irrelevant’. Others would maybe reply, ‘Who Cares’, ‘What do you think?’, ‘I think so’, or ‘Maybe’.
Those of us who in one way or another positively contributed to this rapid economic and material development, directly or indirectly, morally, immorally or amorally, can be justifiably proud of our part in the development process. And Malaysians in general can be equally proud for belonging to this nation of achievers with the ‘Malaysia boleh’ (Malaysia can) spirit. At the least you did not, or maybe tried but failed to, stand in the way of progress. By the way, on the subject of the ‘Malaysia boleh’ slogan, I find it interesting to hear the Americans also using an ‘America can’ slogan around the time Obama came to power. Wonder who followed who.
Now however, the time has come for us Malaysians to look at and address the other facets of our development as a nation. Economic and material well-being is but one facet of the total national being. There are other facets, equally if not more important. Just like wealth is not the most important and certainly not the only attribute by which one judges a person, so it is with nations. Failure to address the non material facets of our development may one day turn us into a nation of wealthy but otherwise despicable people. That prodigious son of Malacca who for so long hemmed the development of that city state to our south, had once launched a campaign for his people to ‘smile’ and used the term ‘despicable’ to describe such people with little else besides material success, a rude people devoid of cultured behaviour and general good manners. How successful he was in this ‘smile’ campaign is of less consequence to us than the question of whether or not we now need a similar campaign for ourselves.
Consider the incidents of dishonesty committed by Malaysians that became big public news:
• Some years ago there was a scandal involving the fixing of English football games and at the centre of it was a Malaysian.
• Some years ago the Bank Bumiputera (way before the more recent merger exercises and name changes) was brought to its knees by its own senior officers.
• Some years earlier, the Bank Rakyat was also affected by wrongdoings committed by its very top officers. Luckily they have recovered and that without name changes and mergers.
• There were a number of occasions when public examination papers were leaked.
• There were published cases of academic plagiarism in our institutes of higher learning.
• There is wide spread trade in materials that infringe on copyright and patent proprietary rights (music, movies, reading materials, computer software, drugs, other fake products passed of as the genuine article) as if there is completely nothing wrong with such acts. Maybe we also have powdered milk containing melamine.
• There are frequent reports, accusations and innuendos of corrupt practices on the part of public officials, all through the ranks.
• There are periodic reports concerning the massive amount of study loans drawn by students that are not subsequently repaid when these students completed their studies and started working. Note that these are supposedly the cream of our youth.
I have also heard stories, of course unverified, of Malaysian students in the United Kingdom leaving huge unpaid credit card and telephone debts when they returned to Malaysia. There were also similar unverified stories of students buying dresses which they then use to go to a party only to return them the next day on the pretext that the items were defective (having deliberately created the defects themselves by removing some stitches). Likewise there were also stories of people buying a sewing machine that they subsequently used to stitch the curtains for their whole house, before returning it on the grounds that the machine did not quite measure up to their expectations.
In the context of a country with a small population like ours, are these incidents then to be considered isolated cases, or are they symptomatic of a basic problem in the fundamental make up of the Malaysian personality. Are these simply rare cases of deviant personalities, or would most Malaysians have behaved similarly had they been in the same place with the same opportunities? An honest assessment of the station we are at would be necessary if we are to initiate an honest development programme in respect of the non material aspects of our national being. I would therefore like to invite fellow Malaysians to honestly rate us as a people. Whatever you are or think you are as a person is not the question here. Give us your opinion about your fellow Malaysians in general. If you are personally dishonest, do you believe that most Malaysians are dishonest anyway and you are therefore perfectly normal? On the other hand, if you are honest, do you believe that most Malaysians are dishonest and you are therefore entirely special?
For this purpose, I believe that we should certainly compare ourselves with those who are among the best in the world, not with those who are among the worst. For example, I have heard that in some places they can actually place newspapers unattended on a bench with an open can next to it and expect people to take a copy and pay for it by putting the money into the open can. Likewise, I have also heard that in some places people commit suicide out of shame if they cannot honour their debts. On the other hand, there are also places where people merrily transfer their assets to trusted proxies, declare bankruptcy to get out of honouring their debts, and proudly continue to parade themselves in chauffeured limousines in front of admiring crowds. There are also places you dare not even park your car, lest all four wheels disappear. Or maybe the whole car will disappear for re-export to the Middle East.
To assist us, I list below some indicative questions. Whereas the questions may on the surface of it appear entirely trivial when talking about development and civilization, they are indicative of the mentality and attitude, and the finesse or the lack of it amongst the people that comprises our society. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 indicating the worst possible situation and 1 indicating the best achievable state, rate now your fellow Malaysians.
A) General Behaviour
1) The way Malaysians drive:
• How many of us honk impatiently when we get caught in a traffic jam, even when it is obvious that there is nothing any one could do? Do others than join in to create a ruckus?
• How many of us drive on the outer lane of the expressway (speed limit of 110 kph usually) at 80 kph, busily chatting with our girlfriends or talking on the phone, oblivious to others who may want or need to go faster?
• How many of us hassle other drivers who are already driving as fast as permitted by law while overtaking a string of other vehicles, simply because we want to go even faster than the speed limit? How many of us then blare our horns, flash our lights and start to ‘cucuk’ the car in front (come very close as if to ram their rear ends), instead of allowing them to finish overtaking and move left?
• How many of us weave, overtaking on the left and on the right, when there is a long line of vehicles on the highway, all already travelling with the flow of traffic at around the speed limit? Especially when we drive better cars than the ordinary blokes?
• How many of us just honk impatiently in front of our gates, expecting the Indonesian indentured labour to open the gates for us, even when it is not raining and it is late at night and we live in link houses? Especially when we drive S-class Mercs with loud horns?
• How many of us do not really care if our actions cause others to get into traffic accidents?
2) The way Malaysians dispose rubbish:
• How many of us throw things out of windows of high-rise buildings, not even caring that someone innocent could get seriously injured or even killed?
• How many of us throw rubbish (cigarette buts, plastic bags of fruit peel, empty cans, etc.,) out of car windows, not caring if what we threw out could hit the car behind, besides dirtying the place?
• How many of us litter everywhere, (on the roads, in the parks, on the beaches, etc.,) dirtying and spoiling the beauty of the place that others could otherwise enjoy?
• How many of us throw rubbish into all kinds of things, except the proper rubbish bins, clogging rivers, drains, toilet bowls, urinals, etc., thus inconveniencing others and making a mess of the country in general?
• How many of us who are charged with the responsibility of providing the necessary services and facilities to ensure cleanliness and hygiene criminally neglect our duties, such that it is impossible not to dirty the environment? (If disposal means are inadequate, we cannot just wave a wand to make the refuse disappear. Neither can we avoid generating household refuse.)
3) Other Behavioural Aberrations:
• How often do you find Malaysians jostling instead of voluntarily cuing-up for buses, trains, tickets, anything at all?
• How often do you find young and healthy Malaysian adults nonchalantly sitting on seats reserved for the aged, pregnant and those otherwise impaired, in trains and the like, while those for whom those seats were reserved stand right in front of them?
• How often do you find Malaysians jostling for food, at an Annual General Meeting of a public listed company, as if they had not eaten for weeks, such that the trays of food carried by the waiters are empty even before they reach the serving tables?
• How many cases have you heard of Malaysians treating their housemaids like slaves, not respecting their religious beliefs and physically or sexually abusing them?
B) Honour and Honesty
• How many Malaysian businessmen cheat in their income declaration for tax purposes, do not pay their contributions to the Employee Provident Fund faithfully, and do not transmit onwards the sales/service tax they collect supposedly for the Government?
• How many Malaysian businessmen deal in fake products, pass-off fakes as the genuine articles, use ‘Halal’ labels on their products without observing or even knowing the requirements, and generally have no respect for the proprietary rights of others?
• How many Malaysian businessmen would find the idea of multiple financing a single piece of equipment perfectly acceptable, if he needed to raise money but has no other collateral to offer?
• How many Malaysian salary earners, who pay taxes according to their dues, only do so because they really do not have much of a choice?
• How many Malaysian Muslims avoid paying the Zakat, this being a self-policed lean on their incomes and wealth?
• How many Malaysians would default on their debts, borrow regardless of ability to repay, borrow without at all intending to repay and/or under-declare the value of imported items?
• How many Malaysians would submit false and inflated insurance claims for damage to motor vehicles if they had the opportunity?
• How many Malaysian parents of school-going children ask for free books for their children even when they are not entitled to such subsidies, by under-declaring their incomes?
• How many Malaysian students, at all levels, from the lowest level public examinations to the highest level post-graduate thesis work, and even for their driving tests, would cheat if they had the opportunity? (Bribery, plagiarism, copying, submitting work done by others?)
• How many Malaysian golfers enter competitions with doctored, nursed, or under-declared handicaps, not counting doctored, nursed or under-declared count of strokes? (Forgetting that such ‘handicapped’ games are meant to be social games and not professional tournaments for those not good enough even as amateurs to supplement their personal incomes.)
Well fellow Malaysians, how did you rate us? Can we stand proud as a civilised people?
Or are we a somewhat wealthy but despicable people, on the way to becoming a truly wealthy but despicable people? Or worse, are we a somewhat wealthy but despicable people on the way to becoming a poorer and despicable people, because our wealth is not founded on solid fundamentals? Are we not too much like a landlord dependent on foreign tenants? Well, there will always be more inviting places for the tenants, like in Vietnam, Sri Lanka, or China even. Can our own companies, nurtured as they are either on Government preferential treatment or the strength of clan based cartels, or both, while possessing very little in the way of high value proprietary assets, compete on the open international market of which even our own continually prised open internal market will be merely a part? Even our small grocers have now to compete with the likes of Tesco, Carrefour and the now Hong Kong owned Giant?
By the way, I am someone who thinks that maybe, a Chief Executive who steals Rm5 million from the company but still leaves it with a pre-tax profit RM500 million, is much better for the company, than the Chief Executive who does not steal but generates only RM50 million in pre-tax profits, or worse, incur a loss of RM50 million. Did any of our Chief Executive steal? Maybe yes, maybe no, but I do not know. That is the absolute truth. I do know however, that if the able Chief Executive who stole in the example above had not stolen, the hypothetical company would have recorded much more than RM500 million in pre-tax profits and not just RM505 million. How come? There would have been much less stealing down the line under an able Chief Executive who does not himself steal. On the other hand, the less than able Chief Executive in the above hypothetical example would not even realise if the assets of the company were being stolen and sold to competitors by those closest to him. And God forbid if the less than able Chief Executive above also steals. There must be places in the world where this happens. I wonder where. But I pray that we will never have the misfortune of being governed by a party led by such a less than able administrator who is at the same time less than absolutely honest, with his only strength residing in oratory and charisma.
I leave you to ponder the significance of this last paragraph.
Materially, the average Malaysian now lives very much better than the average person in many other countries. We eat so much richer now that we now have a problem of obesity. Whereas the average Malaysian did not own cars in 1957, even my driver had two cars and a motorcycle in 2007. Our network of roads and highways is as good as any in the world. Then again there are the schools and universities, the hospitals, the sports and leisure facilities, the Petronas Twin Towers, etc., etc. As for leisure, do you know that there are cabbies in Malaysia who actually play golf?
Even as recently as the mid-1970’s very few people outside of South East Asia even knew that a country called Malaysia existed. Those of us who for one reason or another had to go overseas, invariably had to explain that Malaysia was a country north of Singapore and south of Thailand, or that Malaysia was not the capital of Singapore, or that Malaysia was not in China or in Vietnam, etc., etc. I have even heard of an instance when an African diplomat asked a Malaysian diplomat about how bad our last winter was, to which the naughty Malaysian replied that we had six feet of snow in the capital city. The last time I was in Europe however, I was only asked if I believed that our former Deputy Prime Minister actually committed sodomy. Asked the same question, I believe that some of us would maybe reply,’ Irrelevant’. Others would maybe reply, ‘Who Cares’, ‘What do you think?’, ‘I think so’, or ‘Maybe’.
Those of us who in one way or another positively contributed to this rapid economic and material development, directly or indirectly, morally, immorally or amorally, can be justifiably proud of our part in the development process. And Malaysians in general can be equally proud for belonging to this nation of achievers with the ‘Malaysia boleh’ (Malaysia can) spirit. At the least you did not, or maybe tried but failed to, stand in the way of progress. By the way, on the subject of the ‘Malaysia boleh’ slogan, I find it interesting to hear the Americans also using an ‘America can’ slogan around the time Obama came to power. Wonder who followed who.
Now however, the time has come for us Malaysians to look at and address the other facets of our development as a nation. Economic and material well-being is but one facet of the total national being. There are other facets, equally if not more important. Just like wealth is not the most important and certainly not the only attribute by which one judges a person, so it is with nations. Failure to address the non material facets of our development may one day turn us into a nation of wealthy but otherwise despicable people. That prodigious son of Malacca who for so long hemmed the development of that city state to our south, had once launched a campaign for his people to ‘smile’ and used the term ‘despicable’ to describe such people with little else besides material success, a rude people devoid of cultured behaviour and general good manners. How successful he was in this ‘smile’ campaign is of less consequence to us than the question of whether or not we now need a similar campaign for ourselves.
Consider the incidents of dishonesty committed by Malaysians that became big public news:
• Some years ago there was a scandal involving the fixing of English football games and at the centre of it was a Malaysian.
• Some years ago the Bank Bumiputera (way before the more recent merger exercises and name changes) was brought to its knees by its own senior officers.
• Some years earlier, the Bank Rakyat was also affected by wrongdoings committed by its very top officers. Luckily they have recovered and that without name changes and mergers.
• There were a number of occasions when public examination papers were leaked.
• There were published cases of academic plagiarism in our institutes of higher learning.
• There is wide spread trade in materials that infringe on copyright and patent proprietary rights (music, movies, reading materials, computer software, drugs, other fake products passed of as the genuine article) as if there is completely nothing wrong with such acts. Maybe we also have powdered milk containing melamine.
• There are frequent reports, accusations and innuendos of corrupt practices on the part of public officials, all through the ranks.
• There are periodic reports concerning the massive amount of study loans drawn by students that are not subsequently repaid when these students completed their studies and started working. Note that these are supposedly the cream of our youth.
I have also heard stories, of course unverified, of Malaysian students in the United Kingdom leaving huge unpaid credit card and telephone debts when they returned to Malaysia. There were also similar unverified stories of students buying dresses which they then use to go to a party only to return them the next day on the pretext that the items were defective (having deliberately created the defects themselves by removing some stitches). Likewise there were also stories of people buying a sewing machine that they subsequently used to stitch the curtains for their whole house, before returning it on the grounds that the machine did not quite measure up to their expectations.
In the context of a country with a small population like ours, are these incidents then to be considered isolated cases, or are they symptomatic of a basic problem in the fundamental make up of the Malaysian personality. Are these simply rare cases of deviant personalities, or would most Malaysians have behaved similarly had they been in the same place with the same opportunities? An honest assessment of the station we are at would be necessary if we are to initiate an honest development programme in respect of the non material aspects of our national being. I would therefore like to invite fellow Malaysians to honestly rate us as a people. Whatever you are or think you are as a person is not the question here. Give us your opinion about your fellow Malaysians in general. If you are personally dishonest, do you believe that most Malaysians are dishonest anyway and you are therefore perfectly normal? On the other hand, if you are honest, do you believe that most Malaysians are dishonest and you are therefore entirely special?
For this purpose, I believe that we should certainly compare ourselves with those who are among the best in the world, not with those who are among the worst. For example, I have heard that in some places they can actually place newspapers unattended on a bench with an open can next to it and expect people to take a copy and pay for it by putting the money into the open can. Likewise, I have also heard that in some places people commit suicide out of shame if they cannot honour their debts. On the other hand, there are also places where people merrily transfer their assets to trusted proxies, declare bankruptcy to get out of honouring their debts, and proudly continue to parade themselves in chauffeured limousines in front of admiring crowds. There are also places you dare not even park your car, lest all four wheels disappear. Or maybe the whole car will disappear for re-export to the Middle East.
To assist us, I list below some indicative questions. Whereas the questions may on the surface of it appear entirely trivial when talking about development and civilization, they are indicative of the mentality and attitude, and the finesse or the lack of it amongst the people that comprises our society. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 indicating the worst possible situation and 1 indicating the best achievable state, rate now your fellow Malaysians.
A) General Behaviour
1) The way Malaysians drive:
• How many of us honk impatiently when we get caught in a traffic jam, even when it is obvious that there is nothing any one could do? Do others than join in to create a ruckus?
• How many of us drive on the outer lane of the expressway (speed limit of 110 kph usually) at 80 kph, busily chatting with our girlfriends or talking on the phone, oblivious to others who may want or need to go faster?
• How many of us hassle other drivers who are already driving as fast as permitted by law while overtaking a string of other vehicles, simply because we want to go even faster than the speed limit? How many of us then blare our horns, flash our lights and start to ‘cucuk’ the car in front (come very close as if to ram their rear ends), instead of allowing them to finish overtaking and move left?
• How many of us weave, overtaking on the left and on the right, when there is a long line of vehicles on the highway, all already travelling with the flow of traffic at around the speed limit? Especially when we drive better cars than the ordinary blokes?
• How many of us just honk impatiently in front of our gates, expecting the Indonesian indentured labour to open the gates for us, even when it is not raining and it is late at night and we live in link houses? Especially when we drive S-class Mercs with loud horns?
• How many of us do not really care if our actions cause others to get into traffic accidents?
2) The way Malaysians dispose rubbish:
• How many of us throw things out of windows of high-rise buildings, not even caring that someone innocent could get seriously injured or even killed?
• How many of us throw rubbish (cigarette buts, plastic bags of fruit peel, empty cans, etc.,) out of car windows, not caring if what we threw out could hit the car behind, besides dirtying the place?
• How many of us litter everywhere, (on the roads, in the parks, on the beaches, etc.,) dirtying and spoiling the beauty of the place that others could otherwise enjoy?
• How many of us throw rubbish into all kinds of things, except the proper rubbish bins, clogging rivers, drains, toilet bowls, urinals, etc., thus inconveniencing others and making a mess of the country in general?
• How many of us who are charged with the responsibility of providing the necessary services and facilities to ensure cleanliness and hygiene criminally neglect our duties, such that it is impossible not to dirty the environment? (If disposal means are inadequate, we cannot just wave a wand to make the refuse disappear. Neither can we avoid generating household refuse.)
3) Other Behavioural Aberrations:
• How often do you find Malaysians jostling instead of voluntarily cuing-up for buses, trains, tickets, anything at all?
• How often do you find young and healthy Malaysian adults nonchalantly sitting on seats reserved for the aged, pregnant and those otherwise impaired, in trains and the like, while those for whom those seats were reserved stand right in front of them?
• How often do you find Malaysians jostling for food, at an Annual General Meeting of a public listed company, as if they had not eaten for weeks, such that the trays of food carried by the waiters are empty even before they reach the serving tables?
• How many cases have you heard of Malaysians treating their housemaids like slaves, not respecting their religious beliefs and physically or sexually abusing them?
B) Honour and Honesty
• How many Malaysian businessmen cheat in their income declaration for tax purposes, do not pay their contributions to the Employee Provident Fund faithfully, and do not transmit onwards the sales/service tax they collect supposedly for the Government?
• How many Malaysian businessmen deal in fake products, pass-off fakes as the genuine articles, use ‘Halal’ labels on their products without observing or even knowing the requirements, and generally have no respect for the proprietary rights of others?
• How many Malaysian businessmen would find the idea of multiple financing a single piece of equipment perfectly acceptable, if he needed to raise money but has no other collateral to offer?
• How many Malaysian salary earners, who pay taxes according to their dues, only do so because they really do not have much of a choice?
• How many Malaysian Muslims avoid paying the Zakat, this being a self-policed lean on their incomes and wealth?
• How many Malaysians would default on their debts, borrow regardless of ability to repay, borrow without at all intending to repay and/or under-declare the value of imported items?
• How many Malaysians would submit false and inflated insurance claims for damage to motor vehicles if they had the opportunity?
• How many Malaysian parents of school-going children ask for free books for their children even when they are not entitled to such subsidies, by under-declaring their incomes?
• How many Malaysian students, at all levels, from the lowest level public examinations to the highest level post-graduate thesis work, and even for their driving tests, would cheat if they had the opportunity? (Bribery, plagiarism, copying, submitting work done by others?)
• How many Malaysian golfers enter competitions with doctored, nursed, or under-declared handicaps, not counting doctored, nursed or under-declared count of strokes? (Forgetting that such ‘handicapped’ games are meant to be social games and not professional tournaments for those not good enough even as amateurs to supplement their personal incomes.)
Well fellow Malaysians, how did you rate us? Can we stand proud as a civilised people?
Or are we a somewhat wealthy but despicable people, on the way to becoming a truly wealthy but despicable people? Or worse, are we a somewhat wealthy but despicable people on the way to becoming a poorer and despicable people, because our wealth is not founded on solid fundamentals? Are we not too much like a landlord dependent on foreign tenants? Well, there will always be more inviting places for the tenants, like in Vietnam, Sri Lanka, or China even. Can our own companies, nurtured as they are either on Government preferential treatment or the strength of clan based cartels, or both, while possessing very little in the way of high value proprietary assets, compete on the open international market of which even our own continually prised open internal market will be merely a part? Even our small grocers have now to compete with the likes of Tesco, Carrefour and the now Hong Kong owned Giant?
By the way, I am someone who thinks that maybe, a Chief Executive who steals Rm5 million from the company but still leaves it with a pre-tax profit RM500 million, is much better for the company, than the Chief Executive who does not steal but generates only RM50 million in pre-tax profits, or worse, incur a loss of RM50 million. Did any of our Chief Executive steal? Maybe yes, maybe no, but I do not know. That is the absolute truth. I do know however, that if the able Chief Executive who stole in the example above had not stolen, the hypothetical company would have recorded much more than RM500 million in pre-tax profits and not just RM505 million. How come? There would have been much less stealing down the line under an able Chief Executive who does not himself steal. On the other hand, the less than able Chief Executive in the above hypothetical example would not even realise if the assets of the company were being stolen and sold to competitors by those closest to him. And God forbid if the less than able Chief Executive above also steals. There must be places in the world where this happens. I wonder where. But I pray that we will never have the misfortune of being governed by a party led by such a less than able administrator who is at the same time less than absolutely honest, with his only strength residing in oratory and charisma.
I leave you to ponder the significance of this last paragraph.
Rights and Wrongs between Employers and Maids
A few days ago another case of maid abuse was highlighted in the local news media, this time resulting in the death of the maid. It was reported that the maid ‘had bruises and scratch marks on her back, arms and forehead, both old and new’ (New Straits Time, June 7, 2011), suggesting that the poor woman had been enduring this abuse and mistreatment for sometime already before finally succumbing.
Some years ago the case involving the maid Nirmala had already elicited all kinds of responses from the public. Public anger and indignation was very much in evidence then, as was to be expected, On the other hand, there were also those who aired their frustrating experiences with their maids. Whereas some stopped at airing their frustrations and problems with maids, which by the way was already a widely known subject, there were still what seemed to be obtuse pleas on behalf of the employers who abuse their maids, i.e., that they can perhaps be partially forgiven or at least understood. This is worrying, i.e. the idea that there exist amongst us people who can, no matter how remotely and obtusely, find an excuse for the deliberate physical abuse of another living thing, let alone another human being.
Deliberate and conscious torture and physical abuse of another human being is not acceptable in civilised society, period. It does not matter whether it is an employer abusing a maid, a maid abusing her employer’s child, a parent abusing his/her own child, or a guard abusing a detainee in a lock-up/prison; there are no reasons, no explanations, and no pleas acceptable. The simple fact is that it is a barbaric act perpetuated by a cruel person, a criminal.
A criminal is a criminal, a murderer is a murderer, and when caught and proven guilty, should be subject to punishment consistent with the cruelty of the crime and the circumstances of its commission, as prescribed by the laws of the country.
Be that as it may, I believe that a person should not be punished before his/her conviction in a court of law. If we believe in the rule of law, then we should also believe that guilt and innocence should only be determined in a court of law after a trial. It may also be necessary to remind ourselves here, that trials in the courts of law are not meant to be mere formalities to endorse the verdict of the public or the media, (which are based on allegations that are as yet unproven and are arrived at without full knowledge of the total circumstances surrounding an alleged crime.) The courts examine all the evidences available, both against and in defence of the accused, and a fairer outcome is therefore more likely. Nobody in his right mind can believe that the courts are infallible; after all they comprise human beings and no human being is infallible. Nonetheless it is the nearest thing we have that can avoid the anarchy of vigilante justice and private vengeance.
A question was raised that particularly attracted my notice. Somebody raised the question of how far an employer can go in disciplining a maid. This is intriguing to me in that it may suggest a mindset that somehow regards maids as in some ways belonging to a sub-specie not quite equal to human beings, or one that sees the acquiring of maids as somewhat akin to buying a slave on the slave market. To such a mind therefore, a maid does not deserve the same kind of basic rights as other employees, like the drivers, the factory hands, the secretaries, the clerks, or for that matter the chief executives of private companies. Maybe the few thousands paid to the agent for bringing the maid into the country is being regarded as part of some kind of slave purchase arrangement.
The maid is an employee, like any other employees. They are not slaves or partial slaves. The fact that they stay in your house does not reduce them to the status of a slave. Likewise, the fact that they eat in your house does not mean that you own their person. These are all simply part of the employment terms and remuneration package they had to accept. Just ask them if they would not rather you give them food and accommodation allowances so that they can stay on their own. They are as human as your secretary or driver, or for that matter you yourself, and have all the same human needs and feelings, and they deserve the same basic rights. You can stop your secretary from using the office phone to call her boyfriend or boyfriends and from always bringing her boyfriend into the office when she is supposed to be working; but you have no right to stop her from having a boy friend or boy friends. Likewise you can stop your maid from using your house phone to call her boy friend and from bringing her boy friend into her work place, (i.e. your house); but you have no right to stop her from having a boy friend. And in most offices, they do allow time for coffee and such things as making personal phone calls (especially if it is with your own mobile phone), so long as the time consumed is not excessive. Maids should also have this same facility that you allow other employees and in turn, your employers allow you. And personally, I think that to require somebody to work continuously and be at your beck and call sixteen hours a day seven days a week is blatant slavery. Maids should be allowed reasonable periods of rest and some days off, which I am very sure most decent employers allow.
Now, on the question of disciplining your maids, the same disciplinary measures available to you in handling your drivers and secretaries are available to you in handling your maids. Likewise, these are also the same measures available to your employers should the need arise where you yourself needs disciplining. Try pulling your secretary’s ear because she is always making typing mistakes in your letters, or slapping your driver because he always forgets to fill your petrol and clean the car for the weekend; and see what happens. Alternatively try picturing your boss hitting your on the head with a file while calling you ‘stupid’; and try picturing your likely reaction. Human beings are human beings, and must all be allowed the same basic rights. They are all to be treated with the same kind of basic respect, whether the person concerned is a maid, a secretary, a driver, a manager, or whatever. And that respect includes respecting their religious beliefs by not expecting them to handle or eat what they are forbidden by their religion. If you cannot do that, do not hire them; ask your agent for one with a different religion. If none are available at the price you are prepared to pay, too bad.
The situation when a maid absconds with her employer’s money is no different from one where an office boy or even a manager disappears with company funds. Likewise, a maid absconding after an employer has paid for her passage is not unlike your child absconding and refusing to serve the Government after the Government has paid for his medical education. Laws govern the available recourse in all these cases, and resort to physical abuse is never an acceptable option. An important thing to remember is that every time you hire or enter into a contract, especially with a stranger, you are taking a risk. Secondly, no absolute foolproof protection from this type of risk is possible. Did you in the first place interview the one you hire or contracted with? Does she know exactly what to expect from you and what she has to give in return? Were you able to do a background check before hiring, especially in the case of a maid who is going to have a free rein in your home? At the end of the day you may still hire, for whatever reason, knowing full well the risks involved. Nonetheless, it remains that the deliberate mental or physical abuse of another human being, even a maid, can never even be remotely justified. Also, just as it is true that not all employers are monsters, it is also true that not all maids are out to swindle their employers.
Perhaps, given the gravity of the circumstances, all foreign maids should be presented at their respective embassies at least fortnightly by their employers, where their proper treatment by employers can be ascertained by the people at their embassies. There should also be the political will to review the system and process of hiring maids, such that an arrangement that benefits both maids and employers instead of just enriching the agents on both sides of the border, much like the slave trade in the days of old, can be developed. The current system smacks too much of the old slave trade.
By the way, I do have maids and have had one that absconded after we paid for her passage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)