IT'S 31ST AUGUST AGAIN, FOLKS!

Malaya's First PM 

Watching the Malayan Emergency on the History Channel last Sunday made me reminisce over a couple of things, some of which people take for granted these days.

My youth was smacked during the emergency.I would watch in anticipation each time we came to a Police Checkpoint along the road. They were manned by the Police and SCs (Special Constables). They were created during the emergency to beef up and assist the regular police. They were usually put on base defence, rapid response and escort duties,  I used to wonder what would have happened if we had  essentials like rice and sugar in the boot of the car. To the uninitiated perhaps War Of The Running Dogs : Malaya 1948 - 1960 by Noel Barbar would make a interesting read. I was given a copy by a late uncle on my departure for the UK many, many years ago, back in the 70s. Running Dogs is the contemptuous term used by the communist guerrillas for those who remained loyal to the British. It was one of the successful  counter-insurgency activity of the time. To some it was a war of  " hearts and minds". 

The family made a trip back to our kampung from Kota Bahru for the Merdeka (Independence ) Day. Wherever we went, my brothers would cry out "Merdeka" to the cyclists, trishaw paddlers, pedestrians, motorists and what have you, from the car windows. Cars were not air-conditioned then, so the windows would always be winded down. All of them enthusiastically replied  "Merdeka" and waved back at my brothers. A cyclist even wobbled along the roadside but replied he did! Such was the spirit then. Anyway the non-Malays had already been given citizenship not many years earlier. So, I guess the euphoria of  independence must still be bubbling.

The Communists smirked at the so called independence when the British were still at the helm of the Civil Service. I often heard dad's conversation to the effect that this didn't matter. In time local people were able to replace them  and the rule of law  would still prevail even after the British had left completely. Not many countries were able to do that at that time. India and Pakistan wallowed in a blood bath, Indonesia fought a war for her independence, to name a few closer to home.  I have heard stories of how kampung folks and family members had come together to offer whatever monetary contributions to send kampung  kids to University Malaya (then in Singapore) or overseas Universities. I also know that in return, they have  done their part in improving the lot of other kampung folks.

It would appear that the age old colonial educational policy had come full circle. Sons of fishermen and peasants no longer find it desirable to just become better fishermen or peasants than their fathers. Nevertheless, many of them were indeed plodded  by new qualified local elites and Malay intelligentsia (?)  in their aspiration to bridge the social and ethnic inequality, a colonial legacy. It felt like only yesterday when "basket-making" was a virtual symbol of Malay Education Policy that denied desirability of intellectual pursuit.....a system that taught the "dignity of labour" and avoided the potential "trouble" of being "over-educated" .....a system that had become an agent of social control. For example, Malay kids had to attend vernacular schooling for four years before they could be admitted to English Schools while no such restriction was put on other kids. Hence socioeconomic mobility of the Malays was restricted. The colonials were all too happy to retain the Malays as agrarian. For all intents and purposes, Mr Winstedt would not find much love here, today.

I remembered an ex-teacher of my dad, a Scotsman, who had remained in Malaysia as a senior Education Officer till the time of  PM, Tun Abdul Razak before he retired and returned to Scotland. I had the pleasure of visiting him at his home in Newton Stewart. He thought well of the progress made in education ....a vast difference in policies then when girls, especially Malay girls, were just educated so that they might  make good wives of civil servants. No wonder, when we made a strong request for Pure Science to  be offered at our College back then, our Principal, an Eurasian lady,  was more bewildered and wondered why we girls wanted it!

There were flags draping out from every shop and decorated arches to herald in  the historical day and that seemed to be the main feature of Merdeka Day  anniversary for many years to come.

On the morning of 31st August, 1957, dad left very early for Kuala Lumpur to witness the merdeka celebration in Merdeka Stadium with a friend. The rest of us followed the proceeding over the radio - Radio Malaya- amidst it's crackling reception!

Malaysia has weathered many a day. There will always be issues to settle, diversities to bridge. We all have our own legacy to deal with but I remember the words of the late Tan Sri Ghazali Shafie during his appearance at Malaysia Hall, "The shortest distance between two hearts is not necessarily a straight line".

WHAT IS A RIGHT

A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others. The concept of a right carries with it an implicit, unstated footnote: you may exercise your rights as long as you do not violate the same rights of another—within this context, rights are an absolute.

A right is universal—meaning: it applies to all men, not just to a few. There is no such thing as a "right" for one man, or a group of men, that is not possessed by all. This means there are no special "rights" unique to women or men, blacks or white, the elderly or the young, homosexuals or heterosexuals, the rich or the poor, doctors or patients or any other group.

A right must be exercised through your own initiative and action. It is not a claim on others. A right is not actualized and implemented by the actions of others. This means you do not have the right to the time in another person’s life. You do not have a right to other people’s money. You do not have the right to another person’s property. If you wish to acquire some money from another person, you must earn it—then you have a right to it. If you wish to gain some benefit from the time of another person’s life, you must gain it through the voluntary cooperation of that individual—not through coercion. If you wish to possess some item of property of another individual, you must buy it on terms acceptable to the owner—not gain it through theft.

Alone in a wilderness, the concept of a right would never occur to you, even though in such isolation you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In this solitude, you would be free to take the actions needed to sustain your life: hunt for food, grow crops, build a shelter and so on. If a hundred new settlers suddenly arrive in your area and establish a community, you do not gain any additional rights by living in such a society nor do you lose any; you simply retain the same rights you possessed when you were alone.

A right defines what you may do without the permission of those other men and it erects a moral and legal barrier across which they may not cross. It is your protection against those who attempt to forcibly take some of your life’s time, your money or property.

Animals do not have rights. Rights only apply to beings capable of thought, capable of defining rights and creating an organized means—government—of protecting such rights. Thus, a fly or mosquito does not possess rights of any kind, including the right to life. You may swat a fly or mosquito, killing them both. You do not have the right to do the same to another human being, except in self-defense. You may own and raise cows, keep them in captivity and milk them for all they are worth. You do not have the right to do the same to other men, although that is what statists effectively do to you.

There is only one, fundamental right, the right to life—which is: the sovereignty to follow your own judgment, without anyone’s permission, about the actions in your life. All other rights are applications of this right to specific contexts, such as property and freedom of speech.

The right to property is the right to take the action needed to create and/or earn the material means needed for living. Once you have earned it, then that particular property is yours—which means: you have the right to control the use and disposal of that property. It may not be taken from you or used by others without your permission.

Freedom of speech is the right to say anything you wish, using any medium of communication you can afford. It is not the responsibility of others to pay for some means of expression or to provide you with a platform on which to speak. If a newspaper or television station refuses to allow you to express your views utilizing their property, your right to freedom of speech has not been violated and this is not censorship. Censorship is a concept that only applies to government action, the action of forcibly forbidding and/or punishing the expression of certain ideas.

Statists have corrupted the actual meaning of a right and have converted it, in the minds of most, into its opposite: into a claim on the life of another. With the growth of statism, over the past few decades, we have seen an explosion of these "rights"—which, in fact, have gradually eroded your actual right to your life, money and property.

Statists declare you have a "right" to housing, to a job, to health care, to an education, to a minimum wage, to preferential treatment if you are a minority and so on. These "rights" are all a claim, a lien, on your life and the lives of others. These "rights" impose a form of involuntary servitude on you and others. These "rights" force you to pay for someone’s housing, their health care, their education, for training for a job—and, it forces others to provide special treatment for certain groups and to pay higher-than-necessary wages.

Under statism, "rights" are a means of enslavement: it places a mortgage on your life—and statists are the mortgage holders, on the receiving end of unearned payments forcibly extracted from your life and your earnings. You do not have a right to your life, others do. Others do not have a right to their lives, either, but you have a "right" to theirs. Such a concept of "rights" forcibly hog-ties everyone to everyone else, making everyone a slave to everyone else—except for those masters, statist politicians, who pull the strings and crack the whips.

Actual rights—those actions to which you are entitled by your nature as man—give you clear title to your life. A right is your declaration of independence. A statist "right" is their declaration of your dependence on others and other's dependence on you. Until these bogus "rights" are repudiated, your freedom to live your life as you see fit will continue to slowly disappear.

(http://www.freerepublic.com)

The above write may have omitted certain important facts about "right" but it is still an interesting article. Below is another interesting article on the subject by Andrew P Napolitano.

In the continually harsh public discourse over the President’s proposals for federally-managed healthcare, the Big Government progressives in both the Democratic and the Republican parties have been trying to trick us. These folks, who really want the government to care for us from cradle to grave, have been promoting the idea that health care is a right. In promoting that false premise, they have succeeded in moving the debate from WHETHER the feds should micro-manage health care to HOW the feds should micro-manage health care. This is a false premise, and we should reject it. Health care is not a right; it is a good, like food, like shelter, and like clothing.

What is a right? A right is a gift from God that extends from our humanity. Thinkers from St. Thomas Aquinas, to Thomas Jefferson, to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to Pope John Paul II have all argued that our rights are a natural part of our humanity. We own our bodies, thus we own the gifts that emanate from our bodies. So, our right to life, our right to develop our personalities, our right to think as we wish, to say what we think, to publish what we say, our right to worship or not worship, our right to travel, to defend ourselves, to use our own property as we see fit, our right to due process – fairness – from the government, and our right to be left alone, are all rights that stem from our humanity. These are natural rights that we are born with. The government doesn’t give them to us and the government doesn’t pay for them and the government can’t take them away, unless a jury finds that we have violated someone else’s rights.

What is a good? A good is something we want or need. In a sense, it is the opposite of a right. We have our rights from birth, but we need our parents when we are children and we need ourselves as adults to purchase the goods we require for existence. So, food is a good, shelter is a good, clothing is a good, education is a good, a car is a good, legal representation is a good, working out at a gym is a good, and access to health care is a good. Does the government give us goods? Well, sometimes it takes money from some of us and gives that money to others. You can call that taxation or you can call it theft; but you cannot call it a right.

A right stems from our humanity. A good is something you buy or someone else buys for you.

Now, when you look at health care for what it is, when you look at the US Constitution, when you look at the history of human freedom, when you accept the American value of the primacy of the individual over the fleeting wishes of the government, it becomes apparent that those who claim that healthcare is a right simply want to extend a form of government welfare.

When I make this argument to my Big Government friends, they come back at me with…well, if people don’t have health insurance, they will just go to hospitals and we will end up paying for them anyway. Why should that be? We don’t let people steal food from a supermarket or an apartment from a landlord or clothing from a local shop. Why do we let them take healthcare from a hospital without paying for it? Well, my Big Government friends contend, that’s charity.

They are wrong again. It is impossible to be charitable with someone else’s money. Charity comes from your own heart, not from the government spending your money. When we pay our taxes to the government and it gives that money away, that’s not charity, that’s welfare. When the government takes more from us than it needs to secure our freedoms, so it can have money to give away, that’s not charity, that’s theft. And when the government forces hospitals to provide free health care to those who can’t or won’t care for themselves, that’s not charity, that’s slavery. That’s why we now have constitutional chaos, because the government steals and enslaves, and we outlawed that a long time ago.

December 19, 2009

Andrew P. Napolitano , a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel. His next book is Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History, (Nelson, 2010).

http://www.lewrockwell.com

REMEMBERING KHALIDAH ADIBAH AMIN, DAUGHTER OF IBU ZAIN

I stumbled across an article on Adibah Amin while mooching through a friend's blog. No, it wasn't his article but that of his friend. Ah, how small this world is now! Thanks to Dato Ti and his friend Nuraina A Samad whose article  has made this experience possible!

Adibah Amin
From her Facebook Profile

I did a little search here and there and found her Facebook profile with the following message:

Assalamualaikum, Adibah Amin suffered a stroke in August 2007, and currently not able to write anything. She can walk with assistance, but there are many things that she cannot do now. Your messages will be forwarded to her, InsyaAllah. Thank you.

It hit me like a gush of water at the bottom of the waterfall! Please son, don't ask me if I had been there! You see, my son has this knack of questioning every thing his parents say. Ask me instead Adibah Amin, who, and I'll tell you my story about her. 

It was in the 50s when Adibah Amin became a regular on Radio Malaya dramas. Those days, the radio meant everything! It rested near my head when I was in bed. It was my constant companion......well at least before I went to  College in Damansara, KL in the 60s. There we were not allowed many things in bed!  It was much to our surprise when one day Cikgu Khalidah stepped into our History and Geography classes. Her voice was so familiar, so crystal clear. You see over Radio Malaya, she was always known as Adibah Amin. Now, lessons with her took a completely different approach. Knowing her interest in drama she often made us act out scenes from the various historical eras all of which aided us in remembering them. You bet history class was never boring.  The girls still reminisce over it. By the way, the Wiki has the date of her joining the College all wrong.

As for Geography, we learned that she was not much of an artist alright, but was never lacking in illustrations...I mean...India was a big triangle, China was a huge pot belly, and Malaya of course a diamond. Who else would have made us imagine like that?

We knew of her early attempt at writing. How we  dreamed  of  doing the same. 

She did not reside in the College though. We understand she was married to one Raja Iskandar who occasionally did come on the air of Radio Malaya too. I know nothing more beyond that. She was very pally  with another residential teacher, Cik Siti Maria, our English Language teacher, another teacher we admired equally. Siti Mariah wore her hair in an iconic bun like a true Malay lady. I wonder how she is now?

I recall that Cikgu Khalidah did not follow us when the College moved to Seremban. However we followed her through her columns in the newspapers. When she appeared as Cikgu Bedah in the 1980 movie, Adik Manja in her Baju Kurung and rubber shoes, that reminded us ex-Collegians (by then) how we were at times! We could only leave College  either in Baju Kurung or the school uniform. Either way, the rubber shoes were a must! I do wonder if that portrayal had anything to do with her own experience with us? Cikgu Bedah won her the Best Supporting Actress Award in the 1st Malay Film Festival, 1980.  How timely! Well, I understand she did do two more films, Hati Bukan Kristal (1989) and Mat Som (1990).

Personally I think her best accomplishment was in the literary world where she had won many accolades  as Sri Delima.

I thank Cikgu Khalidah for all the inspiration and hope and pray for her recovery. May Allah bless you.

(Updated: August 7, 2010)

CLEOPATRA - BEYOND THE MYTH

By Michel Chauveau and translated by David Lorton

I have always enjoyed reading about strong women and where else would you find one ? I found this little book at Kinokuniya for a mere RM7.00. Do not mistake it's size. It took me a while to venture beyond the Introduction and Chapter 1 purely because I found myself suddenly immersed  in the Hellenistic era, an era I had shelved a long time back except for a brief period when I did the comparison of Alexander the Great during the reading of Iskandar Zulkarnain.  In the end, I had to keep another reference open  to  check on the personalities mentioned in the book as I progressed. Yes, the book expects readers some background knowledge of Hellenistic Egypt. At times I read 2 pages forward and then 3 pages backwords! It's a small book with only 104 pages and I reckon that was why not much background information is provided on many of the personalities. You just have to research it yourself. By the way, I just found out that  E-book is available on the internet.

Thanks to the author's warning that there is really very little or no ancient account of Cleopatra VII's reign - not even a simple biographic summary of it - thus had allowed romantic legends to flourish. What actually existed consists of little of the Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton stuff! History recorded that Cleopatra was the last queen of ancient Egypt whose defeat had given birth to Rome's imperial regime. Wouldn't that make it difficult for the author ?

While I had wanted to just write a simple review, I thought I might as well do more than that to justify my effort. I am sure a little more history would not hurt.

After the death of Alexander The Great in 323 BCE, Ptolemy, a commander in the Macedonian army and  son of Lagos, one of Alexander's bodyguard, established the Lagides Dynasty in Egypt with Alexandria as it's capital. My other  reference states that with that, his rivals for power viz.  Cassander of Macedonia, and Seleucus of Syria, countered by declaring themselves kings of their respective dominions. Thus came into existence the three great monarchies that were to dominate the Hellenistic world until, one by one, they were absorbed into the Roman Empire, ending the ancient Egypt Ptolemaic period.

The Greeks practised incestuous marriages. While the crown had devised a system of exploitation, dynastic struggles, fratricidal  conflicts were very prevalent. To cut the story short, Cleopatra VII represented a line of determined women who did not hesitate to exercise effective power in the place of inept and discredited husbands or sons. History of the period was written by the Romans like Plutarch. Details of earlier queens were lacking believed to be  more due to lack of partners or adversaries of the stature of Julius Caesar or Mark Anthony who were of course renown Romans. Furthermore, the Lagides was simply a dismal kingdom and in most part a murky affair. Only when the Romans were ravaging Asia Minor did the intellectuals flock to seek refuge in Alexandria.

Cleopatra is said to be an illegitimate daughter of Ptolemy XII and co-reigned Egypt with her brother-husband (?) Ptolemy XIII., then a child king himself after sending their father into exile to Rome. In Rome he survived on the hospitality of, who else but Julius Caesar. The book labours to seek proofs of Cleopatra's co-regency, subsequent sequence of events including possible royal tutelage, fleeing to Syria , Roman civil war .....of Caesar against Pompey culminating in the death of Pompey at the hands of Ptolemy XIII's men. That proved to be a turning point for Ptolomy, Caesar and Cleopatra who had been waiting to claim her throne of Egypt.

While Pompey  had been Caesar's rival, they were once colleagues. Cleopatra's entrance before Caesar rolled in a carpet (a means to circumvent the blockade on her by Ptolomy) evoked quite different reactions from him as when Ptolomy presented Pompey's head when mistrust instead of gratitude was evoked. "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts" came to mind. In Cleopatra, Caesar found not just a worthy ally........

Not all was well in the royal court of Egypt. Egyptian administrator like Pothinos, commandant Achillas and tutor Theodotos had other plans and managed to avert reconciliation with the Romans.. Caesar triumphed in the ensuing Alexandrian War with a little help from Antipater  (father of future King Herod) and his Jewish contingents. He then installed the younger brother Ptolomy XIV and Cleopatra VII as the new royal couple. With Caesar's favour, there is little doubt on who would have been the more effective of the two. Egypt thus became a protectorate of Rome.  Ptolomy XIII was presumed drowned in his attempt to escape in an overladen boat. His body was never found save his cuirass. Thus was Cleopatra's ascension to the throne of Egypt.

As duty called, affairs in Asia Minor beckoned attention, one wonders whether Caesar actually had time to take the legendary cruise up the Nile with the Queen of Egypt and his legions to Memphis.  However, it was fairly clear what Egypt was to Caesar.

Cleopatra and his young king  did get invited to Rome for  Caesar's celebration in the year 46 BCE. It was rather unusual in fact as usually foreign monarchs would only attend as captives. However,  it underlined the kind of relationship she had with Caesar and she did not escape the gossips, rumors of possible official decree to allow polygamy which among others, provided the republicans with concern. Caesar also adopted the Egyptian solar calendar renamed the "Julian" calendar, imitated the placement of libraries in Rome to the Egyptian model.

Some writers find Caesar's liaison with Cleopatra  but a brief affair. He of all people he ought to know Roman law did not allow a citizen to bequest a foreigner. So after the Ides of March, Octavian, his grand-nephew and later his adopted son became  beneficiary. His wife was childless. While Caesar did make a provision for guardianship of his unborn child, Cleopatra was not mentioned in his statement. Cleopatra's life in Rome seemed more of an uncertainty. Almost full term she decided to escape before any untoward incident developed and while on a stopover in Greece, her child, Caesarion was born. Unfortunately, in spite of Mark Antony's argument in the senate, Roman law prevailed - child born of a foreign woman could not be legitimate and Caesar's clause in his statement regarding his future child was insufficient to give recognition to the newborn Caesar. Thus was the fate of Cleopatra.

Being the woman that she was, upon her return to Alexandria, she got rid of the 15 year old co-regent  and became sole sovereign to avoid the recurrence of her earlier situation with Ptolomy XIII.. Even with a young child she did not need a husband as most queens did in those days. Caesar had left behind 3 legions and another one of unknown origin to keep order in Egypt. Together she went on to restore the Legide Kingdom.

It was not an easy time in the region. Natural disaster in Egypt, conspiracy involving Caesar's assassins, the republicans, the Parthians' support of anti-Caesarians in Asia Minor, treasons, franticides, power struggle  ....all make history an interesting read. As for Cleopatra, she acted only for the interest of Egypt. She got rid of her sister Arsinoe and the false Ptolomy XIII. Really? Remember, his body was never found when he was presumed drowned.  As history would repeat itself, Mark Anthony too met his Aphrodite in Cleopatra. While many thought that Cleopatra's influence would  weaken him, in reality it was quite the opposite. When his wife, Fulvia died, Anthony married Octavian's sister, Octavia. While he was taken busy in Rome, Cleopatra bored his twins - a boy and a girl. She was left to fend for herself again for 3.5 years during which she succeeded in resurrecting a large part of what was the Legide Empire of her forebears. Nevertheless, it is said that this was made possible by the previlege relation she had with a leader of the only power of the world of that time. Nevertheless, no matter how much she would have liked Judea, it was returned  to Herod after the Parthians were pushed back.

Antony, on the other hand, went on to balance on a tight rope where Cleopatra and Octavia were concern. In fact Plutarch may have even be an accessory to the propaganda against Cleopatra while Antony  was again almost resident in Alexandria. Cleopatra recognised Anthony's brilliance and  would no doubt see to it's   advantage.At a ceremony in Alexandria, Cleopatra was proclaimed Queen of Kings. Caesarion, aged six, was officially recognised as Caesar's son and proclaimed as King of Kings and betrothed to be son-in-law of the King of Medes and granted sovereignty over  Armenia and all the lands formerly held  by the Parthians. Antony's son, Ptolomy Philadelphos, aged two, was made king of Syria, Phoenicia and the greater part of Asia Minor up to the Hellespont (the Dardenelles). His Daughter, Cleopatre Cyrenaica, was given to rule Cyrenaica and Part of Crete. Only Greece, Mecedonia and Asia which was under Antony's control remained under direct Roman control. This added fodder to the propaganda against Antony and Cleopatra back home in Rome....."treason" of Antony  subjugated by Cleopatra. In actual fact the declaration did little in the way of a political organisation of the regions. The kids were young and it was a concept of sorts for an eastern government ruled by Kings/Queens of mixed origin in the hope of peace. But  in spite of Octavian's triumph over Pompey's son, Sextus, in Sicily, the rivalry between Octavian and Antony would boil over. While the Romans were pointing fingers at Antony's relationship with Cleopatra, Antony's list of Octavian's mistresses caused more assault on one another.

Antony made grave tactical errors in an ensuing war, Battle of Actium, not only in making Greece as the theater of operation. When Cleopatra fled with her ships, Antony dumbfounded  abandoned his ship to join her. Antony had also been affected by defections of his men and allies. He committed suicide upon hearing the false news of the  death of Cleopatra but died in her arms instead. While Octavian wanted to take Cleopatra alive, she too was said to have committed suicide. The method remains a mystery. Two versions abound - by poison and the other entailing serpents. The latter seems to prevail  for a good reason. There was a procession in Rome afterwards depicting Isis holding a serpent. Hence  legend has it that that was Cleopatra. It is difficult to believe that she would have chosen such an uncomfortable way to die.

One wonders that Cleopatra would have chosen death on her golden bed and gracefully in her royal ornaments rather than the prospect of being paraded in Rome in chains. In the end, Octavian gave her a royal funeral and her remains placed beside those of Antony. A Greek papyrus dated 35 gave what I think an accurate epithet , "she who loves her country".

Caesarion, who had fled to Sudan was later put to death. The Cleopatra Selena married a Numidian Prince Juba and became Queen of Mauritania. Her son became the last of the Ptolomies when he was assassinated by his own cousin, Caligula., the 3rd Roman Emperor. As for the two sons by Antony, they were entrusted  to Octavia for their education. Nothing much is known of them afterwards.  He had already killed Anthony's other son by his other wife. I doubt that Octavian would have allowed them to mature and create problems for him. Other source mentions that they could have died of illness.......

As you very well know, Octavian went on to start the Dynastic Roman  Emperor with the name Augustus.

The book goes on to tabulate various ancient texts regarding the charm and aura that was Cleopatra's. as penned by various scribes like Plutach, Horace and  Flavius no matter how one sided some of them may be.