Hamas = violence?

Upon reading two commentaries on Hamas’s sweeping victory in Palestinian election made by Straits Times and New Straits Times, the disparity in the attitudes of Muslim and non-Muslim intellectuals towards Hamas, the militant group, is conspicuous.

Commentators in NST have been very supportive since the organisation announced that it will participate in the election. They hailed the group for its spirit, rebutting the West for their prejudice against their “terror organisation”. In the commentary titled “Time for US and EU to engage Hamas in talks”, authors, Fotini and Sreemati, said that “Although Israel continues to arrest its members; Hamas has done little to retaliate.” This statement is obviously a rebuke against the idea that Hamas is a preyer. In last month commentary, the author also compared Hamas with Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. He questioned the West that if Brotherhood is acceptable in the government, why Hamas is not.

Muslim Brotherhood upholds a purer and more sincere principle of creating a peaceful living space for Muslims. In contrast, Hamas’s language to attract its suppoters is much more vicious. The organisation advocates non-compromise with Israel until they ‘destroy’ the country with the use of terror. Yet, the commentators of NST sympathise with the group, identifying them as the victim of the West.

Nevertheless, sympathy is dangerous sometimes. Adopt Hitler rearmed Germany and launched World War 2, claiming hundred thousands of lives when the rest of the Europe sympathised with the country for her suffering from Treaty of Versailles.

Use of any form of violence is unacceptable, for the ultimate damage done is inconceivable. This is particular true for Palestinians. Israel missile defense system can intercept every missile launched from the Arab nations while her soldiers are equipped with most advanced weapons and armours. If Hamas launches full-scale attack against Israel, Israel will be given a chance to retaliate, leading to extermination of Palestinians.

As for the West, immediate action against newly-formed government is very unwise as it shows insincerity and incoherence in their stand. Hamas was advised to “Go ballot, not bullet”, but they changed their mind when Hamas won the ballot. This will make further agreement promised by the West sounds unreliable, impeding negotiation.

Hence, the West should engage Hamas for considerable periods of time before coming to a hasty conclusion of whether Hamas will bring peace of terror to the Middle East.

Refer to "Let leaders come off the pedestal (ST 15/9/04)"

Koh Buck Song

IN DICK Lee's new play, The Good Citizen, a Nominated Member of Parliament is photographed by a tabloid journalist at home, kissing an old boyfriend.

The recent widow fears her life will go to pieces if the scandal becomes public. The story somehow stays out of the papers, but for unrelated reasons, NMP Cynthia Han loses her Parliament position. Nonetheless......

When it comes to relating to authority, Singapore's society resembles more Asian societies than the West. In Singapore, hierarchical strata are still prevailing, especially in governmental sector.

The author has mentioned that leaders in Asian societies are seldom contradicted by their followers. This is true for the decision making process in particular. Perhaps the ruling party has successfully promoted itself as a reliable and competent government, decisions the parliament and the cabinet make are always unchallenged. For example, national investment in foreign countries, despite of huge amount of billions of dollars involved, are always silently approved by its people. Besides, every action that the country takes seems beyond reproach in its people's eyes. Often before a policy is proven to be successful, newspaper columns are already filled with euphony of the policy.

He has also identified that Asians are usually more forgiving towards their leaders. Such description makes sense in Singapore, too. Due to deeply rooted faith to their government, people in Singapore easily accept any explanation for mistakes that the authorities make. Taking example from the investment in Suzhou industrial park, it was generally known by the public that the loss in the investment is due to miscommunication between Singapore and Suzhou, China.

Harvard professor Ronald Heifetz suggests that leadership should be separated from official rank and appointment. He proposes that leadership be thought of as an activity that authority figures exercise only some of the time. I, however, disagree with such argument. Confucian said," Insignificant person's words have no power". Without an official rank, how is he going to convince people to trust him and follow him? And hence let alone leading them. Leadership without official title is like soul without a body. He can have the capability and gusto to serve the people, but there is no "body" to support him.

Most of the Malaysians and some of the Singaporeans are quite familiar with the Anwar, then Malaysia Deputy Minister's case. It was known that 70% of the cabinet supported him, rather than then Prime Minister, Tun Mahathir Mohammad at that time. The reverse was true, however, after he was removed from power, as no one in the cabinet was willing to follow him after the sudden loss of his power. Can he still lead the people and serve the country? Definitely, for he is currently an opposition party leader. Yet, the party sees decreasing supporters year after year.

It simply means that, if you do not have the power, people just do not give you the chance to serve and to lead, be it in a country or a small community.

All it needs is better security

The Straits Times Saturday Jan 6, 2006 concurs with DAP's memorandum to Johor menteri besar and police chief regarding solving the sky-rocketting crime rate to lure back tourists, particularly from neighbouring Sinapore. The momorandum has put foward 14 proposal, including upgrade of hardware, crackdown of beggars and drug addicts and providing better service to the tourists.

However, the effectiveness of these suggestions is to be doubted. Johor Bahru is well-known for its infestion of snatch-theives and robber, yet residents do not see the effort that police force put in. When a victim lodged a report, instead of comforting him with promise of neccessary action, he is investigated as if he is the suspect. Bureaucracy and red-tape are only in favour of the growing crime rate. How can such an insecure place woo tourists who wants to relieve from their busy working schedules?

Moreover, government policy is as ineffectual as the police force. Punishment for a snatch-thief is only 9 years jail term. However, the criminal not only maim or even kill his victims, he also impede the development of tourism by giving the country bad reputation. Not a few weeks ago, Headline of FIRST snatch thief was sentenced to 12 years in jail for money laundering and theft was in the limelight on the frontpage of New Straits Times. After 12 years in prison, he will continue enjoy driving his Honda Accord and Proton Perdana, as well as living in his mension with $50000 in his pocket. To deter the snatch theft, the government should introduce more severe punishment.

Besides, the party also overlooked the fact that most involved in the crime are illegal immigrants. Nevertheless, Malaysia need these low-paid workers in manufacturing sector as Malaysia, unlike Singapore, does not have a large proportion of highly skilled workers to completely transform to knowledge-based economy, low labour cost is still a requisite.

Perhaps the government should reconsider over the choice of having a share in 3 trillions world tourist industry or allowing the influx of low-paid foreign workers at the expense of social dysfunction and dropping tourist arrival.