Children & Politics : A Good Mix?

I like children for as long as I can remember. I relate to them well, and I believe, vice-versa. That is why, my daughter, Chloe, is the joy of my life. In the later part of my life, I developed a penchant to constitutional law, and hence the other love of my life, politics (in particular, the constitutional aspect of it). At times I wondered whether the two can go hand-in-hand. Children and politics seems world apart. The only thing I can think of that can relate the two subject-matter is the image of the Palestinian children throwing stones/rocks/pebbles/what have you at the Zionist troops. Sort of an early political ideological lesson for the children.


Coming back, Astro has been showing (repeating) the movie, Five Children and It, for the last couple of months. I have never watched it, and I don't intend to. I know that the movie is based on a classic children's book, the details of which I will make as the topic of this discussion. It is from this book that one can draw an analogy to the subject of politics, which I don't think many are aware of.


A Child's Book, A Socialist Author (Edith Nesbit):-
The book, Five Children and It, is penned by Edith Nesbit (1858-1924) (popularly known as E. Nesbit). Not many Malaysians have heard of her, we grew up with the later-era writers such as Enid Blyton, and now JK Rowling. Some of the most famous and popular children's stories were written by Nesbit. Some of her more famous children's books include The Story of the Treasure Seekers (1896), Five Children and It (1902) and The Railway Children (1906) (later made into a popular BBC television serial, I don't remember it ever being shown in Malaysia). It is said that Nesbit's works have influenced C.S. Lewis (Narnia) and J.K. Rowling.


Despite being involved in writing children's stories, not many is aware that Nesbit is an active politician. Nesbit and her husband, Herbert Bland, were among the founders of the Fabian Society in 1884 (in fact, Nesbit's 3rd child, Fabian Bland, was named after the society). Nesbit, through the Fabian Society, has her hand in history in the establishment of the Labour Party, one of the three main parties in British Politics (the other being Conservative and LDP. *Note-Tony Blair, and now Gordon Brown, is from the Labour).


If we follow the history of the Labour Party, it got its roots from the Labour Representation Committee, formed in 1900. The Committee brought together the various socialist working class organizations. The group included members of the Independent Labour Party and the Fabian Society. Nesbit was never in active politics after the Labour Party was launched. Instead, she became an active lecturer and a prolific writer on socialism. Her success as a writer of childrens' stories perhaps also contributed to her sacrificing her promising political career. Who knows, had Nesbit made a choice, she could well be the first woman Prime Minister of Britain.


The Political Hollywood Child-Star (Shirley Temple):-
Apart from Nesbit, I thought it would be apt to include in this topic an account of the child star, Shirley Temple (Shirley Jane Temple/Shirley Temple Black) (born 1928). Temple started acting at the age of four, signing to Fox Films in 1933. The cutesy girl with the famous locks made a worldwide impact. Altogether, she made a total of 20 films for Fox Studios, and until 1940, Temple was the studio's most lucrative star at that time.


Temple later became involved in the Republican Party politics (*Note-George W Bush is Republican). She entered Congressional race in 1967. Though unsuccessful, Temple was appointed delegate to the United Nations by President Nixon in 1969. Further appointments include :-
- United States Ambassador to Ghana (1974-76)
- first female Chief of Protocol of the United States (1976)
- United States Ambassador to Czechoslovakia (1989-92)


Temple was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1972 and had a masectomy. She was to be later credited as the first celebrity to go public with breast cancer, creating much awareness of breast cancer at that time.


So, do children and politics mix? Well, not literary. But childrens' subjects and politics do make good transition. The two accounts above would confirm this hyphothesis.


Wassalam.

Return of the Kings - Friend or Foe?

Raja Petra Kamaruddin (RPK) is not a happy man lately. This is evidenced by the postings in his Malaysia-Today site. Enunciated salvos were launched against the ruling government almost on a daily basis. But the interesting bit is the rallying of support for the institution of the monarchy against the ruling machinery. The Sultans are now offered as saviours to the country. In many of his postings, RPK theorized that the monarchs were innocent victims to the constitutional crisis in the 80s and 90s, as they were haplessly vindicated by UMNO without any chance of defence. But is that really the case?

For those of us who can remember, the monarchs were no angels. In Professor Andrew Harding's excellent book, "Law, Government and the Constitution in Malaysia", he described the cause of the Constitutional Crisis of 1983 as :-

" ... the Government, fearing that the next Yang di-Pertuan Agong (the Sultan of Johor) might interfere in federal politics with still more disastrous effect, introduced a constitutional amendment bill designed to remove the royal assent to legislation passed by Parliament, and vest the power to proclaim an emergency, exercised hitherto, on Government advice, by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, in the sole hands of the Prime Minister. The result was the precipitation of the very mischief the amendment was designed to prevent. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong, with the agreement of the other Rulers, refused his assent to the amendment, and the five-month constitutional crisis which followed resuled in an embarassing climb-down by the Government."

Professor Harding goes on to provide an insight on the development of the next Constitutional Crisis a decade later in 1993. He explained that :-

" Rulers have continued to fall out with their Chief Ministers, and in 1988 the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (the Sultan of Johor) was embroiled in the public furore over the dismissal of the Lord President of the Supreme Court, Tun Salleh Abas ...

Alleged criminal acts by the Sultan of Johor, both when he was the Crown Prince of Johor and when he was the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, have been openly referred to in Parliament by politicians. Acts of this kind, when committed by a member of the royal house, have been pardoned by the Sultan, and when committed by the Sultan himself they have not been pursued in the courts because of the Rulers' constitutional immunity from suit ..."

Other accounts provided by Harding are :-

" The press has highlighted the luxurious lifestyle of the Rulers, referring to, for example, extremely lavish palace renovations for a meeting of the Conference of Rulers which proved unnecessary when most of the riyal visitors decided to stay in hotels. The Government has made it clear that the practice of giving special preferences to Rulers in terms of licences, concessions and favours, will be stopped. There is also resentment at the way the royal families involve themselves in commerce."

The Constitutional Crisis of 1993 reached its climax when :-

" ... the Government used an assault by the Sultan of Johor on a hockey coach to signal its intention of changing this soft approach and using its two-thirds' majority in Parliament to amend the Constitution."

And as we all know, the Constitution Amendment Bill was passed in Parliament in 1993, removing the immunity of the Rulers from suit when acting in a personal capacity, and the establishment of the Special Court to try the Rulers. Looking at this archives, it is not easy to accept RPK's heroics chants per se. One needs to retain a certain amount of objectivity in this sensitive issue.

However, there is a flip-side to the argument. The recent accounts of Raja Dr. Nazrin and the Sultan of Selangor appears genuine. Therefore, the question :- FRIEND or FOE? That is the million dollar question that one has to decide. The comments in RPK's website show that there has been calls for Raja Dr. Nazrin to partake a more active role in politics. This would be interesting, as I am mindful of an account in the 1993 Crisis as follows :-

" Since then, Government displeasure, expressed, for example, in several UMNO General Assembly debates and ministerial speeches, has focused on the Sultan of Kelantan, who not only had a traditional-style quarrel with his State Government, but proceeded to campaign for the opposition in the 1990 elections, which succeded in taking all the seats in the Kelantan State Legislative Assembly, thereby ousting the BN as the State Government."

Goes to show that the Rulers can be pretty impressive.

Salam.

Dinner with the opposition

It is not everyday that one meets a politician (well, for me anyway). In fact, it is not everyday that one gets to have an intimate dinner with a member of the opposition. Which makes me cherish the dinner I had with Saudara Wee Choo Keong yesterday evening.

For the uninitiated, Wee Choo Keong is somewhat legendary in the political arena (of yesteryears, some may claim). Wee is currently the secretary-general of the MDP, the Malaysian Democratic Party. But for me, it is his exploits in the DAP in the 80s and 90s that is the stuff of legends. This is the one-time Member of Parliament of Bukit Bintang cum ISA detainee, and THE rising star in the DAP, before his fallout with the powers that be in the DAP and his "fall from grace" thereafter, culminating in the set-up of MDP. My memory and recollections of Wee Choo Keong is rather hazy, for I was quite young at that material time. Not much data can be retrieved from the internet about this man. But what I do remember, or been given the impression of, is that he is the favoured blue-eyed boy of Lim Kit Siang.

The dinner with Wee was arranged by some friends. It was an informal dinner between a seasoned politician and a group of us political wannabes. After a while into light conversations, I sense the great disparity of political common-sense and knowledge between the seasoned campaigner and the group of us novices. The dinner, unsurprisingly, turned into a "picking his brains" session. But I am somewhat surprise to find that I share most of his stand on certain political and social issues. I have always thought my ideologies are not generally shared, nor agreed by many. Amongts the issues that I had posed to Wee Choo Keong were :-

1. The PAS' ideologies and the Islamic State :- for once I can find someone who can understand that PAS is a generally misunderstood party, by Muslims and Kafir alikes. What we have, all these years, is the element of fear being injected to us by the ruling coalition. We have all formed a judgement on PAS unilaterally. None of us have actually attended any of their ceramahs to fully comprehend their reasonings. I am not concluding outright that PAS ideologies are sound, nor am I advocating for an Islamic State. But I do believe in giving someone a "fair hearing". I do not believe in passing judgements on matters that we ourselves have not understand. Make a stand, by all means, but only after gaining an objective insight of these material issues. If corruption for the country can be wiped out at the expense of night life in Bukit Bintang, I am for the former.

2. NEP :- again I find common ground in Saudara Wee on this issue. Many non-Bumi have called for the abolishment of the NEP. I find this stand somewhat flawed. My inkling is that the fault does not lie strictly in the policy, but the way it is implemented. With this I mean that the fault lies with the ruling government, the implementors and the way it is being implemented, not the policy. I personally feel, that deep inside every Malaysian, we all do want to help one another, Bumi and non-Bumi alike. So, how can a noble policy be viewed with such disdain over the years. It is, at the end of the day, a policy being fundamentally hijacked by the ruling party and implemented with flawed intentions, and being used as a tool for political and monetory gains for the elite few.

It had indeed been an insightful session. The few of us had wanted to join the MDP, to make a difference. We are disillusioned with the ruling party, yet find no solace in the opposition (namely, the DAP). Fuelled by the wave of fiery RPK blogs and the likes, it would be interesting to see how the few of us wannabes go from here.

Wassalam