For love of country, talk back if you disagree
For love of country, talk back if you disagree
History is replete with examples of great leaders who overstayed and caused harm to their cause in the latter years of their rule.
One prime example was Mao Zedong, who held on to power until his death at the age of 83 in 1976. If he had faded into the background a decade or two earlier and spared China from the convulsions of the Cultural Revolution, China might today well be a superpower.
Great men make great mistakes. We must learn from history.
Back to our little island at the tip of the Malayan peninsula, MM Lee demonstrated Aug 09 in Parliament what many Singaporeans had suspected all along that he was still the man-in-charge, the real commander-in-chief.
On that day, Lee suddenly took to the floor and lashed out at NMP Viswa Sadasivan for calling on the PAP government to live up to the ideals of the Singapore Pledge.
For a man who was about to celebrate his 86th birthday then, it was a convincing display of power and grit that achieved its aim of reversing the course of a parliamentary debate and pushing almost everybody back into line.
Actually Viswa was rather cautious and had only gingerly alluded to ‘’apparent contradictions and mixed signals’’ in PAP policies such as the promotion of cultural elitism, SAP schools, different self-help groups, marginalizing the Malays in the military and the obsession with maintaining Chinese dominance.
Such prudence still did not spare him from a verbal bashing by a furious Lee who described his ideas as ‘’highfaluting’’ that needed to be ‘’demolished’’ before they infected others.
Viswa had obviously touched a raw nerve. Lee must have felt the threat to the PAP and his vision of Singapore in particular by the course the parliamentary debate was taking.
All along since independence Lee’s Singapore is premised on two contradictory principles: an outward commitment towards multiracialism and meritocracy to attract talent worldwide and an inward obsession with reinforcing Chinese dominance as a way to ensure Singapore’s survival and prosperity.
According to his thinking, it would be disastrous to allow the proportion of Chinese in the population to fall below the current level of 76%. I am sure Lee will not shrink from taking any step to make up for any shortfall.
As he sees it, the non-Malay minorities pose no problem. They can be trusted and treated as equal with the Chinese majority in all sectors of public life.
As for the Malays, because of their close kinship ties with neighbours, you need to be prudent and keep them away from the military and sensitive services as much as possible.
This is the root cause of Malay unhappiness. It has given rise to feelings of ambivalence, of being discriminated and becoming second-class citizens in their own land.
Now that the dust is settling down from the Viswa controversy, it is perhaps timely to consider whether Lee did a service or disservice to Singapore and particularly to the government led by his son, Lee Jr.
Just as many Chinese continue to revere Mao for his contributions, we too must always respect Lee for all the good that he had done in building Singapore to what it is today.
If we love Singapore, however, we must not abdicate our right to disagree, even at the risk of being ‘’rubbished’’ or worse still, getting knuckle-dustered. We must not forget the lesson from history.
The main fall-out from Lee’s harsh reaction is that he has distracted attention from the core issues of ‘’civil liberties and the future of Singapore’’ to the side-issue of a minority problem, and in the process, to quote Alfian Sa’at ‘’unfairly scapegoated’’ the Malays.
Six days earlier in his National Day address to his Tanjong Pagar constituents, Lee had also aroused unhappiness when he raised the Malay bogey to persuade Chinese Singaporeans to be more conciliatory towards newcomers from China.
I sent a letter to the ST Editor on the same day seeking clarification and as it never saw daylight, let me make an excerpt to enlighten readers.
After saying that the birth rate by race is 1.91 for Malays, 1.19 for Indians and 1.14 for Chinese, Lee went on to say: ‘’If we continue this way without the new immigrants and PRs and their children doing National Service, the composition of our SAF will change. So please remember that.’’
In my letter, I asked, what did MM mean by saying – ‘’please remember that’’. Is it to remind Singapore Chinese that the SAF must remain overwhelmingly in their hands and that the restriction on Malay participation must continue?
‘’Actually, as everyone knows, ever since Independence the PAP government has never allowed the SAF to reflect the racial composition of the country.
What then is the necessity of making a statement that could arouse communal feelings.’’
I again wrote another letter to the ST Editor after Lee gave a twist to Article 152 of the Constitution in his attempt to demolish the allegedly false and flawed logic behind Viswa’s call to become one people regardless of race, language and religion.
By implying that its presence had made it difficult to achieve true equality among all the communities, many Singaporeans must have wondered as to whose logic was more flawed.
To the Malays, who have long complained that the PAP was only paying lip service to the Constitution, Lee’s latest interpretation was like rubbing salt on their wounds.
There can never be a truly level playing field between the majority and minority in any plural society. Like in Singapore, Chinese leaders are also national leaders and to them, Chinese interests and national interests, are practically synonymous.
In recognition of this reality, many countries make some form of adjustment to mitigate the anxieties of their minorities such as the granting of various degrees of autonomy.
In Singapore, it takes the shape of Article 152, which does not confer special rights on Malays, but merely legitimizes the special arrangements on their religion and customs.
Every time Lee talks about the Singapore Malays and National Service, he likes to revive memories of his painful experience during Malaysia days. Every time he brings it up, many Malays shudder as they feel that he is punishing the entire community for the sins of a handful of Malay ultras. Surely, after 44 years, it is enough.
Now he tells the Singapore Malays not to expect ‘’equal treatment’’ instantly as the Singapore Pledge on equality for all was only an ‘’aspiration’’ and not an ‘’ideology’’ and therefore would take a long time to realize.
As an example, he cited the United States experience on White-Black relations. He does not seem to appreciate that unlike the Blacks, the Malays did not come to Singapore as slaves. They also do not consider themselves as migrants.
Lee obviously prefers not to remember how impatient he was when advocating for a Malaysian Malaysia and equality for all races when Singapore was in the Federation.
The Malays only want the full equality that they had enjoyed in the past when Singapore was a British colony. Then all communities enjoyed equal rights and equal access to all sectors of public life.
If not for unfairly scapegoated twice in a week by Lee, the 44th National Day celebrations would have gone down as a memorable event for many in the community.
Some of my friends including a few normally critical Malays were practically swooning with patriotic nationalism until Lee single-handedly brought them all crashing back to earth.
Except for the gushes of happiness by several Malays in a Sunday Times report, Lee’s two statements infuriated the community and deepened their feelings of being discriminated.
Many have still not forgotten that Lee had caused a similar uproar within the community about a decade ago when he said the government could not put a Malay who is religious minded in charge of a machine gun unit.
Viswa has earned the respect of many Singaporeans for his maiden address in Parliament. Far from being an over-analysis as an opposition leader from the Chinese heartland said, it was both courageous and timely.
He will also live in the memory of many Malays as the first non-Malay to bring up their plight in the military and security services. Terima kasih.
This is the right time to discuss the future of our island Republic. For one thing, Lee cannot be around forever. A new world order is also emerging from last year’s collapse in the international financial markets.
Old ways and old obsessions will have to make way for the new realities. As such, Singaporeans should debate openly and civilly what kind of Singapore they want to see emerging in the next 10 years.
The key issues include how to make the Singapore pledge a living reality. How do you reconcile the Malay yearning for full equality with the Chinese (or rather the PAP) obsession with dominance and security?
How do you satisfy the desires of more Singaporeans especially the younger generation for a more open government and more civil liberties without undermining national stability?
Let the debate on the post-MM Lee scenario begin now.
Ismail Kassim
Another unpublished letter
I find your front-page Aug 20 report headlined, MM rebuts NMP’s notion of race equality, as confusing. It has left me wondering as to what was Lee’s main point.
The report said that Lee emphasized that the Constitution enjoins ‘’the government to give Malays a special position rather than to treat everybody as an equal,’’ and then added that he rebutted as false and flawed ‘’the arguments by NMP Viswa Sadasivan calling for equal treatment for all races.’’
The question then is what does the ‘’special position of the Malays’’ mean to the PAP government in theory and in practice – Are Malays more equal or less equal relative to the other ethnic groups?
I get the impression from the report that it means the latter and that to achieve the state of true equality as Lee was quoted as saying is going ‘’to take decades, if not centuries’’.
In pre-independence days, the special position of the Malays did not entitle them to special privileges, only to special arrangements on matters relating to customs and religion.
They were treated as equal to the other races and all sectors of government service were opened to them. They never felt discriminated in the public sector.
After independence in 1965, though the Malays continued to receive special attention, they were restricted from participating on an equal basis in the SAF and other security sectors without any corresponding compensation.
So the special position of the Malays changed from being ‘’slightly more equal’’ in pre-independence days to becoming ‘’less equal’’ than other racial groups including new immigrants in the post-independence period.
This is the crux of the issue. How long more have they to wait – decades, centuries? The reality is that no race felt discriminated in pre-independent Singapore as the British ruled with an even hand.
At the end of his address, Lee added: ‘’Today, 44 years later, we have a Malay community, I believe, at peace, convinced that we are not discriminating against them, convinced we are including them in our society.’’
I, and I think, the majority of Singapore Malays have no problem with that with the proviso that it does not include the SAF and the security services.
We are not asking for any special privileges, only equal treatment in all sectors of life.
Ismail Kassim
CAUGHT IN THE ACT
The front-page report in the ST (August 14) on MM Lee’s appeal to Singaporeans to accept new immigrants is unfortunate as it contains an uncharacteristic communal line.
According to the report headlined as MM: Foreign talent is vital, Lee said that the birth rate by race is 1.91 for Malays, 1.19 for Indians and 1.14 for Chinese.
He was then reported as saying: ‘’If we continue this way without the new immigrants and PRs and their children doing national service, the composition of our SAF will change. So please remember that.’’
To outsiders this seems like an innocent statement. They might even ask, so what is wrong?
Many Singaporeans, however, see it as a deliberate and – unnecessary – attempt to play the racial card on a peripheral issue.
Irrespective of race, many readers have read it as an attempt to get Singaporean Chinese to accept newcomers from mainland China otherwise there will be more Malays in the SAF.
I like to ask, what did MM mean by saying – ‘’please remember that’’.
Is it to remind Singapore Chinese that the SAF must remain overwhelmingly in their hands and that the restriction on Malay participation must continue?
On the same day, I sent a letter to the ST Editor making my observations and comments. It has yet to see the light of day and I do not think it ever will.
Actually, as everyone knows, ever since Independence the PAP government has never allowed the SAF to reflect the racial composition of the country.
What is the necessity then of making that statement that could arouse communal feelings.
To Singapore Malays and Muslims, who have long suffered discrimination in National Service and in the security forces, MM’s statement is a huge disappointment.
What is even more regrettable is that his statement came during a speech he gave at the Tanjong Pagar 44th National Day celebration dinner, one of whose objective was to bring Singaporeans of all races together.
Like many other Malays, I had earlier thought that that there had been progress on this issue but alas, I think, I had been too optimistic.
Ismail Kassim
2nd Print of No Hard Feelings
The 2nd print of A Reporter’s Memoir is underway. It should be in the bookshops by end of August 09.
To distinguish it from the first print, the front cover will carry the words – 2nd Print – across the top left corner, while the back cover has been re-designed to accommodate three quotes:
‘’It is a fascinating read from cover to cover.’’
S.R. Nathan, President, Republic of Singapore
‘’A sensitive observer of politics on both sides of the Causeway, Ismail Kassim combines good values with good judgement.’’
Prof. Emeritus Datuk K.J. Ratnam, former dean of Universiti Sains Malaysia’s Social Sciences Faculty
‘’Ismail is a very well regarded observer of the Malaysian scene. As a journalist, he was serious, he wrote well and he wrote with insight.’’
Cheong Yip Seng, former Editor of the New Nation and Straits Times
The write-up on the author will go into the inside page. There will also be one page of feedback from readers and extracts from the headlines of newspaper reports. They are as follows:
‘’I rate the book a ‘must read’ not so much because his life is interesting but the chapter he wrote on Malaysia is truly the best description of present-day Malaysian politics to be published in 2008’’.
James Chin, Malaysian Insider columnist and Lecturer at the Monash University Sunway campus
‘’You might have a best seller on your hands.’’
Imran Price, Deputy President of Darul Arqam and Deputy Director General of its Centre of Contemporary Islamic Studies
‘’This book is a page-turner. You tell a great, absorbing story about people and events that people of my vintage can relate.’’
Philip Lee, Straits Times journalist
He lets fly, no hard feelings
The New Paper
After decades of covering and observing Umno, Dr Mahathir and Lee Kuan Yew, a veteran Singaporean journalist reveals what’s ‘between the lines’.
Sunday Star of Malaysia
He knows Malaysian politics better than most
Sunday Times Singapore
Taking controversy by the horns
Today
Usah berkecil hati apabila membaca memoir wartawan ini
Berita Harian Singapura
A political writer remembers and ponders on the past
The Edge, Singapore and Malaysia editions
Ilsa Sharp’s true life history
Ilsa Sharp is one of the most colourful and independent-minded journalists whom I had the pleasure of becoming acquainted with during my 24 years career as a reporter.
She recently wrote to me to point out that she was born and educated in Britain, and did not start to live in Australia until the late 80s.
A graduate in Chinese Studies from Leeds University, she worked for only one year as a journalist in London before coming to Singapore at the age of 22 years. After strenuous efforts, she managed to get a job in the Straits Times Group on local terms.
She started first as a a reporter for Singapore Business monthly, then as News Editor for Fanfare, an entertainment weekly for youth, before going of to Hong Kong in 1970. From there, she freelanced for ST, Far Eastern Economic Review (chiefly as a China watcher) and many others.
She returned to Singapore in late 1971 to become Editor of Singapore Business magazine and then Managing Editor of the magazines division. In 1978, she was appointed Asst Editor of Business Times under Roy Mackie and then Asst Editor (Features) at Straits Times, before being seconded to the Ministry of Education for a year in 1979 to start a new education magazine for the government, ‘Grow’.
In 1980, she became a Singapore PR and went freelance.
Her webpage is at www.ilsasharp.com
An excerpt of a talk to the Darul Arqam’s Centre for Contemporary Islamic Studies on Jan 5, 2009
Good evening and assalamualaikum
Life is full of surprises. For me, the biggest surprise in the last 13 years since my retirement has been to discover the potency of Qigong practice. When I signed up for the Yan Xin Qigong 12-week course in July 2004, I was only concerned about my health and getting rid of various afflictions like leg pain, sinus, dizzy spells et cetera.
Therefore, it came as a pleasant surprise to find out that the benefits of Qigong practice extended beyond the physical. Not only did my problem disappear and I became healthier, I also felt energized mentally, stable emotionally and calmer spiritually.
One of the highlights of my Qigong journey, which I felt had helped me to make good progress, is a series of three talks that I gave to my YXQG society. All three were on the relationship between Qigong practice and religious belief.
The first talk was on Islam, Qigong and Meditation in May 2005. I must say that it was a mindboggling topic. I took the liberty to re-title it to Islam, Qigong, Meditation and I so that I could adopt a more personal approach. No doubt, the inspiration came from the Hollywood blockbuster film The King and I.
Earlier I had used the same approach with some success in relating an anecdote that I called The Cockcroach and I. When I had trouble deciding on the heading of chapter four of my memoir, I decided to call it simply as Lee Kuan Yew and I. Some of my friends described it as an audacious move.
The second talk on Qigong and Religion came two months later. The third came the following year in mid-2006 when I combined the two and re-jigged it into Qigong, Religion and Spirituality.
From the three talks, I gained several insights:
First: The important role played by meditation in the birth of Islam. I would go as far as saying that without meditation, there would be no Quran. Without Quran, there would be no Islam.
The point that I want to make is that although meditation played a key role in Prophet’s Muhammad’s mission, yet meditation today plays no role in the spiritual lives of Muslims. In contrast, Buddhists do meditate as part of their religious rituals. Just as Muslims learn to pray, Buddhists learn to meditate.
Why? The answer that I like best is that: Prophets mediate; commoners pray. I think there is a lot of truth in it.
Second: Qigong, like Yoga, and like all religions too – has a spiritual dimension. Like all of them, it can be practised at various levels – just for its health benefits or for mental and spiritual enhancements.
What gives Qigong its spiritual dimension is the belief that one’s progress along the Qigong path depends on one’s level of virtue or de in Mandarin. The more virtuous you become, the calmer you are and the greater will be your ability to harness the Qi. The relationship is simple and direct.
This spiritualism is faith-free. Its main concern is with this world, and its rewards are here and now. The goal of Qigong is good health and a long and happy life, not everlasting life. The path of Qigong leads to self-awareness, calm and tranquility, and harmony with nature and the universe.
In Qigong philosophy, the Qi has existed since the beginning of time. It does not say who creates the Qi. Because of this, Qigong can co-exist with any religion. There is no reason why one cannot believe in the existence of the Qi and God at the same time. After all, if God creates everything, surely it can also include the Qi.
I like to make just one point. The Qi (universal energy) belongs to all humanity. It does not discriminate against anyone or favour any group based on race, language or culture. The Chinese do not have a monopoly, not do the Indians. They are the first to discover and to formulate the principles of cultivating the Qi.
Third: I was struck by the similarities between descriptions of the Qi by Qigong adherents and descriptions of God by believers in general and Sufis I particular. I have come across some references in Sufi literature that tends to equate God with nature. I guess the Christian conception of God and its attributes are roughly the same. For instance:
# God is all-powerful, all-knowing, not limited by time and space, so is the Qi.
# God can be found everywhere, including in the human heart, and everything reflected his glory, so is the Qi.
# Some descriptions of God almost equate him with light and energy, while scientific experiments have proved that Qi contain information, energy and matter.
That was how the thought of the Qi being the equivalent of the divine came to my mind when preparing the talk. I ask the question: Is Qi God? Is God Qi.
Fourth: For the first time, I was able to see clearly how religion can be practised in various ways and its links to culture, philosophy and spirituality.
All religions can be analysed from three aspects: its theology, its value system and its practices or rituals.
Theology refers to the body of beliefs regarding who is God, the origins of the universe, Heaven and Hell and what happens after death and the accountability of one’s action on earth. There is the Christian version, the Muslim version and so on.
All religions also preach a set of desired ethical values and attributes for their followers. Though there is a great deal of overlapping, you can still identify differences in emphasis. For instance, Christianity place priority on charity and forgiveness and Islam on zakat, equality of all before God and responsibility of the individual to self, family and community.
All have also formulated a set of practices and rituals to reinforce belief, create identity and forge a community of followers.
The extent of one’s commitments to the three will shape and determine the extent of one’s belief in the religion. You can develop a scale for religiosity and measure followers on the degree of their religiosity and the interplay between religion and culture and philosophy.
Religiosity: Positive type: believe strongly in the theology, practice the rituals zealously and subscribed to the ethical values and spirit of chivalry, humanity, charity and responsibility.
Religiosity: Negative type: believe strongly in the theology, practice the rituals zealously but only pay lip service to the values and the spirit of the religion.
Culture: No faith in the theology, but practice the rituals and to some extent subscribe to the values of the religion
Philosophy: Practice the ethical value system and the spirit of the religion zealously and occasionally the rituals, but deny the theology. Some of them in this group are also spiritualists.
Mysticism refers to the search for truth, knowledge and unity with God through meditation and prayer.
I define spirituality as feelings of self-transcendence and connectivity with the universe and results in the love of nature and reverence for all forms of life.
The point I want to stress is that religiosity is not the same as spirituality. Some generalizations:
You can be very religious without being spiritual and vice versa.
Religion, if not practised in the right spirit, undermines spirituality.
Spirituality can be inherited through the genes, but religiosity is always the result of nurture.
After the three talks, I became calmer as I could resolve my inner conflicts and I could categorise myself precisely along the believer-unbeliever continuum.
Coming to my memoir, I never planned to write one, but several strands came together late in life in early 2007 that triggered me off on this journey back in time.
The primary motivation was to express my evolving feelings and attitudes towards Islam and its practices and secondly was to round up my thoughts on the state of politics and communal relations in both Singapore and Malaysia. The desire to relate my Qigong journey was a minor aspect. The rest are padding to build up the story.
Incidentally, a memoir is not autobiography, much less history or documentary. I have adopted the position of contemporary American writer Gore Vidal, who defines a memoir as ‘’how one remember one’s life, while an autobiography is history, requiring research, dates, facts double- checked.’’
From the beginning, I drew up only two rules to guide me in the course of writing. One is to treat everyone, big or small, powerful or weak, friend or foe with the same ‘’irreverent approach and the same nonchalant brush.’’
The second is to strive to be fair to all, to try to view the people that I meet and the issues that I encounter on my journey, from various perspectives. I never consciously try to pull my punches or to zero in on any one or group in particular.
In short, I try my best to adopt the perspective of a independent observer, trying to rise above the circumstances of race, religion, nationality and personal prejudices and biases.
Some readers have told me that they think I still hold my punches. I would like to say that it was not deliberate. Perhaps it arose out of my desire to try to be fair to all parties and to try and look at the big picture.
As an example, take the Wah Piow. I wrote: ‘’I was convined that Wah Piow and two others had not rioted.’’ And, relating to former Attorney General Francis T Seow’s description of his trial as partisan justice, I wrote: ‘’I had earlier thought so too.’’ Are these examples of pulling my punches?
To me, I am happy that I have made crystal clear where I stood on the various controversies that I have lived through. Be it on the question of merger and separation between Singapore and Malaysia, the Tan Wah Piow case, the Marxist conspiracy, the role of the late Mr Opposition, JB Jeyaretnam, and the discrimination of Malays in the Singapore security services.
In the same spirit, I have given free reins to my view on Islam and how it ought to be practiced. Some of the points that I like to reaffirm include:
# There is no compulsion in religion. Muslims also should have the right to decide the extent that they want to practice or even to leave for another, no ifs and no buts. In Islam, there is no intermediary. Each Muslim must decide for himself.
# Being a Muslim is a joy and not a burden. Islam came to this world as a blessing, as a guide to make life easier, to help man resolve his dilemma. It is up to the individual to decide. The choice is yours.
# What is important is to be imbued with the spirit of Islam and its ethical values – the spirit of brotherhood and equality among all humans, charity towards the less fortunate and the sense of responsibility to self, family, community and nation.
One of the reasons for writing so frankly is the hope that I could persuade the disillusioned within our ranks to remain faithful to Islam. As you know, there have been cases of very qualified Muslims abandoning their faith. The message that I like to pass to such people is that “it’s the singer, not the song.’’
After the publication of my memoir, my feelings on several issues relating to Islam and uts practices became even clearer.
One: I feel more strongly that Islam should be as inclusive as possible to include all those who consider themselves as Muslims. We should accept those who practice Islam as culture or as a philosophical way of life including the ‘’abangans’’ in our midst. We should minimise our differences and underplay our identity in the respective sects such as Sunnis or Syiah or Hanbali, Maliki et cetera.
In this way, we can play our part and make our little contribution towards promoting Islam as a universal religion for all humans.
Two: I am more convinced that Islam is for this world too, and not just a vehicle for seeking salvation in the next world. In short, one has to practice it simultaneously, for this world and for the next. Therefore, we need to re-orientate the teachings of Islam.
Up to today, the conventional approach is that being a Muslim is a burden. We have to discharge our duties to God in the form of daily prayers et cetera to gain credit for the world that is to come. Salat or prayers as taught consist mainly of recitations, postures and pleas for favours.
I am not qualified to talk about Islam and the next world. My main interest is how Muslims can practice their religion in a way that will bring positive and immediate benefits in this world. To put it in another way, how can Islam help one maximize one’s chances of reaching one’s potential in this world.
To illustrate with a concrete example, let us take someone who spends about 8 to 10 hours a week in prayers and related matters. I have nothing to say about the rewards that he will get in the next world. That is strictly between him and Allah.
What are the rewards for this world? What does he get back after spending 10 hours in the discharge of his religious duties? Does her get nothing, two hours, 10 hours or 20 hours back of benefits?
To me, to be able to compete with others including the non-believers, we must get back at least the same hours that we put in. Otherwise, we will be placing ourselves at a disadvantage. If we can get returns several fold then the advantage will accrue to us.
In this area, I have enough experience and knowledge to make several tentative observations. Like, for instance:
To get any benefit from praying, fasting or Quranic recitation, you will have to perform them with love and focus, not out of fear or in anticipation of rewards.
It is just like bathing. If you force yourself to bathe and consider it a chore, you will end up only with a clean body. If you enjoy bathing, you will not only have a clean body but you will also be calmer and satisfied.
Let me digress for a minute to talk about my meeting several months ago with a Malaysian medical doctor, Dr Amir Farid Isahak, who is also a Qigong master. He writes on Qigong fortnightly for the Star newspaper and has a web page dedicated to supergigong.com
Coincidentally our views are quite similar. According to him, the five daily prayers and the monthly fast, if practiced correctly, will bring an abundance of benefits for this world. He stresses on adopting the right postures and breathing techniques during prayers. These are universal principles, not qigong or yoga or western principles.
Dr Amir even gave a demonstration at the surau in the Tanjung Puteri resort in Kuala Sedili Besar.
The same applies to fasting practices among Muslims. Do you get the benefits of this world or only its harmful side-effects? I can imagine the harm to the body of gorging on food after a day long fast.
Prayers and religious rituals, Qigong and Yoga practices and meditation have something in common. At the beginning, they are considered by followers as a burden that they have to bear in order to receive the promised benefits.
The first challenge is to incorporate them into one’s daily cycle. It is a question of finding the time. The second is the challenge of practicing it with love and focus. If you fail, it will in all likelihood degenerate into a routine habit.
I believe that Islam can be like a one-stop agency that fills the needs of all for this world and the next.
####################################
In touch with Prof KJ Ratnam
IN OUR article titled “A reporter unshackled’’ which appeared in Starmag on
Sunday, we inadvertently used the word “late” on Prof Emeritus Datuk K.J.
Ratnam, former dean of Universiti Sains Malaysia’s Social Sciences Faculty.
The 73-year-old is retired and well and is living with his wife in Bangsar.
It’s all my fault. I made a grievous boo-boo in my memoir, but it all ends well. As a result, I am now in touch with the good old Prof (KJ as he is fondly remembered by all his colleagues, friends and former students.) He has forgiven me and I will meet him for a reunion on my next trip to KL.
Ismail Kassim
How to get hold of A Reporer’s Memoir
An exclusive, first edition of A Reporter’s Memoir NO HARD FEELINGS has just rolled off the press. It is enjoying brisk sales and all the indications are that a second edition will be necessary. So, quick get your copy. It may become a collector’s item. They are now available at $23 before GST at:
Select Books
Tanglin Shopping Centre #03-15
Tel: 67321515
The Arts House Earshot Café
1 Old Parliament Lane
Tel: 63326900
Alternatively, contact the author: ibekay@singnet.com.sg or ibikay@yahoo.co.uk
Ismail Kassim
A tongue-in-cheek Preview of Oct 28 Book Launch
24 October 2008
Attn: Editors/Reporters
The management of the YaLong Times takes pleasure in attaching herewith a preview of Ismail Kassim’s forthcoming book launch written by our Bulshitzer prize-winning star reporter, Yi Si Mai. This is a free service. Use it in anyway you like, but please attribute.
A galaxy of media stars will descend on the National Library next Tuesday, Oct 28, to witness the orbiting of Ismail Kassim’s A Reporter’s Memoir No Hard Feelings.
To ensure a successful launch into all the known and unknown worlds, a special rocket, dubbed the Buaya Baby God 1-SRN-HLKY85, has been developed for the occasion by the secret weapons techno-science arm of the SAF.
On hand to do the honours is the star of stars, Seah Chiang Nee, whose name has become synonymous with grit and determination, courage and guts because of his ‘’write the damn truth without fear or favour’’ columns in Little Speck.com.
To help Seah fire the rocket are other legends of the local press such as Peter Lim, Cheong Yip Seng, Sia Cheong Yew, PN Balji and not to forget, David Kraal.
It is their combined sweat and tears, inspiration and perspiration, talent and grit over the last four to five decades that have built the local media into a centre of Excellence, recognized throughout the universe.
Others that will come marching in from the old Times House Hall of Fame include Violet Onn, Brian Miller, Margaret Chan, Wang Joo, Azmi Mahmud, Look Fung, Slyvia Toh, Sonny Yap, Richard Lim, Betty Khoo and Irene Hoe.
As former ST reporter Gerry deSilva quipped: ‘’ It will be the greatest gathering of media talent in Singapore since the first edition of The Straits Times hit the streets in 1845.’’
Author Ismail and Seah were among the first from Times House to venture abroad in search of news and stories. On some of the trips, they were together – the latter reporting for the Straits Times and the former for the New Nation.
On many occasions, Ismail went alone. Braving leaches in muddy padi fields and shit-filled potholes in tin mines, drug-ridden slums and ganja shanties, and cholera, gonorrhea and syphilis, he went everywhere to show the flag, ferret out the news, abuse the men and entice the women in the best Livingstone tradition.
Because of him, New Nation and then Straits Times became a household name from remote Kg Cheruk Tok Kun (Anwar’s birth place) to Lahad Datu, the pirate’s hideout, to Xin Jian New Village on the outskirts of Bidor, where many of the stars from YaLong have come from since the 1950s.
In his Author’s delight, highly placed sources said Ismail is expected to speak in Malay first to honour the National Language and then a few words in Mandarin to amuse his Chinese teacher and then in English to entertain his guests.
‘’You can expect him to hit out at the ingrained obsession in official circles to think only of money and maximising profit, even in times of pain and hardship, even to the extent of duping ignorant folks.
‘’He wants to use the occasion to thumb his nose against them, and what better way is there than selling his memoir at the lowest price possible,’’ said a source particularly close to him.
In his address, Seah is likely to touch on the same theme and moan the rise of a new Singapore that he can neither recognize nor love.
There will also be an infusion of foreign talent from across the Johore Causeway. Hardev Kaur, Zainon Ahmad and even the great mullah, Kali, are expected to show up to add glamour and glitz to the gathering.
‘’Who has not heard of Kali? With his ears constantly on the ground and his ass high up in the air, he knows every going-on in UMNO. He can even tell you who goes to the shit- house and when,’’said a diplomat turned scholar, who was formerly the permanent representative from the little red dot to Putraland.
Other stars coming include Assif Shameen (if not for his Malaysian reports Asiaweek would have folded a decade or two earlier) and Mervin Nambiar, the Keralite who has become a legend in the Agence-France Presse for both his reporting and marketing prowess..
To underline his Malay roots, Ismail has also arranged for an old friend, Abdul Talib Ghani, to recite pantuns to add a mystical touch to the proceedings.
According to a source close to both of them, Talib has the potential of becoming the greatest pantunist ‘semenjak Singapura di-langgat todak lima ribu tahun dahulu.’ (since swordfish attacked Singapore 5000 years ago – three zeros is correct).
And presiding over the proceedings as Master of Ceremony is Mohd. Amin Sidek – Singapore’s version of the great and unpredictable Idi Amin.
P/S: Hot News
A Reporter’s Memoir NO HARD FEELINGS has just been nominated for the Hooker Book Prize 2009. The winner will be decided by secret ballot to be conducted by the top 10 YaLong houses from among its girls and patrons from Jan 1 to Feb 28. We like to urge friends of the Author to stand up and do their bit for him.
Attention to Reporters/Editors: Don’t get scooped. Make sure you send someone to cover the event.
Tah Zi You
Chief Editor
YaLong Times
32, Lorong 28, Geylang
Singapore
