But before going into the shared philosophy espoused by these leaders, it is better to understand how a reductionist view on any subject would eventually lead to the perversion of the original idea in the first place. An idea or perception of a matter or subject – is defined based on the senses and our analytic thought. That, and infused with cultural, surroundings and historical impact at the end of the day produces the paradigm in which we live our lives. Right, now that’s not that hard to follow isn’t it? However, no matter how accurate one’s senses perceive a subject, an observer possessing a reductionist view would try to simplify things by creating faulty arguments and slippery judgments.

Thus, when it comes to formulating a policy – a reductionist approach is at best, dangerous on many levels. Firstly, a reductionist may not solve the problem at hand but instead exacerbates it by not understanding the whole mechanism in the first place. In other words, a reductionist would rush to ‘fix’ the problem based on first impressions – thus neglecting the intricacies of the problem in the first hand. On a second level, even if the problem is solved, it will leave an after taste of resentment, as the early mechanism of the machinery has been forcibly changed in order to facilitate the new function. In other words, the machinery is forced to function based on the whims of the reductionist rather than working naturally based on its mechanics. On the third level, a reductionist would distort an original idea by implementing the interpretation of the idea into a form, which is extreme, or unfounded by the earlier idea. This is because the reductionist would digest the original idea only in its cosmetics rather than understanding the whole dynamics and principles of the idea. For example, a reductionist view of sociology gave birth to Communism; a reductionist view of biology gave birth to Nazism, and a reductionist view of Islam gave birth to Islamic terrorism.

The same could be said about both Mahathir and Lee Kuan Yew.

In his ‘Malay Dilemma’, Mahathir espoused the view that the Malays; particularly the rural Malays whom he characterized as less competitive compared to the urban and racially mixed Malays as somewhat lacking in intelligence as compared to the others. By others, I refer to the Chinese, Indians, and Malays of racially mixed background. Therefore, in his assessment – an open and competitive market and environment would actually cause the Malays to be more weak than their status quo.

Mahathir may have written the Malay Dilemma in the early years of his entrance into politics, but his view remained unchanged. To exemplify this, his recent comments especially with regards to Premier Najib Razak’s drive to promote meritocracy was a clear sign that he has yet to ditch his post-colonialist belief in social anthropology, which ascribed to the idea that certain races are born superior than other races. Does Mahathir believe that the pure-blooded Malays are superior than the other races? No. In fact he believed that the pure-blooded Malays are somewhat incompetent when it comes to competition with other races. It was written thus in his Malay Dilemma. And was reiterated again during his post-retirement era, where he concluded that meritocracy would benefit only certain races as compared to affirmative action which, in his opinion would level the playing field for everyone. In his paradigm, which I believe and presume that many of UMNO Old Guards still adhere to, affirmative action is a must to ensure that all the races would be able to stand together and reap the economy fairly.

Now, in Lee Kuan Yew’s ‘Hard Truth’; the Singaporean Lion mentioned that the Chinese people are resilient because the Chinese in the past practiced the law of ‘survival of the fittest’, where ‘the poor can’t get married and breed, while the smart and rich are able to breed’, thus eliminating the ‘bad genes’. He had also concluded that the modern Chinese are thus resilient and smarter, as it is both inherent genetically, as well as culturally. In his own words, Lee Kuan Yew mentioned that he loathed liberal democracies, as they tend ‘to believe that all people are born equal’. With all due respect to Mr Lee, he may have taken the liberal democracies egalitarian principles literally – as compared to having it as a guiding principle. But that’s for another discussion. As for Mr Lee, his generalization of race (often by forgetting that the different ethnics in China have different micro-history based on their region) and his implicit belief that some races are born superior than others come to prove that his mentality is along the lines of the colonialists that both he and Mahathir replaced. However, as opposed to Mahathir’s paradigm – Lee Kuan Yew believe that affirmative action would be detrimental towards the more superior race as they are forced to accommodate to the inferior races.

Eerily, many of us still adhere to both of these mutually exclusive paradigms. In fact. I believe that these two paradigms have made its mark on the societies of both countries especially with regards to Sino-Malay relationship. Thus, they made the bulwark to a dynamic relationship between the two races.

In truth however, both of their judgments and thinking flow are, well, flawed. Firstly, having the self-belief of superiority to judge the people based on race has shifted their attention away from the illness affecting a section of the population. By generalizing a certain problem to a particular race, one does not solve the problem at all as the remedy is not solving the cause of the problem. Rather, they have focused on the symptoms of the illness, rather than the cause of the illness.

With this regard, Lee Kuan Yew is less guilty in the trajectory of this mindset into his administration. As for Mahathir, the affirmative action was already taking place when he came into power – thus giving him more impetus in administering the policy based on the post-colonial mindset. The economic strength and growth in the early 90’s perhaps have dulled the people’s mindset from reacting towards such a denigration of thought. Economic success in most cases, is defined as the wisdom and ingenuity of the leader. Both countries grew and grew while harbouring the post-colonial philosophy, which reared its head after economic downturns. In other words, Malaysia and Singapore are merely growing shells – with no input of philosophical glue to actually coalesce the people together. The unity dances, songs and cultural festivals are merely cosmetics. The ruling government decides how the races should interact rather than giving them guidelines on how to interact. There’s a subtle line that both government failed to see.

In the Myth of the Lazy Native, Syed Hussein Al Attas hampered the thoughts that the Western imperialists have towards the natives. He motioned that the Western combination of fantasy, prejudice and refined scholarship gave the basis to imperialism, whereby “[t]he image of the indolent, dull, backward and treacherous native has changed into that of a dependent one requiring assistance to climb the ladder of progress”. Hussein denounces the belief that the natives, i.e. the Malay require constant assistance in order for them to be successful and civilized. Predicaments, history, location and time he believed, shaped the people’s mindset. And unlike the Western Imperialist, Mahathir and Lee Kuan Yew – Hussein believes that the resilience and intelligence of a race is very much formed by the surroundings rather than being inherent. Thus, it paved the way to his belief in the early Gerakan Party that was the champion of racial equality and a dynamic modern socialism approach.

Mahathir and Lee Kuan Yew may have been successful in managing their respective country, but the philosophy in which the countries were managed were only ‘good while they last’. The current threat to our joint 1culture, politics and dynamics from falling apart rests on the development of a reformed philosophy and an ever shifting paradigm. And the time for a major paradigm shift happens now.

It is somewhat apparent as to why liberal democracy may not be able to blossom any time soon within this region. With most of the top echelons within the two countries still harbouring the belief that they know more than the others, and thus can decide on how to deal, interact and administer the populace. The worse part is that the view is implicitly shared by a large part of the populace. For a liberal democracy to bloom, the populace would need a substantial amount of confidence, as well as more depth within their thoughts that they are able to coalesce dynamically to form a functioning society. The governments of the day within these two nations thus have a large burden in educating the people on civil rights and social responsibility, along with managing their current development policies.

The time has come for the governments of this region to give birth to a new dynamic society, one that subscribes to the philosophy that is both progressive yet localize in its expression of culture. A brand of philosophy that may have its origin in the centre-left movement of the 60’s but gravely relevant to the present day.

‘The Myth of the Lazy Native’ should be reviewed in a more recent term. They myth is no longer true in the eyes of former colonial masters, but is sadly seen as fact by local leaders.

However when one ponders at the statement, one could clearly recognize the underlying egotism at work. The same branch of egotism that perhaps may have caused many dissatisfaction among many staff or members of various organizations. A manager or leader driven by this impetus at the end of the day resorts to the cunning of Machiavelli to ensure his influence and pride are unharmed.

The Baby Boomers tend to look the world in black and white. It’s either you’re up to it or you’re not, either you’re brilliant or stupid. This divisive and conclusive attitude towards life made them the ‘strict nanny’, not unlike the Thatcherite government in their approach.

Within Malaysia, particularly the civil service – this patronizing form of leadership is still very much prevalent. Much of it is owed to the fact that many of the members of the civil service actually do believe that such form of leadership is the only way to go. A much open form of leadership, which is open to criticism is frowned upon as ineffective, effeminate and lack balls. To clarify this point, I have been to a gathering where a very senior civil service officer within the Federal government has urged other officers to implement government policies as strict as “Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin”. In other words, tyranny is an accepted form of leadership within the civil service. Paying lip service to the leader would usually result in higher appraisals.

Being from Generation Y, I found that hard to accept. True, this form leadership do get things done – but to many extend this form of leadership is very much less creative, causes low job satisfaction, and not to mention daunting! The Generation-Y having seen the open and relaxed leadership pf Google, Facebook and many other Gen-Y giant companies do not desire to be ‘oppressed’ in such organisations.

The Gen-Y Dilemma
Generation Y, many of which had just graduated from universities found it hard to adapt to such form of management. Job descriptions are found to be not tallying with what they do everyday, discrimination in terms of perceived incapability by those from the older generation, lack of recognition and various other faults are found to be overwhelming. Those management dysfunctionality, added with a quasi-tyrannical form of management are quite overwhelming, propmting many to quit their job within the first six months of working.

Are the people of my generation demanding too much? Are the bosses of these organizations really are Stalin-incarnate? At the end of the day, it boils down to deliverance. The Baby Boomers generation has proven to be effective deliver of results, being able to cut through many hurdles to be where they are now. The Generation Y on the other hand has yet to prove themselves. Clearly so, since they had just started to embark on a long journey called. Life. But that does not mean that they lack the talent and wit to lead this world. True, they may tumble and some may fall – but for those who are not giving up, big reward awaits in the future. Generation-Y have to realize that not all companies are Google-like or Facebook-like. It’s like wishing everyone on the street is a supermodel. We have to make do and adapt no matter how hard.

The Baby Boomers must also learn to adapt to the new generation boarding their organization. They do not lead the same way, do not adhere to the same ideals, and are determined to see things differently and be different. Their goal: to be a better generation than the one before. Indeed, one of our Educational Philosophy to motivate the children to be better than their parents is now materializing. Accept them for who they are, guide them if they need assistance – but most importantly, do not trample on their ideas and ideals. It’s the basis of their existence. And give way to the young ones to shine, you don’t live forever to rule.

The usual question people keep on pestering me, and yet the answer is hard to put in a simple string of words. So let me tell you a story, which wasn’t really original, but one which really tells it all.

Once there lived a wolf who hunted day and night with its pack. It was a brilliant wolf, but shunned by its pack due to his differences. The lonely wolf would stare at the bright sky after the rains and claimed that he saw the “Seven Tails of the Sky”.

What he saw made him feel lonely in the boisterous club. The others laughed and howled and mimicked the mutt but he stood for what he believed he saw, until the day he found another cub from another pack, Nessy, whose eyes were bedazzled by the same sight. She saw what he saw, and they stayed true to one another.

Thus it was explained by the Wise Cappuchin Monkey that it is part of the nature of wolves not to see colours, but seeing things that others couldn’t see made them closer. “A bond,” said the wise primate, “that could never be forged by gold or silver, but by the special rhythm that beats in your hearts”.

Thus the same could be said of the debaters. The jokes that we had, our ideas, visions and ideal are at most of the times different from other students. Therefore, it is just natural for us to be eager to mingle and meet as often as we could, and what’s the best way other than a debate tournament. As they say it in the Boy Scouts, ‘Once a Debater, always a Debater’.

Yes we are different, and so what?

Fast forward several hundres years later, in the State of Sarawak – there’s a rather stark differences between the poor and the rich. While the rich sit loftily in their palaces, the poor sits idly by his rotting shed he calls house, resigned to his destiny. The Chief Minister with his new and young wife represents privilege, one that does not portray the state ad a whole. Although the poor may have inflicted upon themselves the sin of idleness and ignorance, the law of human nature tells us that they are soon going to blame the rich for their fate. Knowing our local politics, all these dissatisfactions at the end of the day would culminate to religious or racial differences.

So here I am, musing at what is to happen and unfold within the realm of politics. Where religion, race, honesty and creed are dragged to the muddied field we call battle of wills. With this ghastly scenario playing daily in both our mainstream and alternative media, how can we blame the youth for being disgusted towards politics?

Will the politicians ever learn of this message sent to them by the youth, or will they forever be patronizing and ridiculing youth like they had always been doing?

It os rather fortunate (or unfortunate, depending ob your view) that our youth are not as aggressive or as radical as those in the middle east.

Because we know that all these youths, no matter their nationality demands only one thing: Change for a better future.

The Blog-Health-o-Meter™ reads This blog is doing awesome!.

Crunchy numbers

A Boeing 747-400 passenger jet can hold 416 passengers. This blog was viewed about 6,700 times in 2010. That’s about 16 full 747s.

In 2010, there were 24 new posts, growing the total archive of this blog to 36 posts. There were 4 pictures uploaded, taking up a total of 195kb.

The busiest day of the year was September 18th with 91 views. The most popular post that day was Sidetracked: If Maria Ozawa dies….

Where did they come from?

The top referring sites in 2010 were facebook.com, mail.yahoo.com, nose4news.wordpress.com, 74.125.67.100, and redheaven90.blogspot.com.

Some visitors came searching, mostly for maria ozawa, die welle, ozawa, cristina do rego, and “maria ozawa”.

Attractions in 2010

These are the posts and pages that got the most views in 2010.

Sidetracked: If Maria Ozawa dies… November 2009

Die Welle aka The Wave November 2009

When I Googled ‘Malaysia+Fascism’… June 2010
1 comment

Who reads Malaysian press? May 2010
1 comment

Forbidden Article: Magazine Should Be Ashamed for Glorifying Hitler September 2010
1 comment

Firstly, it’s my deepest regret to inform you the death of an Idealist, i.e. yours truly. No need to fear, yours truly is still alive, breathing and flirting unabashedly around – but what differs is the death of an idealistic notion within. After years of cancerous truth and painful misjudgment, an Idealist has thus been replaced by a more solid pragmatist.

The Idealistic Past: Paradox, Truth or Lies

It shouldn’t come as a surprise, the idealist side of me has long waned after many careful observation and understanding the different persuasion of various activism. Somehow, many of the so-called activists in this world are blinded of empathy, and have and almost psychotic need to make themselves understood by others. They remained extremely firm to their convictions, that they are blinded of any reasoning coming from the other side. But such is the world.

But again we must not generalize all activists as zealots and harlots (hmm..sounds like a good title for a book. I’ll take that!) Among them there are those who are righteous and are pragmatic in their approach. Unfortunately, these are the ones whom contemporaries would look down at and would only look up to later in the future.

The Pragmatists

These are the people who are able to seek truth, in the same time ensure that no form of extreme feelings and innuendos of any sort to cloud their judgment. They know where truth lies, what to do and how to do them correctly. Unfortunately, under heavy fire from extremists – these are usually the victims of hatred and accused of betrayal by their own people. There’s Ghandi who was killed by an extremist Hindu, Saladin who was disliked by some Emirs and accused of being too lenient towards the Christians, there’s King Roger of Sicily who was accused by a sizeable number of Christians in his time as in cohort with the Muslims and many other figures who were only looked up at when tolerance and acceptance are accepted as a way of life.

The Idealists/Extremists Borderline

I believe I do not have to deliberate on The Extremists which borderlines with Idealists, that usually crop up in extremeness. There’s Padre Ximenes, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden. In one way or another, they do see that there’s a big crisis of some sort that they have to face. Padre Ximenes was shocked to the Spaniards preferring foreign exotic culture to their own, Stalin witnessed the oppression of the peasants, Hitler saw his country kicked around by foreign powers and Bin Laden understood the pain of the Arab/Muslim countries. What I can deduce is this; these are the wrong people with the intention to do the right thing with the wrong methods.

When Malaysians grumble about local politics, I wonder if they realize that all politics are the same. It’s always Perception over Matter. Not everything that is rotten about Malaysia is uniquely Malaysian – those kind of perception makes me nauseous.

Extremists of Mother-Tongue (or EMT) may blab all that they want about foreign (especially white/Caucasians) learning Bahasa Malaysia. They took it as a prime example of how our mother tongue is ‘gaining dominance’ in Euro-sphere. For crying out loud guys, there are more people who are able to speak ‘dead language’ as per Latin and Ancient Greek in the UK and US combined together! It’s not that I’m saying that I do not love my mother tongue, but what I am criticizing here is the foolishness of such logic. Call it a fallacy of logic! Let’s examine it; “some white people learn Bahasa Malaysia, thus Bahasa Malaysia is gaining dominance and currency in the world”. What total crap!

*to be continued*

Forget We Not

We have forgotten that the bulwark of politics and political discrimination faced are not to be blamed on politics, political ideologies or the legislative instrument per se. We have to remember, that the voices of politicians and of political parties are merely the echoes of the people. By shunning politics, by denigrating politics – we are no better if not worse than the politicians who had flount extremism and racism in the sphere of our nation.

Why? It’s simple – because we did nothing to stop such rogue perceptions in politics. The cardinal rule (no, it has nothing to do with Catholicism) in a democratic country is simple – politicians could only voice out the voice of the people who vote. If you do not vote, you cannot change what the politicians say. Those Mercedes driving politicians surrounded by throngs of bodyguards are actually at the mercy of YOUR VOTE. Not voting for him does not count as an opposition to that kind of lifestyle. Only VOTING AGAINST that politician would count. This makes voting an important and a decisive factor of who you are.

Instead of lamenting that we do not have rightful politicians leading the country – why not we lead the country instead? Or be an activist? Or the least you could do – vote? What is so damn difficult in voting for the leader or party that you believe could offer better governance?

Heck, what if you dislike the current political parties? If you think that BN is too ‘establishment’ or ‘old-school’ in form, and you also believe that the PR is an incompetent slur-bashing party – then you can create your own party. Or an economically better solution - voice your opinion in blogs or altenative medias. Sure you could get the ball rolling. Political activism do not require you to walk down the streets bringing placards and banners. Those are political manifestations. Political activism means getting your voice heard, and chorusing together with those who agree with your opinion. Doesn’t matter if it’s the opposition or g0vernment. Some issues are better fought on a non-partisan platform.

Our generation, so to speak lack the political will to be involved in politics. We believe that we do not have anything else to fight for.

“The Brits are out, the War’s over, the Commies gone – what else is there to fight for?” said our young Oracles. “Plus, we hate fighting about religion and race like those bigoted politicians! Enough seed of mistrusts have been sowed” we lamented. Then again I repeat – we have forgotten the ideas and precepts of a democratic country. As the people we can unite and go against such form of politics. Are we not a democratic country?

More often than not, we abhor such politics but neither did we speak our opinions in the poll. We lament, we whined, we complained – but none reach the ballot box. Yet we chided the people who voted racist politicians. How irony – we didn’t even stop those little-Hitlers from springing up to power!

Therefore my fellow generation, it is about time we take up our responsibility to vote, and vote wisely. Remember, it’s not about whether or not these bigoted politicians would lose in the next election. But it is about us showing the world that there exists a more vibrant and dynamic generation that shall replace the bigoted and misogynistic generation in Malaysia.

Remember – you do not need to be a political party member to vote. You vote for your conscience. You vote for yourself. Therefore, my dearest generation – if you think that politics is just a fucked up business – think again. Democracy gives us the tools we need to choose who our leaders are, as well as influencing how the country should be run.

Another practitioner of aggressive policy was Thatcher’s Britain. Facing extreme unpopularity over her use of force against protesters as well as her patronizing attitude over the issue of racial inequality – war was what saved her career. Falklands, most often cited as the last stronghold of colonial Britain – which was attacked by an undemocratic Argentina rallied the British people behind Thatcher. Thatcher won the next election – mostly due to her prompt and crisp response to the crisis.

As we can duly observe , in both crisis the aggressor is not an aggressor in the eyes of the people – primarily because it has been portrayed that the people are actually being oppressed by a foreign entity. The leader’s reaction is deemed as a necessity to protect the people from aggressors. It arouses the primal “us against them” notion within the people’s subconscious. Not only that, it also promises a definite and considerable quick answer to an old and unfruitful conflict.

These ‘aggressions’ are not necessarily total wars in which an entire nation is mobilized, and the whole economic structure is revamped in facing a total war. No. We can still have a normal peacetime economics, yet able to flex our muscle. It can just be a show of power, or a small scale attack (if needed and necessitated) to reinstate or reaffirm one’s border.

Analyzing Limbang

Limbang has and still is, remains a source of confusion and irritation to the people of Sarawak. The fact that Limbang is located somewhere between Brunei’s lands – made transportation, mobilization and thus development slow to come. Not to mention that there are rumours circulating among the locals regarding the re-unification of Limbang with Brunei. This particularly caused discomfort among the locals of Limbang, particularly those who were raised in an independent Sarawak, within the Federation of Malaysia.

What could the state government do? Perhaps it is about time that the state leadership took up a brave stance to develop and fortify Limbang. The mobilization of troops would definitely cause uneasiness within Brunei’s palace, and not to mention a deteriorating relationship in the near future. International media too would be eager to calculate and judge our next action.

But this however, would have a positive impact on the current government – which is currently losing its confidence among the new voters. Information Ministry would have to feed the public and the world of the ugly condition of living in Limbang. The difficulty to feed the people as well as sovereignty problem would make the people see the necessity to have a hardline stance regarding Limbang. Rumours of the state leadership bartering the rakyat for profit with Brunei would be laid to rest. Rumours of development being halted because of the uncertainty of sovereignty would definitely being laid to rest too. One thing would be made clear to the people: “forget history, forget claims and counterclaims. The people in Limbang are suffering because of border and immigration proble. People First, History Later!”

What follows next is also vital. A route linking Miri to Limbang would have to be considered urgently. The state leadership must be portrayed as a leader who seeks to defend his people – come whatever may. This would (and should) be followed with the eradication of hardcore poverty in Sarawak – by involving everyone; government and opposition. An objective should be set – and all MPs and ADUNs in Sarawak must strive in fulfilling this objective. This should be made (and promoted) as a “true litmus test of a Sarawakian MP/ADUN”. All are given free hand to eradicate poverty in their constituency, thus ensuring a form of competition. Business engagement too would be vital, as they would be playing a vital role in eradicating poverty.

Relationship with Brunei could be mended later, once all the brouhaha is over. True, ASEAN may be fractured – but the fact that the media was able to portray the urgency and the need for the state government to serve and protect the people would definitely make Brunei slightly unpopular among other ASEAN members. Other then that, being a monarchic country made them twice unpopular. Malaysia and other key-players of ASEAN such as Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Singapore could bond together in creating an inner circle within ASEAN – based on the principles of democracy. This would further put pressure on the Brunei monarchy – as its administration is still tied up to a living monarchy. Other then that, the revelation of the monarch’s relative’s eccentricity and exuberance would definitely make the country even less popular.

So, a struggle with *Poni? Why not? After all, Limbang is Sarawak – and Sarawak cannot exist without Limbang.

*Poni was Brunei’s former name.

So it’s kinda logical that our generation, the Youth, are deeply disinterested in politics. There are those of our age who are interested in politics, but don’t their self righteous, holier than thou attitude kinda make u sick? Instead of making us being more open to politics, they made us loathe politics even more. The constant bullying ala the SS and SA are a constant feature of a deeply politicized university.

And so we hate politics. And people scorn at the word political science. Surely, there’s nothing scientific to it aside from the constant application of psychology in it. And all the political theories – are they not just platforms for fucked up people to gain some sort of leverage by dooping the people? Democracy is practically non-existent, as those who vote are those who are as fucked up as their political master. All are skullheads and bimbos. Therefore, our conclusive and reasonable answer to any form of politics is: NO, WE ARE NOT JOINING POLITICS! Politic’s a game for the rich. Politic’s are only for politicians.

Thus Spoke Zarasthura of The Young.

But is it really as bad as we perceive? Do we know not that we live in a democratic country, where ALL of us have the responsibility to choose OUR leader?

If we have a stupid MP representing us in Parliament, wouldn’t he or she be OUR MP.

If we have a stupid Prime Minister leading our country, wouldn’t he or she be OUR Prime Minister?

If we have a stupid Government doing fucked up works in the Ministries, wouldn’t they be OUR Government?

We are not living in a dictatorship, where we the People can simply wash our hands of the atrocities and mismanagements done by the government. We cannot just simply blame the politicians and government if we did nothing in intervening the state matters, i.e. voting in the elections.

Malaysians are suffering from “academical smarter than thou” syndrome. Where we only know how to criticize and blame others, especially the government (may they be from BN or PR), when things started to go bad. We think that we are smart by pinpointing the mistakes done by others. We think that we are contributing to the birth of a better, newer and smarter Malaysia by doing so.

But what we are doing is nothing more than just eradicating a lousy structure of ideology and replacing it with nothing for shelter. We oppose, but we did no counter-proposal in its place. And even if we do, we would always think that the professors and researchers are bribed somehow. Which explains a lot of conspiracy theory on both sides of our political spectrum.

We need a fixed pole to guide the people. To stir them away from this terrible politics of ours

(to be continued)

My dearest friends, brothers and sisters of the English Debate Club.

Especially to my dearest debaters who have made it to the Finals of Yayasan Sarawak Debate – Debater Black and Debater Terence.

Before I start, I have a confession to make. That to receive a call from each of you, informing your victory is a moment I shall never forget. It is a moment I shall cherish in my life. And I cherish it not because of pride, or vanity – but rather because I feel deeply appreciated. To Black and Terence, again – Thank You once more.

It may be redundant to say it again but, congratulations for your victory in Yayasan! It was as I believe, one of those many fights in your lives that you are most likely not to forget. It shall be unforgettable, my brothers not because of your wins and losses, points and rebuttals – but rather it is remembered because of your determination, courage and perseverance.

You shall remember it because of the joys and tears you share together.

You shall remember it because you have tasted the sweet smell of a shared success and triumph.

You shall remember it because you are determined to attain what you rightfully deserve; which is a bond of brotherhood, loyalty and friendship, bound to be evoked in years to come.

For by sharing these vital moments, you have learned to put your Trust, Faith, Honour and Name in the hands of your partner. And you shall owe that person for protecting it with all that he could in the midst of a battle we all call ‘debating’. It is a bond unbroken by time.

Forget the scorns, anger, bitterness and any foul mouthed wounds you’ve got. Forget the vile insinuations of politics and judges. Forget all that which are of vanity and pride. Forget the bruises and wounds inflicted on your ego.

For you must always remember the True Reasons you walked into your first debate training. For on that day you seek none but Friendship, Loyalty, Respect and Confidence. You seek not a Cup, but Brotherhood. You seek not victory but Friendship. You seek not your Name on a scroll, but your Name on your friends’ Hearts, marked forever.

And I urge you as a mentor, as a debater, but most importantly as a brother – that you shall remember these reasons when you walked on that stage today. You shall have humility, for you are none without the Family. You shall have soft words, for your enemy shall shout vile and cruel words. And you shall remember each of us – your Brothers and Sisters, that shall always be there for you in time of need.

Lastly Black and Terence, I would say that the two of you won’t need luck. For the two of you have the entire Debate Family behind your backs. Because as a Family, We owe you that.

And alas, never was so much owed by so many to so few. Yet so many shall remember what few had done.