The Independent Insight

Giving truth a voice

Sains Politik: Memahami Kejatuhan Maszlee

By

Malaysia kini mengukir sejarah baharu apabila Menteri Pendidikan meletak jawatan atas “nasihat ayahanda” yang beliau letakkan taat setia. Sukar hendak kita ulas perkara ini tanpa jatuh ke dalam bias politik kepartian, namun kita perlu juga melakukannya, kerana sejarah adalah guru yang baik.

Saya sedar para penyokong sedang bersedih, bukanlah niat saya untuk menambah garam pada luka mereka, sekadar menulis sedikit “certot” berkenaan dengan apa yang saya rasa berkenaan dengan perkembangan ini. Ada penyokong yang terus istihar “no hope” dalam Malaysia Baru, saya rasa ini satu yang naif, Malaysia ini tidak dibina dengan hanya satu sosok tokoh, kata pepatah, patah tumbuh hilang berganti. Ada juga yang masih “denial” bahawa bukan DAP yang mendesak. Ada juga yang optimis “jalan terus”. Ada juga yang istiqamah dengan kemenangan bersama atuk.

Tidak kurang penyokong yang marah kerana orang ramai “mengejek” dan “troll” menteri kesayangan mereka. Kemarahan mereka ada asasnya. Tetapi untuk berlaku adil, hampir seluruh menteri lain juga mendapat layanan yang sama. Jadi ada faktor besar lain “beyond” kutukan dan ejekan ini.

Saya juga tidak merasakan “performance” merupakan faktor utama penguguran Maszlee oleh ayahanda. Menteri perpaduan saya kira lebih teruk. Beliau naik bukan secara “demokratik” tidak bertanding pilihanraya dan tidak diundi, sekadar mendapat habuan selepas menyatakan sokongan. Malah sebelum dilantik juga ada rekod memburukkan negara diluar, yang boleh dianggap sebagai “act of treason“. Malah semasa khidmatnya berlaku rusuhan kaum sehingga mengorbankan nyawa! Lebih memalukan selepas menjadi menteri beliau mengasaskan parti baru berasaskan kaum. Bayangkan, seorang menteri perpaduan mengasaskan parti “perkauman”. Tak tertafsir dek akal waras. Tetapi beliau tidak mendapat nasihat dari ayahanda. Mengapa? Kerana langkah ini pada kira saya lebih kuat kerana desakan dalam dan luar untuk membuang “liabiliti politik”.

Dalam karya Khaled Hosseini, ada frasa yang saya kira sangat cocok dengan situasi ini, iaitu “Sometimes you have to cut a finger to save a hand“. Tun bukanlah negarawan baru, ketika tekanan memuncak dari dalam dan luar beliau perlu bertindak pragmatik dalam menyelamatkan “pakatan” yang ada. Beliau juga sedar bilangan kerusi yang sedikit yang parti beliau ada. Mereka berjawatan, tetapi tidak benar-benar mempunyai “kuasa”. Ia kemenangan yang cepat dan singkat dengan asas yang rapuh.

Jika kita telusuri press conference yang diberikan, beliau memulakannya dengan “kejayaan-kejayaan” yang berjaya dilakukan. Tetapi kejayaan ini tidak diketengahkan media. Beliau lebih banyak “diserang” dengan isu-isu politik bukan isu pendidikan. Perkara ini tidak ajaib, kita telah lama tahu sifat media seperti Malaysiakini, Free Malaysia Today, Malay Mail Online dan yang seangkatan dengannya. Tapi ada isu lain saya kira selain media.

Buku sains politik oleh Bruce Bueno de Mesquita saya kira sangat tepat dalam memahami situasi ini, iaitu mendapatkan kuasa itu sukar, mengekalkannya lebih sukar. Maszlee berjaya dalam langkah pertama tetapi tidak kedua. Mengapa?

Maszlee sendiri mengaku bahawa beliau datang dari kelompok “aktivis” sebelum berjawatan. Namun apabila sudah berjawatan beliau sering bertindak membelakangi prinsip aktivisme beliau sendiri, contoh ketara adalah kononnya mahu membebaskan universiti dari pengaruh politik, tetapi beliau sendiri kemudian menjadi presiden UIAM. Beliau ditentang keras oleh aktivis mahasiswa sehingga akhirnya jawatan itu dilepaskan. Beliau dilihat menipu manifesto untuk mendapat undi, terutamanya dalam isu janji penghapusan tol Simpang Renggam. Jadi beliau sejak awal telah hilang sokongan dari golongan “aktivis” yang mengutamakan prinsip dan idealisme.

Pada mulanya beliau berpendirian teguh dengan manifestonya. Apabila di tanya tentang pengiktirafan UEC, beliau menjawab sinis sambil bergelak bahawa ia tidak akan mengambil masa yang lama seperti 60 tahun diambil BN. Beliau mungkin berfikiran pada ketika itu bahawa beliau sedang “menyerang” BN, tetapi dalam Malaysia yang besar ini bukan BN sahaja bersifat nasionalis, malah ia sifat yang rentas parti. Segera beliau dimusuhi nasionalis.

Sifat nasionalis ini telah lama ditanam oleh kerajaan. Bukan sahaja golongan kanan, golongan tengah, malah banyak golongan kiri juga bersifat nasionalis apabila tiba dipersimpangan bahasa dan budaya. Membawa imej anti-nasionalis di peringkat awal merupakan kesilapan besar kerana ia menggugurkan banyak sokongan, beliau kemudian tidak lagi disokong “nasionalis”. Tetapi walaupun begitu, saya kira beliau “selamat” kerana tidak sempat mengiktiraf UEC. Kerana jika tidak beliau akan dikenang dalam naratif sejarah dalam perspektif nasionalis sebagai “pengkhianat”, seperti mantan Menteri Pelajaran, Khir Johari yang memansuhkan tulisan Jawi sekitar tahun 1960-an.

Dan apabila penentangan nasionalis semakin kuat, diperkenal pelbagai isu pro-nasionalis, seperti Jawi. Kini beliau dibenci pula oleh “rakan-rakan populis” nya sendiri yang digelar “rasis” oleh ayahandanya. Golongan nasionalis yang sudah tawar hati pun tidak mahu mempertahankannya kali ini. Disini saya kira adalah satu kesilapan strategi politik. Akhirnya beliau berjuang sendirian, tidak didokong kawan apatah lagi lawan, sokongan mungkin hanya dari sebahagian “jemaah”, namun Malaysia lebih besar dari satu “jemaah”, kegagalan mempunyai rakan strategik dari mana-mana kem baik dari kalangan “aktivis” dari “nasionalis” ataupun “populis-rasis” akhirnya membawa kegagalan. Beliau “ditembak” secara terbuka ketika duduk di dalam kubu sendiri oleh rakan-rakannya sendiri. Sebesar mana pun billboard yang diangkat, report card yang dijaja, tanpa pembendungan persepsi, “jiwa besar” atau “idea luar kotak” tetap kalah kepada politik realis dan strategik.

Kepada para penyokong, saya doakan kekal tabah, usah sedih terlalu lama. Meminjam kata-kata Muhammad Ahmad Ar-Rashid “ia hanya gerhana, bukan tenggelamnya matahari”. Walaupun tidak “berkuasa”, tokoh kesayangan mereka masih mempunyai “suara” di parlimen. Beliau masih lagi wakil rakyat yang mendapat undi yang sah. Masih punya masa untuk memansuhkan tol Simpang Renggam. Insha’Allah idea-idea segar dan jenaka-jenaka hambar beliau masih kita boleh dengar di parlimen. Diharap Kak Dina juga bertabah.

Kepada yang bersorak meraikan “kemenangan”, jangkaan saya penggantinya jika bukan ayahanda, salah seorang ahli Parti Bunga juga. Jangkaan saya mungkin silap, tetapi berdasarkan sejarah, begitulah, masa akan menentukannya.

Kita ucapkan selamat maju jaya kepada Dr. Maszlee. Semoga pendidikan negara tidak menjadi mangsa pergolakan politik, kasihan anak-anak kita. Mungkin ini kedengaran idealis, tetapi harapannya pendidikan boleh dipisahkan pada satu hari nanti dari “politik kepartian” yang membinasakan. Biarlah ia ditadbir oleh badan bebas dan tidak diperjudikan untuk apa-apa kepentingan politik atau jawatan.

Elaun BIPK: Kenapa Kita Semua Harus Bersolidariti?

By

Sewaktu rakyat bawahan membantah deregulasi kawalan caj perubatan swasta, kita tidak mendapat banyak solidariti. Malah ada dikalangan doktor juga mempertahankan polisi pemerkasaan kesihatan swasta ini. Kita disuruh “kalau tak nak bayar pegi hospital kerajaan bayar seringgit”. Kita disogok “pilihan masih banyak”. Ini doktor dari sektor awam yang berkata, tidak ada langsung solidariti. Jadi ketika elaun doktor baru ditarik, tiba-tiba bertanya kenapa mereka diluar profesyen kesihatan tidak cakna dan bersolidariti?

Mungkin kita boleh katakan pada mereka “kalau nak elaun banyak pergi kerja di luar negara” dan “pilihan kan banyak, pergi kerja swasta”. Tetapi tidak, itu jawapan yang salah. Saya berpendapat walaupun keluh kesah kita tidak disambut dahulu, kita patut bersolidariti. Kita tidak harus terus berpecah dan diperintah. “Serangan” kepada sektor awam adalah serangan kepada rakyat biasa. Jika kita tidak mengambil bahagian, bukan mereka sahaja yang rugi, tetapi kita semua, mereka adalah kita, dan kita adalah mereka. Pemerkasaan sektor swasta dan pengecilan sektor awam adalah parcel yang sama, ia adalah wawasan neo-liberalisme yang mahu membina profit-base ecosystem dalam sektor kesihatan.

Ada sesuatu kekurangan yang saya rasa dalam isu solidariti ini. Dr. Mahathir sering mengulangi bahawa orang Malaysia bersifat “timid”. Jika di Perancis, berlaku apa yang berlaku ini, satu negara akan mogok, seluruh negara lumpuh, sama ada kerajaan u-turn atau menjadi dysfunctional. Tapi tidak kita di Malaysia. Jika doktor ada kesatuan sekerja pun, kesatuan ini tidak kuat, tiada jaringan dengan kesatuan-kesatuan lain. Malah mungkin barisan kepimpinannya adalah doktor lama yang tidak terkesan pun dengan penarikan elaun. Doktor baru pun hanya boleh buat tindakan paling berani mereka, iaitu mengomel di Facebook.

Ramai yang bertanya, kenapa ditarik elaun doktor baru, mereka yang baru nak hidup, kenapa bukan doktor yang sudah hidup mewah dengan gaji berkepuk-kepuk. Dari sudut politik, penarikan elaun doktor baru ini “make sense”. Jika kita baca buku strategik “the prince” yang merupakan magnum opus Niccolo Machiavelli, lebih strategik menindas orang bawahan, mereka yang hanya mampu tunduk dan tidak melawan. Doktor lama punya jawatan dan pengaruh, mereka boleh “organize” untuk melawan. Tapi tidak doktor-doktor muda, yang baru mengenal dunia, yang ditempatkan hospital baru, bukan kesatuan, kawan pun tidak ada, mereka tidak berkesatuan, tidak tahu cara melawan.

Doktor adalah profesyen yang sangat mulia saya kira. Sampai ke hari ini saya mengagumi kerja-kerja doktor seperti Dr. Baharuddin Suri, Dr. Ang Swee Chai, Dr. Mads Gilbert, mereka yang begitu besar sumbangannya kepada kemanusiaan, melampaui kepentingan diri dan peribadi. Kita juga tidak lupa pada Jonas Salk, virologist yang menemui vaksin polio. Salk enggan untuk membuat patent bagi penemuannya. Ketika ditanya kenapa tidak patent, boleh dijual kepada syarikat farmasutikal untuk membuat untung, Salk menjawab, famously, “Could you patent the sun?”. Ia adalah epitome bahawa akses kesihatan adalah untuk semua. Sektor kesihatan tidak boleh di-deregulasi, dikecilkan, ditarik elaun, dalam masa yang sama memperkasakan sektor swasta.

Jadi, untuk doktor-doktor baru dan muda, kita katakan, solidariti!

Lost Islamic History

By

Reading history book is much more easier than reading economic or political science book, that I must say. Much of this, I think, is the human inclination toward stories rather than abstract theories, rhetoric, and argument. It took me just 11 days to finish Firas Alkhateeb’s book Lost Islamic History: Reclaiming Muslim Civilization from the Past.

To compress 1400 years of history of Islamic civilization into 274 pages is very hard, if not impossible. To do this, of course, you have to pick and choose on what is important, what to be included, what to exclude and what is history and what is not. This selection  is exposed to the bias of individual historian, all historian cannot escape from this dichotomy, Alkhateeb included.

 Alkhateeb made ‘lost’ as a title to fill the gap that American textbook left about the Islamic history in their teaching of world’s history. So, for average Muslim, who received Islamic education, much of the book is pretty similar to what they were thought in school, especially on the early history about Prophet Muhammad and the first four caliphs. There are a lot of interesting stories, speculation, myth, but none were dealt in details as this work is a compression of 1400 years of history. But all in all, it was a pleasant read, one that spark your brain cell to have a long thinking.

Commenting on how Muslim scholar such as al-Razi and Ibn Sina contributing to the human knowledge, which further the studies of previous scholar such as Galen and Hippocrates, which was used to lay the pillar of modern medical science in the West, Alkhateeb dispelled  the theory of ‘the clash of civilization’ stressing that civilization not only interact in aggressive and warring attitude. They also inspire each other and advance the work of each other in many fields in harmonious ways.

If there is one thing that is new from the book, at least for the Muslim who are well versed with Islamic history, is that Alkhateeb is successful in breaking the romanticized narrative of Islamic history. As we often thought that across the time there were great unity among the Muslim, the fall of one Islamic empire is succeeded by another, politely taking turns. This was not the case. The division is bloody, especially after the killing of Uthman, the third caliph. There are a lot of politicking and civil war, in fact in the 900s, there were three dynasties claiming the caliphate: the Abbasids, the Fatimids, and the Umayyads.

The saddest part of Islamic history may be the sacking of Baghdad by the Mongols on 10 February 1258. Not only the population of estimated 200,000 to 1 million was massacred, but the fall of Baghdad also means that hundreds years of scholarship in the field of mathematics, science, history, lost forever as the Mongols razed down the ancient institution of House of Wisdom and dumped all the books into the Tigris River, turning the river black with ink.

The story of Islam in Spain also were discussed, from my point of view, in adequate detail, although the student of history might want to find other sources which delve in it deeper. From the founding of Ummayyad Caliphate of Al-Andalus by Abdul Rahman Al-Dakhil until the fall of the last Muslim Kingdom in Granada under Muhammad XII, known as Boabdil by the Spaniards. The most interesting part of that history is how the Berber Muslim of North Africa frequently crossed the strait of Gibraltar to defend their Muslim brethrens, first by the Murabitun, then by the Muwahhidun, but in the end the infighting among the Muslim brought down the Muslim rule in the Iberian peninsula.

As a Malaysian, I chuckled a little bit as I read how Alkhateeb wrote the issue of how the Malay identify greatly their identity with Muslim identity. Not that it was wrong, it kind of funny to read how our culture were written in the international writing. He even quoted ‘masuk melayu’ the term given when someone embraced Islam with the meaning that he had enter the realm of the Malay. This issue actually very contentious at home, as the Muslim in Malaysia want their non-Muslim brother to understand that you can keep your culture even if you embraced Islam.

We often think that Mustafa Kamal, was the one responsible to secularized Turkey from their Islamic roots. But, the fact was it started much earlier, from the reign of Abdulmecid I (1839-1861) which brought in the era of Tanzimat or re-organization. During this era the legal code was changed from Shari’a to the French system in favour of a liberal and secular Western approach.

As the Islamic empire crumbled, the Muslim was instilled with nationalism, their land were carved under colonialism and imperialism. In the end they entered the modern world as individual nation states, much of which the boundaries of these new nation states was drawn by their previous colonial master. Ending his book, Alkhateeb noted that in this modern world, the Muslim now are in the cross road. To return to their former glory, some revivalist scholar preached that they need to return back to their faith, at the same time emerged a new class of scholar that preached that they should not return to the past but embraced the new ideals of the modern world. These two ideas are still contesting with each other, and their future will be determined by how this contest played out.       

Introduction to Marx’s thinking by Paul D’Amato – Book Review

By

I was naive to think that I could understand Marx’s thinking by simply picking up the Communist Manifesto out of the blue and start reading it. Indeed, after this futile exercise several years ago, I understand and remember nothing except for the call for workers to unite, the last line of the manifesto.

Paul D’Amato did a brilliant job in this title explaining to layman reader the essence of Marxist thinking. It is a perfect place for any person to begin their journey to understand Marx’s elaborated thinking. I discover the book some time ago when I asked myself a question “If we gave everyone equal decent living wages to everyone, what will be the motivation for people to work, innovate and use their creativity?” – I landed on one of D’Amato writings on the net and discovered his book.

In his introduction, D’Amato exposes the need to have an alternative thinking to solve various social issues. The raison d’état for this need is the failing of capitalism – or the uncontrolled mess created by modern capitalism to be inherited to future generation. Capitalism created a huge gap between the rich and poor, often unbalance with unimaginable wealth and great misery stood side-by-side. He gave a stark example where per capita income of Sub-Saharan Africa stood at $490 whereas per capita subsidy for European cow is $913.

Marx was heavily influenced by Hegel’s philosophy, in fact he was considered a Young Hegelian during his early years. Initially he considered the workers as a suffering being, not a shaper of the world social condition. He still believed that change must come from philosophy, not crude material struggle. But after witnessing French workers commitment, workers strike in Britain, Germany, and France, Marx ceased to view workers as a secondary component to social change.

Marx materialist method insist on the importance of material change instead of only abstract value, ideologies, or theories. In the absence of enough food, equality as a value means slow death – an equality of suffering. Working class, now, viewed by Marx as active agent for their own liberation. When he wrote that “The philosophers have merely interpreted the world; the point, however, is to change it” he is not saying that abstract ideas are meaningless, it is meaningless if its stay on its own without any change on the physical and material ground, idea must transform material changes in society to be considered useful.

Through this thinking materialist rejected the idea that “people are poor because they are lazy, if they work harder, they can become wealthy”, which suggested human has unrestricted “free-will”. The fact is however, people were poor because of material condition such as factories close, wages are low, or people fell ill and can’t work. These all are material condition that can be change, its not a matter of abstract theory.

Because Marx was heavily influenced by Hegel, D’Amato discussed in adequate depth the concept of Hegelian Dialectics, which I enjoyed very much. He discussed how the death of old idea, and the birth of the new idea, is not separate and distinct, but one that negate from the other, the old idea create a condition for a new idea to emerge. Its like a plant which grew out from a seed, it grew into a new shape and form, yet both are the same plant. Marx applied this Hegelian Dialectics with materialism for social change. He viewed that the development of new society only made possible with the abundant material produced by capitalism. In other words, capitalism provided material condition to create a new socialist society. For example, the efficiency of food production makes it possible to eradicate hunger, the material condition exists, what’s needed is a new distribution system.

Other than Hegel, the book also discussed Thomas Hobbes in the chapter of Marxist view of history. Hobbes stated that a state, separate from the society is needed as an alternative to war. The state, in Hobbesian view, acted as referee that regulate social brawl, regulate conflict between different parties within society to maintain order by exerting its coercive force. But this view is flawed as it assumes that the state could be neutral, in reality the state also had interest in every issue. He explained how Marxist rejected this justification for power, stating that, through the writing of Engels, that the concept of state came at the later part of history and does not arise in the earlier time when the society exist in its egalitarian and classless form.

The discussion on economics, or Marxist economics was confined in one chapter in this book. It started with the flawed mainstream economic models that cannot predict economic crises, the mainstream economics dressed up themselves as “science” but it isn’t. He then put forward the labor theory of value (LTV) which was the foundation of Marx’s theory on capitalism. The theory supposed that value came from workers labor, and to create profit, capitalist cannot simply mark-up the price because these will cancel each other’s out in the commerce, they need to pay workers less than what their labor produce, the surplus become profit. This is the core of injustice towards workers, the book also discussed workers condition in company such as UPS and Amazon where workers literally managed and treated like “robots”.

In the capitalist system “over-production” means that a product was overproduced and cannot be profitably sell for profit. The supply and demand of overproduction does not correspond to human needs. That is why we can have “grain-glut” yet millions of people go hungry every year. India have 200 million malnourished people, yet India export 5,000,000 metric tonnes of rice in 1995.

Socialism according two D’Amato was possible and necessary for two main reason, one, the material abundance created by capitalism. This abundance makes it possible for everyone to live with dignity, without hunger, what socialist advocated is the distribution system base on human need not greed. Two, is the periodic crisis brought by capitalism, socialist advocate for a much more sustainable system, that is not based on short term profit, but by long term sustainable planning. The systemic change also possible, by the creation of a new set of people by capitalism, the proletariat.

Revolution is not a fancy vacation. Through out history it filled with blood, the question then is, can we reform the system without revolution? Or change the system gradually within the bound of constitution? D’Amato brought a wealth of historical example on the failure of the “reformist” and “constitutionalist”. One of them is the killing of Allende of Chile, he concluded that the ruling power will not give the key to power and privilege easily, it needs to be wrestled. To make sure that the power can be wrestled, the military must be on their side, and remain on their side once they have the power, so that restructuring can be carried out without falling back to the counter-revolution.

The history of Russian revolution also was discussed, albeit somehow briefly. D’Amato take the readers on how the Revolution was won, the tactics and strategies played out by Lenin and the Bolsheviks, and also how the revolution was lost, degraded into autocratic dictatorship of Stalinism. One of the strategies of Lenin was to never halt the work even though if the organization was thrown into illegality, the work must continue underground, according to the current condition, and resurface once condition allowed. The Russian Revolution failed because of the lack of material condition at that time, in order for socialism to succeed it needs material abundance, something that Russia was lacking. This disadvantage put a halt to the revolution from becoming, in Trotsky’s word “permanent revolution”, that is revolution works permanently until all her aim achieved. Permanent Revolution also means that it will not stop at national border, socialism cannot survive when confined in a nation as an island surrounded by an ocean of capitalism.    

At the core of his argument, D’Amato insist on the definition of socialism, it not about nationalization, but what important is that workers control over production and distribution. What we have today is abundance of produce but disproportionately distributed, the system distributed product base one profit. Socialism on the other hand will base their distribution on human needs. This distribution system can only be achieved through internationalism, it cannot survive as island of socialism in the middle of capitalist ocean, as the failing of Soviet Union has shown.

Quoting the English writer William Morris on profit:

“It is profit which draws men into enormous unmanageable aggregations called towns, for instance; profit which crowds them up when they are there, into quarters without garden or open spaces; profit which won’t take the most ordinary precautions against wrapping a whole district in a cloud of sulfurous smoke; which turns beautiful river into filthy sewers; which condemns all but the rich to live in houses idiotically cramped and confined at best, and at the worst, in houses for whose wretchedness there is no name.”

On Zionism, D’Amato is very clear that the project is racist, but different from their South African counterpart, Zionism goes further than just oppressing native population, it seeks the removal of native Palestinian from their land to build exclusive Jewish state. D’Amato dispelled Zionist propaganda that Palestine was “a land without a people for a people without a land”. He also elaborated on the connection and contact of Zionist leaders with the Nazis, as they share the same goal, the Nazis want Europe without Jew, the Zionist want all Jew to fled Europe to resettled in their new Jewish nation, both shared the same goal of “separation of Jews from gentile”.

Finally, what does the future that socialism seek to build?

D’Amato answered this with the words from Eugene Debs “Production and distribution for all the people, collective ownership of industries and their management, elimination of rent, profit, and interest, the end of class rule, slavery, ignorance, poverty, cruelty, and crime”. Socialism seek to abolish class, and with that it rendered the existence of state as instrument of enforcement disappears. Whilst we may find that many of the solution proposed is hard to churn, many would agree on the failing and flaw of capitalism in structuring our modern society. We don’t have to be a Marxist or socialist, but, we all need to work together to re-created a more just and sustainable society.

Venom & beberapa perbahasan falsafah

By

Venom merupakan sebuah filem yang ditayangkan pada tahun 2018, ia adalah salah satu filem hasil adaptasi dari komik Marvel. Ia dilakonkan oleh Tom Hardy sebagai watak utama yang melakonkan watak seorang wartawan bernama Eddie Brock. Brock mendapat kuasa luarbiasa apabila sejenis makhluk asing yang dipanggil symbiote memasuki dirinya. Artikel ini bukanlah bertujuan untuk memberi review berkenaan dengan filem ini, tetapi ingin membincangkan beberapa tema yang ada di dalam filem ini.

Penerokaan angkasa lepas

Dalam filem Venom, babak awal adalah berkenaan dengan kapal peneroka angkasa yang terhempas ketika pulang mendarat di bumi. Tema penerokaan angkasa lepas bukanlah sesuatu tema asing, malah ia kini sudah menjadi tema yang sangat tipikal. Namun tema ini sebenarnya sangat berkait dengan realiti. Ia merupakan sains fiksyen yang kini telah menjadi science fact. Antara penulis sains angkasa kegemaran saya adalah Carl Sagan, dan bukunya yang saya kira sangat padu adalah Pale Blue Dot. Sagan menyatakan bahawa manusia sememangnya dilahirkan sebagai pengembara, peneroka, wanderer. Sejak awal zaman, manusia berpindah-randah, meneroka lautan, padang pasir, gunung-ganang, dan kini, angkasa lepas. Bagi Sagan penerokaan angkasa bukan satu pilihan tetapi keperluan.

Pertambahan populasi bumi

Dalam satu babak, watak antagonis Carlton Drake, yang dilakonkan oleh Riz Ahmed, menyatakan bahawa motivasinya adalah untuk kebaikan bumi, perlunya mengawal populasi manusia. Ini juga merupakan tema yang tidak asing, pastinya kita terfikir watak Thanos dalam filem Avenger yang mempunyai motivasi yang sama. Jadi apakah status perkembangan populasi dunia?

Sebenarnya pengawalan populasi wujud dalam dunia realiti, walaupun mungkin bukanlah sekejam apa yang dilakukan Drake atau Thanos. China sebagai contoh melaksanakan dasar 1 keluarga 1 anak bagi mengawal populasi. Namun sekiranya anda mengikuti wacana populasi dunia, terutamanya dari Prof. Hans Rosling, sebenarnya populasi manusia dibumi telah mencapai pertumbuhan puncak pada tahun 1962 hingga 1963. Dan sejak sekitar tahun 1990, sebenarnya pertumbuhan populasi manusia menurun setiap tahun.

Dualiti manusia

Terdapat banyak lagi tema menarik dalam filem Venom, seperti sifat dualiti manusia apabila Drake berbincang dengan Venom di dalam minda. Minda manusia merupakan satu entiti lain, kita sering berbincang (perbincangan ruh dan minda) di dalam diri, sesetengah orang memanggilnya monolog. Buku tulisan Eckhart Tolle, The Power of Now, banyak berbicara berkenaan sifat dualiti ini, sangat menarik jika anda berminat lebih lanjut.

Tema-tema lain

Banyak lagi tema yang ada didalam filem ini seperti percintaan, persahabatan, pengorbanan, kesetiaan pada idea, moral, etika, juga keberanian untuk mengambil risiko. Namun mungkin akan kita perbahaskan dihari lain sekiranya kita mempunyai masa.

Elbakyan dan gerakan pembebasan progres sains

By

Walaupun kita sekarang hidup di zaman sains moden, ada masalah kepada penerusan dan progres sains hari ini. Sebuah artikel yang ditulis oleh Benjamin Kaube dalam portal The Guardian menyatakan masalah ini dengan menulis “para saintis sepatutnya menyelesaikan masalah bukan bersusah payah untuk mengakses jurnal”. Ya, masalah kepada sains moden hari ini adalah akses. Masalah ini berpunca dari sistem penerbitan jurnal saintifik yang berpaksikan keuntungan, sedangkan ilmu mempunyai konsep keuntungan yang lain, tidak seperti harta, ilmu bertambah apabila dikongsi.

Bagaimana sistem keuntungan ini berfungsi? Penyelidik sentiasa perlu menerbitkan artikel untuk relevan di peringkat universiti – penyelidikan yang kebiasaannya menggunakan wang awam. Mereka akan menandatangani perjanjian untuk memberi hak cipta dan kerja mereka kepada penerbit secara percuma. Penerbit menghantar artikel untuk direview secara percuma oleh penyelidik lain. Hasil terbitan dijual semula kepada penyelidik dan universiti untuk akses.

Dengan sistem keuntungan penerbitan saintifik, setiap penulisan perlu dibayar untuk akses, ini mencipta barrier kepada penyelidik dari negara-negara kurang membangun untuk memajukan progres penyelidikan mereka.  Ia bukan sahaja melambatkan proses pengembangan sains, ia juga menghalang penyelidik dari mendapatkan bahan-bahan ilmu berkualiti bagi mengembangkan keilmuan.

Pada tahun 2011, seorang wanita muda berusia 23 tahun bangun untuk melawan sistem ini. Beliau adalah Alexandra Asanovna Elbakyan.

Beliau lahir di Kesatuan Soviet, yang kemudiannya menjadi sebuah negara bebas bernama Kazakhstan. Beliau merupakan lepasan dari Universiti Teknikal Nasional Kazakh dalam bidang sains komputer dan mahir dalam skil computer hacking. Beliau kemudian berkhidmat disebuah syarikat sekuriti komputer di Moscow sebelum ke Freiburg untuk mengikuti projek brain-computer interface, dan pernah menjadi intern di Institut Teknologi Georgia di Amerika Syarikat.

Elbakyan sendiri merupakan penyelidik, beliau sendiri menghadapi masalah untuk mengakses penulisan saintifik dan mendapati penyelidik sering meminta satu sama lain dalam forum yang tidak efisien. Pada 5 September 2011 beliau melancarkan portal Sci-Hub dimana penyelidik dapat mengakses 50 juta penulisan akademik tanpa sekatan paywall secara percuma. Sci-Hub menjadi popular dengan cepat dikalangan penyelidik dan menyebabkan kerugian dianggarkan sebanyak 10 billion USD setiap tahun.

Sci-Hub mendapatkan jurnal dari maklumat yang dibocorkan dan memberikan akses percuma hampir dari semua penyelidikan akademik. Pada tahun 2015, penerbit penyelidikan terbesar dunia, Elsevier menyaman Sci-Hub atas alasan hak cipta. Sci-Hub disaman sekali lagi oleh Persatuan Kimia Amerika pada tahun 2017. Tindakan undang-undang ini menyebabkan domain Sci-Hub di tutup, namun Sci-Hub berpindah kepada satu domain ke satu domain yang lain dan terus kekal boleh diakses hingga ke hari ini.

Sesetengah orang membandingkan usaha beliau dengan karakter Robin Hood, beliau berkata “Saya fikir ia bukanlah perumpamaan yang bagus, kerana apa yang dilakukan adalah salah. Dan berkongsi buku dan jurnal penyelidikan bukanlah satu kesalahan”. Sementara itu, beliau dianggap sebagai heroin oleh golongan yang mengadvokasi akses percuma buat ilmu, Heather Joseph adalah salah seorang daripadanya, dia berkata “Saya hargai usaha beliau, beliau menyinarkan cahaya kepada masalah pada sistem kini yang tempang, universiti dan penyelidik memerlukan akses yang mudah bagi membangunkan sains”.

Sehingga sekarang, Elbakyan masih mengumpulkan artikel ke dalam database Sci-Hub bagi kegunaan umat manusia secara percuma. Bagi pendokong progres sains beliau adalah heroin manakala bagi penerbit yang ingin mengumpul keuntungan beliau adalah penjenayah hak cipta. Kerana bimbang akan di ekstradisi, beliau kini bersembunyi di lokasi rahsia.

Ang Swee Chai – From Christian Zionist to Palestinian Activist – Book Review

By

Sad, angry, depressed, hopeful, were few of the thousands of emotions aroused reading ‘From Beirut to Jerusalem’, a memoir by Ang Swee Chai. Through her passion, love, perseverance, bravery, and determination, the world is indeed greatly indebted for her work both as a doctor and also as a witness to the massacre suffered by Palestinian refugee in Sabra-Shatila during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982.

Her maternal grandfather was a conservative and traditionalist, he believed that an educated woman will not make a good wife. But her mother was a defiant daughter, register herself to school and went to become a teacher. Her father ran away from his grandfather in mainland China refusing to marry a girl arranged for him and went to became a journalist in Singapore. During the Japanese invasion on Malaya, both of them met in the Outram Road prison in Singapore.

After Japan was defeated, they settled as a family. When her mother was pregnant, she went back to her hometown in Pulau Pinang to give birth to her. She was raised in Ayer Itam district in Pulau Pinang with her younger brother, Lee Cyn. They eventually moved back to Singapore following their father’s work. Raised in poor family, her mother raised her with discipline, she then continues her studies in medical school. She married Francis Khoo, a lawyer and activist. Francis was accused to be a communist, he fled Singapore in 1977 avoiding arrest under Internal Security Act (ISA) and took refuge in Britain.

Her parent was areligious but they allowed their children to choose a religion of their own. She embraced Christianity during her studies in medical school.

Ang was well versed about Israel even before volunteering. The church has taught her that Israel was God’s chosen people, and the return of the Jew to Israel was a verification of biblical prophecy. There are many reasons why she supported Israel, one of it was the oppression of the Jew by the Nazis, and the Nazis were Japanese ally during world war, with the creation of Israel the Jew can defend themselves, its a realization of justice from God.

She was prejudiced towards Palestinians, the church has told her that they were terrorist, an old foe, the Philistines of the Old Testament. She was a bigoted, self-righteous fundamentalist Christian, like many Christians she rejoiced in the military triumph of Israel. But that morning in Sabra and Shatila, God destroyed that self-righteousness.

In her memoir, she recreated that journey, from a bigoted Christian fundamentalist to peace activist and friend of the Palestinian people. It started in 1982 when she watch the horror of Israeli invasion and bombardment of the people of Lebanon through British television. The killing of women and children shook her to the core, she resigned prom her hospital in Britain, pack her bag, and went to Beirut as a medical surgeon volunteer.

In Beirut, Dr. Ang Swee Chai served at Gaza Hospital, Palestinian refugees named their hospital with their town in Palestine, its a symbol of longing to their homeland from where they were expelled by the Zionist colonialism. Many of the camp residence were refugees who fled the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948. The hospital situated near the Sabra and Shatila camp. Here, she witnessed the kindness of Palestinian people, the gentleness they showed toward their guest, she also saw their courage, resolution, patience, and resistance against Israeli aggression and occupation.

Before the Sabra and Shatila massacre, Palestinian fighters from Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) agreed to evacuate from Beirut as a condition of a ceasefire. Dr. Ang noted “this is the first time that I realized that PLO fighters (who she preconceived as a terrorist) have a home and family in Lebanon, they withdraw and left their wives, children, siblings and parents”. The Palestinian gave away their weapon, the roads are cleared from any barrier. On 14 September 1882, water and electricity supply were restored. They believed in the promised of United States and western powers, that they will be let to live unharmed. They were wrong.

The next day, the camp were encircled by Israeli army and under siege, Israel coordinated Phalangist militia to enter the camp and massacred the people, children, baby, women, old people were brutally murdered. Dr. Ang realized the scale of barbarity and hope that the PLO did not withdraw on the first place, so they can defend the camp people. But it was too late. She recollected this barbaric massacre in her memoir which was first published by Grafton Books & Times Book International in 1989.

Reading her memoir really shock reader’s emotion to the core, your tears will be flowing like a river as she collected her horror, by page 70 your tear will run-out dry, there is so much to take. The story of a people exiled from their homeland in 1948 only to be massacred again by the Israelis in 1982, Dr. Ang could not help but ask, where should they go?

She recalled a story on the height of the killing, there was a woman and a child brought into the hospital, the woman was shot on her stomach and badly wounded. After operation, she needed a blood transfusion. She overheard that the nurse told the doctor that the blood pint given to her was the last, and the child need blood transfusion of the same blood type. She refused the blood pint so that the child can have it and asked for painkiller instead. She died shortly after.

She also written a story about a boy named Mahmoud, who was her patient before the massacre, he injured his wrist whilst helping his father rebuilding their house. After the massacre, when she walked down the road in the camp, Mahmoud appeared, ran toward her and hug her, he was so happy to know that she was alive. Soon, children began to appear around her, they saw her camera and asked for a photo, they wanted the world to see that although their house have been destroyed, their parent massacred, they still can smile and raised their hand with victory sign. Their courage was astonishing.

Reflecting on the Palestinian tragedy, she wondered why Palestinians need to suffer to accommodate the victim of Nazis persecution and European racism? At the end of the memoir, in the post-script, she also reflected on her Christian belief. She wrote “[I was] a bigoted, self-righteous fundamentalist Christian. I thought that I knew the Bible, and God was on our side. I rejoiced in the military triumph of Israel. On that morning in Sabra and Shatila, God destroyed that self-righteousness. Many of my Zionist Christian friends shunned me, but I am no longer intimidated by all this. I have seen a different face of God – that of love, compassion, and grace. He promised Ishmael would be a father of many nations. Palestinian are the children of Ishmael and the children of Abraham. He will wipe away all tears and bring us home..next year in Jerusalem.”

Dr. Ang Swee Chai then became a co-founder of Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP), she became an activist and regularly invited to talk about the plight of the Palestinians. Her experience in Lebanon changed her life completely, she became the witness of Sabra-Shatila massacre which taught her to never relent in the face of injustice. In her letter to her husband, Francis Khoo she wrote “we are just two small persons in the history of liberation..I saw the face of death, I saw their power and ugliness, but I also saw fear deep inside their eyes, the children of the new generation will come, and they are not afraid”.

Samakan fi perubatan dengan gunting rambut – manifestasi kebodohan

By

Baru-baru ini Malaysia digemparkan dengan desakan doktor-doktor klinik swasta yang mahu menaikkan cas konsultasi. Walaupun terdapat seribu satu alasan yang mungkin diterima akal, seorang netizen telah memberikan ulasan yang terlalu bodoh bagi menghalalkan kenaikan harga ini dengan menyamakan fi perubatan dengan fi gunting rambut. Mari kita hayati ulasan komen tersebut bersama.

Pertama, khidmat gunting rambut merupakan satu khidmat yang optional, rambut kalau tak gunting tak mati. Paling kuat kena potong dengan warden bila balik asrama, bagi yang bekerja mungkin kena amaran dengan makcik HR di pejabat, kalau balik kampung paling kuat kena tegur dengan opah, semua kemungkinan ini tak membawa pada kematian.

Kedua, kalau pun wujud kartel persatuan gunting rambut sedunia dan mereka menetapkan harga potongan biasa RM10, rakyat ada option lain. Contohnya mintak tolong makcik jiran sebelah potongkan rambut.

Ketiga, kalau makcik jiran sebelah tak nak, sebab dia benci kau yang suka dengar Spotify tak pakai headphone setiap malam, boleh mintak tolong ahli keluarga, rakan, adik angkat, kawan pejabat, atau siak masjid tolong potongkan.

Keempat, kalau semua orang tak nak tolong, masih ada option untuk pergi Giant, beli mesin gunting rambut dan potong sendiri. Kalau tak cantik macam rambut player Turki, Hasan Sas pun takpe. Tak mati. Seminggu dua rambut boleh tumbuh balik dan cuba lagi.

Kelima, kalau Giant tutup. Boleh pergi beli dekat Tesco Extra, Billion, atau Mydin.

Tapi perkhidmatan kesihatan adalah khidmat asas. Dalam bahasa Inggeris basic atau fundamental needs. Dalam bahasa Arab Al-Assasiyyah. Sebab itu dalam konflik kemanusiaan bantuan yang dihantar adalah makanan dan perubatan, takda lagi orang gila yang hantar bantuan khidmat gunting rambut dalam krisis kemanusiaan.

Khidmat perubatan ini tak boleh dilakukan sendiri. Makcik sebelah rumah kita tak pandai nak diagnose penyakit. Siak masjid tak pandai tolong x-ray tulang yang patah. Semua ini perlu dilakukan oleh doktor professional.

Perkhidmatan kesihatan ini majoritinya ditanggung kerajaan. Doktor ditaja dengan biasiswa kerajaan. Universiti awam yang latih doktor diberi subsidi dan bantuan kerajaan. Hatta yang di swasta pun banyak yang dapat pinjaman pembelajaran kerajaan. Latihan lepas belajar disediakan kerajaan. Semua ini duit rakyat, untuk masyarakat, perlu dikembalikan pada masyarakat.

Kita boleh terima hujah kenaikan fi jika disebabkan faktor kenaikan kos mengurus klinik walaupun masih boleh dipertikaikan betul ke kebanyakan klinik rugi? Kalau naik terlalu tinggi boleh dipersoal dari sudut etika dan moral.

Orang cetek akal sahaja samakan fi perubatan dengan gunting rambut.

Economyth – pseudo-facts disguise as an economic theory, fundamentals, and models – Book Review

By

Economyth – pseudo-facts disguise as an economic theory, fundamentals, and models.

The book opens with a foreword and preface of the new version which basically gave a summary of what had happen since the first publication in term of reception. The work was cherished by heterodox economist and sparked debate over the way of economics was taught as a subject. This was in light of the economic crash in 2008-09, which was not predicted by many ‘experts’.

The idea however was rejected by mainstream neo-classical economist due to the fact that it challenges the established theory.

David Orrell blamed the abused of mathematical models, used by bankers, analyst, and economist, not just the models cannot predict the crash, he argued that the model helped cause the crash. But he went further, not just the mathematical models were flawed, the fundamental theory in which we understand economy is plain wrong.

Orrell maintained that whilst economist based their economic law from reductionist model of Newtonian physics, humans are not like atoms, they are not rational and cannot be modelled. He is not alone on this, Ha Joon-Chang also maintains in his book that economics is not a science like physics.

But while Chang criticized free-market economics, Orrell went further and dispelled the fundamental ‘law’ of economics – the supply and demand theory. He insisted that the supply and demand curve, which was taught in every economic school, has never been proven empirically with real data, the curve is “like a unicorn, always drawn but never really seen”.

The problem with the curve is that it exists on ceteris paribus – other things held constant, but in real life, this was never the case, supply and demand always change and dance together. The danger of perceiving the concept as ‘law’ will have a severe consequence in real life, we will be searching (wasting our time) for a creature that is non-existent.

Orrell then pointed his gun to the ‘efficient market’ hypothesis which assume that people are rational motivate by profit, have access to market data, and independent in making decisions. This theory take root from atomic theory which equate individuals like a particle of atoms. He lamented that this is fundamentally wrong as human always did irrational things and they communicate, advocate, and influence others, to create a mathematical model out of individuals based on atomic theory will lead us to a catastrophic trap. This trap made IMF made a comment in 2007 that “world economy will have a robust growth in 2007 and 2008” before they eventually crashed.

He then cited evidence from the UK housing market, where people under constant pressure from advertisement to buy house and made profit through speculation. People buy houses more than they needed, to make profit. This creates a psychological pressure and induced others to follow suit, they did not act rationally, but emotionally fearing of missing out, and behave in “herd” behaviour. Obviously, you can’t make mathematical model from human emotions. The notion that market will regulate itself in mathematical precision is therefore highly unlikely and nowhere to be seen.

One of Orrell point is to make finance less efficient, this point was in common with the call made by economist, Ha Joon-Chang in his book about problem with capitalism. Orrell argued that by abolishing the Glass-Steagall Act which separate daily commercial bank with speculative investment bank make the financial system more integrated. Therefore, default is contagious, one failure can drag the whole system down. He called for re-compartmentalization of these banks, although it reduces efficiency, it introduced a control mechanism to limit failure. Another aspect that might save us in time of crisis is redundancy, in nature this can be observe on the extra kidney we carry, while in the economy, this mean that banks need to have limit to their gambling risk and hold extra reserve to survive the bad time.    

The economy is unstable according to Orrell, to elaborate this argument, he explained the banking system in the word of economist Hyman Minsky who contended that the borrower can be categorized to three, first the hedge, this is a regular borrower who can pay their principal and interest. Next, the speculative, who can only service his interest such as the mortgage borrower. Than the final one, the ponzi, who had a lot of hope, can only pay if the asset price continue to rise. As the debt continue to accumulate, it will eventually burst, starting with the ponzi, followed by the speculative, and finally dragging down the hedge – this will be the Minsky moment.

Financial system is not a natural system, we had a say and can better engineer them. Orrell suggest that we model them from the current extreme form which focussed on short-term profit towards a more normal ones which gave lesser profit but much more resilient from crashes, he then laid his suggestion on how to achieve this goal. One of them, is create a barrier by testing financial product to understand their risk before releasing them to market. Regulation, contended Orrell, will caused some inefficiency but it gave stability, he then poked the concept of the ‘invisible hand’ by saying that if we looked at our own hand, it is heavily regulated – from temperature to cell salinity – putting economist to shame.

Other interesting discussion in the book by Orrell is about the differences of government monetary policy between Milton Friedman and John Maynard Keynes. Whilst Friedman inherit the free-market ideology and anti-regulation propagated by the Chicago boys, Keynes expanded government involvement in the economy and advised the boosting of government spending during recession to compensate demand. He also took a punch on Friedman stating that its ironic he opposes government intervention but at the same time the Chicago boys sustained themselves in part by government grants.

Many of his argument do ring a bell, underlaying assumption in economics such as people are rational is somewhat laughable. Human are not computers, they are highly emotional, and because humans are the building block of the whole economy, the economy must be emotional, we can’t exclude the most important trait of human being, produced a model out of it and applied it to the real world.

But there is also an oxymoronic argument put forward in his book. In one of the chapters he tried to make a case that the economy is gendered, he even brought forward the concept of yin and yang claiming that the aggressive bet and speculation are attributed to male trait (female did not gamble?). But while trying to make his point, he took a sharp turn and wrote that ‘it would be terribly reductionist to blame…solely on people with a tendency to grow facial hair’. So which is it, is it really gendered or it is a reductionist assumption?

Current economic theory is not a science, Orrell contended, but rather an ideology peculiar to a certain period in history because it does not add up to the empirical data and made various assumption which does not hold true in real life situation. He went on outlining the similarity of the global economy with a ponzi scam by Bernie Madoff. Such similarities includes a complicated but plausible story, trust, incentives, a network of rich and powerful people, influence with regulators, illusion of growth, and an outdated machine (a price theory that said price is always right).

Orrell also called ethics to be included in the economic equation, as there are many aspect that will lead to harmful consequence if the whole decision was left to market to decide. For example, he asked if we leave resources such as oil for investment company such as pension fund to decide, why should they put a cap on production? Their motive is short term gain without consideration of long-term environment decays. These are the area that need to be addressed by ethics in the form of government intervention and regulation.

I do find one question fairly amusing. When he tried to make a case that other field of studies actually needed to construct new economic model, he asked a question ‘are philosophers in agreement that market can make ethical decision?’ This question, I think, is also an oxymoron. Philosophers were always in disagreement almost about everything between them.

Finally, concluding his book, he asked readers to confront every economist in their lives and observe their reaction. They can reply in denial, anger, depressed, or in good case, accepted the criticism and chartered a new path. For a change to happen, we need to acknowledge first that the problem exist.

This article is a review of the book ‘Economyths: 11 Ways Economics Gets it Wrong’ by David Orrell.

Ali, Saiful Nang, dan Prof. Ilan Pappe

By

Gambar sekadar hiasan semata-mata.

Ali merupakan peminat Saiful Nang, setiap hari beliau akan like gambar-gambar instagram SN juga status-status SN di facebook. Ali sangat teruja untuk melancong ke Tel Aviv dan bergambar dengan tembok pemisah yang merupakan simbol penindasan warga Palestin.

Beliau bertanyakan pendapat saya, dan meminta bahan bacaan untuk lebih memahami konflik Israel-Palestin. Kecintaan Ali terhadap ilmu dan kebenaran membuatkannya sanggup menaiki motor kapchai dari Merbok ke Sungai Petani hanya demi sebuah buku.

Saya pinjamkan kepada Ali buku The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine tulisan Prof. Ilan Pappe, yang merupakan sejarawan dari University of Exeter. Pappe merupakan ‘The New Historian’ sebaris dengan sejarawan seperti Benny Morris dan Avi Shlaim. Mereka merupakan revisionist yang menulis semula sejarah Israel secara objektif tanpa naratif propaganda Zionis.

Ya, Pappe sendiri berbangsa yahudi, tetapi beliau menentang keganasan dan pembunuhan yang dilakukan oleh Israel ke atas bangsa Palestin. Pappe dalam bukunya menggunakan sumber-sumber dari arkib Israel seperti jurnal David Ben-Gurion dan dokumen tentera.

SN mengatakan bahawa Israel mahukan keamanan dan mereka mengambil tanah berdasarkan undang-undang, rule-of-absence. Tapi ada soalan besar yang SN tinggalkan dalam posting beliau, iaitu bagaimana tanah-tanah yang dirampas itu boleh menjadi absence? Tanpa penduduk?

Disinilah kelompongan yang perlu di isi. Tanah itu ditinggalkan selepas ia diserang oleh para-militeri yahudi seperti Haganah, Irgun, dan Stern Gang, para-militeri ini kemudian menjadi IDF hari ini. Malah ahli fizik terkenal, Albert Einstein pernah mengutus surat mengecam keganasan teroris yahudi. Ilan Pappe dalam bukunya menceritakan dengan terperinci kampung demi kampung, bandar demi bandar, yang dibakar, diroboh, diletupkan, dan penduduk yang dibunuh dan dihalau. Antara pembunuhan beramai-ramai yang mendapat liputan dan terkenal adalah pembunuhan di perkampungan Deir Yassin. Penduduk yang di halau ini tidak dibenarkan pulang hingga hari ini, walaupun mereka masih menyimpan kunci rumah mereka. Dihalau dan dihalang pulang, tentulah menjadi absence. Cintakan keamanan?

Kemudian SN membawakan video seorang lelaki arab entah siapa yang mengatakan sumbangan kepada Gaza sebagai sia-sia dan berterima kasih Israel membina sekolah. Sebenarnya ini tidaklah aneh. Dalam buku beliau, Pappe menceritakan berkenaan dengan talibarut di setiap kampung, yang memberi maklumat kepada pengumpulan data inteligensia yahudi. Data ini dinamakan ‘village files’ yang sangat terperinci bagi setiap kampung, dari jenis tanah, jenis pokok, aerial survey, jumlah penduduk, semuanya dikumpulkan bagi koordinasi pembersihan etnik 1948. Pengumpulan data ini dilakukan secara rahsia tanpa pengetahuan British yang menguasai Palestin pada ketika itu.

Untuk kepentingan bisnes, dia kemudian menunggang fatwa mufti berkenaan ziarah masjidil Aqsa. Tetapi adakah fatwa itu termasuk lawatan ke Tel Aviv, kibbutz, tembok pemisah? Bagaimana kita boleh posing gembira bersama tembok apartheid sedangkan seluruh dunia mengecam polisi rasis dan apartheid ini?

Buku Ilan Pappe ini lebih kepada sejarah pembersihan etnik 1948, yang masih berterusan hingga hari ini. Antara buku lain yang saya minati adalah tulisan Dr. Norman Finkelstein bertajuk Beyond Chutzpah yang mendokumentasi aktiviti kezaliman Israel. Finkelstein merupakan seorang yahudi, ibubapanya merupakan survivor Holocaust, tetapi beliau tidak rela Israel menunggang Holocaust untuk menghalalkan penindasan terhadap bangsa Palestin. Tetapi mungkin buku itu kita akan bincangkan di lain hari, selepas Ali habis membaca buku yang dipinjamnya hari ini.