Thoughts of my father and voting for change in Malaysia
theCICAK is looking for commentaries on the elections. We’re looking for conservative and liberal voices and everything in-between. If you have one, send it to write4thecicak@gmail.com
By AKMAL NASIR
A day before he passed away, my father summoned my brothers and me to his bedside. To those who were still in school, he motivated us to study hard and wished us success. To the older ones, he told them to care for our mother and younger brothers. He wanted them to help create opportunities for the younger ones, so all of us would succeed through adversity. I will never forget what would be his last conversation with us.
Throughout his life, my father had never asked for help. He was a police officer struggling to raise five children. While some of his colleagues fell in the tricky trap of exchanging their powers with extra income, he did not, even though he faced insurmountable challenges trying to support his family. And even so, my father never failed to lend a hand to relatives and friends who needed it. He would offer all that he had. He truly believed that our family had been blessed - we had shelter and food. It was only through my mother that I learned about the all the difficulties he encountered.
But I don’t think what my family experienced was unique. We, as Malaysians, understand many hardships. And it’s unfortunate and very sad that some of our representatives who are supposed to help us, act as though we owe them.
What irks me are their policies that deny Malaysians from advancing.
We should realize that the country is heading in the wrong direction when politicians and the enforcement use bribery to advance themselves and when they thrive on cronyism. We should know that something is terribly wrong and that we need to change course when we can no longer trust our judiciary system.
In the wake of this struggle, I know of one person who’s capable of creating a momentum. My friend whom I admire and respect - Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad. He is able to snap us out from inertia and push us to determine our own future.
He came from a middle class family. Nik’s parents made his education their top priority and he did not fail them. He graduated with a law degree from King’s College London. Determined to share his knowledge, he blogged, reached out to the community and inspired many. He is an example of a successful “kampong boy” who was given the opportunity to succeed.
Upon graduation, he returned to Malaysia honoring his scholarship contract. And it was back home that he saw more racial divide and the government’s leash on the media.
Nik left a bright future in the corporate sector to become a politician.
Reading Nik’s post on his Ijok speech touched me. After 50 years of independence, some communities still don’t have access to proper electricity and water supply. And I was particularly distraught about the fact that some Malaysian teens can’t read and write.
His speech made me really appreciate of what my family has and what my father did for us. It saddens me that there are many that aren’t as fortunate.
It is our duty to say that that’s wrong.
We have been repeatedly told how Malays should be provided with special treatment. True there are Malay folks who need help. But recognize that there are Indians and Chinese who have been marginalized as well. Worst, we are reminded not to challenge others’ sensitivity. We have been disillusioned with the invisible walls that separate us. But, I believe there is nothing wrong in acknowledging our hardworking Chinese friends, respecting our vocal Indian friends or helping our determined and whole-hearted Malay colleagues. As Malaysians, we should openly learn and help or teach and correct others’ mistakes as we breathed the whole spirit of true Malaysia.
What’s next?
Vote for change.
Why not Nik.
–
AKMAL NASIR is a contributor for theCICAK.
Akmal is a junior, double majoring in actuarial science and economics, at UW-Madison in the United States. He is a volunteer for Nik Nazmi’s campaign. Visit his site.
If you liked this article, here are some related posts:
Responses || Discussion || Debates || Commentaries
Post your opinion
Does your comment encourage responsible, intelligent discussion?
All comments are moderated for impersonations and defamatory, racially, sexually and religiously offensive content.
By the way... since you're sharing your comments, get paid for it.
- The rise of left-wing politics in Malaysia
- Fuel price hike in Malaysia: Bane or blessing?
- Malaysia’s first LGBT weblog
- Kick the overspending, underachieving habit, Malaysia
- The best thing Pak Lah has done: Drastic reduction of petrol subsidies
- FFF2008 announces competition winners!
- Different races all loving each other?
- Part 2, Analyzing Malaysian Parties: Should DAP compromise its principles?
- Why I’m for Tibet being part of China, and against the Chinese Communist Party’s actions
- Is Islam, Judaism and Christianity still relevant today?
Subscribe via RSS
Latest News
Register to receive the best articles, comments, and competitions in your inbox!
Part 1: Creating a new manifesto for Malaysia
Malaysia has a government that treats the constitution as nothing more than the toilet paper that adorns your bathrooms. They run roughshod on it, treating it like joke, a document of whimsy and games. Thus, as a result...Young Malaysians, here are ten steps to become better citizens
A very basic list of things that twenty-something’s can do as citizens.The hunt for subversives: Malaysian Government arrest Bersih, Hindraf activists and lawyers
Does the "Malaysian way" condone detention without trial, arbitrary arrests, tear gas, water cannons, violence and lies?Adultery does not justify battery
How far would you go if your lover cheated on you? Be honest.
Comment of the week
I defend my right as a Malaysian to talk about anything that concerns Malaysia.
Powered by FireStats
[…] Thoughts of my father […]
Was this a good comment?
I share your experience in so far as our upbringing follow the same predictable paths, as with, I suspect, the majority of Malaysians. We come from families that sacrifice for their children. The hardship my own family went through to raise a family of 6 children through honest means would take up too much space to enumerate here. However, though poor materially, we were rich in experience enjoying the camaraderie of friends of all creeds and races. I shed tears to see the deterioration in inter-personal relationships among Malaysians that I see now, a deterioration that was caused directly or indirectly by the powers-that-be. The situation is complex and the infrastructure, put in place by the greedy, the avaricious, covetous and shameless, is so entrenched that I do not think anything, short of a cataclysmic occurrence would bring these people to their senses. In the meantime the honest, hard-working and earnest Malaysians will continue to suffer.
Was this a good comment?
Come on…what kinda crap is this?
This is as shameless as the millions BN advertisements in the mass media.
Are you Cicak people looking for a commentary on the elections or a shameless plug? At least show some journalistic credibility by attempting to look impartial!
Was this a good comment?
Vincent,
theCICAK is a commentary site. The post above is not a news article. It’s commentary, hence the writer is taking a side. We made it very clear that he is a volunteer for PKR.
If you’d like, feel free to submit a commentary on whichever party you endorse.
Was this a good comment?
Why is it that journalistic credibility or even professionalism must be tied in with ‘impartiality’?
What takes away credibility and professionalism is not the absence of taking sides, but rather hypocrisy — taking sides whilst claiming to be impartial, or worse, plain deceit — spewing unsubstantiated claims.
So tell me again, why this fuss about being impartial? The newspapers in the UK all have their slants, but that’s not the reason one should be calling them any more or less credible or professional than the Malaysian dailies.
Was this a good comment?
Ah, so it’s okay for newspapers and TV stations to carry shameless plugs and advertisements of the ruling government and skewing the opinions of the readers and viewers? This is news to me because I was always under the impression that people didn’t like that and wanted an “unbiased” news source.
Still, that matter aside, the above is not a commentary, but a very sorry excuse for one.
A commentary explains the situation to the readers and presents an opinion. In this case, a good commentary would present the situation in that constituency (it doesn’t even state the constituency!!) and then compare the two candidates and tell people about them. Instead, this so-called commentary is nothing but a shameless advertisement for his buddy. No comments on Nik’s opponent? No comments on what the other person’s strengths or weaknesses are?
Look, I don’t know this Nik bloke. Heck, he may be a swell guy. But surely Cicak is much better than high school essays on “My Best Friend” ??
Was this a good comment?
I have long given up on the constitution of election/politics/whatnot, and Nik has a long way to go before getting people going over his side. He may have the innocent wishes/means for the people. But when compared to those elder candidates who knows how to please the public? Maybe next time Nik.
Though I still do hope a landslide at the opposition side for once would be quite amusing, I mean gives me more hope the next time when I’m legal to vote.
Was this a good comment?
In my opinion, I think this is a horrible piece of writing. Mr. Nasir’s ‘commentary’ is CLEARLY committing the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion. Why? Read. He writes about the hardships of his father. And then compares it with his friend’s rise from middle-class to corporate success. (”He is an example of a successful “kampong boy” who was given the opportunity to succeed.”) And then his thoughts on a speech. And subsequently, a whole chunk of words on racial equality (at least i thought it was on racial equality).
Fine. Good for him. But then he slides in these three lines:
“What’s next? Vote for change. Why not Nik.”
And that really pisses me off. Why? Because all that stuff Mr. Nasir writes before his last three lines are nothing but pure emotional appeal to the reader. Is there logical reasoning? Of course not. What are the reasons as to voting for his friend? None. I can see no stated propositions that lead to a conclusion (which is to vote for his friend).
Will people vote for his friend because he gives speeches in Ijok and left the corporate world to join politics? I don’t know. But since I don’t see any clear reasons/clear propositions, I have nothing to go by on accept to feel emotionally moved by all these touching words and vote for his friend.
This is precisely the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion.
And you know what? There are a whole bunch of people out there who are trained to make all these type of fallacious arguments to attract buyers/voters/etc.
It fails as an argument. But as a commentary? I dunnoooo …. thecicak says it’s one ….
Was this a good comment?
Vincent,
“Ah, so it’s okay for newspapers and TV stations to carry shameless plugs and advertisements of the ruling government and skewing the opinions of the readers and viewers?” = Begging the question fallacy
“Still, that matter aside, the above is not a commentary, but a very sorry excuse for one.” = Fair enough.
(1) “A commentary explains the situation to the readers and presents an opinion.” = Fair enough. I’d give this a 7/10.
(2) “In this case, a good commentary would present the situation in that constituency (it doesn’t even state the constituency!!) and then compare the two candidates and tell people about them.” = You’re stating this as a definition as to what a good commentary is. Fine. But since that thecicak has accepted this piece of writing as a commentary, they will be saying that “No, this piece of writing sits within the definition of ‘commentary’. So therefore, you saying it is not a commentary is WRONG.” Read the person who commented after you for relevance.
(3) “Instead, this so-called commentary is nothing but a shameless advertisement for his buddy.” Fair enough conclusion.
(4) “No comments on Nik’s opponent?” (5) “No comments on what the other person’s strengths or weaknesses are?” = I’d piece these two points next to point 1 and 2.
So if we look at it, you’re argument goes like this (1) + (2) + (4) + (5) –> (3). it’s a decent argument, only thing is (2) is pretty much false. And if (2) is false, your whole argument fails. However, realize your argument fails in the context of thecicak.com’s realm. If it were in an other domain, with regular definitions as to what a commentary is, you’d be right. In fact, I agree with you what a commentary should be.
But the fact of the matter is, your definition of what a ‘commentary’ is incompatible with their definition of ‘commentary’. And since it is thecicak.com and not thevincent.com, your argument fails.
So how now, browncow?
Was this a good comment?
False Alternative Fallacy, not begging the question. Sorry.
Was this a good comment?
As a person who has met Nik Nazmi at least once, and as an avid reader of his blog, I deem him personally sound, and I wish him the best in his efforts in this election.
However, I have to agree with Jeremy in stating the last three statements have made a rather unbiased article suddenly change into a plug and a lobby to vote for one side, thus resulting in impartiality.
Not to worry. I’m currently being hassled by a 70-year-old aunt who’s lobbying for me to vote her coursemate, Abdul Aziz Shamsuddin for the Parliamentary seat in Shah Alam.
Let’s all be realistic. Every piece within this site is a commentary piece. Each so called article shows the point of view of a single person with attachments and hyperlinks brought in to support their own argument while discarding those which state otherwise. In that sense, all writings here are biased.
But I don’t see a problem with this, because someone can simply write another article entitled “Why should we not vote for Nik Nazmi” just as well.
It goes down to point of view. Let’s debate that openly, and not simply argue over article writing styles.
Was this a good comment?
Sure, if you want to argue over silly matters such as the definition of a “commentary” the browncow says my argument fails. Probably fair enough.
But I think we can all agree that this is one heck of a crappy article.
Good advertisement, though.
Was this a good comment?
I must say that I wholeheartedly agree with Jeremy. In addition to what he has already pointed out, the naysayers in this thread are guilty of the Mutated Verb Form Fallacy, the Gambler’s Tea Break Fallacy and the Appeal To Hunger Fallacy, not to mention the Two-Fingers-White-Crane-Strike-Panda-From-Above Technique Fallacy. Also the attackers, such as vincent, have constantly used the wrong definition of ‘but’.
They are saying:
1) Only our opinions matter, and they matter because they are ours.
2) We must act only based on opinions that matter.
3) We must post a comment about our opinions.
They are going, like, 1+2=3, but this is wrong!!! 1+2 clearly = 4, which is:
4) We must vote for Jeff Ooi in Jelutong.
Yes, waste no more time on these syllogistic sideshows, Lads & Gens, instead vote for the Only Candidate Who Matters - Jeff Ooi. The logic clearly points you that way, how can you resist it? While you’re at it, donate to his campaign fund and buy his book, too! What’s that you say? Pure logic only works at the abstract and formal levels and practical situations must be tempered with practical reasoning? Bah - you know not of what you speak. Just visit my website and receive an education on logic, life and democracy. Daft 4 Jeff 4 Malaysia!!!
Was this a good comment?
I agree that this kind of posting should be allowed. For if we are not to allow partisan politics, how are we to have democracy? I also agree with Jeremy that there is too much illogic going on with regards to this post. Why, I myself detected in the arguments here not only the Mutated Verb Form Fallacy, but also the Ninja Turtle Fallacy and the Gambler’s Tea Break Fallacy; and just as I was writing this, I also noticed the presence of the dreaded Two-Finger-White-Crane-Strike-Panda-From-Above Technique Fallacy.
What’s that you say? Purely logical arguments are fine in a purely formal and abstract setting, but practical situations demand that logic be tempered with practical reasoning? Bah - you know not of what you speak. Logic rocks.
People here seem to be saying:
1) The only opinions that matter are our opinions, and they matter because they are ours.
2) We must act on the basis of opinions that matter.
3) We must post our opinions on the Internet.
Now, everyone’s going, like, 1 + 2 = 3, but that’s plainly wrong!!! 1 + 2, my friends, surely = 4.
4) We must vote for Jeff Ooi in Jelutong.
Yup, your friendly neighbourhood blogger is here to tell you that rather than wasting time with these syllogistic sideshows, you need to come out and vote for candidates that matter! People like the guy mentioned in this post, whatever his name is, and also our very own Jeff! And don’t try and silence those who, like me and the guy who wrote this crappy post, are trying to help out in a crucial campaign. Let us have our say. Then you can have yours. Then everyone can be happy and go and vote for Jeff on March 3. Daft 4 Jeff 4 Malaysia!!!
Was this a good comment?
well, i agree with the pov that any article that doesn’t include a false fact/lie is valid, especially on the infinite pages of the internet.
but that’s like saying a liquor license is valid but you’re selling crappy, watered down drinks or wine that hasn’t been stored properly.
Was this a good comment?
I love Daft Oi!!
Was this a good comment?
Thank you for the kind words, vincent, they are forever appreciated and you’ll be receiving your cheque in the mail.
I apologise for the doubling up of my earlier comment, this would be because I came to believe that the first one had been lost in some sort of digital whirlpool of death, and hence tried to repost. However, I am pleased to see both of them up. Double the Daft, double the goodness, I always say. And I stand by both of them. I particularly stand by the points at which they contradict each other. I am so logical, I can make two inconsistent statements both be true, you see.
Was this a good comment?
‘Two-Finger-White-Crane-Strike-Panda-From-Above Technique Fallacy’ ?? hahahahahaha
but the jeff ooi line wasn’t funny
Was this a good comment?
But, my dear comrade, you of all people must know that logic isn’t ever meant to be funny? As brothers in the furtherance of hard, unyielding logic, we must spit upon humour itself. I know I do. I have no regard for it whatsoever. I laugh in the face of funny things.
Was this a good comment?