Falling icons
6th June, 2000
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2000/06/06/falling-icons.html
Presently, there is a lot of hullabaloo being made in Indian Press about the corrupt and fallen icons of Indian cricket.
Basically the human being-whether Indian, Australian, South African, Pakistani or English-is kept "in line" by the fear of being caught doing something illegal and the subsequent punishment he must face if and when he is caught. That is why the 11th Commandment "Thou shalt not be caught" has become so popular.
When he sees that everyone around him is making money and getting away with it, he feels that he is the one who is odd man out to be behaving in lawful ways.
When fodder-scam team members are enjoying 5-star holidays in prisons, he feels that something must be wrong with the morals inculcated in him by his parents and teachers. And then he thinks..."Should I continue to be dumb like this"?
And when a bookie approaches him, he thinks "Mr. X and Mr. Y have been doing this for many years, have amassed millions and scores and have been getting away with it, so why not me?"
Then instead of turning himself from the bad ways, he probably approaches Mr. X and Mr. Y for the "know-how" which they offer for a "fee" and bingo! He also goes into the multi-millionaire bracket!
Only a grass-roots cultural revolution (not the Mao type, but probably what our Jayprakash Narayan had in mind in the mid-1970's) can change this.As things stand, icons will fall so regularly that, God forbid, ten years from now people will take it in stride.
K.B. KALE, Pune, India
Thursday, 16 June 2011
Racism and forest fires
Racism and forest fires
21st Jan. 2002
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2002/01/21/racism-and-forest-fires.html
A lot of brouhaha was generated by the media about the punitive action recommended by match referee Mike Denness against five of six Indian cricket players for their (rather) routine actions on the field.
Most of the media people (and also laymen) in India considered that it was nothing but a clear case of latent racism because they felt that a different yardstick had been used when punishing players from the subcontinent than the one used against players from the UK, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, etc., for committing similar "crimes".
Media coverage of the recent major bushfires near Sydney brings out clearly that it is not only in the realm of cricket that racism is so prevalent.
When one compares the grossly negative and abrasive coverage given by the international media to fires in the forests of Kalimantan in 1997 (the year of El Nino) with the grossly bland coverage given to the fires in the forests near Sydney, can one reach any conclusion other than that this, too, seems to be a clear case of latent racism?
As the fires in Kalimantan were in Asia and due to the negligence and greed of profiteering Asians who had allegedly caused the fires deliberately, the story was given widespread, negative publicity, highlighting the irresponsible character of Asians.
This time, when it turns out that the fires near Sydney were also the handiwork of some irresponsible Australian youngsters, the international media seem to be handling this case with proverbial kid gloves. Is it because in this case the perpetrators of the crime are not greedy and irresponsible Asians?
K.B. KALE, Pune, India
21st Jan. 2002
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2002/01/21/racism-and-forest-fires.html
A lot of brouhaha was generated by the media about the punitive action recommended by match referee Mike Denness against five of six Indian cricket players for their (rather) routine actions on the field.
Most of the media people (and also laymen) in India considered that it was nothing but a clear case of latent racism because they felt that a different yardstick had been used when punishing players from the subcontinent than the one used against players from the UK, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, etc., for committing similar "crimes".
Media coverage of the recent major bushfires near Sydney brings out clearly that it is not only in the realm of cricket that racism is so prevalent.
When one compares the grossly negative and abrasive coverage given by the international media to fires in the forests of Kalimantan in 1997 (the year of El Nino) with the grossly bland coverage given to the fires in the forests near Sydney, can one reach any conclusion other than that this, too, seems to be a clear case of latent racism?
As the fires in Kalimantan were in Asia and due to the negligence and greed of profiteering Asians who had allegedly caused the fires deliberately, the story was given widespread, negative publicity, highlighting the irresponsible character of Asians.
This time, when it turns out that the fires near Sydney were also the handiwork of some irresponsible Australian youngsters, the international media seem to be handling this case with proverbial kid gloves. Is it because in this case the perpetrators of the crime are not greedy and irresponsible Asians?
K.B. KALE, Pune, India
Wednesday, 15 June 2011
Maintaining peace in hostile places
Maintaining peace in hostile places
10th May 2004
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2004/05/10/maintaining-peace-hostile-places.html
The letter by David Jardine (The Jakarta Post, April 30), triggered some thoughts that have been haunting me for a few years. What I feel is that while there are both good and bad soldiers, what is crystal-clear is that the job they are entrusted to do while dealing with civilians is unenviable and most difficult.
For one thing, they may face rebels who outnumber them many times over, irrespective of whether you choose to call them terrorists or freedom-fighters, depending on which side of the fence you are. The soldiers may have superior weapons, but unlike in a war, they do not know whom to aim these weapons at! The rebels may kill thousands of innocent people and get away with it, but let a soldier kill one single innocent person and the media will descend on him like a ton of bricks! On top of that, they are always susceptible to attack and to being killed by a sniper choosing to shoot from behind an innocent pedestrian! So when a soldier doesn't know how long he has before his life could be snuffed out and makes some mistakes by way of knee-jerk reactions, that deserves some sympathetic consideration. These knee-jerk reactions occur without the knowledge of their top commanders because most of the time they aren't there and there is simply no time to communicate with them! What is shown on TV or what is published in the print media as part of news coverage may be part of the truth, but not the whole truth, because when one talks of "press freedom", it generally refers to the "freedom of press barons" or editors and not freedom of reporters, whose convictions or sympathies may or may not be the same as those of the owners of a particular TV channel or newspaper. The history of mankind is largely written by the victors. One should have no doubt about what the story of the Second World War would have been had Hitler won it. Or who would have been tried and convicted of war crimes at the Nuremberg trials. In my opinion, while armchair theorization is fine, the reality of life and death faced by the soldiers in very hostile civilian environments should not be overlooked and their actions should be viewed in a more comprehensive way.
K. B. KALE, Jakarta
10th May 2004
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2004/05/10/maintaining-peace-hostile-places.html
The letter by David Jardine (The Jakarta Post, April 30), triggered some thoughts that have been haunting me for a few years. What I feel is that while there are both good and bad soldiers, what is crystal-clear is that the job they are entrusted to do while dealing with civilians is unenviable and most difficult.
For one thing, they may face rebels who outnumber them many times over, irrespective of whether you choose to call them terrorists or freedom-fighters, depending on which side of the fence you are. The soldiers may have superior weapons, but unlike in a war, they do not know whom to aim these weapons at! The rebels may kill thousands of innocent people and get away with it, but let a soldier kill one single innocent person and the media will descend on him like a ton of bricks! On top of that, they are always susceptible to attack and to being killed by a sniper choosing to shoot from behind an innocent pedestrian! So when a soldier doesn't know how long he has before his life could be snuffed out and makes some mistakes by way of knee-jerk reactions, that deserves some sympathetic consideration. These knee-jerk reactions occur without the knowledge of their top commanders because most of the time they aren't there and there is simply no time to communicate with them! What is shown on TV or what is published in the print media as part of news coverage may be part of the truth, but not the whole truth, because when one talks of "press freedom", it generally refers to the "freedom of press barons" or editors and not freedom of reporters, whose convictions or sympathies may or may not be the same as those of the owners of a particular TV channel or newspaper. The history of mankind is largely written by the victors. One should have no doubt about what the story of the Second World War would have been had Hitler won it. Or who would have been tried and convicted of war crimes at the Nuremberg trials. In my opinion, while armchair theorization is fine, the reality of life and death faced by the soldiers in very hostile civilian environments should not be overlooked and their actions should be viewed in a more comprehensive way.
K. B. KALE, Jakarta
Colonialism is not the answer
Colonialism is not the answer
15th May 2004
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2004/05/15/colonialism-not-answer.html
I refer to the letters of David Wallis on corruption and bringing back colonial rule as its antidote, followed by the rejoinder by John Christian Torr. In fact, Torr has done a good job in bringing out the weirdness in "logic" in Wallis' letter.
Wallis seems to assume that colonial rulers were clean and not susceptible to corruption, which is far from the truth. While they exploited the colonies, quite a few of them also feathered their nests quite nicely. So bringing back colonial rule would only mean that the money so earned would go overseas, as opposed to the present situation where the money -- at least part of it -- remains within the country.
As the saying goes, ""Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."" So whoever rules will get corrupted one day or the other. Some may justify this by saying they are collecting funds for their party, while most of them don't bother with justifications unless they are caught! If Wallis feels that Westerners are less corrupt, one should not forget that the vice president of the richest country on earth had to resign from his post in the early 1970s for taking bribes.
There is no doubt that democracy is the most inefficient form of government, as its decisions have to be partisan, populist and are easily swayed by the short-term emotions of the public at large. Quite often these decisions are compromises and not necessarily in the best interests of the nation. In fact, the only thing in favor of the democracy is that it has a "term" of four, five or seven years and one can change the government peacefully at the end of its term.
This does not mean that I am defending corruption or corrupt people. But those who give bribes are as much responsible as the people who take them. One of the richest people in the world, Azim Premji of the Wipro Group in India, is very proud of his company's ethical conduct. He has steadfastly refused to "grease palms" to get the work done. So the antidote is not colonialism, but the people themselves taking an oath not to give bribes.
As long as we don't follow the maxim "Charity begins at home", we have no right to express opinions on this subject. If we still do, it is nothing but pure hypocrisy.
K. B. KALE, Jakarta
15th May 2004
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2004/05/15/colonialism-not-answer.html
I refer to the letters of David Wallis on corruption and bringing back colonial rule as its antidote, followed by the rejoinder by John Christian Torr. In fact, Torr has done a good job in bringing out the weirdness in "logic" in Wallis' letter.
Wallis seems to assume that colonial rulers were clean and not susceptible to corruption, which is far from the truth. While they exploited the colonies, quite a few of them also feathered their nests quite nicely. So bringing back colonial rule would only mean that the money so earned would go overseas, as opposed to the present situation where the money -- at least part of it -- remains within the country.
As the saying goes, ""Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."" So whoever rules will get corrupted one day or the other. Some may justify this by saying they are collecting funds for their party, while most of them don't bother with justifications unless they are caught! If Wallis feels that Westerners are less corrupt, one should not forget that the vice president of the richest country on earth had to resign from his post in the early 1970s for taking bribes.
There is no doubt that democracy is the most inefficient form of government, as its decisions have to be partisan, populist and are easily swayed by the short-term emotions of the public at large. Quite often these decisions are compromises and not necessarily in the best interests of the nation. In fact, the only thing in favor of the democracy is that it has a "term" of four, five or seven years and one can change the government peacefully at the end of its term.
This does not mean that I am defending corruption or corrupt people. But those who give bribes are as much responsible as the people who take them. One of the richest people in the world, Azim Premji of the Wipro Group in India, is very proud of his company's ethical conduct. He has steadfastly refused to "grease palms" to get the work done. So the antidote is not colonialism, but the people themselves taking an oath not to give bribes.
As long as we don't follow the maxim "Charity begins at home", we have no right to express opinions on this subject. If we still do, it is nothing but pure hypocrisy.
K. B. KALE, Jakarta
Elections in Indonesia
Elections in Indonesia
9th Sept. 2004
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2004/09/09/elections-indonesia.html
With the final round of the presidential election around the corner, it is perhaps the right time to compare the pros and cons of two methods employed in electing the CEO of a country: A ""direct"" election -- as is practiced in the U.S. and France and some other countries -- and the indirect method -- as practiced by Great Britain and India -- wherein the members of parliament choose the CEO. It is really admirable that Indonesia has chosen the very good method of direct election with the motto, Presiden pilihan rakyat (a president of the people's choice).
In the first round, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, Megawati Soekarnoputri and Wiranto were in a tight race and many predicted a direct confrontation between the two ex-generals (Susilo and Wiranto) in the runoff. But Megawati came in second, and the results of the final round between Susilo and Megawati are still wide open, as per the political pundits.
One thing surprises me: Unlike in the U.S., where the vice presidential and presidential candidates of both the Democratic and Republican party are from the same party, the picture here is totally different. In the U.S., the vice presidential candidate is chosen more on regional considerations. They are generally from an area where the presidential candidate may lack support.
But in Indonesia, there is total porosity across the party lines. I am honestly wondering what the losing "running mate" will do later. Will they return to their old party meekly? Will their old party accept them back, or call them a traitor? Or will they launch a new party, as Indian politicians often do? I feel that if Susilo and Megawati had selected their running mates on regional considerations rather than party ones, it would have been more logical.
One thing is very clear. The new president will enjoy the confidence of the people and will not be subjected to any horse trading that goes on, for example, in India where the factions of the coalition government jockey for prime slots in the cabinet. Or, what happened when then president Abdurrahman ""Gus Dur"" Wahid was removed from office and Megawati was elected.
To that extent, I admire the people/politicians of Indonesia who were behind the decision to hold two-tier direct elections. Whoever wins on Sept. 20 will rule the country with confidence and with the full authority to do what he or she thinks is good for the country.
K.B. KALE, Jakarta
9th Sept. 2004
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2004/09/09/elections-indonesia.html
With the final round of the presidential election around the corner, it is perhaps the right time to compare the pros and cons of two methods employed in electing the CEO of a country: A ""direct"" election -- as is practiced in the U.S. and France and some other countries -- and the indirect method -- as practiced by Great Britain and India -- wherein the members of parliament choose the CEO. It is really admirable that Indonesia has chosen the very good method of direct election with the motto, Presiden pilihan rakyat (a president of the people's choice).
In the first round, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, Megawati Soekarnoputri and Wiranto were in a tight race and many predicted a direct confrontation between the two ex-generals (Susilo and Wiranto) in the runoff. But Megawati came in second, and the results of the final round between Susilo and Megawati are still wide open, as per the political pundits.
One thing surprises me: Unlike in the U.S., where the vice presidential and presidential candidates of both the Democratic and Republican party are from the same party, the picture here is totally different. In the U.S., the vice presidential candidate is chosen more on regional considerations. They are generally from an area where the presidential candidate may lack support.
But in Indonesia, there is total porosity across the party lines. I am honestly wondering what the losing "running mate" will do later. Will they return to their old party meekly? Will their old party accept them back, or call them a traitor? Or will they launch a new party, as Indian politicians often do? I feel that if Susilo and Megawati had selected their running mates on regional considerations rather than party ones, it would have been more logical.
One thing is very clear. The new president will enjoy the confidence of the people and will not be subjected to any horse trading that goes on, for example, in India where the factions of the coalition government jockey for prime slots in the cabinet. Or, what happened when then president Abdurrahman ""Gus Dur"" Wahid was removed from office and Megawati was elected.
To that extent, I admire the people/politicians of Indonesia who were behind the decision to hold two-tier direct elections. Whoever wins on Sept. 20 will rule the country with confidence and with the full authority to do what he or she thinks is good for the country.
K.B. KALE, Jakarta
Shortening elections process
Shortening elections process
22nd Oct. 2004
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2004/10/22/shortening-elections-process.html
First of all, heartiest congratulations to President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono on the occasion of his assuming office on Oct. 20 as the very first directly and democratically elected president of Indonesia.
The event was of such epic and monumental importance that, for the first time in many years, many presidents and prime ministers of neighboring countries came to be part of this historical moment.
What needs to be done now is to shorten time between the three phases of elections (Indonesians have successfully performed) and also the time gap between the election of the President and his taking oath of the office. It would be worthwhile if Indonesia sought some practical help or tips from India as a fellow developing country which has a huge population and has been a genuine democracy for more than 50 years. It also has a distinction of being a country which successfully staged a general election in May this year, covering about half a billion voters exercising their right to vote electronically, making it possible to declare the results within some 48 hours after the closure of polling process.
There may be many countries in the world who have electronic voting, but India is the only one which has the indigenous know-how, huge population of diverse educational and social levels, and a successful track record.
Indonesia could follow India's example to shorten the whole process by more than 50 percent. After the president's election is announced, how long should be the time before he takes oath? In India and in Great Britain it is done immediately. In the U.S. it takes about 10 weeks and in Indonesia it took two weeks from official announcement of results, but perhaps four weeks from the date the outcome was obvious! I think Indian and British system is better. If the new leader does not assume office immediately, a lot of questionable decisions "which raise eyebrows" as reported by The Jakarta Post, are taken in a malafide manner. The minimum the Indonesian constitution can provide is to declare the incumbent government as "caretaker" of government with limited powers in decision-making!
K. B. KALE, Jakarta
22nd Oct. 2004
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2004/10/22/shortening-elections-process.html
First of all, heartiest congratulations to President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono on the occasion of his assuming office on Oct. 20 as the very first directly and democratically elected president of Indonesia.
The event was of such epic and monumental importance that, for the first time in many years, many presidents and prime ministers of neighboring countries came to be part of this historical moment.
What needs to be done now is to shorten time between the three phases of elections (Indonesians have successfully performed) and also the time gap between the election of the President and his taking oath of the office. It would be worthwhile if Indonesia sought some practical help or tips from India as a fellow developing country which has a huge population and has been a genuine democracy for more than 50 years. It also has a distinction of being a country which successfully staged a general election in May this year, covering about half a billion voters exercising their right to vote electronically, making it possible to declare the results within some 48 hours after the closure of polling process.
There may be many countries in the world who have electronic voting, but India is the only one which has the indigenous know-how, huge population of diverse educational and social levels, and a successful track record.
Indonesia could follow India's example to shorten the whole process by more than 50 percent. After the president's election is announced, how long should be the time before he takes oath? In India and in Great Britain it is done immediately. In the U.S. it takes about 10 weeks and in Indonesia it took two weeks from official announcement of results, but perhaps four weeks from the date the outcome was obvious! I think Indian and British system is better. If the new leader does not assume office immediately, a lot of questionable decisions "which raise eyebrows" as reported by The Jakarta Post, are taken in a malafide manner. The minimum the Indonesian constitution can provide is to declare the incumbent government as "caretaker" of government with limited powers in decision-making!
K. B. KALE, Jakarta
Americans need introspection
Americans need introspection
31st Jan. 2005
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2005/01/31/americans-need-introspection.html
I refer to the letters of Mark Potts dated Jan. 13 and Uli Pandjaitan dated Jan. 15.
I know many Americans. As personal friends, colleagues and business associates, all of them have been wonderful people: Friendly, genial and straightforward. And, by and large, they mean what they say. I have also enjoyed my visits to the United States immensely for these very reasons.
Sometimes oversensitive Asians (me included) may misunderstand their forthrightness, but I have never seen any deliberate attempt at belittling others, just because they are not Americans.
Though one may have differences of opinion with American policy, there is no doubt that America has always been a very generous nation to the whole world. In the 1960s, but for the American aid, I have no doubt that a sizable portion of the Indian population would have gone hungry with many perishing simply due to starvation. And this American aid kept flowing without any (apparent) strings attached, though, at that time, India was too close to the Soviet Union and Indian political leaders often berated America.
So why is a country that gives so much aid to so many countries not as popular as it should be? I think serious introspection is called for, on the part of the American government and American foreign missions and diplomats.
K. B. KALE, Jakarta
31st Jan. 2005
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2005/01/31/americans-need-introspection.html
I refer to the letters of Mark Potts dated Jan. 13 and Uli Pandjaitan dated Jan. 15.
I know many Americans. As personal friends, colleagues and business associates, all of them have been wonderful people: Friendly, genial and straightforward. And, by and large, they mean what they say. I have also enjoyed my visits to the United States immensely for these very reasons.
Sometimes oversensitive Asians (me included) may misunderstand their forthrightness, but I have never seen any deliberate attempt at belittling others, just because they are not Americans.
Though one may have differences of opinion with American policy, there is no doubt that America has always been a very generous nation to the whole world. In the 1960s, but for the American aid, I have no doubt that a sizable portion of the Indian population would have gone hungry with many perishing simply due to starvation. And this American aid kept flowing without any (apparent) strings attached, though, at that time, India was too close to the Soviet Union and Indian political leaders often berated America.
So why is a country that gives so much aid to so many countries not as popular as it should be? I think serious introspection is called for, on the part of the American government and American foreign missions and diplomats.
K. B. KALE, Jakarta
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)