Ucapan Pilihan - Selected Speeches

(Ucapan ini penting untuk dikongsi memandangkan isinya agak berani memperkatakan mengenai kepincangan Dasar Bahasa Melayu dari seorang Menteri Besar.)




DRAF UCAPAN MENTERI BESAR JOHOR
YAB DATO’ HJ. ABDUL GHANI BIN OTHMAN
Pada majlis
PENYAMPAIAN HADIAH SASTERA DARUL TA’ZIM KE-VI,
PADA 11 OGOS 2007 DI DEWAN PERDANA
HOTEL SELESA JOHOR BAHRU

ASSALAM MUALAIKUM WARAHMATULLAHI WABARAKATUH,
BISMILLAHIR RAHMAN NIR RAHIM. WASSOLATU WASSALAMU
ASRAFIL AMBIAI WALMURSALIN, WAALA ALIHI WASAHBIHI AJMAIN.

SAUDARA/SAUDARI PENGERUSI MAJLIS,

YANG BERHORMAT DATO’ SPEAKER / TIMBALAN SPEAKER DEWAN UNDANGAN
NEGERI JOHOR,

YANG BERHORMAT AHLI-AHLI MAJLIS MESYUARAT KERAJAAN NEGERI JOHOR

AHLI-AHLI YANG BERHORMAT

TAN SRI PROF. EMERITUS DATUK DR. ISMAIL HUSSEIN

PROF. EMERITUS DATUK ABU BAKAR HAMID

PROF. DATUK DR. FIRDAUS ABDULLAH

PROF. DATUK DR. ZAINAL KLING

DIF-DIF JEMPUTAN

PARA PENULIS

TUAN-TUAN, PUAN-PUAN PARA HADIRIN YANG SAYA MULIAKAN.

BELAYAR BAHTERA DI WAKTU PETANG,
DARI BENGKALIS KE PULAU ANDAMAN,
SARAT MUATAN KAIN SUTERA;
SALAM SEJAHTERA SELAMAT DATANG,
PARA PENULIS TETAMU BUDIMAN,
KE MAJLIS PENYAMPAIAN HADIAH SASTERA.

SAUDARA-SAUDARA,

1. SAYA DIFAHAMKAN TAHUN INI ADALAH KALI KEENAM MAJLIS PENYAMPAIAN HADIAH SASTERA DARUL TA’ZIM DIADAKAN. TAHNIAH KEPADA PARA PENULIS ANAK WATAN JOHOR YANG KARYA MEREKA TELAH DIPILIH BAGI MEMENANGI HADIAH INI. HARAPAN SAYA SEMOGA PARA PENULIS YANG BERJAYA TERPILIH AKAN TERUS BERUSAHA MENGHASILKAN KARYA-KARYA YANG LEBIH BERKUALITI SETANDING DENGAN PENULIS-PENULIS LAIN YANG TELAH MAPAN DAN MENCIPTA NAMA DI PERSADA TANAH AIR MAHUPUN ANTARABANGSA. DALAM PADA ITU BAGI PENULIS YANG KARYANYA TIDAK TERPILIH JANGANLAH LEKAS BERPUTUS ASA, KERANA SAYA JUGA DIFAHAMKAN BAHAWA KARYA-KARYA MEREKA BUKANLAH KERANA KURANG BERMUTU TETAPI KERANA ADA KARYA-KARYA LAIN YANG LEBIH BAIK.

2. KERAJAAN MENYEDARI SEKIRANYA KITA SINGKAP SEJARAH PERKEMBANGAN BAHASA DAN SASTERA DI TANAH AIR KITA, PARA PENULIS MERUPAKAN GOLONGAN YANG GIGIH SEBAGAI PENGGERAK DAN PEJUANG MENDAULATKAN BAHASA DAN KESUSASTERAAN BANGSA. DENGAN TERTUBUHNYA PAKATAN BELAJAR MENGAJAR PENGETAHUAN BAHASA MELAYU (PBmPB) YANG DIPIMPIN OLEH DATO’ SERI AMAR DIRAJA ABDUL RAHMAN ANDAK PADA TAHUN 1888, MENUNJUKKAN BAHAWA PARA PEMBESAR MELAYU JOHOR 120 TAHUN YANG LAMPAU TELAH MEMPUNYAI KESEDARAN BAHAWA BAHASA MELAYU ITU PERLU DIPELIHARA, DIKEMBANGKAN DAN DIBERI TARAF SERTA KEDUDUKANNYA YANG ISTIMEWA DALAM PENTADBIRAN DAN PEMERINTAHAN NEGERI.

3. SEMENTARA ITU PADA PERTENGAHAN ABAD KE-19 SEKITAR TAHUN 1840-AN, ABDULLAH ABDUL KADIR MUNSYI DALAM BUKUNYA HIKAYAT ABDULLAH TELAH MENGKRITIK ORANG MELAYU,

……….TINGGAL DALAM BODOHNYA, OLEH SEBAB IA TIADA MAHU BELAJAR BAHASANYA SENDIRI, DAN TIADA MAHU MENARUH TEMPAT BELAJAR BAHASANYA ITU…….BUKANKAH SEGALA BANGSA-BANGSA YANG LAIN DALAM DUNIA INI MASING-MASING ADA BELAJAR BAHASANYA, MELAINKAN ORANG MELAYU?..

ABDULLAH MUNSYI PENGARANG TERKENAL YANG HIDUP KIRA-KIRA 170 TAHUN YANG LALU TELAH MENYEDARKAN ORANG MELAYU SUPAYA MEMAJUKAN BAHASA MELAYU, MENGGUNAKANNYA DENGAN BETUL, MELALUI PEMBACAAN, DAN PENULISAN AGAR BAHASA MELAYU BERKEMBANG LUAS SEBAGAI ASAS KEPADA TAMADUN BANGSA.

(D) KEBANYAKAN NEGARA YANG MERDEKA DAN BERDAULAT BIASANYA MEMPUNYAI DASAR BAHASANYA YANG TERSENDIRI. DASAR BAHASA INI AMAT PENTING PERANANNYA DALAM BIDANG PENGURUSAN NEGARA DAN MASYARAKATNYA DAN JUGA UNTUK KEPENTINGAN JATI DIRI BANGSA DAN NEGARA TERSEBUT. DASAR BAHASA INILAH YANG MENENTUKAN BAGAIMANAKAH PERMASALAHAN BAHASA DI NEGARA ITU DAPAT DITANGANI DENGAN SEBAIK-BAIKNYA. DASAR BAHASA DI MALAYSIA TELAH DIPUTUSKAN MELALUI ‘KONTRAK SOSIAL’ DI ANTARA WAKIL-WAKIL UMNO, MCA DAN MIC SEBELUM KEMERDEKAAN DICAPAI PADA TAHUN 1957. DALAM PERSEPAKATAN ITU BAHASA MELAYU TELAH DIPILIH SEBAGAI BAHASA KEBANGSAAN DAN BAHASA RASMI NEGARA. MALANGNYA KEPUTUSAN DAN KESEPAKATAN INI TIDAK DIRAKAM ATAU TERMAKTUB SECARA JELAS DALAM UNDANG-UNDANG DASAR BAHASA YANG TERDAPAT DALAM ARTIKEL 152 PERLEMBAGAAN DAN DALAM AKTA BAHASA KEBANGSAAN 1967. KEDUA-DUA DOKUMEN UNDANG-UNDANG ITU HANYA MENYEBUT BAHAWA BAHASA KEBANGSAAN IALAH BAHASA MELAYU, TANPA MENYEBUT APAKAH TUJUANNYA.

5. MALANGNYA HARI INI KITA DAPATI SETELAH 50 TAHUN MERDEKA, SETELAH PERANCANGAN BAHASA MELAYU DILAKSANAKAN DENGAN PENUH ILTIZAM, SETELAH DASAR BAHASA JELAS DIMAKTUBKAN DALAM PERLEMBAGAAN, KITA DAPATI ADA DI KALANGAN KITA, YANG TELAH BERJAYA DALAM KEHIDUPAN MEREKA HASIL DARIPADA SISTEM PENDIDIKAN KEBANGSAAN YANG BERTERASKAN BAHASA MELAYU DENGAN NADA SOMBONG CUBA MEMPERLEKEHKAN BAHASA MELAYU. MEREKA BERANGGAPAN BAHAWA ORANG MELAYU TIDAK MUNGKIN MAJU SEKIRANYA MASIH MENGGUNAKAN BAHASA MELAYU SEBAGAI BAHASA KOMUNIKASI DAN BAHASA ILMU.

(E) STATUS BAHASA KEBANGSAAN YANG TERMAKTUB DALAM PERLEMBAGAAN IALAH BAHASA YANG DIANGKAT MENJADI BAHASA UTAMA SEBUAH NEGARA YANG MERDEKA DAN BERDAULAT, DAN JUGA MENJADI BAHASA RASMI NEGARA YANG DIGUNAKAN DALAM PERHUBUNGAN RASMI, SEPERTI DALAM UCAPAN DAN SURAT-MENYURAT. DENGAN ADANYA BAHASA KEBANGSAAN SEKALIGUS BAHASA RASMI NEGARA KITA SENDIRI MEGAH SEBAGAI SEBUAH NEGARA BERDAULAT DAN BERMARUAH. DALAM KONTEKS INI BAHASA KEBANGSAAN MALAYSIA HARUS BERFUNGSI SEBAGAI ALAT PERPADUAN NEGARA, BUKAN HANYA SEBAGAI ALAT PERPADUAN BANGSA MELAYU. BAHASA KEBANGSAAN MESTILAH DIJADIKAN SEBAGAI ALAT PERPADUAN ATAU INTEGRASI NEGARA. PERANANNYA BERSIFAT INSTRUMENTAL BUKAN IDEOLOGI ATAU NASIONALISTIK. IA BERPERANAN SEBAGAI PEMBENTUK JATI DIRI NEGARA BUKAN JATI DIRI BANGSA MELAYU SEMATA-MATA. UNTUK KEMAJUAN NEGARA DALAM BIDANG EKONOMI, PERUSAHAAN, SAINS DAN TEKNOLOGI. PERCAYALAH BAHASA INGGERIS TIDAK AKAN MAMPU UNTUK MEMAINKAN PERANANNYA SECARA BERKESAN TERUTAMANYA SEBAGAI ALAT KOMUNIKASI, SEBAGAI ALAT INTEGRASI DAN PERPADUAN DAN SEBAGAI PEMBENTUK JATI DIRI MALAYSIA YANG UNGGUL DAN BERMARUAH. BILA KITA MENGATAKAN KITA AKAN MENJADI NEGARA MAJU PADA TAHUN 2020 MENGIKUT ACUAN SENDIRI, APAKAH SEBENARNYA MAKNA YANG TERSIRAT DI SEBALIK UNGKAPAN INI. KITA MAHU MENJADI SATU BANGSA YANG MAJU TETAPI BERLANDASKAN BAHASA KEBANGSAAN YANG KITA GUNAKAN, ATAS DASAR KEBUDAYAAN KEBANGSAAN DAN CARA HIDUP KITA YANG BENAR-BENAR MENGGAMBARKAN BAHAWA KITA ADALAH RAKYAT MALAYSIA YANG BERTAMADUN DAN BANGGA MENJADI WARGA NEGARA MALAYSIA.

6. SIKAP ORANG MELAYU YANG SUKA MEREMEHKAN BAHASANYA SENDIRI JUGA TERUNGKAP DALAM KISAH PELAYARAN MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM MUNSYI (1872) SEMASA MELAWAT BANDAR KELANG YANG KETIKA ITU DITADBIR OLEH TENGKU KUDIN, MENANTU SULTAN ABDUL SAMAD, SELANGOR, DENGAN NADA KRITIS BELIAU MENYINDIR.


……..ADAPUN ADAT-ADAT YANG DIPERINTAHKAN OLEH TENGKU KHIAUDDIN DAN NAMA-NAMA JALAN DALAM ITU MENGIKUT INGGERIS BELAKA TETAPI BERLEBIH KURANG SAHAJA. MAKA NAMA-NAMA JALAN ITU DIBUBUHNYA SEPERTI: KING STREET, BEACH STREET, MARKET STREET, WARF STREET, CHINA STREET….MAKA AKU BERTANYA PULA DAN BERKATA: SAYANG SEKALI APA SEBAB KELANG INI NEGERI MELAYU DINAMAKAN JALAN DAN PEKERJAANNYA SEMUA MENGIKUT NAMA INGGERIS, JIKA DIBUBUH NAMA CARA MELAYU ALANGKAH BAGUSNYA……

7. ZAMAN YANG DILALUI OLEH MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM MUNSYI SEORANG INTELEKTUAL DAN PENGARANG MELAYU JOHOR YANG HIDUP PADA ZAMAN MAHARAJA ABU BAKAR KIRA-KIRA 160 TAHUN YANG LALU KINI TERJELMA KEMBALI. KITA LIHAT SENDIRI PADA ZAMAN INI SETELAH 50 TAHUN MERDEKA PADA ABAD KE-21 PENGHORMATAN KEPADA BAHASA MELAYU DALAM PELBAGAI MAJLIS RASMI DAN URUSAN RASMI DAN MEDIA SUDAH MULAI SIRNA ATAU TANPA DISEDARI MULAI TERHAKIS. BELUM LAGI TERMASUK GOLONGAN YANG DIPERTANGGUNGJAWABKAN UNTUK MELETAKKAN CIRI-CIRI KEBANGSAAN DAN JATI DIRI BANGSA PADA PUSAT-PUSAT PENTADBIRAN, KAWASAN PERUMAHAN DAN TEMPAT AWAM. SAMA ADA DISENGAJAKAN ATAU SEMEMANGNYA KURANG KESEDARAN TENTANG BETAPA MUSTAHAKNYA BAHASA MELAYU DAN BUDAYA MELAYU DIBERI TEMPATNYA YANG WAJAR PADA TEMPAT-TEMPAT TERSEBUT SUPAYA MENGGAMBARKAN BAHAWA KITA MENGHORMATI DAN BERBANGGA DENGAN BAHASA DAN BUDAYA KITA.

(A) SEMASA KITA MEMPEROLEH KEMERDEKAAN PADA TAHUN 1957 KITA TELAH BERSEPAKAT, MEMILIH BAHASA MELAYU SEBAGAI BAHASA KEBANGSAAN DAN BAHASA RASMI NEGARA KITA. MENGAPA KITA PILIH BAHASA MELAYU SEBAGAI BAHASA KEBANGSAAN DAN BAHASA RASMI NEGARA KITA YANG BAHARU MERDEKA ITU? MENGAPA TIDAK DIPILIH BAHASA INGGERIS ATAU BAHASA CINA ATAU BAHASA TAMIL SEBAGAI BAHASA KEBANGSAAN DAN BAHASA RASMI NEGARA KITA? MUNGKIN JUGA ADA DI ANTARA KITA TERUTAMANYA GOLONGAN GENERASI MUDA YANG TIDAK TAHU ATAU SENGHAJA TIDAK MAHU TAHU DAN CUBA MENAFIKAN KEBENARAN SEJARAH INI.

BAHASA MELAYU PADA ZAMAN SEBELUM MELAKA LAGI TELAH MENJADI BAHASA KOMUNIKASI YANG MELUAS BAGI WILAYAH ASIA TENGGARA. KEDUDUKAN BAHASA MELAYU MENJADI SEMAKIN PENTING DI RANTAU INI TERUTAMANYA PADA ZAMAN KEGEMILANGAN KERAJAAN MELAYU MELAKA DAN ZAMAN KEBESARAN KERAJAAN MELAYU JOHOR – RIAU PADA ABAD KE 17 DAN 18. STATUS BAHASA MELAYU PADA KETIKA ITU BUKAN SAHAJA SEBAGAI BAHASA LINGUA FRANCA BAHKAN SEBAGAI BAHASA PENTADBIRAN KERAJAAN, BAHASA SASTERA, BAHASA PERNIAGAAN DAN BAHASA UNDANG-UNDANG. BAHASA MELAYU BUKAN SAHAJA DITUTURKAN DI PINGGIR LAUT, BAHKAN DIGUNAKAN DI SELURUH KEPULAUAN MELAYU. SEBAB ITULAH BAHASA MELAYU DIPILIH SEBAGAI BAHASA KEBANGSAAN DAN BAHASA RASMI DI MALAYSIA DAN DI INDONESIA KERANA SELAIN MUDAH DITUTURKAN BAHASA INI JUGA MUDAH DIPELAJARI, DAN MEMPUNYAI SEJARAH KEGEMILANGANNYA YANG TERSENDIRI.

(B) KALAU ADA HASRAT MANA-MANA PIHAK UNTUK MENGGANTIKAN BAHASA INGGERIS SEBAGAI BAHASA KEBANGSAAN, DAN BAHASA RASMI DI NEGARA KITA PADA ABAD KE – 21 INI SAYA YAKIN GOLONGAN INI SUDAH HILANG PERTIMBANGAN ATAU HILANG AKAL. BAHASA KEBANGSAAN IALAH BAHASA YANG DIANGKAT MENJADI BAHASA UTAMA SESEBUAH NEGARA YANG MERDEKA DAN BERDAULAT. DALAM SEBUAH NEGARA MAJMUK SEPERTI MALAYSIA INI PERANAN BAHASA KEBANGAAN MENJADI SEMAKIN PENTING. PERCAYALAH HANYA BAHASA MELAYU YANG TELAH DIANGKAT MENJADI BAHASA KEBANGSAAN INIAH SAHAJA YANG BERUPAYA MENYELESAIKAN BERBAGAI MASALAH POLITIK, MASALAH SOSIAL, DAN MASALAH PERPADUAN. BAHASA INGGERIS IALAH BAHASA DUNIA, BAHASA GLOBAL. IA HANYA MAMPU MENYELESAIKAN MASALAH DUNIA DAN MASALAH GLOBAL, TETAPI TIDAK AKAN BERUPAYA MENANGANI MASALAH DALAMAN. BAGI SAYA SESIAPA SAHAJA YANG TIDAK MEMPUNYAI KEYAKINAN TERHADAP BAHASA MALAYSIA DALAM ABAD KE – 21 INI SESUNGGUHNYA MEREKA INI TIDAK MENARUH PERASAAN CINTA TERHADAP MALAYSIA DAN TIDAK MEMPUNYAI JATI DIRI KEMALAYSIAAN YANG JELAS.

(C) SESUNGGUHNYA KITA SEMUA MENGAKUI BAHAWA BAHASA INGGERIS ITU PENTING DALAM KEHIDUPAN MODEN TERUTAMANYA UNTUK MEMBOLEHKAN BANGSA KITA MEMPEROLEH ILMU YANG TERDAPAT DALAM BAHASA ITU. TETAPI JANGANLAH SAMPAI KERANA TERLALU MEMIKIRKAN BAHASA INGGERIS ITU PENTING KITA TERUS MENGABAIKAN KEPERLUAN PENGUASAAN BAHASA KEBANGSAAN ANAK-ANAK KITA TERJEBAK DALAM SITUASI KALAH-KALAH. DALAM KEGHAIRAHAN UNTUK MAJU BERLANDASKAN BAHASA INGGERIS, PENGUASAAN BAHASA INGGERIS ANAK-ANAK KITA DI SEKOLAH-SEKOLAH TIDAK KE MANA MALAH DALAM MASA YANG SAMA PENGUASAAN BAHASA MELAYU/MALAYSIA MEREKA JUGA TIDAK BAIK.

8. APAKAH DALAM ERA GLOBALISASI PERJUANGAN BAHASA DAN BUDAYA SUDAH TIDAK RELEVAN? APAKAH BAHASA MELAYU CUKUP SEKADAR DISEBUT SEBAGAI BAHASA KEBANGSAAN, BAHASA RASMI, DAN BAHASA ILMU, SEDANGKAN PADA HAKIKATNYA SEOLAH-OLAH SECARA TERANCANG FUNGSI BAHASA ITU TELAH DINAFIKAN. SEBAGAI CONTOH YANG AMAT JELAS IALAH APABILA BERLAKUNYA PERUBAHAN PELAKSANAAN DASAR BAHASA MELAYU SEBAGAI BAHASA PENGANTAR UTAMA DALAM SISTEM PENDIDIKAN NEGARA, YANG DIMULAKAN SEJAK TAHUN 2002. PARA GURU SEKOLAH DAN PARA PENSYARAH TELAH DIMINTA SUPAYA MENGAJAR DAN MEMBERI KULIAH DI INSTITUSI-INSTITUSI PENGAJIAN TINGGI DALAM BAHASA INGGERIS. KALAU DASAR INI TIDAK DISEMAK DAN DIKAJI SEMULA, AKAN BERJAYALAH PROSES PEMINGGIRAN BAHASA MELAYU SEBAGAI BAHASA ILMU, TERUTAMANYA DALAM BIDANG SAINS DAN TEKNOLOGI PADA TAHUN 2008 NANTI.

9. KITA BOLEH TERIMA BAHASA MELAYU DISEBUT SEBAGAI BAHASA MALAYSIA, TETAPI FUNGSINYA MESTILAH DIKEKALKAN, MARTABATNYA MESTILAH DITINGKATKAN BUKAN SAHAJA SEBAGAI BAHASA KEBANGSAAN, BAHASA RASMI DAN BAHASA PERPADUAN, TETAPI YANG LEBIH UTAMA IALAH SEBAGAI BAHASA ILMU DAN BAHASA PENGUCAPAN INTELEKTUAL. PADA TAHAP INI KITA SEBENARNYA MEMERLUKAN SATU KEAZAMAN POLITIK YANG BENAR-BENAR KENTAL UNTUK MELETAKKAN SEMULA MARTABAT BAHASA DAN BUDAYA KITA KE TEMPATNYA YANG ASAL.

10. SEBENARNYA MASIH RAMAI DI ANTARA KITA KHUSUSNYA GOLONGAN PEMBUAT DASAR, GOLONGAN KORPORAT DAN TEKNOKRAT YANG KURANG PENGERTIAN DAN KESEDARAN BAHAWA BAHASA MELAYU SEBENARNYA MEMILIKI PERANAN YANG BESAR DALAM PEMBENTUKAN KONSEP KEBANGSAAN DAN KENEGARAAN APA LAGI UNTUK MEMAHAMI HUBUNGAN BAHASA DENGAN PEMBINAAN JATI DIRI, BANGSA DAN NEGARA.

11. MENGINGAT BAHAWA TAHUN 2007 INI KITA AKAN MERAYAKAN ULANG TAHUN KE-50 MEMPEROLEH KEMERDEKAAN, ELOK JUGA DALAM PERTEMUAN INI KITA SAMA-SAMA MENOLEH KEMBALI TENTANG PERANAN SASTERA DAN BAHASA MELAYU DALAM KEBANGKITAN SEMANGAT NASIONALISME MELAYU SEHINGGA TERCAPAINYA KEMERDEKAAN PADA TAHUN 1957. PADA ZAMAN ITU IAITU TAHUN-TAHUN 1940-AN DAN 50-AN KESUSASTERAAN TELAH DIJADIKAN ALAT UNTUK MENBUS MARUAH BANGSA. PARA PENULIS DAN PENGARANG MELAYU RATA-RATA MENULIS DENGAN TUJUAN UNTUK MEMBANGKITKAN KESEDARAN DAN SEMANGAT MENENTANG PENJAJAH DAN MEMBEBASKAN NEGARA INI DARIPADA BELENGGU PERHAMBAAN. PIHAK MEDIA PULA PADA KETIKA ITU MEMBERI WADAH YANG AMAT LUAS KEPADA PARA PENULIS MENGUNGKAPKAN PERASAAN DAN FIKIRAN MASING-MASING, MENGENAI PERLUNYA ORANG MELAYU BERSATU PADU UNTUK MENUNTUT KEMERDEKAAN. NAMUN PADA HAKIKATNYA PADA HARI INI BUKAN SAHAJA ADA SESETENGAH GOLONGAN YANG TIDAK PEKA TERHADAP PERJUANGAN MEMARTABATKAN BAHASA DAN BUDAYA BANGSA, MALAH PIHAK MEDIA JUGA KURANG MESRA UNTUK MEMBANTU MENGANGKAT MARUAH BUDAYA KITA.

12. KERIS MAS SEORANG SASTERAWAN NEGARA YANG PERNAH AKTIF MENULIS PADA ZAMAN ITU TELAH MENGUNGKAPKAN KONSEP MENGENAI POLITIK SASTERA DAN SASTERA POLITIK. POLITIK SASTERA PADA PANDANGAN BELIAU ADALAH PENDIRIAN POLITIK ATAU KEAZAMAN POLITIK TERHADAP SASTERA. APAKAH DASAR ATAU POLISI PIHAK BERKUASA TENTANG SASTERA DALAM HUBUNGANNYA DENGAN KEHIDUPAN KEBANGSAAN. KEADAAN INI BERBEZA DENGAN PENGERTIAN SASTERA POLITIK, DI MANA SASTERA DIPERALAT UNTUK TUJUAN POLITIK KEPARTIAN, SEBAGAI ALAT PROPAGANDA UNTUK MENEGAKKAN IDEOLOGI SESEBUAH PARTI POLITIK TERTENTU BAGI MEMBOLEHKAN IA MENDAPAT KUASA.


13. KALAU PADA ERA TAHUN 40-AN DAN 50-AN ITU ORANG MELAYU MENGGUNAKAN SASTERA SEBAGAI ALAT PERJUANGAN MENUNTUT KEMERDEKAAN, SEBAGAI ALAT MENAIKKAN SEMANGAT PATRIOTISME, ATAU CINTAKAN BANGSA, AGAMA DAN NEGARA, KENAPA TIDAK PADA ERA SETELAH 50 TAHUN KITA MERDEKA, SASTERA KITA GUNAKAN PULA SEBAGAI ALAT UNTUK MEMPERKUKUHKAN JATI DIRI BANGSA BAGI MENGHADAPI GLOBALISASI AGAR KITA DAPAT TERUS BERTAHAN SEKURANG-KURANGNYA UNTUK 50 TAHUN YANG AKAN DATANG. DALAM KONTEKS BAHASA DAN BUDAYA MELAYU, PERANAN BAHASA MELAYU SEBAGAI BAHASA KEBANGSAAN, BAHASA RASMI, BAHASA ILMU DAN BAHASA PERPADUAN MESTILAH DIPERTEGAS DALAM PERLAKSANAAN DAN PENGUATKUASAANNYA. PENGAJARAN BAHASA DAN SASTERA PERLU DIPERLUASKAN DAN DIBERIKAN NILAI YANG LEBIH BERMAKNA DALAM KEHIDUPAN KEBANGSAAN. SELAIN ITU TARAF DAN PERANAN BAHASA MELAYU SEBAGAI BAHASA PENGANTAR YANG UTAMA DI INSTITUSI-INSTITUSI PENDIDIKAN AWAM HENDAKLAH DIKUATKUASAKAN DALAM SISTEM PENDIDIKAN NEGARA. LANGKAH AWAL YANG PERLU DIAMBIL DENGAN SEGERA IALAH MENGEMBALIKAN SEMULA PENGAJARAN DAN PEMBELAJARAN MATA PELAJARAN SAINS DAN MATEMATIK DAN SUBJEK TEKNIKAL DALAM BAHASA MELAYU YANG SEKARANG DINAMAKAN SEBAGAI BAHASA MALAYSIA.

14. SEJARAH PERJUANGAN BANGSA KITA SELAMA PULUHAN TAHUN MEMBUKTIKAN KEUTUHAN CITA-CITA UNTUK MENDAULATKAN BAHASA MELAYU KINI MENJADI BAHASA MALAYSIA SEBAGAI BAHASA KEBANGSAAN DAN BAHASA RASMI, BAHASA PERPADUAN DAN BAHASA ILMU SERTA BAHASA PERANTARA. PENGISIAN DAN PENDAULATANNYA MENJADIKAN KEDUDUKAN BAHASA MELAYU SELANGKAH DEMI SELANGKAH MENGAMBIL TEMPAT YANG CUKUP PENTING DALAM PEMBINAAN BANGSA MELAYU.


15. DALAM TEMPOH KURANG DARIPADA SETENGAH ABAD, USAHA KERAJAAN UNTK MENDAULATKAN BAHASA MELAYU SEBAGAI BAHASA KEBANGSAAN YANG MENYATUPADUKAN MASYARAKAT PELBAGAI KAUM DI NEGARA INI, SEMAKIN MEMPERLIHATKAN KESANNYA. PIMPINAN NEGARA MELAKSANAKAN PENDEKATAN YANG CUKUP BIJAKSANA DENGAN MEMBENTUK DASAR-DASAR KENEGARAAN SEPERTI DASAR PENDIDIKAN KEBANGSAAN DAN DASAR BAHASA KEBANGSAAN YANG MENYATUKAN RAKYAT MENERUSI PENGGUNAAN BAHASA YANG SAMA.

16. LANGKAH ITU MEMBUKA RUANG YANG LEBIH BESAR KEPADA BAHASA MELAYU UNTUK BERKEMBANG SEBAGAI BAHASA ILMU. PENGGUNAAN BAHASA MELAYU SEBAGAI BAHASA ILMU TELAH MENCETUSKAN SATU FENOMENA BARU DALAM NEGARA. JIKA DAHULU BAHASA INGGERIS DIANGGAP SEBAGAI SATU-SATUNYA BAHASA YANG WAJIB DIKUASAI BAGI MEMBOLEHKAN RAKYAT MENGUASAI SATU-SATU BIDANG ILMU, KINI BAHASA MELAYU PULA MESTI DIKUASAI, JIKA RAKYAT MALAYSIA MAHU MENGUASAI SATU-SATU BIDANG ILMU.

17. KITA TELAH MELAHIRKAN RATUSAN RIBU SISWAZAH YANG MENERIMA ILMU DALAM BAHASA MELAYU. RATUSAN TESIS SAMA ADA PERINGKAT SARJANA MAHUPUN KEDOKTORAN TELAH DITULIS DALAM BAHASA MELAYU. TELAH LAHIR PELAJAR, TENAGA KERJA PROFESIONAL, PENDIDIK DAN PENYELIDIK YANG DAPAT MENGUNGKAP ILMU-ILMU DALAM BAHASA MELAYU. SEMUA INI TIDAK TERHAD KEPADA PELAJAR MELAYU SAHAJA, MALAH TELAH MELIBATKAN SEMUA KAUM DI NEGARA INI. INI MEMBUKTIKAN BAHASA MELAYU MAMPU MENJADI BAHASA ILMU.


18. PENERBITAN LEBIH BANYAK BUKU-BUKU AKADEMIK DALAM BAHASA MELAYU DALAM PELBAGAI LAPANGAN ILMU TEKNOLOGI, PERUBATAN, KEJURUTERAAN, UNDANG-UNDANG, EKONOMI, POLITIK, SOSIAL DAN PELBAGAI DISIPLIN ILMU LAIN, TELAH MENJADIKAN BAHASA MELAYU SEBAGAI BAHASA YANG AMAT RELEVAN DALAM PROSES PERKEMBANGAN ILMU DI NEGARA INI.

19. SEMUA INI ADALAH MERCU TANDA PENTING DALAM PEMBANGUNAN TAMADUN BANGSA MELAYU. KEDUDUKANNYA YANG AMAT KUKUH INI TETAP PERLU DIPELIHARA SUPAYA IA KEKAL MENJADI BAHASA PERANTARA UTAMA, SEKALI GUS MEMBERI MAKNA YANG BESAR DALAM PEMBANGUNAN NEGARA.

20. DALAM PADA ITU, KITA FAHAM BAHAWA PENGUASAAN ILMU AKAN MENJADI TERHALANG JIKA KITA MISKIN BAHASA. OLEH KERANA ITU, KITA PERLU MEMPELBAGAIKAN PENGUASAAN BAHASA UNTUK MENDAPATKAN ILMU DAN MENYALURKANNYA DALAM BAHASA MELAYU. KITA PERLU BELAJAR BAHASA ASING, BUKAN SEKADAR BAHASA INGGERIS, BUKAN KERANA IA BAHASA YANG LEBIH MAJU ATAU LEBIH BAIK BUDAYANYA, TETAPI UNTUK MENDAPATKAN ILMU DAN MAKLUMAT YANG TERKANDUNG DI DALAMNYA.

21. BEGITU JUGA SEKARANG, KITA PERLU BELAJAR BAHASA MANDARIN KERANA NEGARA CHINA SEMAKIN PENTING PERANANNYA DI PENTAS EKONOMI DAN POLITIK SERANTAU, MALAH DUNIA. NAMUN, PENGGUNAAN BAHASA ASING INI ADALAH BERBENTUK SEMASA DAN MENGIKUT KEPERLUAN. KITA MEMPELAJARINYA UNTUK SATU TUJUAN KHUSUS, BUKAN UNTUK MENANDINGI BAHASA MELAYU, BAHASA KEBANGSAAN KITA.


(F) KITA MENGAKUI PERANAN BAHASA INGGERIS AMAT PENTING DALAM ABAD KE – 21 INI. BAHASA INGGERIS MERUPAKAN BAHASA ANTARABANGSA DAN BAHASA SAINS DAN TEKNOLOGI, TERUTAMA DALAM BIDANG TEKNOLOGI MAKLUMAT. NAMUN UNTUK MENJADIKAN PARA PELAJAR KITA BENAR-BENAR DAPAT MENGUASAINYA, BAHASA INGGERIS MESTILAH DIAJAR DALAM KERANGKA PENGAJARAN DAN PEMBELAJARAN BAHASA ITU SENDIRI, BUKAN UNTUK MENGAJAR MATA PELAJARAN YANG LAIN.

22. PEMBELAJARAN BAHASA ASING BUKANNYA UNTUK MENGAMBIL ALIH PERANAN BAHASA KEBANGSAAN, SEHINGGALAH IA MENJADI SYARAT DALAM HAL TERTENTU TERMASUK DARI SEGI PENGAMBILAN KAKITANGAN SEPERTI DI SEKTOR SWASTA. PENGGUNAAN BAHASA ASING JUGA TIDAK BOLEH DIBENARKAN SEHINGGA MENGHAKIS ATAU MENYEKAT HAK BAHASA KEBANGSAAN, APATAH LAGI MENGAMBIL ALIH FUNGSINYA SERTA MERENDAHKAN MARTABATNYA.

23. MESKIPUN PERKEMBANGAN BAHASA MELAYU TELAH MENCAPAI KEJAYAAN YANG AGAK MEMBANGGAKAN SEJAK HAMPIR SETENGAH ABAD YANG LALU, NAMUN KITA TIDAK DAPAT NAFIKAN MASIH WUJUD HALANGAN DAN CABARAN DI HADAPAN KITA. SALAH SATU FAKTOR YANG AMAT MEMPENGARUHI KELANCARAN DAN KEBERHASILAN PELAKSANAAN DASAR BAHASA KEBANGSAAN, ADALAH SIKAP SEGELINTIR ANGGOTA MASYARAKAT KITA SENDIRI. KITA MENYEDARI MASIH ADA ANGGOTA MASYARAKAT YANG BELUM MEMILIKI KEPEDULIAN YANG TINGGI TERHADAP PENGGUNAAN BAHASA MELAYU SEBAGAI BAHASA KEBANGSAAN. MASIH TERDAPAT SEGELINTIR ANGGOTA MASYARAKAT MELAYU SENDIRI, YANG SEAKAN-AKAN TIDAK YAKIN TERHADAP KEMAMPUAN DAN KEUPAYAAN BAHASA MELAYU.


24. SEBAGAI CONTOH KECIL TETAPI AMAT BESAR KESANNYA, PELBAGAI KESALAHAN BAHASA YANG TERPAMPANG DI PAPAN-PAPAN TANDA, MEMPERLIHATKAN SIKAP SESETENGAH ANGGOTA MASYARAKAT YANG SEOLAH-OLAHNYA, TIDAK BERASA BERTANGGUNGJAWAB UNTUK MEMELIHARA, MEMBINA, MENGEMBANG DAN MEMAJUKAN BAHASA KEBANGSAAN. JUSTERU, SAYA MENYERU KEPADA KEPEMIMPINAN MASYARAKAT DI PELBAGAI PERINGKAT, BAIK DI SEKTOR AWAM MAHUPUN SWASTA UNTUK MENJALANKAN TANGGUNGJAWAB BERSAMA MEMBERI KESEDARAN KEPADA MASYARAKAT TENTANG PERMASALAHAN INI.

25. SESUNGGUHNYA, BAHASA BERKEMBANG SELARAS DENGAN KEMAJUAN BANGSA BUKAN HANYA SOAL EJAAN, SOAL ISTILAH, SOAL TATABAHASA, TETAPI YANG PENTING IALAH BAHASA ADALAH SOAL BUDAYA, SOAL IDENTITI ATAU JATI DIRI DAN SOAL TAMADUN SESUATU BANGSA ITU.

26. SEBELUM SAYA MENGAKHIRI UCAPAN SAYA, SUKALAH SEKALI LAGI SAYA MENEGASKAN BAHAWA PERANAN GOLONGAN PENULIS TERHADAP PEMBANGUNAN MASYARAKATNYA ADALAH AMAT BESAR. HASIL SASTERA YANG DICIPTA OLEH PENULIS WALAU DALAM BENTUK APA SEKALIPUN MESTILAH DENGAN TUJUAN UNTUK MEMBANGUN PERIBADI MANUSIA AGAR CINTAKAN KEINDAHAN, CINTAKAN KEBENARAN DAN KEADILAN. APA LAGI RASA CINTA YANG HENDAK DIBANGUN ITU IALAH RASA CINTA TERHADAP BAHASA DAN KEBUDAYAANNYA. PERASAAN CINTA YANG SAYA SEBUTKAN ITU MUSTAHIL DAPAT DIJELMAKAN KALAU ANGGOTA MASYARAKAT KITA TERUTAMANYA GOLONGAN GENERASI MUDA TIDAK MENJADIKAN MEMBACA SEBAGAI AMALAN HIDUP TERMASUKLAH MEMBACA KARYA-KARYA SASTERA. SEHUBUNGAN DENGAN ITU USAHA YAYASAN WARISAN JOHOR MENGANJURKAN SAYEMBARA PENULISAN NOVEL SEJARAH DAN TRADISI JOHOR DIHARAPKAN DAPAT MEMENUHI HASRAT INI IAITU PARA PEMBACA DAPAT MENIKMATI PERISTIWA SEJARAH YANG BERLAKU ZAMAN LAMPAU MELALUI NOVEL YANG MENYERONOKKAN.

27. SEHUBUNGAN DENGAN ITU JUGA SUKALAH SAYA MENYARANKAN AGAR YAYASAN WARISAN JOHOR MEMIKIRKAN SECARA SERIUS PENUBUHAN SEBUAH KAMPUNG BUKU ATAU TAMAN BUKU DI JOHOR BAHRU BAGI MEMBOLEHKAN ANGGOTA MASYARAKAT KITA TERUTAMANYA GOLONGAN GENERASI MUDA MENJADIKAN TAMAN INI BUKAN SAHAJA SEBAGAI TEMPAT BERREKREASI, BERBELANJA, BERSIAR-SIAR MENIIKMATI KEINDAHAN ALAM SEKITAR, TETAPI JUGA BOLEH MEMBACA BUKU-BUKU DALAM APA JUGA BIDANG DALAM APA JUA BAHASA YANG AKHIRNYA DAPAT MELAHIRKAN MASYARAKAT BERILMU PENGETAHUAN, BERFIKIR SECARA KREATIF MALAH SEBUAH MASYARAKAT MADANI YANG MENGENALI TAMADUN BANGSANYA.

28. DENGAN KATA-KATA ITU DAN DENGAN LAFAZ BIMSILLAH HIR RAHMAN NIRRAHIM, SAYA DENGAN SUKACITANYA MELANCARKAN MAJLIS PENYAMPIAN HADIAH SASTERA DARUL TA’ZIM YANG KE-VI DENGAN RASMINYA.

SEKIAN, WABILLAHI TAUFIK WAL HIDAYAH, WASSALAM MUALAIKUM WARAHMATULLAHI WABARAKATUH.

Yayasan Warisan Johor
15 Julai 2007



(D) KEBANYAKAN NEGARA YANG MERDEKA DAN BERDAULAT BIASANYA MEMPUNYAI DASAR BAHASANYA YANG TERSENDIRI. DASAR BAHASA INI AMAT PENTING PERANANNYA DALAM BIDANG PENGURUSAN NEGARA DAN MASYARAKATNYA DAN JUGA UNTUK KEPENTINGAN JATI DIRI BANGSA DAN NEGARA TERSEBUT. DASAR BAHASA INILAH YANG MENENTUKAN BAGAIMANAKAH PERMASALAHAN BAHASA DI NEGARA ITU DAPAT DITANGANI DENGAN SEBAIK-BAIKNYA. DASAR BAHASA DI MALAYSIA TELAH DIPUTUSKAN MELALUI ‘KONTRAK SOSIAL’ DI ANTARA MELAYU, CINA DAN INDIA SEBELUM KEMERDEKAAN DICAPAI PADA TAHUN 1957. DALAM PERUNDINGAN ITU BAHASA MELAYU TELAH DIPILIH SEBAGAI BAHASA KEBANGSAAN DAN BAHASA RASMI NEGARA. MALANGNYA KEPUTUSAN DAN KESEPAKATAN INI TIDAK DIRAKAM ATAU TERMAKTUB SECARA JELAS DALAM UNDANG-UNDANG DASAR BAHASA YANG TERDAPAT DALAM ARTIKEL 152 PERLEMBAGAAN DAN DALAM AKTA BAHASA KEBANGSAAN 1967. KEDUA-DUA DOKUMEN UNDANG-UNDANG ITU HANYA MENYEBUT BAHAWA BAHASA KEBANGSAAN IALAH BAHASA MELAYU, TANPA MENYEBUT APAKAH TUJUANNYA.

(E) STATUS BAHASA KEBANGSAAN YANG TERMAKTUB DALAM PERLEMBAGAAN IALAH BAHASA YANG DIANGKAT MENJADI BAHASA UTAMA SEBUAH NEGARA YANG MERDEKA DAN BERDAULAT, DAN JUGA MENJADI BAHASA RASMI NEGARA YANG DIGUNAKAN DALAM PERHUBUNGAN RASMI, SEPERTI DALAM UCAPAN DAN SURAT-MENYURAT. DENGAN ADANYA BAHASA KEBANGSAAN SEKALIGUS BAHASA RASMI NEGARA KITA SENDIRI MEGAH SEBAGAI SEBUAH NEGARA BERDAULAT DAN BERMARUAH. DALAM KONTEKS INI BAHASA KEBANGSAAN MALAYSIA HARUS BERFUNGSI SEBAGAI ALAT PERPADUAN NEGARA, BUKAN HANYA SEBAGAI ALAT PERPADUAN BANGSA MELAYU.


BAHASA KEBANGSAAN MESTILAH DIJADIKAN SEBAGAI ALAT PERPADUAN ATAU INTEGRASI NEGARA. PERANANNYA BERSIFAT INSTRUMENTAL BUKAN IDEOLOGI ATAU NASIONALISTIK. IA BERPERANAN SEBAGAI PEMBENTUK JATI DIRI NEGARA BUKAN JATI DIRI BANGSA MELAYU SEMATA-MATA. UNTUK KEMAJUAN NEGARA DALAM BIDANG EKONOMI, PERUSAHAAN, SAINS DAN TEKNOLOGI. PERCAYALAH BAHASA INGGERIS TIDAK AKAN MAMPU UNTUK MEMAINKAN PERANANNYA SECARA BERKESAN TERUTAMANYA SEBAGAI ALAT KOMUNIKASI, SEBAGAI ALAT INTEGRASI DAN PERPADUAN DAN SEBAGAI PEMBENTUK JATI DIRI MALAYSIA YANG UNGGUL DAN BERMARUAH. BILA KITA MENGATAKAN KITA AKAN MENJADI NEGARA MAJU PADA TAHUN 2020 MENGIKUT ACUAN SENDIRI, APAKAH SEBENARNYA MAKNA YANG TERSIRAT DI SEBALIK UNGKAPAN INI. KITA MAHU MENJADI SATU BANGSA YANG MAJU TETAPI BERLANDASKAN BAHASA KEBANGSAAN YANG KITA GUNAKAN, ATAS DASAR KEBUDAYAAN KEBANGSAAN DAN CARA HIDUP KITA YANG BENAR-BENAR MENGGAMBARKAN BAHAWA KITA ADALAH RAKYAT MALAYSIA YANG BERTAMADUN DAN BANGGA MENJADI WARGA NEGARA MALAYSIA.

[+/-] Baca selanjutnya...

[+/-] Hide Full Post...

Ucapan Pilihan - Selected Speeches

(This view is very important in trying to comprehend the so-called Clash of Civilization.The global media has failed in its duty to play a constructive role in fostering the Christian-Muslim ties.)



IT'S NOT A CLASH BETWEEN CHRISTIAN AND ISLAMIC CIVILIZATIONS


(Keynote address at the Asia-Pacific and Europe Media Dialgoue,
Session 6: Inspiring Content-War and Religion
on 4 September 2007 in Bonn, Germany.)

It is important to emphasize at the outset that the wars and conflicts of our time that happen to involve Christians and Muslims have very little to do with their respective religious doctrines or practices. The underlying causes are more often than not rooted in power and politics or wealth and the economy or both.

Take for instance the bloody turmoil in Iraq. Everyone knows that it is a direct consequence of the United States led invasion and occupation of that country in March 2003. A lot of the invaders may have been Christians but invading and occupying someone else's land is not part of the teachings of Jesus. In fact, Jesus stood up to the imperial power of his day---Rome--- that had occupied his homeland, namely, Palestine.

Right through history there have been invaders and occupiers who have come from different religious and cultural backgrounds.

As with occupation, so with resistance. Most of those resisting the occupation of Iraq may be Muslims. The Qur'an deems it a duty for a Muslim to resist occupation. But if Iraqi Muslims resist foreign occupation it is not simply because they are Muslims. People --- whatever their religious or cultural affiliation--- have always fought against occupation. The French resisted Nazi occupation of their country just as the Chinese struggled against Japanese occupation in the Second World War.

That occupation and resistance are not linked to one's religious identity is further borne out by the examples of Afghanistan and Chechnya. If the majority of the occupying force in Afghanistan today are made up of Christians, one should remember that not so long ago a substantial portion of the invaders of Afghanistan from the now extinct Soviet Union comprised atheists and agnostics. Resistance to the Soviet occupation came from not only avowedly religious Muslims but also from secular and nationalist groups. Likewise, Russians of different stripes and hues have dominated Chechnya from the days of the Czars. Though Christian Czars were ousted from power and atheistic Bolsheviks took their place, the domination of Chechnya continued. By the same token, Chechen resistance to Russian rule today draws its strength from not only practising Muslims but also those who are nationalists without any commitment to religion.

We have shown that occupation which is at the root of some major current conflicts, and the resistance it generates, cannot be explained in Christian Muslim terms. On the contrary, as we have hinted, neither Christianity nor Islam condones occupation; both would in fact endorse resistance against occupation.

Similarly, the basic philosophies of both religions would condemn the terrible violence that often accompanies occupation. For in both Christianity and Islam life is sacred. In both religions resistance to occupation or aggression and oppression should not lead to the killing of non-combatants or civilians. St. Augustine had developed some of these ideas in his theory of 'just war' while in the Qur'an and from the example of the Prophet Muhammad, there are clear prohibitions against harming children, women, the old, the infirm and even animals and the natural environment in times of war.

It is not just on the question of violence or occupation that there are similarities between Christianity and Islam. Since occupation is the consequence of hegemony or control and dominance, it is significant that the fundamental teachings of both religions abjure hegemony. In Christianity, it is only to God that one surrenders. No temporal power has the right to establish total control over the human being. This is why there was a strong sense of egalitarianism in early Christian communities in the Middle East before the religion was absorbed by the Roman Empire and became associated with imperial power. Complete submission to God (Allah) is the very foundation of faith in Islam. Since it is loyalty to God that is the supreme principle in Islam any attempt to impose hegemony over a nation or a people would be regarded as subversion of the faith itself. True liberation of both individual and community in Islam demands liberation from hegemony. It explains to some extent why the majority of Muslims today are opposed to what they perceive as the US drive to establish global hegemony.

This brings us to yet another similarity in the philosophies of Christianity and Islam. Since global hegemony is motivated by the quest for power and wealth as an end in itself, both philosophies would view hegemony's obsession as a violation of the very purpose of life and creation. When the quest for power and wealth knows no bounds, as it is the case with hegemony, noble values such as justice and compassion are marginalized.

Worse, the hegemonic drive invariably gives rise to wars and conflicts to which we are witness today. It was the desire for power and wealth through control over the region's second biggest oil reserves that led to the Iraq war. Christian and Muslim intellectuals and activists who had opposed the war right from the beginning went even further and pointed out that underlying the invasion and occupation was greed--- the greed for oil, for wealth and for power. Greed, needless to say, is a despicable vice in the eyes of all religions.

The mainstream global media as a whole failed to highlight these dimensions of the protest against the Iraq war. Of course the protests themselves were given extensive coverage in the Asian and European media ---and even in the American media. But the ethical positions adopted by Christian and Muslim protesters rooted in their respective religious teachings were not accorded any prominence. I am not aware of any mainstream radio or television channel that aired a programme that discussed why Christian and Muslim activists had joined hands to oppose the war from a shared spiritual and moral perspective.

Indeed, even today in spite of all the talk about inter-faith and inter-civilisational dialogue, there is very little emphasis in the mainstream media on the commonalities between Christianity and Islam in relation to fundamental challenges facing humankind. Specifically, how progressive intellectuals within the two religious traditions view the concentration of global power in the hands of a few, or the widening disparities between the global rich and the global poor, or the increasing impact of a culture of individualism upon communities everywhere, or even the environmental and ecological crisis, seldom becomes the themes of radio or television programmes. Once in a while prime radio or television news may give limited coverage to some kind hearted Christians and Muslims doing charity work. And of course, if Christians and Muslims are killing one another in Indonesia or Nigeria --- even if they are isolated happenings--- the media would go all out to sensationalize the events.

This in fact is the nub of the matter. By and large the media in Asia or in Europe appears to be attracted to conflict situations involving Christians and Muslims rather than to those less dramatic episodes of cooperation and sharing between the two communities. The media is not interested in Christians and Muslims in Mindanao in the Philippines combining energies to expose the abuses of the armed forces against the poor or in telling the world about mainstream Muslims in Indonesia protecting churches from the threats posed by a fanatical Muslim fringe. Often, it is the fanatical fringe that receives all the media publicity!

This is also true of the media in Europe and the West. Some virulent attack by some Christian preacher against Islam and Muslims is highlighted in the media while the quiet endeavours by Christians and Muslims working together to help drug addicts or alcoholics in some European or American suburb are often ignored by all and sundry. Likewise, a Muslim demagogue espousing an atavistic view on the position of women in society is projected in the media as the voice of the community while the thousands of Muslim women working shoulder to shoulder with Christian or 'post-Christian' women and men in various professions in a number of European countries are given scant attention.

Our reflections on how the media treats issues pertaining to Christian-Muslim ties raise an important question: Why does the media in both Asia and Europe behave this way? There are a number of possible reasons.


1) Is it because sections of the mainstream media see themselves as part of the global power structure or are supportive of the system that they do not want to highlight those issues which challenge the system ----which is what progressive Christian and Muslim intellectuals and activists often do? Or is it simply because the media is so much in awe of the power that the global powers-that-be command that it shuns criticism of the latter?


2) Is it because a lot of media practitioners in Asia and Europe feel that religion should not be concerned with issues of power and poverty that they are not willing to give prominence to individuals who articulate these issues from a faith perspective? Is this a reflection of the media's own secular outlook which confines religion to the individual self operating within his/her private sphere?


3) Is it because the media by and large is ignorant of religion --- especially the role of religion in social transformation----that it is not able to grapple with issues such as the interface between religion and society? Because of this ignorance most of the media downplay stories connected with Christian Muslim interaction and the like however positive they may be.


4) Is it because there is an inherent bias against Islam and Muslims within sections of the European and Western media that it has become difficult to present the religion and its followers in a balanced and objective manner which is why Islam's commitment to justice or the readiness of Muslims to work together with Christians on matters pertaining to justice does not attract media attention?


5) Is it because sensationalizing events or exaggerating conflicts appeals to readers, listeners and viewers that the media has chosen to do this even if it is at the expense of inter-religious understanding and harmony? In other words, is it because of the profit motive that positive but boring news about Christian Muslim relations are sacrificed at the altar of sensationalism?


Whatever the reasons, the media, it is obvious, cannot go on this way. It has to play a more constructive role in fostering Christian-Muslim ties. This requires a change in its mindset --- a change which empathizes with both the shared values and principles in Christianity and Islam and the common struggle of progressive Christians and Muslims for a world that is just and compassionate.



Professor Dr. Chandra Muzaffar,
President, International Movement for a Just World (JUST)
And, Professor of Global Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Penang, Malaysia.


23 August 2007.

[+/-] Baca selanjutnya...

[+/-] Hide Full Post...

Artikel Pilihan - Selected Articles

The Greatest Story Never Told

By Stephen Lendman

13 September, 2007

Countercurrents.org

No issue is more sensitive in the US than daring to criticize Israel. It's the metaphorical "third rail" in American politics, academia and the major media. Anyone daring to touch it pays dearly as the few who tried learned. Those in elected office face an onslaught of attacks and efforts to replace them with more supportive officials. Former five term Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney felt its sting twice in 2002 and 2006. So did 10 term Congressman Paul Findley (a fierce and courageous Israeli critic) in 1982 and three term Senator Charles Percy in 1984 whom AIPAC targeted merely for appearing to support anti-Israeli policy.

DePaul University Professor Norman Finkelstein has long been a target as well for his courageous writing and outspokenness. Depaul formally denied him tenure June 8 even though his students call him "truly outstanding and among the most impressive" of all university political science professors. It's why his Department of Political Science endorsed his tenure bid stating his academic record "exceeds our department's stated standards for scholarly production (and) department and outside experts we consulted recognize the intellectual merits of his work."

It didn't help, and on August 26 got worse. The university acknowledged "Professor Finkelstein is a prolific scholar and an outstanding teacher." Yet it issued a brief statement canceling his classes and placing him on administrative leave "with full pay and benefits for the 2007-8 academic year (that) relieves professors from their teaching responsibilities." For now, Finkelstein's long struggle with the university ended the first day of classes, September 5. Both sides agreed to a settlement, and a planned day of protests was curtailed. But as Chicago Tribune writer Ron Grossman put it in his September 6 column headlined "Finkelstein deal ends DePaul tiff....the underlying struggle between supporters of Israel and champions (like Finkelstein) of the Palestinians continues, not just at the North Side campus but across the academic world."

That struggle is nowhere in sight in the dominant media that includes major print publications, commercial radio, television and so-called Public Broadcasting and National Public Radio both of which long ago abandoned the public trust in service to their corporate and government paymasters.

In all parts of the major media, no Israeli criticism is tolerated on-air or in print, and any reporter, news anchor, pundit or on-air guest forgetting the (unwritten) rules, won't get a second chance. Support for Israel is ironclad, absolute, and uncompromising on everything including its worst crimes of war and against humanity. Open debate is stifled, and anyone daring to dissent or demur is pilloried, ridiculed, called anti-semetic, even threatened, ostracized, and finally ignored. In his seminal work on Middle East affairs, "Fateful Triangle," Noam Chomsky put it this way: "....Israel has been granted a unique immunity from criticism in mainstream journalism and scholarship...."

Call it the myth of the free press in a nation claiming to have the freest of all. It's pure fantasy now and in an earlier era, journalist A.J Liebling said it was only for "those who own(ed) one." Today, they're giants operating the way Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky explained in their classic book on the media titled "Manufacturing Consent." The authors developed their "propaganda model" to show all news and information passes through a set of "filters." "Raw material" goes through them, unacceptable parts are suppressed, and "only the cleansed residue fit to print (and broadcast on-air)" reaches the public. The New York Times calls it "All The News That's Fit to Print." By its standard, it means sanitized news only leaving out the most important parts and what readers want most - the full truth and nothing else.

The same goes for the rest of the dominant media that serve as collective national thought control police gatekeepers "filtering" everything we read, see and hear. They manipulate our minds and beliefs, program our thoughts, and effectively destroy the free marketplace of ideas essential to a healthy democracy. In America, that's nowhere in sight.

The problem is most acute in reporting on Israel. Criticism of the Jewish state is stifled in an effort to portray it as a model democracy, the only one in the region, and surrounded by hostile Palestinians, other Arab/Muslim extremists and whoever else Israel cites as a threat, real or contrived. The truth is quite opposite but absent from corporate-controlled media spaces.

How "The Newspaper of Record" Reports on Israel

This article focuses mainly on the media's lead and most influential voice, The New York Times. It's been around since 1851 when it quietly debuted saying "....we intend to (publish) every morning (except Sundays) for an indefinite number of years to come." Today, it's the pillar of the corporate media and main instrument of fake news making it the closest thing in the country to an official ministry of information and propaganda. But here's the Times 1997 Proxy Statement quote media critic Edward Herman used in his April, 1998 Z Magazine article titled "All The News Fit to Print (Part I)." Its management then (and now) claimed The Times to be "an independent newspaper, entirely fearless, free of ulterior influence and unselfishly devoted to the public welfare." It leaves one breathless and demands an earlier used quote - "phew."

No media source anywhere has more clout than the Times, none manipulates the public mind more effectively, and where it goes, others follow. It's most visible supporting all things corporate, foreign wars of aggression, and everything favoring Israel it views one way. That's the focus below - how the New York Times plays the lead cheerleading role for Israel even when its actions are unjustifiable, unconscionable and criminal.

Freelance journalist Alison Weir founded "If Americans Knew" as an "independent research and information-dissemination institute (to provide) every American (what he or she) needs to know about Israel/Palestine." That includes "inform(ing) and educat(ing) the American public on issues of major significance that are unreported, underreported, or misreported in the American media." Below is an account of her in-depth study of how the New York Times betrays its readers by distorting its coverage on Israel.

It was in her April 24, 2005 article called "New York Times Distortion Up Close and Personal." It drew on the findings from her 23-page report, and 40 pages of supportive data, titled "Off the Charts - Accuracy in Reporting of Israel/Palestine (by) The New York Times." To be as objective as possible, the study "count(ed) the deaths reported on both sides of the (Israeli-Palestinian) conflict, and then compare(d) these to the actual number....that had occurred." The findings showed a "startling disparity....depending on the ethnicity of the victim(s)."

The study covered two periods. The first was from the September 29, 2000 beginning of the Al-Aqsa Mosque (or second) Intifada (ignited by Ariel Sharon's provocative visit to the Temple Mount Al-Aqsa Mosque site) through September 28, 2001. The second ran from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004. Deaths counted were only those resulting from Israeli - Palestinian confrontations.

The first study showed the New York Times reported 2.8 times the number of Israeli deaths to Palestinian ones when, in fact, three times more Palestinians were killed than Israelis. In the second one, the ratio increased to 3.6 adding further distortion to the coverage. Reporting children's deaths was even more skewed, coming in at a ratio of 6.8 for Israeli children compared to Palestinian ones and then at 7.3 in the later study. The latter ratio is particularly startling since 22 times more Palestinian children were killed, in fact, than Israelis in 2004 according to B'Tselem - the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Terroritories. The Times simply ignored them.

In all its reporting in both periods, the Times distorted the facts egregiously. It highlighted Israeli deaths by headlining and repeating them. In contrast, there was silence on most Palestinian ones. The impression given was that more Jews died than Arabs or at times the numbers were equal on both sides. Most often, they weren't even close.

It was startling to learn that Israeli and other human rights groups documented 82 Palestinian children killed at the Intifada's outset (most by "gunfire to the head" indicating deliberate targeting) before a single Israeli child died. The Times willfully ignored this in its coverage the same way it obsessed last summer over Hamas' capture of a single Israeli soldier while ignoring around 12,000 Palestinian men, women and children political detainees held by Israelis illegally. For the Times, they're non-persons, but everyone in Israel and many outside it know that soldier's name and still do.

Weir calls this coverage a "highly disturbing pattern of bias." She presented her findings ("complete with charts, spread-sheets, clear sourcing, and extensive additional documentation") to the Times' Public Editor, Daniel Okrent, in a face-to-face meeting, but came away disappointed. It was because of a 1762-word column Okrent wrote in response. It ignored or misrepresented the facts, was unconcerned that most Times reporters covering Israel/Palestine are Jewish, all live inside Israel, and the paper claimed it's impossible finding "sufficient numbers of high quality journalists of Muslim or Arab heritage to work on this issue." It is when you don't look.

Yet, it's worth noting what Weir believes was a "personal confession" in a single line. Okrent may have slipped up saying: "I don't think any of us (at the Times) can be objective about our own claimed objectivity." Confession or not, it led to no change in the Times' reporting.

Weir updated her report to include Palestinian children's deaths in 2004 and 2005 from documented information on the "Remember These Children" web site. It uses Israeli and other human rights organizations' sources with these findings through June, 2007:

-- 118 Israeli children under 18 years years of age killed compared to 973 Palestinian youths, most shot in the head or chest indicating deliberate targeting by Israeli soldiers. This information never appears in Times' reports.

Instead, The Times "marginalizes Palestinian women and Palestinian rights" according to a November 17, 2006 Electronic Intifada (EI) report. Its authors (Patrick O'Connor and Rachel Roberts) state: "The New York Times pays little attention to human rights in Israel/Palestine, downplays....violence against Palestinian women and generally silences (their) voices."

Since the second Intifada began, B'Tselem, Amnesty International (AI) and Human Rights Watch (HRW) published 76 reports documenting Israeli abuses of Palestinian rights and four others on Palestinian violations against Israelis or other Palestinians. The Times, however, wrote only four articles on them all - two on Israeli abuses and two others on what Palestinians did suggesting both sides shared equal guilt.

Three other Times articles on the conflict focused on a Human Rights Watch report criticizing Palestinian suicide bombings, another HRW one on Israeli actions in Jenin in 2002, and a B'Tselem report on the Israeli Defense Forces' (IDF) exoneration of soldiers for killing a Palestinian child. The Times also published one article criticizing Israel's 2006 war on Lebanon and one other one critical of Hezbollah during that conflict. It's the Times' idea of fairness and balance, that distorts facts, ignores truth, and in every instance betrays its readers.

EI's writers refer to thousands of New York Times articles on Israel/Palestine since the second Intifada began September 29, 2000. Yet in them all, it "quoted, cited or paraphrased just 4187 words....from human rights organizations in 62 articles, snippets (only) averaging just 69 words per article." In the same articles, far more space was given to Israeli government denials even when clear evidence proved them false.

Other research shows The New York Times op ed page marginalizes Palestinian voices and completely shuts out its women who are portrayed as passive, docile and at the mercy of men. Readers aren't told they "balance their dual commitment to the national (and feminist) struggle(s)" by courageously leading the fight against domestic and Israeli violence in the Occupied Territories. The Times also ignores Amnesty International's emphasis on the occupation's harmful effects on women in detention centers and from "military checkpoints, blockades and curfews" even though they cause sick and pregnant women to die for lack of aid.

It's part of the same pattern of selective disclosure and distortion so readers don't know what's happening and are led to believe victims are the victimizers. Facts are ignored, international law is unmentioned and reporting "contributes to the dangerous pattern of Western disparagement of Muslim society," made easy post-9/11.

EI sums up its article stating "If the Times cared about human rights in Israel/Palestine, (balanced reporting, and) valued independent third party perspectives, (it) would have published more than 6256 (total) words....of major human rights organizations (reports) in its thousands of articles" for the past seven years. Instead, the impression given is Israeli crimes are marginal, sporadic, inconsequential, acts of self-defense and not crimes at all. This type reporting sets the (low) standard for the rest of the dominant media and highlights why few Americans question their government's full and unconditional support for Israeli policy.

The Times willfully ignores the following type information B'Tselem posts and updates on its website (www.btselem.org). From September 29, 2000 through August 31, 2007, it documented 4274 Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces or civilians including 857 children. That compares to 1024 Israelis killed by Palestinians including 119 children.

Throughout this period, The Times low-keyed Israeli violence in its coverage but featured dozens of articles on Palestinian suicide bombings and other acts of self-defense it portrays as "terrorism" against innocent Israelis. Left out is what B'Tselem, Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR), AI, HRW, ICRC and other human rights organizations report:

-- willful violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention's protections of civilians in times of war and under occupation by a foreign power.

-- excessive use of force and abuse;

-- policy of collective punishment and economic strangulation;

-- growing numbers of expanding illegal settlements;

-- home demolitions;

-- random IDF invasions, air and ground attacks;

-- many dozens of extrajudicial assassinations;

-- administrative detentions without charge and routine use of torture of thousands of Palestinians including young children treated like adults;

-- land expropriation;

-- crop destruction;

-- policies of closure, separation, checkpoints, ghettoization and curfews;

-- denial of the most basic human rights and civil liberties; and

-- an overall Kafkaesque "matrix of control" designed to extinguish Palestinians' will to resist.

The Times willful distortion and indifference to Palestinian suffering highlights its coverage. Like others in the dominant media, it displays no sense of fairness, accuracy or balance in portraying Palestinians as militants, gunmen and terrorists - never as oppressed human beings under occupation struggling for freedom in their own land. In sharp contrast, Israelis are seen as surrounded, beleaguered, and innocent victims acting in self-defense. It's sheer fantasy, the facts on the ground prove it, but Times readers aren't given them.

They're also not told how Israel discriminates against Palestinian Arab Israeli citizens. Patrick O'Connor explained in his March 30, 2006 Electronic Intifada article titled "The New York Times Covers Up Discrimination against Palestinian Citizens of Israel." He noted the rise to prominence of Israeli Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Strategic Affairs Avigdor Lieberman and his extremist Yisrael Beiteinu party. It advocates "transferring a number of Palestinian towns in Israel to Palestinian Authority (PA) control," thereby revoking the legalized status of hundreds of thousands of its own citizens. They're already second class ones and are treated unequally under Israel's Basic Law that affords rights and benefits to Jews only.

O'Connor notes the Times plays "a leading role collaborat(ing) with this strategy." It characterizes all Palestinians as militants, gunmen and terrorists while suppressing their "experiences under....occupation (victimized by) Israeli state terrorism, and (the) systemic Israeli discrimination against Palestinian (citizens) living in Israel...."

An instance of Times distortion was from a March 21, 2006 article by Dina Kraft. In it, Israel dismissively refers to "Israeli Arabs" and so does Kraft. They're not called Palestinian Israeli citizens "to divide and rule, and to cover up the familial, historical and cultural relationship between Palestinians" inside Israel to those in the Territories and diaspora. The Times goes along without challenge, never questioning if a self-declared Jewish state can be democratic without ensuring equal rights to its non-Jewish minority. Ignored as well is Yisrael Beiteinu's outlandish proposal to revoke citizenship rights for Arabs inside Israel because they're not Jews.

O'Connor stresses how the Times, Kraft and the major US media collaboratively perpetuate the myth that Israel is "a liberal, democratic state inexplicably beset by Arab/Muslim terrorism." In so doing, they suppress the historical record that Israel ethnically cleansed 800,000 Palestinians, killed many thousands of others, and destroyed 531 villages and 11 urban neighborhoods in cities like Tel-Aviv, Haifa and Jerusalem in its 1948 "War of Independence." They also deny that Palestinians everywhere have close historical, family and cultural ties, yet Israel discriminates against them all unfairly.

In her report, Weir noted what all people of conscience believe: that "readers of The New York Times (and all Americans) are entitled to full and accurate reporting on all issues, including the topic of Israel/Palestine." In her study period, the Times covered it in "well over 1000 stories," so it's deeply troubling how much critical information was omitted.

A 9/11/07 Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) Action Alert provides more evidence of NYT cover-up and distortion. It's titled "Whose Human Rights Matter? NYT on Hezbollah and Israeli attacks on civilians." FAIR cites two recently released Human Rights Watch (HRW)investigations of Israel's war against Lebanon in which The New York Times highlighted "unlawful attacks against Israel" while giving short shrift to "unlawful attacks committed by Israel." This is de rigueur at The Times so the FAIR report is no surprise.

It noted the NYT ran its own 800 word story supportive of Israel on 8/31/07 titled "Rights Group Accuses Hezbollah of Indiscriminate Attacks on Civilians in Israel War" accompanied by a photo of "Israeli civilians at risk from Hezbollah rockets." In sharp contrast, it settled for a 139 word AP report on Israeli unlawful attacks under its own headline titled "Israel Criticized Over Lebanon Deaths" with no photo. Even worse, The Times report on Israeli infractions omitted key information about the claim that Hezbollah used Lebanese people as human shields. HRW found no supportive evidence, and its executive director, Kenneth Roth, said the Israeli government's assertion was false.

The Times also failed to reflect the dramatic disparity in civilian deaths on each side. HRW estimated Israel killed about 900 Lebanese civilians out of a total 1200 death toll in the country while Hezbollah killed 43 Israeli civilians plus about 80 IDF personnel. FAIR's conclusion: The Times values Israeli lives far more than Lebanese ones. No surprise.

FAIR raised an additional point as well from its 12/6/06 Action Alert. It refuted a Times report as false that Israeli attacks on civilians were legitimate "since Hezbollah fired from civilian areas, itself a war crime, which made those areas legitimate targets." Again, standard practice at The Times that values fake news above truth, accuracy, fairness and balance.

Weir hoped a public airing of her findings on The Times would lead to better reporting at the "paper of record." It never did and just got worse following Hamas' dramatic democratic January, 2006 electoral victory. Afterwards, all outside aid was cut off, Hamas was marginalized and politically isolated, and Israeli repression got stepped up in an effort to crush the fledging government by making the Territories "scream."

It came to a head June 14 following weeks of US-Israeli orchestrated violence. Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas declared a "state of emergency" and illegally dismissed Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniyeh and his national unity government. He appointed his own US-Israeli vetted replacements days later with The New York Times in the lead supporting the new quisling coup d'etat government. Noted journalist and documentary filmmaker John Pilger explains the first casualty of war is good journalism. It's as true for reporting on Israel, especially on the pages of "the newspaper of record" that sets the low standard others then follow.

That standard excludes discussion of the powerful Israeli lobby with AIPAC just one part of it. Noted figures like John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of the Harvard Kennedy School of Government are persona non grata for their heroic work documenting its powerful influence on US policy toward Israel and the Middle East. Noted scholar and activist James Petras makes the same compelling case in his revealing 2006 must-read book titled "The Power of Israel in the United States." The record of "the newspaper of record" includes none of their findings and conclusions proving when it comes to truth in reporting, it's absent from its pages. It's especially pronounced in its coverage of Israel/Palestine.

More Evidence of Corporate Media Distortion on Israel-Palestine

When it comes to shoddy reporting, most notably on Israel/Palestine, there's plenty of blame to go around. It's found on major US broadcast and cable channels, most all corporate-owned publications here and abroad, the BBC, CBC, Deutche Welle, other European broadcasters, and what passes for so-called public radio and broadcasting in the US. An exception is Pacifica Radio, the original and only real public radio in the US. Its provides excellent coverage, especially on KPFA's daily Flashpoints Radio with the best of it anywhere on-air from its co-hosts, contributors and top quality guests.

The opposite is true for so-called National Public Radio's (NPR), but its public broadcast (PBS)counterpart shares equal guilt. Many people naively turn to NPR as an acceptable alternative to corporate media disinformation without realizing it's as corrupted by capital interests and big government as all the others. Its president, Kevin Klose, is the former head of US propaganda that includes Voice of America (VOA), Radio Liberty, Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, Worldnet Television and the anti-Castro Radio/TV Marti. He's ideal for the same role at National Public Radio, and it's why he got the job.

NPR never met a US war of aggression it didn't love, and it's especially attentive to the interests of its corporate paymasters like McDonald's (with $225 million of it), Allstate, Merck, Archer Daniels Midland, and the worst of all worker rights' abusers, Wal-Mart, that NPR welcomes anyway. In its space, there never is heard a discouraging word on any of these or most other major US corporate giants.

Then, there's the issue of fair and balanced reporting on Israel/Palestine that's absent from NPR programs all the time. The media watchdog group FAIR exposed it in its study of NPR's coverage of Israeli/Palestinian violence in the first six months of 2001. Over virtually any period, Palestinian deaths way outnumber Israeli ones. Yet NPR in the period studied reported 62 Israeli deaths compared to 51 Palestinian ones at a time 77 Israelis and 148 Palestinians were killed. It meant "there was an 81% likelihood an Israeli death would be reported on NPR, but only a 34% likelihood" a Palestinian one would be.

The findings were similar each way FAIR examined the data. They showed one-sided pro-Israel reporting the way it is throughout the dominant media. The result (then and now) is NPR betrays the public trust. It suppresses real news in favor of the fake kind it prefers. It violates its claim to be "an internationally acclaimed producer of noncommercial news, talk and entertainment programming" and its mission statement pledge "to create a more informed public - one challenged and invigorated by a deeper understanding and appreciations of events, ideas and cultures (through) programming that meets the highest standards of public service in journalism and cultural expression." It's pure nonsense. On all counts, NPR fails badly.

The Electronic Intifada web site showed how badly. It was in a February 19, 2002 article titled "Special Report: NPR's Linda Gradstein (its Israel correspondent) Takes Cash Payments from Pro-Israel Groups." Ali Abunimah and Nigel Parry (its co-founders) discovered Gradstein violated professional journalistic and NPR ethics and policy by accepting cash honoraria from pro-Israeli organizations in the past and currently to the date of the article.

Gradstein is notorious for her pro-Israeli bias and being paid for it makes it worse. Hillel is one of her paymasters, and in one instance openly acknowledged it considered Gradstein an Israeli propagandist. Other Israeli groups apparently do as well as Gradstein openly violated NPR's stated (but uninforced) policy not to accept these fees. Instead, she regularly takes them and likely still does.

The EI writers concluded "for some reason or other, Gradstein is effectively exempt from NPR's own regulations. These revelations only broaden existing concerns about the integrity of NPR's Middle East reporting and honesty of Linda Gradstein....the sad truth is that Linda Gradstein rarely meets (the minimum) standard(s)" of journalistic ethics and integrity. This is common practice at NPR and at the rest of the major media as well.

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA)

The dominant US media have loads of firepower and freely unleash it supporting Israel. They need no backup help but get it anyway from CAMERA, a powerful Boston-based pro-Israeli media lobby group. The organization was founded by Charles Jacobs in 1982 and claims to be "non-partisan....regard(ing)....American or Israeli political issues (and takes no position) regard(ing)....ultimate solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict." It calls itself "a media-monitoring, research and membership organization devoted to promoting accurate and balanced coverage of Israel and the Middle East."

It claims "Inaccurate and distorted accounts of events in Israel and the Middle East are....found everywhere from college radio stations to network television, from community newspapers to national magazines (to the) Internet." They're also in "fashion magazines, architectural publications, encyclopedias....travel guides, and even dictionaries." They're "inaccurate (and) skewed (and) may fuel anti-Israel and anti-Jewish prejudice."

CAMERA's on guard to fight back with plenty of dues-paying members to do it - 55,000 well-heeled ones plus "thousands of active letter writers." They monitor all media and its journalists everywhere for one purpose - to resolutely support Israel and combat all criticism it calls "anti-Israel bias." CAMERA tolerates none, not even modest in tone on issues too minor to matter. They do to CAMERA that views everything in black and white terms with no gray allowed.

Muslims are bad because they're Muslims and not Jews. Jews, on the other hand, are good because they're Jewish. This for CAMERA is fair and balanced meaning support Israel, right or wrong, and you are. Dare criticize, you're not, and be targeted full force with all CAMERA's hard-hitting tools - mass letter-writing, articles, op-eds, monographs, special reports, full-page ads in major publications, the CAMERA Media Report critiquing "bias and error," CAMERA on Campus doing the same thing, CAMERA Fellows training students in pro-Israeli thinking, and focused attacks on "media bias" and journalists anywhere even mildly critical of Israel.

CAMERA is effective because it's unrelenting, focused and well-funded. It "systematically monitors, documents, reviews and archives (all) Middle East coverage." Its staffers "contact reporters, editors, producers and publishers" demanding "distorted or inaccurate coverage" be retracted and replaced by "factual information to refute errors." For CAMERA, it means support Israel without compromise or be hounded until you do.

Two Examples of Truth in Reporting Banned in the Dominant Media - First from Bethlehem

Pacifica's KPFA Flashpoints Radio co-host Nora Barrows Friedman has become the electronic media's most courageous voice on Israel/Palestine. An example was her disturbing story from Bethlehem August 21 for Inter Press Service that was unreported in the dominant media. It's a dramatic example of sanitizing ugly parts of a story to prettify Israeli actions or simply ignoring it as in this case.

Friedman reported the Israeli military has been cutting and destroying apricot and walnut trees for months to make way for its scheme in the village of Artas, southeast of Bethlehem. It's a concrete tunnel (along with the apartheid separation wall) for raw Israeli settlement sewage (excrement and waste). It's to be dumped on Palestinian land even though its toxicity will endanger the health and welfare of its residents. It will destroy crops and poison the land rendering it useless for agriculture.

Artas villagers have been "active and defiant....over the last year after unofficial information" about the plan leaked out. It's still ongoing, nonetheless, as Israeli bulldozers continue uprooting crops and orchards in preparation for construction to follow. Non-violent protesters (on their own land) "have been shot at, beaten" arrested and imprisoned for defying expropriation of their property. Israel frequently does this throughout the Occupied Territories for the parts it wants. In this case, it's for land to dump raw untreated toxic sewage waste on from its settlements.

It's part of an overall ethnic cleansing scheme to dispossess Palestinians from their lands, one parcel, one village at a time, every devious way Israelis can invent to do it. This time, villagers are fighting back in the Israeli Supreme Court. But based on its past rulings, they have little hope for justice and no hope the major media will help stop the abuse by exposing it in its coverage.

A Second Example: Hamas' "Goals for All of Palestine"

Mousa Abu Marzook, Hamas political bureau deputy, prepared an eloquent op-ed piece July 10 titled "Hamas' stand" that got rare space in the latimes.com but none in the New York Times, NPR or elsewhere in the dominant media. In it, he explained Hamas' July rescue of BBC journalist Alan Johnson wasn't done "as some obsequious boon to Western powers. It was....part of our effort to secure Gaza from (all) lawlessness.... and violence....where journalists, foreigners and guests of the Palestinian people will be treated with dignity."

He stressed Hamas never supported attacks on Westerners. Instead, its struggle "always....focused on the occupier and our legal resistance to it....supported by the Fourth Geneva Convention." Despite that right of any occupied people, Israel and Washington falsely accuse its leaders of ideologies "they know full well we do not follow, such as the agenda of Al Queda and its adherents."

Marzook "deplore(d) the current prognosticating over "Fatah-land (in the West Bank) versus "Hamastan (in Gaza). In the end, there can be only one Palestinian state," and its people have every legal right to demand and expect one. He continued saying its "militant stance" is reasonable in "our fight against the occupation and the right of Palestinians to have dignity, justice and self-rule." It's guaranteed all peoples everywhere under the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Marzook raised the litmus test issue of Palestinians having to concede Israel's "putative right to exist as a necessary precondition to discussing grievances, and to renounce" its 1988 charter position "born of the intolerable conditions under occupation more than 20 years ago." A state "may have a right to exist," he stated, "but not....at the expense of other states (or more importantly) at the expense of millions of human individuals and their rights to justice."

Marzook justifiably asked "Why should anyone concede Israel's right to exist, when it....never....acknowledged (its) foundational crimes of murder, ethnic cleansing (and seizure of) our towns and villages, our farms and orchards, and made us a nation of refugees? Why should any Palestinian recognize (this) monstrous crime....?" How can Israel "declare itself explicitly to be a state for the Jews (alone)....in a land where millions of occupants are Arabs, Muslims and Christians."

Marzook continued denouncing Israeli hypocrisy referring back to the writings of its Zionist founders. In them, they made "repeated calls for the destruction of Palestine's non-Jewish inhabitants" saying: "We must expel the Arabs and take their places." Israeli policy today "advocat(es) for the expulsion of Arab citizens from Israel and the rest of Palestine, envisioning a single Jewish state from the Jordan (River) to the sea." The international community voices "no clamor....for Israel to repudiate these words as a necessary precondition for any discourse whatsoever. The double standard, as always, is" for Palestinians alone.

Marzook has no trouble "recognizing" Israel's right to exist. "Israel does exist," he says, "as any Rafah boy in a hospital bed, with IDF shrapnel in his torso, can tell you." He referred to a distracting "dance of mutual rejection (while) many are dying (or live) as prisoners....in refugee camps" and Israeli prisons unjustly.

Marzook speaks for all Palestinians saying he "look(s) forward to the day when Israel can say to me, and millions of other Palestinians: 'Here, here is your family's house by the sea (we took from you in 1948), here are your lemon trees, the olive grove your father tended: Come home and be whole again.' Then we can speak of a future together" and can have one in peace but never under occupation.

Try finding that commentary in the New York Times or on NPR. Somehow, it slipped into the latimes.com and maybe in error. Pilger is right. The first casualty of war is good journalism. It applies as well to reporting on Israel/Palestine and most other major world and national issues. Real news and information fall victim to the fake kind in the dominant media. Thankfully, people are catching on, viable alternatives abound online and in print, and web sites like this one provide it.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

[+/-] Baca selanjutnya...

[+/-] Hide Full Post...

Sidang Meja Bulat - Islam & Perjuangan Kemerdekaan

Ucapan Pengerusi FGN sempena

Sidang Meja Bulat mengenai

Islam dan Perjuangan Kemerdekaan

yang berlangsung pada 26 Ogos 2007

di Shah Village Hotel, Petaling Jaya.

1. Alhamdulillah dengan penuh syukur ke hadrat Ilahi kita dapat bersama-sama di pagi ini untuk mendalami perspektif Islam di dalam sejarah perjuangan kemerdekaan di negara ini. Saya ucapkan berbanyak terima kasih kepada penceramah undangan yang terdiri daripada pakar sejarah di negara ini, kerana sudi hadir ke progam yang dianjurkan oleh Future Global Network (FGN) buat pertama kalinya. Mudah-mudahan Allah Ta`ala akan membalas segala budi baik dengan ganjaran pahala yang penuh berkat.

2. Selepas serangan terhadap World Trade Centre, New York pada 11 September 2001, sosio-ekonomi-politik dunia telah berubah dengan drastik sekali. Kalimah teroris menjadi sinonim dengan Islam, Amerika Syarikat menjadi kuasa imperialis dan kolonialis abad 21. Seorang pegawai tinggi Amerika Syarikat menyimpulkan realiti baru ini dengan kalimah ”we are greater than Roman Empire, Israel is our friend”

3. Apa yang pasti, Islam telah menjadi musuh nombor satu dunia dengan Amerika Syarikat menjadi dalang utamanya. Terminologi ’hard war’ dan ’soft war’ digunapakai sebagai strategi penjajahan dan pengukuhan hegemoni Amerika Syarikat ke atas dunia Islam khususnya. ’Hard war’ membawa pengertian serangan militer, ’soft war’ bererti serangan pemikiran dan budaya.

4. Di majlis ini, saya ingin menarik perhatian kepada pendekatan ’soft war’ yang digunakan untuk menguasai dunia Islam. Umum mengetahui, sejak sekian lama, Non Governmental Organization (NGO) atau Badan Bukan Kerajaan telah digunakan oleh Barat sebagai suatu kaedah public diplomacy atau diplomasi awam bagi mempengaruhi public opinion atau pendapat umum. Selepas peristiwa September 11, peranan NGO telah ditingkatkan ke tahap maksima terhadap dunia Islam bagi mempengaruhi rakyat supaya menyokong dasar hegemoni Barat

5. Matlamat utama ialah supaya Amerika Syarikat dan Barat harus dilihat sebagai penyelamat dunia Islam dari kemunduran, perpecahan dan pemerintahan diktator. Islam pula harus dilihat sebagai anti kemajuan, menindas wanita, anti demokrasi, hukum syariah sebagai zalim dan menindas serta menafikan hak bukan Islam dan hak-hak lain. Terminologi ’al-Qaeda’ diperkenalkan bagi memburukkan imej Islam sebagai agama pengganas, dan sesiapa juga yang cuba menentang hegemoni Barat akan dituduh menyokong al-Qaeda yang menjustifikasikan hukuman-hukuman berat terhadap mereka dengan menggunakan undang-undang antarabangsa.

6. Dalam kontek negara kita, Malaysia, terdapat usaha-usaha untuk mempersoalkan agama Islam dan menafikan sumbangan serta peranan pejuang Islam di dalam proses perjuangan kemerdekaan negara. Kecenderungan NGO bukan Islam termasuk segelintir yang Islam yang semakin berani mempersoalkan asas-asas pembinaan negara khusus yang menyentuh agama Islam amatlah membimbangkan.

7. Justeru itu, FGN terpanggil untuk mengadakan Sidang Meja Bulat ini bagi membincangkan mengenai Islam dan Perjuangan Kemerdekaan. Adalah diharapkan agar gabungan tenaga para intelektual dan aktivis sosial di dalam FGN di sidang seumpama ini akan berterusan demi melihat Islam terus mantap sebagai dasar penting negara demi kesejahteraan negara tercinta ini.

8. Selamat Bersidang. Wassalam.



Ahmad Azam Abdul Rahman
Pengerusi
Future Global Network
26 Ogos 2007

[+/-] Baca selanjutnya...

[+/-] Hide Full Post...