No time to be patient

Can we, Malaysians, not see the changes we so long for in our lifetime?

NELSON Mandela is dying. The world waits sombrely and respectfully for what seems to be inevitable. He has lived to a good age – he turns 95 on July 18 – and it is time to let him go. What’s more, this great man’s place in history is assured.

He is in the same league as Mahatma Gandhi and Abraham Lincoln, for what he did for his country.

Yet, I wonder: Mandela was in his Robben Island prison cell for 27 years. During that time, did he ever think he would not live to see the end of apartheid in his beloved South Africa. Perhaps he thought, “Not in my lifetime.”

“Not in my lifetime”, that’s what we say to denote the unlikelihood of something momentous or significant happening or coming to fruition within our life span.

I guess NIML (as those four words have been abbreviated in this Internet age) would have crossed the minds of cynics concerning the fight to end slavery or suffrage for women in centuries past.

“Freedom for slaves? Never, not in my lifetime?” “Vote for women? Balderdash! Surely not in my lifetime.”

In our more recent past, so many amazing things have changed or taken place that were thought quite impossible, at least NIML: The creation of the Pill that sparked the sexual revolution, men walking on the moon and the birth of the first test-tube baby.

I remember when “Made in Japan” was a byword for shoddily made products that didn’t last and China was an uptight communist state where its repressed people dressed in monochrome colours and were deprived of life’s little luxuries.

Today, Japanese-made products are synonymous with quality; Russia and China are practically unrecognisable from the USSR and China of, say, 1985.

So too South Korea, now east Asia’s poster nation. But it wasn’t too long ago it was under a repressive military dictatorship and it was only in May 1980 that the Gwangju Uprising began that nation’s transformation to liberal democracy.

Who would have thought back in the 1980s, that many Chinese nationals and Russians would become obscenely rich citizens living freely in various parts of the world; or that South Korea would rule with “soft” power through its pop culture.

Ironically, I found Korean music grating and unpleasant during the opening ceremony of the 1988 Seoul Olympic Games. Twenty-five years on, I can hum Arirang, Korea’s popular folk song, and have k-pop songs on my handphone, a Samsung Galaxy, of course.

All that in my lifetime. And I am not that old. Really.

Change is a constant throughout the ages but the current speed of it is what takes our breath away. We accept and even demand it when it involves technology, our devices and machines.

Japanese scientists are ready to send a talking robot called Kirobo into space that can communicate directly with astronauts on board the International Space Station.

Better still, researchers just announced that people with severe spinal cord injuries can walk again with ground-breaking stem cell therapy that regrows nerve fibres.

Dr Wise Young, chief executive officer of the China Spinal Cord Injury Network, was quoted as saying: “It’s the first time in human history that we can see the regeneration of the spinal cord.”

He further declared: “This will convince the doctors of the world that they do not need to tell patients ‘you will never walk again’.”

It is a pity quadriplegic Christopher Reeve, who will always be Superman to his fans, did not live to see it happen in his lifetime.

Yet, strangely enough, when it comes to change to create a better and safer society, change to weeding out corruption, change to needs-based policies, change to save our education system, change to end institutionalised racism, we seem willing to apply brakes and decelerate.

We tell ourselves, “slowly lah”, or “some things take time” and yes, even “not in our lifetime” because we believe the things we want changed are too entrenched or too rotten.

I refuse to accept that because, as I have repeatedly lamented, we don’t have the time to slow such things down. We need to change urgently and effectively or we will fall further behind other nations. What I think we need for effective change to happen is great statesmanship and selflessness from our leaders.

While Mandela is rightly honoured and revered, he could not have succeeded in ending apartheid without the support and courage of F.W. de Klerk, the now largely forgotten last white president of South Africa who freed Mandela.

Similarly, it was Mikhail Gorbachev, the last general secretary of the Soviet Union who brought political, social and economic reforms that ended both the USSR and the Cold War.

It is men in power like them who had the political will, the vision and steely courage to dismantle their untenable systems of government and set their nations on the path of a new future.

Do we have a de Klerk or Gorbachev among our leaders who will demolish race-based politics and policies, free our education system from politics and truly fight corruption and crime? A leader who will move our nation onto a new path of greatness by quickly harnessing all the talents that a multiracial Malaysia has to offer without fear or bias?

Can it happen in my lifetime? Since I have seen what was deemed impossible, NIML, the first black man elected US President, I want to believe the answer is yes, we can.

So Aunty, So What? By JUNE H.L. WONG

> The aunty likes this quote: Patience is good only when it is the shortest way to a good end; otherwise, impatience is better. Feedback: junewong@thestar.com.my or tweet @JuneHL­Wong

Related posts:

Rebooting the history of Chinese contributions to Malaysia

Charting the way forward for English-medium schools in Malaysia

Doing good well - there's greater impact in helping through informed giving

TWO weeks ago, I was on a flight back from Singapore. One of the newspapers had a poignant picture of a young boy in tears. I could practically feel him staring at me.

He had been rescued from a saree embroidery factory in Kathmandu. Child labour in the Kathmandu Valley is extensive and there are up to 80 such factories which employ more than 500 children, mostly below the age of 14, to make those sarees. And the sad part of the story is that many do not want to be rescued.

The Kathmandu operation was timed to coincide with World Against Child Labour Day which was on June 12. According to the International Labour Organisation, hundreds of millions of girls and boys throughout the world are involved in work that deprives them from receiving adequate education, health, leisure and basic freedoms.

More than half of these children are exposed to abuse because they work in hazardous environments where slavery, forced labour, illicit activities such as drug trafficking and prostitution, and armed conflict are common.

The plight of these children weighed heavy on my mind on this short flight back.

The following week, I was on the road listening to the radio and I learnt that World Refugees Day was on June 20. It is estimated that more than 45 million people worldwide have fled their homes due to conflict, persecution and other abuses.

In Malaysia, there are over 100,000 registered refugees in Kuala Lumpur alone, and one can imagine the actual figures nationwide, especially those not registered.

In looking at the two big issues here, we may wonder what we can do to make a difference in the lives of so many people.

Certainly there are many communities who will benefit from our giving and volunteer efforts – the aged, homeless, abused children and women, addicts, the poor,disabled, orphans, victims of human trafficking, etc to name a few. Then there are the sporadic needs in times of natural disasters.

And this is where the work of NGOs is significant. Many NGOs come about in response to a specific need and are small and limited in their operations. But there are an estimated 20,000 NGOs that operate globally because the causes they fight for transcend national borders.

And for the work they do, they need support. Some of these NGOs have a strong global presence and are able to draw funds and resources from many sources.

An executive from a large company once asked me what worthwhile organisation or group his company can contribute to.

I pointed them to a community in need of help for social change. They are children in estates who need assistance to enable them to stay in school. I told him that it would be better for him to visit the community in a somewhat remote area and understand their situation and needs.

The legwork proved to be a deterrent and so the company chose a children’s home in the Klang Valley instead. It was easier to arrange and provided ample photo opportunities for the company’s magazine.

There are many us who are willing to give and contribute. However, our giving can go further when it is done right.

For a start, we should go beyond being compassionate and generous, and instead be prepared to do due diligence to determine the deserving causes. This is called “informed giving” and it requires us to hold the organisation accountable so that the funds given are effectively used. It is not just giving, but following up for accountability and performance.

Sometimes it might be better to channel the funds raised to a reputable foundation to be administered instead of making the contributions direct. When I made this suggestion at a recent fundraising discussion, it was met with some laughter. Why would you give money to another organisation which already has so much money?

I know of trustees in a charitable foundation who diligently visit the communities they support. They want to see for themselves how the money is spent, whether the classroom has been built, and how the children who received financial aid were doing.

Just as the executive could not find the time to check out the community I recommended, many of us also do not have the time to do follow-up and accountability.

So we should consider those organisations which take the work of giving seriously. They are the ones that are managed professionally, with full transparency and accountability.

Companies and individuals can partner with such organisations which are more efficient and have a proven track record in helping others.

This is the reason why Warren Buffett gives such generous amounts to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to pass on to the right people. Buffet knows that he should just continue to do what he does best, which is to make a lot of money, rather than rolling up his sleeves to manage the giving directly.

There are many practices in companies which can be applied to social work to transform lives.

Like businesses, charitable organisations need the best leaders and people to execute the programmes.

Many of the issues faced are complex. We need to understand the issues and provide insights on the right solutions to address the root causes of the problems.

Which is why simply doing good is not enough. We need to move to “doing good well”.

TAKE ON CHANGE By JOAN HOI

● Joan is inspired and influenced by the book, Doing Good Well. What does (and does not) make sense in the non-profit world by Willie Cheng.

Related posts:
 Gen Y – they are different, deal with it
 Dressing stature 
 My home, my school  
Beware of Malaysian Chinese school leavers being lured into dubious degree and diploma programs ! 

 About Doing Good Well 

 The way we see the world can change the world. In this book, Willie Cheng frames and explains the nonprofit world while providing fresh insights as to where and why it works - or not. 

He covers a spectrum of nonprofit paradigms including:

•	The structure of the marketplace - challenging whether a “marketplace” truly exists.

•	Concepts of nonprofit management - disputing why charities must follow corporate mantras of growth and reserves accumulation.

•	Philanthropy and volunteerism - questioning the motivations of givers.

•	New social models of social enterprises, social entrepreneurship and venture philanthropy - seeking to explain why these may not have worked as intended.

•	Nonprofit quirks - showing how the rules can result in the extension of the rich/poor divide into the charity world and make fundraising inefficient through an efficiency ratio.

In describing his ideas through an easy writing style and hearty anecdotes, Cheng engages and provokes the reader with a strategic review of the status quo as well as the enormous potential in the nonprofit world. After all, as Cheng describes it, charity is no longer simply about “Just Doing Good” but “Doing Good Well.”

Time to reset East Asia

It has been a week full of dire implications for regional relations, even if nobody wants to admit it.

WHAT do Philippine-US joint naval exercises, a visiting Japanese Defence Minister and the World Peace Forum at Beijing’s prestigious Tsinghua University in recent days have in common?

Answer: disputed territorial claims in East Asian waters. More specifically, these events during the week have resonated particularly with disputed maritime claims involving China.

Although each of these occasions has had motivations of its own, maritime disputes as a recurrent theme makes them seem larger than intended. That illustrates the pervasive nature of territorial disputes in the region.

When politicians and diplomats wish to make a point beyond a standard statement, they look for opportune moments on which to frame that point. The week had provided three occasions for that: joint war games, a minister’s visit(s) and an international peace conference.

These events need not have anything to do with each other, even if they all kicked off on Thursday. But as it happened, the common theme linking them was unmistakable.

This year’s two-day World Peace Forum (WPF) at Tsinghua is only the second in an annual series, and already it is more ambitious in scope and attendance than last year’s. Among the assembled scholars and public intellectuals were a virtual who’s who of former national leaders from around the world.

June 27, 2013: Chinese Vice President Li Yuanchao addresses the Opening Ceremony of the World Peace Forum 2013 in Beijing, capital of China. (Xinhua/Xie Huanchi)

The WPF is a joint initiative between Tsinghua University and the China Institute of Foreign Affairs. It is described as China’s first high-level security forum for in-depth discussion on regional security issues.

Tsinghua, of course, is the alma mater of several Chinese leaders, including President Xi Jinping. The WPF’s Secretary-General is prominent Chinese academic and internationally respected intellectual Yan Xuetong, who is articulate in both Chinese and English.

Given its brief but impressive record, there is little doubt that the WPF will establish itself as the region’s leading security forum. This year’s theme was said to span innovative approaches to, and possible areas for, international security cooperation.

But however laudable these aims may be, they would have to wait. The value-added in the intended theme would have to come privately from researchers and scholars in due course, because the professional politicians and diplomats have so far produced little that is new.

Being from the host country, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Vice-President Li Yuanchao were among the few serving officials in attendance. They combined reassurances of China’s commitment to peace with firm warnings against rival claims to disputed territories.

Former Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, a delegate at the forum, caused a stir in Japan with a post-conference Beijing interview quoting him as saying that China’s disputed territorial claims were “inevitable”.

China and Japan remain locked in dispute over the Pinnacle Islands, which China calls Diaoyu and Japan calls Senkaku.

Hatoyama later clarified his comments by saying that he meant China’s claims were “understandable”, adding that he “won’t deny China’s position”. That only added to the furore in Tokyo.

Hatoyama is known to favour a more Asia-centric Japan over the country’s post-war Western-centrism. China has in turn looked to him to facilitate closer bilateral relations.

At the same time, Japanese Defence Minister Itsunori Onodera visited Manila for two-day talks on regional security issues. The focus of discussions was understood to be China’s recent assertiveness in regional waters.

Besides the Spratly Islands, the Philippines and China both claim sovereignty over Scarborough Shoal, which the Philippines calls Panatag Shoal and China calls Huangyan Island. That produced a months-long standoff between the two claimants last year, which technically remains today.

Philippine warships withdrew one year ago this month owing to bad weather, but Chinese naval vessels remained. The standoff has not been resolved and still appears to defy resolution.

Both countries also claim Second Thomas Shoal, which the Philippines calls Ayungin Shoal and China calls Ren’ai Jiao. Even the names of seas are in disagreement: the Philippines has taken to calling the South China Sea the West Philippine Sea.

Onodera’s visit can be seen in context when viewed together with events that follow. He continued his travel to Hawaii to discuss regional security issues with his US counterparts this weekend, as Asean Foreign Ministers met in Brunei last week

Meanwhile, the Philippines also launched joint military exercises with the US on Thursday. The six-day Carat (Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training) 2013 war games cover a wide range of contingency functions, including interoperability between the Philippine and US navies.

US destroyer USS Fitzgerald arrives at the former US naval base in Subic Bay, Olongapo City, north of Manila on June 27, 2013, to join the Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training (CARAT) exercises close to a flashpoint area of the South China Sea.

Manila is also considering allowing the US “and other allies” (principally, Japan) to use Philippine bases in case of military challenges over disputed territory from China.

The Philippine Constitution has since 1987 barred foreign military bases on Philippine soil. This includes the military bases of countries considered allies.

However, the Philippine government is currently tweaking all three words “foreign”, “military” and “bases” to allow what would functionally amount to foreign military bases in the country.

Foreign military forces may be permitted to enter Philippine military facilities with their vessels, equipment (including weapons and weapon systems) and troops. They may be permitted to stay for the duration of their needs, which cover repair, refuelling and re-supply.

There are no time limits for fulfilling these needs. So, in practice, ally countries may station their forces in the Philippines indefinitely.

In addition, US military forces including aircraft carrier fleets would be able to remain in and operate from adjacent waters. The option of foreign military “places, not bases” would continue, plus the use of “Philippine” military bases in the Philippines.

For Manila, all that would serve as a deterrent against any untoward challenges from Beijing. Neither the Philippines nor anyone else can imagine a straightforward one-on-one faceoff with China for any extended period, given the huge disparities between the two countries’ capacities.

But while on the surface tugging at big brother’s (US’ and/or Japan’s) coat sleeves may seem like a solution for Philippine policymakers, there are some serious problems with such an assumption.

How far can the Philippines expect a major power acting as patron to come to its aid as and when needed? Such a service, even if available, will exact a price that Filipinos may not find acceptable.

To what extent can such an obliging major power, if one exists, restrain provocative Philippine actions that invite retaliation? Would Manila be prepared to submit to such restraints?

And when push comes to shove, would any major power back Philippine actions to the hilt against China? The US and Japan have important economic and other ties to China they would be loath to jeopardise for a third party.

Adding to Manila’s anxieties is the Philippine uniqueness of having borders that are more amorphous and disputed than virtually any other country. It is something Philippine officials “understand” more than they care to admit, given the implications for foreign relations.

The 1987 Constitution tries to address the issue by limiting national territory to areas currently occupied by the national administration. But that has not stopped different interpretations of what constitutes “current occupation”.

Philippine officials are still working out the terms of an “access agreement” for its military bases with big-power allies, which would be consistent with the Constitution and the existing Visiting Forces Agreement. To be workable, the new agreement would also have to be consistent with reality.

BEHIND THE HEADLINES BY BUNN NAGARA

> Bunn Nagara is a Senior Fellow at ISIS (Institute of Strategic and International Studies) Malaysia.
  
Related posts:
Who owns the South China Sea islets in the eyes of the world ... 
 Chinese Navy defends South China Sea
China's warns US of Confrontation over South China Sea
Restoring unity at South China Sea 
No one can stop China in South China Sea but China ... 
Who owns Diaoyu Islands? 
China's vessels patrol Diaoyu Islands after Japan ... 
Japanese right-wingers seek political gains landed on Diaoyu Islands 
Japan's strategic offensive, from Diaoyu Islands to Nay ... 
Japan stole Diaoyu Islands 
Japan's buying Diaoyu Islands provokes China to strike ...
China defense ministry acts as Japan buys its Diaoyu Islands
China sends fighters to counter Japan's war planes 
Dispute with China takes toll on Japan