When we look around us, it should be apparent that in those countries, which are generally labelled as “developed”, there is a distinct feeling that they treat one another better than those like us, who fall into the class of the “developing” or “under developed”. We are constantly reminded that we should model ourselves in the way that Singapore has done. It is ironic that Lee Kwan Yu, in an early visit declared that Singapore should consider Ceylon as a role model. See where we stand now – the tables have turned! For a proper insight, two books by LKY should be required reading for all. These are “The Singapore Story” and “From Third World to First”. These are almost an Autobiographies and show the importance of objectivity, integrity, commonsense, decency, pragmatism and hard work. Just download “The Singapore Cabinet” for a glimpse of a current meritocracy. Many would be qualified enough to adorn the faculty of almost any top-rate University anywhere in the World. The NUS (National University of Singapore ranks among the best – rubbing shoulders with Princeton, Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Oxford and Cambridge.
Because of our stated aim is to become like Singapore (even to rival it) I choose to dwell in slight detail on a few requisites to reach such a goal. I was struck by the recognition by LKY, a product of the London School of Economics (LSE), who set about “greening” the City and thereby enhancing its “livability”. He reasoned (correctly) that Singapore being a Tropical island and within the Monsoon Zone, its soil would be impoverished and subject to leaching and thus acidification. Therefore, heavy liming would be the first step in rectifying this. To answer the question, “what should we plant”? He sent a team of scientists to scour the World to identify the best trees and shrubs to help develop a “Garden City”. Aesthetics and layout were paramount. The result is there for all to see. The humility and wisdom to be guided by persons who know the subject best, is paramount. The arrogance of persons who use “I” instead of “We” should cease. “I won the War” or “I will do it” are manifestations of a serious inferiority complex.
LKY saw that the Chinese by habit, spat everywhere. Chewing tobacco, gum and smoking in public were wisely prohibited, especially on the metro, where not uncommonly, spent chewing gum was stuck under the seats. Result – further banning. Some complain that Singapore is a Police State or a dictatorship. But it has worked – to provide its inhabitants with an orderly, efficient and safe community. When Singapore was virtually expelled from Malaysia, due to a latent fear of Chinese influence, which in turn fueled preferential treatment to the “Bhumiputhras” in Malaysia (as in the claimed in the uncritical era of “The Common Man”) The more shrewd Singaporeans realized that the best way to meet internal fears, was to avoid any feelings of partiality or bias, and set in place, Laws which applied to all. English was the language of education, administration and commerce (simply because language was essentially a means of effective communication, providing access to reservoirs of knowledge and devoid of emotional overtones, thereby cleverly avoiding any attempt to impose Mandarin, or Indian languages). All Singaporeans speak English and are comfortable and employable in a great part of the World. We must realize what controversy, costs of conflict, and virtual isolation has done to us.Isolationism is fatal in a World, where progress in technological and scientific spheres is very rapid and lost time is truly irrecoverable. It is more than likely that succeeding generations will curse us for crippling them intellectually.
It is said that the character of a nation reflects in the way they drive their cars. How do we shape up with continuous and annoying horns being blown, Three-wheeler drivers who weave in and out of lanes, pedestrians and cyclists all over, malfunctioning traffic lights, scant regard for traffic rules, non-observance of give way to traffic on your right, thoughtless parking and general incivility towards other users. Poor marks on this account.
Words like “please, thank you and excuse me” are not in most vocabularies, equals are “machang”, elders are “uncles”. Few address seniors as “sir” or “madam”. In most cultures, people greet each other with a “Good Morning” and part with a “Cheerio” or “Take care”. We have the most beautiful “Ayubowan” – may you live long – but seldom use it. It says that you need several dozen facial muscles to frown, but very few to smile. Many in authority seem not to bother. Good cheer is infectious and adversity easier to bear when shared. There is much truth in the definition of a diplomat as “He is one who can tell someone to go to hell in such a nice manner, that he looks forward to the journey”. Let us all endeavor to be diplomats, although we wish such unfortunate occasions where immunity need to be invoked, will not arise. Presently, 90% or more time of bureaucrats accounts for policing, regulating, controlling activities and preventing misuse, and perhaps 10 -15% on really productive work. It is probable that in the more advanced countries, the ratio is reversed. Their procedures are designed for convenience of their clientele – the people whose convenience is a primary consideration. Anyone who betrays that trust, invites the full force of the Law, and nothing of pedigree or interference will prevent this. We treat everyone as a rogue, thus erecting barriers that amount to persecution, of those who seek to get something useful done. On the rare occasions when criminal behavior is detected, the culprit escapes by paying a “something” or by political interference by the high and mighty. Innocents are harassed and crooks escape. Can this lead possibly to progress and “better governance”? I think not. For example, if four different arms of the administration, all require “originals “of a document for their files, what does one do? It is only a matter of time, before a visa application has a cage which asks “Have you ever successfully committed suicide”?
Conservative leadership candidates including Boris Johnson hoping to force a “deal or no deal” Brexit in October have been handed a boost after MPs defeated a Labour-led attempt to tie the next prime minister’s hands.
Labour vowed it would not end efforts to stop no deal but the defeat bolstered Johnson’s claim at his leadership launch that MPs would not be prepared to “reap the whirlwind” of halting Brexit entirely as Tory MPs prepared for the first round on voting to choose the next prime minister on Thursday.
Tory MPs cheered as the motion was defeated by a majority of 11 on Wednesday night, after which Jeremy Corbyn was heard to say: “You won’t be cheering in September.”
The former Conservative MP Nick Boles warned opponents of a no-deal departure were fast running out of options – apart from a confidence vote to bring down the government. “No-deal Brexit on 31 October is back to being a racing certainty,” he said. “It is very hard to see where any further legislative opportunities will come from. So it’s now a question of politics – specifically whether a PM pursuing a no-deal Brexit can command and sustain the confidence of the House of Commons.”
Johnson officially launched his campaign on Wednesday saying he believed a new government “with a new mandate, a new optimism, a new determination” could leave the EU with an amended deal by 31 October.
“I am not aiming for a no-deal outcome, I don’t think we can end up with any such thing. But it is only responsible to prepare vigorously and seriously,” he said.
Johnson refused to say what he would do if he had not secured an improved deal in time for 31 October – or whether he would resign if the deadline were not met or no deal was prevented.
Speaking after the defeat in the Commons, the shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, said Labour would continue its cross-party efforts to stop no deal.
“Labour stands ready to use whatever mechanism it can to protect jobs, the economy and communities from the disastrous consequences of a no-deal Brexit,” he said. “Any Tory leadership candidate should know that parliament will continue to fight against no deal.”
One shadow minister said opponents of a no-deal Brexit had missed a crucial opportunity and believed they had been scuppered by the timing. “This isn’t the end of it. We’ll just have to be doubly creative,” they said. “The timing in the midst of [the] Tory leadership [contest] is poor, but not our choice.”
Eight Labour MPs including Caroline Flint, John Mann and Graham Stringer voted with the government against the motion and 13 more abstained. Ten Conservative MPs voted with Labour.
The debate before the vote revealed fraying tempers in all wings of both parties. The Labour MP Gareth Snell, who represents the leave-voting seat of Stoke-on-Trent Central, said he regretted not voting for Theresa May’s Brexit agreement. He said he would abstain because he could not countenance parliamentary manoeuvres that would lead to a further delay.
“We will have been responsible for a no-deal Brexit by default because of our inability to make a decision,” Snell said.
The former attorney general Dominic Grieve said he was prepared to resign the Conservative whip and go against the government in a no-confidence vote if it would prevent a no-deal Brexit. “I simply have to say, here and now, I will not hesitate to do that if that is what is attempted,” he said.
The motion proposed giving MPs control of the parliamentary agenda in a fortnight’s time. That day could then have been used to begin legislation to prevent the UK from leaving the EU without a deal, though it is uncertain what form this would take.
Speaking in the debate, Starmer said MPs had been forced to act because of suggestions from leadership candidates including Johnson and Dominic Raab that the UK would leave – come what may – on 31 October. Raab had even suggested he would be prepared to prorogue parliament to stop MPs’ efforts to prevent a no-deal Brexit.
“It will introduce a safety valve in the Brexit process and it will be a reminder to all Conservative leadership candidates that this house will take every step necessary to prevent a no deal,” Starmer said.
The motion, which Labour tabled during an opposition day debate, was signed by the former Conservative minister Oliver Letwin and the leaders of the Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru, the Liberal Democrats and the Green party.
The Brexit secretary, Steve Barclay, said it was a “blind motion” that gave no indication as to what path MPs would try to pursue to block a no-deal departure, and would have “virtually unlimited scope”.
Tory MPs who said they intended to back the plan included Grieve, Antoinette Sandbach, Sam Gyimah and Jonathan Djanogly, plus Boles, who had flown back to the UK specifically to vote on the motion.
MPs working across parties believed it was essential to try to start efforts to halt a no-deal Brexit before the next prime minister was installed and prior to the start of the summer recess. There are no further opposition day debates scheduled.
Tory leadership candidates including Matt Hancock and Rory Stewart, who have opposed no deal, had earlier made it clear they would not back the motion.
But Hancock told the Guardian: “It’s no good just having a Brexit position that is built on either re-running the old plan, which failed; or threatening no deal, when parliament has voted in the past already to block no deal. No deal isn’t a policy choice that is available to the next prime minister.”
Earlier, Philip Hammond said Johnson’s Brexit plan was impossible as the UK will not be able to leave the EU with a deal or without a deal by the end of October.
Hammond cast doubt on the viability of the Brexit promises of Johnson and other Tory leadership contenders as he gave a speech in Westminster.
He said many of the candidates were pledging things that they could not deliver. Asked whether Johnson’s plan to leave on 31 October would work, he said: “I don’t think so … I think it’s not sensible for candidates to box themselves into a corner on this. Parliament will not allow a no-deal exit from the EU and our experience has suggested it may not be that easy to secure a deal in parliament.”
The idea of leaving with a deal by that date would be “very difficult or impossible”, he said.
Leadership contender Jeremy Hunt was also asked about Hammond’s comments and said: “This is a time for skilled negotiation and not empty threats. I’ve always wanted to keep no deal on the table as one of our negotiating levers but we can’t be blind to the fact that there is a strong majority in parliament against no deal and it’s likely that parliament would find a way to block no deal if that was being pursued by the prime minister.
“That’s why we need to find a way through this that gets us a deal. And if we want Brexit we need to choose a prime minister who can get us a deal.”
The best way to deal with U.S. President Donald Trump, especially if you are a foreign government negotiating trade issues, is to give him a little win.
It doesn’t have to be big and important; he’s mainly interested in declaring a triumph, and he’ll supply the hot air to inflate your little concession into an allegedly major defeat free of charge. Just remember to look crest-fallen, and you’re home and dry.
Thus, for example, Trump’s recent “triumph” over Mexico. He threatens escalating tariffs against Mexico, the Mexicans cave in after 10 days, and the border problem is solved (until the next time he needs it).
Only the nerds notice that the Mexican “concessions” are almost all actions that Mexico had already promised to take in quiet, orderly discussions with the United States between December and March.
The Canadians did even better when renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement. Trump called it the “the worst deal ever signed,” but several clauses in the old treaty that Ottawa disliked were dropped.
The only Canadian concession was to give U.S. dairy producers access to 10 per cent of the Canadian milk market (that’s just three million people) – if they can persuade those Canadians to buy their bovine growth hormone-treated milk.
A very small price to pay, but nobody in Canada was so foolish as to crow out loud that they had seen the Americans off. The Canadian negotiators looked suitably hangdog and defeated, and Trump claimed the credit for a “great deal” and a “historic transaction.”
And so to the grand drama of Trump’s tariff war with China. This one ought to be a no-brainer, because China is in an extremely vulnerable position.
Its exports to America are worth almost three times as much as U.S. exports to China, so it really cannot afford to lose the U.S. market.
Chinese President Xi Jinping should just give Trump enough to make him happy – he’s easily pleased – and move on to the next problem.
To the extent that Trump calculates his moves beforehand, this would have been his calculation, and it is logically correct. But it didn’t work out that way: after a year of escalation and counter-escalation, the two countries are nearing the point where they will have imposed 25 per cent tariffs on all of each other’s exports. What went wrong?
Trump issued his usual threats and was the first to escalate at every step of the dance, but if the Mexicans and the Canadians can work around his histrionics, why can’t the Chinese?
Maybe it’s just pride: Xi simply can’t abide the vision of Trump capering with joy as he celebrates his victory over the Chinese.
Or maybe it’s fear: letting Trump have a victory (and a real one, this time) would so humiliate Xi in the eyes of his own colleagues and rivals, that his own position would be in danger.
It’s probably the latter. The negotiations seemed to be going well, with Trump predicting an “epic” deal and praising his dear friend Xi.
Then suddenly in early May, the White House complained that China was trying to re-negotiate points previously agreed to, and the whole thing fell apart.
It feels like Xi lost an argument at home – which would imply that he is considerably less secure in power than everybody assumed.
In either case, Xi is making a big mistake. The Chinese economy is not doing well. Factory output is declining, and new car sales fell last year for the first time since 1990.
China’s total debt, even on untrustworthy official figures, is nearing three times annual GDP, which is the level where panic usually sets in.
In fact, it’s the level at which Japan’s three-decade economic depression began in 1991.
Strip out all the unproductive investment and creative accountancy, and Chinese GDP grew last year by less than two per cent. Employment is stagnant, retail sales are falling, the stock market dropped by a quarter last year. This is not an economy in good shape to withstand a prolonged trade war.
The great fear of the Chinese Communist Party is that people will turn against the regime if the economy stalls and living standards stop rising.
They certainly don’t love the regime. Why else would they obey it? This theory may be tested to destruction in the next few years.
So if Xi is not free to do a trade deal with the U.S., and the Chinese economy tanks, what must he do to save Communist rule and his own power?
He will need a foreign war, or at least the threat of one, in order to get nationalism on his side. Not war with the United States, of course. That would be crazy. But Taiwan would do nicely.
And this is one that you really can’t blame on Trump.
Gwynne Dyer’s new book is Growing Pains: The Future of Democracy (and Work).
The way of life has become Islamized to the point where there is little place for other religions and traditions. Food, dress codes, entertainment, education, the civil service, government, police and the military are all Islamized.
by Murray Hunter-2019-06-12
Love him or hate him, Mahathir Mohamed during his first stint as prime minister was able to instill a great sense of national pride and unity.
Mahathir went on a massive infrastructure drive. Most Malaysians were proud of the Penang Bridge that finally linked the island with the mainland. The North-South Highway project changed the nature of commuting up and down the peninsula. Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA) was built and the development of Putra Jaya gave the country a new seat of administration.
Mahathir’s fait accompli was the building of the KLCC towers in central Kuala Lumpur, which were the tallest in the world at the time. These buildings are now the country’s major icon. Langkawi became a must holiday place for Malaysians. He brought elite Formula One motor racing and built a special purpose circuit for the event. He promoted the Tour de Langkawi as a local version of the Tour de France. He spared no expense on building massive new sporting complexes at Bukit Jalil to host the Commonwealth Games in 1998.
When the member nations of ASEAN abandoned the idea to build a regional car, Mahathir went alone, picking up old technology from Mitsubishi, creating the Proton Saga for better or worse although the national car project has been roundly criticized for losing hundreds of millions of dollars and costing more in terms of consumer lost opportunity.
Nonetheless, Malaysia became an Asian Tiger and Mahathir himself became an outspoken leader internationally. The country was proud of what it had achieved. He knew the value of national symbols. The slogan Malaysia Boleh (Malaysia Can) was often heard along with the waving of the Jalur Gemilang (stripes of glory – Malaysian Flag) at public displays of national pride and unity.
The Barisan Nasional was a working government coalition that symbolized national unity through the make-up of the cabinet and its true multi-ethnic flavor. Ministers like Samy Vellu from the Malaysian India Congress and Ling Liong Sik from the Malaysian Chinese Association had high public profiles.
Although Mahathir was labeled as an ultra-conservative Malay, he worked with anyone who could help him fulfil his vision. Businessmen like Vincent Tan, Robert Kuok, Lim Goh Tong, Ananda Krishnan, and Tony Fernandez all had very close relationships with Mahathir. Malaysia Inc. was more important to Mahathir than Malay supremacy.
That’s now 30 years ago. The prime casualty has been national pride and unity. The generally positive perception of the Mahathir era drastically changed when he abruptly sacked his deputy Anwar Ibrahim from office in 1998. The accusations and conviction of Anwar for sodomy polarized the population. The goodwill that Mahathir had built up over more than 25 years in public life was put into question.
Although it was his intention to eliminate his nemesis Anwar from politics, he made sodomy a household word in a conservative society, taking luster away from his legacy. He was painted by the Anwar propaganda machine and the alternative media as a tyrant with millions of dollars hidden away in foreign banks. In addition, two years of headlines and court reports about Anwar’s sodomy trial took away a sense of innocence, showing Malaysia’s ‘dark side’ with TV pictures showing a stained mattress being carted into and out of court every day on which Anwar was convicted of performing sodomy.
Under weak successors, belief in government further faltered. Respect for national leaders took another hit with Mahathir’s successor Ahmad Badawi painted as someone who slept on the job and enjoyed a luxurious lifestyle while many suffered economically. Badawi was painted by the PKR propaganda machine as corrupt. The dealings of his son-in-law and political adviser Khairy Jamaluddin were portrayed as corrupt nepotism.
Mahathir engineered an ungraceful exit for Badawi, replacing him with Najib Razak in 2009. The Najib premiership was tainted from the outset with rumors of murder and corruption. Najib’s wife Rosmah also became an object of ridicule, bringing respect for the institution of government to an all-time low.
However, it’s not just the corruption of politicians that destroyed respect for Malaysian institutions. The rakyat (people) have always wanted to believe in royalty. Even with stories about royal misdoings, there is no real talk of abolishing the monarchy. Whenever a member of one of the royal families acts in the interests of the rakyat, there has always been public praise and support. However, when members of a royal family act against the interests of the rakyat, the social media react.
Stories have been circulating for years about the misdeeds of Johor Royal Family. The current spat between Tunku Ismail, the Johor Crown Prince, commonly known as TMJ and Mahathir is extremely damaging for the royal institutions. Only the sedition act, a de facto lese-majeste law, is protecting the institution from much wider criticism.
Royal decorations and titles, VVIP service in government offices and special treatment for some citizens over others, shows a muddled Malaysia still clinging to the vestiges of feudalism. These artefacts are doing nothing to unite the country, a hangover from the old days of colonial class distinction.
However, the most powerful source of destruction for national pride and unity is the ketuanan Melayu (Malay Superiority) narrative which has become much more extreme. One of the basic assumptions is that bumiputeras — indigenous peoples – are the rightful owners of the land. From the point of view of the ketuanan proponents, land is not seen as a national symbol and non-Malays are excluded. This is a great barrier to developing any sense of national pride and unity.
The gulf between Malay and non-Malay has widened dramatically over the last two generations as Islam has grown into a major aspect of Malay identity. Citizens once celebrated their diverse ethnicities in harmony. Decrees made in the name of Islam now discourage this. No longer are Hari Raya, Chinese New Year, Deepavali and Christmas shared Malaysian experiences.
The way of life has become Islamized to the point where there is little place for other religions and traditions. Food, dress codes, entertainment, education, the civil service, government, police and the military are all Islamized.
Shared apprehensions about what Malaysia will be have caused the Chinese to close ranks. The influence of Ketuanan Melayu in government policy excludes non-Malay participation in many fields like education, civil service and the military, etc. The younger generation of Chinese today tend to see themselves as Chinese first and Malaysians second. Chinese schools promote language and a strong sense of Chinese culture over a Malaysian identity as a mass defence mechanism.
The New Economic Policy, put in place in 1969 after disastrous race riots as an affirmative action program for the majority Malays, has also done a disservice to those it was designed to help. The thesis of Mahathir’s book The Malay Dilemma was that Malays were basically lazy and needed help from the government is the faulty grounding assumption. The NEP is actually an attack on Malay self-esteem.
Rather than offering something spiritual, Islam has become a doctrine of conformity, where particular rights and rituals must legally be adhered to. Failure to do so in the case of not fasting during Ramadan can lead to punitive legal action. Any views outside narrow social norms lead to heavy criticism. Just recently the Islamic authorities (JAKIM) in Selangor started investigating a discussion forum on women’s choice about wearing the hijab. Not just freedom of discussion is stifled, but also the right to be creative.
Islam has buried the principles of Rukun Negara (national principles), the supposed guiding philosophy of the nation. Rukun Negara was once a symbol of national pride and unity but has almost totally been replaced by a Doa (or prayer) before public events. A sense of nation has been sacrificed for the Islamization of public gatherings. As dr. Djawed Sangdel excellently explained in his 5Es general developmental theory for XXI century, “social consensus makes or breaks nation”.
Today we see much less flag-waving during the Merdeka season. There are more divisional narratives on all ethnic sides. There is disappointment with the political system. Islam is seen by many as something overpowering rather than emancipating. People feel they need to conform to be accepted in society.
National pride and unity are at their lowest ebb since independence, where after 30 years of education the younger generations of Malays see Islam as more important than nationalism. Chinese and Indians are apprehensive about what Malaysia is turning into. Even the Orang Asli – the original inhabitants of the peninsula before the arrival of ethnic Malays from Indonesia — and non-Muslim indigenous people of Sabah and Sarawak identify as second-class.
Malaysia has travelled far away from the aspirations of Tunku Abdul Rahman when the Jalur Gemilang was raised for the first time over a free Malaya in 1957. Malaysia’s economic prosperity is relatively declining in the region and the nation is increasingly strangled by the need to conform. Malaysia appears to be a ship without a rudder, its reform agenda locked away under the Official Secrets Act.
The possibility of racial violence festering once again cannot be overlooked. Divisive narratives are being pushed until one day an unknown tipping point could be reached. The strong sense of social conformity, the exclusion of a national sense of ownership to all, the current totalitarian nature of authority and ketuanan Melayu narratives are a very dangerous mix.
Prof. Murray Hunter is an Australian scholar and prolific writer. A long time Asian affairs insider, he is author of several books for the US publishers.
Around a decade ago, Abdullah Damra – aka Vertex – was learning to memorize the Quran when an underground breakdance scene emerged in the refugee camps of Nablus city in the occupied West Bank.
“I come from a very religious family, so I wasn’t allowed to watch movies or even listen to music,” Abdullah, 22, told The Electronic Intifada. “So the first time I saw this dance, it was super new to me. I didn’t even think humans could move like that.”
Breakdancing took hold in the refugee camps of Nablus around the mid-2000s, and 13-year-old Abdullah “quickly became obsessed,” along with dozens of other teenagers who now form part of a dynamic breakdance scene in the northern West Bank city.
According to the dancers, breakdancing was first introduced into Nablus by Samir Samahneh – aka Abu Mosleh. Samir, now 35, and his brother Muhammad – aka Barges – were born in Saudi Arabia and moved to Askar refugee camp in Nablus in 2002.
Samir, who was a teenager at the time, lived in Jordan for a year, where he learned the dance style. When he returned to Askar camp, he began breakdancing and “popping” – a style where dancers jerk their muscles to the rhythm of the music – on the streets of the camp and at weddings.
Muhammad began emulating his brother.
“I was watching him, and I started to try some moves in front of the mirror,” the now 28-year-old told The Electronic Intifada.
First steps
Gradually their circle expanded.
Amir Sabra is also a resident of Askar and started breakdancing when he was 16.
“In the camp, it wasn’t like Abu Mosleh and Barges were giving classes,” the 24-year-old said. “It was more like all the people came together and we were all just learning from each other.”
The year 2006 saw the formation of what the dancers said was the West Bank’s first ever breakdance crew, Hawiya or ID card, a reference to the permit regime Israel operates to control the movement of Palestinians.
The group consisted of seven members, including Samir, Muhammad and Sabra.
Abdullah Damra (aka Vertex) from the Stereo 48 group.
Jaclynn Ashly
Abdullah and his cousin Hamza Damra, who both live between Askar and Balata camps, began sneaking out of their conservative homes to practice their breakdancing skills in Askar.
“I was attracted to the dance because it was different. It was a completely different culture,” Hamza, 22, told The Electronic Intifada. He was 13 when he started.
Hamza said he found new freedom in a dance that allowed him to break free of many constraints, traditional and those imposed by Israel’s more than half-century military occupation of the West Bank.
“My family didn’t like what I was doing when they found out,” Hamza said, adding that in his family dancing is not considered acceptable for men.
“[But] breakdancing allowed me to be whatever I wanted to be and move however I wanted to. I started to feel something different. I felt happy. I found myself,” he said.
The dance spread throughout the city’s refugee camps and beyond, attracting curious teenagers from all over the area. Soon enough, dance groups began springing up around the city and competitions were organized.
Overcoming divisions
Following the formation of Hawiya, other teenagers in Nablus also organized their own dance crews. Abdullah and Hamza established the Black Devils crew. Other groups included Outlaw, Street Mafia and Street Kings Forever.
Muhammad and Samir also began to give breakdance lessons to children in villages in and around Nablus.
“I wanted to tell people how you can tell your story through this kind of music, and through bodies and feelings,” Muhammad explained.
“We were teaching the kids that each one has a story to tell,” he added. “They don’t have to fight or hold a gun or throw stones. They can resist this situation through movement.”
Unknown to the young breakdancers in Nablus, a similar scene emerged in the Gaza Strip at around the same time.
Ahmed Alghariz – aka Shark – told The Electronic Intifada that his brother, Muhammad – aka Funk – was the first breakdancer in Gaza and introduced the dance style to children and youth around their home in Nuseirat refugee camp.
Ahmed, who was 15 at the time, and Muhammad established what is said to be Palestine’s first breakdance group, Camps Breakerz in 2004, with about 10 dancers.
In 2009, the group participated in a project with Save the Children where it used breakdancing as psychological treatment following Operation Cast Lead – the Israeli military offensive on Gaza in late 2008 and early 2009 that killed at least 1,383 Palestinians, including 333 children, according to the UN.
Ahmed, now 29, said the experience made the dancers realize the power of dance as a tool to overcome trauma, and decided to send each member to a different region in the Gaza Strip with the goal of spreading the dance and to promote hip-hop culture in Palestine.
Putting Palestine on the map
It was not until 2011 when the dancers participated in a project in Amman, Jordan, with counterparts from around the world that the breakdance scenes in Nablus and Gaza finally discovered each other.
Owing to Israel’s more than decade-long blockade on the Gaza Strip, movement between the West Bank and the besieged coastal enclave is severely restricted and Palestinians living in either territory are not permitted to meet one another inside occupied Palestine.
Ahmed and other breakdancers in Gaza did later try to obtain permits to exit the Strip in order to perform with the dancers in Nablus. However, all of their attempts were, and continue to be, rejected by Israel’s military authorities.
To make up for one such thwarted collaboration, the breakdancers in Gaza instead made a video of their choreography and sent it to the crew in Nablus. The Nablus boys then learned the choreography and performed alongside a projection of the video from Gaza.
“So you can say that in the end we kind of performed together,” Abdullah said, chuckling.
Ahmed, who has resided in Germany since 2015, and other members of “Camps Breakerz” established the CB Crew School in 2012 to teach breakdance in the Gaza Strip.
Members of dance group Stereo 48, Nasrallah Damra, Abdullah Damra and Amir Sabra.
Jaclynn Ashly
Abdullah, Hamza, Sabra and Muhammad Samahneh went on to establish the breakdance group Stereo 48 in 2014.
In 2016, Abdullah traveled for a competition in Denmark. He recounted a moment when one of the other dancers asked him where he was from.
“I told him: ‘Palestine.’”
“What is that,” Abdullah said the dancer asked in response.
“I asked him, ‘Do you know Israel?’ And, of course, he did. So I explained to him that Israel is occupying my country.”
“After that, I started to realize that what we’re doing is really important. We’re putting Palestine on the map,” he said.
Family skepticism
While many of the youth around the camps and villages in Nablus fell in love with the hip-hop and breakdance scene, it was not readily accepted by the dancers’ families or the wider community.
“I think all of us have this feeling that our families are ashamed of us,” Sabra said.
With social pressure on families to ensure good careers for their children around which they can build families, dancing is not seen as a viable option for the future, he added.
“In Palestine, there is this showing-off culture,” Sabra told The Electronic Intifada. “My mom is a teacher, and when she goes to the teachers’ lounge, everyone is saying: ‘My son is an engineer’ or something else. So it’s hard when my mom has to say, ‘My son is a dancer.’”
“We put them in this situation,” Sabra conceded.
Abdullah, who grew up in a strict and conservative household, and his 17-year-old brother Nasrallah – aka DNA and the youngest member of Stereo 48 – face daily criticism from their father because of their chosen lifestyles.
Abdullah recounts an incident when his father attempted to convince him to give up dancing.
“He told me to come work at his shop in the Old City, and that he would give me a good salary and buy me a car.”
Abdullah protested: “Even all of my friends are dancers. If I gave it up, what would I speak to my friends about?”
His father replied: “Just change them. You will find better friends,” Abdullah recalled, as the dancers laughed.
“Every man here has the dream of building a house and getting married,” Sabra added. “But we quit this dream. We are addicted. Even when I’m riding in a taxi, I’m thinking about dancing. If I gave it up, what would I even think about?”
“I don’t think I could live if I couldn’t dance.”
Community vs. “Western culture”
The breakdancers have worked to introduce elements of the traditional Palestinian dabke into breakdancing in order to “try and connect with the community,” Sabra said.
But they often face community objections and difficulties finding spaces in Nablus to dance, and if they try in public, according to Ameed Sayeh – aka Sai, 19 – police often stop them.
“They will tell us to stop and move on, and that we are not allowed to do this on the street because it’s not allowed in our culture,” he said.
Nasrallah Damra is the youngest member of Stereo 48.
Jaclynn Ashly
In Gaza, meanwhile, “Camps Breakerz” incorporated issues and stories relevant to the Palestinian struggle into their performances to push for the dance to become better accepted among the local community.
“The community didn’t start to support it, but they came to accept it,” Ahmed told The Electronic Intifada. “In the beginning, they were always saying that this is Western culture and not our culture. But with time, we put on more and more shows. This was the way we spread dancing in the Gaza Strip.”
The dancers also gained more trust from the community after they repurposed their dance school into a shelter to house some 50 people who had fled their homes to escape Israel’s airstrikes in the 2014 Gaza assault – which resulted in the deaths of 2,251 Palestinians, 551 of whom were children, and more than 100,000 were made homeless.
Owing to the indiscriminate nature of the airstrikes, many families fled their homes for schools and other institutions, believing them to be safe spaces.
“After this, the community began to trust us,” he said, and even allowed girls to be trained in the breakdance style, creating a new generation of girl breakdancers in the besieged territory.
The dancers agree that a powerful attraction to the dance is the ability to express everyday frustrations, but leaving it up to interpretation. According to Sabra, Palestinians are “depressed” and “tired” of constantly speaking about the Israeli occupation.
Dancing is freedom
Occupation is the defining characteristic of Palestinian life, Sabra said, but “we are not just occupied. I also want to speak as a human, and I want people to be able to relate to me. And we do not want people to feel sorry for us.”
“Palestine is not the best place,” he added. “We don’t live in Switzerland. But we still experience happiness and we have normal lives. Like people adapt their lives around snow, we have adapted our lives around occupation.”
For Sabra, it is important for artists to explore many issues in their daily lives, and not just reduce Palestinian life to a one-dimensional experience of occupation.
From left to right: Feras Ad, Muhammad Samahneh, Hoba Hmidan, Ameed Sayeh and Eslam Niaje.
Jaclynn Ashly
“With dancing, we have a chance to speak about these things, without actually speaking,” he said. “People get bored. Everyone knows what’s happening, so why tell us again?”
“But with dancing, I felt a lot of freedom. I can express anything, even personal issues that no one wants to hear. And I feel good because I expressed it, and the audience feels good because they saw whatever they wanted to.”
The breakdancers, both in Nablus and Gaza, have continued to organize dance classes in cities, refugee camps, villages, and even abroad. Abdullah, who heads the workshops for Stereo 48, says he focuses on giving Palestinian children “a feeling of hope.”
There are many “bad habits” in refugee camps, some of the dancers pointed out, including substance abuse and a variety of mental health issues. Owing to the restrictive conditions placed on young Palestinians, both from their society and the occupation, people feel trapped.
“Dance is a form of freedom of movement,” Sabra said. “No one can really control how you move. And this is what we [Palestinians] need.”
“Dancing gives us freedom.”
Jaclynn Ashly is a journalist based in the West Bank.
With the help of only five (or nine) symbols the post office is able to find the destination fast and easy.
Jun-12-2019
(SALEM, Ore.) - Do you often send letters? If not, then it's very possible you have wondered about that strange set of numbers at the end of the mailing address. Some people are sure that those numbers aren't important and omit the ZIP code. In a couple of days, they get their mail back.
So, why is the ZIP code an essential part of postal service? What does it actually mean? Let’s get acquainted with these seemingly erroneous numbers. There are 5 facts you may be interested to know:
1. History
ZIP is an abbreviation that stands for Zone Improvement Plan. It was designed and launched in the USA in 1963. Still, the very first postal code appeared 20 years earlier in Germany. Nowadays every country has its own postal system, and may differ from the American one. It may include letters and symbols as well. In some countries it may even be called something else, "index" for instance.
2. Functions
Thanks to the introduction of the Zone Improvement Plan Code, the effectiveness of the postal services has increased significantly. Up-to-date, the postcode is crucial in the following fields:
mail delivery;
credit card security;
healthcare services;
insurance;
tourism
We live in a digital world. It should not a big surprise for us that even our address is codified. The numerous online services allow us to find any city knowing only its postcode or vice versa. You have to enter “zip code lookup by city” and enjoy the results. It’s very convenient when you order something on the Net.
3. Meaning
No matter what it is called and where it is used, the postcode possesses definite meaning. The set of numbers codifies definite area. It’s not always possible to note the whole address, but if the ZIP code is correct, your chances are good for it's success. With the help of only five (or nine) symbols the post office is able to find the destination fast and easy. That is, if you’ve noted the code correctly, of course.
Every number (or letter) determines one of the following:
the city;
the state;
the country;
the area;
the regional postal facilities;
local zone
It’s very important to put the number in the right order.
4. The most interesting ZIP codes
Perhaps, the residents of Newton Falls, Ohio, and General Electric in Schenectady, New York, are the luckiest people in terms of cool ZIP codes. They needn't work hard to memorize their ZIP codes... The first one is 44444 and the second one – 12345.
99950 is the highest postcode in the US. The variant 99999 doesn’t exist. This code belongs to Ketchikan, AK. The numbers 90210 are well-known to the youngsters of the 90's. It’s a code of Beverly Hills, California. It has become so popular thanks to the same name TV series.
5. How to get a personal code
You will have to become the President to get your personal ZIP code. He and his family have personal secret post codes.
However, there is another option. You actually can get a unique ZIP code in the United States if you rent a post office box at a post office. Every post office box has its own unique 9-digit ZIP code. No, it's not a “personal” ZIP code, the code belongs to the box you rented. But, as long as you’re the renter, it is uniquely yours.
Now you know that those strange numbers at the end of your address aren’t just numbers. They are a methodical plan to find the area your mail is destined for. And it works!
President Trump has threatened to take legal action if Democrats try to impeach him, musing that he’ll “sue.”He has peppered confidants and advisers with questions about how an impeachment inquiry might unfold.And he has coined his own cheeky term — “the I-word” — to refer to the legal and political morass that threatens to overshadow his presidency as he heads into his 2020 reelection campaign.
As Democrats struggle with how to handle calls from their liberal flank to impeach the president, Trump himself is eager to avoid such proceedings — while also fixated on his belief that Democrats can’t impeach him because he has done nothing wrong, according to interviews with 15 White House aides, outside advisers, Republican lawmakers and friends, many of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to share candid conversations.
The president is intrigued by the notion of impeachment but wary of its practical dangers, one outside adviser said. Trump remembers how Republican impeachment proceedings in the late 1990s against President Bill Clinton seemed to boost Clinton’s approval ratings, and Trump is at his best when battling a perceived foe, several advisers added.
Yet he also views impeachment in deeply personal terms. He is less concerned about the potential historical stain on his legacy — Clinton and Andrew Johnson are the only presidents to have been impeached — and more about what he sees as yet another Democratic attack on the legitimacy of his presidency, according to an outside adviser and a White House aide.
The focus on impeachment comes as Democrats on Tuesday escalated their fight with Trump over congressional oversight, voting to go to court in an attempt to force Attorney General William P. Barr and former White House counsel Donald McGahn to comply with subpoenas. Both are being sought for testimony related to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report, which many Democrats believe provides a road map for how to proceed in impeaching Trump for as many as 10 potential instances of obstruction of justice.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), center, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, appears at a news conference with Reps. Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.), left, and Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) after a House vote escalating a subpoena fight with the Trump administration. (Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)
Those close to Trump are offering him advice on impeachment that one outside adviser close to the president described as “truly binary.”
On one side are those loyalists,mainly outside the White House, who are telling the president that impeachment could be a political blessing for him and his party — that one road to reelection runs through impeachment.
On the other is a larger contingent warning that impeachment, even under the rosiest scenarios, would be a grueling gantlet that would leave him politically bruised, with an asterisk forever marring his presidency.
Many Trump allies also agree that while impeachment might ultimately prove beneficial for the president — allowing him to cast Democrats as overzealous sore losers — the actual process would plunge the White House and the nation into chaos. There is no broad strategy within the White House to encourage Democrats to pursue articles of impeachment against Trump, two senior administration officials said.
“Even though it would be politically advantageous to the president and likely guarantee his reelection, it’s terrible for the country, and I’d be saying the same thing even if the shoe was on the other foot and Republicans were talking about impeaching a Democratic president,” said Jason Miller, a senior adviser to Trump’s 2016 campaign.
The topic is so sensitive that Trump often refers to impeachment as “the I-word,” though one senior White House official said he is being playful. Aides have heard him use the phrase privately in meetings, and he has also used it publicly.
Last month, Trump scrapped a planned infrastructure meeting with Democrats at the last minute after learning that House Democrats had recently met to discuss impeachment — calling an impromptu news conference in the Rose Garden to blast them for entertaining “the big ‘I-word,’ ” as he put it.
“All of a sudden, I hear last night, they’re going to have a meeting, right before this meeting, to talk about the ‘I-word,’ ” Trump said. “The ‘I-word.’ Can you imagine?”
Just over a week later, speaking to reporters on the White House South Lawn, Trump was similarly outraged by the mere mention of impeachment. “To me, it’s a dirty word — the word ‘impeach,’ ” he said. “It’s a dirty, filthy, disgusting word.”
Trump has also griped privately that if Democrats tried to impeach him, he would simply sue — a sentiment he has also occasionally expressed publicly.
President Trump on May 22 said he viewed Congress as a coequal branch of government but slammed them for discussing impeachment.(The Washington Post)
In April, Trump wrote on Twitter, “I DID NOTHING WRONG” and warned, “If the partisan Dems ever tried to Impeach, I would first head to the U.S. Supreme Court.”
And in late May, asked by a reporter whether he thought the Democrats were going to move forward with impeachment, Trump also invoked the legal system. “I don’t see how they can,” the president said. “Because they’re possibly allowed, although I can’t imagine the courts allowing it.”
Trump’s assertions that he would sue to prevent impeachment have prompted some criticism in the legal community, with Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard who has called for Trump’s impeachment, describing the idea as “idiocy” in a tweet. “Not even a SCOTUS filled with Trump appointees would get in the way of the House or Senate,” Tribe wrote.
But Alan Dershowitz, an emeritus professor at Harvard Law School and a frequent Trump ally, says the Supreme Court could intervene to avoid a constitutional crisis if it thought Congress had acted unconstitutionally in impeaching the president.
The process starts in the House, which can impeach a president with a simple majority vote. The president can be removed from office, however, only if the Senate then votes by a two-thirds majority to convict.
Dershowitz said in an interview that the status quo — Democrats pushing an impeachment message without actually moving ahead with proceedings — could be optimal for the president.
“The best-case scenario for the president both politically and legally is for the Democrats to continue impeachment talk, for 60 or 70 Democratic congressmen to demand impeachment and for, in the end, there to be no impeachment by the House,” Dershowitz said. “In that way, he gets the political benefit without the stigma. It’s a win-win.”
Some who argue the benefits of impeachment still ultimately oppose it. Senior policy adviser Stephen Miller, for instance, has expressed his belief to the president that Democrats would be viewed as leftist extremists if they proceeded down that path and would be punished by voters, a senior White House official said.
President Trump has said he “can’t imagine” that the courts would allow his impeachment. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale has publicly said that impeachment talk has not hurt the president’s polling numbers, an assessment that he has also conveyed to Trump in private briefings, one person familiar with their conversations said.
“The more they beat that drum for impeachment, the more this emboldens our campaign,” Parscale told CBS in a recent interview.
According to recent polling, more than half of Americans do not support impeaching the president, and those sentiments are more pronounced among the Republicans and independents Trump will have to hold on to to win reelection. A recent CNN poll found that, overall, 54 percent of Americans opposed impeachment, including 59 percent of independents and 93 percent of Republicans.
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus and a Trump ally, said that “any impeachment effort would probably cause a tremendous backlash among undecided voters.”
“Impeachment, I think, is widely viewed as being harmful to our democratic process — that’s on Capitol Hill and at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,” Meadows said. “It’s widely shared that impeachment, regardless of an acquittal, is not something that would be good for America.”
Nonetheless, questions of impeachment — both existential and shouted — continue to dog the president. On Monday, while greeting the champions of the Indianapolis 500 at the White House, Trump was asked again whether an impeachment inquiry might help his reelection prospects.
He acknowledged the theory (“I hear that, too”) before promptly dismissing the premise of the question (“You can’t impeach somebody when there has never been anything done wrong”).
Then, referring to President Richard M. Nixon, who resigned rather than face likely impeachment, Trump struck a defiant note.
“He left. I don’t leave,” Trump said. “There’s a big difference. I don’t leave.”
When we look around us, it should be apparent that in those countries, which are generally labelled as “developed”, there is a distinct feeling that they treat one another better than those like us, who fall into the class of the “developing” or “under developed”. We are constantly reminded that we should model ourselves in the way that Singapore has done. It is ironic that Lee Kwan Yu, in an early visit declared that Singapore should consider Ceylon as a role model. See where we stand now – the tables have turned! For a proper insight, two books by LKY should be required reading for all. These are “The Singapore Story” and “From Third World to First”. These are almost an Autobiographies and show the importance of objectivity, integrity, commonsense, decency, pragmatism and hard work. Just download “The Singapore Cabinet” for a glimpse of a current meritocracy. Many would be qualified enough to adorn the faculty of almost any top-rate University anywhere in the World. The NUS (National University of Singapore ranks among the best – rubbing shoulders with Princeton, Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Oxford and Cambridge.
