CHINESE NEW YEAR BY SIM KWANG YANG

A Chinese New Year story

Sim Kwang Yang Jan 24, 09 11:20am

On this yet another eve of another Chinese New Year, it is only appropriate to skip comments on the serious and often ugly business of politics, and reflect upon the most auspicious festival for the Chinese citizens in Malaysia.

Times are hard and the market is slow. The CNY goodies imported from China are not selling well. The Chinese people have a long and painful collective memory of their suffering in the past, and their knee jerk reaction to hard times is to tighten their belt, even if they have the money to spend.

I too have my personal memory of hard times in the past. I was born in the Year of the Rat, in an address at Jalan Padungan in Kuching, shortly after WW2. My birth was a bad omen for my family, for my father’s business failed.

Kuching was a two-horse town then, and right after the war, there was hardly any economic opportunity to speak of. In 1946, the last Brooke Rajah had ceded Sarawak to the British colonial office for a million Pound Sterling. He had escaped to Australia when the Japanese army poured into Kuching in 1941, leaving his people to suffer the long years of occupation. His departure that ended the 100-year Brooke rule in the Land of the Hornbill was not missed.

Our difficult situation compelled my family to move into a dilapidated rickety two-storey wooden house that accommodated 18 families, each to one room that served as living room, bedroom, and kitchen at the same time. If I remember correctly, the rental was 15 Sarawak dollars per month. Some tenants would miss payment for a few months at times. Money was a rare commodity indeed.

The tenants were mostly Teochew, because this property near the Sarawak General Hospital along the old rail road running from Kuching to the 7th Mile Bazaar was owned by the Teochew Association. This was how one Chinese association had played the critical role of providing welfare for its members in the form of relatively cheap housing, and the spiritual solace of a temple nearby.

The respected Mr Siaw

I still have varied memories of that over-crowded large house. Inevitably, there were spates of discord among the tenants, but by and large, there was a lively spirit of community solidarity. Deprived materially as they were, they tended to be generous in helping their neighbours.
The most respected figure was Mr Siaw, a Chinese primary school teacher. I was actually born as Sim Keng Soon. Before I was to start schooling, I had to have a school name, a custom practised in old China. My parents consulted Mr Siaw, and he named me Sim Kwang Yang. Years later, when I was studying in Canada, I was happy to play host to his daughter, who had gone to the Land of the Maple Leaf for further education.

Most of the children walked to school, the Chung Hua School Number 4 along Palm Road, since very few people owned a car in those days. The only chap in my neighbourhood who drove a car was a taxi-driver, one of the very few in town. Most of the cars were British models, the most popular among them being the miniscule Morris Minor. The Vauxhall was considered a prestigious sedan, and I think it is no longer in production. Japanese cars did not make it in a big way until the late 1970s.

We were used to walking to school on foot. Even a bicycle was a luxury that parents could ill afford. For school uniforms, we would just inherit those outworn by elder siblings. It was the same with text books. The school fee was a mere three dollars, and there were times when I had to be shamed in front of the class by a reminder of my lateness in payment.

On those days when there was money, my parents would give me five or 10 cents for pocket money. The small coin was so precious that I would tie it in the deepest corner of the pocket with a rubber band. With it, I could afford to buy a piece of kueh, to be washed down with water from the pipe during break time.

The biggest problem I can remember from those days was the lack of facility for decent sanitation. The toilet was an outhouse, a wooden structure with a hole on the floor overlooking an open drum. As I did my business, I tried not to look down to avoid staring at the maggots below. My other friends picked up the filthy habit of smoking at that young age; they said the smoke would relieve the stench in the toilet.

I hated going to the toilet so much that I developed haemorrhoid, which was to haunt me until I went to Canada for my college education.

Auntie lent rice to Mum

Money was in short supply, and so was food. My father had left to work in Brunei, and he would send some money back to my mother in Kuching. Sometimes the money would come late, and my mother had to borrow rice from our neighbour.

There was this kind auntie whose husband was working as one of those labourers at the Kuching wharf carrying sacks of rice or whatever goods consigned to him on his shoulders. They were both illiterate, and had many children, all of them girls, making the auntie very unhappy. Without my mother’s advice, she would have given the girls away for adoption.

This kind auntie would lend my mother a cigarette tin of rice a day, even though she was very hard up herself. With that small amount of rice, my mother would serve up two meals of porridge, sometimes mixed with sweet potatoes. My brothers and I would whoop down those meals in one minute flat, and feel hungry a few hours later.

Meat was hard to come by, and I could count the number of days when chicken or pork was served in a year.

That was why Chinese New Year was so special. There would be a whole chicken, produced as if by magic on CNY eve. There would be cakes and kueh, produced by the women in the neighbourhood collectively to save cost. We children would squat around the ladies in great anticipation, as they rolled the dough, and baked them over hot plates over charcoal fire, and then storing them in tins.

On New Year Day, we would receive an ang pao containing one dollar, if we are lucky. We would proceed to play poker with this small fortune. Gambling was always banned, except during CNY, during which time parents would never scold their children.

Our living conditions improved somewhat when I was 10. We moved to a one bedroom flat at the Kuching Municipal Council housing estate along Ban Hock Road. At least, there was a clean flush toilet. There, night and day, my mother taught me that life was an eternal struggle, a battlefield on which one could triumph only if one studies hard. I excelled as a student in school.

Our life took a turn for the better only when my second eldest brother went to study in the University of Nottingham in the UK on a generous Shell scholarship. He would send some of his English Pounds back, and even that was a great contribution to our livelihood.

My brother returned to Sarawak as a qualified electrical engineer in those days when there were very few university graduates in Sarawak. He served the Sarawak Telekom all his life, and was its Director and then General Manager upon privatisation. For that, he was awarded a Datukship by my political foe Abdul Taib Mahmud, the CM of Sarawak. His eldest son is a chartered accountant from London School of Economics, and the younger son, a doctor from Cambridge University. They remain my best friends in the best and worst of times.

Why I tell my personal story

Meanwhile, my childhood friends – those children of illiterate parents – had all gone on to become successful businessmen, professionals, academics, or technicians of various grades. They had all become affluent or middle-class; their children have repeated this success story by outdoing their parents. They are all Chinese, and have no need of the NEP.

As for the auntie who lent us rice everyday, she and her husband are still healthy and alive. Their children treat them very well, in accordance with the Confucian teaching on filial duty. They have many grandchildren and great grandchildren. I pray for them every year around this time.

Looking back, I realise the person at the centre of my childhood was my mother. She could read, and had great strength of character. For that, she was treated like an unofficial Tua Kampong in my neighbourhood. She was the one who held my family together. God only knows how much she had to sacrifice just to give her children a decent education and food on the table everyday.

My mother died in 1991, in the small hours of Christmas Day. I was by her bedside when she exhaled her last breath. I had never felt greater grief in my life.

I seldom get personal in these Malaysiakini essays. I tell my story on the eve of CNY this year, because I know many Chinese people of my generation throughout Malaysia have a similar story to tell their children. It is a story of hardship and struggle, of thrift and self-discipline, of perseverance in the face of adversities, of family bonds and neighbourly love, of studying hard and smart come what may, and of enjoyment of delayed reward.

For those of you readers whose parents are still alive, remember this commandment for all races: honour thy father and mother! That is the real meaning of CNY.

Obama's Inaugural Speech 21/1/2009

Full text of Obama's inaugural speech

The following is the full text of Barack Obama's sober but uplifting speech after taking a oath of office from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.


My fellow citizens:

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms.

At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.

Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met.
On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.
We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things.

The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame.

Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labour, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life. For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn. Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year.

Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.

We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programmes will end.

And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.

The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.

And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more. Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions.

They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort - even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan.

With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.

To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages.

We honour them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment - a moment that will define a generation - it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths.

What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed - why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing.
The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

"Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]."

America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come.

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

Commencement Address by Steve Jobs CEO of Apple - Stanford June 12 2005

I am honored to be with you today at your commencement from one of the finest universities in the world. I never graduated from college. Truth be told, this is the closest I've ever gotten to a college graduation.

Today I want to tell you three stories from my life. That's it. No big deal. Just three stories.

The first story is about connecting the dots.

I dropped out of Reed College after the first 6 months, but then stayed around as a drop-in for another 18 months or so before I really quit. So why did I drop out?

It started before I was born. My biological mother was a young, unwed college graduate student, and she decided to put me up for adoption. She felt very strongly that I should be adopted by college graduates, so everything was all set for me to be adopted at birth by a lawyer and his wife. Except that when I popped out they decided at the last minute that they really wanted a girl.

So my parents, who were on a waiting list, got a call in the middle of the night asking: "We have an unexpected baby boy; do you want him?" They said: "Of course." My biological mother later found out that my mother had never graduated from college and that my father had never graduated from high school.

She refused to sign the final adoption papers. She only relented a few months later when my parents promised that I would someday go to college.And 17 years later I did go to college. But I naively chose a college that was almost as expensive as Stanford, and all of my working-class parents' savings were being spent on my college tuition.

After six months, I couldn't see the value in it. I had no idea what I wanted to do with my life and no idea how college was going to help me figure it out. And here I was spending all of the money my parents had saved their entire life. So I decided to drop out and trust that it would all work out OK.

It was pretty scary at the time, but looking back it was one of the best decisions I ever made. The minute I dropped out I could stop taking the required classes that didn't interest me, and begin dropping in on the ones that looked interesting.

It wasn't all romantic. I didn't have a dorm room, so I slept on the floor in friends' rooms, I returned coke bottles for the 5¢ deposits to buy food with, and I would walk the 7 miles across town every Sunday night to get one good meal a week at the Hare Krishna temple. I loved it.

And much of what I stumbled into by following my curiosity and intuition turned out to be priceless later on.

Let me give you one example:Reed College at that time offered perhaps the best calligraphy instruction in the country. Throughout the campus every poster, every label on every drawer, was beautifully hand calligraphed.

Because I had dropped out and didn't have to take the normal classes, I decided to take a calligraphy class to learn how to do this. I learned about serif and san serif typefaces, about varying the amount of space between different letter combinations, about what makes great typography great.

It was beautiful, historical, artistically subtle in a way that science can't capture, and I found it fascinating.None of this had even a hope of any practical application in my life. But ten years later, when we were designing the first Macintosh computer, it all came back to me. And we designed it all into the Mac. It was the first computer with beautiful typography. If I had never dropped in on that single course in college, the Mac would have never had multiple typefaces or proportionally spaced fonts. And since Windows just copied the Mac, its likely that no personal computer would have them. If I had never dropped out, I would have never dropped in on this calligraphy class, and personal computers might not have the wonderful typography that they do.

Of course it was impossible to connect the dots looking forward when I was in college. But it was very, very clear looking backwards ten years later.Again, you can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something — your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever.

This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life.

My second story is about love and loss.I was lucky — I found what I loved to do early in life. Woz and I started Apple in my parents garage when I was 20.

We worked hard, and in 10 years Apple had grown from just the two of us in a garage into a $2 billion company with over 4000 employees. We had just released our finest creation — the Macintosh — a year earlier, and I had just turned 30. And then I got fired. How can you get fired from a company you started? Well, as Apple grew we hired someone who I thought was very talented to run the company with me, and for the first year or so things went well. But then our visions of the future began to diverge and eventually we had a falling out.

When we did, our Board of Directors sided with him. So at 30 I was out. And very publicly out. What had been the focus of my entire adult life was gone, and it was devastating. I really didn't know what to do for a few months.

I felt that I had let the previous generation of entrepreneurs down - that I had dropped the baton as it was being passed to me.

I met with David Packard and Bob Noyce and tried to apologize for screwing up so badly. I was a very public failure, and I even thought about running away from the valley. But something slowly began to dawn on me — I still loved what I did.

The turn of events at Apple had not changed that one bit. I had been rejected, but I was still in love. And so I decided to start over. I didn't see it then, but it turned out that getting fired from Apple was the best thing that could have ever happened to me.

The heaviness of being successful was replaced by the lightness of being a beginner again, less sure about everything.

It freed me to enter one of the most creative periods of my life.During the next five years, I started a company named NeXT, another company named Pixar, and fell in love with an amazing woman who would become my wife.

Pixar went on to create the worlds first computer animated feature film, Toy Story, and is now the most successful animation studio in the world. In a remarkable turn of events, Apple bought NeXT, I returned to Apple, and the technology we developed at NeXT is at the heart of Apple's current renaissance.

And Laurene and I have a wonderful family together. I'm pretty sure none of this would have happened if I hadn't been fired from Apple.

It was awful tasting medicine, but I guess the patient needed it. Sometimes life hits you in the head with a brick. Don't lose faith. I'm convinced that the only thing that kept me going was that I loved what I did. You've got to find what you love. And that is as true for your work as it is for your lovers. Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do.

If you haven't found it yet, keep looking. Don't settle. As with all matters of the heart, you'll know when you find it. And, like any great relationship, it just gets better and better as the years roll on. So keep looking until you find it. Don't settle.

My third story is about death.When I was 17, I read a quote that went something like: "If you live each day as if it was your last, someday you'll most certainly be right." It made an impression on me, and since then, for the past 33 years, I have looked in the mirror every morning and asked myself: "If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?" And whenever the answer has been "No" for too many days in a row, I know I need to change something.

Remembering that I'll be dead soon is the most important tool I've ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything — all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure - these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important.

Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart.

About a year ago I was diagnosed with cancer. I had a scan at 7:30 in the morning, and it clearly showed a tumor on my pancreas. I didn't even know what a pancreas was. The doctors told me this was almost certainly a type of cancer that is incurable, and that I should expect to live no longer than three to six months. My doctor advised me to go home and get my affairs in order, which is doctor's code for prepare to die. It means to try to tell your kids everything you thought you'd have the next 10 years to tell them in just a few months.

It means to make sure everything is buttoned up so that it will be as easy as possible for your family. It means to say your goodbyes.

I lived with that diagnosis all day. Later that evening I had a biopsy, where they stuck an endoscope down my throat, through my stomach and into my intestines, put a needle into my pancreas and got a few cells from the tumor. I was sedated, but my wife, who was there, told me that when they viewed the cells under a microscope the doctors started crying because it turned out to be a very rare form of pancreatic cancer that is curable with surgery.

I had the surgery and I'm fine now.This was the closest I've been to facing death, and I hope its the closest I get for a few more decades. Having lived through it, I can now say this to you with a bit more certainty than when death was a useful but purely intellectual concept:No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don't want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share.

No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new.

Right now the new is you, but someday not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it is quite true.Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life.

Don't be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people's thinking.

Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.

When I was young, there was an amazing publication called The Whole Earth Catalog, which was one of the bibles of my generation. It was created by a fellow named Stewart Brand not far from here in Menlo Park, and he brought it to life with his poetic touch. This was in the late 1960's, before personal computers and desktop publishing, so it was all made with typewriters, scissors, and polaroid cameras.

It was sort of like Google in paperback form, 35 years before Google came along: it was idealistic, and overflowing with neat tools and great notions.Stewart and his team put out several issues of The Whole Earth Catalog, and then when it had run its course, they put out a final issue.

It was the mid-1970s, and I was your age. On the back cover of their final issue was a photograph of an early morning country road, the kind you might find yourself hitchhiking on if you were so adventurous. Beneath it were the words: "Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish." It was their farewell message as they signed off.

Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish. And I have always wished that for myself.

And now, as you graduate to begin anew, I wish that for you.

Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.Thank you all very much.

Zaid's Moving Letter To PM

Zaid Ibrahim writes open letter to PM
Sep 30, 08 1:53pm

In our proclamation of independence, our first prime minister gave voice to the lofty aspirations and dreams of the people of Malaya: that Malaya was founded on the principles of liberty and justice, and the promise that collectively we would always strive to improve the welfare and happiness of its people.

Many years have passed since that momentous occasion and those aspirations and dreams remain true and are as relevant to us today as they were then. This was made possible by a strong grasp of fundamentals in the early period of this nation.The federal constitution and the laws made pursuant to it were well founded; they embodied the key elements of a democracy built on the rule of law. The Malaysian judiciary once commanded great respect from Malaysians and was hailed as a beacon for other nations.

Our earlier prime ministers, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak and Tun Hussein Onn were truly leaders of integrity, patriots in their own right and most importantly, men of humility. They believed in and built this nation on the principles and values enunciated in our constitution.

Even when they had to enact the Internal Security Act (ISA) 1960, they were very cautious and apologetic about it. Tunku stated clearly that the Act was passed to deal with the communist threat.“My cabinet colleagues and I gave a solemn promise to Parliament and the nation that the immense powers given to the government under the ISA would never be used to stifle legitimate opposition and silent lawful dissent”, was what the Tunku said.

Our third prime minister, Tun Hussein Onn, reinforced this position by saying that the ISA was not intended to repress lawful political opposition and democratic activity on the part of the citizenry.

The events of the last three weeks have compelled me to review the way in which the ISA has been used. This exercise has sadly led me to the conclusion that the government has time and time again failed the people of this country in repeatedly reneging on that solemn promise made by Tunku Abdul Rahman.

This has been made possible because the government and the law have mistakenly allowed the minister of home affairs to detain anyone for whatever reason he thinks fit. This subjective discretion has been abused to further certain political interests.

History is the great teacher and speaks volumes in this regard. Even a cursory examination of the manner in which the ISA has been used almost from its inception would reveal the extent to which its intended purpose has been subjugated to the politics of the day.

Regrettably, Tunku Abdul Rahman himself reneged on his promise. In 1965, his administration detained Burhanuddin Helmi, the truly towering Malay intellectual, a nationalist who happened to be a PAS leader. He was kept in detention until his death in 1969.

Helmi was a political opponent and could by no stretch of the imagination be considered to have been involved in the armed rebellion or communism that the ISA was designed to deal with.This detention was an aberration, a regrettable moment where politics had been permitted to trump the rule of law.

It unfortunately appears to have set a precedent and many detentions of persons viewed as having been threatening to the incumbent administration followed through the years.

Even our literary giant, ‘sasterawan negara’ the late Tan Sri A Samad Ismail was subjected to the ISA in 1976. How could he have been a threat to national security?

I need not remind you of the terrible impact of the 1987 Operasi Lalang. Its spectre haunts the government as much as it does the peace-loving people of this nation, casting a gloom over all of us. There were and still are many unanswered questions about those dark hours when more than a hundred persons were detained for purportedly being threats to national security. Why they were detained has never been made clear to Malaysians.Similarly, no explanation has been forthcoming as to why they were never charged in court. Those detainees included amongst their numbers senior opposition members of parliament who are still active in Parliament today.

The only thing that is certain about that period was that Umno was facing a leadership crisis. Isn’t it coincidental that the recent spate of ISA arrests has occurred when Umno is again having a leadership crisis?

In 2001, Keadilan ‘reformasi’ activists were detained in an exercise that the Federal Court declared was in bad faith and unlawful. The continued detention of those that were not released earlier in the Kamunting detention facility was made possible only by the fact that the ISA had been questionably amended in 1988 to preclude judicial review of the minister’s order to detain.

Malaysians were told that these detainees had been attempting to overthrow the government via militant means and violent demonstrations. Seven years have gone and yet no evidence in support of this assertion has been presented. Compounding the confusion even further, one of these so-called militants, Ezam Mohamad Noor, recently rejoined Umno to great fanfare, as a prized catch it would seem.

At around the same time, members of PAS were also detained for purportedly being militant and allegedly having links to international terrorist networks. Those detained included Nik Adli, the son of Tuan Guru Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, the menteri besar of Kelantan. Malaysians were made a promise by the government that evidence of the alleged terrorist activities and links of these detainees would be disclosed. To date no such evidence has been produced.

The same formula was used in late 2007 when the Hindraf 5 were detained. Malaysians were told once again that these individuals were involved in efforts to overthrow the government and had links with the militant Liberation Tiger of Tamil Eelam of Sri Lanka. To date no concrete evidence have been presented to support this assertion.It would seem therefore that the five were detained for their involvement in efforts that led to a mobilisation of Indian Malaysians to express, through peaceful means; their frustration against the way in which their community had been allowed to be marginalised. This cause has since been recognised as a legitimate one. The Hindraf demonstration is nothing extraordinary as such assemblies are universally recognised as being a legitimate means of expression.

In the same vein, the grounds advanced in support of the most recent detentions of Tan Hoon Cheng, Teresa Kok and Raja Petra Kamarudin leave much to be desired. The explanation that Tan Hoon Cheng was detained for her own safety was farcical. The suggestion that Teresa Kok had been inciting religious sentiments was unfounded as was evinced by her subsequent release.

As for Raja Petra Kamarudin, the prominent critic of the government, a perusal of his writings would show that he might have been insulting of the government and certain individuals within it.

However, being critical and insulting could not in any way amount to a threat to national security. If his writings are viewed as being insulting of Islam, Muslims or the Holy Prophet (pbuh), he should instead be charged under the Penal Code and not under the ISA.In any event, he had already been charged for sedition and criminal defamation in respect of some of his statements. He had claimed trial, indicating as such his readiness and ability to defend himself. Justice would best be served by allowing him his day in court more so where, in the minds of the public, the government is in a position of conflict for having been the target of his strident criticism.

The instances cited above strongly suggest that the government is undemocratic. It is this perspective that has over the last 25 plus years led to the government seemingly arbitrarily detaining political opponents, civil society and consumer advocates, writers, businessmen, students, journalists whose crime, if it could be called that, was to have been critical of the government.How it is these individuals can be perceived as being threats to national security is beyond my comprehension.

The self-evident reality is that legitimate dissent was and is quashed through the heavy-handed use of the ISA. There are those who support and advocate this carte-blanche reading of the ISA.

They will seek to persuade you that the interests of the country demand that such power be retained, that Malaysians owe their peace and stability to laws such as the ISA. This overlooks the simple truth that Malaysians of all races cherish peace. We lived together harmoniously for the last 400 years, not because of these laws but in spite of them.

I believe the people of this country are mature and intelligent enough to distinguish actions that constitute a ‘real’ threat to the country from those that threaten political interests. Malaysians have come know that the ISA is used against political opponents and, it would seem, when the leadership is under challenge either from within the ruling party or from external elements.

Malaysians today want to see a government that is committed to the court process to determine guilt or innocence even for alleged acts of incitement of racial or religious sentiment. They are less willing to believe, as they once did, that a single individual, namely the minister of home affairs; knows best about matters of national security.

They value freedom and the protection of civil liberties and this is true of people of other nations too. I attempted to push for reform Mr Prime Minister, the results of the last general election are clear indication that the people of Malaysia are demanding a reinstatement of the rule of law.

I was appointed as your, albeit short-lived, minister in charge of legal affairs and judicial reform.
In that capacity, I came to understand more keenly how many of us want reform, not for the sake of it, but for the extent to which our institutions have been undermined by events and the impact this has had on society.

With your blessing, I attempted to push for reform. High on my list of priorities was a reinstatement of the inherent right of judicial review that could be enabled through a reversion of the key constitutional provision to its form prior to the controversial amendment in 1988.
I need not remind you that that constitutional amendment was prompted by the same series of events that led not only to Operasi Lalang but the sacking of the then Lord President and two supreme court justices.Chief amongst my concerns was the way in which the jurisdiction and the power of the courts to grant remedy against unconstitutional and arbitrary action of the executive had been removed by Parliament and the extent to which this had permitted an erosion of the civil liberties of Malaysians.

It was this constitutional amendment that paved the way for the ouster provision in the ISA that virtually immunises the minister from judicial review, a provision which exemplifies the injustice the constitutional amendment of 1988 has lent itself. I also sought to introduce means by which steps could be taken to assist the judiciary to regain the reputation for independence and competence it once had.

Unfortunately, this was viewed as undesirable by some since an independent judiciary would mean that the executive would be less ‘influential’. I attempted to do these things and more because of the realisation that Malaysia’s democratic traditions and the rule of law are under siege. Anyway, there is nothing wrong with giving everyone an independent judiciary and the opportunity to a fair trial.

This is consistent with the universal norms of human rights as it is with the tenets of Islam, the religion of the federation. Unchecked power to detain at the whim of one man is oppressiveness at its highest. Even in Israel, a nation that is perpetually at war the power to detain is not vested in one man and detention orders require endorsement from a judge.

If there are national security considerations, then these can be approached without jettisoning the safeguards intended to protect individual citizens from being penalised wrongfully. In other jurisdictions involved in armed conflicts, trials are held in camera to allow for judicial scrutiny of evidence considered too sensitive for public disclosure so as to satisfy the ends of justice.

If this can be done in these jurisdictions, why not here where the last armed struggle we saw, the very one that precipitated the need for the ISA, came to an end in the 1980s?

Any doubts as to the continued relevance of the ISA in its present form should have been put to rest by the recommendation by the Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) that the ISA be repealed and an anti-terror legislation suited to the times enacted in its place. Containing as it did a sunset clause in its original times, the ISA was never intended to be a permanent feature on the Malaysian legal landscape.

Through its continued use in the manner described above and in the face of public sentiment, it is only natural that the ISA has become in the mind of the people an instrument of oppression and the government is one that lends itself to oppressiveness.

Its continued use does not bode well for a society that is struggling to find its place in the global arena. It does not bode well for the democracy that is so vital for us to develop sustainably.

Mr Prime Minister, I remember very clearly what you once said; that if one has the opportunity to do what is good and right for the country, then he must take on the task. I respect you deeply for that and if I were confident that I would have been able to do some good for Malaysia, I would have remained on your team.

Sir, you are still the prime minister and you still have the opportunity to leave your footprint in Malaysian history. I urge you to do so by repealing the ISA once and for all. Let us attempt to fulfil that solemn promise made by our beloved first prime minister to the people of this country.

Yours sincerely Zaid Ibrahim

Titah Utama YTM Raja Nazrin - Brunei 2006

Titah Utama Forum Khas Melayu Islam Beraja Dewan Chancellor, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, 20 September 2006

Titah Utama Duli Yang Teramat Mulia Raja Muda Perak Darul Ridzuan Raja Nazrin Shah Forum Khas Melayu Islam Beraja Sempena Hari Keputeraan Ke Bawah Duli Yang Maha Mulia Paduka Seri Baginda Sultan Dan Yang Di Pertuan Negara Brunei Darussalam

Segala puji milik Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala, Tuhan Pemerintah semesta alam, Maha Berkuasa - Maha Mengetahui, lalu memilih dari kalangan makhluknya untuk dikurniakan kebesaran - untuk diamanahkan tangugngjawab.

Selawat dan kesejahteraan ke atas Junjungan Besar, Nabi Muhammad Sallallahu Alaihi Wassalam, semulia-mulia kejadian. Demikian juga atas keluarga dan para sahabat Baginda yang merupakan bintang-bintang penunjuk mencernakan cahaya, seterusnya ke atas para Tabiin dan para ulama yang berperanan sebagai penyuluh daripada kegelapan. Semoga memperoleh ihsan daripada Allah Subhanahu Wa ta'ala sehingga ke hari kebangkitan.

Menghadap Paduka Seri Ayahanda, Duli Yang Maha Mulia Paduka Seri Baginda Sultan Haji Hassanal Bollkiah Mu'izzaaddin Waddaulah, Paduka Seri Baginda Sultan dan Yang Di Pertuan Negara Brunei Darussalam.

Ampun Tuanku, Sembah anakanda pohon diampun, Izinkan anakanda dengan segala kerendahan diri - dengan segala kelemahan sifat, dengan ingatan yang bening - dengan hati yang hening, menzahirkan setulus kalam dari pancaran mata hati, melafazkan seikhlas kalimah dari denyutan nadi, merafak sembah 'dirgahayu tuanku' kepada Paduka Seri Ayahanda, Ke bawah Duli Yang Maha Mulia Paduka Seri Baginda Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah Muizzaddin Waddaulah, Paduka Seri Sultan dan Yang Di Pertuan Negara Brunei Darussalam sempena ulang tahun keputeraan Paduka Seri Ayahanda kali ke enam puluh.

Selanjutnya, Anakanda mohon izin dan perkenan Paduka Seri Ayahanda untuk menzahirkan penghargaan atas keberangkatan bersama Paduka Adinda, Duli Yang Teramat Mulia Paduka Seri Pengiran Muda Mahkota, Pengiran Muda Haji Al-Muhtadee Billah ibni Ke bawah Duli Yang Maha Mulia Paduka Seri Baginda Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah Mu'izzadin Waddaulah. Juga Penghargaan anakanda kepada pengerusi pengajur Majlis ini, Paduka Ayahnda, Duli Yang Teramat Mulia Paduka Seri Pengiran Bendahara Seri Maharaja Permaisuara, Pengiran Muda Haji Sufri Bolkiah ibni Almarhum Sultan Haji Omar Ali Saifuddien Sa'adul Khairi Waddien.

Mengatasi segalanya, Anakanda menjunjung setinggi-tinggi kasih atas limpah perkenan Paduka Seri Ayahanda menganugerahkan kepercayaan - mengurniakan penghormatan kepada anakanda berpeluang menzahirkan titah utama di Forum Khas mengenai 'Melayu Islam Beraja' atas tema 'kecemerlangan institusi beraja'. Sesungguhnya majlis ilmu sebegini nyata membuktikan perhatian berat Paduka Seri Ayahanda tentang program perkembangan minda selaras dengan peranan awal istana sebagai pusat perkembangan ilmu dan pembangunan intelek. Anakanda amat insaf bahawa batang tubuh anakanda bukanlah searif insan untuk menghuraikan mauduk berkaitan, lebih-lebih lagi menyedari bahawa forum ini dilangsungkan dengan restu perkenan, dibawah naungan ke bawah Duli Yang Maha Mulia Paduka Seri Ayahanda, Sultan dan Raja Pemerintah yang bertakhta di singgahsana Kerajaan Brunei Darussalam, dengan segala kemuliaan dan kebesaran' khalifah kepada sebuah negara berdaulat, aman, makmur dan sejahtera. Anakanda mengikuti akan pendekatan 'Melayu Islam Beraja' yang menjadi tunggak dan asas pemerintah Kerajaan Paduka Seri Ayahanda.

Ampun Tuanku.

Dalam segala kekurangan yang ada, dipohon pertunjuk dan kudrat dari Ilahi untuk membolehkan hamba Mu ini mendaki gunung - meniti gaung, agar dikurniakan petunjuk - diturunkan hidayat dari Mu juga Ya Allah, membolehkan hamba Mu menyempurnakan satu tanggungjawab sebaik mungkin, berpandukan pengetahuan yang masih sedikit - bersandarkan pengalaman yang masih singkat, dengan segala kesedaran - dengan penuh keinsafan, bahawa banyak ketidak-sempurnaan yang terdapat pada diri Hamba Mu ini. Kepada Mu jua Ya Allah, dipohonkan segala panduan dan bimbingan. Amin, Ya Rabul Alamin.

Dalam menyuarakan pandangan - menghuraikan pendapat, mudah-mudahan barang diawasi Allah juga di majlis ini, untuk anakanda berpeluang menimba ilmu, berkesempatan berguru dengan cerdik pandai yang lebih arif di negara Brunei Darussalam ini untuk membolehkan anakanda lebih memahami akan falsafah dan konsep 'Melayu Islam Beraja' dan kerana itu, dengan kail panjang sejengkal, adalah lebih bertepatan cendekiawan tempatan akan mauduk menyentuh salasilah dan sistem Kesultanan negara Brunei Darussalam.

Anakanda memilih menghuraikan secara umum, latar sejarah sistem dan negara beraja, faktor-faktor kejatuhan dan kebangkitan, kekhilafan yang mungkin berlaku, kekuatan serta peranan, kesinambungan sistem beraja dalam menghadapi cabaran dunia global semasa. Kepimpinan beraja adalah antara sistem kepimpinan tertua di dunia.

Pada awal kurun kesembilan belas terdapat lebih sembilan ratus (900) takhta kerajaan. Kajian kronolgi dan manual genealogi tentang dinasti baru Islam, merumuskan terdapatnya seratus lapan puluh enam (186) kesultanan berpaksikan Islam diantara tahun enam ratus tiga puluh dua (632) hingga 1944 Masihi. Pada hari ini terdapat seratus sembilan puluh tiga (193) negara berdaulat merangkumi seratus sembilan puluh dua (192) negara anggota Pertubuhan Bangsa-bangsa Bersatu dan Vatican City.

Dari jumlah tersebut, hanya empat puluh empat (44) negara yang memilih sistem beraja, sementara Vatican City terletak di bawah 'Supreme Pontiff', pemerintah Kerajaan Theocracy yang dikenali dengan gelaran 'Pope, diiktirafkan dengan status Ketua Negara. Dari empat puluh (44) negara beraja, enam belas (16) daripadanya mengiktiraf Ratu Elizabeth II sebagai Raja Pemerintah di bawah sistem Raja Berperlembagaan. Di samping bertakhta di United Kingdom, Ratu Elizabeth melantik Gabenor Jeneral di lima belas (15) negara lain. Enam belas (16) negara lagi mengamalkan sistem Raja Berplembagaan, lima (5) sistem separa autonomi, tujuh (7) negara mengamalkan sistem Raja secara mutlak.

Analisis taburan secara geografi, menunjukkan dikalangan negara yang mempunyai Raja, sebelas (11) terletak di Benua Eropah, tiga (3) di Benua Afrika dan empat belas (14) di Benua Asia, sementara enam (6) negara Oceania dan sepuluh (10) negara yang terletak di sekitar Benua Utara mengiktiraf Ratu Elizabeth II sebagai Raja Berpelembagaan. Sepuluh (10) dari negara yang mengamalkan sistem beraja adalah negara Islam, sembilan di Asia dan satu di Afrika; lapan (8) darinya adalah negara pengeluar minyak.

Takhta kerajaan dan Raja Pemerintah adalah rangkaian institusi dan individu; satu melambangkan jawatan dan kuasa, satu lagi merupakan pengisian watak, bertanggungjawab memberi nafas dan mengisi roh kepada institusi. Peranan utama Raja adalah memberi kepimpinan, menjadi contoh - menjadi teladan untuk dijadikan pedoman - untuk memberikan panduan - untuk disandarkan harapan - untuk memberi naungan.

Raja dihormati - dimuliakan, dinobatkan - didaulatkan, kerana Raja diiktiraf memiliki segala kelebihan, dari segi akal bicara, dari segi kebijaksaan, dari segi hikmah, dari segi kegagahan, dari segi pengetahuan, dari segi sahsiah, dari segi keberanian, dari segi keupayaan mengatasi cabaran. Dengan mendapat kepercayaan dan penghormatan dengan memperoleh sokongan dan kesetiaan, Raja berperanan menyatukan warga, membina sebuah negara bangsa berdaulat.

Raja di era tersebut bersandarkan kepada tiga paksi utama; pertama, penerimaan secara agama; kedua, memiliki kuasa politik; ketiga, perinsip baka dan keturnan. Raja dilihat sebagai Dewata mewakili Tuhan di dunia, sekali gus memenuhi tanggungjawab keagamaan; lalu Raja dikaitkan dengan kesaktian sebagai keistimewaan anugerah Tuhan. Ketika itu Raja berperanan mutlak sebagai penggubal, pentafsir, pelindung dan pelaksana undang-undang, di samping diiktiraf sebagai ketua agama.

Empat ratus (400) tahun terakhir merakamkan perubahan besar berlaku terhadap institusi Raja. Berlaku evolusi berkerajaan secara dinamik. Bilangan takhta menjadi kurang. Antaranya adalah selaras dengan bilangan negara yang turut berkurang kerana berlakunya penaklukan dan percantuman wilayah lalu terbina negara yang lebih besar.

Factor lebih utama yang mempengaruhi evolusi terhadap sistem berkerajaan adalah revolusi pendidikan dan revolusi ilmu yang membawa dunia kepada penemuan saintifik serta penghuraian saintifik, disamping kefahaman lebih mendalam terhadap agama. Kedua-dua faktor tersebut merubah kefahaman lebih mendalam terhadap agama.

Kedua-dua faktor tersebut merubah persepsi dan tafsiran dunia terhadap Raja; lalu muncullah alternatif sistem berkerajaan yang turut diperngaruhi oleh dinamik evolusi kehidupan manusia, kesan revolusi industri, perkembangan teknologi, perubahan corak dan paksi ekonomi, pembangunan teknologi maklumat dan komunikasi.

Disamping itu, kelemahan watak dan kesilapan laku individu, salah ramalan dan silap percatuan dikalangan sebahagian mereka, turut menjadi faktor pemangkin membawa kepada kejatuhan sesebuah institusi Raja.

Sistem Raja dihapuskan di Latin Amerika seawal abad kesembilan belas, kesan pengaruh sistem republik yang berjaya diperkenal dan diamalkan di Amerika Syarika. Lalu berakhirlah pengaruh tiga ratus tahun Raja Sepanyol; yang merentas dari Mexico di utara sehingga ke Chile di selatan Latin Amerika.

Perang dunia pertama bukan hanya menyaksikan terkorbannya dua puluh (20) juta manusia dalam tempoh masa empat tahun meruntuhkan tiga empayar besar dengan tradisi beraja di Eropah, dengan kejatuhan takhta di Austria, di Jerman, di Rusia, disamping Empayar Otoman.

Dua peperangan dunia mengubah lanskap politik dunia. Dua peperangan dunia menyaksikan perubahan imbangan kuasa dunia. Dua peperangan dunia menyaksikan kemusnahan, menyaksikan pertambahan perbelanjaan ketenteraan, menyaksikan kebangkitan semangat nasionalisme, menyaksikan kemunculan ideologi baru dan menyaksikan politik kelahiran rupa bentuk pemerintahan dan kerajaan baru. Lalu berlaku transformasi politik membentuk persekitaran politik yang berbeza.

Abad kedua puluh menyaksikan kebangkitan gerakan nasionalisme dan corak pemerintah berlandaskan perlembagaan.

Berlakulah evolusi dalam pemerintahan beraja. Raja-raja di Eropah yang peka, memahami dinamik yang berlaku berikutan gerakan politik rakyat berpaksikan masyarakat industri dan masyarakat kota.

Raja yang sebelumnya dianggap Dewata mewakili Tuhan memerintah hamba-hamba di bumi, bertukar peranan sebagai pembela kepada kebajikan dan kebaikan warga di sesebuah negara bangsa. Raja-raja yang berjaya melayari angin yang meniup bayu perubahan, mentafsir semula peranan mereka, mengolah wajah dan merangka dimensi baru, lalu berjaya mengekalkan pengiktrafan dan kesetiaan rakyat.

Raja-raja tersebut berjaya melakukan pengubahsuaian, lantas takhta dapat dikekalkan. Malah dengan kemunculan gerakan politik berparti, Raja yang berada di atas politik, diiktiraf sebaik hakim, memenuhi fungsi sumber keadilan, berupaya mendamaikan persengketaan di antara puak-puak yang bertelingkah; konsep ini menjadi perintis - menjadi asas kepada doktrin pemisahan dan perkongsian kuasa antara Raja dan rakyat di era pasca Perang Dunia Pertama dan perang Dunia Kedua.

Raja Inggeris dan Raja-raja di Scandinavia, di Belgium, di Netherlands, di Luxemburg dan di Greece kekal mendapat sokongan rakyat.

Raja Inggeris mempamerkan sifat tanggungjawab yang tinggi dengan memilih bersemayam di London ketika kota raya tersebut menghadapi serangan udara. Baginda senantiasa berpakaian seragam tentera sepanjang masa peperangan. Baginda melawat kawasan-kawasan yang musnah; Baginda meniupkan semangat serta meningkatkan moral rakyat.

Ratu Wilhelmina yang menduduki takhta kerajaan Netherlands sejak berusia sepuluh (10) tahun memperlihatkan kematangan pengalaman, secara tegas berusia sepuluh (10) tahun memperlihatkan kematangan pengalaman, secara tegas menitahkan Netherlands tidak melibatkan diri dalam Perang Dunia Pertama, sementara Gustav V berjaya menghalang Sweden dari terlibat dalam peperangan Dunia Kedua.

Raja Leopold secara tegas mengetepikan keputusan jemaah menteri, mengambil pendirian menyerah tanpa syarat dan memilih untuk bersama rakyat dan tentera Baginda; satu keputusan terhormat yang mendapat sokongan padu di kalangan rakyat Belgium berketurunan Flemish. Raja Leopold kemudiannya secara berkesan menjadi faktor penyatu bagi rakyat Belgium yang menghadapi pelbagai isu nasional dan isu bahasa. Raja Christian, memilih di Copenhagen setelah memberi perkenan kepada jemaah menteri supaya Denmark menyerah.

Pendirian Baginda menyeleamatkan rakyat dan negara Denmark berbanding dengan Raja Haakon, yang menyeru rakyat Norway menentang kemaraan Jerman dan akhirnya Baginda sendiri terpaksa melarikan diri ke Brintain.

Empayar Rusia dan Habsburg (Austria-Hungary) gagal melakukan penyesuaian pemerintahan berlandaskan perlembagaan dan perwakilan kuasa berbenntuk parlimen, akhirnya takhta hilang dari negara. Nicolas II, Raja (Tsar) Rusia terakhir antara pengajaran memperlihatan kelemahan seorang watak yang gagal memenuhi tanggungjawab berat sebuah institusi.

Sepanjang tempoh pemerintahan Baginda, Nicholas dibatasi dan dikelilingi dengan pengaruh orang-orang yang baginda senangi sama ada pemimpin agama, Permaisuri dan Paderi kesayangan Permaisuri bernama Rasputin.

Pegawai-pegawai berwibawa tidak disenangi dan gagal mendapat kepercayaan baginda.

Akhirnya Baginda terperangkap dnegan kepalsuan dan tidak berpeluang memahami realiti. Berakhirlah Pemerintahan Baginda apabila terputusnya sokongan rakyat.

Perang Dunia kedua turut melihat berakhirnya takhta kerajaan di Romania, di Bulgari, di Yugoslavia dan di Italy. Kelemahan Victor Emmanuel III ditambah dengan kelengahan melantik anakanda Baginda, Putera Umberto dinilai secara adil. Ketika rakyat Itali mengadakan pungutan suara untuk menentukan corak kerajaan, putera Umberto baru beberpaa minggu menaiki takhta. Namun perlu dirakamkan, bahawa kerana masih adanya Raja pada penghujung perang Dunia Kedua, memudahkan rakyat Itali menolak 'fasisme' berserta Mussolini, berbanding ketidakupayaan para Jeneral di Jerman mencabar arahan Hitler dan fahaman 'Nazisme'. Greece kehilangan takhta kerajaan dalam tahun 1967 kerana kegagalan Raja Constantine menangani gelombang politik yang mencetuskan perpecahan dikalangan rakyat selepas Perang Dunia Pertama dan kemelut perang saudara selepas Perang dunia Kedua.

Tahun enam puluhan menyaksikan negara-negara jajahan di Afrika mencapai kemerdekaan; majoriti membentuk kerajaan merdeka bermodelkan republik.

Di Asia, sistem Maharaja di Cina berakhir berikutan revolusi 1912. Dalam tahun 1948, pemerintahan berteraskan demokrasi berparlimen menggantikan 'British Raj' di India.

Indonesi memilih sistem Republik. Namun ikatan emosi terhadap Raja masih berakar di hati rakyat, terutama mereka yang berketurunan Jawa, dengan pegangan mistisisme, menghargai konsep 'Ratu Adil'. Langit Jakarta berawan mendung, bumi Jawa gerimis hiba, menerima berita kemangkatan Sultan Hamengkubuwono IX di Washington pada bulan Oktober 1988. Seratus lima puluh ribu (150,000) rakyat memberi penghormatan terakhir dalam empoh enam belas (16) jam jenazah ditempatkan di Kraton. Meskipun Indonesia adalah sebuah negara republik, Baginda diiktiraf wira negara; Baginda dirujuk sebagai 'Raja Kita'.

Maharaja Jepun berada di Martabat tinggi pada akhir Perang Dunia Pertama selaras dengan kemenangan yang dicapai oleh negara Baginda. Jepun mewakili kuasa yang berjaya di konferensi Damai Paris. Jepun mendapat hak menduduki koloni Jerman di Pasifik, di China dan mendapat keistimewaan di Manchuria. Senario yang dihadapi oleh Maharaja Jepun pada akhir Perang Dunia kedua amat berbeza, ketika Jepun berada di pihak yang kalah. Malah ada suara menuntut agar Maharaja Hirohtio dihadapkan ke muka pengadilan.

Ada dua pendapat berhubung peranan Baginda dalam Perang Dunia kedua. Pendapat pertama, menyatakan Baginda adalah kuasa tersembunyi, terlibat dan bertanggungjawab secara langsung menentukan arah tujuan penglibatan Jepun dalam Perang Dunia kedua. Pendapat kedua, mempertahankan kedua, mempertahankan Maharaja Hirohito, dengan pandangan bahawa Baginda sebenarnya tidak mengeluarkan sebarang arahan secara langsung. Baginda disifatkan seorang yang berhati-hati dengan pemikiran yang perlu yang perlu dibaca secara tepat.

Dikatakan Baginda melakukan kesilapan kerana tidak memiliki kekuatan untuk mencabar ketetapan angkatan tentera. Baginda dianggap lebih berada dalam kongkongan pengaruh pemikiran angkatan tentera. Meskipun memiliki martabat dan pengaruh, Baginda dikatakan kekal dengan kesopanan untuk tidak melanggar tafsiran peranan Raja bersandarkan perlembagaan.

Baginda dikatakan mempunyai pilihan untuk menamatkan peperangan lebih awal tetapi menunggu sehingga mendapat permintaan Perdana Menteri setelah Hiroshima dan Nagasaki dileburkan.

Apa pun di sebalik peranan Baginda, General Douglas MacArthur mencapai kompromi, memperlakukan kesinambungan tahkta Maharaja Jepun setelah Perang Dunia kedua berakhir. Mahraja Jepun dikekalkan tetapi dengan wajah dan dimensi baru. MacArthur bagaikan memahami budaya berkerajaan di Jepun dengan membuat bacaan tepat akan nilai tinggi masyarakat Jepun terhadap tahkta. Di abad kedua puluh satu, Jepun telah bangun dari debu di Hiroshima dan Nagasaki, menjadi gergasi ekonomi dunia, menjadi negara industri - negara teknologi, negara moden - negara maju, namun masyarakat Jepun kekal dengan semangat setia kepada insitusi Raja.

Jepun yang mengamalkan sistem demokrasi tidak pernah menghina dan merendahkan Raja. Malah masyarakat Jepun resah apabila keluarga Diraja gagal melahirkan putera pewaris tahkta. Kerajaan Perdana Menteri Junichiro Koizumi hampir meminda Perlembagaan Negara untuk melayakkan wanita mewarisi tahkta. Kelahiran Putera Hisanhito, pada 6 September 2006 disambut riang oleh rakyat Jepun bagai merayakan turunya hujan rahmat di bumi Nippon yang dibimbangkan gersang.

Raja Bhumibol Adulyadej di Thailand secara bijaksana lagi teliti berupaya mendapat sokongan rakyat dengan mendampingi para petani, mahasiswa dan siswazah mencerminkan imej seorang Raja yang mengambil berat akan tanggung jawab sosial, bersifat patriotik kepada negara bangsanya telah mengolah dan memberi makna akan fungsi tahkta dalam sistem Raja Berperlembagaan. Bahawa Raja dan rakyat disatukan. Raja melambangkan kedaulatan sebuah negara bangsa merdeka, memperlihatkan penderian yang mendukung prinsip demokrasi dan memihak kepada pemerintahan sivil.

Semalam berlaku satu lagi rampasan kuasa di Thailand. Dalam 'intermission' sesuatu babak di panggung pemerintahan, ketika tirai dilabuhkan, Raja Bhumipol berasakan rekod, sentiasa berada di 'centre stage' mempergaruhi arah haluan babak selanjutnya.

Insiden aneh berlaku di Iran. Dalam bulan Ogos 1953, pelopor utama demokrasi dunia, Amerika Syarikat di bawah pimpinan Presiden Dwight Eisenhower dan Great Britain di bawah pimpinan Perdana Menteri Winston Churchill terlibat secara langsung merestui 'Operasi AJAX', menggulingkan pemerintahan demokrasi pimpinan Perdana Menteri Mohammad Mossadegh. Mohammad Reza Shah dinobatkan sebagai Raja yang bersemayam di 'tahkta merak' (peacock throne), Mohamad Reza Pahlavi digulingkan oleh gerakan Revolusi Islam dalam tahun 1979. Bermulalah era anti-Amerika berwajah militan - berbentuk keganasan. Meskipun kerajaan beraja bagaikan tidak lagi menjadi pilihan, sistem Raja diwujudkan di kalangan negara Islam susulan kejatuhan Empayar Otoman.

Sistem kesultanan adalah satu penerusan tradisi sistem yang diwarisi berakarkan sistem khalifah, sistem yang tidak asing dalam budaya umat Islam berkerajaan dan bernegara. Hasil sumber minyak yang membawa kemakmuran ekonomi berjaya diagih secara saksama, kemudahan kesihatan, pendidikan dan kebajikan diberikan perhatian, kestabilan dan keselamatan warga terjamin, pengangguran dapat diatasi, Islam diutamakan dan ulama kekal setia bersama Raja, sistem beraja di negara-negara Islam tersebut, Insya-Allah akan dapat dikekalkan.

Sistem Raja Berpelembagaan kembali bertempat pada tahun 1975 di Sepanyol membantu mengembalikan budaya demokrasi dari budaya autrokrasi Jeneral Franco. Jika Kerajaan beraja lenyap di Vietnam - lenyap di Laos, terperangkap dalam pertelagahan kepentingan antara wibawa Raja, kuasa kolonial Perancis, kebangkitan nasionalisme dan ideologi komunis, tetapi Kampuchea meskipun jatuh ke tangan komunis memberi nafas kepada sistem beraja untuk memberi kesahihan kepada kerajaan Hun Sen, karisma dan kebijaksanaan Putera Sihanouk, berpengaruh menyesuaikan peranan Raja mengharungi konflik semasa, walaupun Baginda berulang kali pula gagal menentukan arah haluan secara konsisten. Namun legasi yang ditinggalkan, membuat rakyat Kampuchea menghargai sistem pemerintahan beraja kerana itu institusi Raja berperlembagan diwujudkan pada Tahun 1993.

Demikianlah senario dinamik yang dilalui oleh institusi Raja secara global dalam tempoh empat ratus (400) tahun yang lalu. Insitusi Raja sebenarnya melaui ujian - menghadapi cabaran berhadapan dengan tentangan - berupaya merentasi rintangan. Ada yang lupus namun masih ada yang terus dipertahankan, ada yang diberikan tafsiran baru, ada yang diberikan nafas semula, ada yang bertambah kukuh.

Insitusi Raja tidak terlepas mengahdapi momokkan dengan istilah-istilah negatif, dikaitkan dengan feudalisme dan autokrasi. Istilah-istilah sedemikian dipelopori oleh mereka yang bersifat anti-Raja. Budaya feudalisme dan budaya autokrasi bukan budaya yang boleh dikaitkan dengan insitusi. Budaya feudalisme dan budaya autokrasi berlaku kerana perbuatan individu apabila individu menjadi mabuk kuasa. Budaya tersebut subur apabila manusia menjadi takjud kepada individu melakukan pendewaan terhadap individu hingga berasa takut yang melampau kepada individu.

Tidak dinafikan budaya feudalisme dan budaya autokrasi pernah berlaku dalam istana - pernah berlaku di kalangan Raja tetapi budaya feudalisme dan budaya autokrasi turut dilakukan di kalangan mereka yang tidak berketurunan Raja dari kalangan rakyat biasa dan berlaku dalam sistem republik dalam pemerintahan berpaksikan tentera malah dalam sistem atas nama agama. Malah kajian menunjukkan bahawa bilangan rejim diktator dan atutokrasi hari ini berlaku di negara-negara yang tidak berada di bawah pemerintahan Raja. Kisah-kisah yang huraikan wajar dijadikan iktibar dalam hasrat dan dalam usaha memertabatkan institusi Raja. Masyarakat dunia sedang dan akan terus melalui proses evolusi yang semakin rancak.

Era teknologi maklumat - era komunikasi telah menenbus sempadan negara - sempadan negeri. Kekebalan Raja turut terjejas kerana proses perundangan bersifat sejagat di tambah pula dengan gaya hidup Raja dan kerabat Diraja yang tidak lagi terkurung dalam lingkungan tembok istana. Ekonomi berpaksikan pengetahuan memberikan satu kemerdekaan baru membina kekayaan bersumberkan intelek sekali gus mengurangkan keperluan insan mendapat naungan.

Kemajuan pendidikan, memudahkan minda dan jiwa manusia bersifat lebih bebas dan lebih terbuka. Pendalaman pengetahuan agama menyedarkan manusia bahawa terdapat kuasa yang Maha Agung di atas segala kuasa dan kerajaan di dunia. Media pula mencanai minda masyarakat yang menuntut kepada amalan ketelusan dan kebertanggungjawaban kepimpinan.

Raja perlu memiliki hikmah merangkai yang lama dengan yang baru membawa pembaharuan di samping memelihara tradisi. Raja harus bersedia membolehkan berlakunaya perubahan dalam rangka kesinambungan budaya Raja berkewajipan mengizinkan modenasi tanpa melupus kekayaan adat yang kekal diwarisi.

Sesungguhnya Raja telah membuktikan keupayaannya memenuhi peranan sedemikian secara berkesan. Biar apa pun sistem Raja itu dilandaskan peranan Raja bukanlah sekadar menjadi simbol untuk melaksanakan tugas-tugas keraian dan istiadat semata-mata. Raja bukanlah monumen hisan yang kaku - tanpa nyawa - tanpa jiwa. Raja perlu memperliuhatkan watak tegas, bijaksana, adil dan saksama adalah menjadi keperluan bagi Raja mempunyai barisan pembesar dan penasihat dari kalangan mereka yang arif ilmuwan dari kalangan mereka yang tidak mempunyai muslihat dari kalangan mereka yang tidak berkepentingan terselindung supaya Raja disembah nasihat dengan maklumat yang tepat secara objektif - secara rasional berasakan fakta - bersandarkan data agar Raja terlindung dari berpagarkan sokong yang membawa rebah.

Sistem Raja berpelembagan perlu ditafsirkan sebagai perkongsian kuasa antara Raja dan Rakyat. Raja menjadi sumber rujukan ketika berlakuanya krisi di kalangan rakyat. Raja memastikan bahawa berlakunya secara adil mekanisme semak dan imbang antara cabang-cabang perundangan eksekutif dan kehakiman sekali gus memperkukuhkan institusi demokrasi di dalam negara.

Secara umum Raja bertindak berasaskan nasihat pimpinan kerajaan pilihan rakyat. Namun Raja tidak harus sama sekali merasakan tertekan dan tidak semestinya memberi penekanan jika nasihat yang disembahkan bercanggah dengan semangat perlembagaan, bertentengan dengan keluhuran undang-undang serta melanggar prinsip keadilan sejagat. Raja sama sekali tidak boleh memihak kepada perbuatan yang tidak meambangkan keadilan atau merstyi tindakan yang tidak mencerminkan kebenaran.

Tata urus negara adalah satu kesenian yang perlu dikuasai utama sekali usaha menyatukan warga dan memupuk kesetian kepada Raja - kepada negara. Tata urus negara tidak berlaku semudah tulisan di kertas atau ungkapan yang dititahkan. Tata urus negara memerlukan seni urus yang halus - daya tadbir yang canggih dilaksanakan melalui mekanisme yang berkesan, cekap dan tulus, mekanisme tadbir yang tidak menyimpang atau menyeleweng erta jauh dari amalan rasuah.

Raja jatuh kerana jatuhnya negara, negara jatuh kerana resahnya rakyat. Urus tadbir yang lemah menjadi punca keresahan rakyat, urus tadbir yang pincang merosakkan negara dan akhirnya melemahkan Raja. Justeru itu adalah menjadi kemestian kepada Raja dengan melaksanakan tanggungjawab secara amanah, ikhlas, bersunguh-sungguh dan komited. Itulah bentuk pengorbanan seseorang yang telah berbaiah kepada Raja, sumpah setia yang perlu diterjemahkan dengan memastikan kestabilan kerajaan, memajukan kemakmuran negara dan menjamin kesejahteraan warga. Tanpa warga, tidak akan terbinanya sebuah negra tanpa negara tidaklah ada lagi lagi keperluan kewujudan Raja.

Teknologi komunikasi dan media amat berpengaruh mencanai persepsi dan pemikiran insan. Raja dan kerabat Diraja tidak terkecuali dari sasaran lensa dan pena media.

Puteri Diana adalah satu pengajaran, Puteri Diana dipopularkan melalui lensa dan pena media, digambarkan secara positif - dilukiskan secara negatif. Puteri Diana dipotretkan memiliki sifat-sifat suci Mother Teresa tetapi dilakarkan juga sebagai model yang memperagakan pakaian berjenama mahal: imej-imej bertentangan menjadi hiasan akhbar dan majalah, menjadi tajuk berita di saluran televisyen dan radio. Puteri Diana terperangkap dalam permainan media dan membayar harga dengan nyawa. Demikian peranan dan pengaruh media di era ini, senjata tajam bermata dua. Perihal peribadi Puteri Diana menjadi makluman umum, jauh berbeza dengan senario di tahun 1936 apabila BBC dan media di United Kingdom tidak menyebarkan hubungan Raja Edward dengan Mrs, Simpson, sehinggalah Raja Edward mengundurkan diri dari takhta kerajaan.

Media, bila di kendali secara bijak, membantu pemahaman dunia akan institusi Raja dan membantu rakyat untuk lebih dapat menghargai dan memahami peranan Raja. Raja George V menggunakan saluran radio menyampaikan titah hari Natal ke seluruh Empayar British sebagai usaha istana mendampingi rakyat. Televisyen dalam tahun 1953 memungkinkan buat pertama kalinya istiadat pertabalan Ratu Elizabeth disiarkan secara langsung. Majlis-majlis perkahwinan dan pertabalan, keputeraan dan kemangkatan Raja diberikan liputan meluas oleh media cetak dan media elektronik.

Raja tidak harus memandang sepi akan peranan media dalam maya yang semakin terbuka. Raja tidak harus kaku menjadi penonton dalam era revolusi media. Apatah lagi keluarga dan kerabat Diraja kini turut melalui kehidupan yang lebih terbuka, mengikuti sistem pendidikan yang lebih terbuka, terlibat dalam proses sosialisasi yang lebih terbuka. Mengurus tadbir media adalah satu seni yang memerlukan kepakaran, hikmah dan kebijaksanaan, mengimbang apa yang patut disuratkan dengan apa yang harus disiratkan. Halaman web tentang Raja wajar dibangunkan, memberi ruang kepada dunia memahami institusi Raja dari perspektif istana.

Gerakan kebangkitan Islam memerlukan pemahaman akan realiti yang sedang dan akan berlaku. Kekecewaan di kalangan pelopor gerakan ini menjadi punca kepada keganasan yang mengancam keselamatan dunia. Raja-raja ada tanggungjawab dalam usaha membantu menangani ancaman ini baik Raja di negara Islam begitu juga di kalangan Raja di negara bukan Islam.

Sebahagian dari punca kekecewaan mungkin dapat diselesaikan dari istana. Raja-Raja di negara bukan Islam dapat membantu menangani masalah dan ancaman ini dengan mempelopori perbincangan antara agama dan antara budaya, di samping meningkatkan kefahaman terhadap Islam serta sama-sama menyuarakan tuntutan kemanusiaan, membela dan membantu nasib insan yang menderita terutama di bumi Palestin, Afganistan dan kini Lubnan. Raja boleh mengambil langkah berkesan membantu proses rasionalisasi di kalangan rakyat Islam dan bukan Islam di negara masing-masing.

Raja-Raja di alam Melayu mempunyai hubungan yang rapat dengan Islam. Islam mempengaruhi dan mengubah corak pemerintahan, beralih dari pemerintahan berpaksikan individu kepada pemerintahan berpaksikan undang-undang. Undang-undang Melaka menjelaskan bahawa martabat tinggi seseorang Sultan. Dinilai dari sudut amal makruf Baginda menyempurnakan tanggungjawab. Terkandung dalam Kanun bahawa seseorang Raja perlu mengamalkan sifat-sifat perkasa lagi tegas, adil lagi saksama, pengampun dan belas kasihan.

Allah itu Maha Pemurah - Maha Mengasihani, seperti yang terkandung dalam kalimah 'Bismillahi Rahmani Rahim," diulang sebanyak seratus empat belas 9114) kali dalam Al-Quran, mendahului permulaan setiap surah melainkan surat 'AT-Taubah: kalimah 'BismillahiRahmani Rahim' diulang dua kali dalam surah 'An-Namli'.

Islam telah membawa Raja Melayu kepada konsep murni, muafakat dan adil. Konsep adil dapat ditafsirkan sebagai menepati semangat perjanjian antara Demang Lebar Daun dengan Sang Sapurba yang dijadikan 'magna carta' Melayu bertuankan Raja bersandarkan konsep keadilan yang dibayangkan dengan kata-kata 'Raja Adil-Raja disembah' Sewajarnya Raja berpegang kepada prinsip utama untuk menentukan kesetiaan. Bahawa jawatan berkembar dengan kuasa, dan kuasa disertai dengan tanggungjawab. Kedudukan dan kuasa adalah anugerah - adalah amanah dari ALLAH SUBAHANAHU WATAALA.

Kedudukan dan kuasa adalah ujian ILAHI di kalangan hambanya yang terpilih. Kedudukan ini tidak sama sekali oleh disalahgunakan dan kuasa yang ada perlu digunakan secara adil untuk menegakkan kebenaran dan keadilan. Berpeganglah kepada prinsip, bahawa kuasa yang diamanahkan tidak harus mengatasi kuasa ILAHI.

Amalan perundingan adalah budaya berkerajaan dalam sistem beraja dan budaya bernegara menurut amalan Islam. Khalifah Islam mengamalkan syura dan Raja Melayu melakukan mesyuarat. Ini telah dijadikan amanat penting kepada pewaris takhta seperti terkandung dalam wasiat Sultan Alauddin Shah kepada putera Baginda Sultan Mahmud Shah. Petikan: "Hai anak ku, ketahui oleh mu bahawa dunia ini tiada akan kekal adanya... melainkan iman... adanya peninggalan ku ini hendaklah anak ku berbuat ibadat sangat-sangat, jangan tiada sebenarnya, kerana segala hamba Allah semuanya terserah kepada mu. Jikalau kesukaran baginya hendaklah segera engkau tolong, jikalau teraniaya ia hendaklah segera engkau periksa baik-baik supaya di akhirat jangan diberatkan Allah atasnya leher mu...Syahadan hendaklah engkau muafakat dengan segala perdana menteri dan segala orang besar-besar, kerana raja-raja itu jikalau bagaimana sekalipun bijaksananya dan tahunya sekalipun, jikalau tiada ia muafakat dengan segala pegawai, tiada akan sentosa adanya, dan tiada akan dapat ia melakukan adilnya, rakyat itu umpama akar raja itu umpama pohonnya, jikalau tiada akar nescaya tiada akan dapat berdiri." (Petikan dari Sulalat al-Salatin) Anakanda sentiasa insaf bahawa kekuatan serta kelemahan, citra dan daulat Institusi Raja bergantung pada citra serta keutuhan sifat perilaku batang tubuh seseorang Raja. Anakanda amat insaf bahawa Raja dan kerabat Di Raja hari ini tidak lagi bersemayam secara isolasi dalam batasan perkarangan istana. Melalui pendedahan pendidikan berserta pendedahan kepada teknologi maklumat dan komunikasi, Raja sama berpeluang mengikuti pelbagai peristiwa secara langsung tanpa tapisan. Perhubungan rakyat dan Raja tidak lagi terbatas kepada sekumpulan pembesar istana. Ini adalah satu perkembangan sihat namun amat mencabar, membolehkan Raja memahami realiti, bahawa darjat dan daulat seseorang Raja tidaklah bulat datang menggolek - tidakkan pipis datang melayang.

Raja perlu membuktikan tahap pencapaian, memenuhi harapan rakyat, mempamerkan perilaku dan keperibadian sejajar dengan kemuliaan dan penghormatan yang diberikan. Telah dijadikan penyuluh hidup akan ungkapan titah Paduka Seri Ayahanada anakanda, Duli Yang Maha Mulia Paduka Seri Sultan Azlan Muhibbuddin Shah sewaktu Baginda dianugerahkan Ijazah Kehormat Doktor Undang-Undang oleh Universiti Sains Malaysia dalam tahun 1980. Petikan, "Bahawa selagi rakyat menaruh kepercayaan terhadap Raja dan menghormati Institusi Raja, selagi itulah takhta tidak akan dipindahkan dari istana ke muzium.. bahawa takhta juga tidak boleh lari dari hukum Allah, hukum yang ditetapkan ke atas seluruh umat manusia tanpa mengira Raja atau rakyat." Bahawa takhta yang kini tinggal dalam sejarah, adalah kerana salah nasihat yang diberi oleh pembesar istana yang tidak bertanggungjawab, pembesar istana yang menyalah gunakan nama mulia Raja.

Sejarah juga merakamkan penyelewengan dan penyalahgunaan kuasa sering kali dilakukan oleh pembesar-pembesar atas nama takhta, mengambil kesempatan ketika berteduh di bawah payung kuasa naungan Raja. Kekuatan dan kelemahan seseorang Raja dipengaruhi oleh kekuatan atau kelemahan terutama di kalangan mereka yang diberi amanah menjadi pembesar dan penasihat Raja.

Hubungan Raja, pembesar, pemimpin dan rakyat perlu dibina secara sihat, disuburkan melalui saluran komunikasi yang berkesan. Barisan yang diberikan kepercayaan dan tanggungjawab menasihati Raja, wajib bersifat ikhlas, arif lagi berilmu, berkata benar betapa pahit sekalipun, supaya Raja tidak dibuai dalam khayalan - tidak diulit gurindam pujian. Jika jambatan komunikasi yang kukuh dapat dibina, persefahaman dapat diluluskan, hubungan harmonis dapat diakrabkan, Insya-Allah Raja akan selamat bertakhta, penuh berdaulat - dikasihi rakyat. Dalam mengharungi perjalanan, dalam memungut pengalaman sebagai bekalan memenuhi tanggungjawab institusi Raja, anakanda sentiasa bersandarkan pedoman, akan amanat yang diturunkan turun temurun, zaman berzaman, bahawa:- Bapa kepada Raja adalah syariat ajaran Rasul Ibu kepada Raja adalah adat dan undang-undang Saudara kepada Raja adalah segala Menteri Besar dan Kecil Anak kepada Raja adalah segala rakyat jelata Bahawa Raja itu bagaikan tiada bapa, ibu dan anak Tidak diutamakan oleh Raja kepentingan lain melainkan rakyat jelata. Malah ungka siamang di hutan jua adalah di bawah jagaan Raja Menjalankan pemerintahan dengan adil Memelihara agama - menjamin keamanan Menunaikan kewajipan dengan penuh iltizam Jika Raja gagal menjunjung kebenaran ini Maka hancur musnahlah negara.

Ampun Tuanku, Didoakan semoga Paduka Seri Ayahanda, Ke bawah Duli Yang Maha Mulia Paduka Seri Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah Mu'izzaaddin Waddaulah, dikurniakan segala keberkatan, dianugerahkan kebesaran, memerintah Negara Brunei Darussalam dalam keadaan aman dan sentosa, makmur dan sejahtera.

Dirgahayu Tuanku, Daulat Tuanku!Daulat Tuanku! Daulat Tuanku!

Sekianlah huraian dan pandangan yang tidak sepertinya yang anakanda dapat ungkapan, dalam huraian yang kurang bijak, susun kata yang kurang arif, bahasa yang kurang sempurna. Jika ada sepatah kalam, sebaris ayat yang boleh dijadikan ilmu, Paduka Seri Ayahanda jugalah pendeta yang lebih arif lagi bijaksana.

Bill Gates Harvard Commencement Speech

Remarks of Bill Gates
Harvard Commencement
(Text as prepared for delivery)

President Bok, former President Rudenstine, incoming President Faust, members of the Harvard Corporation and the Board of Overseers, members of the faculty, parents, and especially, the graduates:

I’ve been waiting more than 30 years to say this: “Dad, I always told you I’d come back and get my degree.”

I want to thank Harvard for this timely honor. I’ll be changing my job next year … and it will be nice to finally have a college degree on my resume.

I applaud the graduates today for taking a much more direct route to your degrees. For my part, I’m just happy that the Crimson has called me “Harvard’s most successful dropout.” I guess that makes me valedictorian of my own special class … I did the best of everyone who failed.

But I also want to be recognized as the guy who got Steve Ballmer to drop out of business school. I’m a bad influence. That’s why I was invited to speak at your graduation. If I had spoken at your orientation, fewer of you might be here today.

Harvard was just a phenomenal experience for me. Academic life was fascinating. I used to sit in on lots of classes I hadn’t even signed up for. And dorm life was terrific. I lived up at Radcliffe, in Currier House. There were always lots of people in my dorm room late at night discussing things, because everyone knew I didn’t worry about getting up in the morning. That’s how I came to be the leader of the anti-social group. We clung to each other as a way of validating our rejection of all those social people.

Radcliffe was a great place to live. There were more women up there, and most of the guys were science-math types. That combination offered me the best odds, if you know what I mean. This is where I learned the sad lesson that improving your odds doesn’t guarantee success.
One of my biggest memories of Harvard came in January 1975, when I made a call from Currier House to a company in Albuquerque that had begun making the world’s first personal computers. I offered to sell them software.

I worried that they would realize I was just a student in a dorm and hang up on me. Instead they said: “We’re not quite ready, come see us in a month,” which was a good thing, because we hadn’t written the software yet. From that moment, I worked day and night on this little extra credit project that marked the end of my college education and the beginning of a remarkable journey with Microsoft.

What I remember above all about Harvard was being in the midst of so much energy and intelligence. It could be exhilarating, intimidating, sometimes even discouraging, but always challenging. It was an amazing privilege – and though I left early, I was transformed by my years at Harvard, the friendships I made, and the ideas I worked on.
But taking a serious look back … I do have one big regret.

I left Harvard with no real awareness of the awful inequities in the world – the appalling disparities of health, and wealth, and opportunity that condemn millions of people to lives of despair.

I learned a lot here at Harvard about new ideas in economics and politics. I got great exposure to the advances being made in the sciences.
But humanity’s greatest advances are not in its discoveries – but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity. Whether through democracy, strong public education, quality health care, or broad economic opportunity – reducing inequity is the highest human achievement.
I left campus knowing little about the millions of young people cheated out of educational opportunities here in this country. And I knew nothing about the millions of people living in unspeakable poverty and disease in developing countries.
It took me decades to find out.

You graduates came to Harvard at a different time. You know more about the world’s inequities than the classes that came before. In your years here, I hope you’ve had a chance to think about how – in this age of accelerating technology – we can finally take on these inequities, and we can solve them.

Imagine, just for the sake of discussion, that you had a few hours a week and a few dollars a month to donate to a cause – and you wanted to spend that time and money where it would have the greatest impact in saving and improving lives. Where would you spend it?
For Melinda and for me, the challenge is the same: how can we do the most good for the greatest number with the resources we have.

During our discussions on this question, Melinda and I read an article about the millions of children who were dying every year in poor countries from diseases that we had long ago made harmless in this country. Measles, malaria, pneumonia, hepatitis B, yellow fever. One disease I had never even heard of, rotavirus, was killing half a million kids each year – none of them in the United States.

We were shocked. We had just assumed that if millions of children were dying and they could be saved, the world would make it a priority to discover and deliver the medicines to save them. But it did not. For under a dollar, there were interventions that could save lives that just weren’t being delivered.

If you believe that every life has equal value, it’s revolting to learn that some lives are seen as worth saving and others are not. We said to ourselves: “This can’t be true. But if it is true, it deserves to be the priority of our giving.”

So we began our work in the same way anyone here would begin it. We asked: “How could the world let these children die?”

The answer is simple, and harsh. The market did not reward saving the lives of these children, and governments did not subsidize it. So the children died because their mothers and their fathers had no power in the market and no voice in the system.

But you and I have both.

We can make market forces work better for the poor if we can develop a more creative capitalism – if we can stretch the reach of market forces so that more people can make a profit, or at least make a living, serving people who are suffering from the worst inequities. We also can press governments around the world to spend taxpayer money in ways that better reflect the values of the people who pay the taxes.

If we can find approaches that meet the needs of the poor in ways that generate profits for business and votes for politicians, we will have found a sustainable way to reduce inequity in the world. This task is open-ended. It can never be finished. But a conscious effort to answer this challenge will change the world.

I am optimistic that we can do this, but I talk to skeptics who claim there is no hope. They say: “Inequity has been with us since the beginning, and will be with us till the end – because people just … don’t … care.” I completely disagree.

I believe we have more caring than we know what to do with.

All of us here in this Yard, at one time or another, have seen human tragedies that broke our hearts, and yet we did nothing – not because we didn’t care, but because we didn’t know what to do. If we had known how to help, we would have acted.

The barrier to change is not too little caring; it is too much complexity.
To turn caring into action, we need to see a problem, see a solution, and see the impact. But complexity blocks all three steps.

Even with the advent of the Internet and 24-hour news, it is still a complex enterprise to get people to truly see the problems. When an airplane crashes, officials immediately call a press conference. They promise to investigate, determine the cause, and prevent similar crashes in the future.

But if the officials were brutally honest, they would say: “Of all the people in the world who died today from preventable causes, one half of one percent of them were on this plane. We’re determined to do everything possible to solve the problem that took the lives of the one half of one percent.”

The bigger problem is not the plane crash, but the millions of preventable deaths.
We don’t read much about these deaths. The media covers what’s new – and millions of people dying is nothing new. So it stays in the background, where it’s easier to ignore. But even when we do see it or read about it, it’s difficult to keep our eyes on the problem. It’s hard to look at suffering if the situation is so complex that we don’t know how to help. And so we look away.
If we can really see a problem, which is the first step, we come to the second step: cutting through the complexity to find a solution.

Finding solutions is essential if we want to make the most of our caring. If we have clear and proven answers anytime an organization or individual asks “How can I help?,” then we can get action – and we can make sure that none of the caring in the world is wasted. But complexity makes it hard to mark a path of action for everyone who cares — and that makes it hard for their caring to matter.

Cutting through complexity to find a solution runs through four predictable stages: determine a goal, find the highest-leverage approach, discover the ideal technology for that approach, and in the meantime, make the smartest application of the technology that you already have — whether it’s something sophisticated, like a drug, or something simpler, like a bednet.

The AIDS epidemic offers an example. The broad goal, of course, is to end the disease. The highest-leverage approach is prevention. The ideal technology would be a vaccine that gives lifetime immunity with a single dose. So governments, drug companies, and foundations fund vaccine research. But their work is likely to take more than a decade, so in the meantime, we have to work with what we have in hand – and the best prevention approach we have now is getting people to avoid risky behavior.

Pursuing that goal starts the four-step cycle again. This is the pattern. The crucial thing is to never stop thinking and working – and never do what we did with malaria and tuberculosis in the 20th century – which is to surrender to complexity and quit.
The final step – after seeing the problem and finding an approach – is to measure the impact of your work and share your successes and failures so that others learn from your efforts.
You have to have the statistics, of course. You have to be able to show that a program is vaccinating millions more children. You have to be able to show a decline in the number of children dying from these diseases. This is essential not just to improve the program, but also to help draw more investment from business and government.

But if you want to inspire people to participate, you have to show more than numbers; you have to convey the human impact of the work – so people can feel what saving a life means to the families affected.

I remember going to Davos some years back and sitting on a global health panel that was discussing ways to save millions of lives. Millions! Think of the thrill of saving just one person’s life – then multiply that by millions. … Yet this was the most boring panel I’ve ever been on – ever. So boring even I couldn’t bear it.

What made that experience especially striking was that I had just come from an event where we were introducing version 13 of some piece of software, and we had people jumping and shouting with excitement. I love getting people excited about software – but why can’t we generate even more excitement for saving lives?

You can’t get people excited unless you can help them see and feel the impact. And how you do that – is a complex question.

Still, I’m optimistic. Yes, inequity has been with us forever, but the new tools we have to cut through complexity have not been with us forever. They are new – they can help us make the most of our caring – and that’s why the future can be different from the past.

The defining and ongoing innovations of this age – biotechnology, the computer, the Internet – give us a chance we’ve never had before to end extreme poverty and end death from preventable disease.

Sixty years ago, George Marshall came to this commencement and announced a plan to assist the nations of post-war Europe. He said: “I think one difficulty is that the problem is one of such enormous complexity that the very mass of facts presented to the public by press and radio make it exceedingly difficult for the man in the street to reach a clear appraisement of the situation. It is virtually impossible at this distance to grasp at all the real significance of the situation.”

Thirty years after Marshall made his address, as my class graduated without me, technology was emerging that would make the world smaller, more open, more visible, less distant.
The emergence of low-cost personal computers gave rise to a powerful network that has transformed opportunities for learning and communicating.

The magical thing about this network is not just that it collapses distance and makes everyone your neighbor. It also dramatically increases the number of brilliant minds we can have working together on the same problem – and that scales up the rate of innovation to a staggering degree.
At the same time, for every person in the world who has access to this technology, five people don’t. That means many creative minds are left out of this discussion -- smart people with practical intelligence and relevant experience who don’t have the technology to hone their talents or contribute their ideas to the world.

We need as many people as possible to have access to this technology, because these advances are triggering a revolution in what human beings can do for one another. They are making it possible not just for national governments, but for universities, corporations, smaller organizations, and even individuals to see problems, see approaches, and measure the impact of their efforts to address the hunger, poverty, and desperation George Marshall spoke of 60 years ago.

Members of the Harvard Family: Here in the Yard is one of the great collections of intellectual talent in the world.

What for?

There is no question that the faculty, the alumni, the students, and the benefactors of Harvard have used their power to improve the lives of people here and around the world. But can we do more? Can Harvard dedicate its intellect to improving the lives of people who will never even hear its name?

Let me make a request of the deans and the professors – the intellectual leaders here at Harvard: As you hire new faculty, award tenure, review curriculum, and determine degree requirements, please ask yourselves:

Should our best minds be dedicated to solving our biggest problems?
Should Harvard encourage its faculty to take on the world’s worst inequities? Should Harvard students learn about the depth of global poverty … the prevalence of world hunger … the scarcity of clean water …the girls kept out of school … the children who die from diseases we can cure?

Should the world’s most privileged people learn about the lives of the world’s least privileged?
These are not rhetorical questions – you will answer with your policies.
My mother, who was filled with pride the day I was admitted here – never stopped pressing me to do more for others. A few days before my wedding, she hosted a bridal event, at which she read aloud a letter about marriage that she had written to Melinda. My mother was very ill with cancer at the time, but she saw one more opportunity to deliver her message, and at the close of the letter she said: “From those to whom much is given, much is expected.”
When you consider what those of us here in this Yard have been given – in talent, privilege, and opportunity – there is almost no limit to what the world has a right to expect from us.
In line with the promise of this age, I want to exhort each of the graduates here to take on an issue – a complex problem, a deep inequity, and become a specialist on it. If you make it the focus of your career, that would be phenomenal. But you don’t have to do that to make an impact. For a few hours every week, you can use the growing power of the Internet to get informed, find others with the same interests, see the barriers, and find ways to cut through them.

Don’t let complexity stop you. Be activists. Take on the big inequities. It will be one of the great experiences of your lives.

You graduates are coming of age in an amazing time. As you leave Harvard, you have technology that members of my class never had. You have awareness of global inequity, which we did not have. And with that awareness, you likely also have an informed conscience that will torment you if you abandon these people whose lives you could change with very little effort. You have more than we had; you must start sooner, and carry on longer.
Knowing what you know, how could you not?

And I hope you will come back here to Harvard 30 years from now and reflect on what you have done with your talent and your energy. I hope you will judge yourselves not on your professional accomplishments alone, but also on how well you have addressed the world’s deepest inequities … on how well you treated people a world away who have nothing in common with you but their humanity.

Good luck.