I was thinking about this topic earlier in the day and wanted to write about it. On the surface, it may look as if a religious and conservative country like Malaysia doesn't have a sex culture, that's far from the truth and from what I'm going to explain below, I think that the Malaysian sex culture is going to experience a revolution in the coming decades.
I have a theory, that the more you repress the sexual desire of an individual or a society, the more curious and excited they'd become about sex. And there are tonnes of facts to support this theory. In the US for example, it was found that the Bible belt (specifically, the Southern states) consume porn at a much higher rate per capita than liberal states like California or New York. In Malaysia, it was found that the states of Kelantan and Terengganu consume a lot more porn per capita than states like Selangor or Penang.
The reason is simple. These people get constantly told either by their parents or their religious leaders that sex is wrong, porn is wrong and masturbation is wrong. It's all a sin. The problem with making something a sin is that you make it cool for youngsters to commit the sin. These young adults would still feel great sense of guilt when committing the 'sin', but the thrill and adrenaline of going against the orders of God and religion is just so pleasurable and addictive.
Such a situation can't be found in a liberal household. If the parents of a child tells them, 'I don't care about you doing all these stuff, just make sure to have some self-control. After all, we were the same when we were young', its a mood killer for the child. There's no thrill because there's no sin. "So what if I'm into sex, it doesn't make me so much different from my parents". And because of this, kids from liberal families, contrary to the popular belief, have less interest in sexual activity in general.
There's another theory, and I got this from an independent feature documentary on Youtube, called 'Four Horsemen - Feature Documentary'. They divided the lifespan of any empire in this world to 6 category, namely the age of Pioneers, Conquest, Commerce, Affluence, Intelect and Decadence. According to the authors, there are common cultural patterns that can be observed in all great empires when it comes to the Age of Decadence, and one of them is the obsession with sex. Whether or not they're right in their analysis is yet to be proven, but I find this observation to be interesting, especially on the sex part, the rest sounds like a prophecy by a doomsday theorist.
So if you put these theories together, I think you'll see a logical pattern. In the US for example, the age of sexual freedom was during the 1960s and 70s. I'm talking about the counter culture or the Hippie generation. This generation of people are noticeably rebellious and the polar opposite of their parent's generation. I wouldn't say that there was an obsession towards sex, but clearly there was an obsession towards everything that was considered wrong by the older generation and sex was one of them. As I mentioned in my theory, the more an individual is repressed of sex, the more he/she'd crave for it. I can imagine the young adults of that time from more religious parts of the country moving to San Francisco just to experience the sexual revolution.
During the 90s and 2000s, I think that sex culture reached another peak in the US, but for different reasons. Homosexuality was still by-and-large a taboo subject in most parts of America and what that did was create a culture of obsession towards same-sex interaction, particularly lesbian action. For those who grew up during these times, you'd probably know the time when Madonna kissed Britney Spears and Cristina Aguilera in an award show or Katy Perry's 'I kissed a girl' that propelled her into stardom. It's basically a culture of straight women doing lesbian stunts to gain popularity or just look cool. Today in the US, this culture has probably become passé, meaning out of fashion. I don't see young women in their teens or early 20s having interest in this.
The reason for that is probably because 1) Gay marriage becoming legal probably has something to do with it. When something is not wrong, there's no thrill in doing it, 2) They were't born in a society that banned homosexual activity, contrary to the previous generation. So the sexual desire to break the societal norms just isn't there. In conclusion, I believe that the US had two peaks when it comes to obsession with sex, one in the 60s and another in the 2000s. Right now, I think the US is experiencing a decline in interest towards sex.
Now coming back to Malaysia, we have neither of those experiences yet. Maybe the ethnic Chinese and to some extent, ethnic Indians have already experienced what Americans experienced in the 60s, but the Malays almost definitely haven't. I think the desire for sexual content and experience is a lot stronger among Malay youth compared to non-Malay and with the change in media, entertainment and internet freedom that has been taking place since May 9, which I predict will go on for years to come, I believe that the bottled desires will come out in a big way.
Like the US, I believe that we'll have two peaks; the first when recreational sex is accepted by the society and the second when same-sex union is accepted. That may be a long way to go but I'm pretty certain that the road from now is only up. Even if a new, more Islamic govt comes to power in 5 years, I don't think they'd change the course, they'd only postpone the peak of sex culture to a later date.
Sunday, December 30, 2018
Saturday, December 1, 2018
Seafield Temple Fiasco: Is there a long-term solution for Hindu temples in Malaysia?
Background
A lot of things have happened in the past week that has caught the national attention. But in truth, this isn't a new problem, over hundreds of temples have been demolished over the past decade to pave way for new development.
I think most of us would've known why it happened by now. The story starts decades or even a century ago, when the ancestors of many of today's Malaysian Indians were working in estates. The estate management allowed the laborers to set up their own place of worship close to where they live in the estate land. Hence, small temples were constructed close to where they live and typically, every estate would have a temple.
However when the estate and it's property changed ownership, the issue of Hindu temples seemed to have been forgotten; either that or both parties chose to ignore the issue during negotiations. It also seems like there was no representative to fight for the rights of Hindu devotees during the period of ownership transfer. I'm just assuming all of these scenarios but I think they're not so far from the truth of what actually happened.
So pass a couple of decades, and the areas surrounding KL and JB are booming. Land prices are soaring and every acre of land is valuable. For the developer, it's simple: they've bought the land and the temple is illegally sitting on their land. For the temple management, it's complicated: the temple has been there for centuries if not decades. Aside from religious significance, it also has a significant heritage and cultural value for the Indian community. Why can't the developer share this small piece of land and why can't the elected representatives figure out a way to help the community on this matter?
For most temples, the fate is far worse than the deal proposed by One City Development Bhd to Seafield Maha Mariamman Temple. There is neither a relocation plan nor a compensation. In the case of this temple, it seems that one faction agreed to the developer's plan while the other didn't. The court decided that the pro-relocation faction are the rightful owners of the temple but mysteriously, the pro-stay faction seems to have the keys to the temple for so many years now, and also the support of the vast majority of devotees.
For the pro-stay team, I'm sure that they'd be incredibly skeptical of the court and their verdict. The idea that the developer has manipulated one faction to agree with relocation and compensation, and then pay the judge to rule in their favor is not far fetched. And then came last Tuesday, where a group of thugs stormed into the temple in the midnight with the purpose of destroying the place. The devotees called backup, resisted the violence and by morning, everyone was talking about it.
Here are some of my thoughts about the entire fiasco:
1) This incident has certainly gotten a lot of coverage in comparison to the demolition of other temples over the years. It could be due to the ever increasing penetration of the press and especially since the last election, the freedom to report whatever they want without a call from ministry to censor certain aspects of the story. Or it could be due to what I'll further explain in No.3.
2) Too much of infighting seem to happen in Indian organizations, whether it's temple management or political parties. It is quickly becoming a stereotype of Malaysian Indians. I think it's a cultural problem; Indians seem to be the most rebellious against authority compared to other races in Malaysia. It may be useful when fighting against oppression but if you keep fighting your leaders, whoever it may be, then nothing productive gets done. In the case of the temple, it seems probable that the disunity is exploited by outsiders and the public now has less sympathy to their cause when they see all this infighting.
3) This is just a wild theory but it is probable that the entire incident is politically-staged, from the hiring of thugs to the media coverage. I'm a believer that when an issue is sensationalized, more often than not, there's someone pulling the strings in the background. When you look at things in this perspective, you try to analyze as to who actually gains from this incident. It's not the developer, not the temple management although they have a lot more Hindus behind their back now, it's definitely not the pro-relocation faction.
Then you look at it politically and you see a pattern between this incident and what has been or will be happening. There's a strong anti-ICERD sentiment among Malays right now and UMNO and PAS seem to be gaining from it. The rally on December 8 would be a show of strength for the opposition and the govt, especially the Malay-based parties in Pakatan, may be determined to stop it at all cost to prevent further defection. Could it be that the temple violence was masterminded by someone within Pakatan? We'll probably never know but it's just a wild guess.
4) One big reason why relocation is difficult with Hindu temples, and hence one of the main reasons why I'm writing this blog, is because of the worship of sacred trees in Hinduism, in this case the fig tree or 'arasamaram'. You could move the temple idols but could you move the tree? And for a Hindu, it would be extremely difficult to watch a tree that you consider sacred and spiritual to be chopped down, especially by a non-believer using machines. It probably motivates the devotees of this temple to further fight against the relocation.
5) Many Hindu temples, not just in major cities but in the entire country, have major problems going future. Firstly, a lot of them are constructed in land that belongs to someone else as mentioned earlier in the blog. Secondly and most importantly, the number of devotees in almost all temples has been gradually reducing over time. This is because many young Hindus are atheist, agnostic, even if they're practicing Hindus, they don't have the same level of piety as their elders and certainly visit temples less frequently.
This is why you'd see mostly old people in temples. The youth also feel less compelled to contribute to the temple, either financially or through charity work, because they hardly go there. So what would end up happening over time is that a lot of temples will become empty, poorly managed because of lack of donations and most probably be abandoned.
6) In the case of the Seafield temple, clearly the problem is not the number of devotees, but the financial status of these devotees. Had they been wealthy and able to contribute to the temple's coffers, surely the plot of land would've been bought by now and none of these problems would've arised.
The much larger issue that won't be addressed in this blog is that many children and grandchildren of Indian estate workers are among the poorest in the country. This causes many problems, including the destruction of their places of worship. It just goes to show the power that money has in modern Malaysia, although some of us try to ignore the fact.
So, is there a light at the end of the tunnel?
There certainly are many solutions, but whether or not the're feasible or get implemented properly remains to be seen. Recently Tan Sri Vincent Tan suggested a 'Save the Temple' fund and pledged RM500K. Some other prominent people have also pledged to donate money. However, this could not possibly be a solution for all the temples on other people's land.
Some of the Pakatan leaders tried to negotiate for a 'Mid Valley solution', where the temple and development coexists. But this also can't be a possible solution for all temples, because not all developments are the same. And what is the guarantee that the developer won't be asking back the land some time in the future when the ownership changes hands?
The devotees and temple management keep hoping that either the Federal or State govt would buy the land. There's also a lot of expectation that the politicians would solve their woes. I guess this mentality was inherited from the estate days, because a lot of things were given to the estate workers by the management in return for their hard labor.
I have a message to Indians who think this way: this is a modern Malaysia that's quite selfish, materialistic and cares less about your faith. And it doesn't help if you keep comparing yourself to what a Bumiputra gets. That's just the way it is in the country regardless of which party rules. Indian leaders in Pakatan are also realizing that their fate is not so different from the past MIC and PAP leaders. They're unable to satisfy the demands of the Indian populace, in return get angry reaction from the community.
I think the most ethical and sustainable solution is to gradually relocate all the nearby small temples into one large area that's owned by the temple management. This way, the donations can be evenly distributed, the maintenance cost would be lower, the devotee numbers won't go to zero and most importantly, there won't be all this legal mess and public scorn. The relocation process should be done by a Hindu body and paid for by the developer. And politicians should ensure that this process happens smoothly. Politicians also should find a way to stop the constant infighting that happens in most temple managements.
It's easy for you to say relocate, how about the sacred trees? - That is a problem with Hindu temples. If the developer agrees/required to pay, then surely the option of transplanting a tree can be considered. The process of transplanting trees is pretty common in Western countries but is hardly done in Malaysia. It is a pretty interesting process, from an engineering perspective. If the developer doesn't pay, then I guess the tree should be regrown in the new site using the seeds from the old tree. And the cutting down of the old tree must be done by Hindus.
Where does this stop? Most temples will be demolished and Indians will gradually lose their cultural heritage - If Indians want to preserve the religious and cultural heritage of their ancestors, then a probable solution would be to create a museum dedicated only to old and demolished Hindu temples. Perhaps this museum could also store parts of the temple, maybe even some idols and parts of the sacred tree and have all the records about it. I'm sure a museum like this won't just be a hit with local Indians, but many Malaysian Indians who've left Malaysia, but have interest in their ancestry. It could also be popular with other locals and foreign tourists, especially those from India.
What about the Gods? Do you want to face the wrath of God? - In all due respect, I think the Gods will be more pleased with the solutions laid out above instead of the alternative. Violence in temples, hiring of thugs to destroy temples and for many temples, utter neglect and abandonment is the worst thing that could happen to the Gods. Let them reside peacefully and harmoniously with their surrounding. And we need outsiders to speak positively about temples, instead of bringing the internal disputes of the temple to public and giving the Gods a bad name.
A lot of things have happened in the past week that has caught the national attention. But in truth, this isn't a new problem, over hundreds of temples have been demolished over the past decade to pave way for new development.
I think most of us would've known why it happened by now. The story starts decades or even a century ago, when the ancestors of many of today's Malaysian Indians were working in estates. The estate management allowed the laborers to set up their own place of worship close to where they live in the estate land. Hence, small temples were constructed close to where they live and typically, every estate would have a temple.
However when the estate and it's property changed ownership, the issue of Hindu temples seemed to have been forgotten; either that or both parties chose to ignore the issue during negotiations. It also seems like there was no representative to fight for the rights of Hindu devotees during the period of ownership transfer. I'm just assuming all of these scenarios but I think they're not so far from the truth of what actually happened.
So pass a couple of decades, and the areas surrounding KL and JB are booming. Land prices are soaring and every acre of land is valuable. For the developer, it's simple: they've bought the land and the temple is illegally sitting on their land. For the temple management, it's complicated: the temple has been there for centuries if not decades. Aside from religious significance, it also has a significant heritage and cultural value for the Indian community. Why can't the developer share this small piece of land and why can't the elected representatives figure out a way to help the community on this matter?
For most temples, the fate is far worse than the deal proposed by One City Development Bhd to Seafield Maha Mariamman Temple. There is neither a relocation plan nor a compensation. In the case of this temple, it seems that one faction agreed to the developer's plan while the other didn't. The court decided that the pro-relocation faction are the rightful owners of the temple but mysteriously, the pro-stay faction seems to have the keys to the temple for so many years now, and also the support of the vast majority of devotees.
For the pro-stay team, I'm sure that they'd be incredibly skeptical of the court and their verdict. The idea that the developer has manipulated one faction to agree with relocation and compensation, and then pay the judge to rule in their favor is not far fetched. And then came last Tuesday, where a group of thugs stormed into the temple in the midnight with the purpose of destroying the place. The devotees called backup, resisted the violence and by morning, everyone was talking about it.
Here are some of my thoughts about the entire fiasco:
1) This incident has certainly gotten a lot of coverage in comparison to the demolition of other temples over the years. It could be due to the ever increasing penetration of the press and especially since the last election, the freedom to report whatever they want without a call from ministry to censor certain aspects of the story. Or it could be due to what I'll further explain in No.3.
2) Too much of infighting seem to happen in Indian organizations, whether it's temple management or political parties. It is quickly becoming a stereotype of Malaysian Indians. I think it's a cultural problem; Indians seem to be the most rebellious against authority compared to other races in Malaysia. It may be useful when fighting against oppression but if you keep fighting your leaders, whoever it may be, then nothing productive gets done. In the case of the temple, it seems probable that the disunity is exploited by outsiders and the public now has less sympathy to their cause when they see all this infighting.
3) This is just a wild theory but it is probable that the entire incident is politically-staged, from the hiring of thugs to the media coverage. I'm a believer that when an issue is sensationalized, more often than not, there's someone pulling the strings in the background. When you look at things in this perspective, you try to analyze as to who actually gains from this incident. It's not the developer, not the temple management although they have a lot more Hindus behind their back now, it's definitely not the pro-relocation faction.
Then you look at it politically and you see a pattern between this incident and what has been or will be happening. There's a strong anti-ICERD sentiment among Malays right now and UMNO and PAS seem to be gaining from it. The rally on December 8 would be a show of strength for the opposition and the govt, especially the Malay-based parties in Pakatan, may be determined to stop it at all cost to prevent further defection. Could it be that the temple violence was masterminded by someone within Pakatan? We'll probably never know but it's just a wild guess.
4) One big reason why relocation is difficult with Hindu temples, and hence one of the main reasons why I'm writing this blog, is because of the worship of sacred trees in Hinduism, in this case the fig tree or 'arasamaram'. You could move the temple idols but could you move the tree? And for a Hindu, it would be extremely difficult to watch a tree that you consider sacred and spiritual to be chopped down, especially by a non-believer using machines. It probably motivates the devotees of this temple to further fight against the relocation.
5) Many Hindu temples, not just in major cities but in the entire country, have major problems going future. Firstly, a lot of them are constructed in land that belongs to someone else as mentioned earlier in the blog. Secondly and most importantly, the number of devotees in almost all temples has been gradually reducing over time. This is because many young Hindus are atheist, agnostic, even if they're practicing Hindus, they don't have the same level of piety as their elders and certainly visit temples less frequently.
This is why you'd see mostly old people in temples. The youth also feel less compelled to contribute to the temple, either financially or through charity work, because they hardly go there. So what would end up happening over time is that a lot of temples will become empty, poorly managed because of lack of donations and most probably be abandoned.
6) In the case of the Seafield temple, clearly the problem is not the number of devotees, but the financial status of these devotees. Had they been wealthy and able to contribute to the temple's coffers, surely the plot of land would've been bought by now and none of these problems would've arised.
The much larger issue that won't be addressed in this blog is that many children and grandchildren of Indian estate workers are among the poorest in the country. This causes many problems, including the destruction of their places of worship. It just goes to show the power that money has in modern Malaysia, although some of us try to ignore the fact.
So, is there a light at the end of the tunnel?
There certainly are many solutions, but whether or not the're feasible or get implemented properly remains to be seen. Recently Tan Sri Vincent Tan suggested a 'Save the Temple' fund and pledged RM500K. Some other prominent people have also pledged to donate money. However, this could not possibly be a solution for all the temples on other people's land.
Some of the Pakatan leaders tried to negotiate for a 'Mid Valley solution', where the temple and development coexists. But this also can't be a possible solution for all temples, because not all developments are the same. And what is the guarantee that the developer won't be asking back the land some time in the future when the ownership changes hands?
The devotees and temple management keep hoping that either the Federal or State govt would buy the land. There's also a lot of expectation that the politicians would solve their woes. I guess this mentality was inherited from the estate days, because a lot of things were given to the estate workers by the management in return for their hard labor.
I have a message to Indians who think this way: this is a modern Malaysia that's quite selfish, materialistic and cares less about your faith. And it doesn't help if you keep comparing yourself to what a Bumiputra gets. That's just the way it is in the country regardless of which party rules. Indian leaders in Pakatan are also realizing that their fate is not so different from the past MIC and PAP leaders. They're unable to satisfy the demands of the Indian populace, in return get angry reaction from the community.
I think the most ethical and sustainable solution is to gradually relocate all the nearby small temples into one large area that's owned by the temple management. This way, the donations can be evenly distributed, the maintenance cost would be lower, the devotee numbers won't go to zero and most importantly, there won't be all this legal mess and public scorn. The relocation process should be done by a Hindu body and paid for by the developer. And politicians should ensure that this process happens smoothly. Politicians also should find a way to stop the constant infighting that happens in most temple managements.
It's easy for you to say relocate, how about the sacred trees? - That is a problem with Hindu temples. If the developer agrees/required to pay, then surely the option of transplanting a tree can be considered. The process of transplanting trees is pretty common in Western countries but is hardly done in Malaysia. It is a pretty interesting process, from an engineering perspective. If the developer doesn't pay, then I guess the tree should be regrown in the new site using the seeds from the old tree. And the cutting down of the old tree must be done by Hindus.
Where does this stop? Most temples will be demolished and Indians will gradually lose their cultural heritage - If Indians want to preserve the religious and cultural heritage of their ancestors, then a probable solution would be to create a museum dedicated only to old and demolished Hindu temples. Perhaps this museum could also store parts of the temple, maybe even some idols and parts of the sacred tree and have all the records about it. I'm sure a museum like this won't just be a hit with local Indians, but many Malaysian Indians who've left Malaysia, but have interest in their ancestry. It could also be popular with other locals and foreign tourists, especially those from India.
What about the Gods? Do you want to face the wrath of God? - In all due respect, I think the Gods will be more pleased with the solutions laid out above instead of the alternative. Violence in temples, hiring of thugs to destroy temples and for many temples, utter neglect and abandonment is the worst thing that could happen to the Gods. Let them reside peacefully and harmoniously with their surrounding. And we need outsiders to speak positively about temples, instead of bringing the internal disputes of the temple to public and giving the Gods a bad name.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)