You are currently browsing Zairil’s articles.
NB: This article was originally published in my column on The Malaysian Insider.
With the general election closing in, the Penang Barisan Nasional leadership is certainly not short on promises.
Having recently assumed the hot seat, newly-minted state BN chairman Teng Chang Yeow has been eagerly peddling the coalition’s “alternative blueprint” for Penang, an election manifesto which includes a plan to restore free port status to the island while turning it into an international tourism hub, along with plans for an international financial centre, innovation park and aquaculture hub in mainland Seberang Perai.
And then, as if to prove that his fancy labelling actually carries some philosophical substance, he goes to great lengths to explain his vision of a post-industrial future for Penang, where he promises to transform the services sector into an engine of growth as a replacement to the manufacturing industry.
This is needed because, in his words, “the manufacturing sector has reached its peak in Penang. We have to look into other engines of growth.” He further adds that the state can no longer be dependent on manufacturing as there is a shortage of land, while acknowledging that the sector had helped build a strong foundation for Penang’s economy in the 1960s and 70s.
Other state BN leaders have echoed similar views, with Penang MCA adviser Datuk Koay Kar Huah opining that Penang is “oversaturated with manufacturing activities and it is time to consider other industries to stimulate its economy.”
I find this notion that manufacturing has reached a sunset stage, and thus should be replaced by service-based industries, an extremely flawed one.
The fact is that it is impossible to divorce production from knowledge because the best way to learn how to make something is to actually make it, as the Japanese, Koreans and Taiwanese have proven. Once we are able to make it, we can then move on to innovating, adding value to the product, financing it, marketing it and finally consumerising it. In other words, services spanning research, design, engineering, legal, financial and sales are in fact complementary offshoots of manufacturing, and should not be seen as its putative replacement.
As leading Cambridge economist Ha-Joo Chang points out, high-income knowledge economies that appear to be services-based are in fact highly industrialised economies. Citing Switzerland and Singapore as prime examples, he notes that the two countries rank second and third in the world in terms of manufacturing value-add per capita, behind only the industrial machine known as Japan.
At the end of the day, no other industry is capable of generating the same multiplier effect, both in terms of jobs and support services, as manufacturing. It is precisely for this reason that the Obama administration is now on a huge manufacturing drive in a bid to reinvigorate the sputtering American domestic economy. As former General Motors vice chairman Bob Lutz says, “Making things makes money”.
What Teng and company are in fact trying to articulate is the concept of de-industrialisation in the context of a knowledge-based, post-industrial economy. The proposition they are putting forward is that the good old days of industry are gone and that future jobs will require working with our brains and not with our hands.
Taken at face value, such a premise may appear to make sense. However, further examination exposes a shallow and superficial logic. Firstly, would not better brains make our hands more efficient and result in better quality products?
Secondly, as the world progresses, would it not also be natural that consumption of technological goods will increase exponentially? As a result, more rather than less manufacturing will be needed to keep up with growing demand.
The key therefore, is not in ditching manufacturing in favour of services but actually in seeking ways to create depth and specialisation, as well as to encourage higher productivity and use of technology in manufacturing. Penang, with an established manufacturing base, must now seek not so much to broaden its range of products but to deepen its value chain. In other words, it is more about how we produce rather than what we produce.
It is naïve to argue that manufacturing has peaked. One only has to look at how the once-mighty British economy has declined to see how de-industrialisation has resulted in post-industrial decay, loss of productivity, high unemployment, rising inequality and the displacement of an entire generation.
The truth is, manufacturing holds even more potential than it did a few decades ago. Far from putting it on the backburner, efforts should be invested into enhancing the use of technology and automation, increasing production capacity and training the required human talent. Value-added growth in manufacturing will eventually result in value-added services and correspondingly, higher-paying jobs.
So, is the manufacturing industry in Penang headed for a sunset? To the contrary, I think a new dawn has just arrived.
NB: This article was originally published in The Edge Financial Daily.
Decentralisation – an increasingly loaded term these days – can mean different things to different people. While it technically refers to the dispersal of decision-making authority from the centre to the periphery, its practical manifestations can take on a myriad of forms, with consequences that are just as varied.
Malaysia, though in name a federation, has over the years transformed into a highly centralised state with power over matters such as public transport, water services and solid waste management increasingly vested in the hands of bureaucrats sitting in the federal capital. That decentralisation is needed is a given. So how then should the process take place, and how devolved should the structure of governance be?
Fortunately, in the Malaysian context, there is little need for reinvention because our federal structure already provides a mechanism for decentralised governance. Unfortunately, over the years this structure has been altered and reconstructed to produce not only a highly-centralised authority, but one that is systemically configured to hinder and inhibit local decision-making.
The answer therefore requires no great restructuring, but a simple reversion to what should have been. Broadly speaking, decentralisation in Malaysia should take the form of three main thrusts: fiscal, administrative and political.
In an increasingly globalised and urban world where growth and development flourish in economies of agglomeration and competition between cities, it follows that there should be less dependence on a centralised authority, especially where fiscal matters are concerned.
Yet in Malaysia, to say that our states, much more our cities, are financially limited is to understate the situation. As a proportion to the federal budget, state budgets are shrinking, with the combined total of all state budgets dropping to about 6 per cent today compared to 25 per cent two decades ago.
In real terms, our most populous and most developed state, Selangor, announced a budget of RM1.6 billion last year, compared to the federal government’s RM232 billion. In contrast, its counterpart Taipei runs an annual budget of RM19 billion or 10 per cent of the Taiwan central government budget.
Moving down a rung, Taiwan’s second city Kaohsiung operates on a budget of RM13 billion, while Malaysia’s second state Penang is expected to get by with a whopping RM740 million. However, if one feels that the comparison of Penang to Kaohsiung is unrealistic, then consider the fact that the 2011 budget for Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) in Penang totals RM1.22 billion. Yes, in other words, the Penang state government operates with half the budget of its local university.
This is clearly a flawed model. What is needed is a more equitable formula of revenue-sharing through the restructuring of capitation and economic development grants. For a state that contributes half of Malaysia’s electrical and electronic exports, nearly a third of total manufacturing exports, two thirds of medical tourism receipts and nearly one tenth of the entire country’s GDP, Penang deserves much more than the current 3.8 per cent of total federal grants that it receives. The same rationale applies to all other states.
However, lack of financial resources is only half the problem. Ever since the 1976 amendment to Article 111 of the federal constitution, state governments are prohibited not only from borrowing but even from providing guarantees for state companies, except with federal approval. In other words, unless a particular state government is in favour with the powers at Putrajaya, they will not only be starved of money but they will also have no avenue for raising funds.
At the same time, fiscal decentralisation must be accompanied by a reflective dose of administrative decentralisation. This refers to greater independence in governance, including civil service appointments and the apportionment of roles and responsibilities.
Take public transport as a case in point, an issue that is typically administered at the local municipal or city level. Instead, in Malaysia buses, taxis and all manners of public transport are managed by the federal government. However, if one were to seek the transport ministry for any related problems, one would be barking up the wrong tree. As it is, the transport ministry only oversees sea and air transport, as its land and rail functions have already been transferred to the Land Public Transport Commission (SPAD), which comes under the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister’s Department.
This trend is not confined to public transport. Even public housing, through the recently-launched 1Malaysia Housing Programme (PR1MA), is now parked under the PM’s Department, a super ministry that stables 10 frontbenchers excluding the Prime Minister.
What we see here is no longer a case of over-centralisation, but one of “super-centralisation”, when even federal ministries now find themselves emasculated as more and more power is placed under the purview of the Prime Minister. This is reflected by the doubling of the PM’s Department’s budget from RM6.9 billion in 2008 before the current administration to RM13.5 billion this year. The time of government knows best is indeed over. It has been replaced with the executive knows better.
This super-centralised structure notwithstanding, the fact remains that it is grossly inefficient for someone sitting in Putrajaya to make key decisions on public transport, housing, water management, garbage collection, education, health and religion for cities they may not even have visited. All of the above can and should be managed by authorities at a more devolved level.
Finally, the question of decentralisation is inherently tied to the political realm. Simply devolving resources and responsibilities to lower levels of authority is not enough if it is not accompanied by a mechanism for political accountability.
On this note, we return full circle to our original premise. Nothing new is needed. We simply have to return to what used to be constitutionally provided for: local government elections. This will ensure that decision-making authority is tempered by direct accountability. Besides better reflecting the needs and desires of the local community, it will also foster healthy and much-needed political and economic competition within and between cities.
For the record, the elected Penang municipal council before the abolishment of local government elections in 1965 was operating on a budget of RM31 million, the highest in the country by far. The council owned power plants, constructed dams and ran the electric tram service. It was a true reflection of its dynamic population.
Penang has of course now made the first move towards the restoration of local accountability by recently passing the local government election enactment. Though there is no guarantee that the courts will allow it to proceed, failure will not be for lack of trying.
At the end of the day, what is required is simply political will. Over the years, our country has consolidated power at the centre to the point of being super-centralised, where resources and decision-making authority lie not just within the federal government but increasingly within the executive office of the Prime Minister.
Such a situation is untenable in the long run, and we must therefore begin to think about decentralisation of our fiscal, administrative and political structures in order to ensure accountability and efficiency of governance. And to do this, we need only to rediscover our country’s original spirit of federalism.
NB: This press statement was released on 16.5.2012.
I refer to Senator Tunku Abdul Aziz’s remarks in The Star today regarding the Penang Institute’s offer of a senior fellowship to him.
The Penang Institute is the public policy think tank of the state government of Penang which undertakes research on socio-economic and political issues and publishes, among others, the Penang Monthly and various public policy and research papers. When it became clear that Tunku did not wish to be re-nominated for another term as a senator for Penang, we at Penang Institute saw it as an opportunity to recruit a public intellectual with a valuable global network.
It was based on such intentions that the management of the Penang Institute, led by Executive Director Professor Datuk Woo Wing Thye and myself, decided to propose the offer to Tunku Aziz of a senior fellowship in the Penang Institute, a post which would entail writing commitments, programme supervision and a platform to continue engaging in public discussion of national policies. As a think tank that supports the state’s aspiration to be an intelligent and international city, the post would also require him to periodically attend conferences in and out of the country. Penang Institute has a standard package for senior fellowship that includes a yearly stipend of RM50,000. So far, three persons have been appointed as senior fellows on this package.
Out of respect for Tunku Aziz’s position as a senior figure, we requested the Penang Chief Minister, who is also the chairman of Penang Institute, to convey our offer of a senior fellowship. At no time did the Chief Minister speak about the terms of the appointment or any financial details during their telephone conversation last Friday. The terms of the senior fellowship were only conveyed by me on Monday morning to Tunku when I followed-up on the Chief Minister’s call.
We regret that our enthusiasm to have Tunku Aziz on board the Penang Institute by requesting the Chief Minister to convey our offer has not only been misconstrued to justify his leaving the party, but also used to malign the Chief Minister. It was not meant to be compensation for his senatorship, but in fact a genuine offer based on a desire to make the best use of Tunku’s talent in the service of the state after his retirement as a senator for Penang.
Zairil Khir Johari, Penang Institute CEO
NB: This press statement was released on 10.05.2012.
The Penang Institute, in conjunction with The Malaysian Insider, will be hosting the Penang launch of Dato’ Lee Hwa Beng’s explosive exposé entitled “PKFZ: A Nation’s Trust Betrayed”, followed by a forum on the same topic. The event will be held on 14 May 2012 at 7.30pm at Theatre 2, Wawasan Open University, Penang.
Leaving behind a black hole worth RM12.6 billion, the Port Klang Free Zone project has become one of the biggest scandals in Malaysian history since it caught national attention in 2007. While some mitigating measures have been taken and certain personalities brought to book, such as former Transport Minister Tun Dr Lim Liong Sik and former Port Klang Authority (PKA) general manager Datin Paduka OC Phang, the truth as to how a project of such great national importance ended up in a financial quagmire of corruption and abuse of power has yet to be revealed to the Malaysian public.
The PKFZ episode is a stark reminder of the importance of good and clean governance, as well as the need to exercise transparency and integrity in public office. Thus, Dato’ Lee Hwa Beng’s daring tell-all book which reveals critical details unearthed during his tenure as PKA chairman from 2008 to 2011 is extremely timely and relevant.
The book launch is set to be officiated by Penang Chief Minister YAB Lim Guan Eng, following which a forum will be held to discuss the book. Speakers for the night include the author himself, Dato’ Lee Hwa Beng, MP for Petaling Jaya Utara YB Tony Pua and political scientist Dr Ong Kian Ming. The forum will be moderated by The Malaysian Insider’s chief editor, Jahabar Sadiq.
The event is free of charge and open to the public on a first-come first-serve basis. To RSVP, please contact Ivy Kwek via phone (016-7701187) or email (ivykwek@penanginstitute.org).
Zairil Khir Johari, Penang Institute CEO
NB: This article was originally published in my column on The Malaysian Insider.
I don’t know if the government actually noticed, but more than 100,000 people broke the law last Saturday. They did so not only unashamedly, but also proudly and cheerfully.
The Bersih 3.0 rally on April 28 saw what is estimated to be hundreds of thousands of Malaysians gathering at six different locations in Kuala Lumpur before marching towards a single destination point — Dataran Merdeka, or as some temporarily-erected signage labelled it, Tel Aviv.
In case the authorities have forgotten, this constitutes a breach of the newly enacted Peaceful Assembly Act which clearly outlaws “street protests”, legally defined as an “open air assembly which begins with a meeting at a specified place and consists of walking in a mass march or rally for the purpose of objecting to or advancing a particular cause or causes.” Which was exactly what a few hundred thousand of us did.
I point this out because for everything that has happened, no one, especially those on the side of authority, seems to have noticed this technicality. If the authorities did, then they certainly didn’t do anything about it. In fact, the Inspector-General of Police himself has claimed that his officers had been instructed to give way to demonstrators.
Am I to understand that our police will now facilitate law-breaking? Perhaps, if one were to grant them the benefit of the doubt, one could say that they were being pragmatic, or understanding, or merely turning a blind eye. Or perhaps it is simply that there was nothing they could reasonably do because the law made no sense in the first place.
In other words, the legitimacy of this particular legislation now comes into question. Here, I think it is important to distinguish between legality and legitimacy. Legitimacy hinges on popular acceptance, while legality rests solely on conformity and observance of the letter of the law. Just because a law exists doesn’t make it legitimate. After all, Hitler’s systematic subjugation of the Jewish people was for all intents and purposes perfectly legal, yet can we accord legitimacy to his actions?
At the end of the day, governments and laws are considered legitimate only if they rest on the consent of the governed and protect basic rights. Thus, while the banning of street protests under the Peaceful Assembly Act may be legal, the fact that it infringes upon a basic right — that of freedom of assembly, which by the way is constitutionally provided for — unfortunately renders it illegitimate, at least in the eyes of the hundreds of thousands of Malaysians last Saturday.
Some have continued to insist that we shouldn’t have broken the law, that Bersih 3.0 should not have been held at Dataran Merdeka when alternatives such as Stadium Merdeka had been offered. As justification, they point out the incidents of violence that occurred at the tail-end of what was for the most part a peaceful rally.
Yes, some violence erupted, committed by both sides. But the real question is: why did it even have to come to that? Everything would have gone smooth and fine had the authorities simply allowed us to gather at a public square — something which should not require permission in a country with laws that make sense.
Sometimes, the advancement of justice can only be achieved by breaking laws. After all, if everyone obeyed all laws, even if it made no sense and had no popular legitimacy, then change will never happen.
Such a premise may appear to be self-contradictory. It is in fact a recurring one. This very conundrum was once posed to legendary civil rights activist Martin Luther King, Jr, who replied in his 1963 treatise, “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, which states:
One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?”
The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”
That said, government politicians are right about one thing. Bersih 3.0 had indeed been hijacked. What started off as an event aimed at raising awareness for free and fair elections was by the end hijacked by hundreds of thousands of Malaysians with a variety of causes, from electoral reform to heritage preservation to education and even the environment. Some causes were political, some were not, but what we all had in common was a desire to brave the blaring sun and face the possibility of police action, even if it meant breaking the law, because we were determined to voice out our many frustrations about what is wrong with our country. And any law that prevents people from doing that peacefully has no right to be a law.
As for me, I’ll be damned before I let anyone tell me that I can’t hang out with my friends at our own Independence Square.
Forum mewacanakan karya Sasterawan Negara Prof Muhd Haji Salleh, seorang ilmuan dan budayawan yang abadi.
Pada hari Sabtu, 14 April 2012, Penang Institute telah mengadakan Forum Nusantara Siri ke-4 di Auditorium F, KOMTAR. Acara ini merupakan sebahagian daripada sambutan ulangtahun kelahiran Sasterawan Negara Prof Emeritus Muhammad Haji Salleh yang ke-70.
Justeru, tajuk yang dipilih adalah “Bagai sireh pulang ke gagang: sekitar pemikiran dan sumbangan Sasterawan Negara Muhammad Haji Salleh”. Barisan panelis yang dijemput untuk membicarakan tajuk tersebut terdiri daripada Eddin Khoo, Prof Madya Dr Mawar Safei dan Puan Haryati Ayit serta moderator Prof Dato’ Dr Abdul Kadir Lebai Din. Sememangnya forum yang turut dihadiri oleh Sasterawan Negara sendiri telah mendapat sambutan yang amat memberangsangkan daripada para hadirin yang hampir melimpahi kapasiti auditorium.
Selain membentangkan konsep-konsep tersurat dan tersirat dalam karya-karya Prof Muhammad, barisan panelis juga telah berkongsikan sedikit ciri-ciri peribadi tokoh sastera Pulau Pinang ini seperti sifatnya yang pendiam dan pencinta alam sekitar. Prof Muhammad juga telah didedahkan sebagai seorang yang “tidur bersama kamusnya” – begitulah tahap cintanya terhadap bahasa.
Panelis-panelis juga telah membincangkan gaya bahasa puisi yang digunakan Prof Muhammad, serta bagaimana karya-karyanya berjaya menggambarkan keintelektualan tanpa menggunakan emotif berlebihan. Antara sifat-sifat yang menjadi “cap dagang” Prof Muhammad adalah ayat-ayatnya yang mementingkan kebijaksanaan tempatan, keadilan, kesaksamaan serta sifat yang bertradisi namun tetap bersahaja.
Sumbangan Prof Muhammad terhadap persuratan dan kesusasteraan Melayu adalah tidak terhingga. Sesungguhnya sesiapa sahaja yang melayari karya-karya unggulnya seperti Perjalanan Pulang Si Tenggang II dan Sajak-sajak Sejarah Melayu lantas akan melayari suatu pengembaraan ilmu bersama budayawan yang istimewa ini.
Walaupun wacana pada pagi itu tidak berkesempatan untuk meneroka dengan lebih mendalam sumbangan-sumbangan Prof Muhammad, namun yang pastinya perjuangan Sasterawan Negara Pulau Pinang ini adalah perjuangan abadi yang wajib menjadi iktibar bagi seluruh rakyat Malaysia, khususnya pencinta seni-budaya.
Penang Institute merai ikon kebudayaan, Anugerah Sastera akan dilancarkan.
Sambutan ulangtahun kelahiran Sasterawan Negara Muhammad Haji Salleh telah disambungkan dengan acara Malam Kemuncak yang berlangsung meriah dengan kehadiran lebih 500 orang jemputan.
Majlis makan malam yang penuh kesenian itu telah dianjurkan bukan sahaja untuk merai dan menghargai seorang tokoh sastera Pulau Pinang, tetapi juga untuk menekankan bahawa pertumbuhan ekonomi di Pulau Mutiara hendaklah juga disampingi oleh pembangunan seni-budaya.
Dalam ucapan pengantar majlis oleh Ketua Menteri Pulau Pinang dan Pengerusi Penang Institute Lim Guan Eng, beliau telah mengutarakan pendapatnya bahawa adalah sangat malang sekiranya khazanah bangsa Malaysia dibiarkan terpadam, khususnya di Pulau Pinang yang pernah pada suatu ketika dahulu menjadi pusat kebudayaan yang penting di rantau Nusantara.
Ketua Menteri juga telah mengumumkan bahawa Penang Institute akan memperkenalkan Anugera Sastera Pulau Pinang sebagai usaha untuk menggalakkan serta merancakkan lagi minat dalam bidang sastera dan budaya di kalangan rakyat Pulau Pinang, khususnya anak-anak muda.
Malam tersebut telah dimeriahkan oleh persembahan Buddhi Hekayat, penulis lirik lagu “Awan Nano”, yang telah mendeklamasikan sajak dengan begitu memukau sekali. Di samping itu, para hadirin juga berkesempatan untuk mendengar sebuah pengkisahan oleh Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, seorang teman rapat Prof Muhammad, yang telah membuat ucapannya melalui rakaman video.
Acara khas pada malam tersebut merupakan pidato oleh budayawan Indonesia dan pengasas majalah Tempo iaitu Pak Goenawan Mohamad yang telah bersenandung kepada para hadirin dengan pembedahan sisi-sisi teknikal dan “magis” dalam pantun Melayu.
Majlis telah diteruskan dengan pemotongan pulut kuning dan diikuti dengan pelancaran buku puisi edisi khas ulangtahun ke-70 Sasterawan Negara Muhammad Haji Salleh yang bertajuk “Sehelai Surat Saujana” oleh Ketua Menteri Pulau Pinang.
Dalam ucapan pengakhir, Prof Muhammad telah menyatakan perasaan terharu terhadap sambutan yang sebegitu meriah buat dirinya. Beliau juga telah mengucapkan ribuan terima kasih kepada Penang Institute dan para hadirin yang telah meraikan bukan sahaja dirinya, malah budaya kesusasteraan secara umumnya.
Zairil Khir Johari, Penang Institute CEO
NB: This press statement was released on 17.04.2012.
Kenyataan terbaru Dato’ Ibrahim Ali yang mencabar DAP untuk mencadangkan supaya Kerajaan Singapura memansuhkan ISA adalah sesuatu yang sukar untuk difahami.
Pertama sekali, bukankah dasar negara kita adalah untuk tidak mencampur tangan dalam hal ehwal negara lain, apatah lagi negara jiran yang juga ahli ASEAN?
Seterusnya, apakah sebenarnya yang ingin disindir oleh Dato’ Ibrahim? Umum mengetahui bahawa DAP adalah sebuah parti yang senantiasa berpegang teguh kepada prinsip-prinsip keadilan, kebebasan, kesaksamaan dan hak asasi manusia.
DAP tidak pernah teragak-agak untuk membantah dan menentang undang-undang zalim dan mencabul hak asasi seperti ISA yang membenarkan penahanan tanpa bicara. Kami menentang penggunaannya bukan sahaja di Malaysia, bahkan di mana-mana negara di dunia ini. Ini adalah selaras dengan pendirian DAP yang memartabatkan hak asasi dan kebebasan setiap insan.
Saya rasa jika Dato’ Ibrahim ingin sangat untuk mempertahankan ISA yang dikatakannya sebagai “berjaya mengekalkan keamanan”, beliau sepatutnya membantah pemansuhan ISA di negara kita. Kenapakah beliau tidak membuat demikian? Apakah beliau hanya berani untuk mencabar orang dari jauh dan tidak berani untuk mempertahankan pendiriannya di negara sendiri?
Jika Dato’ Ibrahim betul-betul berani, beliau dan Perkasa patut membuat demonstrasi bantahan secara besar-besaran terhadap Dato’ Sri Najib di Putrajaya untuk membuktikannya.
Saya ingin menegaskan bahawa DAP tidak ada kena mengena dengan Singapura atau mana-mana negara lain kerana DAP adalah parti untuk rakyat Malaysia sahaja.
Zairil Khir Johari, Setiausaha Politik kepada Setiausaha Agung DAP
NB: This speech was delivered at the 4th series of Forum Nusantara on 14 April 2012. The following reproduction is abridged.
Saya ingin bermula dengan mengucapkan selamat datang kepada hadirin sekalian. Ribuan terima kasih kerana sudi meluangkan masa untuk acara kita pada pagi ini.
Forum Nusantara kali ini yang bertajuk “Sireh Pulang ke Gagang – Menelusuri Jasa dan Bakti Prof Muhammad Haji Salleh” adalah siri keempat, dan merupakan kali pertama kami menganjurkannya di bahagian pulau. Forum-forum sebelum ini telah diadakan di Bandar Perda, Seberang Jaya. Syukur, sejak siri forum ini dimulakan, sambutannya makin menggalakkan.
Tujuan kami menganjurkan program Forum Nusantara ini adalah untuk mewujudkan ruang untuk wacana kebudayaan dan keintelektualan berbahasa Melayu khususnya bagi masyarakat Pulau Pinang.
Umum mengetahui bahawa Pulau Pinang dari segi sejarah merupakan pusat kebudayaan yang penting bukan sahaja di Malaysia, malah di rantau Nusantara. Pelbagai gerakan pemikir yang progresif dan reformis telah berpusat dan berkembang di negeri ini. Maka, adalah malang sekali sekiranya khazanah negeri kita ini dibiarkan terpadam begitu sahaja.
Selain itu, kami di Penang Institute juga sedar bahawa sejarah secara sendiri adalah tidak relevan dan sekadar romantisme. Adalah lebih penting jika pengkisahan sejarah lalu boleh dihubungkan dengan realiti hari ini. Sejarah lalu tidak patut dianggap hanya sebagai kisah-kisah lama tetapi perlu digandingkan dengan isu-isu semasa supaya persepsi dan pemahaman kita akan lebih jelas dan dimantapkan lagi. Oleh itu, kami di Penang Institute bertekad ingin mengembalikan kegemilangan Pulau Pinang sebagai pusat ilmu dan seni-budaya yang terulung di rantau Nusantara.
Sasterawan Negara yang kita raikan hari ini, iaitu Prof Muhammad Haji Salleh, merupakan antara bukti hidup keunggulan Pulau Pinang dalam bidang kesusasteraan. Anak Pulau Pinang ini telah merantau ke merata-rata dunia, bukan sahaja untuk menimba ilmu, malah juga untuk menawarkannya. Justeru, forum yang kita adakan pada pagi ini untuk membincangkan hasil-hasil karya beliau, hanyalah usaha kecil kami untuk menghargai tokoh besar ini.
Forum ini juga merupakan sebahagian daripada program sambutan ulangtahun kelahiran ke-70 Sasterawan Negara kita yang telah bermula pada 9hb April dengan perasmian Pameran Khas Prof Muhammad Haji Salleh. Acara kemuncak pula akan berlangsung pada malam ini, di mana kita akan disertai oleh beberapa tetamu istimewa termasuk seorang tokoh sastera dan budaya yang tersohor dari Indonesia dan juga teman karib Prof Muhammad Haji Salleh, iaitu Pak Goenawan Mohamad, yang akan menyampaikan pidato kebudayaan.
Kami di Penang Institute percaya bahawa isu-isu bahasa, budaya, sastera dan sebagainya tidak harus dibiarkan hanya berlegar di gelanggang akademia dan universiti mahupun di tangan pihak berkuasa. Sesungguhnya, budaya itu adalah sebahagian daripada keinsanan kita. Ia adalah sesuatu yang organik dan harus digalakkan untuk bertumbuh dan berkembang bersama masyarakatnya. Semoga forum kita pada pagi ini akan membantu kita untuk menghayati kepentingan ruang dan kebebasan dalam pembangunan seni dan budaya.
Sekian, terima kasih.
