Whose decision is it, anyway?

The Conclave (2024)
Director: Edward Berger

https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/p/conclave/8d6kgwz2d5gg

The selection of a new Pope, the head of the Roman Catholic Church, has always fascinated everyone, both Christians and non-Christians. It is not merely that they wait with bated breath to learn who the next de facto leader of the largest religion will be, but rather the actual process of selecting the next Pope, which has been shrouded in considerable mystery and secrecy. This enigma has been a source of numerous conspiracy theories and the theme of many best-selling novels over the years. 

Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons offer readers a ringside view of the setup and day-to-day operations within the papal residence and workplace, the Vatican Palace, and the Holy See. This renders it even more intriguing that Vatican City remains in contention as the wealthiest nation by area, alongside Jersey (a British Crown Dependency), Monaco, and Luxembourg, depending on how one calculates the figures.  

Most people are familiar with the Conclave, the smoke signal that signifies the election of a new Pope. It is a painstaking process involving a specially selected group of Cardinals confined in a sealed room for days of voting and debate. The candidate who ultimately prevails must achieve a clear majority of more than two-thirds of the votes. 

This film, based on Robert Harris's novel of the same name, portrays a fictional scenario in which a Pope dies, leaving the Secretary of the College of Cardinals to convene the papal Conclave while dealing with numerous secrets that the former Pope had kept close to his heart. 

From the outset, we quickly realise that there is factionalism within the Roman Catholic Church. The Cardinals tend to act collectively and vote based on their shared language and skin colour—Spanish speakers, Anglophiles, Africans, and so forth. 

Some voters express their desire to be elected in private, yet they timidly deny having any such ambitions; the Secretary, the protagonist, is one such individual.

Little secrets emerge one by one regarding the previous Pope's private meetings, which were not recorded. They all remain hearsay, with one clergyman emphatically denying them and another swearing to their truth. Amidst all this, a clergyman appears in the voting hall as the Archbishop of Kabul, a position few knew the Vatican had a representative for. The former Pope appointed him in secret (in pectore) the year before. 

The voting begins. Four serious candidates have been identified: a Nigerian, a US citizen, a Canadian, and an Italian cardinal. Each holds differing views on how the Church should navigate the upcoming times. Some are radical, while others may be more conservative or, at the opposite end of the spectrum, more liberal.

One by one, scandals unfold. The Nigerian Cardinal is revealed to have a love child and is removed from the contest. Even after days of voting, a clear winner cannot be determined. In the midst of all this, the Vatican is struck by a bomb, part of a wave of bombings by Muslim fundamentalists. An emotional outburst from the Cardinals concerning the rise of Islamic terrorism worldwide was not well received by the other clergymen. Unexpectedly, the Archbishop of Kabul emerged victorious, and white smoke was seen billowing from the chimney. 

At that moment, another dark secret emerges, this time concerning the medical history of the newly appointed Pontiff! It's an enjoyable film. I did not anticipate that the tale of elderly men in drab, plain attire, speaking in a cultured manner without any risqué scenes, could capture viewers' attention. 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Malaysian hands in HK affairs?

The Goldfinger (Cantonese; 2023)
Director: Felix Chong

This film excited me for three reasons. First, the screenplay was written by the same guy who wrote the smash series Infernal Affairs, which later spurred Martin Scorsese's The Departed. Second, my favourite Cantonese stars, Andy Lau and Tony Leong, are in it. Finally, a Malaysian angle is somehow intertwined in the whole imbroglio. The movie is based on the rise and fall of the Singaporean (Sarawak-born) rag-to-riches speculator George Tan and his Carrian group of businesses.

One July morning in 1983, Malaysians were shocked to read about a banker's body that was found in a banana plantation in the New Territory of Hong Kong (HK). From the 10-sen Malaysian coin that was found in the pants pocket, the police managed to determine that he could be Malaysian. They finally discovered that he was Jalil Ibrahim, a Malaysian auditor sent from the Bank Bumiputra Headquarters in Kuala Lumpur to look into some discrepancies in loans dispensed by its subsidiary, Bumiputra Malaysia Finance (BMF).

HK police investigations soon revealed a Malaysian businessman, Mak Fook Than, met Jalil at a hotel, killed him, packed him in a suitcase and disposed of his body at a banana plantation. During the trial, Mak insisted that he was merely a bystander. The actual killer was a Korean named Shin, who was never discovered. There were strong rumours that they were simply pawns. The real killers were someone big high up the food chain, either Malaysian politicians or Carrian group management.

Jalil's investigations from his 6-month stint in HK found that large loans were given to George Tan and the Carrian Group without proper documentation and collaterals. George Tan, an engineer by training, hit terrible times in Singapore in the 1970s and landed in HK. He ventured into the real estate business and found a neck in speculative trading. From there, Tan diversified into other industries. Sometimes, his business dealings were shady, and his partner and he parted ways. With the collapse of property prices and the stock business, the Carrian Group hit hard times. When everyone else stayed away from George Tan, BMF gave them up $ 1 billion. The HK Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) also breathed down their neck. In the meantime, the Malaysian Government, under Mahathir's leadership, was also embarrassed. Technically, Bank Bumiputra was established under the umbrage of the Malaysian Government to aid struggling Malay entrepreneurs. So, it had no business giving out loans to Chinese businessmen. The CIA declassified some of its documents about the BMF scandal. This sanitised version did implicate people high up in UMNO to be cognisant of the hanky panky in BMF.

So, at the end of the day, Jalil's murder was determined to have been unilaterally by Mak. No one in the Carrian Group, George Tan, BMF or UMNO was implicated. BMF chiefs Lorraine Osman and Hashim Shamsuddin were later charged and imprisoned for CBT. The gossip around town put Mahathir and the Finance Minister then, Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, deep in the cookie jar.

The movie, told in flashbacks and forwards, tells a not-so-interesting account of the tenacity of one man, Lau Kai-yuen, the principal investigator of ICAC, to pin down Henry Ching Yat-yin, a character based on George Tan. After 17 long years, with two missed convictions, Henry (George) was imprisoned for three years in 1996 for the conspiracy surrounding his BMF loan.

(PS. In the movie, Malaysia was referred to instead as 'Timurlaysia'; even the honorific title Datok was used for the Malaysia characters.)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Higher the call, so is the fall!

Man On The Run (Documentary, Netflix; 2023)

Director: Cassius Michael Kim

We all know the drill. We have heard it all before. The Government started a novel project selling government bonds to buy oil fields in Central Asia. With the returns, the Government, via its subsidiary, 1MDB, would pour money into the country, which would help improve the living conditions of its citizens.

The trouble was that the same who applied for the money from the Government approved the loan, executed the loan, received the loan and received the returns were all the same person. Najib Razak is the 1MDB Chairman, Minister of Finance and the honourable Prime Minister of Malaysia. And there were no oilfields that were bought. Still, the whole exercise saw many people making loads of money, enjoying obscenely decadent parties, and the Malaysian taxpayers paying exorbitant amounts of money as interest to international players.

Even though the local journalists kept crying foul and were brave to publish the shenanigans, the powers that be managed to keep a tight lid. People in enforcement and investigation positions were hushed. A young prosecutor was even buried alive in a concrete can. Things only started moving when the US Department of Justice charged Goldman Sachs with foreign bribery.

With a provocative title like 'Man on the Run', I would like to find new scoops on Malaysia's most infamous fugitive, Jho Low. Nothing. He was nowhere to be found, without an interview or anything new about his whereabouts. With extensive narration from The Edge owner Ho Kay Tat, ex-MP Tony Pua, former AG Tommy Thomas, Clare Rewcastle of Sarawak Report and whistleblower Xavier Andre Justo, nothing new actually surfaced. Perhaps the most ridiculous interview was given by the big kahuna himself, Najib.

In an interview three months before his guilty verdict, he is comically seen lamenting the fact that he had been victimised. In a system where he is supposed to be protected, the system lets him down. He griped that the officials appointed to protect people like him did not do their job well. They, instead, should be the accused, not him. I thought Najib was losing the plot. He is not a monarch who inherits the post by birth. For heaven's sake, he is a leader of a democratically-elected government selected by the people to serve the people. The power that was wielded to him comes with specific responsibilities. A politician only lasts until the next election. Can he be so naive? Does he don the Emperor's clothes? Is he surrounded by sycophants who boated his ego so much that he thinks he need not be accountable? The whole 'speech' reeks of entitlement. Accountability and responsibility do not fall into the equation. It is mind-boggling to see so many who still think he is innocent and is a victim of political sleight of hand.

The whole imbroglio paints a very bleak picture of the Malaysian democratic process. It is as though we are a banana republic where law and order are only for show. The high-heeled can scoot off with millions right under everybody's noses. There is a glaring lack of checks and balances in the system. Too much legislative powers are given to the ruling party. The executive powers are too timid to carry out and enforce laws. The national coffers are made to be like the leaders' kitty. The judiciary arm and even the fourth estate are toothless.

The presentation needs to be more comprehensive in its coverage. Many of the key players and beneficiaries of 1MDB refused to be interviewed. That would include the self-proclaimed First Lady of Malaysia, Rosmah Mansur, representatives from Goldman Sachs, and the makers and cast of the movie 'Wolf of Wall Street', who were paid from proceeds of 1MDB.

Is this the watershed moment of Malaysian politics? Will its citizens awake from their slumber to ensure such blatant abuse of trust does not repeat? From the recent turn of events after the last elections, I seriously doubt it. Too many schisms and fractures have developed in the country, once earmarked as another Asian tiger. Look at it now. It is just a paper tiger lantern that could be engulfed by the fire ignited within its confines.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

So much for wanting privacy!

Harry & Meghan (Documentary; 2022)
Netflix

Watching this 6-episode documentary about the life and times of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle during their short stint living as a couple in the royal household reminded me of two things. Firstly of skeets from 'Kumars at No. 42' where they sold the idea that everything in this world was Indian - be it Santa Claus, Jesus, Santa's reindeer and even the British royal family. Father Kumar theorised that the royal family were as Indian as Indians can be. The whole family, including adult children, live with their parents. Everyone is involved in the same family business. Even after marriages, they all lived under the same roof, and the weddings were arranged. These veiled comparisons got its audiences in stitches then. 

The second is the good old saying from Indian culture that when one marries another, they also marry the family. The newcomer into the family must immerse into the fabric of the family and act as one of them. The onus is on everyone, related by blood or convention, to protect the sanctity of the family name. It is their divine duty to mould into the idiosyncrasies of the family, good or bad, to attain zen within the family. 

Only in the scriptures do we learn about people like the Pandava brothers. These five brothers collectively married the same woman just because their mother told them to share their find. In reality, history has described just to what lengths siblings and even mothers would go to seize thrones. The amount of backstabbing, bad-mouthing, poisoning, covert plans and trickery is just staggering. 

In modern times, when swords are merely ceremonial and the royalty's powers are clipped, they have mellowed down. At a time when their subjects question the relevance of a God-sanctioned family line to rule them over, the royal family knows its days are numbered. They try to be non-controversial and regularly re-kindle the memory of a glorious past when they used to rule half the world. They clamour for all the positive publicity they can get. They hope to be the British pride their ancestors were. That is not to say that they have not been controversial before.

In comes an outsider. Not that it had not happened before. A divorcee with a living spouse from the USA had shown her face in the royal courtyard some 70 years ago, and a King had to abdicate his throne then. Now things have changed. She was ushered in without much fanfare apparently but on her side, but she seems to demand all the world's attention. But wait, only when she feels like it!

The whole point of the Netflix documentary is to portray Meghan Markle as an innocent outsider who had found the love of her life. The one into whom she could immerse and get lost despite all the chaos around them. Meghan is presented as an affable person who is a darling of the British public. Despite this, or maybe because of this, she is allegedly vilified by the British press and the royal family. Even though she does everything right, getting her hands dirty cooking for fire victims or engaging in Commonwealth charity activities, she is viewed as an outsider. She is even suggesting that perhaps her new family is downright racist. She considers herself another victim of the royal family, much like how Princess Diana was treated and met her untimely death.

The end result is far from that. The show only managed to paint an image of Meghan as a self-centred conniving prima donna who thinks very highly of herself. The series tells her background as a bright student and an independent woman who pulled herself up by her bootstraps. What they conveniently forgot to mention altogether is her previous failed marriage. From her side, animosity is bottled up between her, her father, and his other family.

Prince Harry is pictured as a lone child growing up without a mother during his formative years. It really shows. Meghan may be filling that vacuum.

Every position comes with specific responsibilities and expectations. However, this young couple wants the cake and eat it. They enjoy being in the spotlight but are quick to whine incessantly when their private space is invaded. There is a reason they are called public figures. If the public pays for your existence, the public has every right to know how their money is spent. You are indeed a public servant. You want to cut off from the royal but still want them to finance you to just loaf around doing sweet nothings.

This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. 

Secrets, I have a few!

Anatomy of a Scandal (2022)
Netflix, Miniseries.

There are essentially three types of truths (or secrets if the situation arises). The first is the one which is common knowledge that is no secret. It is the one you do not mind sharing with the rest of the world. Information on your background, ethnicity, place of childhood and education background will encompass this category. With the easy availability of personal data online, the demarcation between private information and the public domain becomes increasingly blurred.

In the second category, it could include something done not at the proudest moment. This truth may be only shared amongst individuals who would not spill the beans no matter what. There is some kind of unwritten rule - bro code, tribal honour, mafia or gang loyalty and business secret - which will fall into the category. God forbid, access to these truths by individuals with ill-intent would be disastrous and make someone fall from grace. However, every type of secret has its price in the real world. It could be used as a bargaining chip when the cookie crumbles.

Then there is the third secret you need to carry to the grave. This secret may be so detrimental that it may damage your reputation, career or family relationship. Others may use their yardsticks or wilfully create a ruckus to paint a heinous picture of you and your acts, an unforgivable one. Some may be forgiving as Man are fallible, especially if you are family. Different yardsticks are assigned to other people.

Just how far this third secret can be protected? Is it necessary to stay to your word when you raise your hand in court and promise to tell the truth and the whole truth and nothing but the truth? The aftermath when they bare your insides can be pretty devastating. In essence, this is the premise of this movie, among other things.

With the breakdown of community feelings and familial piety, every man or woman is an island. A modern person finds it more fulfilling to explore personal development by hopping from one community or family to another. With the tweaking of familial bonds, exposing the third secret to your family (or your other half) may prove disastrous too.

As the ugly court trial of Depp and Heard reveals, nothing is sacrosanct or stays within the confines of the bedroom's four walls. A bond so tough can sometimes crumble like dominos. A sweet affair can turn sour overnight. Every putrifying detail is laid bare for scrutiny. Recording devices just add more zing to this carving ritual. With their holier-than-thou speak, armchair critics will take their time to slow cook, dissect, expose, crucify, and exsanguinate you. Honesty is not always the best policy.

The miniseries tell about a Cabinet minister accused of rape by his researcher-cum-fling. They had a small affair which they mutually ended but then this. All these come as a total blow to the minister personally and his family. There is actually more than meets the eyes. The minister shares a dark secret with the Prime Minister, which goes way back to their shared alma mater. The prosecuting officer also has a personal score to settle with the minister.

What is rape, and what is consensual sex between two mature adults? What is implied consent, and at what point does this end? How far would a spouse support the significant other's shenanigans? These are some of the dilemmas this story tries to explore.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.