Sunday, January 14, 2024

Stories from the Sunflower: Lucy (7)

"An eMagazine photographer was assigned to get photos of severe deforestation in Borneo.
Fog at the scene was too thick to get any good shots, so he called his office to request a plane. 'I’ll have it waiting for you at the airport!' his editor assured.
As soon as he arrived at the airport, sure enough, there was a plane near the runway. He jumped in with his equipment and yelled, 'Let’s go!'
The pilot took off, and soon they were in the air. 'Fly over the north side of the fog,' said the photographer, 'and make three lowlevel passes.'
'Why?' asked the pilot.
'Because I’m going to take pictures!' the photographer said with great exasperation.
After a long pause, the pilot said, 'You mean you’re not the instructor?'"

"Why do Indonesians need to straighten up 'Sang Merah Putih', once more?" said sunflower while looking at Basoeki Abdullah's masterpiece, a large painting entitled 'The Struggle of Life'. This painting of the world-renowned painter, depicts a backdrop of fierce fire where bulls, tigers, lions and other animals, running in no direction. Is it a forest fire? Or is it an outrage? Or is it possible that the current political situation in Indonesia is getting hotter? Many interpretations could be translated from this painting.
Then she moved to another painting of the maestro, 'Dalam Sinar Bulan' [In the Light of Moon], 'Panen' [Harvest], 'Nyi Roro Kidul' [a supernatural being in Indonesian folklore], 'Ratu Kidul' [the Queen of Southern Sea, a goddes who rules 'Samudera Kidul' in Sundanese and Javanese mythology] and 'Tiga Dara' [Three Virgins].
She then said, "Looking deep inside of these women paintings, showing an 'Indonesian Women' feature, reminancing us of the 'White Jasmine', Ibu Fatmawati. You know that it was 'Bu Fat', who sew 'Sang Saka Merah Putih' in in a modest booth, with a modest, hand-operated sewing machine, intended not just for one group, but for all Indonesians. Indeed, 'modesty' was being a reference point for Indonesians. The same flag was flown every year until 1968.

The flag’s meaning comes from the emotion it inspires. 'Sang Dwiwarna'—another name for Sang Saka Merah Putih, now stored in Merdeka Palace and continued by 'Sang Merah Putih', speaks in a way that Indoensian simply cannot share; but we can understand this, because many of us will have similar feelings about our own symbols of nationhood and belonging. You may have overtly positive, or indeed negative, opinions as to what you think your flag stands for, but the fact remains: that simple piece of cloth is the embodiment of the nation. A country’s history, geography, people and values—all are symbolized in the cloth, its shape and the colours in which it is printed. It is invested with meaning, even if the meaning is different for different people. Each of the world’s flags is simultaneously unique and similar. They all say something— sometimes perhaps too much, says Tim Marshall.

All people use symbols. We talk, uttering sounds to represent things or actions or emotions or ideas. If we write, we use lines and curves and dots to stand for sounds. We dress in certain ways and not in others. The clothes we wear are symbols, showing that we are male or female, priest or soldier, nurse or nun. The history of any kind of symbol can usually reveal something interesting and important about people who have used it. Certainly, this is true of those colorful emblems of nationhood called flags. George Orwell’s aphorism expresses football is ‘war minus the shooting’ that the mix of football, politics and a flag will capture a stirring mix of powerful emotions: sadness, courage, heroism, defiance, collective perseverance and endeavour.
Where did these national symbols, to which we are so attached, come from? The story of flags begins in prehistoric times, long before cloth had even been invented. In those days, men were hunters, and they felt very close to the whole animal world. They drew pictures of animals and carved them in wood or stone. Perhaps some people thought that they got magic help from one particular creature. They may even have believed that a distant ancestor of theirs was a bear, a coyote or an eagle. At any rate, groups of people who were relatives (they are called clans) often adopted the name of an animal or bird or fish, and it then became a clan symbol. The word for this clan symbol, in the language of one American Indian tribe, was totem. Now all such symbols are called totems.
Carvings of totems were sometimes placed over doors or on poles in front of houses. Warriors carried their totems into battle. The animal or bird was often painted on their shields, or its image might be carried on a long stick called a standard. This custom proved useful. When soldiers were scattered during a fight, they could rejoin their fellows by looking for the standard that belonged to their leader.

Flags are a relatively recent phenomenon in mankind’s history. The history of flags stretches back 5,000 years. Their uses are as different as their designs, shapes, sizes, and colors. Standards and symbols painted on cloth predate flags and were used by the ancient Egyptians, the Assyrians and the Romans, but it was the invention of silk by the Chinese that allowed flags as we know them today to flourish and spread. Traditional cloth was too heavy to be held aloft, unfurled and fluttering in the wind, especially if painted; silk was much lighter and meant that banners could, for example, accompany armies onto battlefields.
Soon as man passes from the lowest stage of barbarism the necessity for some special sign, distinguishing man from man, tribe from tribe, nation from nation, makes itself felt; and this prime necessity once met, around the symbol chosen spirit-stirring memories quickly gather that endear it, and make it the emblem of the power and dignity of those by whom it is borne, appeal with irresistible force to the patriotism of those born beneath their folds, and speak to them of the glories and greatness of the historic past, the duties of the present, and the hopes of the future—inspiring those who gaze upon their proud blazonry with the determination to live, and if need be to die, for the dear home-land of which these are the symbol.

In Egypt, more than five thousand years ago, a falcon was the totem of the king, who was known as the pharaoh. People believed, in fact, that the pharaoh actually was a falcon hatched from an egg, and for a very long time this bird remained the symbol of Egyptian rulers. When soldiers of the first pharaoh marched, they carried standards with images of falcons on top. Later pharaohs, instead of putting the whole bird on the standard, sometimes displayed only a few of its feathers.
Whether or not this custom began in Egypt, totems appeared on battlefields in many places. Soldiers of ancient Assyria rallied around a disc that was held aloft. Painted on it was the figure of a bull, or two bulls tied together by their tails. Egypt marched to war beneath the shadow of the various sacred animals that typified their deities, or the fan-like arrangement of feathers that symbolised the majesty of Pharaoh, while the Assyrian standards, to be readily seen represented on the slabs from the palaces of Khorsabad and Kyonjik, circular disks of metal containing various distinctive devices.
Both these and the Egyptian standards often have in addition a small flag-like streamer attached to the staff immediately below the device. The Greeks in like manner employed the Owl of Athene, and such-like religious and patriotic symbols of the protection of the deities. Homer makes Agamemnon use a piece of purple cloth as a rallying point for his followers. The sculptures of Persepolis show us that the Persians adopted the figure of the Sun, the eagle, and the like.
A different kind of symbol is said to have appeared in 80 B.C. when the Persians revolted against a particularly despotic ruler. The leader of the rebels was a blacksmith, and, according to legend, his work-apron was raised as a standard above the fighting.

In ancient times, the fashion of dressing up a totem with a streamer appeared in other lands besides Egypt. Some armies began to use streamers alone on standards, and this idea seems to have spread eastward, perhaps through India, until it reached China, where the first real flags were flown. About 1100 B.C., a Chinese royal family had a flag made of white cloth attached to a pole. Much later, Chinese pictures showed cavalrymen carrying rectangular flags with recognizable patterns on them. Some were attached at the top to a crossbar hung from a pole in the manner of the Roman banners; others were fastened at the side, as flags are today. A triangular shape, also fastened at the side, became the favorite in India, and a flag made of two triangles still flies in Nepal, a country on the Indian border.
The new fabric and custom spread along the Silk Route. The Arabs were the first to adopt it and the Europeans followed suit, having come into contact with them during the Crusades. It was likely these military campaigns, and the large Western armies involved, that confirmed the use of symbols of heraldry and armorial markings to help identify the participants. These heraldic bearings came to be linked with rank and lineage, particularly for royal dynasties, and this is one of the reasons why flags evolved from being associated with battlefield standards and maritime signals to becoming symbols of the nation state.
Flags are nowadays ordinarily made of bunting, a woollen fabric which, from the nature of its texture and its great toughness and durability, is particularly fitted to stand wear and tear. Flags are only printed when of small size, and when a sufficient number will be required to justify the expense of cutting the blocks. Silk is also used, but only for special purposes.
Every nation is now represented by a flag. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe told the designer of the Venezuelan flag, Francisco de Miranda, ‘A country starts out from a name and a flag, and it then becomes them, just as a man fulfils his destiny.’ What does it mean to try to encapsulate a nation in a flag? It means trying to unite a population behind a homogeneous set of ideals, aims, history and beliefs–an almost impossible task. But when passions are aroused, when the banner of an enemy is flying high, that’s when people flock to their own symbol. Flags have much to do with our traditional tribal tendencies and notions of identity – the idea of ‘us versus them’. Much of the symbolism in flag design is based on that concept of conflict and opposition – as seen in the common theme of red for the blood of the people, for example. But in a modern world striving to reduce conflict and promote a greater sense of unity, peace and equality, where population movements have blurred those lines between ‘us and them’, what role do flags now play? What is clear is that these symbols can still wield a great deal of power, communicating ideas quickly and drawing strongly on emotions. There are now more nation states than ever before, but non-state actors also use flags as a kind of visual soundbite to convey concepts ranging from the banality of cheap commercial goods to the depravity of violence. This is something we’ve continually witnessed in recent history.

Flags are powerful symbols, and there are plenty of other organizations that have used them to great effect–they may embody messages of fear, peace or solidarity, for example, becoming internationally recognizable in the shifting landscapes of identity and meaning.
We appear to be in the midst of a resurgence of identity politics at the local, regional, national, ethnic and religious levels. Power shifts, old certainties fall away and at such times people reach for familiar symbols as ideological anchors in a turbulent, changing world. The reality of a nation does not necessarily live up to the ideals embodied in its flag; nevertheless the flag has the power to evoke and embody sentiments, so strong that sometimes people will even follow their coloured cloth into gunfire and die for what it symbolizes.
Throughout the ages men have been stirred to acts of patriotism and bravery by following their family's or their country's flag into battle. Today flags are still used in wars. But they are also used for the celebration of great events, such as political events, national holidays, coronations, and parades. On sadder occasions flags are flown at half-mast to honor the dead and draped over the coffins of national heroes.
Political parties within countries have their own flags. Sometimes these have been used as the basis of the design of a new national flag when a country has become independent. Clubs, companies, and organizations of people with similar interests have their own flags, too. Many are recognized throughout the world. The five circles of the Olympic flag represent the linking of the five continents in peaceful competition. Peace is also the message of the olive branches cradling the world in the flag of the United Nations.

Political changes are responsible for many variations in flags. The simple red and white flag of Indonesia in the past, mentioned in Pararaton, that in the thirteenth century, was raised by the King of Kediri, Jayakatwang, in a war against Singasari kingdom, ruled by Kertanegara. In the book Negarakertagama, during Majapahit Empire, which flourished from the 13th to the 16th century in eastern Java, the red and white flag was used as a majestic symbol.
Sisingamangaraja IX used red and white as a war flag, with white twin swords with bright red in the middle and white as the background. The Padri fighters in Aceh used red and white color. The sun, stars, crescent moon and verses of the Quran used as background. Woromporang was the red and white flag of the Bone kingdom as a symbol of the power and greatness. Prince Diponegoro wore a red and white flag in the struggle against the Dutch. All of this, incorporated traditional colour symbolism: red for courage and white for honesty.

'Merah Putih' theme became even more meaningful when the Second Youth Congress in October 1928 agreed to accept two instruments of independence. First, Indonesia Raya as the Indonesian national anthem. Second, Sang Saka Merah Putih as Indonesia's national flag. Like a baby will be born from its mother's womb, it's just a matter of time. Indonesia's flag was officially adopted on August 17, 1945, three days after the conclusion of World War II. It remained the national flag when Indonesia won recognition of its independence from the Netherlands in 1949. The baby was born. It was born from a red clot of blood with pure fitra as white as soft, fluffy cotton.
But as a son of man, Sunnatullah had been written, that he had to go through the ups and downs of life so that he grew stronger. In sailing the oceans of life in this world, sometimes he should fight the pirates. Pirates are as old as seafaring and exist the world over, but the association with the skull and crossbones flag seems to originate in the twelfth century. Why they used the image is beyond morbid. It stems from the legend of the ‘Skull of Sidon’, as told by one Walter Map in the twelfth century concerning some troubling events in the mid 1100s, 'A great lady of Maraclea was loved by a Templar, a Lord of Sidon; but she died in her youth, and on the night of her burial this wicked lover crept to the grave, dug up her body and violated it. Then a voice from the void bade him return in nine months’ time for he would find a son. He obeyed the injunction and at the appointed time he opened the grave again and found a head on the leg bones of the skeleton (skull and crossbones).'
The Knights Templar rather fancied themselves as being on God’s side, as opposed to being pirates, but their behaviour at sea was frequently piratical. These incredibly rich knights were not above stopping lesser vessels and relieving them of any valuables, and their emblem may well have been the inspiration for later ‘buccaneers’—or to say it another way, ‘thieves’.

In 1998, this son of man managed to repel the pirates who had taken control of his ship, lowered the skull flag and raised 'Sang Merah Putih' again. This event was called '98 Reform' with the theme of democracy and eradicating Corruption, Collusion and Nepotism. As it progressed, it turned out that there were stowaways on board the ship. These stowaways began to loot the treasures stored on the ship's deck. This time, they did not collaborate with the Knights Templar, but with pirates from China, whom they adored all the time untill they had forgotten their own flag. 'Sang Merah Putih' came down to half mast, under the shadow of skull and crossbones flag.
We wave flags, we burn them, they fly outside parliaments and palaces, homes and showrooms. They represent the politics of high power and the power of the mob. Many have hidden histories that inform the present. Will the son of man be able to raise 'Sang Merah Putih' back to the top of its pole, or will he be helpless against the pirates, so that 'Sang Bendera' will sag to the lowest level and fall off its pole? We'll see for the playing date."

Before moving on to the next episode, the sunflower hummed,

Putiknya persona
[Her gynoecium was so characterized]
Rama-rama 'neka warna
[Big Butterfly with multicolor]
'Kan kupersembahkan
[I'd like to dedicate]
Bagi Pandu Indonesia *)
[To the Indonesian forerunner]
Citations & References:
- Tim Marshall, Worth Dying for the Power and Politics of Flags, 2016, Elliott and Thompson Limited
- F. Edward Hulme, The Flags of the World: Their History, Blazonry, and Associations, 2021, Good Press
- David Ross, Flags, 1986, Willowisp Press
- Harold Crouch, Political Reform in Indonesia after Soeharto, 2020, ISEAS
*) "Melati Suci" written by Guruh Sukarno Putra

Wednesday, January 10, 2024

Stories from the Sunflower: Lucy (6)

"From a passenger ship, everyone can see a messy hair and long bearded man, on a small island who is shouting and desperately waving his hands.
'Who is it?' a passenger asks the captain.
'I have no idea,' says the captain, 'this is the fifth time we have passed here, and this time, he is easily provoked by emotions.'"

"In candidate debates in Indonesia, why does the General Election Commission [Indonesians call it as KPU] set a limit on the duration of debates?" said sunflower while noticing a winged hourglass as a literal depiction of the Latin phrase 'tempus fugit'—time flies. "The time limit of the debate, including speech limits for individual candidate, limiting on the opportunities to speak, or limiting on the total length of debate on a question. As you already know, in a public forum debate, individuals give short (2-4 minute) speeches that are interspersed with 1-3 minute 'Crossfire' sections, questions and answers between opposed debaters. The winner is determined by a judge who also serves as a referee (timing sections, penalizing incivility, etc).
Debates are an effective way to inform and involve voters in the political process. The two most important resources to use, while planning a debate, are communication and organization. Moderators are chosen based on their experience and nonpartisanship. They should also have a reasonable level of general knowledge about the issues under discussion. Please keep in mind that the moderator sets the tone of the debate. A more effective moderator will produce an interesting and informative debate. Above all, moderators should be professional and fair. Length of debate shall be between 60 and 120 minutes, depending on the number of candidates in the debate. Ensure that the debate does not exceed the allotted two-hour time limit and that no breaks should take place during the debates. In the competitive arena, time matters. In presidential debates, the candidates are given little time to make a lasting impression. So, the emphasis in the debate, apart from the time limit, is also the hidden 'value' of debate.

Debate is one of the oldest activities of civilization. Calm, orderly debate, in which speakers argue for acceptance of various answers to a given question, is an obvious feature of modern parliaments and congresses. But it also had its place even in the deliberations of ancient kings, who maintained councils of nobles to give them advice. When the nobles disagreed, they were allowed to debate their proposals before the king, who acted as the final judge in choosing one plan of action.
In modern democratic societies, the right to debate is a priceless asset. It enables any citizen to propose a better plan of action than the one that the ruling power sets forth. If the speaker can convince enough citizens that the new idea is a better one, then the speaker can change the policy of the city, county, state, or even nation.
You may not be particularly conscious of the fact that debate occurs in every walk of life, not only in congresses or in academic environment. Actually, every situation in which you are asked to compare alternatives is one that forces you to debate the merits of those alternatives. Sometimes you will do the debating within yourself, as when you must decide whether to attend college. Sometimes the debating is done in your presence by others, with you as the judge, as in the case of rival sales presentations, each of which asks you to buy their particular product. Often we fail to recognize the debate situation because only one person is speaking to us—the single salesperson in a store, for instance—but usually that person reveals the true nature of the debate by acting as if there were actually a third person present with you.

Arguments are the most basic building blocks of debate. Understanding what makes arguments work distinguishes successful debaters from their less successful colleagues, and creates advantages for even the most experienced and precocious debaters. Arguments are like automobiles: If you understand how they work, you are likely to get more service out of them, understand what went wrong when they break down, and fix the problem before your next outing.
Debates proceed orally, at a relatively quick pace. Debaters do not have enough time to apply the detailed argument analysis techniques in the average debate and argumentation text. What matters most about argument theory to the average debater is simply this: to differentiates a bad argument from a good argument.

Argument is distinct from debate. An argument is an attempt to influence someone else in some direction. Usually, this direction is a matter of belief, adherence, or action. Some arguments are about facts. These arguments deal with facts or definitions in controversy and attempt to get the listener to believe in certain facts. Other arguments are about values. These arguments try to persuade the listener to adhere to particular value systems; alternately, they may use given value systems to persuade the listener to accept certain states of affairs as consistent with their values. Finally, some arguments are about policies. These arguments attempt to influence the listener in matters of policy or courses of action. In real life as in debate, however, these distinctions are far from clear. For example, questions of policy always involve questions of fact and value, even if these associations are always made implicitly.
Debate is the infrastructure for the presentation of many and various arguments, all of which can and usually do serve distinct and disparate functions throughout the course of a debate. Of course, in debate as in life, not all arguments are created equally. That is, some are more successful than others. The immediately relevant question for debaters is how to make successful arguments and how to make these successful arguments work in debates.
An argument is more than a claim. While a claim asserts that something is so, an argument attempts to prove why that thing is so. Debate is not a science. It has only a familial relationship to the practice of formal logic of the type used in classical mathematics or scientific proof. It is important to remember that proof in debate and argumentation is not like proof in mathematics or formal logic. So, The simplest definition of debate is that it is the formalized enactment of argumentation. The word 'formalized' is a key distinction between having an argument and engaging in a debate. For something to be formal it must have structure.

We think with our brains. We have no choice. It may seem that certain politicians think with other parts of their anatomy, but they too think with their brains, says George Lakoff. Why does this matter for politics? Because all thought is physical. Thought is carried out by neural circuits in the brain. We can only understand what our brains allow us to understand. The deepest of those neural structures are relatively fixed. They don’t change readily or easily. And we are mostly unconscious of their activity and impact. In fact, about 98 percent of what our brains are doing is below the level of consciousness. As a result, we may not know all, or even most, of what in our brains determines our deepest moral, social, and political beliefs. And yet we act on the basis of those largely unconscious beliefs. What goes on in people’s brains matters. The most important brain structures for our politics, can be studied from the perspective of the mind, they are called 'frames.'
Frames are mental structures that shape the way we see the world. As a result, they shape the goals we seek, the plans we make, the way we act, and what counts as a good or bad outcome of our actions.

You can’t see or hear frames. They are part of what we cognitive scientists call the cognitive unconscious—structures in our brains that we cannot consciously access, but know by their consequences. What we call 'common sense' is made up of unconscious, automatic, effortless inferences that follow from our unconscious frames. We also know frames through language. All words are defined relative to conceptual frames. When you hear a word, its frame is activated in our brain. Yes, in our brain, even when we negate a frame, we activate the frame. If I tell you, 'Don’t think of an elephant!,' you’ll think of an elephant. Not only does negating a frame activate that frame, but the more it is activated, the stronger it gets. The moral for political discourse is clear: When you argue against someone on the other side using their language and their frames, you are activating their frames, strengthening their frames in those who hear you, and undermining your own views. For progressives, this means avoiding the use of conservative language and the frames that the language activates. It means that you should say what you believe using your language, not theirs.

In politics, our frames shape our social policies and the institutions we form to carry out policies. To change our frames is to change all of this, social change is reframing. When we successfully reframe public discourse, we change the way the public sees the world. We change what counts as common sense. Because language activates frames, new language is required for new frames. Thinking differently requires speaking differently.
Reframing is not easy or simple. It is not a matter of finding some magic words. Frames are ideas, not slogans. Reframing is more a matter of accessing what we and like-minded others already believe unconsciously, making it conscious, and repeating it till it enters normal public discourse. It is an ongoing process. It requires repetition and focus and dedication.
To achieve social change, reframing requires a change in public discourse, and that requires a communication system. Reframing without a system of communication accomplishes nothing. Reframing is about honesty and integrity. It is the opposite of spin and manipulation. It is about bringing to consciousness the deepest of our beliefs and our modes of understanding. It is about learning to express what we really believe in a way that will allow those who share our beliefs to understand what they most deeply believe and to act on those beliefs.

Framing is also about understanding those we disagree with most. When a political leader puts forth a policy or suggests how we should act, the implicit assumption is that the policy or action is right, not wrong. No political leader says, 'Here’s what you should do. Do it because it is wrong—pure evil, but do it.' No political leader puts forth policies on the grounds that the policies don’t matter. Political prescriptions are assumed to be right. The problem is that different political leaders have different ideas about what is right. So, all politics is moral, but not everybody operates from the same view of morality. Moreover, much of moral belief is unconscious. We are often not even aware of our own most deeply held moral views. It is vital—for us, for our country—that we understand the values on which this country was founded. Pancasila is not just a slogan to make the father happy, but rather to understand the 'values' contained in it. If we are to keep on democracy, we must learn to articulate those values loud and clear.
Debate also has its value,  according to Jon M. Ericson, James J. Murphy, and Raymond Bud Zeuschner, the advantages of debate for you coincide exactly with the virtues of an ideal debater: first, the ability to collect and organize ideas. A successful debate speaker is one who can absorb vast amounts of material and select from it those items that are the best to use in a particular debate.
Second, the ability to subordinate ideas. A debater will hear about forty-¤ve hundred to ¤ve thousand words from the opponents during a typical single round of debate. Together with a colleague, this debater will deliver an additional forty-five hundred to five thousand words. Only by sorting out the major ideas from the minor ones can any speaker hope to make sense of this flood of words.
Third, the ability to evaluate evidence. Skill in gleaning the most important evidence is a hallmark of an intelligent speaker. Not every statement, quotation, statistic, or idea in a debate is worth the trouble of refutation.
Fourth, the ability to see logical connections. Aristotle once pointed out that the ability to see what is similar among dissimilar things is a mark of genius. The great mass of data presented during most debates causes confusion among the hearers; therefore the speakers who can identify the relationship between items help to clarify the debate for the audience and thus improve their own chances of success.
Fifth, the ability to think and speak in outline terms. Clarity is essential in a debate (and in any good communication, for that matter), during which the clash of ideas often confuses an audience. The debaters must have not only a perfectly clear mental outline of their entire case but also the ability to communicate the sense of that outline to the audience.
Sixth, the ability to speak convincingly. An awareness of what an audience expects—what it takes to convince that particular audience—is absolutely essential, both in debate and in other types of speaking.
Seventh, the ability to adapt. Since a debate is a fluid situation, constantly changing as new ideas are introduced by various speakers, it places a premium on readiness of reply. In practice, this readiness means that you must be not only well organized, logical, analytic, and convincing but also able to react to new ideas quickly..

Debate is a tool for resolving disagreements and bringing us together as a society. Debate is an incredibly important skill that can help build confidence, train people to think quickly on their feet, and become strong advocates for what they believe, says Jarrod Atchison. Debating is a competitive activity, but it’s also a way of learning, exchanging ideas, and gaining an understanding of other people’s perspectives. That understanding furnishes the basis for making better choices.
The importance of the distinction between argumentation and debate
becomes clear in the context of debate as a method of decision making. Imagine, a leader must make decisions quickly within limited time. It would be very risky if the leader had to postpone his decision just because he relied on a consultant, then discuss it over a cup of coffee. Of course, we don't want to have a leader who is slow to think. 
By the way, I was given enough time to talk, so, let's continue our talk, in the next talk, okay? Bi 'idznillah."

Then the sunflower sang,

Ih abang jahat, aku tuh cinta berat
[You are a bad guy, but I really love you]
Sini dong dekat-dekat, ku pegang erat-erat *)
[Come here, come close, I'll hold you tight]
Citations & References:
- George Lakoff, Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate, 2014, Chelsea Green Publishing
- Jon M. Ericson, James J. Murphy & Raymond Bud Zeuschner, The Debater's Guide, 2003, Southern Illinois University Press
- John Meany & Kate Shuster, Art, Argument and Advocacy: Mastering Parliamentary Debate, 2002, International Debate Education Association
- Jarrod Atchison, The Art of Debate, 2017, The Great Course
*) "Ih Abang Jahat" written by Ecko Show