Mariam Mokhtar
Aug 23, 10
If Tunku Abdul Rahman were alive today, he would weep at the destruction of bridges he had built between the races in Malaysia.
In a speech to the Foreign Correspondents Association in May 1961, he warned us about “a small minority who did not think, feel, believe and work for the good of Malaya”. Referring to national unity, he said: “This goal would not be achieved if the Chinese continued to think and talk of everything Chinese.”
Ironically, some Malays and a misguided Chinese convert have let the Tunku down, while the non-Malays have embraced his vision wholeheartedly.
The Tunku was passionate about loyalty: “We, who are here, have only our little Malaya. The Chinese, Malays and others have to make the best of our home here. Malaya, our one and only home”. He explained that without unity, "there would be conflict and hell will break loose”.
Fast forward to 2010 and the two school principals who allegedly told their Chinese students to "return to China". They've aped the anti-Chinese rhetoric of Ibrahim Ali, Ahmad Ismail and Ridhuan Tee Abdullah. They are egged-on by a former prime minister, who refuses to retire gracefully, and whose constant meddling will destroy this country.
Not content at being sidelined, Information, Communication and Culture Minister Rais Yatim has condemned the MCA president for demanding the gradual reduction of the 30 percent bumiputera economic equity.
However, let's forget about 30 percent bumiputera equity.
Let's imagine a 'Ketuanan Melayu Utopia' with 100 percent Malay bumiputera equity, with all the Chinese 'banished' to China and the Indians to India.
Will we be socially, economically, morally and religiously content, in Malay brotherhood?
In this Utopia, will the handful of individuals who used to control the wealth of the nation, relinquish their economic stranglehold and share it?
Their actions could eradicate poverty across the country and lift the economic status of the Malays, especially the rural Malays.
But I doubt that they will give up control and power.
Will the government-linked companies or the companies 'belonging' to powerful politicians share projects with the other 97 percent of the population? Would projects be put to open tender? Would the Ali Baba companies that used to exist be disbanded? Or will clones of these Ali Baba firms emerge?
Lifestyle changes?
How will our schools fare? Teachers, especially principals, need not go into racist rants. Will bullying and harassment manifest itself in other forms?
Out will go the subject called 'Moral' for the non-Malays. Sports, especially for girls, would probably cease; Westernised activities like boy-scouts or girl-guides would stop.
As music is anathema to Muslim teachings, unless they are nasyid songs, students who appreciate music and want to learn a musical instrument would have to stop harbouring foolish ideas.
There will be even less emphasis on English. A nephew at a Mara boarding school tried to improve his English, by speaking English to his friends. Unfortunately, both his schoolmates and teachers teased him, "Kamu-ni action-nya, nak jadi Mat-Salleh kah?" (Why are you showing off, do you want to be a Westerner?) so he stopped.
With universities attended and staffed by Malays only, standards should be expected to rise, because there is no competition to slow them down and distract them.
With this new Ketuanan Melayu Utopia, there will be open season on polygamy. Men will be able to marry whenever and whoever they like. There will be no equality for women.
A man can opt to marry girls as soon as they reach the age of puberty. He can get around the laws prohibiting sex with a minor, by marrying in Malacca. When he tires of her, there is always the option of a second, third or fourth wife.
He need not worry about his children's welfare, or breakdown of the family-unit, as the courts rarely enforce maintenance payments. Women being responsible mothers, will always work harder, to subsidise his lifestyle and support his family.
Places that used to sell alcohol, and entertainment establishments like nightclubs or karaoke bars, will cease to exist and 'social ills' should disappear. The 'moral police' who used to look for drinkers like Kartika, may be downsized. Unemployment figures could rise as a result.
Will the khalwat squads still turn a blind eye to immoral VIPs? Having a 100 percent Malay nation will not stop illicit sex.
As there will be no more Gregorian New Year and Valentine's day celebrations, there will be no more abandoned babies.
How will the Malays decide between employment in the cushy civil service or a job in the private sector? Will the government machinery become leaner and more efficient?
Identity, cultural crises
With religious fervor, will the Malays become fully Arabicised or Islamicised? Our Malay architectural heritage has long been abandoned for Arabic domes.
The kebaya has been usurped by the jubah. Tudung or mini-telekung have replaced ordinary head scarves. Even Malay men parade in white Arab robes. War memorials are banned and logos on football jerseys are subject to scrutiny.
Malay weddings have long since become politically correct and institutionalised. Apart from the customary vulgar display of wealth, there is no more joget or mingling among guests. Men and women have neglected how to behave in each other's presence because of segregation. Basically, everyone has forgotten how to have fun.
The Malays are suffering from an identity and cultural crisis. They are stuck in a time-warp and refuse to move with the times. They lack a strong leader. They have been held back by leaders who do not understand their needs but who were content to use them indiscriminately. Malays have been conditioned to be suspicious of each other and kept in check by fear.
All the Ibrahim Alis, Ahmad Ismails, Ridhuan Tee Abdullahs and racist school-principals of Malaysia are simply 'dark-skinned' neo-Nazis. If these 'pseudo Aryans' believe that 100 percent bumiputera equity, or banishing non-Malays from Malaysia will improve our social and economic outcomes, then their heads need examination.
When their experiment for a 100 percent Malay nation-state fails to lift the rural Malays out of poverty and creates a wider gap between rich and poor Malays, what then? When their ill-conceived 'social-engineering' creates more Malay disunity, who will they blame?
In our Malay Utopia, will Dr Mahathir Mohamad be sent back to Kerala, will Ridhuan Tee be returned to China and will the other 'Indonesian Malays' like Dr Mohd Khir Toyo and Najib Abdul Razak be sent packing?
Showing posts with label 文章分享 [Article]. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 文章分享 [Article]. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
马来西亚华人
马来西亚华人痛苦！
何谓马来西亚华人——我们是马来西亚人，但不是马来人，我们是华人，但不是中国人
这篇文章是留学北京大学的何灿浩写的!!
当我刚到中国时，人们问我的第一个问题总是：“你的汉语怎么说得那么好啊？”紧接着“来到中国多说年了？”、“难道是从小学汉语吗？”
场景2
当时我和中文系的辩论队一起看01年的国际大专辩论赛决赛，马来亚大学的三辩提到“日本军在南京大屠杀凌虐我中华妇女”，有位同学问我“你们也提中华妇女吗？”
从我到中国以来，以上的情况遇上了无数遍，于是我很早就想写一篇文章来告诉大家：马来西亚的华人是一个什么样的存在。这个题目很大，我只能从我切身的体会和感受来写这篇文章。
缘起
先用一个大家都熟悉的历史背景来做开场白。1840以来，中国进入了一个动乱的时期。一方面，好些中国人想往外逃窜；另一方面，西方列强想捉苦力到东南亚地区为他们服务。于是，大量的中国人（尤其是福建、广东一带）就散布到东南亚各个地区，其中就包括了马来西亚。
尴尬的存在
当人家问我“你的汉语怎么说得那么好啊？”这么一个简单的问题时，我还真觉得这不是一句话就能解释的问题。最简单的回答就是：“因为我祖先是中国人”，但是有人又会问：“那么为什么好多印尼人就不会说汉语了呢？”问题的复杂之处就在这里。
从迁居到马来西亚，我们的先贤就特别重视中文的教育，通过私塾、宗祠等单位教授三字经、四书五经等教材，后来随着中国教育体制的改革而改革。这个时期，我们的祖先基本上还是以中国人自居，黄花岗七十二烈士就有二十九人是华侨、抗日战争时期全体华侨出钱出力、著名的华侨陈嘉庚创办厦大、集美大学。。。。。。这样的事情不胜枚举。
后来，随着居住马来西亚日久，我们的命运渐渐在这片土地上生了根。从马来西亚（大马）方面来看，我们开始更多地关注大马的政治，与马来族、印度族联手争取从英国的殖民统治中独立。从中国方面来看，周恩来总理提出：华侨应在其居住地生根发芽。但是，不变的是：我们始终坚持自己的母语教育。
在印尼，由于当地华侨没有组成统一的阵线，于是他们不能拥有中文名字、不能庆祝农历新年；在中国人普遍认为完好地传承了中华文化的新加坡，李光耀总理主动地消灭了中文教育，关闭了新加坡唯一以中文为教学媒介的南洋大学，全体人民学习英文，于是目前多数新加坡人的母语是英语。如今，随着中国的崛起，中文的 “经济”价值日益提高，许多东南亚国家才掀起了“汉语热”。唯一的例外是马来西亚，因为我们的先贤从头到尾就没有以“经济”作为考量，而是从“民族文化” 出发。
那么，难道马来西亚就没有遭遇当地政府的阻挠吗？有！而且很大！马来西亚教育终极的目标是：以马来语为唯一的教学媒介语，换言之，华语、淡米尔语的中小学迟早都得消灭。60年代，大马政府规定：只有以马来语为教学媒介语的学校才能获得政府的津贴，于是许多中文中学纷纷改制，变为政府中学。这时，我们的先贤，以林连玉先生为代表，明确地提出：学习母语是每个民族的天赋人权，即使不要一分钱的津贴，我们也要办独立中学！
于是，马来西亚的华文教育保留了下来，华小以及民办的独立中学、学院形成完整的中文教育的体系，甚至创立了“全马来西亚独立中学统一考试”，受全球各高校承认（除了马来西亚的大学），我们基本上就是以这张文凭为基础考进北大的。在这个过程中，多少先贤抛头颅、洒热血，林连玉先生被褫夺公民权、好多人被大马政府关押、无数的民众以自己的血汗钱支持独立中学。
但是，来到中国，没有人知道这一切。不止中国，我相信全世界的人都不知道这一切，不知道被我们称为“族魂”的林连玉，不知道马来西亚的华人用血、汗和泪水来争取母语教育的权利。于是，中国的同学反过来问我们：“为什么你们会说汉语？”时，我真觉得这是巨大的讽刺。
尤其，当中国同学问起我：“为什么你们也说‘中华妇女’？”时------尽管不理智------我还是立时火了：“为什么日军侵袭时，马来西亚的华人要出钱出力？为什么同一年发生缅甸风灾和四川大地震时，我们华人对后者的捐款额要远远大于前者，我们难道就没有资格称自己为‘中华民族’吗？”
当我来到北大的图书馆文学图书时，看着满目的“美国文学”、“印度文学”。。。。。。当我看到“新加坡文学”，而没看到“马来西亚文学”时，我更感到十分凄凉，以至于讽刺。我们浴血抗战，创建了一套完整的中文教育体系，有完整的“马华文学”，而这一切在中华文化的发源地------中国是得不到承认的。反倒是曾经废除过南大的新加坡，由于其更为强大的国势，反而被认为是在海外完整地传承了中华文化的国家。
“尴尬”之处就在于此：努力地捍卫中华文化，不为马来西亚政府承认，亦不为世人所知，里外不是人。这就是马来西亚华人第一种存在：尴尬的存在。
第二、独立的存在
独立的存在，另一个说法是孤立的存在。“马来西亚华人”这个词儿意味着：我们是马来西亚人，但不是马来人（中国朋友最大的误会~囧）；我们是华人，但不是中国人。于是，一种特殊的群体和文化产生了，独立于世界之林。
我们跟其他马来西亚人（例如马来人、印度人）的差别很明显，黄皮肤在一片黑色的人海之中额外显眼，不同的语言、不同的文化。但是，在日常生活中我们相处得十分融洽-------马来人其实真的是很好相处的，什么种族冲突全是政府搞出来的-------整个群体都受到马来族极大的影响，这就铸成了我们好多的共同点，而与他们的这些共同点恰恰就是我们和中国人的相异之处。
最明显的差异就是口头表达。首先是口音，我朋友总说：“看你的时候一点都不像外国人，但你一说话我们就马上知道了。”在辩论赛场上时，我的一口马来腔更是显得极为突兀。所谓马来西亚口音，大概就是广东腔+福建腔，翘舌少、轻声较少（个人认为）、没有儿化、语调趋平。其次是词汇，以中文词汇为主体，再加上各种方言、马来语、英语的词汇，各种语气词“啦”、“咯”、“哄”层出不穷。大家有兴趣的话，可以去百度打“马来西亚VS中国”，马上就能找到许多具体的例子。
但是，我以为：更深层的差距不在嘴巴，而在脑子里。有一次，中文系的徐艺峰师兄领着我们留学生辩论队讨论一个辩题，他最感叹的就是：“如果是跟中国学生讨论，第三个衡量标准一定是‘何者更有利于社会主义的建设’。”看看中国同学的课就知道，什么思修、毛概、邓小平思想、军事理论，这些似乎都离我们的生活很远很远。冷战时期资本主义阵营和社会主义阵营的分家就决定了我们意识形态上的不同。
撇开这个问题不谈，即使同样都继承了中华文化，两地的继承也是有所不同的。在这里，大部分的人都信仰“无神论”。但是，我们那里好多人都还信仰观十八罗汉、观音娘娘、关公、济公、齐天大圣等，不一而足。不止大量的神庙，我们还保留了大量的宗祠、会馆，并且还在华人社区发挥着一定的作用。由于我对中国的现代化进程还算有一定的了解，以上这些还不足以让我惊讶，真正让我吃惊的是中国风气的开放。校内校外，情侣相拥亲吻的情况无所不在，这还真不是我想象中的中国。当然，我们那里也有很开放的人，但是可以肯定的是：马来西亚的华人普遍上要比中国人保守得多（嗯~至少跟我的家乡相比）。
此外，许多大马华人一致公认的是：中国学生真的很多“学术牛人”，大体上比我们那儿的人要勤劳的多。中国人多竞争大，我所认识的每位同学一个个都是从高考的腥风血雨中杀出来的英雄豪杰，他们那股永不言倦的冲劲着实让我们折服。相较而言，马来西亚人则比较慵懒，更倾向于做自己喜欢的事、享受自己的人生。因此，我们玩起来比较放浪形骸，比较不顾形象，大声吵、大声笑、大声闹。
既不是马来人，也不是中国人，我们仿佛就是另一种程度上的混血儿，所以或许我们有点孤单。但是，这或许就是我们独特的优势：既传承了悠久的中华文化，又成长在一个相对宽松自由的舆论环境，想法更自由、更多元。所以，即使我们这个群体在世界上似乎很孤立，但如果让我有机会选择，我仍然愿意出生在马来西亚，当马来西亚的华人。
第三、悲壮的存在
“宝剑锋自磨砺出，梅花香自苦寒来”，这一句俗语在马来西亚人身上得到绝佳的体现。在过去，马来人、华人、印度人曾经联手争取了国家的独立；但是，随着马来人逐渐独掌大权（再注：对马来人的抨击仅限政治人物），华人、印度人的地位也日渐衰弱。首先，马来语成了唯一的官方语言。再来，马来西亚教育的最终目标定为：“使马来语成为唯一的教学媒介语”。
但是，最大的转折点是六、七十年代的“五·一三事件”。由于华人比较刻苦耐劳，比其他的民族来得富有，无形中造成了民族间的矛盾。出于权力斗争的目的，政治人物鼓动马来人屠杀华人。于是，第二任首相敦拉萨借此宣布国家进入“紧急状态”，顺势上台，颁布了一系列不平等的法令。在经济上，每家公司都至少要雇用 30%的土著（其实就是马来人和其他极少部分的少数民族）；在教育上，大学也实施固打制，要保留一定的份额给土著。此外，对中文教育的打压更是变本加厉，影响力最大的就是改制事件，即不以马来语为主要教学媒介语的政府中学都领不到政府一分钱的津贴。
打压归打压，但是马来西亚华人依然在暴风雨中茁壮成长。如第一篇所述，我们发展出了一套完整的中文教育，各领域人才辈出。大家熟知的梁静茹、曹格、光良皆是马来西亚华人；大家现在人手一支的U盘是马来西亚的潘建忠发明的；在华语辩论界上，马来西亚以其犀利的辩风在世界上占有一席之地；如今，马来西亚的十大首富中也大部分是华人。
但是，从这里我们可以看到一些很可悲的现实。大马华人自己创办的独立中学培养了无数英才那又怎样？全世界大部分高等学府都承认我们的统考文凭时，唯有马来西亚政府不承认！马来亚大学在辩坛创出赫赫威名那又怎样？在政府控制下的马来亚大学还曾经试图禁止马大的辩手参赛！梁静茹、潘建忠等辈就更加可悲了，许多人都以为他们是台湾人！潘建忠自己就说过：“如果我留在马来西亚，不可能会有今天的成就。”因为在马来西亚，华人发展的空间有限，报国无门又无法自我实现，不出国发展还能怎样？
于是，马来西亚的华人成长是成长了，可是那跟政府什么毛关系都没有。因为我们政府很慷慨，在全世界都在争夺人才时，我们政府眼看马来西亚出现人才外流的滚滚洪流仍然可以视而不见！在马来西亚大力提倡向外吸纳人才时，去看看，有多少马来西亚的人才在新加坡工作！有一次，我们国家的首相到新加坡访问，探访一间医院时，竟然有一半以上的人用马来语跟他致敬！这是何等的讽刺！
我原本把第三篇命名为“令人骄傲的存在”，可是后来改成了“悲壮”。的确，我们有很傲人的成就。可是，在我们有心报效祖国时，却只能被不公平的政策拒之国门。马来西亚那么一块宝地，没有天灾、资源丰富、文化多样，又居于世界要冲，如果真的有英明的政府，摇身变为世界强国绝非难事！反观新加坡，没有什么自然资源，又是弹丸之地，可是，现在我们只有眼睁睁看着自己的国家成了新加坡的腹地，眼看着从马来西亚分离出去的新加坡一天比一天强大！这种感觉真的很复杂，真的很难以言喻！
谓之“悲壮”，我想应该甚为贴切。
何谓马来西亚华人——我们是马来西亚人，但不是马来人，我们是华人，但不是中国人
这篇文章是留学北京大学的何灿浩写的!!
当我刚到中国时，人们问我的第一个问题总是：“你的汉语怎么说得那么好啊？”紧接着“来到中国多说年了？”、“难道是从小学汉语吗？”
场景2
当时我和中文系的辩论队一起看01年的国际大专辩论赛决赛，马来亚大学的三辩提到“日本军在南京大屠杀凌虐我中华妇女”，有位同学问我“你们也提中华妇女吗？”
从我到中国以来，以上的情况遇上了无数遍，于是我很早就想写一篇文章来告诉大家：马来西亚的华人是一个什么样的存在。这个题目很大，我只能从我切身的体会和感受来写这篇文章。
缘起
先用一个大家都熟悉的历史背景来做开场白。1840以来，中国进入了一个动乱的时期。一方面，好些中国人想往外逃窜；另一方面，西方列强想捉苦力到东南亚地区为他们服务。于是，大量的中国人（尤其是福建、广东一带）就散布到东南亚各个地区，其中就包括了马来西亚。
尴尬的存在
当人家问我“你的汉语怎么说得那么好啊？”这么一个简单的问题时，我还真觉得这不是一句话就能解释的问题。最简单的回答就是：“因为我祖先是中国人”，但是有人又会问：“那么为什么好多印尼人就不会说汉语了呢？”问题的复杂之处就在这里。
从迁居到马来西亚，我们的先贤就特别重视中文的教育，通过私塾、宗祠等单位教授三字经、四书五经等教材，后来随着中国教育体制的改革而改革。这个时期，我们的祖先基本上还是以中国人自居，黄花岗七十二烈士就有二十九人是华侨、抗日战争时期全体华侨出钱出力、著名的华侨陈嘉庚创办厦大、集美大学。。。。。。这样的事情不胜枚举。
后来，随着居住马来西亚日久，我们的命运渐渐在这片土地上生了根。从马来西亚（大马）方面来看，我们开始更多地关注大马的政治，与马来族、印度族联手争取从英国的殖民统治中独立。从中国方面来看，周恩来总理提出：华侨应在其居住地生根发芽。但是，不变的是：我们始终坚持自己的母语教育。
在印尼，由于当地华侨没有组成统一的阵线，于是他们不能拥有中文名字、不能庆祝农历新年；在中国人普遍认为完好地传承了中华文化的新加坡，李光耀总理主动地消灭了中文教育，关闭了新加坡唯一以中文为教学媒介的南洋大学，全体人民学习英文，于是目前多数新加坡人的母语是英语。如今，随着中国的崛起，中文的 “经济”价值日益提高，许多东南亚国家才掀起了“汉语热”。唯一的例外是马来西亚，因为我们的先贤从头到尾就没有以“经济”作为考量，而是从“民族文化” 出发。
那么，难道马来西亚就没有遭遇当地政府的阻挠吗？有！而且很大！马来西亚教育终极的目标是：以马来语为唯一的教学媒介语，换言之，华语、淡米尔语的中小学迟早都得消灭。60年代，大马政府规定：只有以马来语为教学媒介语的学校才能获得政府的津贴，于是许多中文中学纷纷改制，变为政府中学。这时，我们的先贤，以林连玉先生为代表，明确地提出：学习母语是每个民族的天赋人权，即使不要一分钱的津贴，我们也要办独立中学！
于是，马来西亚的华文教育保留了下来，华小以及民办的独立中学、学院形成完整的中文教育的体系，甚至创立了“全马来西亚独立中学统一考试”，受全球各高校承认（除了马来西亚的大学），我们基本上就是以这张文凭为基础考进北大的。在这个过程中，多少先贤抛头颅、洒热血，林连玉先生被褫夺公民权、好多人被大马政府关押、无数的民众以自己的血汗钱支持独立中学。
但是，来到中国，没有人知道这一切。不止中国，我相信全世界的人都不知道这一切，不知道被我们称为“族魂”的林连玉，不知道马来西亚的华人用血、汗和泪水来争取母语教育的权利。于是，中国的同学反过来问我们：“为什么你们会说汉语？”时，我真觉得这是巨大的讽刺。
尤其，当中国同学问起我：“为什么你们也说‘中华妇女’？”时------尽管不理智------我还是立时火了：“为什么日军侵袭时，马来西亚的华人要出钱出力？为什么同一年发生缅甸风灾和四川大地震时，我们华人对后者的捐款额要远远大于前者，我们难道就没有资格称自己为‘中华民族’吗？”
当我来到北大的图书馆文学图书时，看着满目的“美国文学”、“印度文学”。。。。。。当我看到“新加坡文学”，而没看到“马来西亚文学”时，我更感到十分凄凉，以至于讽刺。我们浴血抗战，创建了一套完整的中文教育体系，有完整的“马华文学”，而这一切在中华文化的发源地------中国是得不到承认的。反倒是曾经废除过南大的新加坡，由于其更为强大的国势，反而被认为是在海外完整地传承了中华文化的国家。
“尴尬”之处就在于此：努力地捍卫中华文化，不为马来西亚政府承认，亦不为世人所知，里外不是人。这就是马来西亚华人第一种存在：尴尬的存在。
第二、独立的存在
独立的存在，另一个说法是孤立的存在。“马来西亚华人”这个词儿意味着：我们是马来西亚人，但不是马来人（中国朋友最大的误会~囧）；我们是华人，但不是中国人。于是，一种特殊的群体和文化产生了，独立于世界之林。
我们跟其他马来西亚人（例如马来人、印度人）的差别很明显，黄皮肤在一片黑色的人海之中额外显眼，不同的语言、不同的文化。但是，在日常生活中我们相处得十分融洽-------马来人其实真的是很好相处的，什么种族冲突全是政府搞出来的-------整个群体都受到马来族极大的影响，这就铸成了我们好多的共同点，而与他们的这些共同点恰恰就是我们和中国人的相异之处。
最明显的差异就是口头表达。首先是口音，我朋友总说：“看你的时候一点都不像外国人，但你一说话我们就马上知道了。”在辩论赛场上时，我的一口马来腔更是显得极为突兀。所谓马来西亚口音，大概就是广东腔+福建腔，翘舌少、轻声较少（个人认为）、没有儿化、语调趋平。其次是词汇，以中文词汇为主体，再加上各种方言、马来语、英语的词汇，各种语气词“啦”、“咯”、“哄”层出不穷。大家有兴趣的话，可以去百度打“马来西亚VS中国”，马上就能找到许多具体的例子。
但是，我以为：更深层的差距不在嘴巴，而在脑子里。有一次，中文系的徐艺峰师兄领着我们留学生辩论队讨论一个辩题，他最感叹的就是：“如果是跟中国学生讨论，第三个衡量标准一定是‘何者更有利于社会主义的建设’。”看看中国同学的课就知道，什么思修、毛概、邓小平思想、军事理论，这些似乎都离我们的生活很远很远。冷战时期资本主义阵营和社会主义阵营的分家就决定了我们意识形态上的不同。
撇开这个问题不谈，即使同样都继承了中华文化，两地的继承也是有所不同的。在这里，大部分的人都信仰“无神论”。但是，我们那里好多人都还信仰观十八罗汉、观音娘娘、关公、济公、齐天大圣等，不一而足。不止大量的神庙，我们还保留了大量的宗祠、会馆，并且还在华人社区发挥着一定的作用。由于我对中国的现代化进程还算有一定的了解，以上这些还不足以让我惊讶，真正让我吃惊的是中国风气的开放。校内校外，情侣相拥亲吻的情况无所不在，这还真不是我想象中的中国。当然，我们那里也有很开放的人，但是可以肯定的是：马来西亚的华人普遍上要比中国人保守得多（嗯~至少跟我的家乡相比）。
此外，许多大马华人一致公认的是：中国学生真的很多“学术牛人”，大体上比我们那儿的人要勤劳的多。中国人多竞争大，我所认识的每位同学一个个都是从高考的腥风血雨中杀出来的英雄豪杰，他们那股永不言倦的冲劲着实让我们折服。相较而言，马来西亚人则比较慵懒，更倾向于做自己喜欢的事、享受自己的人生。因此，我们玩起来比较放浪形骸，比较不顾形象，大声吵、大声笑、大声闹。
既不是马来人，也不是中国人，我们仿佛就是另一种程度上的混血儿，所以或许我们有点孤单。但是，这或许就是我们独特的优势：既传承了悠久的中华文化，又成长在一个相对宽松自由的舆论环境，想法更自由、更多元。所以，即使我们这个群体在世界上似乎很孤立，但如果让我有机会选择，我仍然愿意出生在马来西亚，当马来西亚的华人。
第三、悲壮的存在
“宝剑锋自磨砺出，梅花香自苦寒来”，这一句俗语在马来西亚人身上得到绝佳的体现。在过去，马来人、华人、印度人曾经联手争取了国家的独立；但是，随着马来人逐渐独掌大权（再注：对马来人的抨击仅限政治人物），华人、印度人的地位也日渐衰弱。首先，马来语成了唯一的官方语言。再来，马来西亚教育的最终目标定为：“使马来语成为唯一的教学媒介语”。
但是，最大的转折点是六、七十年代的“五·一三事件”。由于华人比较刻苦耐劳，比其他的民族来得富有，无形中造成了民族间的矛盾。出于权力斗争的目的，政治人物鼓动马来人屠杀华人。于是，第二任首相敦拉萨借此宣布国家进入“紧急状态”，顺势上台，颁布了一系列不平等的法令。在经济上，每家公司都至少要雇用 30%的土著（其实就是马来人和其他极少部分的少数民族）；在教育上，大学也实施固打制，要保留一定的份额给土著。此外，对中文教育的打压更是变本加厉，影响力最大的就是改制事件，即不以马来语为主要教学媒介语的政府中学都领不到政府一分钱的津贴。
打压归打压，但是马来西亚华人依然在暴风雨中茁壮成长。如第一篇所述，我们发展出了一套完整的中文教育，各领域人才辈出。大家熟知的梁静茹、曹格、光良皆是马来西亚华人；大家现在人手一支的U盘是马来西亚的潘建忠发明的；在华语辩论界上，马来西亚以其犀利的辩风在世界上占有一席之地；如今，马来西亚的十大首富中也大部分是华人。
但是，从这里我们可以看到一些很可悲的现实。大马华人自己创办的独立中学培养了无数英才那又怎样？全世界大部分高等学府都承认我们的统考文凭时，唯有马来西亚政府不承认！马来亚大学在辩坛创出赫赫威名那又怎样？在政府控制下的马来亚大学还曾经试图禁止马大的辩手参赛！梁静茹、潘建忠等辈就更加可悲了，许多人都以为他们是台湾人！潘建忠自己就说过：“如果我留在马来西亚，不可能会有今天的成就。”因为在马来西亚，华人发展的空间有限，报国无门又无法自我实现，不出国发展还能怎样？
于是，马来西亚的华人成长是成长了，可是那跟政府什么毛关系都没有。因为我们政府很慷慨，在全世界都在争夺人才时，我们政府眼看马来西亚出现人才外流的滚滚洪流仍然可以视而不见！在马来西亚大力提倡向外吸纳人才时，去看看，有多少马来西亚的人才在新加坡工作！有一次，我们国家的首相到新加坡访问，探访一间医院时，竟然有一半以上的人用马来语跟他致敬！这是何等的讽刺！
我原本把第三篇命名为“令人骄傲的存在”，可是后来改成了“悲壮”。的确，我们有很傲人的成就。可是，在我们有心报效祖国时，却只能被不公平的政策拒之国门。马来西亚那么一块宝地，没有天灾、资源丰富、文化多样，又居于世界要冲，如果真的有英明的政府，摇身变为世界强国绝非难事！反观新加坡，没有什么自然资源，又是弹丸之地，可是，现在我们只有眼睁睁看着自己的国家成了新加坡的腹地，眼看着从马来西亚分离出去的新加坡一天比一天强大！这种感觉真的很复杂，真的很难以言喻！
谓之“悲壮”，我想应该甚为贴切。
Monday, August 9, 2010
Criminal bullying of the poor into Islam
Helen Ang
Aug 5, 10
12:50pm
Share 0Malaysia is aiming for yet another world record. We may have had a 15-month-old Indian baby ostensibly able to recite in Arabic the kalimah syahadah or affirmation of faith - 'There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His messenger'.
Yesterday the Penang High Court denied S Banggarma's application to quash her so-called conversion to Islam. Below are the dates as to Malaysia's possible claim for an unparalleled child prodigy:
•Aug 1982: Banggarma's date of birth
•Nov 1983: Conversion (I) to Islam in Pahang*
•?? Placed in Ramakrishna orphanage
•1987 or 1990? Moved to Taman Bakti orphanage
•Dec 1989: Conversion (II) to Islam in Penang
* disputed
Aug 5, 10
12:50pm
Share 0Malaysia is aiming for yet another world record. We may have had a 15-month-old Indian baby ostensibly able to recite in Arabic the kalimah syahadah or affirmation of faith - 'There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His messenger'.
Yesterday the Penang High Court denied S Banggarma's application to quash her so-called conversion to Islam. Below are the dates as to Malaysia's possible claim for an unparalleled child prodigy:
•Aug 1982: Banggarma's date of birth
•Nov 1983: Conversion (I) to Islam in Pahang*
•?? Placed in Ramakrishna orphanage
•1987 or 1990? Moved to Taman Bakti orphanage
•Dec 1989: Conversion (II) to Islam in Penang
* disputed
Banggarma is a 28-year-old homemaker challenging the validity of the conversion certificate made out in her name. The authorities have put forward a claim that Banggarma's parents converted themselves and their children to Islam in November 1983 in Rompin, Pahang. Yesterday, the court pronounced itself satisfied that this was indeed the case.
On the other hand, Banggarma is holding Perkim officer Raimi Abdullah responsible for her conversion after he took her away from Ramakrishna orphanage. She has named him as well as Perkim president Mahathir Mohamad as defendants in her suit.
Welfare department director-general Meme Zainal Rashid stated that Banggarma was placed in a home (Rumah Kanak-Kanak Taman Bakti in Kepala Batas, Penang) from March 1990 by court order “after she was found wandering aimlessly in Sungai Petani, Kedah”. This claim is disputed by Banggarma who believes that she was transferred to the home in 1987 together with her siblings.
Banggarma's lawyer has produced her conversion certificate. The inference is that it does not make sense for an individual to be converted twice. Hence, her infant conversion alleged by the Penang Islamic Religious Council is questionable.
Furthermore any conversion at the ages of eight and/or one-plus was clearly neither of Banggarma's own free will.
Making 1Malaysia 1Islam
In fact, Banggarma's 1989 conversion looks to be ethically fraudulent. What kind of sick, twisted mind did the Muslim zealots have who tricked a child into it?
Banggarma has refuted the claim by the Penang Islamic Religious Council that it was her father who converted to Islam in 1983. She was reported in the Star (Nov 25, 2009) as saying: “Three of my siblings were placed in the welfare home along with me and we all have conversion certificates dated Dec 28, 1989. How could my father have converted us in 1983 when my sister was not even born?”
Thus the contention by Penang Islamic Religious Council president Shabudin Yahaya that the later certificate was to “reconfirm Banggarma's [earlier] conversion” sounds dubious.
One would also ask Shabudin whether the function of a government-run orphanage is to protect children or to proselytise to them.
However, it appears that Mashitah Ibrahim, deputy minister in charge of Islamic affairs, has already addressed this very issue last year. She was quoted in The Sun (Nov 22, 2009) as commending the orphanage for taking the initiative to preach on Islam. In the context of Banggarma's conversion, Mashitah said it was the responsibility of the orphanage to then bring up the child according to true Islamic teachings.
It is obvious that Banggarma's guardians failed dismally in the task. Banggarma has declared that she will battle to the end to profess her Hindu faith. “I was born a Hindu so I will die a Hindu.”
It is a basket-case country that insists on handcuffing someone under such circumstances to Islam. And they want to throw away the key too; Banggarma has been told that she must seek remedy in the Syariah Court.
Aside from leaving Banggarma in legal limbo, the state has also deprived her children of their father's name in their birth certificates as well as made it impossible for Banggarma and S. Sockalingam to register their marriage.
Force-feeding bitter medicine
The Little Mullah Napoleons have been rampaging like a many-headed hydra. Malaysians, particularly the non-Muslims, have been too timid all this while to subdue the creature.
Some Bangsa Malaysia First-ers - in their asinine desire to be seen as politically correct and endearing multiculturalists - have shouted down the alarm bells ringing out the untrammelled Islamisation of our country.
Islam is forced on the weak and the vulnerable. The child Banggarma recalled how she attended Muslim prayer sessions along with the other children in the home.
Human Rights Party pro-tem secretary-general P Uthayakumar (right) cited an episode in 2007 where a 17-year-old Hindu youth studying in a residential vocational school was “pressured and brainwashed” to convert to Islam.
Bernama reported last November that Jakim, the Malaysian Islamic Development Department, placed 200 officers in orang asli settlements nationwide to “educate” the fringe community on Islam. Jakim is an agency under the Prime Minister's Department (PMD).
Bukit Bendera MP Liew Chin Tong revealed that according to federal budget estimates, PMD has a total budgetary outlay of RM12.1 billion for this year alone. Its minister Nazri Aziz told Parliament in reply to a question that PMD presently has a staff of 43,544 after hiring 25,332 people last year.
Given the huge numbers on their payroll and PMD's generous cash flow, the 200 Jakim officers sent to preach to the orang asli is peanuts in terms of expenditure - ultimately borne by the hapless taxpayer. For more details on the other Islamic agencies and statutory bodies under PMD, please refer my earlier Malaysiakini articles (see listing on top right of page).
On how the bureaucracy uses NEP-like means and methods to coax and coerce the minorities into embracing Islam, read my latest CPI article 'Enforcing NEP on minority religions'.
This is M'sia today
A recent Merdeka Center survey of voters to gauge public attitudes is sobering for its illumination on the religious values held by Malaysians. The centre's mid-July findings were drawn from 3,141 adult respondents. These were representative of Malaysia's ethnic ratio and interviewed between January and April 2010.
Below is my summary of segments of the report:
Merdeka Center found 13 percent of the electorate to be True Believers, of which 82 percent, quite naturally, think hudud should be implemented. It may surprise you somewhat that 67 percent of them are urban dwellers.
The second cluster (15 percent of the electorate) is the Accommodative Working Class of whom many are civil servants; 83 percent say religion is very important; 81% disapprove of co-habitation before marriage.
The third cluster (57 percent non-bumiputera) is the Disgruntled White Collar Worker. They are pro-Pakatan; 33 percent say religion is not important while 43 percent believe it all right for a couple to live together without any intention of getting married.
The fourth cluster is the Insecure Underclass (82 percent bumiputera/46 percent rural). Half the Malays in this group think “the non-Malays are trying to take over the country”; 74 percent agree to hudud.
The fifth cluster is the Pro-establishment Working Class (17 percent of the electorate/98 percent bumiputera). Religion is very important to them and a whopping 96 percent identify themselves according to faith affiliation. They support Malay unity under Umno.
The sixth cluster, the Partisan Underclass (13 percent of the electorate), has high trust in the BN/Umno government. Their education is 73 percent secondary school level and below; 87 percent say religion is important and one has to be religious to be moral.
The seventh and final cluster is the Disenchanted Bystanders (16 percent of the electorate/55 percent non-bumiputera). Politically they “lean slightly” to Pakatan; 73 percent feel they are unfairly treated (presumably by the system); 30 percent are of the opinion that religion is not important among the non-Malays.
One might take the Merdeka Center survey results to imply that Malaysia has overall become a highly religious country. Those who are less religiously inclined or less observant of faith rituals are in the minority.
If you - who are few - disagree with the treatment meted out to Banggarma, you'd better stop sitting on your hands and pretending to 'hear no evil, speak no evil'. Burying your head in the sand doesn't mean trouble won't come find you for something or other, sometime or other.
Enforcing NEP on minority religions
Written by Helen Ang
Wednesday, 04 August 2010 19:20
A football analogy of religion in Malaysia will be this:
The Ketuanan Melayu-Islam (KMI) team has on the pitch 11 players. The opposing team, the Minorities, fields 5 players – this ratio follows the Ibrahim Ali formula of 67% bumiputera representation, albeit appropriating the Christian native and pribumi animist share.
The referee is the KMI team manager, and the linesmen, the KMI club president and treasurer.
The goalmouth on the KMI side is 8 yards wide and goalpost 8 feet high. On the Minorities side, the corresponding dimensions are 30% extra at 10.5 yards/10.5 feet, thereby giving KMI strikers an advantage in chances for scoring. Furthermore, the Minorities goalkeeper is permitted to keep goal with only one hand.
Before kick-off, a ‘let’ is given by handicapping the Minorities three goals. The duration of play is 30 minutes each half, reduced by a quarter of an hour in keeping with NEP affirmative action.
If after the final whistle the scorecard still shows the Minorities ahead, the match will automatically go into extra time. If KMI fails to equalize despite the extended play, they will be accorded five penalty kicks. And if KMI still proceeds to lose despite the rules of the game deliberately crippling their opponent, the KMI fans will riot and burn down the stadium.
Does the football hooliganism allusion have any basis? The Shah Alam cow-head oafs and the church arson indicate, yes. The fact that the Mazu ‘Goddess of the Sea’ statue cannot be erected in Kudat, Sabah shows there is no level playing field.
Without any fair play, the conduct of the game then hinges on ‘toleration’, that is, the extent to which fundamentalist Muslims can tolerate the notion of pluralism in the matter of religious verities. Reciprocally, at what point would Muslim insistence on Islam as the sole divine truth make life too intolerable for the dhimmi?
Reaching breaking point
If I were to do some storekeeping, what’s ‘mine’ as non-Malay, non-Muslim is very scant. Small roadside shrines constructed under trees, faux churches in shoplots or looking like factory buildings and YMCA complexes (the rebuilt and recent completed Metro Tabernacle church is one example), temples in terrace houses. What’s ‘yours’ is magnificent and everywhere.
Not only do ‘you’ get free public expression of Islam, you also receive overflowing public funds. I needn’t delve into details; it’s not like most people don’t already know.
To further my football analogy, let’s take the junior league. One aspect of our religious NEP is the restriction on non-Muslim fellowship in schools. Conversely, there is no restriction on Kelab Islam.
Banning non-Muslim religious societies is like forbidding the stepchildren from being taught football and depriving them of footie practice in the school field.
While other religions are kept off the timetable, Islamic Studies is an integral component of the syllabus. It is mandatory for Malay students to take the paper in public exams.
In some schools, doa (Muslim prayer) is recited weekly during assembly. However, if a Christian, Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist prayer were ever recited in a gathering where Malay pupils are present, there will be uproar.
In some former mission schools (now become national school), crosses and icons of Virgin Mary and other saints have been removed by the new principals. And perhaps chapels closed down too. There have been incidents of teachers confiscating crucifixes and other religious symbols worn by pupils.
Why do you think that more than 90 percent of Chinese parents see no choice but to shield their children from the sekolah kebangsaan system? If I were a mother, I would never wish to subject my vulnerable child to a bellicose environment where my race, and the traditions and faith beliefs I’ve imparted to my son or daughter are disparaged.
In national school, even should my offspring be lucky enough to dodge any active proselytization, there is not escaping the Islamized climate that favours one party and discriminates against the other.
If you try to tell a Malay about another religion other than the one he was born into, you are guilty of a crime punishable with jail. Christian literature is required by law to carry a disclaimer ‘for non-Muslims only’. The Muslim is perfectly free to persuade you that his religion is best. You’re hard pressed to rebut, particularly when – for instance – the bible cannot be published and printed in the national language locally.
When you try bringing imported religious material through customs, these Christian CDs and bibles in Bahasa Indonesia are confiscated. Books on comparative religion are banned, even Karen Armstrong’s innocuous ‘The History of God’.
Where are we headed?
Circulars issued by the Education Departments and directives interpreted (if not further extended in scope) by Little Napoleons result in the alienation of non-Muslim pupils. Were the controversies in the Klang High School, and other schools in other states merely isolated episodes? I’m more inclined to see a determined NEP pattern arising from the powerful institutional forces of Islam at work.
There have been children who were converted during their schooldays. The Susie Teoh case was one that made legal history. Susie was formally instructed in Islam without the knowledge and consent of her father. The authorities made her a ward of the state until she was almost of age to legally convert to Islam. Another case is S Banggarma converted as in child in an orphanage.
Ahmed Burhan Tee Abdullah, who is the younger brother of controversial Utusan columnist Ridhuan Tee, gave an illuminating account of his introduction to Islam in a ‘Bicara Agama’ column of the same newspaper. There was no compulsion insofar as Burhan was concerned; it was his own heart’s desire.
Nonetheless, some points crop up in hearing Burhan’s narrative. He recalled how the ustaz in his school was able to answer “clearly and logically” the questions posed by him as a child whereas to his disappointment, Mr and Mrs Tee failed to satisfactorily explain the significance of religious rituals inherited and practiced by the Chinese.
Granted we are not acquainted with the Tee family faith practices. But taking a more general view, can you fault Chinese or Indian or Orang Asli for not being able to provide adequate spiritual guidance to their children when they themselves are religiously oppressed by the state?
On the one hand, Islamisation pervades every cubic inch of air we breathe in Malaysia.
On the other hand, other religions are suppressed. One infamous incident occurred in 2004 at Christmas where the Selangor Sultan and assorted cabinet ministers were invited guests. At this official function, hymns mentioning Jesus could not be sung.
A person like Lina Joy cannot safely reside in Malaysia. A youth bearing the name Ali bin Bakar on his Mykad made front page news in a national paper because he is Buddhist – such a shocking, sensational revelation!
Those who can among the minorities have elected to emigrate rather than challenge the NEP. The pro-Malay policy that was to have ended in 1990 is prolonged under various guises and set to continue into the distant future.
It will be the same for religion. NEP yielded Ketuanan Melayu; NEP phase II yields Ketuanan Islam. For its poster boy, Ridhuan Tee is the face. But look too at the state sanctioned structures and processes that facilitate the creation of such a convert.
Converts are even paid money by the state when they embrace Islam. When a ‘victory’ or human souls are won by NEP-like means, how honorable is that?
Wednesday, 04 August 2010 19:20
A football analogy of religion in Malaysia will be this:
The Ketuanan Melayu-Islam (KMI) team has on the pitch 11 players. The opposing team, the Minorities, fields 5 players – this ratio follows the Ibrahim Ali formula of 67% bumiputera representation, albeit appropriating the Christian native and pribumi animist share.
The referee is the KMI team manager, and the linesmen, the KMI club president and treasurer.
The goalmouth on the KMI side is 8 yards wide and goalpost 8 feet high. On the Minorities side, the corresponding dimensions are 30% extra at 10.5 yards/10.5 feet, thereby giving KMI strikers an advantage in chances for scoring. Furthermore, the Minorities goalkeeper is permitted to keep goal with only one hand.
Before kick-off, a ‘let’ is given by handicapping the Minorities three goals. The duration of play is 30 minutes each half, reduced by a quarter of an hour in keeping with NEP affirmative action.
If after the final whistle the scorecard still shows the Minorities ahead, the match will automatically go into extra time. If KMI fails to equalize despite the extended play, they will be accorded five penalty kicks. And if KMI still proceeds to lose despite the rules of the game deliberately crippling their opponent, the KMI fans will riot and burn down the stadium.
Does the football hooliganism allusion have any basis? The Shah Alam cow-head oafs and the church arson indicate, yes. The fact that the Mazu ‘Goddess of the Sea’ statue cannot be erected in Kudat, Sabah shows there is no level playing field.
Without any fair play, the conduct of the game then hinges on ‘toleration’, that is, the extent to which fundamentalist Muslims can tolerate the notion of pluralism in the matter of religious verities. Reciprocally, at what point would Muslim insistence on Islam as the sole divine truth make life too intolerable for the dhimmi?
Reaching breaking point
If I were to do some storekeeping, what’s ‘mine’ as non-Malay, non-Muslim is very scant. Small roadside shrines constructed under trees, faux churches in shoplots or looking like factory buildings and YMCA complexes (the rebuilt and recent completed Metro Tabernacle church is one example), temples in terrace houses. What’s ‘yours’ is magnificent and everywhere.
Not only do ‘you’ get free public expression of Islam, you also receive overflowing public funds. I needn’t delve into details; it’s not like most people don’t already know.
To further my football analogy, let’s take the junior league. One aspect of our religious NEP is the restriction on non-Muslim fellowship in schools. Conversely, there is no restriction on Kelab Islam.
Banning non-Muslim religious societies is like forbidding the stepchildren from being taught football and depriving them of footie practice in the school field.
While other religions are kept off the timetable, Islamic Studies is an integral component of the syllabus. It is mandatory for Malay students to take the paper in public exams.
In some schools, doa (Muslim prayer) is recited weekly during assembly. However, if a Christian, Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist prayer were ever recited in a gathering where Malay pupils are present, there will be uproar.
In some former mission schools (now become national school), crosses and icons of Virgin Mary and other saints have been removed by the new principals. And perhaps chapels closed down too. There have been incidents of teachers confiscating crucifixes and other religious symbols worn by pupils.
Why do you think that more than 90 percent of Chinese parents see no choice but to shield their children from the sekolah kebangsaan system? If I were a mother, I would never wish to subject my vulnerable child to a bellicose environment where my race, and the traditions and faith beliefs I’ve imparted to my son or daughter are disparaged.
In national school, even should my offspring be lucky enough to dodge any active proselytization, there is not escaping the Islamized climate that favours one party and discriminates against the other.
If you try to tell a Malay about another religion other than the one he was born into, you are guilty of a crime punishable with jail. Christian literature is required by law to carry a disclaimer ‘for non-Muslims only’. The Muslim is perfectly free to persuade you that his religion is best. You’re hard pressed to rebut, particularly when – for instance – the bible cannot be published and printed in the national language locally.
When you try bringing imported religious material through customs, these Christian CDs and bibles in Bahasa Indonesia are confiscated. Books on comparative religion are banned, even Karen Armstrong’s innocuous ‘The History of God’.
Where are we headed?
Circulars issued by the Education Departments and directives interpreted (if not further extended in scope) by Little Napoleons result in the alienation of non-Muslim pupils. Were the controversies in the Klang High School, and other schools in other states merely isolated episodes? I’m more inclined to see a determined NEP pattern arising from the powerful institutional forces of Islam at work.
There have been children who were converted during their schooldays. The Susie Teoh case was one that made legal history. Susie was formally instructed in Islam without the knowledge and consent of her father. The authorities made her a ward of the state until she was almost of age to legally convert to Islam. Another case is S Banggarma converted as in child in an orphanage.
Ahmed Burhan Tee Abdullah, who is the younger brother of controversial Utusan columnist Ridhuan Tee, gave an illuminating account of his introduction to Islam in a ‘Bicara Agama’ column of the same newspaper. There was no compulsion insofar as Burhan was concerned; it was his own heart’s desire.
Nonetheless, some points crop up in hearing Burhan’s narrative. He recalled how the ustaz in his school was able to answer “clearly and logically” the questions posed by him as a child whereas to his disappointment, Mr and Mrs Tee failed to satisfactorily explain the significance of religious rituals inherited and practiced by the Chinese.
Granted we are not acquainted with the Tee family faith practices. But taking a more general view, can you fault Chinese or Indian or Orang Asli for not being able to provide adequate spiritual guidance to their children when they themselves are religiously oppressed by the state?
On the one hand, Islamisation pervades every cubic inch of air we breathe in Malaysia.
On the other hand, other religions are suppressed. One infamous incident occurred in 2004 at Christmas where the Selangor Sultan and assorted cabinet ministers were invited guests. At this official function, hymns mentioning Jesus could not be sung.
A person like Lina Joy cannot safely reside in Malaysia. A youth bearing the name Ali bin Bakar on his Mykad made front page news in a national paper because he is Buddhist – such a shocking, sensational revelation!
Those who can among the minorities have elected to emigrate rather than challenge the NEP. The pro-Malay policy that was to have ended in 1990 is prolonged under various guises and set to continue into the distant future.
It will be the same for religion. NEP yielded Ketuanan Melayu; NEP phase II yields Ketuanan Islam. For its poster boy, Ridhuan Tee is the face. But look too at the state sanctioned structures and processes that facilitate the creation of such a convert.
Converts are even paid money by the state when they embrace Islam. When a ‘victory’ or human souls are won by NEP-like means, how honorable is that?
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Will minorities be made increasingly syariah-compliant
Helen Ang
Friday, 28 May 2010 09:45
Today is Wesak.
Last week the country was told about a Chinese Muslim Faizal Wong Abdullah who wanted to return to Buddhism – a religion of depleting numbers in Malaysia.
Faizal Wong had filed an application in March to renounce Islam. It’s not surprising though that Wong had converted as the proselytization drive is intense.
Being a civil servant, Wong was in a predominantly Malay-Muslim working environment. Looking at the organization chart of RTM (below), as one example of a state agency, we can get an idea of the racial composition in the civil service.
Out of the 40 top people in RTM, only one is of Chinese ethnicity and he is Rashid Woon Abdullah.
Here’s another example of the same phenomenon. “On the University of Malaya’s ‘Expert Page’ which details the researchers and thereby essentially the academic staff of the university, of 1,240 persons listed, only 20 Chinese names are included, eight of whom also have Islamic names” – found Dr Geoff Wade in his Asia Research Institute paper ‘The Origins and Evolution of Ethnocracy in Malaysia’.
The substantial number of converts to Islam could be due to peer influence as in Faizal Wong’s case, the many active missionary bodies, the Islamization of our public sphere and space, the Islamic programmes constantly broadcast in Mandarin and Tamil by RTM, or even the shenanigans of our National Registration Department.
Rigorously applying syariah
An academic studying political Islam in Southeast Asia and Malaysia, Prof. Gordon P. Means, observed that “[b]y 1970, nearly all the state governments had revised their Islamic laws to provide for more vigorous enforcement of Syariah law with increased penalties for violations in matters of personal behaviour and public deportment”.1
Nowadays the enforcement of Islamic law has become comparatively stricter still.
Apart from model Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno whose caning sentence for drinking beer was commuted after intercession by the Pahang sultan, another Malay was arrested for the same offence last month. The Pahang Syariah Court sentenced cook Mohamad Sabri Zulkepli to a year’s jail and six strokes of the cane for imbibing liquor in a mall.
But should the enforcement of Islamic mores concern Malaysians of other faiths as well?
Under Section 19 (2) of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Federal Territories) Act, those found guilty of abetting the sale of alcohol can face a jail term of three years and/or a RM5,000 fine. It is unclear what happens presently if the beer seller or pub owner is a non-Muslim.
It is rumoured that the federal authorities may do something to streamline our civil and Islamic laws that are mired in a seeming overlap of jurisdictions. In the event of which, the lacuna indicated above – where a Muslim is punished and a non-Muslim escapes charge – might possibly be addressed during the procedure.
The late Zaitun Mohamed Kasim, a civil society activist, commented: “In addition to [conversion and child custody cases], notions of proper gender/sexual/moral conduct that are founded on orthodox notions of Islamic understanding’ have increasingly become applied to Malaysia’s significant non-Muslim minorities”.2
Zaitun told a symposium in 2007, “To give but two examples of this: non-Muslim couples have been charged under municipal laws for holding hands in public. In one prominent case, an elderly married American couple, who were holidaying in [Langkawi] Malaysia, were asked in their hotel room to demonstrate to Malaysian Islamic authorities that they were married.”
Fatwas can become law
Another area of concern is how the issuance of fatwa has been turned into a state matter and granted “the exceptional status” as a source of lawmaking.
There is no requirement for religious edicts to be tabled in Parliament or the state legislature for approval. All it needs is for a fatwa to be gazetted, and then for it to become law, is that it is approved by the state Islamic religious council and the sultan.
“This is not a new development as the state authorities had fatwa-making powers under most of the State Administration of Islamic Law Enactments that have been in force for several decades,” noted Prof. Mohammad Kamali Hashim.3
“The issue took a new turn, however, during the 1990s when legislation on fatwa went a step further to declare it an offence for ‘any person who gives, propagates or disseminates any opinion contrary to any fatwa’ in force,” Prof. Kamali further wrote.
Although he cited Section 9 of the Syariah Criminal Offences Enactment of Johor, this legislation has equivalent provisions in most of the other states, c.f. Article 9 on “contempt and defiance of religious authorities” under the Syariah Criminal Offences (Federal Territories) Act 1997 .
Do recall that in November 2008, the National Fatwa Council issued a prohibition against yoga if the practice included haram chanting – an element of Hindu worship. A month earlier in October, the council also issued a fatwa against pengkid (tomboys).
[Sidenote: In 2007, a transsexual Ayu was detained by officials from Malacca’s Islamic Religious Affairs Department (JAIM) for committing the offence of “men dressing up as women in public space” under Section 72 of the Malacca Syariah Offences Enactment.]
If the prohibition against yoga is gazetted, then it will become a religious law on the statute book and carrying the corresponding penalties. Some of the states have indicated that they are considering or in the process of gazetting it.
One wonders too if the case for yoga is analogous to that for beer, i.e. if the yoga instructor or proprietor of the health centre/gym is a non-Muslim, would he nonetheless be punished for aiding and abetting the offence?
Apostasy is a serious crime
State Muslim laws in Malaysia allow for deviationism and apostasy to be prosecuted in court with criminal sanctions of a maximum of three years or a fine up to RM5,000 or whipping up to six strokes or a combination of these.
There are also laws in the states under various articles providing for rehabilitation to restore the faith of lapsed Muslims. Or those that the state declares to be Muslim like the young Indian woman M. Revathi who became a cause celebre not too long ago.
An Ayah Pin follower Kamariah Ali was convicted on charges of apostasy under Section 7 of the Syariah Criminal Offence Enactment (Takzir) Terengganu and sentenced to a jail term of two years in March 2008.
Hudud laws passed in Terengganu and Kelantan prescribe death for apostasy, although they have thus far never been implemented. 4
Former International Islamic University law lecturer Salbiah Ahmad asks: “A question may be posed to our High Court in adjudicating freedoms under the constitution: should Article 11 privilege the Sunni school or recognize the reality of diversity of beliefs and practices among Malaysians who still choose to be called Muslims”? 5
Adding another perspective, Syed Husin Ali cites clause (4) of the same Article 11 to point out that “The constitution does not allow others to induce Malays to leave Islam; the consequences are serious when a Malay leaves his religion, even of his own volition”.6
The federal constitution was promulgated in 1957 when Muslims were synonymous with Malays. The situation has since then changed significantly where Muslims are not only Malays but are to be found among Indians, Orang Asli, the natives of Sabah and Sarawak and Chinese too.
So now Faizal Wong is caught in a predicament of his own making; he embraced Islam out of choice as a mature adult.
For an oblique comparison, Buddhists are predominantly if not almost all Chinese in the country, although all Chinese need not necessarily be Buddhist. And even those Chinese here who style themselves Buddhists might be more accurately said to be practicing some mix of Taoism, Confucianism, ancestral worship and polytheism.
There is no such eclecticism for the Malay – at least not in the eyes of the religious authorities – despite what Salbiah may say on actual diversity of beliefs and practices among those who nominally call themselves Muslims.
Only 1Islam in M’sia
The state through a slew of laws strives to make Malays monolithic in faith instead. Article 160 of the Federal Constitution defines ‘Malay’ as a person who professes Islam – a stipulation which technically renders ‘un-Malay’ a person such as Lina Joy.
Malaysia follows the Shafii mazhab of Sunni Islam – a school predominant in Indonesia, Brunei, and in Southeast Asia generally. On the other hand, Shi’ite Islam is prohibited in the country, and its followers have been detained under ISA in the past. 7
State Islamic law enactments adhere to Sunni jurisprudence and the Department of Islamic Development (Jakim) is among the federal agencies responsible for its implementation.
Jakim enforces faith (akidah) conceptualized along the principles of ahli Sunnah wal Jamaah. Other beliefs outside the one officially sanctioned are proscribed, e.g., the Al-Arqam movement is banned. The Ahmadiyah community in Selangor numbering some 2,000 individuals is also on the Jakim blacklist as a deviant organization or teaching.8
In 2002, Jakim published a pamphlet‘Malaysia adalah sebuah Negara Islam’ in response to then Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and his deputy Abdullah Ahmad Badawi affirming that Malaysia had attained Islamic state status. In it, Jakim director-general Mohamad Shahir Abdullah listed what he said was a series of proofs that the country is indeed Islamic. 9
According to statistics from the 2000 census, Muslims make up 60.8 percent of the population.10 Our next census – an exercise conducted every 10 years – will be carried out this July-August. It is expected that Muslims as a population ratio will rise further in percentage point.
All Muslims automatically fall under syariah law, which is being accorded a wider reach and coverage over ever more areas, what with the relentless Islamization that is taking place. Hence, even when some quarters are futilely contending whether Malaysia is secular or an Islamic state, the facts on the ground already bespeaks two-thirds of the country’s population.
********************
Citations
1. Gordon P. Means, ‘Political Islam in Southeast Asia’, Petaling Jaya: SIRD, 2009.
2. Zaitun Mohamed Kasim, “Religious Fundamentalisms in Muslim Societies” in ‘Selected Papers on Religious Fundamentalisms and their Impact on Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights’, Kuala Lumpur: Arrow, 2008.
3. Mohammad Kamali Hashim, ‘An Introduction to Shariah’, Kuala Lumpur: Ilmiah Publishers, 2006.
4. After PAS enacted hudud and qisas in 1993, Zaid Ibrahim petitioned the courts on the basis that Kelantan and Terengganu had contravened the federal constitution because criminal laws cannot be enacted by the state legislative assembly. Only Parliament has the legal capacity to enact criminal laws, and thus Zaid challenged if the actions of the two states were valid. (Zaid Ibrahim, ‘Saya Pun Melayu’, Petaling Jaya: ZI Publications, 2009).
5. Salbiah Ahmad, ‘Critical Thoughts on Islam, Rights and Freedom in Malaysia’, Petaling Jaya: SIRD, 2007.
6. Syed Husin Ali, ‘The Malays – Their Problems and Future’, Kuala Lumpur: The Other Press, 2008.
7. ‘Malaysia Human Rights Report 2008’, Petaling Jaya: Suaram Komunikasi, 2009.
8. Jabatan Kemajuan Islam Malaysia (Jakim), Bahagian Penyelidikan
9. ‘Religion under Siege? Lina Joy, the Islamic State and Freedom of Faith’, Kuala Lumpur: Kinibooks, 2008.
10. Population and Housing Census of Malaysia 2000, Department of Statistics Malaysia.
Friday, 28 May 2010 09:45
Today is Wesak.
Last week the country was told about a Chinese Muslim Faizal Wong Abdullah who wanted to return to Buddhism – a religion of depleting numbers in Malaysia.
Faizal Wong had filed an application in March to renounce Islam. It’s not surprising though that Wong had converted as the proselytization drive is intense.
Being a civil servant, Wong was in a predominantly Malay-Muslim working environment. Looking at the organization chart of RTM (below), as one example of a state agency, we can get an idea of the racial composition in the civil service.
Out of the 40 top people in RTM, only one is of Chinese ethnicity and he is Rashid Woon Abdullah.
Here’s another example of the same phenomenon. “On the University of Malaya’s ‘Expert Page’ which details the researchers and thereby essentially the academic staff of the university, of 1,240 persons listed, only 20 Chinese names are included, eight of whom also have Islamic names” – found Dr Geoff Wade in his Asia Research Institute paper ‘The Origins and Evolution of Ethnocracy in Malaysia’.
The substantial number of converts to Islam could be due to peer influence as in Faizal Wong’s case, the many active missionary bodies, the Islamization of our public sphere and space, the Islamic programmes constantly broadcast in Mandarin and Tamil by RTM, or even the shenanigans of our National Registration Department.
Rigorously applying syariah
An academic studying political Islam in Southeast Asia and Malaysia, Prof. Gordon P. Means, observed that “[b]y 1970, nearly all the state governments had revised their Islamic laws to provide for more vigorous enforcement of Syariah law with increased penalties for violations in matters of personal behaviour and public deportment”.1
Nowadays the enforcement of Islamic law has become comparatively stricter still.
Apart from model Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno whose caning sentence for drinking beer was commuted after intercession by the Pahang sultan, another Malay was arrested for the same offence last month. The Pahang Syariah Court sentenced cook Mohamad Sabri Zulkepli to a year’s jail and six strokes of the cane for imbibing liquor in a mall.
But should the enforcement of Islamic mores concern Malaysians of other faiths as well?
Under Section 19 (2) of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Federal Territories) Act, those found guilty of abetting the sale of alcohol can face a jail term of three years and/or a RM5,000 fine. It is unclear what happens presently if the beer seller or pub owner is a non-Muslim.
It is rumoured that the federal authorities may do something to streamline our civil and Islamic laws that are mired in a seeming overlap of jurisdictions. In the event of which, the lacuna indicated above – where a Muslim is punished and a non-Muslim escapes charge – might possibly be addressed during the procedure.
The late Zaitun Mohamed Kasim, a civil society activist, commented: “In addition to [conversion and child custody cases], notions of proper gender/sexual/moral conduct that are founded on orthodox notions of Islamic understanding’ have increasingly become applied to Malaysia’s significant non-Muslim minorities”.2
Zaitun told a symposium in 2007, “To give but two examples of this: non-Muslim couples have been charged under municipal laws for holding hands in public. In one prominent case, an elderly married American couple, who were holidaying in [Langkawi] Malaysia, were asked in their hotel room to demonstrate to Malaysian Islamic authorities that they were married.”
Fatwas can become law
Another area of concern is how the issuance of fatwa has been turned into a state matter and granted “the exceptional status” as a source of lawmaking.
There is no requirement for religious edicts to be tabled in Parliament or the state legislature for approval. All it needs is for a fatwa to be gazetted, and then for it to become law, is that it is approved by the state Islamic religious council and the sultan.
“This is not a new development as the state authorities had fatwa-making powers under most of the State Administration of Islamic Law Enactments that have been in force for several decades,” noted Prof. Mohammad Kamali Hashim.3
“The issue took a new turn, however, during the 1990s when legislation on fatwa went a step further to declare it an offence for ‘any person who gives, propagates or disseminates any opinion contrary to any fatwa’ in force,” Prof. Kamali further wrote.
Although he cited Section 9 of the Syariah Criminal Offences Enactment of Johor, this legislation has equivalent provisions in most of the other states, c.f. Article 9 on “contempt and defiance of religious authorities” under the Syariah Criminal Offences (Federal Territories) Act 1997 .
Do recall that in November 2008, the National Fatwa Council issued a prohibition against yoga if the practice included haram chanting – an element of Hindu worship. A month earlier in October, the council also issued a fatwa against pengkid (tomboys).
[Sidenote: In 2007, a transsexual Ayu was detained by officials from Malacca’s Islamic Religious Affairs Department (JAIM) for committing the offence of “men dressing up as women in public space” under Section 72 of the Malacca Syariah Offences Enactment.]
If the prohibition against yoga is gazetted, then it will become a religious law on the statute book and carrying the corresponding penalties. Some of the states have indicated that they are considering or in the process of gazetting it.
One wonders too if the case for yoga is analogous to that for beer, i.e. if the yoga instructor or proprietor of the health centre/gym is a non-Muslim, would he nonetheless be punished for aiding and abetting the offence?
Apostasy is a serious crime
State Muslim laws in Malaysia allow for deviationism and apostasy to be prosecuted in court with criminal sanctions of a maximum of three years or a fine up to RM5,000 or whipping up to six strokes or a combination of these.
There are also laws in the states under various articles providing for rehabilitation to restore the faith of lapsed Muslims. Or those that the state declares to be Muslim like the young Indian woman M. Revathi who became a cause celebre not too long ago.
An Ayah Pin follower Kamariah Ali was convicted on charges of apostasy under Section 7 of the Syariah Criminal Offence Enactment (Takzir) Terengganu and sentenced to a jail term of two years in March 2008.
Hudud laws passed in Terengganu and Kelantan prescribe death for apostasy, although they have thus far never been implemented. 4
Former International Islamic University law lecturer Salbiah Ahmad asks: “A question may be posed to our High Court in adjudicating freedoms under the constitution: should Article 11 privilege the Sunni school or recognize the reality of diversity of beliefs and practices among Malaysians who still choose to be called Muslims”? 5
Adding another perspective, Syed Husin Ali cites clause (4) of the same Article 11 to point out that “The constitution does not allow others to induce Malays to leave Islam; the consequences are serious when a Malay leaves his religion, even of his own volition”.6
The federal constitution was promulgated in 1957 when Muslims were synonymous with Malays. The situation has since then changed significantly where Muslims are not only Malays but are to be found among Indians, Orang Asli, the natives of Sabah and Sarawak and Chinese too.
So now Faizal Wong is caught in a predicament of his own making; he embraced Islam out of choice as a mature adult.
For an oblique comparison, Buddhists are predominantly if not almost all Chinese in the country, although all Chinese need not necessarily be Buddhist. And even those Chinese here who style themselves Buddhists might be more accurately said to be practicing some mix of Taoism, Confucianism, ancestral worship and polytheism.
There is no such eclecticism for the Malay – at least not in the eyes of the religious authorities – despite what Salbiah may say on actual diversity of beliefs and practices among those who nominally call themselves Muslims.
Only 1Islam in M’sia
The state through a slew of laws strives to make Malays monolithic in faith instead. Article 160 of the Federal Constitution defines ‘Malay’ as a person who professes Islam – a stipulation which technically renders ‘un-Malay’ a person such as Lina Joy.
Malaysia follows the Shafii mazhab of Sunni Islam – a school predominant in Indonesia, Brunei, and in Southeast Asia generally. On the other hand, Shi’ite Islam is prohibited in the country, and its followers have been detained under ISA in the past. 7
State Islamic law enactments adhere to Sunni jurisprudence and the Department of Islamic Development (Jakim) is among the federal agencies responsible for its implementation.
Jakim enforces faith (akidah) conceptualized along the principles of ahli Sunnah wal Jamaah. Other beliefs outside the one officially sanctioned are proscribed, e.g., the Al-Arqam movement is banned. The Ahmadiyah community in Selangor numbering some 2,000 individuals is also on the Jakim blacklist as a deviant organization or teaching.8
In 2002, Jakim published a pamphlet‘Malaysia adalah sebuah Negara Islam’ in response to then Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and his deputy Abdullah Ahmad Badawi affirming that Malaysia had attained Islamic state status. In it, Jakim director-general Mohamad Shahir Abdullah listed what he said was a series of proofs that the country is indeed Islamic. 9
According to statistics from the 2000 census, Muslims make up 60.8 percent of the population.10 Our next census – an exercise conducted every 10 years – will be carried out this July-August. It is expected that Muslims as a population ratio will rise further in percentage point.
All Muslims automatically fall under syariah law, which is being accorded a wider reach and coverage over ever more areas, what with the relentless Islamization that is taking place. Hence, even when some quarters are futilely contending whether Malaysia is secular or an Islamic state, the facts on the ground already bespeaks two-thirds of the country’s population.
********************
Citations
1. Gordon P. Means, ‘Political Islam in Southeast Asia’, Petaling Jaya: SIRD, 2009.
2. Zaitun Mohamed Kasim, “Religious Fundamentalisms in Muslim Societies” in ‘Selected Papers on Religious Fundamentalisms and their Impact on Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights’, Kuala Lumpur: Arrow, 2008.
3. Mohammad Kamali Hashim, ‘An Introduction to Shariah’, Kuala Lumpur: Ilmiah Publishers, 2006.
4. After PAS enacted hudud and qisas in 1993, Zaid Ibrahim petitioned the courts on the basis that Kelantan and Terengganu had contravened the federal constitution because criminal laws cannot be enacted by the state legislative assembly. Only Parliament has the legal capacity to enact criminal laws, and thus Zaid challenged if the actions of the two states were valid. (Zaid Ibrahim, ‘Saya Pun Melayu’, Petaling Jaya: ZI Publications, 2009).
5. Salbiah Ahmad, ‘Critical Thoughts on Islam, Rights and Freedom in Malaysia’, Petaling Jaya: SIRD, 2007.
6. Syed Husin Ali, ‘The Malays – Their Problems and Future’, Kuala Lumpur: The Other Press, 2008.
7. ‘Malaysia Human Rights Report 2008’, Petaling Jaya: Suaram Komunikasi, 2009.
8. Jabatan Kemajuan Islam Malaysia (Jakim), Bahagian Penyelidikan
9. ‘Religion under Siege? Lina Joy, the Islamic State and Freedom of Faith’, Kuala Lumpur: Kinibooks, 2008.
10. Population and Housing Census of Malaysia 2000, Department of Statistics Malaysia.
Your children's future in an Islamic State
Helen Ang
Jun 3, 10
3:56pm
Malaysian involvement in the Gaza flotilla and Malaysia's response to the Israeli military operation against the pro-Palestinian activists both unite Umno, PAS and PKR in a cause beloved of the Muslim world.
Dr Mahathir Mohamad (left) and his Perdana Global Peace Organisation had raised over 300,000 euros to buy three boats for the Gaza expedition, reported the Perdana website. Six of the flotilla's Malaysian participants sailed to Gaza under the aegis of Perdana.
Some readers have wondered aloud about the lack of a similar national outrage to the atrocities committed in Myanmar, Sudan and Sri Lanka.
There is no mystery as it is quite natural that the Muslim brotherhood should be more concerned about the fate of their brethren. It is only the zealous proponents of universal brotherhood who mistakenly believe that this inclination of the ummah may be something unnatural.
"We are all one race, the human race" is a slogan to sell the idea that the various races on the planet should love each other. But perhaps what "we're all human" merely does is to remind us that we're not chimpanzees.
The inconvenient truth is that we are indeed various races and of various religions, and Malaysia is an ethnically fractured society where churches have been firebombed and Hindu idols destroyed.
As the passionate reactions to the Palestinian conflict have shown time and again, Malaysia is greatly sympathetic to Palestinian Muslims while vastly indifferent to Burmese Buddhists, Sudanese Christians and Sri Lankan Hindus.
The reason why is straightforward - Islam is the most defining characteristic of this land; two-thirds of the population are Muslim and ultimately everyone is free to pick and choose the cause closest to their heart. Malaysia does not vary from the rest of the Organisation of Islamic Countries in our close alignment with Palestine.
Notably, three successive prime ministers have declared Malaysia to be an Islamic state - and thus meriting our leading role in the OIC - although Najib Abdul Razak's declaration is more precisely that Malaysia has never been a secular country.
Islamising the country
The Department of Islamic Development (Jakim) asserts that Malaysia is a 'negara Islam' in a pamphlet issued in 2002. Jakim director-general Mohamad Shahir Abdullah was following up on the Islamic state affirmation by then prime minister Mahathir and his deputy Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
In the Jakim statement, Mohamad Shahir listed what he said was a series of proofs that the country is Islamic. Read it - it's in Bahasa Malaysia.
There are few voices today insisting that Malaysia is secular. Even Karpal Singh (right) who famously said "over my dead body" about the Islamic state status has been ominously silent of late.
Whereas the secretary-general of Karpal's DAP party, Lim Guan Eng, is loudly trumpeting the emulation by Penang of the governance of Caliph Umar Abdul Aziz. On May 20, Lim had been scheduled to officiate the opening of a surau in the state secretariat building Komtar, much to the chagrin of some in Umno Youth.
I'm more inclined to agree with the assessment of the three prime ministers past and present that Malaysia is somewhat an Islamic state since Islam is everywhere and anytime in the country. Or if we're yet to fully attain the Islamic state aspiration, there are many Muslims who see no reason why we should not.
For details on Islam as a state function, please read my articles 'Will minorities be made increasingly syariah-compliant?' published by the Centre for Policy Initiatives, and 'Rukunegara: M'sia not quite secular' on the variety of state Islamic agencies including those in the PM's department.
Funding spread of Islam
More and more concepts from Islam have been made familiar to us - Hadhari by ex-premier Abdullah, Amar Maa'ruf Nahi Mungkar by the Penang Pakatan state government, Raudhatul Sakinah in Putrajaya and it would seem Najib is making a foray into Islam Wasatiyyah branding.
More and more words of Arabic origin have crept into our common usage such as muzakarah, muhasabah and mujahadah, not to mention terms like takaful, sukuk and riba, now that several more financial institutions are offering Islamic banking and not just restricted to Bank Islam and Bank Muamalat.
Another indicator of the level of Islamisation is the Tudung Index.
Even the highest echelons of the church have at last publicly conceded the deep reach of Islam, in this particular case, into the pockets of the state treasury.
The remarkable pastoral letter recently penned by Bishop Hwa Yung, chairman of the Methodist church's council of presidents, contained the following pertinent observation:
"Indeed the problem in our country is that most of the money for religious bodies is usually given to one particular religious community, with relatively much smaller proportions given to other communities."
The tremendous disproportion in terms of allocation to the different religious communities can be explained by Article 12(2) of the federal constitution. It says: "... it shall be lawful for the federation or a state to establish or maintain or assist in establishing or maintaining Islamic institutions or provide or assist in providing instruction in the religion of Islam and incur such expenditure as may be necessary for the purpose".
It is the enabling mechanism for the government to disburse financial assistance to mosques and for activities promoting Islam. Tellingly, the article clauses omit any reference to Christianity and other faiths in this regard.
Most are unaware of Article 12(2). Evidently, the people touting 'Malaysian First' are on the mistaken footing that the country does not make any distinction between its citizens. Malaysia most clearly distinguishes its citizenry one from another, and even coined the word 'bumiputera' for this purpose.
Islam impacting minorities
Yesterday Malaysiakini carried an article about convert Faris Syafi Abdullah who lamented the difficulties faced when one wishes to renounce Islam.
Another convert in the same boat is Faizal Wong Abdullah (right). I've written in greater detail about the trend of Chinese, especially those in the civil service, to embrace Islam, in my 'Syariah-compliant' article cited earlier.
In it, I also discussed the breadth and reach of syariah law, its rigorous application and how easily fatwa can be legislated to carry harsh penalties as well as the Malaysian authorities strenuously rendering the adherents of Islam a monolithic block.
As for the increasing number of Indian converts to Islam, there are the controversial issues surrounding this development.
It is not only PAS and Umno that have been ramping up the Islamisation process but the Raja-Raja Melayu flexing their muscles through political Islam too.
We're living in a country where to question the monarchy and 'special position' of the Malay (whose identity is conflated with Islam and whom the royals are constitutionally empowered to protect) is seditious and can land you in jail.
'1Malaysia' is Najib's propaganda. 'Malaysian First' is Lim Kit Siang's rhetoric. While denizens of Bangsar Malaysia (spelling deliberate to allude to the affluent suburb) may buy into 1Malaysia1st, the decision of the majority G1 Chinese to send their children to vernacular school speaks volumes of the latter's inherent skepticism.
G1 is the group to whom "Chinese education is part of their socio-cultural life and even their identity as a race" whereas the English-speaking, Western-oriented G2 category are "vocal, articulate, often Christian, and likely to be from a professional class" - ref. quotes attributed to the MCA think-tankers of Insap and Insap's G2 "thoroughbred" CEO, Fui K Soong.
Methinks the G2 doth protest too much. How can these Malaysian First-ers credibly reconcile their 'one united country' mantra in the face of the facts above?
Aside from Chinese, more Indian parents are enrolling their children in vernacular Tamil schools than before. The wariness of the minorities for national school and its attendant Malay environment will not be allayed so long as Islamism is a pervasive feature of the education system.
Jun 3, 10
3:56pm
Malaysian involvement in the Gaza flotilla and Malaysia's response to the Israeli military operation against the pro-Palestinian activists both unite Umno, PAS and PKR in a cause beloved of the Muslim world.
Dr Mahathir Mohamad (left) and his Perdana Global Peace Organisation had raised over 300,000 euros to buy three boats for the Gaza expedition, reported the Perdana website. Six of the flotilla's Malaysian participants sailed to Gaza under the aegis of Perdana.
Some readers have wondered aloud about the lack of a similar national outrage to the atrocities committed in Myanmar, Sudan and Sri Lanka.
There is no mystery as it is quite natural that the Muslim brotherhood should be more concerned about the fate of their brethren. It is only the zealous proponents of universal brotherhood who mistakenly believe that this inclination of the ummah may be something unnatural.
"We are all one race, the human race" is a slogan to sell the idea that the various races on the planet should love each other. But perhaps what "we're all human" merely does is to remind us that we're not chimpanzees.
The inconvenient truth is that we are indeed various races and of various religions, and Malaysia is an ethnically fractured society where churches have been firebombed and Hindu idols destroyed.
As the passionate reactions to the Palestinian conflict have shown time and again, Malaysia is greatly sympathetic to Palestinian Muslims while vastly indifferent to Burmese Buddhists, Sudanese Christians and Sri Lankan Hindus.
The reason why is straightforward - Islam is the most defining characteristic of this land; two-thirds of the population are Muslim and ultimately everyone is free to pick and choose the cause closest to their heart. Malaysia does not vary from the rest of the Organisation of Islamic Countries in our close alignment with Palestine.
Notably, three successive prime ministers have declared Malaysia to be an Islamic state - and thus meriting our leading role in the OIC - although Najib Abdul Razak's declaration is more precisely that Malaysia has never been a secular country.
Islamising the country
The Department of Islamic Development (Jakim) asserts that Malaysia is a 'negara Islam' in a pamphlet issued in 2002. Jakim director-general Mohamad Shahir Abdullah was following up on the Islamic state affirmation by then prime minister Mahathir and his deputy Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
In the Jakim statement, Mohamad Shahir listed what he said was a series of proofs that the country is Islamic. Read it - it's in Bahasa Malaysia.
There are few voices today insisting that Malaysia is secular. Even Karpal Singh (right) who famously said "over my dead body" about the Islamic state status has been ominously silent of late.
Whereas the secretary-general of Karpal's DAP party, Lim Guan Eng, is loudly trumpeting the emulation by Penang of the governance of Caliph Umar Abdul Aziz. On May 20, Lim had been scheduled to officiate the opening of a surau in the state secretariat building Komtar, much to the chagrin of some in Umno Youth.
I'm more inclined to agree with the assessment of the three prime ministers past and present that Malaysia is somewhat an Islamic state since Islam is everywhere and anytime in the country. Or if we're yet to fully attain the Islamic state aspiration, there are many Muslims who see no reason why we should not.
For details on Islam as a state function, please read my articles 'Will minorities be made increasingly syariah-compliant?' published by the Centre for Policy Initiatives, and 'Rukunegara: M'sia not quite secular' on the variety of state Islamic agencies including those in the PM's department.
Funding spread of Islam
More and more concepts from Islam have been made familiar to us - Hadhari by ex-premier Abdullah, Amar Maa'ruf Nahi Mungkar by the Penang Pakatan state government, Raudhatul Sakinah in Putrajaya and it would seem Najib is making a foray into Islam Wasatiyyah branding.
More and more words of Arabic origin have crept into our common usage such as muzakarah, muhasabah and mujahadah, not to mention terms like takaful, sukuk and riba, now that several more financial institutions are offering Islamic banking and not just restricted to Bank Islam and Bank Muamalat.
Another indicator of the level of Islamisation is the Tudung Index.
Even the highest echelons of the church have at last publicly conceded the deep reach of Islam, in this particular case, into the pockets of the state treasury.
The remarkable pastoral letter recently penned by Bishop Hwa Yung, chairman of the Methodist church's council of presidents, contained the following pertinent observation:
"Indeed the problem in our country is that most of the money for religious bodies is usually given to one particular religious community, with relatively much smaller proportions given to other communities."
The tremendous disproportion in terms of allocation to the different religious communities can be explained by Article 12(2) of the federal constitution. It says: "... it shall be lawful for the federation or a state to establish or maintain or assist in establishing or maintaining Islamic institutions or provide or assist in providing instruction in the religion of Islam and incur such expenditure as may be necessary for the purpose".
It is the enabling mechanism for the government to disburse financial assistance to mosques and for activities promoting Islam. Tellingly, the article clauses omit any reference to Christianity and other faiths in this regard.
Most are unaware of Article 12(2). Evidently, the people touting 'Malaysian First' are on the mistaken footing that the country does not make any distinction between its citizens. Malaysia most clearly distinguishes its citizenry one from another, and even coined the word 'bumiputera' for this purpose.
Islam impacting minorities
Yesterday Malaysiakini carried an article about convert Faris Syafi Abdullah who lamented the difficulties faced when one wishes to renounce Islam.
Another convert in the same boat is Faizal Wong Abdullah (right). I've written in greater detail about the trend of Chinese, especially those in the civil service, to embrace Islam, in my 'Syariah-compliant' article cited earlier.
In it, I also discussed the breadth and reach of syariah law, its rigorous application and how easily fatwa can be legislated to carry harsh penalties as well as the Malaysian authorities strenuously rendering the adherents of Islam a monolithic block.
As for the increasing number of Indian converts to Islam, there are the controversial issues surrounding this development.
It is not only PAS and Umno that have been ramping up the Islamisation process but the Raja-Raja Melayu flexing their muscles through political Islam too.
We're living in a country where to question the monarchy and 'special position' of the Malay (whose identity is conflated with Islam and whom the royals are constitutionally empowered to protect) is seditious and can land you in jail.
'1Malaysia' is Najib's propaganda. 'Malaysian First' is Lim Kit Siang's rhetoric. While denizens of Bangsar Malaysia (spelling deliberate to allude to the affluent suburb) may buy into 1Malaysia1st, the decision of the majority G1 Chinese to send their children to vernacular school speaks volumes of the latter's inherent skepticism.
G1 is the group to whom "Chinese education is part of their socio-cultural life and even their identity as a race" whereas the English-speaking, Western-oriented G2 category are "vocal, articulate, often Christian, and likely to be from a professional class" - ref. quotes attributed to the MCA think-tankers of Insap and Insap's G2 "thoroughbred" CEO, Fui K Soong.
Methinks the G2 doth protest too much. How can these Malaysian First-ers credibly reconcile their 'one united country' mantra in the face of the facts above?
Aside from Chinese, more Indian parents are enrolling their children in vernacular Tamil schools than before. The wariness of the minorities for national school and its attendant Malay environment will not be allayed so long as Islamism is a pervasive feature of the education system.
One Dispirited Malaysian
Mariam Mokhtar
Jun 9, 10
2:11pm
The Youth and Sports deputy minister, Razali Ibrahim, said that Malaysians who belittled the country lacked a national spirit and prevented the country from becoming a developed nation. How very patronising of him to have such a low opinion of us.
He is wrong or in denial. Malaysians have a strong sense of national spirit and identity.
He compared us unfavourably with our neighbours, whom he considered more nationalistic, even with their anti-government protests.
He even claimed that kiasu was the “national spirit” of Singapore and the “secret to Singapore's success”. I was under the impression that Singapore's success was because of its strong leadership and long-term vision.
Razali (left) firmly believes that Malaysia's key to being a developed nation is by being kiasu. If only it were that easy – to be successful by riding rough-shod over people.
The only kiasu I see are our political masters and institutions like the police, who completely disregard the wishes of the people they should serve.
A 'victim' of kiasu despairs at the intolerable arrogance and pushy behaviour. It is neither an appealing trait nor a good example to emulate. In my eyes, success only comes through hard work and perseverance. Not through being kiasu.
Excelling with minimum effort
Take for instance the Malays. The previous National Economic Policy allowed Malays to excel in their studies or work performance with the minimum of effort.
Work was never valued. Responsibility was always someone else's. Sensitive topics were taken personally. And no serious attempt to integrate into the modern world, one where the woman was an equal, was made.
With this diet of false support and false hope, Malays were rendered weak and became intolerant of others. They did not know their own weaknesses and strengths. They became hostile to others who did not share their views. With little stimulation, they became mentally challenged.
They demanded rather than earned respect. They expected rather than encouraged people to behave. They dictated rather than engaged in discussions which displayed mental astuteness.
By contrast, non-Malays had to perform with what little they had. Success, when it came to them, tasted even sweeter.
Both the Malay and non-Malay started off from an unequal platform. The non-Malays persevered for success, would demand life-changing decisions which would also affect their immediate families. We are familiar with tales of houses being mortgaged or parents holding several jobs to pay off education loans.
For the Malays, whatever they did was a walkover. They were content with coasting along.
The devil is in the details
So, if Razali is serious about Malaysia becoming a developed nation, he must appreciate that the devil is in the details.
Most Malaysians are loyal, tolerant, hospitable, genteel and diplomatic. The genuine interaction of Malaysians can be acutely observed in overseas Malaysians, more so than in the false window-dressing found at the local '1Malaysia' rallies.
How does Razali expect the Chinese and Indians who make-up 40% of the population, the so-called pendatangs (immigrants), to feel patriotic?
If we are to become a developed nation, we will have to stamp out all corruption in the government and civil services.
Should we feign ignorance when things go disastrously wrong and no one is held accountable?
Should we ignore the cronyism, racism, religious intolerance, scandals, political conspiracies, kangaroo trials, a politicised police force, a tainted judiciary…?
Is Razali content with Malaysia's poor human rights record and that we have draconian laws to detain people without trial?
Malaysians are neither blind nor stupid. The country is bankrupt and we have been told to tighten our belts. Prices of many commodities are increasing. Rice, flour, oil and sugar are in short supply. Employers cannot find suitable workers. The unemployed cannot find suitable work.
Razali said that the '1Malaysia' concept to make the people and nation developed was under attack by some ungrateful Malaysians, saying “Will running down your own country make others respect us more?” He claimed that such an attitude would make other nations lose confidence in Malaysia.
Time for complacency over
Razali is wrong. Malaysians have only lost faith in their leaders. For 53 years, the masses have subsidised those at the top and believed their false rhetoric. The time for complacency is over.
He referred to the strong nationalism of the South Koreans, Japanese and Singaporeans, saying “This is what we are lacking,” and claimed that “….people in developed countries rarely talked bad about their own countries but would defend them.”
Wrong again. People in developed countries do talk bad about their own countries and especially their leaders.
Criticism leads to change, and the chance to progress. That these citizens can comment without censure is known as democracy. The countries he praised have despatched with all speed corrupt or incompetent officials and politicians, including prime ministers. Some did the honorable thing.
However, these countries have a good system of governance guided by their constitution. Their needs are addressed and their rights defended. The same can't be said for Malaysia.
Jun 9, 10
2:11pm
The Youth and Sports deputy minister, Razali Ibrahim, said that Malaysians who belittled the country lacked a national spirit and prevented the country from becoming a developed nation. How very patronising of him to have such a low opinion of us.
He is wrong or in denial. Malaysians have a strong sense of national spirit and identity.
He compared us unfavourably with our neighbours, whom he considered more nationalistic, even with their anti-government protests.
He even claimed that kiasu was the “national spirit” of Singapore and the “secret to Singapore's success”. I was under the impression that Singapore's success was because of its strong leadership and long-term vision.
Razali (left) firmly believes that Malaysia's key to being a developed nation is by being kiasu. If only it were that easy – to be successful by riding rough-shod over people.
The only kiasu I see are our political masters and institutions like the police, who completely disregard the wishes of the people they should serve.
A 'victim' of kiasu despairs at the intolerable arrogance and pushy behaviour. It is neither an appealing trait nor a good example to emulate. In my eyes, success only comes through hard work and perseverance. Not through being kiasu.
Excelling with minimum effort
Take for instance the Malays. The previous National Economic Policy allowed Malays to excel in their studies or work performance with the minimum of effort.
Work was never valued. Responsibility was always someone else's. Sensitive topics were taken personally. And no serious attempt to integrate into the modern world, one where the woman was an equal, was made.
With this diet of false support and false hope, Malays were rendered weak and became intolerant of others. They did not know their own weaknesses and strengths. They became hostile to others who did not share their views. With little stimulation, they became mentally challenged.
They demanded rather than earned respect. They expected rather than encouraged people to behave. They dictated rather than engaged in discussions which displayed mental astuteness.
By contrast, non-Malays had to perform with what little they had. Success, when it came to them, tasted even sweeter.
Both the Malay and non-Malay started off from an unequal platform. The non-Malays persevered for success, would demand life-changing decisions which would also affect their immediate families. We are familiar with tales of houses being mortgaged or parents holding several jobs to pay off education loans.
For the Malays, whatever they did was a walkover. They were content with coasting along.
The devil is in the details
So, if Razali is serious about Malaysia becoming a developed nation, he must appreciate that the devil is in the details.
Most Malaysians are loyal, tolerant, hospitable, genteel and diplomatic. The genuine interaction of Malaysians can be acutely observed in overseas Malaysians, more so than in the false window-dressing found at the local '1Malaysia' rallies.
How does Razali expect the Chinese and Indians who make-up 40% of the population, the so-called pendatangs (immigrants), to feel patriotic?
If we are to become a developed nation, we will have to stamp out all corruption in the government and civil services.
Should we feign ignorance when things go disastrously wrong and no one is held accountable?
Should we ignore the cronyism, racism, religious intolerance, scandals, political conspiracies, kangaroo trials, a politicised police force, a tainted judiciary…?
Is Razali content with Malaysia's poor human rights record and that we have draconian laws to detain people without trial?
Malaysians are neither blind nor stupid. The country is bankrupt and we have been told to tighten our belts. Prices of many commodities are increasing. Rice, flour, oil and sugar are in short supply. Employers cannot find suitable workers. The unemployed cannot find suitable work.
Razali said that the '1Malaysia' concept to make the people and nation developed was under attack by some ungrateful Malaysians, saying “Will running down your own country make others respect us more?” He claimed that such an attitude would make other nations lose confidence in Malaysia.
Time for complacency over
Razali is wrong. Malaysians have only lost faith in their leaders. For 53 years, the masses have subsidised those at the top and believed their false rhetoric. The time for complacency is over.
He referred to the strong nationalism of the South Koreans, Japanese and Singaporeans, saying “This is what we are lacking,” and claimed that “….people in developed countries rarely talked bad about their own countries but would defend them.”
Wrong again. People in developed countries do talk bad about their own countries and especially their leaders.
Criticism leads to change, and the chance to progress. That these citizens can comment without censure is known as democracy. The countries he praised have despatched with all speed corrupt or incompetent officials and politicians, including prime ministers. Some did the honorable thing.
However, these countries have a good system of governance guided by their constitution. Their needs are addressed and their rights defended. The same can't be said for Malaysia.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
The party is over!
Mariam Mokhtar
16 December 2009
Malaysians are living in an Age of Denial and fast speeding into the Age of Desolation. I hesitate to say the Age of Despair, for despair suggests loss of hope.
And I have faith. Faith, in my fellow Malaysians, moved by a groundswell of anti-racism sentiment.
Over the past few years, the voice of racism has reached a crescendo. Our society does not dare utter the R word. And I blame politicians for not addressing this issue head on. Each expects the next wave of leaders to tackle it. They didn't or wouldn't. So, now we succumb to conflict and confusion.
Malaysia is supposed to be the bed-rock of multiculturalism. But the horrid slogan ketuanan Melayu (Malay supremacy) is throttling the other soundbite - '1Malaysia'. I don't like the former and I dislike the latter even more.
Without qualifying ketuanan Melayu, the term is impotent. Similarly '1Malaysia' remains another empty slogan - sounds good, but lacks substance and definition.
Our politicians live in a world pretty much divorced from reality. For decades, they used the race card to divide and rule us. With lives to lead, careers to pursue and mouths to feed, we simply ignored them and carried on earning and living. But things have come to a head. Many working and middle-class Malaysians can no longer contain their disgust.
Ketuanan Melayu = Malay supremacy; 1Malaysia = national unity and ethnic tolerance. You can't insist on the latter while still persisting with the former. It is a contradiction in terms.
The world is getting smaller but not in the Malay universe. Other nations have dismantled their barriers for a more cohesive society, but we Malays are building our walls faster than we can mouth the words ketuanan Melayu. If we are not careful, we'll build our walls high enough and thick enough to hem ourselves in. Bricked up from the real world.
It is all a question of perception. The Malays are misguided if they are convinced by the fallacy of ketuanan Melayu. The politicians who expound this idea are self-serving.
They sell this idea to the poor and poverty-stricken Malay, saying that an equal and fair Malaysia will only encourage the non-Malays to remove what little wealth they have. Recipients of this news become petrified, and cling on firmer to the farcical ketuanan Melayu.
As for the privileged Malay, it would be financial suicide to forego the status, prestige and recognition he's accustomed to.
In reality, politicians are doing more harm to the ordinary Malay and all Malaysians. They only protect their own interests and the interests of those who pander to their wishes.
Cycle of discontent
The wealthy Malay probably constitutes only 3 percent of the Malay population. In relative terms, little, if any, wealth has filtered down to the ordinary Malay.
Gaudy mansions, fast cars, designer clothes, international schooling, holidays abroad, first-class travel, overseas properties, offshore bank accounts, private jets and helicopters are de rigueur for the wealthy Malay.
Of course, the poor Malay aspires to have all these and more. He assumes that the NEP has accorded the rich Malay his correct station in life and rightful place in society.
Can he be so gullible or naïve as to believe that corruption did not figure in any of these vulgar displays of wealth? Those at the top will never relinquish their position. At best, or when it suits them, they will appease those beneath them with a scattering of crumbs.
Thus, from the top and right down to the bottom-feeders, these people are content. But contentment breeds complacency. And complacency breeds contempt.
For every inch that the Malay is entitled to under the current rules, the non-Malay has had to fight for limited spaces in education, job opportunities and wealth creation..
Whilst the Malay has only to sit back and watch things land on his plate, his non-Malay counterpart has had to use his ingenuity to succeed.
Competition brings out the best in people and only the best get selected. But think of the others who are also able but are not chosen. They feel disillusioned and trapped in a system that is unjust and unfair. Disillusionment gives rise to discontentment, which in turn, raises discord..
For every argument that some errant politician makes about non-Malay Malaysians, patronisingly referred to as 'immigrants', the non-Malays feel immense betrayal.
No one doubts the allegiance of non-Malays to King and country. But when your sense of loyalty is questioned and tested, then those whose ideals are shattered will emigrate. Much talent has already been exported. It is Malaysia that suffers.. Malays too feel the pain of injustice and discrimination. Many have also jumped ship.
We need to strike a balance between a just and fair social system, economic growth and job creation. We cannot have one section of society maintaining a separate, inward-looking community that feels it is a cut above the rest of mainstream life and whose values are at conflict with it.
How can the marginalised be expected to inculcate a sense of pride in their national identity? Removing their dignity and worth, removes their sense of belonging. Is this the game plan then?
I fail to understand why our leaders refuse to acknowledge that mistakes have been made by others before them and also by themselves. Do they not comprehend that they too can be part of the solution?
There are signs that our politicians and certain institutions are strongly resisting change. They do not wish to inflame the hyperactive sensitivities of certain groups of people. But in doing so, they hold the rest of the country to ransom.
We need to get our country back on track - we need strong leaders. Not those who swan abroad on one pretext or another. We do not need international statesmen.
We need someone here and now, to address pressing domestic issues - maintaining good and harmonious race relations is no longer an optional matter for the majority group.
16 December 2009
Malaysians are living in an Age of Denial and fast speeding into the Age of Desolation. I hesitate to say the Age of Despair, for despair suggests loss of hope.
And I have faith. Faith, in my fellow Malaysians, moved by a groundswell of anti-racism sentiment.
Over the past few years, the voice of racism has reached a crescendo. Our society does not dare utter the R word. And I blame politicians for not addressing this issue head on. Each expects the next wave of leaders to tackle it. They didn't or wouldn't. So, now we succumb to conflict and confusion.
Malaysia is supposed to be the bed-rock of multiculturalism. But the horrid slogan ketuanan Melayu (Malay supremacy) is throttling the other soundbite - '1Malaysia'. I don't like the former and I dislike the latter even more.
Without qualifying ketuanan Melayu, the term is impotent. Similarly '1Malaysia' remains another empty slogan - sounds good, but lacks substance and definition.
Our politicians live in a world pretty much divorced from reality. For decades, they used the race card to divide and rule us. With lives to lead, careers to pursue and mouths to feed, we simply ignored them and carried on earning and living. But things have come to a head. Many working and middle-class Malaysians can no longer contain their disgust.
Ketuanan Melayu = Malay supremacy; 1Malaysia = national unity and ethnic tolerance. You can't insist on the latter while still persisting with the former. It is a contradiction in terms.
The world is getting smaller but not in the Malay universe. Other nations have dismantled their barriers for a more cohesive society, but we Malays are building our walls faster than we can mouth the words ketuanan Melayu. If we are not careful, we'll build our walls high enough and thick enough to hem ourselves in. Bricked up from the real world.
It is all a question of perception. The Malays are misguided if they are convinced by the fallacy of ketuanan Melayu. The politicians who expound this idea are self-serving.
They sell this idea to the poor and poverty-stricken Malay, saying that an equal and fair Malaysia will only encourage the non-Malays to remove what little wealth they have. Recipients of this news become petrified, and cling on firmer to the farcical ketuanan Melayu.
As for the privileged Malay, it would be financial suicide to forego the status, prestige and recognition he's accustomed to.
In reality, politicians are doing more harm to the ordinary Malay and all Malaysians. They only protect their own interests and the interests of those who pander to their wishes.
Cycle of discontent
The wealthy Malay probably constitutes only 3 percent of the Malay population. In relative terms, little, if any, wealth has filtered down to the ordinary Malay.
Gaudy mansions, fast cars, designer clothes, international schooling, holidays abroad, first-class travel, overseas properties, offshore bank accounts, private jets and helicopters are de rigueur for the wealthy Malay.
Of course, the poor Malay aspires to have all these and more. He assumes that the NEP has accorded the rich Malay his correct station in life and rightful place in society.
Can he be so gullible or naïve as to believe that corruption did not figure in any of these vulgar displays of wealth? Those at the top will never relinquish their position. At best, or when it suits them, they will appease those beneath them with a scattering of crumbs.
Thus, from the top and right down to the bottom-feeders, these people are content. But contentment breeds complacency. And complacency breeds contempt.
For every inch that the Malay is entitled to under the current rules, the non-Malay has had to fight for limited spaces in education, job opportunities and wealth creation..
Whilst the Malay has only to sit back and watch things land on his plate, his non-Malay counterpart has had to use his ingenuity to succeed.
Competition brings out the best in people and only the best get selected. But think of the others who are also able but are not chosen. They feel disillusioned and trapped in a system that is unjust and unfair. Disillusionment gives rise to discontentment, which in turn, raises discord..
For every argument that some errant politician makes about non-Malay Malaysians, patronisingly referred to as 'immigrants', the non-Malays feel immense betrayal.
No one doubts the allegiance of non-Malays to King and country. But when your sense of loyalty is questioned and tested, then those whose ideals are shattered will emigrate. Much talent has already been exported. It is Malaysia that suffers.. Malays too feel the pain of injustice and discrimination. Many have also jumped ship.
We need to strike a balance between a just and fair social system, economic growth and job creation. We cannot have one section of society maintaining a separate, inward-looking community that feels it is a cut above the rest of mainstream life and whose values are at conflict with it.
How can the marginalised be expected to inculcate a sense of pride in their national identity? Removing their dignity and worth, removes their sense of belonging. Is this the game plan then?
I fail to understand why our leaders refuse to acknowledge that mistakes have been made by others before them and also by themselves. Do they not comprehend that they too can be part of the solution?
There are signs that our politicians and certain institutions are strongly resisting change. They do not wish to inflame the hyperactive sensitivities of certain groups of people. But in doing so, they hold the rest of the country to ransom.
We need to get our country back on track - we need strong leaders. Not those who swan abroad on one pretext or another. We do not need international statesmen.
We need someone here and now, to address pressing domestic issues - maintaining good and harmonious race relations is no longer an optional matter for the majority group.
Education: A little dose of reality
M H Harun
15 December 2009
I refer to the letters SPM Limit: Why Not Pick Japanese and French Too and SPM: 'History', 'Moral Education' Should Be Optional.
Many years ago in the University of Western Australia, Perth, a final year philosophy undergraduate was sitting for his final exam.
One of the questions asked was: 'What is bravery?'. Many students wrote pages and pages of elaboration citing theories and case studies but he only wrote two words: 'Bravery is.'
He raised his hand after the 15-minute compulsory minimum attempt time and left the examination hall. He scored an A. The others didn't.
Can this happen in Malaysia? Sorry, never in a 100 years. I was skimming through some sample STPM history papers the other day and was shocked to see that our A-level equivalent questions rewards memorisation instead of understanding.
Good questioning should apply the higher levels of Bloom's taxonomy such as "discuss", "predict", or even "analyse". Learning history should be about reading between the lines.
In my opinion a good question would go: "Discuss the implications if the Malayan Communist Party succeeded in its struggle to gain independence from the British."
Answer should go like, "If the Malayan Communist Party succeeded in its struggle to gain independence from the British then this would end the era of the Malay sultanate as what had happened to the last Chinese emperor, Pu Yi after World War II. Malaya would have become a republic".
Continue writing until you exhaust your capacity to answer intelligently.
In most cases our education syllabus is as good as those of developed nations but the assessment method especially examinations are somewhat disappointing.
For example, writing a formal letter is an essential communication skill and thus should not be an optional question in the Bahasa Malaysia and English papers. It should be an assignment that carries 10 percent weightage.
Remembering historical facts is good but it would be better to assess it in the form of a multiple choice test that carries 20 percent weightage. And I agree that some compulsory SPM subjects are not worth taking.
The ten SPM subject limit is a good move by the government. But students should have the liberty to choose which subjects he or she wants to take.
In my opinion, the only compulsory exam subject (to take) is Bahasa Malaysia. Students choose the other eight or nine subjects based on certain rules.
For example, you shouldn't take both Pendidikan Islam and Pendidikan Moral and you must take at least one mathematical subject.
Perhaps it is time the government reintroduce examination fees. If you want to take more subjects by all means take them. But you have to pay. That's one way of making sure that students don't overload unnecessarily.
As a teacher, I do not fancy the exam-oriented approach in our education system. I'm probably biased in this view but that's probably because I have been teaching indigenous kids for many years.
No matter how much effort I give, their exam results do not reflect my sacrifices and dedication throughout the whole year.
I was screaming my lungs out in frustration while driving home the day we obtained their UPSR transcripts. I tried to look at the positive; these people grow up to be excellent fishermen and farmers.
They barely have any criminal records. They are never arrogant. Some managed to gain employment in the public sector. My colleagues and I might have done something right somewhere.
You see the master product of our national education philosophy isn't that astronaut with pinup boy looks. And by far it's not those kids who took 10 extra SPM subjects and "coincidently" scored As in every one of them.
Success in school does not equate to success in life. And failure in school does not equate to failure in life.
15 December 2009
I refer to the letters SPM Limit: Why Not Pick Japanese and French Too and SPM: 'History', 'Moral Education' Should Be Optional.
Many years ago in the University of Western Australia, Perth, a final year philosophy undergraduate was sitting for his final exam.
One of the questions asked was: 'What is bravery?'. Many students wrote pages and pages of elaboration citing theories and case studies but he only wrote two words: 'Bravery is.'
He raised his hand after the 15-minute compulsory minimum attempt time and left the examination hall. He scored an A. The others didn't.
Can this happen in Malaysia? Sorry, never in a 100 years. I was skimming through some sample STPM history papers the other day and was shocked to see that our A-level equivalent questions rewards memorisation instead of understanding.
Good questioning should apply the higher levels of Bloom's taxonomy such as "discuss", "predict", or even "analyse". Learning history should be about reading between the lines.
In my opinion a good question would go: "Discuss the implications if the Malayan Communist Party succeeded in its struggle to gain independence from the British."
Answer should go like, "If the Malayan Communist Party succeeded in its struggle to gain independence from the British then this would end the era of the Malay sultanate as what had happened to the last Chinese emperor, Pu Yi after World War II. Malaya would have become a republic".
Continue writing until you exhaust your capacity to answer intelligently.
In most cases our education syllabus is as good as those of developed nations but the assessment method especially examinations are somewhat disappointing.
For example, writing a formal letter is an essential communication skill and thus should not be an optional question in the Bahasa Malaysia and English papers. It should be an assignment that carries 10 percent weightage.
Remembering historical facts is good but it would be better to assess it in the form of a multiple choice test that carries 20 percent weightage. And I agree that some compulsory SPM subjects are not worth taking.
The ten SPM subject limit is a good move by the government. But students should have the liberty to choose which subjects he or she wants to take.
In my opinion, the only compulsory exam subject (to take) is Bahasa Malaysia. Students choose the other eight or nine subjects based on certain rules.
For example, you shouldn't take both Pendidikan Islam and Pendidikan Moral and you must take at least one mathematical subject.
Perhaps it is time the government reintroduce examination fees. If you want to take more subjects by all means take them. But you have to pay. That's one way of making sure that students don't overload unnecessarily.
As a teacher, I do not fancy the exam-oriented approach in our education system. I'm probably biased in this view but that's probably because I have been teaching indigenous kids for many years.
No matter how much effort I give, their exam results do not reflect my sacrifices and dedication throughout the whole year.
I was screaming my lungs out in frustration while driving home the day we obtained their UPSR transcripts. I tried to look at the positive; these people grow up to be excellent fishermen and farmers.
They barely have any criminal records. They are never arrogant. Some managed to gain employment in the public sector. My colleagues and I might have done something right somewhere.
You see the master product of our national education philosophy isn't that astronaut with pinup boy looks. And by far it's not those kids who took 10 extra SPM subjects and "coincidently" scored As in every one of them.
Success in school does not equate to success in life. And failure in school does not equate to failure in life.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Bumi varsity quota not racist, says Dr M
Malaysiakini
14 December 2009
Keturunan Malaysia:
Please Tun (Dr Mahathir Mohamad), no one is saying we should not help the "poor" but what we are saying is why at the expense of those who are more than well-qualified but have to unfairly suffer from the lack of a level-playing field. Most are poor too but their only sin is because they are not "sons and daughters of the soil".
Ahmad Kamal:
Ahmad Kamal:
(1) Affirmative action policies are temporary special measures as a matter of principle. (2) It is quite difficult to justify continuous affirmative action for an ethnic grouping that constitutes a majority of the population. (3) Are Malays and natives of Sabah/Sarawak equal in their bumi rights?
Some years ago when Tun was in government, there are already views that Malay support to university places should be restructured in terms of private financial support and not government support per se. Get back to the drawing board please. The 13 general election is on the horizon.
Jbss:
Some years ago when Tun was in government, there are already views that Malay support to university places should be restructured in terms of private financial support and not government support per se. Get back to the drawing board please. The 13 general election is on the horizon.
Jbss:
Mahathir has conveniently forgotten that it was because of this racist policy that prevented good non-Malay students from entering state-run universities/institutions so more private institutions were forced to be set up to cater for the growing demand for places of learning in higher institutions and at great expense to the non-Malay students.
The demand for places in private institutions has grown so much and enrolment has multiplied, this old cunning fox now uses this as the basis for the 'apartheid' policy which has been in place for decades!
Rationalise it in whichever way you like, it is official discrimination, racist, apartheid-like because it deprives other citizens (based on their ethnic origin) of equal opportunities to enjoy education at state-run institutions of higher learning financed by the taxpayers' money.
Kee Thuan Chye:
The demand for places in private institutions has grown so much and enrolment has multiplied, this old cunning fox now uses this as the basis for the 'apartheid' policy which has been in place for decades!
Rationalise it in whichever way you like, it is official discrimination, racist, apartheid-like because it deprives other citizens (based on their ethnic origin) of equal opportunities to enjoy education at state-run institutions of higher learning financed by the taxpayers' money.
Kee Thuan Chye:
Not all non-Malay parents can afford to send their children to private universities. Many are forced to work harder to earn the money to provide higher education for their children. This has been their unenviable lot especially from the time Mahathir took over as PM. It's easy for him to talk; he does not know first-hand the plight of non-Malay parents.
Kgan:
Kgan:
"Mahathir added that the extra attention and opportunities given to the bumiputeras did not mean that the other races were sidelined."
This is like saying that the apartheid system in South Africa did not marginalise blacks. Non-Malay parents have to save and scrimp to send their children to private universities because opportunities in public universities are so lacking for them. Even if they can get in, they are given less desirable courses. Is this discrimination or not?
Mahathir, you bloody racist, the time when you can spew out some rubbish and expect it to be accepted wholesale by a fawning press is over. If you can't say anything right, keep your mouth shut and save whatever dregs of your tainted legacy is still left.
Doc:
This is like saying that the apartheid system in South Africa did not marginalise blacks. Non-Malay parents have to save and scrimp to send their children to private universities because opportunities in public universities are so lacking for them. Even if they can get in, they are given less desirable courses. Is this discrimination or not?
Mahathir, you bloody racist, the time when you can spew out some rubbish and expect it to be accepted wholesale by a fawning press is over. If you can't say anything right, keep your mouth shut and save whatever dregs of your tainted legacy is still left.
Doc:
The issue of bumi quota in the public universities has not been such a hot topic as in the past. Public perception of public universities are to mass produce graduates where quantity is important not quality.
Non-bumis over the years have realised the importance of a good education. They save their earnings to put their children into good and reputable universities (locally or overseas) for two reasons. The first is in ensuring their children are better qualified and have the edge when entering the job market, thus earning a higher salary. The second is for migration purposes.
Louis:
Non-bumis over the years have realised the importance of a good education. They save their earnings to put their children into good and reputable universities (locally or overseas) for two reasons. The first is in ensuring their children are better qualified and have the edge when entering the job market, thus earning a higher salary. The second is for migration purposes.
Louis:
TDM said that the bumis cannot afford fees in private institution. He must be joking. Why must a bumi want to spend his own money when he could easily get scholarships? I am very much poorer than many Malays, but I managed to put my children through tertiary education with my meagre income.
I have witnessed with my own eyes, bumiputeras driving Mercs, BMWs, Volvos and Honda Accord are using scholarships to put their children to universities. I bear no grudges if such scholarships are given to poor Malays in the kampung.
The irony is that it is those rich Malays who are manipulating the political system so that they will enjoy those privileges while hoodwinking the poor in the kampung to support them.
Multi Racial:
I have witnessed with my own eyes, bumiputeras driving Mercs, BMWs, Volvos and Honda Accord are using scholarships to put their children to universities. I bear no grudges if such scholarships are given to poor Malays in the kampung.
The irony is that it is those rich Malays who are manipulating the political system so that they will enjoy those privileges while hoodwinking the poor in the kampung to support them.
Multi Racial:
How could a former PM talk like this? If we want to help those weak in their study, this is not the way. You will only make thing worse for them. Unfortunately there are those Malays who can compete with non-Malays anytime and anywhere but are now seen as part of those who were helped by the government in their education.
The time has come for the government to put things right. All the mistakes done by past administration has to be stopped before it is too late. Focus on quality and not quantity. Focus on Malaysians, and not just one race.
Boonpou:
The time has come for the government to put things right. All the mistakes done by past administration has to be stopped before it is too late. Focus on quality and not quantity. Focus on Malaysians, and not just one race.
Boonpou:
If there is a level-playing field, do you think the private universities in Malaysia would have such high non-Malay enrolments. Do you think non-Malay parents enjoy borrowing money from whichever sources to send their children to these private universities?
It is sad that a man of your age are still trapped, to borrow a phrase from the late Syed Hussein Alatas, in this "myth of the lazy natives [Malays]" mentality. Of course, we know that you are not entirely that stupid or have gone senile. All along you have capitalised on this myth to advance your own political career and racist agenda.
At the end of the day, how much longer could you indulge yourself in such immoral agenda? Most decent Malaysians are no longer haunted by this colonial myth. We do not need to have a Malaysian Oxford, Cambridge or Harvard in order to feel that we can think.
Foo Wy Len:
It is sad that a man of your age are still trapped, to borrow a phrase from the late Syed Hussein Alatas, in this "myth of the lazy natives [Malays]" mentality. Of course, we know that you are not entirely that stupid or have gone senile. All along you have capitalised on this myth to advance your own political career and racist agenda.
At the end of the day, how much longer could you indulge yourself in such immoral agenda? Most decent Malaysians are no longer haunted by this colonial myth. We do not need to have a Malaysian Oxford, Cambridge or Harvard in order to feel that we can think.
Foo Wy Len:
Dr M, please explain that to my daughter who has all As in her SPM, and yes, she is in a private university, and yes, every single sen is paid by me from my saving as a poor school teacher!
Sunday, December 13, 2009
'Keling' - they helped make this country great
Mohd Idris Hassan
11 December 2009
I refer to the Malaysiakini report Of noisy Indians and 'keling' blood: Utusan strikes again.
The attacking of fellow Malaysians by the mainstream media Utusan Malaysia because of their race is unwarranted and most uncalled for. I remember in the late forties when I was a little boy living in my hometown of Raub, Pahang.
I used to pass road gangs of Tamil labourers toiling in the midday's scorching sun from dawn till dusk. Armed with only picks and shovels, they would be hacking at solid rocks to carve out roads along the mountain side.
They had no proper attire, just a withered white towel tied in turban form on their heads. They would wrap rags around their spindly legs to prevent the hot molten tar from scalding them as they went about their chores.
Yet they had time to smile and wave at passing cars. They used to be referred to as 'coolies' and their slave-like living quarters as coolie lines. My late father used to tell us that most of the roads in Malaya at the turn of the century were built solely by Indian labour.
They toiled in the malaria-infested rubber estates, living with their families in filthy inhuman conditions. The white 'tuan' treated them like slaves and allowed them to indulge in drinking toddy to forget their woes .
Yet again it was the same coolies called 'toties' who serviced our bucket system latrines until the early sixties as there were no takers for this job from the other races. I have seen for myself these 'toties' cleaning the rubber tubs at a stream not far from my house with their bare hands.
In short, when there was any dirty, menial job to be done, it was this Tamil coolie, then often called by the derogatory term 'keling', that did it for us.
Now times have changed and their offsprings have made much progress in all fields and want to take their rightful place in our society .Let's not pour scorn on them and laugh away their pride.
As a soldier I know that many of my Indian/Tamil friends who fought and died for this country . They all are a part of those who stood by us during the good and bad times, they have helped make this country great.
A country which rightfully belongs to all Malaysians.
11 December 2009
I refer to the Malaysiakini report Of noisy Indians and 'keling' blood: Utusan strikes again.
The attacking of fellow Malaysians by the mainstream media Utusan Malaysia because of their race is unwarranted and most uncalled for. I remember in the late forties when I was a little boy living in my hometown of Raub, Pahang.
I used to pass road gangs of Tamil labourers toiling in the midday's scorching sun from dawn till dusk. Armed with only picks and shovels, they would be hacking at solid rocks to carve out roads along the mountain side.
They had no proper attire, just a withered white towel tied in turban form on their heads. They would wrap rags around their spindly legs to prevent the hot molten tar from scalding them as they went about their chores.
Yet they had time to smile and wave at passing cars. They used to be referred to as 'coolies' and their slave-like living quarters as coolie lines. My late father used to tell us that most of the roads in Malaya at the turn of the century were built solely by Indian labour.
They toiled in the malaria-infested rubber estates, living with their families in filthy inhuman conditions. The white 'tuan' treated them like slaves and allowed them to indulge in drinking toddy to forget their woes .
Yet again it was the same coolies called 'toties' who serviced our bucket system latrines until the early sixties as there were no takers for this job from the other races. I have seen for myself these 'toties' cleaning the rubber tubs at a stream not far from my house with their bare hands.
In short, when there was any dirty, menial job to be done, it was this Tamil coolie, then often called by the derogatory term 'keling', that did it for us.
Now times have changed and their offsprings have made much progress in all fields and want to take their rightful place in our society .Let's not pour scorn on them and laugh away their pride.
As a soldier I know that many of my Indian/Tamil friends who fought and died for this country . They all are a part of those who stood by us during the good and bad times, they have helped make this country great.
A country which rightfully belongs to all Malaysians.
Let's talk about racism
Sim Kwang Yang
12 December 2009
We all know that the politics of race has always been the bedrock of Malaysian political culture in the last six decades. The success of the early Alliance and then the Barisan Nasional coalitions comprising race-based parties was due in large part to the electorate's acceptance that Malaysian power-sharing was based on the negotiation between races.
Politicians and their parties fighting for the rights and interests of their race have been the ideological orthodoxy all these while. Nobody would think of calling any ministers or political parties 'racist”, because racism was perhaps deemed politically correct.
Things must have really changed when we witness in recent days the great Malay nationalist icon Dr Mahathir Mohamad and senior Umno cabinet minister Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz trading personal insults in public, calling each other “racist”.
All of a sudden, the terms “racist” and “racism” have become bad words, as they should be long ago. The question is: What makes a person a racist, and what is racism?
Wikipedia gives the following definition of racism:
“Racism is the belief that race is a primary determinant of man traits and capacities and those racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. In the case of institutional racism, certain racial groups may be denied rights or benefits, or get preferential treatment.
“Racial discrimination typically points out taxonomic differences between different groups of people, although anyone may be discriminated against on an ethnic or cultural basis, independently of their somatic differences. According to the United Nations conventions, there is no distinction between the term racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination.”
Earnest Gellner would argue that there are differences between the idea of “race” and “ethnicity”, the former emphasising on the mythical bond of blood ties and the latter relying on common cultural heritage. But that is another topic for another time.
Emergence of racism
Looking back in history, the first time that racism first assumed political significance must be when European powers encountered strange peoples from other cultures in far away lands at the beginning of empire building a few hundred years ago.
It also coincided with the beginning of the emergence of the modern nation-states and the fall of the old empires in the European continent.
The technologically and militarily superior Europeans were certain to be Eurocentric in their judgement of these so-called “barbaric, primitive, and pagan races” in Africa, North and South Americas, and finally Asia, New Zealand, and Australia.
Towards the end of the 19th century, Social Darwinism was already in vogue in Europe, with thinkers trying to apply the Darwinian theory of natural selection to human races and individuals, when the theory was originally used in reference to animal and plant species. Fortunately for our human species, this faulty theory is all but abandoned today.
Then, in late 19th century Europe, Dr Francis Galton practically invented the science of eugenics, the study of selective breeding so as to improve the human stock.
Eugenics gained a respectable following in the 20th century, and the core idea of the genes somehow determining the moral and intellectual character of the human individuals was accepted en masse by Hitler's Nazi ideology.
That is the underlying philosophy of racism - that some races are superior to others by virtue of their superior genes.
For fear that their superior German Aryan blood may be polluted by the inferior blood of the Jews and other minority groups, Hitler ordered his Final Solution that saw the genocide of six million people.
Partly because of the global guilt over the holocaust, the United Nations formed after World War Two made it a point to pass the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and made it morally incorrect for any nation or groups to persecute or discriminate anyone based on creed, religion or race.
But the political appeal of primordial tribalism was still too great to be resisted. As an instrument for mass mobilisation, as an anchor for personal identity, and as a mythical pointer to the collective destiny of the community, “race” hits at the nadir of our guts immediately.
After World War Two, the survival and glory of the race were the rallying cry of many groups in those former colonies of the Western imperial powers all over the world. They used the ready-made ideology for their brand new nationalism in Africa, Asia, and South America, alongside the revolutionary slogans of the communists.
Out of Africa II
It was thus that the early founding fathers of Malaysia were drawn into the power of racial equations, and Malaysian politics has always been racial since then.
The person who laid down the theoretical groundwork for the Malay nationalism as narrated by Umno is none other than Dr Mahathir Mohamad through his magnum opus 'The Malay Dilemma'.
In his article 'Racism: Towards Year Zero', Dr Kua Kia Soong has this to say about Dr M's theoretical work:
“Mahathir is obviously not familiar with the philosophy of the social sciences; otherwise he would have known that 'race' as a concept has been discredited in social science years now and any social scientist worth his/her salt would not dare to air such racial theories in respectable centres of learning.”
Kua is right of course. Not only is racism banished from the social science, it is also exiled to the margin in politics in developed liberal democracies, and ultra-right nationalist groups seldom get the public support to take government power.
The tenets and dogmas of racism have also lost much of their credibility because of the advance in the physical science, especially in the science of genetics.
Until today, there is no scientific proof that our genes have any determination over our intelligence, our moral character, or our mental capabilities. I would even posit that scientists will never succeed in this mission impossible as long as humankind cannot resolve Rene Descartes' bifurcation of the human individual into mind and matter.
In contrast, recent studies in genetics have shown that the genetical differences that determine the physical variations among the various races are negligible in our collective genome!
Two recent studies also show that all human races are descended from a small band of homo sapiens in the plains of Africa.
One study named Out of Africa II traced the footsteps of all humans to a small group of new human beings in Africa slightly more than one million years ago. Through archeological and other evidences, they trace human's migration over land bridges made possible by climate conditions from Africa to other parts of the world.
The other theory called the Eve Theory takes advantage of the fact that the chromosome materials are transferred unchanged from the mitochondria of the mother to the daughter. By studying and comparing the mitochondrial genes of all women all over the world, these scientists claimed that they can trace the ancestry of all human groups to one woman in Africa, whom they named Eve.
This is the latest paradigm concerning the origin of our human species.
It exists only in our minds
In short, “race' and “ethnicity” are cultural construct; they exist in our language and our mind only. They do not exist objectively like the sun or the moon, or like the living species called homo sapiens.
That is not to say that the terms “race” and 'ethnicity” have no meanings and should be discarded. They have rich meaning in our cultural history, and have allowed us to build up a beautifully diverse depository of cultural and historical narratives that form our collective human civilisation.
But as the ideological basis for political action, the temporary success of racism and racial politics is exceeded only by their intellectual and theoretical poverty. They may prevail for a while, but in the long run, racial prejudices and racial hatred will not be able to stand the test of historical time.
The sooner Malaysian politicians, community leaders, public intellectuals, commentators and opinion makers veer away from racist and racial conversation, the better it is for the democratic future of all Malaysians.
After all, we are all brothers and sisters of one human race.
12 December 2009
We all know that the politics of race has always been the bedrock of Malaysian political culture in the last six decades. The success of the early Alliance and then the Barisan Nasional coalitions comprising race-based parties was due in large part to the electorate's acceptance that Malaysian power-sharing was based on the negotiation between races.
Politicians and their parties fighting for the rights and interests of their race have been the ideological orthodoxy all these while. Nobody would think of calling any ministers or political parties 'racist”, because racism was perhaps deemed politically correct.
Things must have really changed when we witness in recent days the great Malay nationalist icon Dr Mahathir Mohamad and senior Umno cabinet minister Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz trading personal insults in public, calling each other “racist”.
All of a sudden, the terms “racist” and “racism” have become bad words, as they should be long ago. The question is: What makes a person a racist, and what is racism?
Wikipedia gives the following definition of racism:
“Racism is the belief that race is a primary determinant of man traits and capacities and those racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. In the case of institutional racism, certain racial groups may be denied rights or benefits, or get preferential treatment.
“Racial discrimination typically points out taxonomic differences between different groups of people, although anyone may be discriminated against on an ethnic or cultural basis, independently of their somatic differences. According to the United Nations conventions, there is no distinction between the term racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination.”
Earnest Gellner would argue that there are differences between the idea of “race” and “ethnicity”, the former emphasising on the mythical bond of blood ties and the latter relying on common cultural heritage. But that is another topic for another time.
Emergence of racism
Looking back in history, the first time that racism first assumed political significance must be when European powers encountered strange peoples from other cultures in far away lands at the beginning of empire building a few hundred years ago.
It also coincided with the beginning of the emergence of the modern nation-states and the fall of the old empires in the European continent.
The technologically and militarily superior Europeans were certain to be Eurocentric in their judgement of these so-called “barbaric, primitive, and pagan races” in Africa, North and South Americas, and finally Asia, New Zealand, and Australia.
Towards the end of the 19th century, Social Darwinism was already in vogue in Europe, with thinkers trying to apply the Darwinian theory of natural selection to human races and individuals, when the theory was originally used in reference to animal and plant species. Fortunately for our human species, this faulty theory is all but abandoned today.
Then, in late 19th century Europe, Dr Francis Galton practically invented the science of eugenics, the study of selective breeding so as to improve the human stock.
Eugenics gained a respectable following in the 20th century, and the core idea of the genes somehow determining the moral and intellectual character of the human individuals was accepted en masse by Hitler's Nazi ideology.
That is the underlying philosophy of racism - that some races are superior to others by virtue of their superior genes.
For fear that their superior German Aryan blood may be polluted by the inferior blood of the Jews and other minority groups, Hitler ordered his Final Solution that saw the genocide of six million people.
Partly because of the global guilt over the holocaust, the United Nations formed after World War Two made it a point to pass the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and made it morally incorrect for any nation or groups to persecute or discriminate anyone based on creed, religion or race.
But the political appeal of primordial tribalism was still too great to be resisted. As an instrument for mass mobilisation, as an anchor for personal identity, and as a mythical pointer to the collective destiny of the community, “race” hits at the nadir of our guts immediately.
After World War Two, the survival and glory of the race were the rallying cry of many groups in those former colonies of the Western imperial powers all over the world. They used the ready-made ideology for their brand new nationalism in Africa, Asia, and South America, alongside the revolutionary slogans of the communists.
Out of Africa II
It was thus that the early founding fathers of Malaysia were drawn into the power of racial equations, and Malaysian politics has always been racial since then.
The person who laid down the theoretical groundwork for the Malay nationalism as narrated by Umno is none other than Dr Mahathir Mohamad through his magnum opus 'The Malay Dilemma'.
In his article 'Racism: Towards Year Zero', Dr Kua Kia Soong has this to say about Dr M's theoretical work:
“Mahathir is obviously not familiar with the philosophy of the social sciences; otherwise he would have known that 'race' as a concept has been discredited in social science years now and any social scientist worth his/her salt would not dare to air such racial theories in respectable centres of learning.”
Kua is right of course. Not only is racism banished from the social science, it is also exiled to the margin in politics in developed liberal democracies, and ultra-right nationalist groups seldom get the public support to take government power.
The tenets and dogmas of racism have also lost much of their credibility because of the advance in the physical science, especially in the science of genetics.
Until today, there is no scientific proof that our genes have any determination over our intelligence, our moral character, or our mental capabilities. I would even posit that scientists will never succeed in this mission impossible as long as humankind cannot resolve Rene Descartes' bifurcation of the human individual into mind and matter.
In contrast, recent studies in genetics have shown that the genetical differences that determine the physical variations among the various races are negligible in our collective genome!
Two recent studies also show that all human races are descended from a small band of homo sapiens in the plains of Africa.
One study named Out of Africa II traced the footsteps of all humans to a small group of new human beings in Africa slightly more than one million years ago. Through archeological and other evidences, they trace human's migration over land bridges made possible by climate conditions from Africa to other parts of the world.
The other theory called the Eve Theory takes advantage of the fact that the chromosome materials are transferred unchanged from the mitochondria of the mother to the daughter. By studying and comparing the mitochondrial genes of all women all over the world, these scientists claimed that they can trace the ancestry of all human groups to one woman in Africa, whom they named Eve.
This is the latest paradigm concerning the origin of our human species.
It exists only in our minds
In short, “race' and “ethnicity” are cultural construct; they exist in our language and our mind only. They do not exist objectively like the sun or the moon, or like the living species called homo sapiens.
That is not to say that the terms “race” and 'ethnicity” have no meanings and should be discarded. They have rich meaning in our cultural history, and have allowed us to build up a beautifully diverse depository of cultural and historical narratives that form our collective human civilisation.
But as the ideological basis for political action, the temporary success of racism and racial politics is exceeded only by their intellectual and theoretical poverty. They may prevail for a while, but in the long run, racial prejudices and racial hatred will not be able to stand the test of historical time.
The sooner Malaysian politicians, community leaders, public intellectuals, commentators and opinion makers veer away from racist and racial conversation, the better it is for the democratic future of all Malaysians.
After all, we are all brothers and sisters of one human race.
Forum speakers flay 'Ketuanan Melayu'
Aidila Razak
12 December 2009
The concept of Ketuanan Melayu (Malay supremacy) and the Social Contract is a political ploy used by the ruling coalition to remain in power, argued DAP vice-chairman Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim.
“If there is such a thing as a Malaysian social contract, it is one that has nothing to do with (Malay) privileges but instead outlines the government's responsibility to protect its people,” he told an audience of about 80 people at the Annexe Gallery in Kuala Lumpur today.
Abdul Aziz were one of four speakers at a 90-minute forum alongside UKM social scientist and Sisters in Islam stalwart Noraini Othman, Malaysian history expert Clive Kessler and Petaling Jaya city councillor Richard Yeoh.
The forum entitled 'The Myth of Malay Supremacy' was organised by Research for Social Advancement (Refsa), which is also headed by Yeoh.
According to Abdul Aziz, what people perceive as the social contract is actually an understanding by the country's founding fathers that to “live together, we must work together”.
“Our founding fathers were men of liberal ideas and never thought of special privileges for Malays,” he said.
Abdul Aziz also noted that Malaysia, as a nation, is still a work in progress as the country has yet to find its own identity due to non-inclusive policies.
“There is only a reasonable chance for everyone to have a common Malaysian identity if we all feel fairly included by the policies which govern us… not when people feel that Malaysia is largely a Malay-centric place,” he said.
1Malaysia concept 'vague'
When asked if the 1Malaysia concept addresses the issue of a shared identity, Abdul Aziz said the idea championed by Najib Razak is very vague and that even the prime minister has failed to explain.
12 December 2009
The concept of Ketuanan Melayu (Malay supremacy) and the Social Contract is a political ploy used by the ruling coalition to remain in power, argued DAP vice-chairman Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim.
“If there is such a thing as a Malaysian social contract, it is one that has nothing to do with (Malay) privileges but instead outlines the government's responsibility to protect its people,” he told an audience of about 80 people at the Annexe Gallery in Kuala Lumpur today.
Abdul Aziz were one of four speakers at a 90-minute forum alongside UKM social scientist and Sisters in Islam stalwart Noraini Othman, Malaysian history expert Clive Kessler and Petaling Jaya city councillor Richard Yeoh.
The forum entitled 'The Myth of Malay Supremacy' was organised by Research for Social Advancement (Refsa), which is also headed by Yeoh.
According to Abdul Aziz, what people perceive as the social contract is actually an understanding by the country's founding fathers that to “live together, we must work together”.
“Our founding fathers were men of liberal ideas and never thought of special privileges for Malays,” he said.
Abdul Aziz also noted that Malaysia, as a nation, is still a work in progress as the country has yet to find its own identity due to non-inclusive policies.
“There is only a reasonable chance for everyone to have a common Malaysian identity if we all feel fairly included by the policies which govern us… not when people feel that Malaysia is largely a Malay-centric place,” he said.
1Malaysia concept 'vague'
When asked if the 1Malaysia concept addresses the issue of a shared identity, Abdul Aziz said the idea championed by Najib Razak is very vague and that even the prime minister has failed to explain.
Tunku said that DAP's 'Malaysian Malaysia' is one that “does not discriminate nor endorses the torturing of its citizens.”
He however added that while the phrase has been used heavily by DAP, it has been his personal belief even before he joined the party last year.
Tunku also said that the Malaysian Malaysia concept when it was first introduced by then People's Action Party leader Lee Kuan Yew in the 1960s, there was still a lot of distrust among the various ethnic communities due to vast economic disparity.
This is a view shared by Noraini, who said that the concept is appropriate now as there is a large proportion of middle-class Malaysians who are “ready… to be a part of a nation as equal citizens.”
She conceded however that there is still a psychological barrier, in which many Malays still feel they are not ready to let go of their crutches.
This is a vicious cycle where people are kept in a sort of feudal captive mindset,” she said.
Noraini, who is the co-author of the book 'Sharing the Nation', added that the very concept of Ketuanan Melayu make her cringe as it evokes “notions of enslavement”.
In Malay classical terms, the word 'ketuanan' implies lordship over captives, which is a pre-feudal concept that is out of sync in 1957, 1963 and today,” she said.
Like Abdul Aziz, she warned against falling into the “trap” of Ketuanan Melayu, which she deemed as a “political project.”
Origins of Ketuanan Melayu
According to Yeoh, the term 'Ketuanan Melayu' first came about in a speech by former aide to then prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Abdullah Ahmad, who in 1989 said that Malays should be dominant in political leadership.
"It was a fairly benign speech and most of us have no problem with it, but it has been to mean Malay supremacy by some Umno leaders who don't necessarily know what it means,” he said.
He also said that the term should also be taken in context, as it came at a time when Umno was "at the throes of dispute” with Tunku Razaleigh Hamzah actively challenging Mahathir's leadership.
Yeoh added that the constitution only provides for special privileges for Malays in areas which already existed prior to independence, and that no new special preferences were to be added.
He contended that such affirmative policies may have actually weighed the Malay community down.
“Malays would achieve all that they have achieved, and maybe even more, without this divisive term that is Ketuanan Melayu,” he said.
Meanwhile, Kessler added that what the country is currently experiencing is the third dispensation of the Merdeka agreement made by the founding fathers, the first of which came in 1969 and the third in 1972 with the New Economic Policy.
“(The second dispensation) began to die in 1999… but continued to live on unnaturally from 2004 when the government thought all was forgiven, until what happened in (the) 2008 (general election),” he said.
It is therefore the hope, he said, that this third wave will “embody the spirit of the Merdeka agreement”, which had the purpose of developing an “inclusive and pluralistic” nation.
Indeed, Klesser argued that the second deputy prime minister, Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman had once said that “the unnatural continuation of (affirmative policies in aid of the Malays) would be an affront to Malay dignity.”
He however added that while the phrase has been used heavily by DAP, it has been his personal belief even before he joined the party last year.
Tunku also said that the Malaysian Malaysia concept when it was first introduced by then People's Action Party leader Lee Kuan Yew in the 1960s, there was still a lot of distrust among the various ethnic communities due to vast economic disparity.
This is a view shared by Noraini, who said that the concept is appropriate now as there is a large proportion of middle-class Malaysians who are “ready… to be a part of a nation as equal citizens.”
She conceded however that there is still a psychological barrier, in which many Malays still feel they are not ready to let go of their crutches.
This is a vicious cycle where people are kept in a sort of feudal captive mindset,” she said.
Noraini, who is the co-author of the book 'Sharing the Nation', added that the very concept of Ketuanan Melayu make her cringe as it evokes “notions of enslavement”.
In Malay classical terms, the word 'ketuanan' implies lordship over captives, which is a pre-feudal concept that is out of sync in 1957, 1963 and today,” she said.
Like Abdul Aziz, she warned against falling into the “trap” of Ketuanan Melayu, which she deemed as a “political project.”
Origins of Ketuanan Melayu
According to Yeoh, the term 'Ketuanan Melayu' first came about in a speech by former aide to then prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Abdullah Ahmad, who in 1989 said that Malays should be dominant in political leadership.
"It was a fairly benign speech and most of us have no problem with it, but it has been to mean Malay supremacy by some Umno leaders who don't necessarily know what it means,” he said.
He also said that the term should also be taken in context, as it came at a time when Umno was "at the throes of dispute” with Tunku Razaleigh Hamzah actively challenging Mahathir's leadership.
Yeoh added that the constitution only provides for special privileges for Malays in areas which already existed prior to independence, and that no new special preferences were to be added.
He contended that such affirmative policies may have actually weighed the Malay community down.
“Malays would achieve all that they have achieved, and maybe even more, without this divisive term that is Ketuanan Melayu,” he said.
Meanwhile, Kessler added that what the country is currently experiencing is the third dispensation of the Merdeka agreement made by the founding fathers, the first of which came in 1969 and the third in 1972 with the New Economic Policy.
“(The second dispensation) began to die in 1999… but continued to live on unnaturally from 2004 when the government thought all was forgiven, until what happened in (the) 2008 (general election),” he said.
It is therefore the hope, he said, that this third wave will “embody the spirit of the Merdeka agreement”, which had the purpose of developing an “inclusive and pluralistic” nation.
Indeed, Klesser argued that the second deputy prime minister, Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman had once said that “the unnatural continuation of (affirmative policies in aid of the Malays) would be an affront to Malay dignity.”
Friday, December 11, 2009
Home Ministry virtually encouraging tragedy to happen
Richard Teo
8 December 2009
Racist Remarks by Utusan
Any other mainstream media writing what has been written by Utusan Malaysia would have lost their licence to publish a long time ago. For some time now they have been writing inflammatory articles to incite the Malays to riot and perhaps cause another mayhem similar to the one that happened on May 13 1969.
But this Umno-controlled media seems to have a carte blanche right to publish articles that are seditious and inflammatory and yet does not even receive a warning from the Home Ministry.
This ploy to incite the Malays to hate the non-Malays on the one hand and to preach the '1Malaysia' concept to the non-Malays on the other hand is a desperate strategy by Umno to unite the Malays against the perceived threats of the non-Malays while subtlety reaching to the non-Malays with their rhetorical concept of a '1Malaysia' merely for electoral support.
One cannot imagine that Utusan Malaysia could have taken the bold step to write its inflammatory articles without the tacit support and agreement from the Home Ministry.
By condoning and allowing Utusan Malaysia a free rein to publish racist and inflammatory articles, the Home Ministry must bear full responsibility should any untoward accident occur as a result of their publications.
An impartial and responsible Home Ministry would have nipped in the bud this wanton act of sedition rather than allowing it to continue inciting hatred . By allowing Utusan Malaysia to continue fanning racial hatred through its publications, the Home Ministry is virtually encouraging a tragedy to happen.
The Legend of Dr. Mahathir
And looking back at Dr Mahathir Mohamad's 22 years of tenure at the helm of the nation, it is not difficult to comprehend why we lost so much money through looting by his family and his cronies.
His favourite moneymaking trick was to launch mega-projects and privatisation of government companies. His many mega-projects were fronts to dish out negotiated tenders to his children and cronies whereby sweet deals were quoted with price many times its actual value.
The more projects he launched and the more expensive the projects, the higher and better the profits which were accrued by the beneficiaries. And when his son's venture in the shipping business failed, he unhesitatingly used a government vehicle - the Malaysian International Shiping Corporation (MISC) - to bail his son out.
Bank Bumiputra which was a government-owned bank gave millions of unsecured loans to Mahathir's cronies and in the end all of them ended up as non-performing loans (NPL). In the end Petronas' oil money was used to bail out the bank. Similar bail-outs were later repeated for MAS, Bank Rakyat, Perwaja Steel and countless other GLCs.
His lack of business acumen saw the country lose heavily when he tried to corner the world tin market. It was conservatively estimated that his brief foray in the speculation on the tin market cost the nation a loss of RM20 billion.
There are still a lot of Malaysians who are foolishly ignorant of Mahathir's woeful tenure. He was not only a corrupt dictator who would not brook any dissent but he was also a racist too. Many of the instituitions which were created during his tenure had racist overtones. The Mara colleges (MRSM), UiTM and Biro Tatanegara were all his creations.
They all had one thing in common - they all catered for only one race with the exception of Mara colleges (*only matriculation course but not university courses) which later opened its door to allow a 10% non-bumi entry. The rest all had a racist agenda.
In short, time and history will not judge Mahathir favourably. His 22-year tenure saw the crumbling of all our government institutions which were once the pride of Asia. The judiciary, the attorney-general's department, the police force, the ACA, the civil service and virtually every instituition which was the cornerstone of a democracy became subservient to the executive.
Not only did they lost their independence and became servant and slave to the executive but they also lost whatever shred of integrity that they had.
It would not be wrong to credit Mahathir as the PM who destroyed the very fabric of Malaysia's democratic institutions which till today still bear the 'hallmarks' of his imprints.
8 December 2009
Racist Remarks by Utusan
Any other mainstream media writing what has been written by Utusan Malaysia would have lost their licence to publish a long time ago. For some time now they have been writing inflammatory articles to incite the Malays to riot and perhaps cause another mayhem similar to the one that happened on May 13 1969.
But this Umno-controlled media seems to have a carte blanche right to publish articles that are seditious and inflammatory and yet does not even receive a warning from the Home Ministry.
This ploy to incite the Malays to hate the non-Malays on the one hand and to preach the '1Malaysia' concept to the non-Malays on the other hand is a desperate strategy by Umno to unite the Malays against the perceived threats of the non-Malays while subtlety reaching to the non-Malays with their rhetorical concept of a '1Malaysia' merely for electoral support.
One cannot imagine that Utusan Malaysia could have taken the bold step to write its inflammatory articles without the tacit support and agreement from the Home Ministry.
By condoning and allowing Utusan Malaysia a free rein to publish racist and inflammatory articles, the Home Ministry must bear full responsibility should any untoward accident occur as a result of their publications.
An impartial and responsible Home Ministry would have nipped in the bud this wanton act of sedition rather than allowing it to continue inciting hatred . By allowing Utusan Malaysia to continue fanning racial hatred through its publications, the Home Ministry is virtually encouraging a tragedy to happen.
The Legend of Dr. Mahathir
And looking back at Dr Mahathir Mohamad's 22 years of tenure at the helm of the nation, it is not difficult to comprehend why we lost so much money through looting by his family and his cronies.
His favourite moneymaking trick was to launch mega-projects and privatisation of government companies. His many mega-projects were fronts to dish out negotiated tenders to his children and cronies whereby sweet deals were quoted with price many times its actual value.
The more projects he launched and the more expensive the projects, the higher and better the profits which were accrued by the beneficiaries. And when his son's venture in the shipping business failed, he unhesitatingly used a government vehicle - the Malaysian International Shiping Corporation (MISC) - to bail his son out.
Bank Bumiputra which was a government-owned bank gave millions of unsecured loans to Mahathir's cronies and in the end all of them ended up as non-performing loans (NPL). In the end Petronas' oil money was used to bail out the bank. Similar bail-outs were later repeated for MAS, Bank Rakyat, Perwaja Steel and countless other GLCs.
His lack of business acumen saw the country lose heavily when he tried to corner the world tin market. It was conservatively estimated that his brief foray in the speculation on the tin market cost the nation a loss of RM20 billion.
There are still a lot of Malaysians who are foolishly ignorant of Mahathir's woeful tenure. He was not only a corrupt dictator who would not brook any dissent but he was also a racist too. Many of the instituitions which were created during his tenure had racist overtones. The Mara colleges (MRSM), UiTM and Biro Tatanegara were all his creations.
They all had one thing in common - they all catered for only one race with the exception of Mara colleges (*only matriculation course but not university courses) which later opened its door to allow a 10% non-bumi entry. The rest all had a racist agenda.
In short, time and history will not judge Mahathir favourably. His 22-year tenure saw the crumbling of all our government institutions which were once the pride of Asia. The judiciary, the attorney-general's department, the police force, the ACA, the civil service and virtually every instituition which was the cornerstone of a democracy became subservient to the executive.
Not only did they lost their independence and became servant and slave to the executive but they also lost whatever shred of integrity that they had.
It would not be wrong to credit Mahathir as the PM who destroyed the very fabric of Malaysia's democratic institutions which till today still bear the 'hallmarks' of his imprints.
How racist are we all really?
By P. GUNASEGARAM
11 December 2009
The answer to and the reasons for that will provide real clues to what we should do to reduce racism in our midst.
THAT tirade and tiff between former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, does little to illuminate things in the ongoing debate about whether to change the curriculum of the Biro Tata Negara (National Civics Bureau) courses.
But their ongoing conversation – if you could call it that – over the media does provide some clues as to the underlying problems over those so-called “unity courses” that NCB has been conducting over the years.
In his typical style, Mahathir attempted to turn the tables on Nazri, who had called him a racist in response to Mahathir’s comments that the contents for the NCB course are, well, suitable for all Malaysians.
Malaysian politics have been rather racial right from the start. The three parties in the original Alliance which gained independence represented the Malays, Chinese and Indians, with Umno being the most dominant.
After the race riots of May 1969, the politics of race became much, much more pronounced especially with Umno’s attempts to redress the imbalance against Malays by drastic measures. It was that which laid the basis for those NCB courses, which often had the agenda of raising awareness of Malay rights, often to the exclusion of Malaysian ones.
It was, according to some of those who attended these courses, rather racial if not racist and while there were some non-Malays who attended these courses, the composition was predominantly Malay and dealt mostly with Malay rather than Malaysian issues.
There could have been yet another agenda. Umno derives its power from Malays and it was necessary for it to continuously court that from the Malays. There is little doubt that the NCB courses were used for this as well. If Umno’s coalition partners did not object, it was because Umno was dominant.
But things are changing. An increasing number of Malaysians are realising the dangers of racial division and lack of unity and feel the need to do something about it – something that will make all Malaysians feel they belong.
Somewhere along the line, we must realise that fighting for Malay rights (or Chinese, Indian, Kadazan, Orang Asli etc rights) does not ever make us more nationalistic — fighting for Malaysian rights does. There is no such thing as a Malay nationalist just as there is no such thing as a Chinese or any other but a Malaysian nationalist.
The day we all realise that, that is the day we will start thinking of ourselves as Malaysians first before anything else. That’s not an easy mindset to build because you have to destroy first the false edifices of more than half a century which extolled championing the rights of individual races.
History teaches us that all of us were at some time or other “pendatang” – it’s a question of when. Even the orang asli came here from elsewhere. Science tells us that we may have all descended from the African Eve tens of thousands of years ago.
And genetics tells us without a doubt that there is no inherent difference in our genes that makes us different in terms of intelligence or ability from anyone else.
Under our skin, our language, our religion and our culture we are much more similar than most of us realise. Education should make us realise all these beyond a shadow of a doubt.
When these are the true lessons that we choose to impart to our children, the process of integration becomes so much easier – we simply point out to them that we re basically the same and that our differences are artificial and perfectly surmountable.
You can debate about how much to help Malays and other disadvantaged communities and how you should go about this so that there is maximum benefit to the community as a whole instead of privileged groups and individuals.
But you should not have to debate about whether you or I or the other is more Malaysian. You are either Malaysian or you are not. The Constitution provides for only one class of citizenship. Measures put in there for the sake of social redress don’t count in terms of citizenship. Period.
A complete revamp of not just the NCB course is necessary but a dire need to change the entire way we look at race and Malaysians. We must emphasise national aspirations and de-emphasise racial ones. We must treat Malaysians equally.
If we help all disadvantaged Malaysians we automatically help disadvantaged communities more. That should be the basic thrust of policy — to help all Malaysians irrespective of race so that eventually race matters little and racism dies.
P. Gunasegaram believes in this quote from Freidrich Nietzsche (1844-1900): Insanity in individuals is something rare – but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.
11 December 2009
The answer to and the reasons for that will provide real clues to what we should do to reduce racism in our midst.
THAT tirade and tiff between former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, does little to illuminate things in the ongoing debate about whether to change the curriculum of the Biro Tata Negara (National Civics Bureau) courses.
But their ongoing conversation – if you could call it that – over the media does provide some clues as to the underlying problems over those so-called “unity courses” that NCB has been conducting over the years.
In his typical style, Mahathir attempted to turn the tables on Nazri, who had called him a racist in response to Mahathir’s comments that the contents for the NCB course are, well, suitable for all Malaysians.
Malaysian politics have been rather racial right from the start. The three parties in the original Alliance which gained independence represented the Malays, Chinese and Indians, with Umno being the most dominant.
After the race riots of May 1969, the politics of race became much, much more pronounced especially with Umno’s attempts to redress the imbalance against Malays by drastic measures. It was that which laid the basis for those NCB courses, which often had the agenda of raising awareness of Malay rights, often to the exclusion of Malaysian ones.
It was, according to some of those who attended these courses, rather racial if not racist and while there were some non-Malays who attended these courses, the composition was predominantly Malay and dealt mostly with Malay rather than Malaysian issues.
There could have been yet another agenda. Umno derives its power from Malays and it was necessary for it to continuously court that from the Malays. There is little doubt that the NCB courses were used for this as well. If Umno’s coalition partners did not object, it was because Umno was dominant.
But things are changing. An increasing number of Malaysians are realising the dangers of racial division and lack of unity and feel the need to do something about it – something that will make all Malaysians feel they belong.
Somewhere along the line, we must realise that fighting for Malay rights (or Chinese, Indian, Kadazan, Orang Asli etc rights) does not ever make us more nationalistic — fighting for Malaysian rights does. There is no such thing as a Malay nationalist just as there is no such thing as a Chinese or any other but a Malaysian nationalist.
The day we all realise that, that is the day we will start thinking of ourselves as Malaysians first before anything else. That’s not an easy mindset to build because you have to destroy first the false edifices of more than half a century which extolled championing the rights of individual races.
History teaches us that all of us were at some time or other “pendatang” – it’s a question of when. Even the orang asli came here from elsewhere. Science tells us that we may have all descended from the African Eve tens of thousands of years ago.
And genetics tells us without a doubt that there is no inherent difference in our genes that makes us different in terms of intelligence or ability from anyone else.
Under our skin, our language, our religion and our culture we are much more similar than most of us realise. Education should make us realise all these beyond a shadow of a doubt.
When these are the true lessons that we choose to impart to our children, the process of integration becomes so much easier – we simply point out to them that we re basically the same and that our differences are artificial and perfectly surmountable.
You can debate about how much to help Malays and other disadvantaged communities and how you should go about this so that there is maximum benefit to the community as a whole instead of privileged groups and individuals.
But you should not have to debate about whether you or I or the other is more Malaysian. You are either Malaysian or you are not. The Constitution provides for only one class of citizenship. Measures put in there for the sake of social redress don’t count in terms of citizenship. Period.
A complete revamp of not just the NCB course is necessary but a dire need to change the entire way we look at race and Malaysians. We must emphasise national aspirations and de-emphasise racial ones. We must treat Malaysians equally.
If we help all disadvantaged Malaysians we automatically help disadvantaged communities more. That should be the basic thrust of policy — to help all Malaysians irrespective of race so that eventually race matters little and racism dies.
P. Gunasegaram believes in this quote from Freidrich Nietzsche (1844-1900): Insanity in individuals is something rare – but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)