'Interlok a classic work of Malaysian racism'...... by CPI

'Interlok a classic work of Malaysian racism'

Written by CPI Friday, 25 February 2011 09:39

Commentary

In remarks for Malaysiakini (see below the M’kini article) following his open letter calling on the Government to withdraw Interlok as a literature school text, Dr Lim Teck Ghee expressed his dismay that the book with its racially tainted messages – both direct and indirect – could have been selected as a school text.

In fact, the literary merit of the novel is suspect. When Interlok was entered in the writing competition to commemorate the 10^th anniversary of Merdeka in 1967, it only won a consolation prize. Evidently the panel of judges did not think all that highly of Interlok then.

Why did a book that failed to suitably impress the literati of its time proceed to enjoy political patronage later, he asked.

It is not unreasonable to deduce that the book’s publication in 1971 (the manuscript being revived after languishing four years in obscurity) was agenda driven. The political scenario at that time, that is, the 1969 race riots and the introduction of the NEP in the following year, was rapidly evolving and veering to an outright Malay nationalism.

Dr Lim said the decision – made only last year – to include ‘Interlok’ in the reading list, is equally suspect as the 40-year-old book had in the interim not gotten any rave reviews from either the reading public or the writing fraternity.

In today’s terms, Abdullah Hussain would be deemed guilty of offensive stereotyping aimed at the minority communities whilst celebrating the virtues of the Malay race, culture and value system. Some quarters, in fact, see it as the classic Malaysian racist book, said Dr Lim.

He emphasised that nobody was calling for the book to be banned in the same way in which the Government has banned so many other books. However, it should not be in the prescribed literature curriculum and certainly not let loose on young and impressionistic minds.

More emphatically, it should be not made an exam text where students are liable to be coerced into giving an “officially correct” interpretation in their answer papers, and whose correctness is determined by the authorities marking the test.

Although some liberals may be tempted to invoke the concept of freedom of expression, Dr Lim countered that the same “freedom to offend” would not be granted if the offence was against the majority race.

He expressed concern at the prospect of racially biased literature teachers, mainly coming from one community and teaching the novel and its racially slanted messages. In his view, this would poison young minds and bring unintended harmful consequences to race relations in the country.

Dr Lim further described the selection of the special panel to review the book and remove its offensive bits as a politically motivated strategy which should have been rejected. He was surprised that the panel members would agree to have their hands tied right at the start and work only to deal with the so-called offensive parts.

The transparency of the exercise was suspect, he added, when previously the government had succumbed to the Malay pressure groups, citing the example of how the New Economic Model (NEM) mooted by the prime minister was held hostage by Perkasa.

Last month, an ultimatum had been issued by Federation of National Writers Association (Gapena) whose executive secretary Abdul Aziz Mohd Ali said that the only acceptable change that could be made to the novel was to add a glossary for the word ‘pariah’.

In Dr Lim’s view, it was not paragraphs or sections of the book that were at question although there were innumerable instances of racial stereotyping, historical errors and misrepresentation of Chinese and Indian culture and society.

Instead it was the sum total of the book that needed to be rejected. Although the rejection of the book on grounds of its unsuitability as a school text was not part of the terms of reference, he hoped that the review panel would have the courage to arrive at this decision in view of the overwhelming evidence presented on the racially offensive overall thrust of the book.

Whatever the outcome of the review process, he challenged Cabinet members to personally read the book – or translation of the book – and decide for themselves whether they would permit their own children to be exposed to it.

*******************************************

'Interlok a classic work of Malaysian racism'

Feb 24, 2011
Malaysiakini

Centre for Policy Initiatives (CPI) director Lim Teck Ghee has added his voice to calls for the novel Interlok to be removed from the Form Five Malay literature syllabus due to its perpetuation of “offensive stereotyping” of minorities.

This, while the controversial novel celebrates the virtues of the Malay race, culture and value system.

As such, Lim noted, it has led some quarters to see the novel as “the classic Malaysian racist book”.

In remarks e-mailed to Malaysiakini today, the former academician-turned-social activist said some may be tempted to invoke freedom of expression to justify maintaining the book as required reading in secondary schools.

That same “freedom to offend” would not, however, be granted if the offence were against Malays, he noted.

There is concern, furthermore, with the prospect of predominantly Malay literature teachers teaching students the novel and its racially-slanted messages.

While anger has been expressed mainly by Indian groups and politicians against the negative portrayal of the community in the novel - including the use of the term 'pariah' - ire has also been raised on the perpetuation of stereotypes relating to ethnic Chinese.

Stressing against the call for the book to be banned “in the same way in which the government has banned so many other books”, Lim said Interlok should not be in the prescribed literature curriculum and “certainly not let loose on young and impressionistic minds”.

It should be not made an exam text, furthermore, whereby students are liable to be coerced into giving the “officially correct” reading of the novel in their answer papers, and whose correctness is determined by the authorities marking the exam papers.

"This will poison young minds and bring unintended harmful consequences to race relations in the country,” he said.

Lim also questioned why the novel was now being made compulsory and enjoying "political patronage" when it had failed to impress the literati when it was first published in 1971 - four years after the manuscript had languished in obscurity, claimed Lim.

“It is not unreasonable to deduce that the book's publication in 1971 was agenda-driven. The political scenario at that time, that is, the 1969 race riots and the introduction of the NEP in the following year, was rapidly evolving and veering to outright Malay nationalism.

"The decision – made only last year – to include Interlok in the reading list, is equally suspect as the 40-year-old book had in the past not got any rave reviews from either the reading public or the writing fraternity,” he added.

Expressing surprise that members of the government panel tasked with reviewing the book for its “offensive bits” had agreed to working under such a limited scope, Lim said the transparency of the exercise was suspect, given that the government had reportedly succumbed to Malay pressure groups in other issues.

"It was not paragraphs or sections of the book that were in question, although there were innumerable instances of racial stereotyping, historical errors and misrepresentation of Chinese and Indian culture and society.

“Instead, it is the sum total of the book that needs to be rejected," he added.

Although the rejection of the book on grounds of its unsuitability as a school textbook is not part of the terms of reference, he hoped the review panel would have the courage to arrive at this decision in view of the overwhelming evidence presented on the racially offensive overall thrust of the book.

Whatever the outcome of the review process, Lim challenged cabinet members to read the book – or the translation of the book – and “decide for themselves whether they would permit their own children to be exposed to it.”

More against 'Interlok'

The Chinese Assembly Hall Youth also lent their weight against the novel.

Besides reinforcing the stereotype of Chinese and Indians as outsiders and immigrants, and the Chinese as deceitful and greedy, the novel also unconsciously promotes the idea of Malay supremacy, said chairperson of the Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall Youth, Ng Chong Soon.

Although this might destroy relations between the ethnic communities in the country, this "is exactly what a race-based political party like Umno would need to serve its political agenda", said Ng in a statement.

While freedom of expression should be respected,he added that narrow political interests should be kept out of education.

Echoing Lim's comments, he also said the novel is rich in racial discrimination and factual errors.

"For example, the Chinese Anti-Japanese Army was depicted as wanting to build a small China in Malaya. And Indians were described as thinking that the Indian government takes better care of the Indians compared to Malaya's government."

The Ministry of Education should not have amended the school syllabus and selected 'Interlok' as a compulsory textbook unless it is treated as an example of racial discrimination, Ng stressed.

Meanwhile, The Human Rights Party's (HRP) will hold an 'anti-Interlok' forum at the KL & Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall tonight, while the 'People's march in solidarity against Umno's racism' is set for Sunday.

'Interlok', written by national laureate Abdullah Hussein, became controversial when it was selected as a Malay literature textbook for Form Five.

Several parties then opposed it on grounds it contains words and incidents deemed demeaning to Indian Malaysians.

Education Minister MuhyiddinYassin had announced on Jan 27 that the novel would remain as a textbook for Form Five, but with amendments to parts deemed offensive by the Indian community.

------------ooooo00000ooooo-------------

Letter to the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers on Interlok as Literature School Text

Written by Dr. Lim Teck Ghee, CPI, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 19:07

Press Statements

Dear Esteemed Malaysians,

I am not sure if you have been following this issue which is not only causing concern amongst many Malaysians but it also has the potential to poison young minds through its insidious and divisive racial stereotyping and messages.

I feel that, purely on educational and pedagogical grounds, this book with its denigration of the various communities, and in the context of our multi-ethnic society facing one of the most turbulent periods of our history, should be subject to higher standards of acceptance before being designated as a reading text in our schools.

This is not to challenge the artistic freedom and independence of the writer in pursuing his craft and writing on any subject that he chooses. In our country there is a need for greater candor and honesty on all types of divisive issues, however sensitive there are. Writers and artists should be encouraged to write freely and without any restrictions; and all Malaysians should work harder to dismantle the constraints on our freedom of expression and other freedoms.

The concern over the Interlok book is not about restricting the writer’s freedom of expression or about its literary merits but it is about its harmful impact on young and impressionable minds in the context of our nation-building and 1Malaysia objectives.

I urge you (and other concerned Malaysians) to read the book and arrive at your own conclusion as to the desirability of retaining the book as a required literature text.

I, and many Malaysians, am of the opinion that the book should be withdrawn as a school text.

As the print media has not given sufficient coverage to the many critics of the book, I urge you – before you arrive at your own conclusion – to also take time in reading the analysis of the book and other feedback provided by concerned citizens. The following are some of the critical feedback to date that will be useful:

Hartal MSM, Chinese Sell Their Daughters in http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/from-around-the-blogs

Scott Thong, Chock Full of Insults Against Chinese Too in http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/interlok-chock-full-of-insults-against-chinese-too/

K. Pragalath, Imperative that the Public Lock Horns over ‘Interlok’ in http://english.cpiasia.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2129&catid=222

Jeyaseelan Anthony, ‘Interlok’: Scant understanding dangerous to schoolchildren in http://english.cpiasia.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2122&catid=219&Itemid=189

Interlok: Bishop calls for wisdom of sensitivities.... by Terence Netto

Interlok: Bishop calls for wisdom of sensitivities

Terence Netto
Feb 15, 2011, 8:36am

There is an urgent need for the wisdom of sensitivity to override other imperatives in the controversy over the literary textbook 'Interlok', said the head of the Roman Catholic Church of Melaka-Johor Diocese.

Bishop Dr Paul Tan, who is also president of the Catholic Bishops' Conference, speaking as the bishop of Melaka-Johor Diocese, said a literary text that is commended for the edification of youth in a multi-racial society should adhere to supra-partisan, supra-racial standards and values.

"By those standards, 'Interlok' won't qualify as a recommended text because there is cause for legitimate concern that it gets its history and sociology wrong," opined Bishop Tan, in comments made to Malaysiakini.

"'Interlok' has got its history and sociology wrong in much the same that a local preacher of the Muslim faith has got her facts wrong about St Valentine's Day and its supposed connection to Christian lifestyles," he elaborated.

"The ease with which some with a pedagogical role in Malaysian society get their historical and sociological facts wrong is a symptom of the gulfs that prevail and the difficulty that people of goodwill face when attempting to bridge them," he remarked.

"In situations such as this one, if you persist with a text like 'Interlok', you will only freeze people in the mental and cultural ghettoes they find themselves in and as consequence, you will make racial stereotyping easy and the desire to discover the difference between appearance and reality that much harder to promote," he expatiated.

Novel's subliminal message

Tan said he found in conversations with Hindu Malaysians a sense of their being selected for cultural and religious pummeling as a consequence of the results of the 12th general election of March 2008.

"There is a feeling that a minority is being specially selected for psychological punishment as a result of the way the vote went in the last general election.

"The book 'Interlok', in its historical and cultural miscues, is seen as a text that was selected for the goal of conveying the message that a subject people ought to compare their current status with the servitude they supposedly endured in the past," commented Bishop Tan.

He held the subliminal message of the novel was that the Indian minority in Malaysia ought to compare their plight in the light of times past and times present.

"This is a highly subjective ethos which is not suitable for the edification of youth who at the school-leaving stage ought to be fed with reading material that projects universal values and themes," he said.

He also said putting one's religion, culture and ethnicity above others goes against all sense of a desire to dialogue, understand and accept others as they are, which is the foundation of the unity of a people.

For that reason, Bishop Tan said the Education Ministry should reconsider the selection of 'Interlok' as a literary text for Form 5 students and replace it with a choice that elevates rather than estranges our youth.

Malaysia Chronicle Malaysia: Now, a gap between image and reality by Wong Choon Mei

Malaysia: Now, a gap between image and reality

by Wong Choon Mei, Malaysia Chronicle

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW Former U.S. ambassador John Malott created a major stink here with a recent opinion-editorial entitled The price of Malaysia’s racism published in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week.

Not only did Malaysia's famous cyber community come out in full force to either praise or criticise his article, but the BN government and its support groups also rushed in to counter what they called his "spin".

No less than Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin ran him down, as did Perkasa chief Ibrahim Ali. The government-controlled mainstream press did what they could to damage-control and the New Straits Timeseven ran an op-ed of its own hotly, refuting Malott's views and accusing him of being a stooge for Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim.

Malaysia Chronicle decided to seek some answers and sent off several questions to him, which he has kindly taken the trouble to reply to. The Q&A is published below without editing changes to any of his answers.

In his reply, Malott reveals that he had offered to write an exclusive op-ed for NST to explain his stand. He suggested the title “There Once Was a Dream Called Malaysia”but does not think the paper will accept his offer.

The former ambassador sees the Pakatan Rakyat as a credible opposition but declines to predict who will win the next General Election. He also believes Malaysians are a "patient lot" and this is why a Tunisian or Egyptian scenario is unlikely to play out here.

Very tellingly, he complains that Malaysia is now overly about image these days and what you see may not be what you get. He counter-accuses the Najib administration of "spinning", "condoning and even provoking" racial and religious tensions.
 
"If anyone is spinning today, it is the Malaysian Government. There are few foreign experts on Malaysia, and it is rare for the foreign press to report on Malaysian developments. I thought it was important for people outside Malaysia to know that there is a real gap between the image they are trying to convey overseas and the reality on the ground."

"There are religious and racial tensions in every country, but I wanted people to know that in the case of Malaysia, the Government itself is condoning and even provoking those tensions."

Appended below is the full text of the Q&A conducted through email:
(1) Chronicle: You have been accused of writing your WSJ op-ed for ulterior purposes - spinning was the word DPM Muhyiddin used. Is this true and why?

Malott: I had no ulterior motive. I have been thinking about this subject for a long time, and I wrote the article out of growing concern for Malaysia’s future. I don’t think I was spinning anything.  I tried hard to keep it factual. Years ago, when I wrote speeches and memos for the State Department, I learned that you will be challenged, so be sure that you are accurate and can prove everything you say. It is interesting that people say I was spinning or had my facts wrong, but no one has pointed out anything that was incorrect. People can disagree with the analysis and my conclusions, but the examples and statistics I gave are all documented.

It is not at all unusual in the US for former government officials to write or comment on their areas of expertise. When you watch CNN today, there are plenty of former US Ambassadors and State Department officials talking about the situation in Egypt, for example. There is no ulterior motive. They just want to help people to be better informed.

(2) Chronicle: Both the DPM and Ibrahim Ali have accused you of having links or being sponsored by Anwar Ibrahim. Is this true? If not, why do you think they made such conclusions?

Malott: I am not sponsored by Anwar, I do not lobby for him, I am not his advisor, he does not tell me what to think and say, and no one pays me to do what I do. I never consult with him or anyone else before I write about Malaysia. He sees my articles when everyone else does.

My wife and I became close to Anwar’s family after I left the State Department, during the time that Anwar was in jail.  We stayed in touch by phone and email, but it was all personal and not political. We wanted them to know that someone cared and that they were not forgotten. I am sure that the Special Branch was monitoring Azizah’s phone and emails, so we would never talk politics. I did not want to put her in a difficult position. We would call up the daughters on their birthdays and send cards and so on. My wife even wrote a book about Azizah, called “Struggle for Justice.”

As most people know, I was very vocal in those days, supporting the call for Anwar’s freedom. As the Ambassador at the time he was arrested and beaten up, I knew what the truth was, and when I became a private citizen in 1999, I decided that I would speak out. To my mind, Anwar was a political prisoner, and I knew that a great injustice had been done. I was not going to remain silent, especially at a time when so many others were afraid to speak up. Nobody could arrest me, because I was in America. I would tell people that my goal was Anwar’s freedom, but it was up to the people of Malaysia what his political future would be.

When I was Ambassador, I knew Anwar only on a professional and official basis, just like the other Ambassadors did. When he came to Washington to be a visiting professor at Johns Hopkins and Georgetown, it was the first time that I got to know him personally. Anwar was traveling a lot in those days, making speeches, so we did not see him as much as we did the family. Sometimes the girls would come over and we would barbeque chicken together, or Hiroko would teach them how to make sushi.

Anwar refers to Hiroko and me as “family friends.” But we have no professional or official relationship with each other. Since some people in Malaysia like to call him an American agent, I think the last thing he would want is to be connected to me in other than a personal way. We are friends, but I do think we share a common vision of Malaysia’s future and the kind of country it could be.   
   
(3) Chronicle: What was the real motivation for your article? Given the responses so far, do you think you have achieved your objective? Did you have an objective when you wrote the story?

Malott: As I said earlier, I am very concerned about developments in Malaysia. The growing racial and religious tensions are one part of that. I had something that I wanted to say, and I said it. I also think that the Malaysian economy should be growing faster than it is, that its competitiveness is declining, and it is losing its attractiveness for foreign investors.

If anyone is spinning today, it is the Malaysian Government. There are few foreign experts on Malaysia, and it is rare for the foreign press to report on Malaysian developments. I thought it was important for people outside Malaysia to know that there is a real gap between the image they are trying to convey overseas and the reality on the ground. There are religious and racial tensions in every country, but I wanted people to know that in the case of Malaysia, the Government itself is condoning and even provoking those tensions.  Even today I read that the Government’s Islamic Affairs Department wants to ban Valentine’s Day because it is a Christian celebration. I don’t know any Christian who thinks that Valentine’s Day – exchanging cards or giving someone chocolate -- is a religious ritual.

I have been surprised by the positive reaction to the article. It has gotten more attention than anything I have ever written. And I am very pleased to see so many Malaysians engage in a good discussion of the issues in the comments sections. Of course there are a few cybertroopers who are bashing me, but just like Ibrahim Ali, they just rant and rave and call names, but they don’t have anything to say about the substance of the issue, and they can’t point out anything that is incorrect.

(4) Chronicle: Some commentators have said you wrote from the point of view of only the non-Malays and did not take into account the sensitivities and struggles of the Malays? Do you think there is some basis to this view and why?

Malott: I agree with criticism that I did not focus on the attitudes that some Chinese and Indians have towards Malays. But that is all at the private level. We cannot stop people from believing what they believe. But what I was talking about, and the examples I gave, were the words and actions of the Government and its senior officials. They were not speaking as individuals or like a “man on the street.” They are the Government. In addition, the government, as a matter of policy, has institutionalized some forms of discrimination, like the two examples I gave -- the 30% set-aside for stock and housing discounts.

Toward the end of the article, I pointed out that there are now two clear and different visions of Malaysia’s future – are we a Malaysian country or a Malay country. Those differing views are also held within the Malay community. In a way Mahathir represents both views. Years ago he was Mr. Bangsa Malaysia, and now he talks about Tanah Melayu.

When I read the comments on the different websites, I saw that there were many Malays who wanted me to know that it was not just Chinese and Indians who are leaving the country, but also Malays who feel that their personal future is bleak. But I don’t know whether that is because of the economic slowdown, or because getting ahead is still all about connections and who you know rather than what you know, or because they side with the opposition and not the Government.

As for the struggle and sensitivities of the Malays, I have been following that discussion. But it seems that just as not everyone can agree on Malaysia’s future, people also cannot agree on Malaysia’s past. I don’t think I could contribute much by jumping into that kind of internal discussion. I am not an expert on that part of Malaysia’s history.

(5) Chronicle: Given the feedback that you have received in the past two days, do you still stand by your story and would you retract any particular part or make any amendments?

Malott: No, I am very happy with the article. I would not take out or change anything. Like any op-ed, there is a limit on the number of words you can write. In some places I wish I could have said more, but there wasn’t enough space.

I saw that the New Straits Times had an op-ed criticising what I wrote. I read it three times but still don’t understand what the writer was trying to say. But I did send an email to them saying I would be happy to write an op-ed for them, explaining my views. Of course, I am sure they will never agree.  But I do feel like I would like to say something more on this subject, at the right time. I already have a title in mind – “There Once Was a Dream Called Malaysia” – that’s a takeoff from the movie “The Gladiator.” But the editors always write the titles, not the author. The editor at the AWSJ wrote the title over my op-ed. I thought he summed up the article very well. There will be a price to pay if the Government doesn’t change its actions.

(6) Chronicle: You spent several years in Malaysia and we understand you keep very close contact with the country and the developments in the neighboring nations as well. What sort of immediate political future do you see for Malaysia when the next GE takes place? Who do you think will win? Also, a lot of people have predicted Egypt and Tunisia scenarios happening here, do you think so?

Malott: There is an American baseball player, Yogi Berra, who is famous for saying, “I never make predictions, especially about the future.”  There also is another saying, “a week is a lifetime in politics,” meaning that things can change very rapidly. So I really don’t want to predict the outcome.

I think that BN and PR present very clear alternatives for Malaysia’s future. Even between the two Malay parties, UMNO and PAS, I think there is a clear difference. All Malays are Muslims, but I think UMNO is more about race and being Malay, and PAS is more about being Muslim. Race is the starting point for UMNO, while Islam is the starting point for PAS.

Malaysia now has a credible opposition for the first time in its history. I think the Malaysian people will be given a real choice about their country’s direction.  It is up to the Malaysian people to choose.

As an outsider, my concern is that the elections should be fair. I have seen and studied elections in many countries. I think it is hard for the opposition in Malaysia, because they have to campaign with one hand tied behind their back. The Government controls the airwaves, and opposition newspapers cannot be sold to the general public. The police can deny permits or harass political gatherings, as we have seen.  The Election Commission is not truly independent, and so on.

I don’t see a Tunisia or Egypt scenario playing out in Malaysia. In general I think Malaysians are a very patient lot, and other than 1969 there is no real history of political violence. If anything starts to happen, I think the RMP would not hesitate to crack down, as they have in the past.

(7) Chronicle: Lastly, could you tell us if you hold any official role currently?

Malott: No, I do not hold any official government position. I left the State Department in 1999, and I don’t have any intention or desire to return to government. I am happy with what I am doing today.

malaysiakini: Mahathir was right, wasn't he? ... by Josh Hong

Mahathir was right, wasn't he?

Josh Hong
malaysiakini, Feb 11, 2011
11:23am

 

Mahathir Mohamad had wanted to read law in London. Despite his outstanding results, his application for a scholarship to do so in London was allegedly overlooked by the British colonial administration during the post World War II chaos. Philip Bowring, a senior columnist, once conjectured this bitter experience deepened Mahathir's subcontinental anti-colonial stance.

Yet the failure to follow in the footsteps of Tunku Abdul Rahman (right) and Abdul Razak Hussein - both of whom later became prime minister - to obtain a law degree did not stop the eloquent but sharp-tongued man from establishing himself as a ruthless politician whose career would span more than five decades.

In fact, his flair for wordplay and ability to manipulate people's intelligence have been so impressive that even a seasoned commentator by the name of Tom Plate is willing to reconsider the definition of 'Islamic fundamentalism' and acknowledge him as a 'moderate Muslim Machiavelli'!

Recently, many have been outraged by Mahathir's rancorous remarks that the Malay peninsula used to be widely known as Tanah Melayu and non-Malays should readily accept the language and culture of the 'dominant' race. Mahathir, of course, became a 'constitutional Malay' by ditching the Indian side of his heritage and would love to see the entire Malaysian population do the same.

But why do the non-Malays only protest out loud whenever the resentful man says things that are seen to be racist against us?

Over the years, no politician has insulted the Malay community more than Mahathir, the self-styled 'Malay prophet'. Time and again, he trampled on the dignity of the ordinary Malays, almost turning the practice into pastime.

In the book, The Malay Dilemma, that made him an overnight superstar, he adhered to the colonial understandings of the Malays and argued that the community must fight pervasive 'indolence' tooth and nail in order to become successful like the Chinese and Indian immigrants. Whenever his political fortunes were threatened, he would not hesitate to resort to blaming the non-Malays while chastising the Malays for being 'ingrates'.

Clearly out, but not down

At the height of the reformasi movement, he openly criticised the Malays who had turned against him for being 'haprak' (useless), and lamented their 'forgetfulness' (Melayu mudah lupa) just before he 'stepped down'. He is clearly out, but not down.

In all these instances, virtually no non-Malay lifted a finger and rebutted Mahathir. In fact, many were quietly gleeful because Mahathir had spoken on something that they had long perceived to be the 'Malay disease' but would not be able to say it publicly.

For all the cry over racism and ethnic divisions among Malaysians, I am rather surprised very few have actually realised whenever Mahathir churns out race-centric statements, he only aggravates the mistrust between us.

To unite the Malays behind him, he would say the Chinese (and the Indians to a lesser extent) are a threat because they are 'economically dominant'. Many Malays would perhaps nod in agreement. He then turns around and tell the world he has 'failed' to raise the Malays as a successful people because their 'laziness' is too ingrained. This time, the non-Malays would applaud in private and feel vindicated.

Hence, each and every uproar that Mahathir creates only ensures there is plenty of heat but absolutely no light. Where does all this lead us?

Back in the 1990s, when the economy was booming and the stock market flourishing, much of Malaysia was indulged in making money while looking for a more affluent future. It was during these 'good old days' that Mahathir dismantled public integrity with corruption and an iron rule.

He also continued to sow seeds of racial and religious discords as the wider society was blinded by a false sense of material comfort. In other words, we were all bought off although all the evil legislations and injustices that we look askance at today had always been there.

I still believe The Myth of the Lazy Native by the late Syed Hussein Alatas is a seriously under-appreciated book, at least in comparison to Mahathir's racist and ill-researched Malay Dilemma.

As Syed Hussein Alatas rightly points out, it was the Spanish, Dutch and British colonialists who, having been disappointed by the refusal of the native populations in the Philippines, Java and the Malay peninsula to participate in the exploitative colonial capitalism, came up with the theory of 'native indolence' which also assessed the contribution of the migrant communities rather positively.

The Malays, with land of their own to toil, were naturally uninterested in working for a colonial administration that would suck up most of the benefits at the end. But the migrants had no option but were forced into a form of slavery, especially the Indians. For the Malays, it was a rational choice to be out; for the non-Malays, it was a compulsion to be in.

This divide-and-rule policy ensured minimal contact (and hence understanding) between races, and effectively prevented a cross-ethnic anti-colonial movement from being formed.

Distorted by colonial discourse

When colonial rule became untenable in the 1950s, the British were ready to hand power to Umno in return for economic interests. The MCA and the MIC joined in as freeloaders. The extent to which the race-based coalition went to exploit race issues in the latter years clearly put the British to shame.

Precisely because our perception of race is so much distorted by the colonial discourse, we often feel Mahathir is right to run down the Malays, not knowing that much of the Malay community holds the same stereotype of the Chinese and the Indians.

We never really believe the Malay fisherman in Terengganu, the street wantan mee seller in KL, the Indian rubber-tapper in Kedah and even the seriously marginalised Penan in Sarawak are equally hardworking and facing risks of various kinds. Why should they be stigmatised by politicians who only seek to divide the working class people just to safeguard their ill-gotten gains?

Mahathir may appear to be a Malay fighter, but he has been internally colonised for much of his life. He would go around the country urging the Malays to work hard, but is never bothered to explain how did his children become billionaires at a young age.

Twenty-two years of his rule only has only left the country with an entrenched culture of corruption and disappearance of public integrity. While we must respect and defend even his freedom to speak, we must search deep in ourselves as to whether we, too, have been poisoned by his racial profiling.


JOSH HONG studied politics at London Metropolitan University and the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. A keen watcher of domestic and international politics, he longs for a day when Malaysians will learn and master the art of self-mockery, and enjoy life to the full in spite of politicians.

malaysiakini: Malott painted only half the picture of racism... by Umar Mukhtar

Malott painted only half the picture of racism

Umar Mukhtar
Feb 10, 11
4:58pm

John Mallot has waded into the debate on Malaysian race relations with half an analysis when obviously a fuller one would have been of greater service to the discourse. Granted, his piece was intended more than anything else to be a critique of Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak's handling of the current situation in the country.

However, in doing so, he has highlighted only the non-Malay responses to what is described as Malay racism. This is very misleading and the reason for my saying that he had written only half an analysis of the situation.

A more robust and honest assessment of race relations in Malaysia would take into account the fact that what appears to be Malay racism is in itself a response to non-Malay racism against Malays.

Yes, two wrongs do not make a right. But as the saying goes, “It takes both hands to clap”. That is to say, Mallot's article runs the risk of completely absolving non-Malays from any responsibility in the racial predicament that the country is in. That is nothing less than avoiding reality and counter-productive to any effort to improve race relations in Malaysia. Malays have their grievances, too, against the Chinese. The fact that they seldom get aired does not make those grievances any less legitimate or valid.

Education for the very young is one obvious area where racist attitudes can be nipped in the bud. The importance for racial integration to begin at a young age is recognised, so much so that in the 1960s and 70s, the US supreme court sanctioned the forced busing of students in order to break down the racial segregation between white and African-American schools. That was in America.

In Malaysia, a different approach towards early education was adopted. In concession to the non-Malays, especially the Chinese, vernacular education was retained as part of the national school system. The liberalism was well-intentioned and in line with the spirit of Malaysia's constitution whereby minority communities are given the right to use and develop their own languages.

In practice, and perhaps this was unforeseen by Malaysia's founding fathers, the national-vernacular dichotomy in the school system has resulted in precisely the kind of early-age racial segregation that the busing laws, upheld by the U.S. supreme court justices, sought to eradicate in America. While desegregation of schools may or may not result in greater racial integration, segregation virtually guarantees that there will be no racial integration.

The racial polarisation that we see so shamelessly capitalised on by politicians in Malaysia today is partly, if not wholly, attributable to that segregation in the school system. When you see not a few non-Malays unashamedly, even proudly, declaring that they cannot properly speak Malay, the national language, you can bet your life that these are the ones who graduated from the vernacular schools. This is forty-four years after Malay was declared the national language.

The Chinese community jealously guard the existence of the vernacular schools, implicitly reinforcing the message of their racial and cultural separateness and exclusivity, but yet insist that they should not be looked at as the 'other' by Malays. For many Malays, including this writer, that smacks of having your cake and eating it, too.

Often the excuse given by the Chinese for insisting that their children go to vernacular schools and for more such schools to be built is the poor quality of national schools. Surely the solution is not to build more racially-segregated schools but to join hands with Malays and Indians in insisting and ensuring that the quality of national schools be improved for the benefit of children of all ethnicities. Perhaps that is considered such an outlandishly 'out-of-the-racial box' thinking that I have never heard any Chinese make that call.

Any sincere and honest effort to improve race relations has to take cognizance of the fact that racism exists in and racial discrimination is practised, to one extend or another, by all the races in Malaysia.

However, my own honest observation is that the Chinese never want to admit or acknowledge their own racism against Malays or other races.

Official and overt discriminatory policies can easily be criticised as institutionalised racism but covert racial discriminations by their very nature are harder to pinpoint. That does not mean they don't exist or any less invidious than the former.

When a “Mandarin speakers only” requirement is stated in job advertisements, even for jobs which do not conceivably require much language skills, that surely is equivalent to saying “Chinese only”. But you will be hard put to find any Chinese who would admit that the practice is racially discriminatory.

When Malaysia's most famous blogger, Raja Petra Kamaruddin, related some years ago in his blog how Chinese businesses ganged up to ensure the failure of his motorcycle dealership, none of his Chinese readers cared to acknowledge that he was the victim of racism. His was probably just the tip of the iceberg of similar cases.

And it's always with a mixture of amusement and sadness when I read the many comments on the Internet from non-Malays complaining about the racial policies of the Malaysian government which scarcely conceal their own racism towards Malays in general.

If Mr Mallot doubts the truth of what I am saying, he should read the comments that followed the publication of his recent article in Malaysian news portals.

To many Malays, given the refusal of non-Malays to even acknowledge their own racism, the prospect of a rollback in whatever few affirmative action policies left on the plate appears to be concessions which are unlikely to be matched in a similar spirit by the Chinese in the spheres that they predominate, namely the commercial and economic.

If Najib can be accused of pandering to militant Malay groups, Chinese political leaders in the government and opposition, too, can be accused of pandering to their racial constituency.

In my lifetime, I have yet to hear of any Chinese leader asking that the Chinese to join in and contribute towards the betterment of national schools.

I have yet to hear of one calling for Chinese businesses to assist or at least not to gang up against their fellow non-Chinese businesses or to not practice discrimination in their employment policies.

Mallot failed to take into account one side of the equation in his brief exposition of the race relations situation in Malaysia. Hopefully, I have managed to redress that and allow a better understanding of why things are the way they are in Malaysia.

It would have been more gracious of Mallot if he had used his relationship with Malaysians during his tenure as a diplomat to impart his country's experience and firm action with regard to vigilance against the emergence of the evil that is racism, than to make things worse by dogmatically adopting the attitude that sympathising with the minority makes one righteous.

-----------ooooo00000ooooo-------------
Comments:

justice seeker Yes Mr Rick Teo, I totally agree with your comments. Now the govt is slowly "TALIBANISING" our national schools. Hence it is natural for the non muslims to sent their children to vernacular schools.

Anon_65b our education system has gone to the dogs..don't believe me??...check this out:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c846qznCcEU...this dude is the state director of the education dept....telling isn't??

TwoPartySystem Umar, it is not true that job advertisement with ""mandarin language " requirement are reserved only for Chinese. There are many Chinese who are english educated and do not write or speak mandarin as well.

Broken Foot If the national schools are of a decent quality, I am certain all other races will send their children there. It is a known fact that the schools have deteriorated so badly that even the Malays are complaining. This, again is a product of the government politicising the education system. The Malays have been complaining about flip flop policies and the government is not listening and you expect they will listen to the non-malays. Its all about mind control and you don't even realise that. This is to pepetuate their grip of the Malay mind and to keep them in power. Education is about expanding the mind but that will cause them to loose control of the Malays as it is happening now. I say bring back English education.

Broken Foot You're correct. Two wrongs does not make a right. When the Chinese are prejudiced against the Malays in business as you have mention, does that gives UMNO, the party in power prejudiced against all other races in the country in all other spheres. Instead the should find ways to tackle that behaviour. Follow the American model in enacting laws that will deny one race being prejudiced against another. A good example is equal employment opportunity act, anti monopolies act and anti trust act etc.etc. The fact of the matter is that UMNO is not interested in a level playing field for anybody except themselves, and that include other Malays. They are the goverment of the day. They forget that they are suppose to protect the interest of all races.

rick teo I forgot to mention that up to 60,000 of malays are now registered in vernacular schools in Malaysia.In some schools many chinese and malay schools could not enrolled in the school of their choice because it was so popular that the schools were full to the brim. Infact some schools even gave preference for malay students over chinese students. If the chinese are racists would they have opened their doors to such a huge influx of malay students to their schools? This alone refutes what the writer said that the chinese opt to study in chinese schools in order to be racially segregated.

rick teo During my time, vernacular schools were so unpopular among the chinese that most voluntarily closed for lack of srudents. Most chinese and indians were all in favour of National schools. The medium of instruction was english and bahasa was one of the main language. Many of us chinese grew without learning a word of mandarin. We proudly wanted to master english because it was the language of commerce and science. To have a bright future we knew we had to master english and not chinese or Bahasa malaysia. Then why the exodus of chinese to vernacular schools? It was not the learning of Bahasa or the desire to be racially segregated as espoused by the writer but because of the gradual introduction of religious practice which was absent before. In addition all the teachers were replaced with only one race and many of them were religious bigots. I suggest the writer examine what I have said and see if it is true. I rest my case.

rick teo For someone who can write so fluently and I surmised an educated gentleman, I feel sad that the writer can twist and distort racial discrimination in this country. I dont know the age of the writer but I was educated in the National school during our Bapa Malayisa era., Tuanku Abdul Rahman, our first P.M I have witnessed the degradation of our education system through five P.M. I enjoyed my time in the National school then but what I saw in the slow islamisation of the National schools made me decide to send my children to vernacular school not because I ddnt want my children to mix with malay or indian boys or learn Bahasa Malaysia but but because I was shocked at the disrespect I saw happening in National schools towards other race and religion. They recite doa during class and assembly and whenevr they feel necessary and expect the non malays to accept them. That didnt happened during my time in National school. Whatever religion we prayed, it was always done at home,not in school

Anonymous_3f15 who make our education system so fragmented? ask Dr M..

DontPlayGod What Umar Mokhtar failed to point out, or he failed to realize is that racism and discrimination by the Malays against the non-Malays is official policy and institutionalized. Just look at the federal, state, and GLC's scholarships handed out for the last 40 years. Just look at the Pengarah's, deputy pengarah's of Government departments, the ministers, the mayors of K.L. from day one, etc. Just look at the billion ringgit projects...... etc. etc. The examples are too glaring. Yes, there is also racism against the Malays by the Chinese, but this is on a societal level, just like there is racism in every level of society in all communities all over the world. But it is only here in Malaysia in the whole wide world where racism is official and institutionalized. Over to you, Umar.

Guest Dear Umar Muhktar, I think you are missing the point. What John Mallot suggested was that the Government lacked the political will to mitigate racial tension by quoting specific examples. On the other hand, your letter implies a 'tit-for-tat' approach and launch a broadside against one particular community. If I may add, perhaps your letter was a shallow attempt to justify without any real 'conviction' as forum participant Equal had put it.

Pemerhati All forms of racism by all ethnic groups need to be highlighted (as Umar has done) and condemned. Only then can Malaysia change and improve for the better. Raja Petra Kamarudin, who was the victim of Chinese private sector racism, sees the big picture and highlights the serious defects in the present BN Government (e.g. the massive corruption and the apartheid like and Nazis style supremacist policies) and the urgent need for change to a different leadership which would lead to the establishment of a two party system of Government. Once a change in Government (say to PR) takes place there would be an immediate savings of tens of billion ringgit due to the elimination of blatant corruption by BN and a reduction or elimination of capital flight which in 2008 amounted to a few billion ringgit per week. The new leadership should then look at the other crucial problems and find ways of creating an excellent school system with which all ethnic groups would be happy as in Singapore.

2 hours ago · Report

ksn If we have national schools like S'pore where mother tongue is taught(Ido not know it is compulsory) without fail, then there is no problem. That will be a good start towards checking racism. Who is going to garantee that requirement and need? The Chinese have no faith in the UMNO govt unless it is in the Constitution. Even constitution like Article 153 is abused! Going one step beyond, what about other areas like employment in the civil service, business opportunities, scholarships, places in the Us, meritocracy, poverty eradication, skills training etc. Every aspect of our life is racially biased against non-Malays. That is racism, briefly, in Malaysia. So getting rid of vernacular schools is not going to help at all. Other garantees must be in place, monitored and enforced without discrimination by race. See what happened under NEP? It does not look good. Even UMNO, assuming it has the back bone and foresight to overcome racism, the ultras will not permit it.

Blogsmith Encik Umar, tahukah dalam sekolah kebangsaan, ada cikgu Melayu yang diskriminasi terhadap orang bukan Melayu. Lagi, ada oleh kerana dasar NEP ada ramai cikgu cikgu yang tidak cekap mengajar Bahasa Inggeris, Mathematics dan Sains. Kami yang ada pengaruhan yang bagitu nipis boleh mengubah keadaan itu kah? Itu alasan kami tidak hantar anak anak kami ke sekolah kebangsaan. Encik Umar. Walaupun mungkin ada overt discrimination (harap tidak luas) tapi itu bukan dari orang bukan Melayu sahaja. Tanpa NEP dan lain lain, pun ada diskriminasi orang Melayu terhadap orang bukan Melayu. Itu malang kejadian seluruh dunia. itu boleh jadi sebab kenapa harus ada diskriminasi RASMI terhadap orang bukan Melayu kah? Supaya hampir tak ada peluang orang bukan Melayu menjadi kakitangan kerajaan dan lain lain.

Not convinced I think the best way out of this is to pass a Race Relations Act or an Equal Opportunity Act. It will make discrimination based on race, gender and sexuality illegal. A number of individuals and groups have mooted this intiative, the latest being Chinese education group Dong Zong. See http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/140751 But I guess Malaysia, for obvious reason, is not ready for it. So the blame game, from both sides, will continue.

SusahKes What you say has bearing in real-life situations in Malaysia. The sad truth is man's heart will always accomodate some form of discrimination - whether it's race, gender, disability. Some things are hard to legislate. Having said that, the creation of equal opportunities in areas mentioned above, is not above the government of the day. Eg, the gov'n can make it mandatory that jobs do not stipulate racial preference. I agree, it's not easy to put rules & determine a man's value system, but with some rules & enforcement, we can probably eliminate 50% of race based actions. Nevertheless, we must not disregard the main issue, & that is UMNO/BN USE race as a means to simply stay in power & get rich - not cos they care for the Malay race per se. Consider that the income gap in this country is widest among the Malays. That itself tells you of the failure of UMNO. If there are those who practice sublime racism, then UMNO ought to have taken the bull by the horn, instead of perpetuating it.

NuckinFuts Our education system and sekolah kebangsaan system have gone to the dogs. Malaysian education policies are not founded and backed by statistics. Education policies change at the Menteri's whim. Changes are put in place but they were not announced or debated in cabinet but during Perhimpunan UMNO. With the education ministry making flip flop decisions year in year out that are like Russion roulette with our children's future, do not blame parents for finding other better places to educate their children. When you know that your drinking water is contaminated and stale would you keep forcing it on your children and family?

Equal A very shallow attempt to cover up a stink with a piece of tissue paper.

Blogsmith Encik Umar, Saya Bangsa Malaysia walaupun kerajaan kami anggap saya orang Cina. Apakah logik ini, tak fasir cakap Bahasa Malaysia atau Bahasa Melayu bermakna tak setia atau racist? Hantar anak ke sekolah Vernacular dan bukan sekolah kebangsaan bermakna tak setia atau racist? Sejak tahun 70 puluhan yang lepas, kami pun sedar bahawa negara Cina akan menjadi negara penting dan dengan penduduk penduduk yang bagitu ramai akan menjadi pasaran yang bagitu besar. Itu sebab kami hantar anak anak kami ke vernacular school oleh dengan pengenalan bahasa Mandarin mereka akan ada peluang kerja yang lebih luas. Itu bukan racist. Lagi, lama dahulu, saya hantar anak saya ke sekolah nasional. Apa berlaku. Di sana, cikgu dia sebulum mula kelas akan berdoa secara Islam. Orang beragama Islam memang takut anaknya dipengaruhi oleh agama lain dan akan bantah kalu Cikgu Kristian bermula kelas dengan berdoa secara Kristian. Sama juga kami yang beragama lain. Itu racist kah?

TMI: The price of Malaysia’s racism — by John R. Malott

The price of Malaysia’s racism — John R. Malott

TMI: February 08, 2011

FEB 8 — Malaysia’s national tourism agency promotes the country as “a bubbling, bustling melting pot of races and religions where Malays, Indians, Chinese and many other ethnic groups live together in peace and harmony.” Prime Minister Najib Razak echoed this view when he announced his government’s theme, 1 Malaysia. “What makes Malaysia unique,” Najib said, “is the diversity of our peoples. 1 Malaysia’s goal is to preserve and enhance this unity in diversity, which has always been our strength and remains our best hope for the future.”

If Najib is serious about achieving that goal, a long look in the mirror might be in order first. Despite the government’s new catchphrase, racial and religious tensions are higher today than when Najib took office in 2009. Indeed, they are worse than at any time since 1969, when at least 200 people died in racial clashes between the majority Malay and minority Chinese communities. The recent deterioration is due to the troubling fact that the country’s leadership is tolerating, and in some cases provoking, ethnic factionalism through words and actions.

For instance, when the Catholic archbishop of Kuala Lumpur invited the prime minister for a Christmas Day open house last December, Hardev Kaur, an aide to Najib, said Christian crosses would have to be removed. There could be no carols or prayers, so as not to offend the prime minister, who is Muslim. Hardev Kaur later insisted that she “had made it clear that it was a request and not an instruction,” as if any Malaysian could say no to a request from the Prime Minister’s Office.

Similar examples of insensitivity abound. In September 2009, Minister of Home Affairs Hishammuddin Hussein met with protesters who had carried the decapitated head of a cow, a sacred animal in Hinduism, to a Hindu temple. Hishammuddin then held a press conference defending their actions. Two months later, Defence Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi told Parliament that one reason Malaysia’s armed forces are overwhelmingly Malay is that other ethnic groups have a “low spirit of patriotism.” Under public pressure, he later apologised.

The leading Malay-language newspaper, Utusan Melayu, prints what opposition leader Lim Kit Siang calls a daily staple of falsehoods that stoke racial hatred. Utusan, which is owned by Najib’s political party, has claimed that the opposition would make Malaysia a colony of China and abolish the Malay monarchy. It regularly attacks Chinese Malaysian politicians, and even suggested that one of them, parliamentarian Teresa Kok, should be killed.

This steady erosion of tolerance is more than a political challenge. It’s an economic problem as well.
Once one of the developing world’s stars, Malaysia’s economy has underperformed for the past decade. To meet its much-vaunted goal of becoming a developed nation by 2020, Malaysia needs to grow by 8 per cent per year during this decade. That level of growth will require major private investment from both domestic and foreign sources, upgraded human skills, and significant economic reform. Worsening racial and religious tensions stand in the way.

Almost 500,000 Malaysians left the country between 2007 and 2009, more than doubling the number of Malaysian professionals who live overseas. It appears that most were skilled ethnic Chinese and Indian Malaysians, tired of being treated as second-class citizens in their own country and denied the opportunity to compete on a level-playing field, whether in education, business, or government. Many of these emigrants, as well as the many Malaysian students who study overseas and never return (again, most of whom are ethnic Chinese and Indian), have the business, engineering and scientific skills that Malaysia needs for its future. They also have the cultural and linguistic savvy to enhance Malaysia’s economic ties with Asia’s two biggest growing markets, China and India.

Of course, one could argue that discrimination isn’t new for these Chinese and Indians. Malaysia’s affirmative action policies for its Malay majority — which give them preference in everything from stock allocation to housing discounts — have been in place for decades. So what is driving the ethnic minorities away now?

First, these minorities increasingly feel that they have lost a voice in their own government. The Chinese and Indian political parties in the ruling coalition are supposed to protect the interests of their communities, but over the past few years, they have been neutered. They stand largely silent in the face of the growing racial insults hurled by their Malay political partners. Today over 90 per cent of the civil service, police, military, university lecturers, and overseas diplomatic staff are Malay. Even Talent Corp, the government agency created in 2010 that is supposed to encourage overseas Malaysians to return home, is headed by a Malay, with an all-Malay board of trustees.

Second, economic reform and adjustments to the government’s affirmative action policies are on hold. Although Najib held out the hope of change a year ago with his New Economic Model, which promised an “inclusive” affirmative action policy that would be, in Najib’s words, “market friendly, merit-based, transparent and needs-based,” he has failed to follow through. This is because of opposition from right-wing militant Malay groups such as Perkasa, which believe that a move towards meritocracy and transparency threatens what they call “Malay rights.”

But stalling reform will mean a further loss in competitiveness and slower growth. It also means that the cronyism and no-bid contracts that favour the well-connected will continue. All this sends a discouraging signal to many young Malaysians that no matter how hard they study or work, they will have a hard time getting ahead.

Najib may not actually believe much of the rhetoric emanating from his party and his government’s officers, but he tolerates it because he needs to shore up his Malay base. It’s politically convenient at a time when his party faces its most serious opposition challenge in recent memory — and especially when the opposition is challenging the government on ethnic policy and its economic consequences.

One young opposition leader, parliamentarian Nurul Izzah Anwar, the daughter of former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, has proposed a national debate on what she called the alternative visions of Malaysia’s future — whether it should be a Malay nation or a Malaysian nation. For that, she earned the wrath of Perkasa; the government suggested her remark was “seditious.”

Malaysia’s government might find it politically expedient to stir the racial and religious pot, but its opportunism comes with an economic price tag. Its citizens will continue to vote with their feet and take their money and talents with them. And foreign investors, concerned about racial instability and the absence of meaningful economic reform, will continue to look elsewhere to do business. — The Wall Street Journal

* John R. Malott was the US Ambassador to Malaysia, 1995-1998.

We have to speak up.... by P. Ramakrishnan, President of Aliran

We have to speak up

by P. Ramakrishnan
President of Aliran
12th January 2011

JAN 12 — We have every reason to be concerned. We wonder where this nation is heading for and what is in store for us.

From the civil servant to the Umno politician, it is the same story: The non-Malays are “pendatang” (immigrants) and don’t have any citizenship rights. The rights conferred by Article 8 of the Federal Constitution are not respected or protected.

When an extreme group like Perkasa questions the citizenship rights of the non-Malays, the national leadership does not take them to task.

When extreme elements in Umno berate and denigrate the non-Malays, the top Umno leadership does not chastise them.

When one Umno delegate at the recently concluded general assembly had the temerity to suggest that the non-Malays be given the right to do business but should be denied the right to vote, nobody pointed out that it was against the constitution and that he should not be talking through his nose!

It is this disturbing silence when atrocious things are said which affect our unity that is worrying. It is this unbecoming conduct that encourages the extreme elements amongst us to be outrageous in their conduct and prompt them to continue with their seditious remarks.

It is this vocal minority that is predominant in our society and influences the trend of policy. Our political leaders dare not condemn them outright.

Utusan Malaysia fans the race-baiting and gives the widest publicity without bothering to be responsible or sensible. When the powers-that-be that own and control this press do not force it to fall in line, what do we make of this?

A nation can make or break depending on the unity of its citizens. Today our unity is threatened. And if concerned voices and responsible leaders and caring Malaysians do not rise up and speak up, we will be a fragmented nation.

By our silence, we will contribute to the chaos that may ensue.

TMI: History syllabus and textbooks.... by Dr Lim Teck Ghee

History syllabus and textbooks – Dr Lim Teck Ghee

TMI: January 01, 2011

JAN 1 – The Ministry of Education has finally replied to concerns raised by many Malaysians that the teaching of Malaysian history has been debased through changes in the syllabus and textbooks.

However the letter by the Corporate Communications Unit of the Ministry totally ignores the allegations and makes no attempt to address the specific and general concerns articulated in the media and the internet.

Instead, the reply is a public relations job detailing non-Malay participation in the writing of text books and referrals made in recommending text book writers. This is insufficient to allay concerns or refute the allegations made of the political bias, crass nationalism and blatant Islamization that have come to dominate the history syllabus and text books.

Now that various names have been made available to the public, the onus is on these individuals identified in the Ministry letter to step out of the shadows and to vouch for the high standards and integrity of the syllabus and textbooks process put in place by the Ministry.

One of these select experts – Dr Ranjit Singh Malhi – has already spoken out.  What do the others – presumably paid for their services by public funds – have to say in response to the charges of a racialized, politicized and religiously propagandistic process that has infiltrated and subverted the history text book and syllabus system?

The history syllabus is presently undergoing revision.  This is the right time for those named in the Ministry’s letter, as well as others that have been participating in these expert panels and textbook work, to come clean and provide some feedback to the public on what is wrong with the current system and what should be done to ensure that the Malaysian history taught in schools has a truly balanced perspective of the contributions of all ethnic communities and civilizations.

Besides Dr Ranjit Singh Malhi, those mentioned in the Ministry’s roll of honour owe the hundreds of thousands of students who will be required to spend many hours memorizing and regurgitating what the Ministry decrees to be the true history of Malaysia and the world no less than their full and honest disclosure and appraisal of the system, its products and probable outcomes – a system that the Ministry is imputing has not only their full participation but also their endorsement.

There are larger issues as well that we need to debate vigorously in the public sphere. Will the teaching
of history, especially in its current form, foster patriotism and national unity? Or will it result in greater racial and religious polarization?

There have been no studies as well as empirical evidence showing that the enhanced teaching of history will bring about the wildly optimistic ends that the Minister of Education has publicly pronounced.

Should history be made a compulsory pass subject?  And does this imply that more hours in the schools and greater attention should be given to the teaching of history?

How useful is the emphasis on history, Malay studies and Islamic studies to the student population in schools and in the universities?

The outcome of the emphasis on cultural and religious learning and knowledge (including history) in our national schools and universities has been disastrous, especially for Malay students. It has resulted in poorly trained low quality human capital unable to meet the needs of a competitive global market and lacking the flexibility, open-mindedness and adaptive knowledge to contribute to economic development and national productivity.

Does the Government not see that this misguided move to strengthen the teaching of a racially and religiously bigoted history may in fact reinforce the culture of alienation and poverty that is at the root of many of our social and economic problems?

Instead of emphasizing the importance of history and other narrowly cultural-religious subjects in the schooling system (religious learning has a place but it should be in the private sphere of the home, and not in the public sector) the Government should prioritize the teaching of science, mathematics, computing, communications, English and other related subjects that are internationally acknowledged as the main drivers of innovation and intellectual capital.

If the Minister of Education is hell bent on making his mark in history the wrong way – and at the expense of our precious young minds – it is incumbent on his Cabinet colleagues to put him right.  But perhaps they do not give a damn since their children and grand-children are studying in private schools and abroad.

* Dr Lim Teck Ghee is the director of the Centre for Policy Initiatives.

TMI: NUJ blames racist editors for Utusan’s circulation drop... By Adib Zalkapli

NUJ blames racist editors for Utusan’s circulation drop

By Adib Zalkapli
The Malaysian Insider, January 01, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 1 – National Union of Journalists (NUJ) president Hata Wahari blamed Utusan Malaysia editors and what he called their racial rhetoric for the daily’s declining sale.

He also called on the authorities to act against Utusan Malaysia editors for fanning racial sentiment in its reports.

“Utusan Malaysia which used to enjoy daily circulation of 350,000 has now become government’s propaganda tool in playing up racial issues and creating discord among the people of various races,” said Hata (picture) in a statement today.

“NUJ Malaysia also calls on the authorities to act against the chief editor and other editors of Utusan Malaysia for undermining racial harmony in the country,” he added.

Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC) figures for the full year ended June 30, 2010 showed that Utusan Malaysia’s circulation dropped from 181,346 to 170,558, or a drop of 5.9 per cent.

“NUJ Malaysia hopes that the chief editor and editors of Utusan Malaysia will revert to the objectives of the newspaper during the early days of its publication,” said Hata who is also an Utusan Malaysia journalist.

The Utusan Group was founded in Singapore in 1939 by Malay intellectuals including the republic’s first president Yusof Ishak who were critical of the then colonial government.

The company is now controlled by Umno and Utusan Malaysia has been accused by Pakatan Rakyat (PR) leaders promoting racial hatred in its reporting.

It had accused Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng of being anti-Malay and recently launched an attack against DAP’s Serdang MP Teo Nie Ching for alleged failure dress appropriately in her visit to a mosque.

“Failure of the authorities to take action against Utusan Malaysia chief editor and editor would only show that they are consenting to the agenda of creating racial discord in the country by a racist and undignified newspaper,” said Hata.

He also urged editors of other mainstream dailies that have suffered declining circulation to stop from being government propaganda tools.

“The union also asks editors of mainstream media especially Utusan Malaysia, New Straits Times, Berita Harian and the The Star to play the role of disseminating information to the public and not as propaganda machinery of the government, political parties, or any individual,” said Hata.

The ABC report also showed that The Star’s circulation dropping from 295,479 to 286,409 (-3.1 per cent), the New Straits Times from 120,770 to 109,341 (-9.5 per cent), and Berita Harian from 183,187 to 160,597 (-12.3 per cent).

Sales of the three newspapers and Utusan Malaysia have been falling these past five years, with all but The Star registering drops of 20 per cent or more between 2005 and 2009.

So-called “light reading” newspapers like Malay-language Harian Metro and Kosmo, on the other hand, continue to go from strength to strength, posting higher sales numbers this past year on top of already impressive circulation numbers.

Kosmo was the biggest winner with a massive 32.9 per cent jump in circulation from 129,633 last year to 172,252 this year. Harian Metro also managed to chalk up an impressive 11.8 per cent rise in circulation to 378,354.

The weekend editions of both newspapers, Kosmo Ahad and Metro Ahad, saw similar increases of 35.1 per cent and 11.5 per cent, respectively.

All Chinese-language papers managed slight single-digit bumps in sales this past year, with the exception of Guang Ming Daily which slipped by 2.67 per cent to 95,158.

Circulation for Sin Chew Daily went up from 374,757 to 382,578 (2.1 per cent), China Press from 159,034 to 160,841 (1.1 per cent) and Oriental Daily News from 97,882 to 103,827 (6.1 per cent).

Free paper The Sun recorded a 4.38 per cent boost in circulation from 287,935 to 300,512.

Deepavali — and darkness precedes light — Dr David KL Quek

Deepavali — and darkness precedes light — Dr David KL Quek

The Malaysian Insider, November 06, 2010

 

NOV 6 — The wondrous thing about Malaysia is that we have so many celebrated festivals — both ethnic and religious — that provide for so much festive cheer, even if so many of these appear to be more and more socially-contrived and state-sanctioned goodwill and camaraderie.

Some of us lament the fact that many such events have lost their spontaneity and genuine warmth that used to showcase our “Malaysian”ness. Many subscribe to these engineered social events out of sheer political affiliation or the availability of free lunches. But they do give that picturesque semblance of the Malaysian brand, even if they appear cheesy or superficial.

Nevertheless, public holidays also provide for some of us, sporadic commentators, the much-needed time to time-out and perhaps to reminisce and reflect.

Deepavali or Diwali, as the Festival of Lights for Hindus, is one of those special celebrations that should offer us that opportune moment to contemplate where we are once again in the post-election aftermath of March 2008, for the much-anticipated political awakening, and our tottering attempts at social and political change for the better.

Prior to this, the fearless Hindraf movement burst upon the Malaysian scene to spark the improbable impudence of people power, perhaps igniting for the very first time in a long while, the demand for empowerment of a long-suffering downtrodden people. Light from darkness, which embolden perhaps many other citizens to awaken from their long slumber of sociopolitical apathy.

More than five decades of nationhood should provide us with the experience and the audacity to establish and behave as a nation, which truly “can do”, mature in every aspect of human development and social egalitarianism. We should already have a unifying national vision, which empowers and incorporates every citizen to partake of our immense wealth, our consecutive good fortunes and our shared aspirations. Much remains to be done. It also means that we have to work more cohesively to garner greater momentum as a whole, to hopefully realise our collective goal towards becoming a fully developed nation by 2020.

Yet, truth be told, we are beset with greater sociopolitical and religious divisiveness than ever before. The more ethnocentric and religious-minded nowadays shun inter-ethnic contacts for religious or other reasons. Neighbourly cross visitations and social interactions are also becoming fewer and shallower, because many worry about the political or peer correctness of their actions. Worse, many are contemptuous of and disdain the other, fanned by parochial misinformation!

Thus, there is that heightened sense of religiosity and/or ethnic superciliousness that breeds growing avoidance of others different from the self or group. There is that comfort zone indulgence which generates even greater insularity, narrow-mindedness, and plain tribalistic intolerance.

Most if not all are wary of sharing and eating “tainted” non-halal food from unclean crockery and utensils. There is the fear that cross visits might also be construed as pandering to politically-incorrect ideas, as condoning idolatry or worshipping of different gods and deities, fear of labels of heresy (kafir-mengkafir), or insult to their religiousness, etc.

Let’s be brutally honest about this: our tolerance towards one another has been wearing very thin, of late…

Still, our open houses are unique and should serve as auspicious opportunities to foster closer interethnic and inter-religious understanding and tolerance. Well, at least they are supposed to do so, for those who dare or who are brave and liberal enough to surpass their fears or prejudices of the ethno-religious unknown or uncertainty.

How is it that many years ago such tensions never seem to deter our natural inclinations, our sincere if inattentive cohesiveness, despite the broken “pasar” Malay, the strongly accentuated stereotypes of ethnic peculiarities, which continue to evoke laughter and jest in a “cosy” if crude and sometimes irreverent manner? What has happened?

Why have we become so different and divided as we move through these 50-odd years of supposed maturity into a nearly-developed nation, to have become more and more separate and isolated within our own communities, so long a part of our Malaysian history and brand?

As we gather and celebrate our diversity and extraordinary relationships, we must learn to understand and delve deeper into our special circumstances, which make us Malaysians unique in the happenstance of history. We must learn to celebrate our nurtured schema of multiculturalism, so much touted in this uncertain world of disparate and widening chasms. We must strive to eschew the so-called “clash of civilisations”.

Indeed, isolated if intermittent incidents of ethnic and religious outbursts in Malaysia provide a microcosm of the possible civilisational tensions which exist in the world today. It is arguable if Malaysia and our authorities have handled our discords well, or evenhandedly at that. But, there is no template the world over, of what is the right thing to do; we just have to do better! We must find better alternative approaches than mere confrontation and headstrong immovable tit for tats.

Our leadership must robustly and clearly guide the moral direction of where we want our nation and our Malaysia to go, without wishy-washy flip-flopping pronouncements, which only pander to opportunistic bigots and partisan groups! But this is not to say that we should usher in a new era of authoritarian dictates; this should never be the case. Nor should there be intimidating and selective sanctions by the arguable applications of the rule of law!

Simmering tensions and subterranean anger continue to plaque our cohesiveness, our unity — which increasingly appears fragile and sometimes ostensibly shattered by shameful acts of irrational bigotry and repeated hurtful rhetoric by aggressive chauvinistic politicians.

Slogans of progressive and moderate civilisational Islam or Islam Hadhari, notwithstanding, most non-Malay and non-Muslim Malaysians are increasingly feeling isolated and alienated. Malaysian Indians and Chinese, with their unflinching advocacy towards cultural and linguistic “identity” and unrelenting demands for education in their mother tongues, continue to rankle detractors who consider such a “separate” system as divisive towards nation building.

But, unfortunately, the ethnocentric fears of educational standards and opportunities, of perceived biased religious or racial overtones (at the expense of the minority religions and cultures) are not readily understood by the authorities, which are seen to have increasingly dispensed with wider multiethnic input or inclusiveness.

Recent exposures of BTN propagandist lecturers and racist outbursts by some school principals underscore the doctrine of inherent intolerance among even the most senior of civil servants. It is not unreasonable to expect that many more similar incidents might not have been exposed. Schools and the civil service are, therefore, becoming more and more mono-ethnic and mono-religious in character.

In fact, our entire civil service is now so mono-ethnic that this doctrine of separateness has become so entrenched that we have become “them and us”! There is that expected “ketuanan” relationship of top-down approach (not necessarily of genuine respect and regard), but also a reciprocal, if insincere and begrudging obeisance.

This only begets even more divergent undercurrents of separateness, anger, envy, feeling of unfairness, snide contempt and possible abhorrence. Outwardly, there is that superficial acceptance, deference and unspoken tension. This probably extends to their relationship with other authorities such as the police, the military and other agencies. Thus, non-Malays are more and more driven into a “minority cluster”, which is merely tolerated but not really accepted.

One surprising pronouncement of PM Datuk Seri Najib Razak during the Umno general assembly only underscores the separateness of the Chinese and the Indians in Malaysia, when his concept of who is a Malay now encompasses literally everyone else who is Bumiputera, and anyone who adopts Islam as a religion and practises customs and language of the Malays, or whoever is Muslim, notwithstanding their recent origins from within or outside the actual boundaries of the nation…

Unfortunately, such a declaration only serves to marginalise the non-Muslim non-Malay Malaysians all the more. We may no longer be called “pendatangs” but we are also not among the “favoured” citizens as well. Such is the interpretation of the so-called “social contract”, based on but not explicitly stated in Article 153 of the Federal Constitution. Worse we are now urged not to question or raise these concerns, that we must refrain from discussing this “social contract” so that inter-communal harmony can be preserved in the nation!

This concept of differential citizen’s rights runs counter to most nations around the world where full citizenship rights — apart from “jus soli” (citizenship acquired by birth within the territory of the state, regardless of parental citizenship) — are based on one’s economic or special contribution, and where one’s preferred choice of nationality is based on the individual’s special qualities or contributory worth, and takes precedence over any religious or ethnic differences. Once we become citizens or are born one, then shouldn’t we all be equal before the law?

How much one is willing to sacrifice to the greater good of any form of discriminatory citizenship would sorely test the resolve of a modern global citizen, no matter the patriotism that one wishes to inculcate or even indoctrinate!

Such would be the dilemma of the Malaysian-born non-Malay in a globalised world, where one’s professional or technical expertise, natural talent or financial worth would dictate preference and attraction to most countries around the globe. How can we now talk about talent retention and attraction to boost Malaysian intellectual property strength and power, when the core principles of fairness and merit are not sacrosanct?

How then can one find meaning and purpose in our individual and collective resolve to belong, to be an integral part of that Malaysian dream, especially if one is a born Malaysian but of “wrong” ethnic origin? Should this really matter at all?

“Malaysian citizenship, at its very core, was not based on equality but it was made to fit the reality (of the country’s) long-term goals and interests,” says Najib. So does this mean that one’s interpretation of “history” cannot be allowed to change with the times?

How then can we simply say that such is the inflexible and immutable quirk of fate and history that we are but unequal citizens, for all time? Yet, we are exhorted to be selfless responsible citizens who would subsume ourselves for the greater good…

But like Lim Teck Ghee and others (malaysiakini: Malaysians ready to discuss ‘social contract’), I believe that “the Malaysian public has reached a level of political maturity that we can have a rational and public debate on the way forward in terms of any inter-communal accord or understanding arrived at, and on what needs to be honoured and respected.”

Just gagging such discussions would otherwise cause the riptides of feelings of injustice and discrimination to slowly but surely corrode and destroy the so-called accord of working together as a united Malaysian team. Silencing rational debate would undermine the expected positive contribution that we hope for, from all the collective talent and entrepreneurial prowess of our citizens!

The highly competitive globalised economic climate would demand that every single citizen pull his/her own weight to productively contribute towards nation building if we wish to prosper, as we work towards 2020 and beyond! There will be no free-lunchers, no stowaways, no tolerance or margins for errors or wastage…

Let’s make every Malaysian count and be counted, and not shortchange or undermine his/her loyalty to become a full-fledged, fully committed citizen.

From the darkness of introverted ethnic communalism, let there be light! Let the festive lights of Deepavali enlighten our cobwebbed mindsets and help illuminate a new bold path for all Malaysians!