Malaysian Digest: Open Letter to Chua Soi Lek.... By Kee Thuan Chye

Open Letter to Chua Soi Lek

By Kee Thuan Chye
Wednesday, 12 January 2011
Malaysiandigest.com

Dear Soi Lek,

You are a highly educated person and one with the ability to think. As such, you are probably aware that the welfare of this nation rests on more than just the MCA winning its share of seats at the next general election and remaining in the coalition that holds the power to decide the fate of Malaysia.

You are probably aware that the way forward for Malaysia is renouncing the way of the Barisan Nasional, led by Umno, falling back on an outdated decades-old formula. And that if you and the MCA continue to collude with the other parties in BN to retain power, you are subscribing to practices that could lead the nation to racial rifts and economic ruin.

Would you not agree with me that at this point in our history, as we stand at this crucial crossroads deciding which is the best path to take, national politics should no longer be race-based?

If you do agree, what then is the rationale for the MCA to continue to exist as an ethnocentric party?

What is the rationale for you and your party members to stick with Umno which avowedly fights for the Malays and the MIC which avowedly fights for the Indians?

How long more do you see this ethnocentric equation taking hold of the lives of Malaysians, causing strife from time to time when disputes arise over who should get what and how much? We’ve had 53 years of that; isn’t it enough?

Which is more important for you and your MCA colleagues: To stay on in BN in order to reap the rewards of being in government positions, or to do something that will ensure the honour and integrity of your party and of yourselves? I cannot tell you what that thing is which you could do to gain rectitude. You have to find it yourself.

But as you search for an answer, perhaps you would like to reflect on how strong the MCA’s position really is within the BN coalition for the party to achieve its aims. Are you, for instance, contributing to inter-racial understanding and harmony? How could that be when you have to speak up against any threat to the position of the Chinese? How could that be when Umno must speak up against any perceived threat against the Malays?

It’s a game full of contradictions, isn’t it? You can’t have one and the other, can you? In fact, your attempts over the past several months to speak up for the Chinese – indeed, for the country as a whole – clearly illustrate this.

Last August, after the Malaysian Chinese Economic Congress, when you called on the Government to gradually remove the 30 per cent Bumiputra equity in all sectors of the economy, you were immediately jumped upon by Umno deputy president Muhyiddin Yassin. He even warned you about May 13.

A few days later, in your interview with a Malay-language newspaper, you had to soften what you had said, clearly showing your vulnerability.

Even Umno vice-president Hishammuddin Hussein told you to “stick to the struggles of BN”. What are they? Do you know?

You were even a target of criticism at the Umno general assembly last October. A delegate slammed you for saying that the social contract should not be discussed openly.

Then at the BN convention last month, you called for a ban on the use of the term “Ketuanan Melayu”, and you told Umno it should not approve government policies during its supreme council meetings. But straight away, Hishammuddin said you had upset many BN leaders, including those in the MCA.

This boggles the mind. What you said was absolutely right – how could Umno take it upon itself to decide on government policies when it is only one of the component parties of BN? Does the MCA have no say? So how could MCA leaders be upset by what you said? Have they become Umnofied themselves? Have they become slaves of their masters? Or, as former Perak menteri besar Nizar Jamaluddin said, “running dogs”?

If so, what dignity is left in them? And in you, if you continue to serve the MCA within the BN fold?
Isn’t it obvious, too, that what you say doesn’t count for “doodley-squat”, as the American novelist Kurt Vonnegut would call it?

To be brutally honest, what good is your speaking up when you are still within the same cabal and your partners not only disagree with you, they don’t respect what you say?

As you have probably been informed, people outside don’t give much credence to your speaking up, anyway. They think it’s just a sandiwara act to merely give the impression that you are standing up for what is right. But it’s just an act.

I admit that going by the issues you have been bringing up recently, you are highlighting the fact that things are not being done right, and that your political partners should be held accountable. I might even hazard that you are at least concerned. What I fail to see, though, is your commitment.

For instance, at the MCA general assembly last October, Umno president Najib Razak told your party right within your own premises to be less communal and less demanding. Did you have an answer to that? Did you tell him in return to ensure that Umno would be less communal too? Did you tell him that the MCA was not being more demanding, that it was merely asking for what is guaranteed all Malaysians?

You see, I believe you know what is right for the country, but you are not willing to go all the way to ensuring that what is right prevails. If you were, you would not continue with the current regime. You would press for reform.

Surely, you would not disagree with me if I said the judiciary needs to be independent, that it needs to regain the trust of the people? The same with the police, the mainstream media and the civil service?

Surely, you would not disagree with me if I said our education system needs to be totally revamped to institute quality and regard for merit?

Surely, you would not disagree with me if I said that the way we award government projects needs to be transparent to eliminate cronyism? Or is that too tough a call after your appointment as Penang Port Commission chairman, a move that raised many eyebrows?

Above all, surely you would not disagree with me if I said we need a government that is clean; tells the truth; follows the rule of law; uses public funds for the people’s sake rather than for its own; and upholds the country’s institutions rather than abuses them for its own advantage?

Do we have such a government today?

If we did, you would not have said what you said last Dec 5 – when you called for each BN component party to have an equal voice and to share power “genuinely”; when you said BN had to change to be inclusive, multi-racial and to put the people first.

I know how to read between the lines, Soi Lek, and what you said that time said a lot about the coalition your party is part of.

Do you think it is capable of responding to your calls for change? Right now, looking just at the Cabinet line-up, we can see what a far cry it is from the days of Tunku Abdul Rahman. Will we ever see an inclusive government that has non-Malay ministers for the portfolios of Finance, Trade and Industry, or Defence? That no longer looks at skin color but at ability, integrity and character?

I think you might better serve the people by taking the first step that leads away from race-based politics. If you choose to do that, you will be blazing a trail. And that could bring honor not only to you but your party as well. Unless, of course, you’re a politician first and a public servant last. Then all I’ve been saying here would be worth doodley-squat.

Sincerely,
Chye

TMI: The future!! Happy people!? Beautiful country!? by Ahmad Mustapha Hassan

The future!! Happy people!? Beautiful country!? — Ahmad Mustapha Hassan

December 22, 2010

DEC 22 — In the 50s and the early 60s, when I was actively involved in the struggle for independence, I was more than convinced that with independence the country would experience a future full of promise, stability, prosperity, with a happy  and united nation.

During the colonial period, economic activities had been segregated by race. The British were only interested in making as much as possible from the country. The arrangement that they had created had served them well.

Independence would mean the integration of all these activities, and as such, there would be interactive relationships among all. The breaking down of these segregated economic walls, however, did not materialise in a systematic and speedy way. Thus conflicts occurred.

Remedial measures were carried out but it was hijacked by greedy and self- centred politicians. Instead of moving forward, the country went backwards and more acute problems arose. The vision and goals of independence had been thrown into the gutter. We thus moved towards a failed state status.

This is the problem faced by all former colonies. Leaders after tasting power, instead of taking care of the welfare of their people, took care of themselves first and forever. The people remained poor and neglected. Just see the conditions in the African states. See what is happening in Myanmar. Malaysia is no better. See the palaces built by politicians in power.

In Malaysia, to remain in power and continuously rape the wealth of the country, race is used to frighten the followers, that if they abandoned this (greedy) leadership, their future will be in jeopardy.

In fighting for independence, the people were cajoled to support the cause but after the achievement of independence, the people are again coerced into fear of their future if they abandoned the current leadership.

Race is the menacing factor that is being used to their personal advantage, that it will threaten the stability of the country. Not only that, it will also bring about intense communal feelings.

For failure to improve the lot of the Malays, the powers that be encouraged the phrase emphasising the supremacy of the Malays — “Ketuanan Melayu”. This never cropped up during the struggle for independence, nor was it ever used after independence. Only now suddenly it rears its ugly and venomous head, to frighten the non- Malays.

Naturally, a much wider chasm is created and the authorities simply have turned a blind eye to what it has unleashed. The agenda is to create divisions as done by the British colonial powers for self enrichment. But it must be remembered, this is the 21st century and not the late 19th or the early 20th centuries.

The environment and the scenario have changed and the situation is now wrought with all kinds of happenings that can become examples for fear and suspicion. Killings and ethnic cleansing in the name of race have become common occurrences.

The world too has become a smaller place and with that people are no longer incapable of sizing things up. People turn to emigration to escape what they feel may be an impending catastrophe. Even the Malays have no hesitation leaving the country as they feel things have gone too far in this mania of seeking wealth without regards to the welfare of others. The country is suffering from brain drain and only the corrupt are happy with this.

The situation cannot go on like this indefinitely. It is bound to proceed towards disaster. Children in schools have already been made familiar with racial profiling. Teachers are no longer dedicated in their professions. Instead of showing good examples to the students, they have become the source of creating tensions among the students with their brainless comments about the races in the country. But the authorities have shown reluctance in meting out stern action against these recalcitrant so-called teachers.

As long as they are Malays, they can commit these hideous acts and the government will try to provide excuses for their unpardonable acts.

The non-Malays will fall into a different category. Any slight excuse, they will be hauled up as what had happened to the young man Namewee. The young man will be persecuted for all kinds of reasons. This is done to satisfy and pacify the Malay communal extremists.

That racism has been on the increase in the country cannot be denied. Evidence is everywhere, be it in the social sphere, economy or even education.

The activities of the Malay ultra group have only pushed the other racial groups to emphasise more on their own well being and not that of the country. This is the direct result of not stopping the actions and utterances of those advocating the supremacy of the Malays.

The government only talks of racial unity but very little positive action has taken place. Even the governing political party has not moved towards integrating all the parties into one single political entity.

Of greater danger, however, is not the racial element but the religious aspects. This is a much more vicious and serious threat to the country. Unless the country maintains its secular nature and eliminates the dominating character of the religious authorities, the future does not augur well.

Although Islam is the official religion of the country, it does not mean that Islam overrides the interest of other religions in the country. The unwarranted religious conversions have to stop and the episodes of body snatching will have to be put to an end.

These incidents have caused a lot of family sufferings and the government must not condone such acts. The government will have to be bold if it wants to safeguard the future of this country. The Syariah courts now seem to be having the upper hand in every family dispute. The courts will naturally support the Muslim member of the family at the expense of the other members. The civil courts have been reluctant to play its role in all these conflicts.

This only brings about a sense of injustice to the aggrieved parties. They have no recourse to correct the injustice that they suffer. The government has not acted on these conflicts for fear of antagonising the religious zealots.

A church that was erected by the Orang Asli who professed the Christian faith was demolished on reasons that could easily had been overcome and the word “Allah” has been banned from use by Christians although in East Malaysia, the word had been in use for a very long time.

The Fatwa Council has become very powerful. Their approach is always negative in nature. Instead of trying to bring about the understanding of Islam to a wider circle, it functions as if everything about Islam is its prerogative to interpret and nobody else’s.

It also takes on the role of seeing that the unfortunate Muslims, who it believes being ignorant and stupid, are not led astray by the non Muslims. Thus non Muslims cannot quote from the Quran as this will confuse the Muslims. There are other major issues which have passed the scrutiny of this wise and able council.

All these are trends that will create greater suspicion among the people in the country. There is no attempt to make each understand the others’ religion and beliefs. The Muslim authority has kept away from associating itself in the interfaith group as this will affect Islam’s standing in the country. This is arrogance of the highest order.

The two most critical factors that will determine what the future of this country will be are race and religion. The government must act fast to counter the ruinous nature and the possible catastrophe that can be brought about by the uncontrolled and emotional makeup of these two elements.

The ugly writings are on the wall.

* Ahmad Mustapha Hassan is the author of “The Unmaking of Malaysia” and a former general manager of state news agency Bernama. He was also the press secretary to prime minister Tun Abdul Razak Hussein and the then deputy prime minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The Malaysian Insider does not endorse the view unless specified.

malaysiakini: All this race nonsense... by KJ John

All this race nonsense

KJ John
malaysiakini, Dec 21, 2010
3:58pm

I am no sociologist by any definition or imagination. My good friend who is now a Distinguished Professor at UKM, is probably the most recognised sociologist in Malaysia; and founder or director of three Institutes at UKM. His current position is the founder-director of the Inter-ethnic Studies Unit at UKM. Therefore, if I make any serious mistakes with this column, I am sure at least he will correct me.

Recently, someone told me that the root word “melayu” actually describes the wilting process of a plant or flower. I then asked where did this word come from and why were the Malays (the English equivalent word) called such?

The closest answer I have received from a researcher is that there is a Sungai Melayu in Sumatra from which this sea-faring community originated. Therefore they were called Orang Melayu or Orang Sungai Melayu to be accurate. True? I do not know but I am floating these ideas so that I can be corrected if I am wrong.

How then did this one of 300-plus ethnicities of Indonesia become the “dominant race of Malaya?” After all in the Sejarah Melayu (which I have not read) I am told that the same thesis of the origin of the Melayu is also recorded.

So, why then did the British, or Dutch, or Portuguese create the Orang Melayu as a racial category and the Bahasa Melayu as the uniting language of the then-region called the Malay Archipelago and the Persekutuan Tanah Melayu?

And, even more so, why did the British craft into our federal constitution the 'Malay language and culture' as a formal definition of “Malays - as those who follow Malay culture and practice Islam?” This constitutional definition is what appears to now have been misapplied as the new racial definition for all and sundry, when in fact, premised on modern genetic science research, there can only be one race in the world; that is the human race?

Therefore, from 1957-1963 there were Malays, Chinese and Indians in Malaya as they were almost explicitly referred to in Article 153; and there was very little confusion as to who the 'constitutional Malays' are or, who were the 'other races'. But then in 1963, with the formation of Malaysia, the new nation-state became called Malaysia not 'Melayu-sia!'

Always only Malaysians first

Therefore today, we are always only Malaysians first, with our various religions second, and various ethnicities third, and so on. Finally, also because we are always part and parcel of the human race, the God-given human conscience makes us all part and parcel of the epitome of God's created animals.

So, why is there all this overemphasis on the so-called “Malay race nonsense?” Sure, we know who is and who is not Malay by the constitutional definition. All Malay Rulers are these without doubt. But, they are not of the Malay race by any definition. In fact, they each have a different historicity and are from differing ethnic origins. If I am wrong, can anyone please correct me? I do not think they can now choose to deny their history and past either.

Therefore, while PM Najib Abdul Razak may have not consciously and clearly defined his 1Malaysia in such ethnic terms; my simple and logical argument is that it really and only means we are only Malaysians first and foremost; with our religious affiliations second, and our ethnicities third. While both nationality and religions can be changed in the global world of nations, we do not allow for such a crossover only for Muslims in Malaysia.

Therefore, we condemned Lina Joy to migrate because of her faith. Ethnicities too, we cannot change, as God does not allow for it; and for those who try to do so, they may pay with their dear lives, as Michael Jackson found out.

Let me try therefore to apply the above logic towards the nation-state we call Malaysia. First and foremost, the word Malaysia is not a 'Melayu' word. It is an English equivalent for the Melayu peoples of Sungai Melayu in Sumatra.

This category of people, when mixed with other people groups (or ethne's) of Borneo (of which two states are now called Sarawak and Sabah) and Singapore; they all became called Malaysians. The concept of Malaysian is not an ethnicity but rather a nationality; much like the British or Americans (as opposed to Welsh or Irish or the American Indians).

That new nation-state definition includes all the original people groups (or ethnicities) of Malays of peninsular Malaya, Chinese of Penang (also an English equivalent of Pinang) and Malacca (or English equivalent of Melaka) and the Indians of the original rubber industry scattered all over peninsular Malaya but maybe mainly in Kedah, Perak and Selangor.

They also included the different Chinese ethnics of Singapore and all the different ethnicities of Sabah and Sarawak. For that matter in constitutional terms, the different Chinese and Indian ethnicities of Sabah and Sarawak are actually naturalised Malaysian citizens and should not have to apply for blue ICs by default.

The federal government, with due respect, cannot deny every natural Sarawakian or Sabahan this right and privilege which is only denied in peninsular Malaya.

A federation of three states

Now, let me further emphasise my nation-state argument. Malaysia is today a federation of three states; and not of thirteen states. The Agong is the Head of State for the Federation of Malaysia; and not just the Persekutuan Tanah Melayu. When he is the Head of State of the Federation; is he first and foremost an ethnic Malay by constitutional definition but is he is always first and foremost a Malaysian; like all the rest of us.

Only within the nine Malay States of the peninsular do we have Heads of a State who are both; constitutional Malays and the Head of Islamic religion in their states. My argument is that when they rotationally and democratically become Head of the Federation of Malaysia; they are always and by definition only a Malaysian first, religionist second and ethnic third.

The Agong as representative Head of the Council of Rulers of the nine Malay States and other Heads of State are therefore only symbolically of “the socially constructed reality” called an ethnic Malay by the Malaysian constitutional definition.

Consequently too, for example, the Sabahans and Sarawakians can ask in Parliament for the Agong to protect and preserve the practice of their religions; regardless of their particular form of faith, including those from an Animistic faith.

And it is the job and responsibility of the elected Constitutional King of the Federation of Malaysia to do so because he is just not a mere Malay Ruler of solitary state but the King of the new nation-state; whenever elected to this portfolio, and never by lineage or birth.

Former member of Parliament for Kuching and now a contributor to Malaysiakini, Sim Kwang Yang summarised this well in his last opinion piece: “I am personally against all politics of race, because I do not think there is such a 'thing' as a real 'race'. Our polity is made up of individuals, and not of races. The concept of race has no ontological basis.”

I fully agree! May God bless Malaysians to understand this.


KJ JOHN was in public service for 29 years. He is now dean of the Faculty of Economics and Policy Science at UCSI University, Malaysia. The views expressed above are truths that matter to him as an individual citizen wearing private and civil society hats and therefore are not opinions of the university or faculty. Do send feedback to him at kjjohn@ohmsi.net

Centre for Policy Initiatives: May 13 more accurately ‘genocidal’ than racial riots... by CT Wong

May 13 more accurately ‘genocidal’ than racial riots

Written by CT Wong

Centre for Policy Initiatives: Tuesday, 14 December 2010 14:11

The deputy Utusan editor-in-chief Zaini Hassan (left) had recently written that May 13 should be celebrated as ‘tarikh keramat’ -- an auspicious and sacred day. He opined that May 13 is a blessing in disguise and without May 13 the Malays would not have enjoyed the benefits as what they are enjoying today. From the Oxford Fajar bilingual dictionary, ‘keramat’ means “place or object that is (believed to be) sacred with supernatural or magical powers.” The powers refer to the special ability to cure sickness or to provide protection. So far, May 13 has not cured the malignant sickness of racism dating from colonial times – colonialism is a form of racism. Neither do the citizens feel more protected from its relapse. What we witnessed was not supernatural powers, but authoritarian powers that destroy the very foundation of democracy – separation of powers of the executive, the judiciary and the legislative. I find it difficult to understand how May 13 might wish to be celebrated as sacred, as spiritual. The predators become heroes and idols. Where is the sacredness? When unarmed Malaysians who were non-combatants were sacrificed by those in the deadly pursuit of power and wealth, God or gods were also sacrificed. In fact, civilisation, if not God, abandoned us during those dark days. To the Germans who are proud of their Einstein, Beethoven and Sigmund Freud, these names are forever linked to Auschwitz in the land of Germany. To many a Malaysian, ‘Islamic’ civilisation and the ‘Malays’ are eternally linked to the May 13 genocide. The Germans do not celebrate the Holocaust, but to create a museum right in the centre of the SS headquarters and exposing all the crimes against humanity of Hitler and the Nazi party, lest the future generations forget. In this land of Malaysia, the ethnic minorities are repeatedly reminded of “May 13 or equality!”, lest they forget. We can always look for a silver lining in our tragedies if we want to. However, the Utusan editor seemed to find the smell of death quite sweet and fragrant. This brings me back to the times how I lived through the days of May 13. May 13 to me I was an adolescent living in a rather isolated Chinese-owned rubber-holding up north. Just a mile away was a formerly foreign-owned rubber estate with mostly Indian rubber tappers. And a few miles away was a Malay kampung. When the news or rumours of 'racial riots' in KL reached us, we were shocked not only by the killings but the way it was carried out. On May 13, life and death depended on skin colour; the skin that protects us as a biological organism suddenly becomes a death sentence and our vaguely friendly Malay neighbour could suddenly be a murderer. Such fearful thoughts disturbed me for quite a number of days. My family and I had been forced to move to the nearest small town to stay just in case we happened to be the victims. As times went on, the traumatic memories and the rawness of receiving a rude shock out of the deep slumber of racial accommodation slowly faded. I moved on with my life. But, time and again, non-Malays like me are being reminded of May 13. What is May 13 then? And why call it racial riots? Social contract destroyed To me, May 13 means that the Alliance government of the day failed to protect its citizens. It means that the social contract between the state and citizens was deliberately broken. May 13 means the killing of civilians. It cannot be justified by any rules of war. May 13 means the extension of politics by an unjust and immoral war. The use of the phrase ‘May 13 racial riots’ is constantly being circulated and recycled in all our narratives, including that from the opposition parties. It is understandable if we use euphemistic terms to describe something awful so that we can cushion off the emotional overwhelm. But the phrases ‘racial riots’ or ‘racial clash’ or "May 13 incident" only serve the purpose of bleaching the mass atrocities, the mass murders of May 13. Dissecting the label The word ‘racial’ is quite a harmless term. You can use it for ‘racial harmony’ also. It does not bring out the sense of cruelty embedded in racism. When killing based on race is so ruthless, you don't call it ‘racial’ anymore. It would be more appropriate to use ‘genocidal’ instead. From etymology of the word, ‘geno’ refers to race and ‘cide’ refers to killing (e.g. homicide, suicide, patricide, etc). From a definition by the United Nations, genocide refers to the destruction in part or whole of an ethnic group based on religion, ethnicity and racial identity. It does not need to be total as the Final Solution of the Nazis; neither does it need to be deaths in the magnitude of the hundreds of thousands or millions as in the Rwanda genocide. S.A. Budd, the British High Commissioner to Malaysia in 1969 was quoted as saying "...that of 77 corpses in the morgue of the General Hospital on 14 May, at least 60 were Chinese..." (Kua Kia Soong, 2007). The demography of ethnic identities is obvious. Gregory Stanton, the President of Genocide Watch, argued that “The motive of the killer to take the victim’s property or to politically dominate the victim’s group does not remove genocidal intent if the victim is chosen because of his ethnic, national, racial or religious group.” The intent was clearly genocidal in the case of May 13. So, May 13 may be more accurately redefined as the May 13 genocidal mass killing, or May 13 genocidal massacre, or genocidal mass atrocity, or if we retain the ‘riots’ terminology, at least May 13 genocidal riots, lest we celebrate the historical events for the wrong reasons. Riots as we understand it from the experience of the United States, Britain and Europe is that of an expressive act of hostility by the aggrieved and subordinate group or class. The American blacks, for example, were so marginalized economically and culturally that violence was used as a counterbalance against power inequalities. Rioting is often used defensively by the ethnic minorities to confront the authorities who are from the dominant group, in particular the police, to bring them to the negotiating table. Riot is not usually an instrument employed by the state. May 13 was not perpetrated by the skinheads or a Chinese secret society. It was "a planned coup d'etat by the ascendant state capitalist class against the Tunku-led aristocracy." (Kua, 2007). In other words, it was state-sponsored, or at least state-tolerated with deliberate and conscious planning. Nothing sacred to celebrate Without the green light from the top and Malay power elites, the scale and magnitude of the destruction would not be possible within a mere few days. The Malaysian official statistics of casualties as of May 21, 1969 were: “137 killed -- 18 Malays, 342 injured, 109 vehicles burned, 118 buildings destroyed, 2,912 persons arrested, mostly curfew breakers.”(Kua, 2007). TIME magazine (May 23, 1969) cited Western diplomatic sources as believing the death toll was closer to 600, with most of the victims Chinese. It also wrote that "...By the time the four days of race war and strife had run their course, the General Hospital's morgue was so crowded that bodies were put into plastic bags and hung on hooks." Hence, May 13 may be re-conceptualised as the 1969 Malaysian Genocide, of which there is nothing sacred to celebrate. We, whatever our race and religion, would like to die with dignity in a spiritual or cultural sense. This desire is a human norm as only men bury our dead. The violent deaths of May 13 were otherwise than dignified. I could still remember those days when the adults were talking excitedly, at times with horror, under the rubber trees about the deadly slaughter happening hundreds of miles away in Kuala Lumpur. There were the stories of the Chinese secret societies which were viewed as a nuisance in peaceful times but during May 13 becoming the protector of community. Also, I heard that there were courageous soldiers who refused to be willing executioners. The truth, be it from the perspective of the perpetrators or of the massacre survivors or the conscientious objectors, is yet to be openly told. Ian Ward of the London Daily Telegraph reported on May 23, 1969 that “The initial stages of the government crackdown produced glaring discrimination against the Chinese.” (Kua, 2007). Minorities vulnerable to violence I would celebrate May 13 if an anti-genocide standby unit is formed today in the armed forces or the police forces specifically trained and dedicated to handle racist malignant conflicts. It is risky to pray for heroes to emerge or to hope that soldiers would act professionally rather than become willing executioners in ugly and brutalizing times. On May 13, there were some heroes and some soldiers who valued professionalism. But we have a better chance of saving more lives if the prevention of massacres is taken as a professional duty of the armed forces. Gregory Stanton in his “8 Stages of Genocide” proposed that genocide is also a cultural question. He wrote that “… A plan for genocide doesn’t need to be written out. An act of genocide may arise in a culture that considers members of another group less than human, where killing members of that group is not considered murder. This is the culture of impunity characteristic of genocidal societies.” Those who use genocidal threats of May 13 are in fact operating in a cultural environment that condones or affirms a new moral code of behaviour: Killing is not murder. Killing is repulsive to many a human. Once it is rationalised, the normal moral restraint is removed. Police could kill suspects when they believe or justify that they are killing crime, and not criminals, real or imagined. Or a soldier could kill old people, women or children if he believes that he is killing ideological enemies and not human beings. And the intelligentsia would have no qualms about justifying mass murders. Brutalizing ideology can kill Of course gun or machete kills. But it is the justifying words of a destructive racist ideology that direct the brain to give green light to the fingers to pull the trigger. Hence, ideology kills, be it in the print or electronic media. Being conditioned by a coercive and brutalizing ideology, the power elites rationalise unequal and oppressive treatment of the others when perceiving themselves as the victims due to historical injustices. This sows the seeds of genocide and waters its growth. The threat of repeat of May 13 is to suppress the raising of civil rights issues. May 13 is in actual fact democide, a mass killing because of democratic demands by the ethnic minorities. Genocide is justified because democratic demands pose a threat of the loss of power of the dominant race or rather the power elites. May 13 is state-tolerated genocidal violence deeply rooted in cultural and social conditions. May 13 is an unjust and immoral war against the ethnic minorities asking for legitimate democratic demands. The threat of its repeat is being used to legitimise social inequalities and to deprive citizens the freedom of thought and discussion. The intelligentsia class is often guilty of complicity in mass murders. Our own intelligentsia class urgently needs critical self-examination and self-reflection, not celebration and not bleaching of mass murders. Reference Kua Kia Soong, 2007, May 13 Declassified Documents on the Malaysian Riots of 1969, Petaling Jaya, Suaram Komunikasi.

malaysiakini: Last refuge of a scoundrel... By Kee Thuan Chye

Last refuge of a scoundrel

By Kee Thuan Chye | Nov 11, 10
Malaysiakini

COMMENT “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” So said Samuel Johnson, the famous British man of letters. He is believed to have said that to condemn the false use of the term “patriotism”.

The same can be applied to Defence Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi. However, in the Malaysian context, it might be read as “When you want to malign some people, you call them unpatriotic”.

In Parliament recently, this minister said that among the reasons for the small number of Chinese and Indians joining the armed forces was their lack of patriotism. It was so sweeping, so unsupported by evidence, that it could amount to nothing more than a false claim. What was his real motive for saying what he said?

More than that, it is indeed false patriotism to say that if you don’t join the army, you are not patriotic. Nothing could be more ridiculous than that. It is the same kind of thinking that goes along these lines – “if you are not with me, then you are not patriotic”.

Extended further, it is the same kind of thinking that informs the BN propaganda – if you don’t vote for BN, you are not patriotic. This, of course, is the ultimate hogwash.

Patriotism can be expressed in many ways that people tend to overlook. Those who campaign against a government that is corrupt because they want to see reform and the emergence of a better country are patriots. Those who stand up in defence of our institutions and our freedoms are patriots. Those who uphold principles in the work they do daily are patriots. Those who go out daily to do a decent day’s work to earn an income to feed their family and pay their taxes are patriots.

Unfortunately, our government has a narrow definition of patriotism. Apart from joining the army, it’s flying the national flag on Merdeka Day. The latter preoccupation is mostly surface display. What counts more is the intrinsic feeling a Malaysian has for his country. I don’t believe in flag-waving but I can bet that I’m more of a patriot than corrupt politicians who seek to suck our riches dry.

Truth to be told
Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th president of the US, has something significant to share on one of the meanings of patriotism:

“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country.

“It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else.”

In these volatile times and in the face of the many trials we are going through, these words should strike a chord among Malaysians. Now is the time to tell the truth – not to hide it, to manipulate it, or to dish out the ultimate hogwash.

Samuel Johnson was someone who valued true patriotism. For a poignant example of that in our own country, we need only look at the Second World War and ask who the true patriots were at the time.
Who fought the Japanese when the British army had surrendered and fled? To some Malaysians, it is taboo to consider the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) patriotic, but the evidence suggests the contrary.

How can the CPM not be considered patriotic when it refused to give in to the Japanese while other Malayans took the easy option of collaborating with the enemy? And although there were valiant Malays and Indians in the CPM, who were most of its members if not Chinese?

Of course, the fact that the CPM provided patriotic resistance against the Japanese is not known by many Malaysians. It has been expunged or distorted in our history books.

The current History syllabus at SPM level is clearly written by the victors, i.e. BN, mostly Umno. Just look at the Malaysian section of the textbook and you will see how the subjective selection of what goes into it serves to manipulate the truth.

Now that it has been decreed that History is to be a must-pass subject at SPM, you can bet the new syllabus will be constructed to further serve the victors’ cause. Malaysians would be naïve to believe that “history is history and we cannot concoct something that is not history”, as said by Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin. While they may not concoct, they can nonetheless construct.

History is a construct. It is not objective; it can be manipulated. How it is told depends on who is writing it. If Muhyiddin does not know that – which is unlikely – we at least should be aware.

Yap Ah Loy and Co
MCA president Chua Soi Lek could have been more explicit and to-the-point when he responded to Ahmad Zahid’s statement.

He could have mentioned Chin Peng and the CPM.

He could have mentioned the sacrifices of Yap Ah Loy and his band of 87 miners who were the first to set up a mining camp at the confluence of the Klang and Gombak rivers, 17 of whom died within the first month from malaria. That became the base from which Kuala Lumpur grew.

He could have mentioned the late Tan Chee Khoon who worked tirelessly to promote non-communal politics in Malaysia, and who fought against attempts to pervert the Constitution.

It is not enough for Chua to make general statements saying that the Chinese remained loyal to the country during the Japanese Occupation and the Indonesian confrontation, to illustrate the patriotism of the Chinese. He needs to give concrete examples.

His party has expressed concern about what the content of the new SPM History syllabus will be. Will the MCA do all it can to ensure that the new construct will include truths from various sides? Will it do all it can to ensure that the new syllabus reflects the patriotism of Malaysians regardless of race?

M. Kulasegaran, the MP for Ipoh Barat, made an important and pertinent point when he reminded Malaysians that non-Malays had headed the armed forces before, citing the excellent example of Rear-Admiral K Thanabalasingam, who was appointed the first Malaysian chief of the Royal Malaysian Navy in 1967.

How many Malaysians knew that? Would that be reflected in the new History syllabus?

There was a time when an Indian could be the chief of the country’s navy. When will that ever happen again? Meanwhile, is there any wonder that non-Malays are not keen to join the armed forces?

Ahmad Zahid, why don’t you tell us the truth?

KEE THUAN CHYE is the author of ‘March 8: The Day Malaysia Woke Up’, which just won 3rd prize in the Popular Readers’ Choice Awards. It has also been translated into Chinese.

malaysiakini: Unpatriotic non-Malays: Gov't should ask why... Lim Teck Ghee

Unpatriotic non-Malays: Gov't should ask why

Lim Teck Ghee
malaysiakini, Nov 11, 10, 6:49pm

Defence Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi should be commended for stating in Parliament that the reason Chinese and Indians made up only a tiny proportion of Army recruits was because their "patriotism spirit is not high enough".

This is because he has inadvertently brought out into the open a perception which is shared by the majority of Malay leaders and also possibly by a very large proportion of the Malay population. It is a perception that should not be suppressed - on the contrary, it needs to be fully aired and dissected so that rational thinking and fact-based policy formulation shall prevail.

What has been criticised as a "racially biased, shallow and chauvinistic" statement questioning the loyalty of young Malaysians may in fact be correct.

Non-Malays may be much less patriotic than Malays which accounts for their low enrolment in the military and civil service, as well as for their lack of participation in other national activities when patriotism and loyalty to the country are showcased. But it could also be wrong as it ignores other factors that may be instrumental in explaining the low number of recruits.

In many countries of the world, it has been found that the main factor underlying military recruitment is the socio-economic class that recruits come from. This is likely to be a major explanation for the past and current trend of recruitment in Malaysia too. It is unlikely that we will find recruits coming from youths of the middle or upper class of Malaysian society - whatever their community or sense of patriotism - now or in the future.

The only way to find out whether this larger perception of the lack of loyalty and patriotism of non-Malays - as compared with other communities - is correct or wrong is to carry out rigorous studies on the disputed subject and not to silence the messenger. Following from these rigorous studies and the wide dissemination of their findings, a more rational discussion and analysis can take place in Parliament and in the public arena.

It is important that these studies on the subject of patriotism and loyalty amongst different communities in the country as well as on the related issues of the lack of non-Malay participation in the army and other sectors of the public service should be conducted by credible and independent researchers. In view of the sensitive and controversial nature of the topics, it may be too much to expect our local social scientists and researchers to conduct these studies without fear or favour.

Outsourcing the studies to reputable institutions from abroad which have a strong track record for carrying out ethnic perception research - in collaboration with local teams - may be a possible way forward in carrying out these urgently needed studies.

At the same time, there is a need to sustain the public space to explore, analyse, and arrive at a more informed, coherent, and sympathetic understanding of how our multi-ethnic society works and does not work. For that reason, we should not seek to silence these statements, baseless or shallow or insensitive as they may be.

If politicians in the country remain true to the facts and their views are based on the scrupulous adherence to evidence produced by researchers and more informed stakeholders, it can only benefit our nation by holding them to higher standards of knowledge, responsibility and governance.

Finally, if there is indeed a lack of loyalty and patriotism amongst young non-Malays, then clearly the country is in deep trouble and we should address the root causes immediately.

malaysiakini: Consensus on 'social contract' imperative... by Prof. Clive Kessler

Consensus on 'social contract' imperative

Clive Kessler
Oct 22, 10
8:52am

COMMENT The nature of the current disagreement about “the social contract” should be clearly identified.

Nobody is seriously suggesting that “the social contract” be repudiated, set aside, rejected. Nobody is arguing that it is fictive, a pure fantasy, an illusion. On all sides, everyone in their own way is arguing that it should be honoured, respected and upheld.

People just need to be clear, and find a way to agree, what its terms were, what “upholding the social contract” means and entails.

People are broadly agreed that in the years between 1955 and 1957 certain basic inter-ethnic or inter-communal understandings were reached. Through them a national “accord” was solemnly affirmed and politically “enshrined” that made the nation possible.

Known informally in earlier times as “the Merdeka agreements” or “Merdeka understandings”, these were subsequently, in the 1980s, relabelled, or as people now say “rebranded” with a new identity as “the social contract”.

Embodied within the constitution, these agreements - this national “accord” or inter-communal “compact” - became the foundation of Malayan, and later Malaysian, nationhood.

Within the current debates, people on both sides of this question broadly agree on this.

There is basic disagreement, however, about what those agreements were, what they provided, what their terms precisely specified.

In retrospect, different parties have construed them differently and have, at times, enlarged or “inflated” the import of those parts of the agreements, or their preferred notions of them, that they found congenial, that seemed to their sectional political liking.

There is now an urgent need for people on both, indeed all, sides of this question - and all Malaysians generally - to understand what exactly those agreements now designated as “the social contract” in fact were.

Malaysians need to reach a historically well-founded consensus concerning “the social contract”, what its terms were at the nation's formative moment and in its founding experience, and what it means today and for the future. The coherence, strength and political sustainability of the nation require no less.

'Ketuanan Melayu' not part of the deal

It needs to be widely understood that, whatever they provided and mandated, “Ketuanan Melayu” was not part of what those agreements enshrined.

Any suggestion that Malay political domination in perpetuity, continuing Malay “ethnocratic” ascendancy over other Malayans (and now Malaysians), was any part of those foundational agreements now designated as “the social contract” is simply wrong.

Those who argue to the contrary that Ketuanan Melayu is a constitutionally guaranteed “foundational” component of Malaysia's national sovereignty and international public identity are disingenuous, mischievous, or simply ill-informed.

The attempt to “read back” subsequent notions of Ketuanan Melayu into ideas of “the social contract” and in that way to embed them within newly fashioned but quite dubious views of the constitution is simply an exercise in anachronistic revisionism.

It is the duty of serious historians and legal scholars to say so.

CLIVE S KESSLER is emeritus professor of sociology and anthropology at the School of Social Science and International Studies at the University of New South Wales in Australia.

Malaysiakini: Khairy J: a moderating new voice for BN?

Khairy: Relying on the Malay vote alone will lose us seats

Regina Lee
Oct 20, 10
10:55am

 
Relying solely on the Malay vote will lose Umno and BN seats in the elections - that is the reality, said Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin.

This was demonstrated in the last polls in which Umno almost lost due to the loss of support by non-Malays, he told the wing's annual general assembly in Kuala Lumpr this morning.

“If we hope to rely on the Malay vote alone, we should be mindful that there are only 73 parliamentary seats with a dominant Malay majority of 70 percent and above. Such is the reality.

“We must learn from the results of the last general elections, where we almost relinquished power due to the loss of support from non-Malays.

"If we still subscribe to the illusion that we can win without their support, then 50 seats currently held by BN are in grave danger.

“If there is no concerted effort to practise an inclusive and moderate leadership, Umno's Malay leadership will disappear come the next election,” he added.

Khairy also said that Umno Youth should stop dreaming of uniting all Malays within the party, as no Malay-based political party can claim to have the support of all Malays to vote the same way in the elections.

“There is no Malay party – be it Umno or PAS – that can secure a hundred percent of Malay votes. In many areas, the Malay political split is such that 50 percent are on one side and 50 percent on the other.

“This means that any side wanting to win, must win with the support of all Malaysians, regardless of race and religion,” he said.

In the 2008 general elections, BN lost two-thirds majority for the first time since 1969, with five states falling to the hands of the Pakatan state government.

Many of the BN candidates lost, with many attributing it to the loss of non-Malay support among the electorates.

Empathise with the non-Malays

Khairy, speaking in his second year as the movement's chief to the 795 delegates gathered at the Putra World Trade Centre, also urged Umno Youth member to empathise with the grievances of their non-Malay fellow countrymen.

“Are we in any way less Malay if our struggle cuts across race and religion, without sacrificing basic principles of our cause? Are we heretics for condemning attacks perpetrated by certain parties on people of other faiths?

“Are we traitors for disagreeing when non-bumiputeras are labeled as settlers and squatters? The answer is a resolute no!” he said.

“In the midst of us calling for Malays to be big-hearted and embrace the politics of moderation, the sensitivities of the bumiputeras must also be recognized and respected.

“... When they are referred to as pendatang or told to return to China or India - what of their feelings?

“This, too, is their country. This is their country of birth; in fact that of their parents and grandparents. What of the feelings of the poor non-Malay student denied government scholarship despite achieving outstanding results?” he said to muted response.

Calling for more understanding between the races, he said that prejudices and barriers will only foster when people fail to appreciate the feelings of other races.

“Young Malaysians live within the confines of their own ethnic communities. The young Malay who attends religious school, a Middle Eastern university and watches Malay programs on Astro Ria is alien to the young Chinese attending a vernacular school, a Taiwanese university and entertained by (cable television channel) 'Wah Lai Toi'.

“Each perpetuates mutual prejudices because of these barriers that exist,” he said.

'Wanting NEP reviewed is not treachery'
While defending the New Economic Policy which took effect in 1970, Khairy also said it was time to take a step backwards and face objectively the reality that the implementation of the affirmative action policy had shortcomings, leakages and loopholes.

“During that (rapid economic growth in the 90's), we saw many Malay millionaires given great opportunities and brought to the fore through privatisation programs and ownership of shares via 'pink forms'.

“Unfortunately, the shares allocated to Bumiputeras to increase the community's equity position were sold because some wanted a quick buck, the luxurious bungalow, the Mercedes, the young wife more becoming of their newfound status.

“With the sudden riches that fell on their lap, they could not remain grounded,” he said.

“This reality demands that we make changes. We must be clear that the New Economic Model does not sideline the Malay agenda. What it does is update the implementationmethods to overcome the weaknesses of the NEP.

“Why should we be afraid of an economic agenda based on merit? Why should we be concerned when those who have the capabilities, who are genuine, are given the opportunity to move forward?” he asked.

“Let it not be that simply wanting to reexamine an approach of the agenda for Malays invites the charge of being a traitor,” he said.

A Participant’s Perspective Of Kursus Kenegaraan (BTN)... Letter By A Disappointed Civil Servant

A Participant’s Perspective Of Kursus Kenegaraan (BTN)

Letter
By A Disappointed Civil Servant

It amuses me to note the rapacious back and forth regarding the Kursus Kenegaraan organised by the Biro Tatanegara. However, i notice that remarks defending the program have so far been based on perspectives of certain Government officials, who may or may not have been subjected to the charms of the program. As a serving Government professional of non-Bumiputera descent, I feel it is pertinent that I share my experience of this program, so that some objectivity may be achieved in understanding the isssue at hand.

It is compulsory for all Govt. servants to attend this course once during service. I attended the program in 2006, in a group of 80-odd Malays and 9 non-Malays. We were a mix of doctors, dentists, pharmacists and teachers. On the first day, we had to listen to a series of 4 lectures, all delivered by lecturers from the local MARA University campus. I vividly remember the 1st lecture on Kerakyatan, for it was delivered with such fervour by an obviously inspired lecturer. At times he seemed to go off his script and made several references to ‘other’ races being ‘pendatangs’ and forgetting their ‘place’ in society, and not being grateful for the citizenship ‘awarded’ to them, and other remarks of a similar vein.

However what shocked me was when this lecturer, in a frenzied fit of rage, asked the audience whether they knew that ALL Indians who migrated here were from the PARIAH caste, and similarly all Chinese who came here were also from the lower classes in their country of origin. I was livid with rage that this supposed university lecturer had the unabashed temerity to tar all Indians and Chinese with the same brush, and make such an unsubstantiated sweeping statement that may have been lapped up by the ill-informed as the gospel truth. From that moment I was mentally tuned off from listening to further garbage being spewed by this obvious racist. After ranting and raving for a good forty minutes more, he mercifully concluded and invited questions from the floor.

I immediately got up and proceeded to enquire on what basis the lecturer made his sweeping statements, and if he was aware that aside from indentured labourers, the British had brought educated Indians and Ceylonese Tamils to serve in the civil service in pre-independence Malaya. I then informed him that I was a 3rd generation civil servant, and the last time I checked, I wasn’t a PARIAH. By this time the lecturer was squirming in discomfort, especially as the crowd assembled there started to cheer me on. I sternly told the lecturer to check his facts before he confuses others with blatant untruths.

The Chinese dentist that stood up after me was in no conciliatory mood however. She blasted the lecturer outright by saying ‘Saya berasa amat tersinggung dengan apa yang dikatakan oleh penceramah tadi (I am offended by the remarks made by the lecturer); ianya sangat tidak adil dan amat mengelirukan para hadirin di sini (it is an unfair statement and can confuse the others assembled here).’

Probably stung by the truth of those comments, the lecturer tried to weasel out of the messy situation by defending his statement which was made in a particular context. But none of us were fooled, and we realised that this course was an attempt to stereotype and racially profile the citizenry for the benefit of a certain group to assert its ‘ketuanan’ on others.

Suffice to say, i was least interested in the ensuing activities, especially the drill parade where we were forced to pray with arms outstretched to maintain ‘conformity’, despite my usual method being the traditional hands clasped in supplication.

Ultimately, the course made me despise the way the non-bumis were treated, and served to reinforce the belief shared by many that it is a brainwashing and indoctrination exercise to target the ill-informed and the gullible. I am sure my Malay friends would (mostly) have cringed in shame at the way their fellow citizens were humiliated and made a mockery of.

Bottom line is, stay away from this course. It does no good and can serve to divide the population.


------------ooooo00000ooooo-------------- 
Good Comment

 

#1 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 17 October 2010 - 8:46 pm

It is natural and inevitable logic for BTN to indoctrinate Ketuanan precepts if it were to serve an effective tool to buttress and perpetuate UMNO’s political power.

In the communal structure of our politics, the raison de etre of UMNO, MCA & MIC is to fight for its/respective communal constituencies’ interest but owing to historical reasons UMNO is naturally the big brother whose agenda takes precedence over the rest.

To garner Malay votes it is important for UMNO to be viewed continuously as champion of Malay interest. To this end, it is necessary to keep Malays as original definitive people apart from immigrants both in the period immediately after independence – and in decades after, their respective descendants separate as well by the Bumi-Non Bumi dichotomy.

The rationale for keeping separate is to correct the injustices of colonial powers done to the definitive people and to honour the so called “Social Contract” between them and the original immigrants and their descendants..

The injustice is supposedly derived from Colonial powers bringing in the “pendatangs” in pre-independence times without the definitive people bing able to do anything about it. And when leaving, the colonialists make amends to immigrants by negotiating on their behalf citizenship based on “Jus soli” notion – ie the principle that the country of citizenship of a child is determined by its country of birth, irrespective of the nationality of its parents. Hence all who were born in the country as citizens without taking into account their ancestors, from where they came, will become citizens…In quid pro quo trade off and exchange for the “Jus soli “ concession, the definitive people are accorded special privileges enshrined in Article 153 of the Constitution, amended from 15 year reviewable to perpetual.

This constitutes the bases of thought of the famous “Social Contract” which the constitution mentions nothing about expressly but apologists for the concept and defenders of its perpetuity argue it’s implied.

For so long as the bumi/non bumi dichotomy – first class and rest of citizenry – remains relevant, so the reason of existence for a communal party like UMNO remains – to champion Malay interests to rectify historical anomalies and injustices and enforce compliance of the Social Contract!

With each other communal parties like MCA & MIC also fighting for their respective communal interest, the theory is that any tendency on UMNO’s part towards extremity of Malay agenda when pursued by it will be balanced & moderated by competing claims of and bargaining by the other component parties (MCA & MIC) having so called power sharing with UMNO within the BN. This is only theory. In practice, UMNO controls political appointments in govt and the patronage strings/goodies in gravy train and soon, consistent with ketuanan, all the component parties defer to its leadership and dominance, thereby causing them to underpresent if not neglect their respective communities’ interest thereby driving their traditional supporters to switch support for the more inclusive and non communal platforms of the Opposition. BTN is therefore another face of UMNO serving to further its political agenda of perpetuating hold on power based on the precepts of Ketuanan and Social Contract.

Bottom line, to criticise BTN’s lecturers as racist and to ask UMNO dominant govt. to disband BTN for indoctrinating race based ideologies amongst civil servants contrary to 1 Malaysia, it is, as usual, putting UMNO on the spot of being unable to reconcile its 1 Malaysia platform with that of BTN’s work, which is basically to serve as tool to advance UMNO’s traditional raison de etre of keeping races separate and apart in order to play champion to the majority one whose voting support is considered pivotal and decisive. It’s like asking it to shoot its own foot, a very painful task.

Anti-Extremism Begins at Home... By Kee Thuan Chye

Anti-Extremism Begins at Home

By Kee Thuan Chye

I TOTALLY agree with most of what Prime Minister Najib Razak recently said at the United Nations (UN) General Assembly, especially about the attempts in some parts of the world to demonize Islam and spread Islamophobia.

I find it alarming to see so many e-mails and videos being circulated warning people of the dangers of Islam and propagating the fear that, with the Muslims multiplying at the current rate, they would one day outnumber people of other faiths and take over the world.

This kind of fear propagation reminds me of that practiced by Mahathir Mohamad when he warned Malays that they would lose power to the non-Malays, especially if Pakatan Rakyat takes over the government. It’s destructive.

It appals me that even Malaysians are instrumental in spreading Islamophobia by forwarding these e-mails. When I get one, I often reply to the sender to tell them not to disseminate such hatred. I tell them this problem has arisen because of misunderstanding of history, and that these e-mails don’t tell the other side of the story, which is the plight of Muslims who have suffered because of the historical events fashioned by imperialists.

Some of the e-mails reek of ignorance and bigotry. One that irked me no end was of an American serviceman answering questions about whether a Muslim could be a real American. These are just some of his answers:

Religiously – no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam.

Socially – no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Philosophically – no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

These answers are so distorted, blinkered and untruthful that they are not worth rebutting. The danger lies in e-mails such as this being received and accepted as the truth by millions of people who don’t know what Islam is about.

I am not a subscriber of organized religion, but I believe in the right of all religions to exist. I also believe no religion should throw mud at another and claim to be truer than any other.

The only way to resolve the differences in the world today is to get all sides to sit down at the table and discuss. Perhaps the US should even sit down with al-Qaeda and thrash it out, peacefully. Why not?

These two are the major causes of the mess the world is in today. If they can talk, instead of fight, we might get some peace.

This is the same line taken by Najib at the UN when he said: “We must choose negotiations over confrontation. We must choose to work together and not against each other.”

He also said, “We must choose moderation over extremism”, which I readily agree with. But then why doesn’t he deal with the racial extremists that exist in his own country?

Nothing has been done about the school principals in Johor and Kedah who allegedly made racist remarks despite the calls from several quarters, including the MCA, for action to be taken immediately. Hasn’t the lack of action dragged on for too long?

Ironically, as Najib was calling for moderation at the UN, a Biro Tata Negara (BTN) assistant director named Hamim Husin was reported to have made racist remarks at a meeting with Puteri Umno members.

He now claims he did nothing wrong because it was a closed-door meeting, but any sensible mind would figure out that this is not an excuse. He was not talking to friends. He was talking in an official capacity in an official situation. In any case, it’s not a matter of closed-door or public. He has to be responsible for what he says. Racism is racism, whether it is in the public sphere or over the dinner table with your family members. So, what action will be taken on this matter?

Of course, we know that Najib was talking about religious extremism at the UN, but, outside that, and to be consistent, he should hold the same standard for racial extremism. Especially in his own country.
He said we should “work together to combat and marginalize extremists who have held the world hostage with their bigotry and bias”. So why doesn’t he apply this to the extremists who hold Malaysia hostage with their bigotry and bias? Why does he let an NGO like Perkasa oppose what needs to be done for his New Economic Model (NEM) and Economic Transformation Programme (ETP)? Why does he accommodate their objections even when he knows that they stand in the way of a brighter Malaysian future?

At the UN, he also said the world had “allowed the ugly voices of the periphery to drown out the many voices of reason and common sense”. Isn’t that what is happening in Malaysia as well?

Almost every day, we hear “the ugly voices” of Perkasa denouncing this person or that person for saying something it dislikes, including people like MCA president Chua Soi Lek. Every now and then, Perkasa would run to the police station and make a report against someone for making a seditious statement. And the odd thing is, the police would usually take follow-up action and call that person in for interrogation.

But when Perkasa says and does anything that could be deemed seditious, no action is taken against it. A week or so ago, some Perkasa members protested outside the venue where the Chinese rapper Namewee launched his debut album. They also burned posters of the artist. They challenged him to come out and meet with them. They said they just wanted to talk.

If all they wanted was to talk, why did they burn those posters? And why did they call themselves “hulubalang Melayu” (Malay warriors) and “panglima perang” (commanders of war)? And why did they vow afterwards to hound Namewee wherever he went?

This was obviously a racially motivated act calling for “war”. If it wasn’t a threat to public peace, what is? But the police did nothing about it.

Well, so much for Najib’s call at the UN to “reclaim the centre and the moral high ground that has been usurped from us”. When he comes home, he’ll have to get down to the ground and reassess his moral position. Or he might find his own position usurped by forces going out of control.

Najib’s Pastoral Picture of Malaysia... by Asia Sentinel Correspondent

Najib’s Pastoral Picture of Malaysia

Asia Sentinel | Correspondent
Despite the prime minister’s speech to the UN, his country is facing serious racial tension

Malaysia’s Prime Minister, Najib Tun Razak, made an eloquent speech to the United Nations earlier this week, telling the assembled body that, among other things, Malaysia “is a multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-cultural and democratic society that has benefited from the positive interaction and synergy between the various communities. Mosques, temples, churches and other places of worship co-exist in harmony.

“Although Islam is the official religion, we honor other religions – Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism – by making their religious and cultural celebrations as national holidays and celebrate them as national events. It is this equilibrium that leads to moderation or wasatiyyah in the Islamic tradition of mutual justice.”

That picture of Malaysia, thought to have been crafted by the giant US public relations firm APCO Worldwide for delivery in New York, is badly frayed, however. Many people in Kuala Lumpur say racial tension is higher than it has been since 1987, when former Prime Minister Mahathir cracked down in the so-called Operation Lalang and threw lots of top opposition politicians in jail under the Internal Security Act, which allows in effect for indefinite detention without trial.

Political events since the 2008 general election have led to ever-rising tension, particularly between Malays and Chinese although there have been strains in the Indian community as well. It is unclear today how far down into the society that racial bitterness extends. On many occasions, the two races have worked together to attempt to calm racial tensions. Last year, when unknown vandals firebombed a Christian church in a Kuala Lumpur suburb, urban Malays went to the church to attempt to calm anger.

Najib’s attempts to unify his country are facing deep problems, many of them caused by former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who has taken on the question of special rights for the Malay majority and played a major role in the development of a Malay superiority NGO called Perkasa, whose fiery leader, Ibrahim Ali, has been perceived as a Mahathir ally although he is an independent legislator.

“Perkasa’s vocal spokesmen Ibrahim and Mahathir seem hell bent – through such vociferous bickering – to stop Prime Minister Najib Razak from implementing his New Economic Model which is supposed to liberalise the economy from the clutches of the economically stifling, much corrupted and skewed New Economic Policy that heavily plays on ‘Malay rights,” wrote Raja Petra Kamarudin, the editor of the influential blog Malaysia Today.

“The problem is a segment of the Malays fear what is needed to revive private investment, especially domestic private investment, could cause Najib to lose the general election,” said an analyst with a Kuala Lumpur-based think tank. “This assumes that the Malay electorate would be hostile to policy measures to ameliorate the NEP’s re-structuring objectives. Najib has said this will now be applied on nationally rather than on a company basis while continuing the focus on reducing poverty. Perkasa’s strength comes from its linkage with Mahathir who still commands some support in Umno and among the Malay community. Undoubtedly, Malays who feel threatened by prospect of less contracts etc from the Government will be hostile to Najib’s economic plans.”

The Sept. 27 death of another lawmaker, Parti Islam se-Malaysia state assemblyman Che Hashim Sulaima, will kick off the 12th by-election since the 2008 electoral surprise that gave the opposition control of four states and shocked the ruling Barisan Nasional. The United Malays National Organisation is expected to pull out all the stops in going after the Kelantan seat. With the Islamic fundamentalist PAS in the unanticipated role of positioning itself as a moderate party seeking to attract non-Malay votes, it remains to be seen if UMNO will attempt to appeal to voters by emphasizing Malay superiority.

Mahathir has been fanning the flames of unrest by his continuing demand for the continuation of special treatment for Malays, a cause he has espoused ever since the publication of his book, The Malay Dilemma. In that book, Mahathir argued that because Malays were rural and backward and because the economy was controlled by urban Chinese, they needed special treatment. After disastrous racial riots in July of 1969, the government agreed with Mahathir and created the New Economic Policy, in affect an affirmative action program for a majority race. For 40 years, they have been given that special treatment but they have advanced relatively little vis-à-vis the Chinese. Today, social scientists argue that affirmative action to help the Malays has been a crutch that has cushioned their lives and kept them from healthy competition.

But changing that policy is messing with a powder keg. Rallies against changing it have drawn thousands of angry Malays. Mahathir fanned the flames considerably by lending his public support to a Malay superiority rally in Terengganu on May 13, the anniversary of the 1969 race riots that took hundreds of lives. The octogenarian former leader has not broken with Najib, partly out of his loyalty to Najib’s father, who reinstated him in politics after he was expelled from UMNO following publication of his book. But he continues to demand special treatment for Malays. In his blog, Che Det, on August 30, he wrote that the leader of the Chinese Economic Congress was racist for calling for a meritocratic society.

“It is racial because he was advocating taking away the protection afforded by the NEP and quotas from the bumiputeras (native Malays) and not from any other race,” Mahathir wrote. “I am not proud of the protection afforded the bumiputera. It implies weakness. I don’t think Malays and other bumiputera like to think that they are inferior in any way. But the reality is that in Malaysia the bumiputeras need new skills and a new culture even. These cannot be had by them in a mere 20 years. The original planners of the NEP were too optimistic.”

Najib hired the US public relations firm APCO to come up with a US$40 million program to seek to pull the races together as well as to seek to burnish his own image overseas, tarnished as it has been by a long series of scandals. The program, called 1Malaysia, is considered by most people to have failed.
Despite the fact that the special rights have become a millstone around their neck instead of moving them into a higher income bracket. Especially, critics say, it has created a rentier class of so-called “Umnoputras” who skim off contracts through government–linked companies to enrich themselves and that little of the benefit trickles down to the rank and file

When Najib took office in April 2009, he started seeking to modify the program, called the New Economic Policy. That has led to continuing tension. In May, some 1,500 members of the Malay Consultative Council, a group of 76 Malay-rights organizations, summarily rejected Najib’s plans to replace it with what the premier called his New Economic Model.

At the forefront of the protest against Najib’s plans has been Ibrahim Ali, who has not only threatened non-Malays but launched a series of attacks on moderates. Among other things, Ibrahim has sought to have top officials including Chua Soi Lek, the president of the Malaysian Chinese Association – the second biggest component of the Barisan Nasional after the United Malays National Organisation – arrested for sedition, basically for talking back at him. He has demanded also that shariah laws be amended to prohibit non-Muslims from entering mosques and prayer rooms – which they have done traditionally. He has also demanded that Nurul Izzah Anwar, an MP and opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, be jailed as well after Nurul accused Mahathir of inciting racial animosities.