Tunku would not have tolerated racism, says granddaughter

Valentine's Day and Chinese New Year may be the focal points of February, but few may remember that this month also marks the birth of the man who led Malaya to independence and who later became the founding prime minister of Malaysia.

Born on February 9, 1903, Tunku played a pivotal role in freeing the country from colonial masters, his years-long struggle for Merdeka immortalised in Malaysia's history books and documents.

In conjunction with Tunku's 112th birthday this year, The Malaysian Insider recently interviewed his granddaughter, YM Sharifah Menjelara Hussien, or Lara, as she prefers to be called.

Tunku, whom Lara fondly referred to as "Tok", would never have compromised with racism and would have put a stop to the racial politics in this country, if he were still alive, she said.

"Tok would not have compromised with racism. He was a leader for everyone, and had in the past said every race in this country had contributed to Malaya," she told The Malaysian Insider.

"He also said the independence we achieved was not through his efforts alone, but that of other leaders from among the Chinese, Malay and Indian communities.

"Everyone united to achieve the dream that became a reality in 1957," she said, referring to Malaya's independence that year. Malaysia was only formed in 1963 with Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore which left after two years.

Lara, who now works at a major local advertising firm, said although Tunku's dream had taken years for him to realise, he would never forget the other leaders who fought by his side.

"So how could he support racial politics when independence was achieved through everyone's efforts?" she said.

Tunku would constantly remind the public that Malaysia's strength lay in the people's unity, and that Malaysians should not allow their differences to tear them apart.

"If that happens, we will fall," said Lara as she recalled her grandfather's words to her.

She added that Tunku had wanted Malaysia to become a model country in the eyes of the world, and to prove Malaysians could live harmoniously with one another in spite of their diversity.

She said her grandfather would be proud of what Malaysia had achieved so far.

"He may be taken aback at how many of the roads in the country are named after the figures who fought for independence.

"But I believe Tok would always care about his rakyat's happiness and unity which he fought for."

Lara said that when the Union Jack was taken down and the national flag of Malaya was raised for the first time to signify the country's independence, Tunku considered all six million citizens as his family.

Lara noted that Toh Puan Umarsundari Sambanthan had once said: "Beside my own father, Tunku is also my father. Regardless of race and religion, he still had time for us".

Umarsundari was the wife of Tun V.T.Sambanthan, one of the nation's founding fathers along with Tunku, and also the fifth president of the Indian-based party, MIC.

"I always believe that each society and culture is a reflection of its leader. If the leader is humble and trustworthy, this is reflected in society," said Lara.

"Justice was the backbone of Tok's leadership. I heard a story on how he had given his jacket to a beggar because the man had no clothes."

Among Tunku's advice to her was that nothing was more valuable in this country than its diversity.

"Politicians come and go, but the country will live on. So let us remember his words: 'without this country and the rakyat of Malaysia, I am nothing'." – February 15, 2015.

Malaysia’s flawed democracy

Syerleena Abdul Rashid - The Malaysian Insider

According to The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index, only 12.5% of the world’s population in under governments that practice “full democracy”. The EIU index further identifies that only 24 countries are “ull democracies” whereas 52 countries are regarded as “flawed democracies”. Malaysia, our great nation, is one of these countries.

Flawed democracies are defined as countries that even with the presence of free and fair elections,therein lay considerable drawbacks and limitations that magnifies the inadequacy of present political systems.

Although basic liberties or rights are recognized, they may sometimes only exist in theory and may not be practiced or applied.

A good example would be how Article 10 in our Federal Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, assembly and association: (a) every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression; (b) all citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; (c) all citizens have the right to form associations; but reality paints a grim picture of how such freedom have been greatly curtailed under the pretext to preserve peace and order.

The term democracy comprises of two Greek words, demos (people) and kratis (power), which simply denotes the idea of “people power” where citizens are given the authority to create governments, laws and regulations.

Additionally, the very same citizens have the power to see certain governments come to an end.

An ideal and true democratic government provides its people with excellent education, good healthcare, affordable housing and present equal opportunities to all. Under this concept, democracy simply recognises that all women and men are created equal and should live in safe environments – away from conflict, devastation and disorder.

Unfortunately for Malaysians, there are those within the ruling regime and several elected leaders who do not believe in that understanding of democracy.

Who can forget Minister of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government, Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan’s suggestion that our country is at “greater risk of greater polarisation of race should local government election is mandated,” or PAS president Datuk Seri Hadi Awang, who warned Malaysians that if such elections were to be held, our country could see another May 13.

Most recently, Nik Abduh Nik Aziz shared his skewed view on democracy by affirming that “elections were neither the only way to obtain justice nor guaranteed to eliminate inequality”. He added that Islamic democracy was far superior to modern democracy – the one subscribed and sanctioned by modern society, but fell short in delivering full details on what defines or constitutes as Islamic democracy.

They believe that their brand of democracy works best in our society. The type that limits civil liberties, freedom of expression and speech, restricts social mobility and consents to institutionalised racism or in this case, reinforces Malay supremacy.

They simply fortify conservative philosophies camouflaged as modern democratic practices that are in line with docile Malaysian society, which is already by itself, highly contradicting and confusing to the well-learned Malaysian.

The ruling elite flaunts this brand of democracy which they claim offers protection to all. However, the average Malaysian realises that there is a certain fallacy to such claims.

The gap that exists between theory and practice has produced a divided social structure that favours one ethnicity more than the other(s) – where although all Malaysians are created equal, some are more equal than others.

Our government asserts the supremacy of one religious denomination, while disregarding what is enshrined in our Federal Constitution. This simply, does not provide the best basis for democracy to prosper neither does this encourage the development of public spirit nor does it support the nurturing of a more mature political culture – one that instills a strong sense of responsibility and social empowerment.

For most Malaysians, realising the limitations we, as a society, are made to endure under the guise of democracy is never an easy thing to digest. The average citizen understands democracy as an ideology where people get to vote for who they want or who they feel can best serve them and their community.

In another sense, democracy also stresses on personal freedom, liberty and choice.

It is based on the concept of majority rules; however, that isn’t the case for Malaysia. The result of GE13 was a huge wake up call for the nation which left many of us wondering “Is our country truly democratic at all?”

We know that the ruling regime failed to garner the popular vote and are nothing more than a minority government that simply cannot represent how a majority of Malaysians feel or think; thanks to gerrymandering and our flawed electoral system, the present administrators are not fitted with knowledge, compassion or insight needed to helm a nation and steer it into much needed social progress and economic prosperity.

Life in a democracy simply guarantees the unfettered development of the spirit and the unhampered expression of the mind. It does not thrive on the suppression of wisdom nor thought but encourages free thinking and discussions.

There must not be any Gestapo like rule – no ISA, no Sedition Act, no sudden disappearances in the dead of night, no death in custody and by all means, Malaysians must never be threatened for expressing our opinions on matters that we feel strongly about, such as questioning the competency of present leaders and half-baked policies that only may only be advantageous to our country’s elite.

Given the flawed democracy our country now complies too, as Malaysians, we need to understand and scrutinise these flaws in order to rectify the system, in hopes that, one day, our country too, can join the ranks of nations that profess and practice full democracy.

Whatever, or however, we choose to define democracy, there is without a doubt, that the democratic system simply promotes egalitarianism, social equality and opportunities that do not repress or suppress its citizens.

Democracy, even with all its defects and flaws as observed by local critics, still guarantees a better allocation of opportunities to the common woman and man. – February 6, 2015.

Cabinet’s silence on bigotry is endorsement of bigotry – Ravinder Singh

Sorry about it, but the call by the MCA president Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai to Malaysians “to heed the advice of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak on the issue of moderation and not be influenced by racial and religious extremist ideology disseminated by irresponsible groups” comes to me as a joke.

Similarly with the Prime Minister’s call on Malaysians “to come together in the spirit of harmony, acceptance and respect in celebrating Christmas”.

Liow is reported to have said that “Malaysia can continue to develop and progressonly when we learn to trust and respect each other and live together in peace and harmony”. This is an insult to Malaysians, for Malaysians had long ago accepted the various cultures and religious beliefs found in this land, and had been living in peace and harmony. It is not as if this is something new that they have to learn.

What is new is the extremist, Talibanist ideology that is being forcefully brought to bear upon people who have been living in peace and harmony for ages, with the objective of destroying the goodwill, peace and harmony between the races and religions in the name of defending Islam. This is totally contrary to what the Prophet had taught, which means the bigots, who claim to be defending Islam, don’t even have respect for the Prophet.

So who has to learn what in 2014 or 2015? Isn’t it a joke and an insult to ask the huge majority of Malaysians of various races, cultures and religions who had been living in peace and harmony with each other all these past decades to “learn to trust and respect each other and live together in peace and harmony”?

The few vociferous racist bigots are like big school bullies. So what do you do – advice the rest of the students to keep away from them, or take the bullies by the horns and throw them to the ground so that bullying stops? When the few school bullies are not reigned in, they create more bullies resulting in even the teachers fearing them. Finally the bullies take control of the schools and teachers dare not take any action for fear of retaliation by the bullies. This has happened in real life, in Malaysia.

This is the scenario that the nation is facing with the bigots given freedom to continue their Talibanist activities in the name of freedom of expression, while the government advises the rest of the people to “learn to trust and respect each otherand live together in peace and harmony”.

Could Liow, Joseph Kurp and Abdul Rahman Dahlan, who have made public statements on this pressing issue, please tell us how many times they have raised this issue in the Cabinet meetings. If they have, what is the Cabinet decision? “Sulit”, is it?

So long as the Cabinet as a whole, through the voice of the Prime Minister, does not condemn the extremist ideology being preached by the few bigots, and order that action be taken to stop the “bullying”, the bullying is going to go on because the bullies interpret that “silence is consent”. So the Cabinet’s silence tantamounts to government’s endorsement of bigotry. For what reason, only the Cabinet wouldknow.

Why is the Cabinet abdicating its duty of ensuring that extremism is not allowed to raise its ugly head to destroy “the peace and harmony that have been achieved since the country’s independence”, in the words of the PM?

The Penal Code very clearly limits freedom of expression. It does not extend to making racist statements and carrying out actions that are “likely to cause disharmony, disunity or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will” or “likely to prejudice maintenance of harmony or unity”.

No right-thinking person will dispute that this restriction of expression is not an infringement of the democratic right of freedom of expression. Only those with evil intent will claim that these Penal Code provisions infringe their democratic right of expression.

Racist bigotry and extremism are not going to stop until and unless the Cabinet takes a strong stand to put them down. Why is the Cabinet not doing it? – December 26, 2014.

* Ravinder Singh is a reader of The Malaysian Insider.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.

- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/cabinets-silence-on-bigotry-is-endorsement-of-bigotry-ravinder-singh#sthash.JteCQPEN.dpuf

Major flood because of no hudud?

In cyberspace, I have been reading these kinds of statement these last few days.

Do some science, can we? Didn’t we send a space tourist, with the Russians, to the Space Station a while ago?

Waste not your time linking the flood to the “wrath of God”... primarily it is a Natural disaster coupled with Man’s destruction of the environment as well as the Butterfly Effect of things. Even in lands deemed very Islamic such as Kelantan and Trengganu and Pahang, Man hath shaved the hills bald even deforestating the ‘Serambi Mekah’ and although there is also a ‘Crystal Masjid’ to show piety in another state...

This is a testament, if we follow their religious explanation of events, of a defiance of the law governing the Natural State of the Universe - you shave hills for profit, you profit from logging, you become capitalists and petite bourgeoisie in religious garb, you steal from Nature to turn it into Technology and next, turn it in Capital. You do all these, you have become a religiously unethical person as well.

We saw this in Sarawak and now in Cameron Highlands. Not because there is no hudud in place. You are seeing this even in Mecca itself; with the Saudis who do not care about the environment, let alone history in the major reconstruction projects in the holy city.

There must be a joint interstate fatwa to make shaving hills in Kelantan haram to the max and also to make arguing about hudud at a time like this haram, too, I should say

But spend time not linking religion and science and making strange spurious correlations. We have to spend more time improving our disaster management plans, continuously advancing skills to the highest and more professional level, using the science of Advanced Computer Simulation to predict and control events, and to redesign habitats to ensure we do have extensive casualties and property damage when annual disaster like this strike...

“Pray to God, but tie your camel,” as they say... or rather, “Pray to God and design a 3-D camel that can help you in a major flood like this”... I’d say... "Think of new technologies for crisis management."

My prayers go to those affected by the flood... "I have been in one too many way up in the North back in the day..."

But here is the larger picture.

Are we environmentally doomed? Are we at the eleventh hour of total environmental destruction? How devastating has the impact of carbon dioxide emissions been? How serious is the depletion of the ozone layer? How much of the rainforests of the world have been destroyed? How fast are the polar ice caps melting, speeding up the looming disaster of Armageddon/ Qiamat of humankind? How many more frequent, major flash floods must we endure?

‘Man should not have carved the stone’

The Chinese philosopher and mystic Lao Tzu once said, “Man should not have carved the stone”, meaning man should not have invented things for, “... as Man began carving the stone, the process of destruction begins”.

Light bulbs, automobiles, powerplants, factories, telephone lines, bombs and computers are inventions that have historically transformed nature. Human beings ‘carve the stone’ and build structures of power and wealth which transform or even rape Nature in the process.

Ancient philosophies and the teachings of ‘revealed religion’ (of the Judeo-Christian tradition) warned against the exploitation of the physical environment so that humanity would continue to be close to Nature and closer to the realisation of the Natural Self. Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, and probably the most extreme of all Hindu sects, Jainism, teaches human beings to respect living things as part of the great chain of beings.

But Western scientific ideology has taught Man to be free from not only thinking about spirits and spirituality, nature and the natural self, religion and deep reflection, but has also ‘enlightened’ human beings into mastering Nature and using its resources for the ‘progress’ of mankind. Progress, measured linearly and scientifically, is then equated with ‘civilisation’.

I hope in 2015 and beyond do not talk too much about hudud and forbidding Muslims from saying “Merry Christmas” but to focus on realism and constantly finding ways to solve social problems and how to manage natural disasters better. Or at least to start learning what pragmatism and liberalism means and how to apply these concepts to the practice of our national daily lives.

I end this essay with these two quotes:

“We did not ask you white men to come here. The Great Spirit gave us this country as a home. You had yours. We did not interfere with you. The Great Spirit gave us plenty of land to live on, and buffalo, deer, antelope and other game. But you have come here, you are taking my land from me, you are killing off our game, so it is hard for us to live.

“Now, you tell us to work for a living, but the Great Spirit did not make us to work, but to live by hunting. You white men can work if you want to. We do not interfere with you, and again you say why do you not become civilised? We do not want your civilisation! We would live as our fathers did, and their fathers before them.” - Crazy Horse of the Sioux tribe

“I was just thinking that of all the trails in this life there is one that matters most. It is the trail of a true human being.” - Kicking Bird, (quote from the movie 'Dances With Wolves')

---

DR AZLY RAHMAN, born in Singapore and grew up in Johor Baru, holds a Columbia University (New York City) doctorate in International Education Development and Masters degrees in four areas: Education, International Affairs, Peace Studies and Communication. He has taught more than 40 courses in six different departments and has written more than 350 analyses on Malaysia. His teaching experience in Malaysia and the United States spans over a wide range of subjects, from elementary to graduate education. He has edited and authored six books; Multiethnic Malaysia: Past, Present, Future (2009), Thesis on Cyberjaya: Hegemony and Utopianism in a Southeast Asian State (2012), The Allah Controversy and Other Essays on Malaysian Hypermodernity (2013), a first Malay publication Kalimah Allah Milik Siapa?: Renungan dan Nukilan Tentang Malaysia di Era Pancaroba (2014), and Controlled Chaos: Essays on Mahathirism, Multimedia Super Corridor and Malaysia’s ‘New Politics’ (forthcoming 2014). He currently resides in the United States where he teaches courses in Philosophy, Cultural Studies, Political Science, and American Studies. Twitter, blog.

 

What Umno reps need to talk about

 

As a child growing up in the birthplace of Umno in the 60s, who saw his beloved grandfather a devoted member of this party of the 50s cry like a child in a corner by his radiogram when Abdul Razak Hussein died in the 70s, and one who has studied how this party stopped progressing by the early 80s, degenerating from a party of pride and dignity to pariah and dying with diseases of greed and gluttony by late 90s, I would like to suggest the following be discussed in order to lend the benefits of a life-support system to it.

I am also suggesting a poem be read out by the members. The following should be my humble suggestions for Umno, a party my ancestors, too, were members of, to undertake:

• Coming up with strategies to create a better understanding between the races, since we’ve been together for centuries?
• Designing our education system to be inclusive of all Malaysians with each race treated on equal terms,
• Helping any group progress, regardless of race, religion or political affiliation, since we are all lawful citizens and we are not going back to “where we belong”,
• Dismantling all systems that will perpetuate hatred amongst us and redesign our lives around celebrating our strength in diversity,
• Find ways to unify all races as one dignified race of Malaysians united against any threats from outside (if there are any real or imagined),
• Coming together as Malaysians to redesign our education system that will truly enhance children’s understanding of concepts, skills, attitude to become good learners, global and transcultural in outlook, and will grow up to see each other as a human race with a common humane destiny, rather than see more divisions and destructions,
• Collaborating with all races to see how best we can help those who are marginalised regardless of race and religion, and how best we can design an economic system that will promote cooperation, collaboration, and the enculturalisation of conscience and conscientiousness amongst us, rather that perpetually create competitions that lead to hatred and warmongering,
• Mediating the differences between Muslims of different interpretive practices, schools of thoughts, ways of leading their ‘Islamic life’ rather than create bogeymen and bogey-women for the purpose of witch-hunting and persecuting each other of the things we cannot fully understand,
• Stopping the total closing of the Malay mind by constantly instilling fear of themselves since time immemorial, since feudal times, so that the Malays can be spared of being called stupid, weak, lazy, and dependent on Umno as savior - all these a perfect model of a Master-Slave Narrative,
• Asking all members and members of your race-based component parties to read Thomas Kuhn’s ‘Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s ‘Social Contract’ and to be prepared to exist merely as world-class culture clubs rather than hay-wired political parties, due to the nature of changing times, paradigm shifts, and the realisation of the true meaning of ‘social contract’.

How about those suggestions above for a change and for better speeches in future?

Umno leaders and delegates can read this poem, maybe... instead of those hate-filled speeches clenching fists of fury awkwardly.

‘ode to folks of kuala lumpur city’

even if in your lifetime you will taste poverty
aplenty
live a life corrupt-free
and with highest dignity
... there is beauty in deep reverie
when others are living a life obsessed with money
i have seen friends and family fall flat on their face
for a life of greed and gluttony
never take a single cent you do not deserve out of your hard work
and reward you wait patiently
that was the constant advice given by our ancestors remembered so lovingly
how much must one accumulate in life to prepare for one's life
in the uncertainties of eternity
the daily papers tell me how corrupt this malaysian society has chosen to be
millions and billions changing hands with people refusing to work hard like the coolie with the deepest sense of honesty
dig not your million-dollar-grave, friends and family
people these days are getting crazy
over money money money
offer me not a million a billion a trillion maybe
these have no meaning for me who prefers a life of simplicity
where i could ride the, bus, meditate on the train, or watch ships sail the seven seas
i could do these without any worry, where my next million going to crawl to me
how many souls i will need to destroy - him as utility and his entire family
in my path towards achieving the highest glory in life based on money aplenty
no, i shall not sacrifice my cave, my poetry, my love for philosophy, the arts and humanities, my love for humanity, my freedom

to take my midnight walks along highways taking me to the the sea and its serenity
a free spirit i am
blessed will be i hope all - whose life in this kuala lumpur city
is about destroying each other as taught by machiavelli

---

DR AZLY RAHMAN, born in Singapore and grew up in Johor Baru, holds a Columbia University (New York City) doctorate in International Education Development and Masters degrees in four areas: Education, International Affairs, Peace Studies and Communication. He has taught more than 40 courses in six different departments and has written more than 350 analyses on Malaysia. His teaching experience in Malaysia and the United States spans over a wide range of subjects, from elementary to graduate education. He has edited and authored six books; Multiethnic Malaysia: Past, Present, Future (2009), Thesis on Cyberjaya: Hegemony and Utopianism in a Southeast Asian State (2012), The Allah Controversy and Other Essays on Malaysian Hypermodernity (2013), a first Malay publication Kalimah Allah Milik Siapa?: Renungan dan Nukilan Tentang Malaysia di Era Pancaroba (2014), and Controlled Chaos: Essays on Mahathirism, Multimedia Super Corridor and Malaysia’s ‘New Politics’ (forthcoming 2014). He currently resides in the United States where he teaches courses in Philosophy, Cultural Studies, Political Science, and American Studies. Twitter, blog.

The next 20 things to ban, and more

 

COMMENT I was researching topical materials for this article to be published next month. But the ever so colourful headlines recently have provided enough fodder for this second instalment of the next 20 things to ban in Malaysia, for release now:

1) Signboards of ‘lembu’ crossing - I suggest that all these traffic signages be banned from the roads. In their religion, the ‘lembu’ is never angry but always at peace and thus, (since we need to respect all Malaysians' sensitivities) we must not offend the Hindus. You see, a naive Hindu could mistakenly read the sign as meaning a holy animal is crossing over to another religion.

2) Positive (‘+’) sign - this symbol should be eliminated from Malaysian electronic devices because non-Christians who use them daily, may be fooled into converting to Christianity seeing the crucifix-like symbol appearing ubiquitously as if it’s a calling from God. 

3) Plus highway - this infrastructure should be renamed as ‘Minus’ highway due to its false advertising and again, Christian connotation. Anyone traveling on this Christian themed (‘+’ see above clarification) highway may think that this is indeed the path to heaven and would be sorely disappointed that upon consummation of their journey, instead of 72 dainty virgins at the end, only a decrepit vestibule (toll booth) awaits them.

4) Anchor beer logo - should be banned because the logo has a ‘cross’ at the top of the anchor’s shaft. According to an NGO, non-Christians may be tricked into converting when they drink this liquid as complained recently of a certain branded bottled water. To nail it, I suggest a name change to ‘Screw’ beer. Then, most Malaysians won’t feel shafted by a loose screw or two.

5) RM1 note - this note contains pictures of flying kites. Using these notes may lead us to think that we too can fly or ‘berkhayal’. As we know, ‘khayal’ is a mystical foreign habit, possibly ancient Persian, that may destroy the local culture of lepak-ism. Without our youths busy lepak-ing, how can we get them to lobby for dubious causes for a mere RM60 a day. Certain political parties would find it extremely difficult to find supporters otherwise.

6) Batu Caves - because we can see the cave and the huge Murugan statue from the main road. There are also some Malay and Chinese kampongs nearby. There's a danger that these rakyat may ‘ter-convert’ to Hinduism by looking at these structures.

7) Tourism Ministry - because this ministry is promoting Hindu, Buddhist and Taoist beliefs by encouraging foreigners to visit their places of worship in Malaysia. Innocent Middle Eastern tourists may accidentally convert by visiting such places instead of thronging Bukit Bintang’s redlight areas and contributing to our economy.

8) Cigarettes - sounds extremely hypocritical but there's already a fatwa against smoking but nobody (including all the concerned NGOs) is protesting at all. Similarly, ‘shisha’ should also be banned because there are too many foreign ‘shisha’ vendors when hundreds of highly qualified UiTM graduates are unemployed. As an alternate form of relaxation henceforth, we should pet an amphibian because from recent croaks heard, some wild frogs are feeling rather untouched.

9) Female swimwear - no longer necessary because soon, with Islamic State (IS) wanna-bes operating without restraint in Malaysia, half the population can no longer swim in the seas off Malaysia. I may be royally wrong but my sister is lamenting that such liberal dressing is totally unacceptable in a prudish country like ours. Just stick to track bottoms/bicycle shorts when swimming and ignore the false western health safety warnings, clearly a Zionist plot.

Subconsciously tricked

10) Popular term ‘tambah’ gula/susu/nasi - it's so obvious we are being subconsciously tricked into converting: Tambah = add = ‘+’. See (2) above for those still blur. From now on, to add something, a law shall be enacted to use only the words ‘kasi lebih’ or aptly in English, ‘castrate further’.

11) The half-moon logo - it represents a certain religion’s common symbol. And you know what they say about the moon's influence - it causes insanity. (As noticed recently, these moon watchers in Malaysia make new rules daily). We can’t have confused Confucians who are weak in their ecclesiastical convictions coincidentally converting by craning at the crescent. Completely crazy.

12) Britney Spears - in a certain religion’s manifestations, some of its deities are depicted holding spears. It ‘Should be Easy’ to see that this is a Jewish conspiracy disguising Britney as a Hindu deity (as in Whoopi is a Jew?). Oops, ‘I Did it Again’ but we cannot have the rakyat converting to Hinduism accidentally. It would be a ‘Circus’.

13) 2019 - I suggest Malaysia skips that year as it would definitely offend certain peoples' sensitivity. We should call it the Year after the Year after the Year of the Cock. Even the Year before the Year of the Cock, is one that some doggedly would not touch. Hence, to respect their sensitivities, just let them talk Cock year.

14) Cross junction (‘simpang empat’) - clearly the term was designed to fool some of us into the path of heaven. Henceforth, all cross junctions shall be converted into roundabouts so that all Malaysians can go around in circles to reach our final destination,

15) History - no longer shall we force our kids to study ancient civilisations and global theology. Why do that when we have thousands of local scholars who can rewrite history and spew theologically inspiring edicts currently. The rumour that a local academic may have plagiarised another’s literary content, must be seen positively as flattery to originality and not a lack of intellectual depth.

16) Elections - this western democratic practice is very dangerous because every five years or so, we are forcing millions of Malaysians to mark a ‘cross’ on their ballot paper.  Imagine, some (especially those lucky enough to do it twice or thrice) may be influenced by marking the ‘cross’ and convert. It took a generation of hard work by the administration to change the demographics of one East Malaysian state before and we cannot expect the present government to legally divert resources again to do likewise.

17) Biskut nenas - we Malaysians are a very gullible lot. Though tidbit, eating a cookie named after a woman of loose morals may lead us to be as promiscuous. At this point, I also propose renaming the popular non-halal dish (which landed Alvivi in hot soup) because Bah Good Teh can mislead East Malaysians into thinking they are drinking an excellent Cameronian brew. Not to make a storm in a tea cup but if we can recently coin ‘padang kereta’ as ‘parkir’, the proposed renaming would be just a cup of tea.

Allow all to copy each other

18) Independent examinations - because in Malaysia, we have embraced capitalism better than anywhere else and only here, the laws of supply and demand work like textbook. There's always a method to procure solutions commercially.

Since we now have to spend something like RM44,000 per CCTV camera to keep watch over safe rooms, instead of wasting millions (maybe billions) by awarding negotiated contracts, let’s just ban such examination security measures.

Instead, we should allow all candidates to copy each other, or bring books into the examination halls. This way, we will encourage multi-racial comingling our our young minds and indeed, with the heavy books they have to carry, this will also lend appropriate meaning to exercise books.

Besides, we are already doing this in certain matriculation classes and places of higher yearning so all we need to do now is to extend this excellent practice nationally and save the money for the rakyat,

19) English-medium schools - this type of school is very disruptive. You can’t teach young minds to be racist, religiously militant, racially superior, economically selfish and socially rent seeking in schools where the students tend to speak in English mostly. To succeed in Malaysia today, you need to have all the aforementioned qualities, all that are served plentifully in a certain vernacular school type.

A nation of well-spoken and intellectually reasonable young adults, is not going to help in achieving national goals. Luckily we have the Biro Tatanegara where the principles of universal justice and notions of social equality can be thoroughly disabused from the minds of students from English/vernacular schools, and, made on par with those from local medium schools. Forget about long-term effects when short term goals are achieved.

20) Rukunegara - because paragraph (5) says “mutual respect and good social behaviour”. Obviously, totally outrageous and not applicable because neither of these tenets are practised in Malaysia.

I do realise that I've been proposing several bans so to be fair, I also have a couple of proposals that I suggest  implementing as follows.

a) Aquatic runways - in future, all airport runway infrastructure must include swimming (only for men of course) facilities. This is because, with so much experience in ‘ponding’, Malaysian contractors are now experts and can expand the runway linked ponds into pools without significant incremental cost. We will indeed be envied by the Dutch (again) for Malaysia Boleh!

b) Graduate School of Stupidity - I know an honourable MIC leader had proposed an Act of Stupidity. Before they graduate and hence for his proposed Act to apply, we must have a school for students to learn the art of stupidity.

From initial research, it looks like we will have to have a very large school, and indeed, most can start at the post graduate level. From reviewing the level of stupidity exhibited by many politicians, senior civil servants and several NGO leaders, it appears that they are likely Masters of Stupidity. Hence, I think we may have to start doctoral classes for them.

Some, have got double PhDs in stupidity for sure. A self-serving convert who masquerades as an academic comes to mind. He keeps company with a minister who recently created the possibility of aquatic runways. Of course, I won't turn my back on a failed academic who now seeks infamy by blasphemy. Indeed, the school may have more potential applicants than available space.

Related story

Top 20 things to ban in Malaysia

---

RAMESH RAJARATNAM watches with amusement the headliners in Malaysia and offers his alternate views.

A brother-sister great debate - Isma vs SIS

 

The current debate between Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (Isma) and Sisters In Islam (SIS); the former a masculinist-Islamist-para-jihadist group and the latter a feminist-Islamist study group, seems to present an interesting case-study analysis of Malaysia’s own 16th Century ‘Protestant- Lutheran Reformation’ breakthrough.

Ironically it is a debate  on the word ‘liberalism’, seemingly as confusing a concept as ‘democracy’ and also of ‘Islam’. Here is why, as I see it, the debate is interesting and Malaysians should pay attention to it:

Malaysian Muslims are yet faced with another challenging situation; one which presents an interesting extrapolation of the historical dilemma the Muslims have been facing intellectually.

Coming soon would be a public intellectual crisis that involves the grand and subaltern voices in Islam. Those of the Wahabbi, Salafi, Sunni, Shiite, Sufi, and the ‘denominations derived from traditional and indigenous practices’ (the tariqats primarily) will come out in the open to assert the ‘truth-ness’ of their perspective and practice of Islam.

Essentially now, Islam seems to have many ‘denominations’ based on cultural, geographical, political, economic, and intellectual factors - as a consequence of globalisation. Muslims are all part and products of the various authorships of these ‘denominations’ - thanks to the power/knowledge matrix of the evolution of Islam. These denominations are even mutating, depending on class and consciousness of the adherents.

On a crude psychological plane in Malaysia, here is the situation, stated in simple terms:

The subaltern voices in Islam are clashing with each other. Examples abound.

The Sufis are saying that the Wahabbis are on the wrong path, the Wahabbis claim they are preaching the one and true tauhid and that Sufism is a strange invention, the Shiites in Iran are probably building more powerful weapons against the Sunnis the Mid-East over, the Malaysian government is propagating Hadhari and the halal hub in a haram casino-capitalistic environment, the Malays have produced their own messiahs or Rasul Melayu (Malay prophets) and their variants of Ayah Pins and their Sky Kingdoms, the anti-hadiths are roaming cyberspace declaring themselves Quranic-only Muslims, the liberal Muslims are at loggerheads with the strict ones bent on moral policing, the gangsta-rapper-Busta Rhymes-type Muslims are angry with the soft-spoken Raihan-a capella-type-Muslims, the Sisters in Islam are angry with the Malaysian Brotherhood of Islam called Isma, the Death Metallists are having a field day with all these chaos amongst Muslim ideologues, the Catholics are fighting in court over the issue of the ‘Allah’ ban, the whirling dervishes are still whirling... it is a postmodern situation in the field of Islam in Malaysia.

I hope this is a useful sketch of the postmodern Muslim condition. Now we have the rose of violent Islam as in the Islamic State of the self-proclaimed Khalifah Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi, Islamic conspiracy theorists said to be a child of America’s Foreign Policy and trained by the Mossad.

How to read the Quran then?

Are Muslims then better off reading the Quran hermeneutically? Is it better for them to remove themselves from the philological, historical, and most importantly cultural context, take the scripture in whatever meaningful language it has been translated into, and take only the spirit of it, and like a Prometheus unbound, soar to greater theological heights? This is a challenging question.

Or maybe religious sentimentality and critical sensibility must come from one’s own exploration using a triad of sense awareness, intellect, and intuition, drawn from purely cultural sources? - We can then be free from cultural biases and these ‘geographically and politically-bound’ schools of thoughts?

In that case then we will be going into the realm of what I consider ‘truly spiritual democracy’ and use reason and rationality to read the Quran (or any religious text) for that matter. Will the collection of hadiths be necessary any more? I think this question has been answered by the subaltern Muslims that has already begun their systematic critique of the narratives of the Great Prophet.

There is a growing number of Muslims who are beginning to assert that the highest faculty is human reason, which we must exercise in order for us to be truly human. This is the essence of the Enlightenment and of the Renaissance in that only through reason and feeling that we can arrive at an understanding the meaning of who we are.

Some say through lots of zikir, chanting, and even dancing (whirling dervishes included) that one can reach what needs to be reached mystically. The dancer danceth the dance of the dance itself (like what Michael Jackson lived for, maybe), and in his/her dance, as she whirls and twirls, he loses himself into the abyss of nothingness... profound... even looking from the outside.

But in all these and applicable to all religions, the question remains: at what point is innovation in religion allowed, acceptable, and tolerated? At what point is the ‘denominationalisation’ of Islam acceptable without the religion being demonised by those who think they have understood the Divine presence but actually clutched by the Devil’s right hand?

We are prisoners of language, trapped in a prison-house of language. We can avoid the answers but we can never run away from more questions. Like in the song Hotel California (by the California rock group Eagles) that goes “you can check out anytime you like but you can never leave”.

Perhaps, in all these lie a possible marriage between philosophy and religion - finally. In Malaysia though, is this at all possible?

Bring on the debate, O brothers and sisters! But debate wisely without raising voices.

---

DR AZLY RAHMAN, born in Singapore and grew up in Johor Baru, holds a Columbia University (New York City) doctorate in International Education Development and Masters degrees in four areas: Education, International Affairs, Peace Studies and Communication. He has taught more than 40 courses in six different departments and has written more than 350 analyses on Malaysia. His teaching experience in Malaysia and the United States spans over a wide range of subjects, from elementary to graduate education. He has edited and authored six books; Multiethnic Malaysia: Past, Present, Future (2009), Thesis on Cyberjaya: Hegemony and Utopianism in a Southeast Asian State (2012), The Allah Controversy and Other Essays on Malaysian Hypermodernity (2013), a first Malay publication Kalimah Allah Milik Siapa?: Renungan dan Nukilan Tentang Malaysia di Era Pancaroba (2014), and Controlled Chaos: Essays on Mahathirism, Multimedia Super Corridor and Malaysia’s ‘New Politics’ (forthcoming 2014). He currently resides in the United States where he teaches courses in Philosophy, Cultural Studies, Political Science, and American Studies. Twitter, blog.

Who really is a Malaysian?

 

Now, who is and is not a Malaysian? Does Umno decide this? Worse still, does Perkasa, or its cousin, Isma, decide this? This question needs to be now be truthfully taught in Malaysian history so that everyone knows who, what, and how the value of Malaysian citizenship is protected and preserved by UN Human Rights Convention. But, that, too, is very different from whoever is a Melayusian; as, this, too, is defined by the federal constitution.

All human beings are ‘pendatangs’ of one form or another; according to human race development theories. In fact, we may all be part and parcel of the original African Race. Colour has little or nothing to do with it, as I understand it. It is all defined by genome science and its investigations about the structure of our genes.

But, is not the more relevant question: does it all really matter? Are we not all human beings, of the only human race; and with almost identical features and characteristics, with minor differences endowed by the Almighty?

And therefore, as boys at the Royal Military Colege (RMC), we said as we bathed naked; “semuanya lebih-kurang sahaja!”

What is Malaysia?

Malaysia is a gathering of English colonies that were historically ‘artificially created’ to make sense of some existing realities; like the Federation of Peninsular Malay States with their sultans, the Borneo States of Sabah and Sarawak, and Singapore being desirous of becoming a new modern nation-state, according the UN System of Global Governance.

Therefore, the UN actually moderated the plebiscite wherein the legitimate residents of two states voted for the Malaysia option. Brunei had a similar choice but they chose not to, whereas Singapore was part of the similar calculus of colonial history.

Therefore also, I have always argued that “the name Malaysia” is an English etymological word and not a Melayu word from Bahasa Melayu. What is the implication of this historically well recorded reality?

It is simply that we could have been ‘Melayusia’ if we had chosen a Bahasa Melayu word, or some other Sanskrit equivalent. But, when we opted for the English compound word; and the fact that it was agreed by all relevant stakeholders; my point is that: history was created such and can never be rewritten.

Today Malaysia has no choice but to follow international norms and traditions in all such matters, or otherwise, it is inevitable that these matters will land itself in the International Human Rights Court.

Who is my grandson?

For all young people, and for some of us, much later in life: the question of one’s identity becomes a big deal, usually between 15-21 years. It is usually within our college years, or post-secondary years (usually between ages 18-22). Very often, up till that point, we are merely our parents’ children, and whatever they said, or whatever the other authorities said, will be accepted as definition of one’s identity.

But the real challenge starts when we begin to learn to “question all assumptions made up till this point because of real college-level education”.

These questions are inevitable. I have therefore dedicated this column to this kind and quality of questions which my two-week old grandson will ask about 18 years from now.

He already has a clear enough biblical name: Mikhael  Elisha Isaacs. The name Mikhael means, ‘who is like god?’ His parents are known; with his grandfather and mother on the dad’s family residing in Terengganu state, and from a well-known family whose heritage includes even a road named after their family in Kuala Terengganu.

On his mother’s side, again the grandparents are from Kedah and Wisconsin in the US. The grandmother has a pure Germanic heritage with a family tree traceable to towns in Germany, even today, thanks to their incredible records and the search by Mikhael’s 91- year old great mother’s due diligence.

On the grandfather’s side, the KJ Siblings have recorded a book of their identity and heritage on the 90th birthday of their father entitled: The Legacy of a Father’s Love. This great grandfather is now 95 years old and fading rather quickly, although he has now seen his first great grandson last weekend. Their family heritage is visibly recorded at No 4, Jalan Ibrahim, Sungai Petani.

With such a genealogy and heritage, who then is Mikhael Elisha? First and foremost he is a Malaysian citizen; and there can be zero doubts about this. The federal constitution guarantees all of this.  The only issue of contention remains is “how should the parents fill out the column called ‘keturunan’ in the birth certificate?” This former column used to be called Bangsa.

If ‘keturunan’ is still used for his birth registration, the law, if I am not mistaken, states that the ethnicity of the father defines it. Now, within current human rights logic, does the mother not matter at all, in such a consideration? Worse still, if the mother’s parents were of mixed parentage; like in our case, of Malayalee and Germanic heritage, not ‘Indian and American as misnamed’, which are really nationalities and not ethnicities.

What then is the ethnicity of my grandson?

What they have done in Singapore is to allow the parents to record the one-quarter heritage in the selected order of preference, and not simply falsely or politically impose this definition of identity.

A way forward for Malaysia

All citizens are Malaysian by nationality. But if we think their ethnicity and heritage is needed for some strange reason, the most obvious thing would be to allow them to record their ethnic heritage. Therefore, for instance, I think in all the case of my kids, we recorded them as ‘Malayalees’ as the ethnic heritage of the father. So then, what is the great error or mistake if we have him recorded as of Malayalee-German heritage for ethnicity?

So, why could not my grandson be recorded as a Malaylee, as the heritage of the father, or even one-quarter German, if that is allowed, but what is not and never is correct is that their heritage is ‘Indian’. India is a nation-state and we are not Indians; although from Kerala by heritage. Indians only exist overseas; because of their nationality. Within India there are at least 14 nationally accepted languages and different ethnicities. But there are no Indians.

Moreover, now that the Dayak National Congress has finally publicly articulated that their ethnicity must be recorded in the birth certificates, maybe it is time for us to close down the generalised notions of ‘racial heritage’ and seek to expand their ethnic categories under the ‘lain lain’ to give all citizens a choice of declaring their ethnic heritage. Dear home affairs minister, please tell me why not?

---

KJ JOHN was in public service for 29 years. The views expressed here are his personal views and not those of any institution he is involved with. Write to him at kjjohn@ohmsi.net with any feedback or views.

Of prostitutes, peace and chivalry

Dyana Sofya

OCTOBER 20 — It is an interesting exercise to browse through the many comments on my Facebook fan page. Reading through them recently, I began to notice a pattern. Generally, there are three types of comments: positive, negative and commiserative.

The positive comments mostly take the form of motivating words of encouragement. These are my favorite, and I am eternally grateful for the constant show of support from Malaysians of all walks of life. They have never failed to fuel me with positive energy or pick me up when I feel down.

As for the negative comments, they are as colorful as one would expect them to be. From the usual name-calling, gender stereotyping to all kinds of discriminating attacks, I have learned to accept them as part and parcel of public life. In fact, I sometimes find it entertaining, as it takes a special breed of people to be able to be so shallow and perverse.

However, there is one more type of comment that has become a constant feature in almost every thread. I find these quite puzzling. Somehow, there seems to be quite a few people out there who find it necessary to convey their pity or sympathy because they feel I am being “used.” Often, they would also predict that I would one day “wake up” and realise that I am in the wrong struggle, and that I would eventually “return” to the true path.

While I thank them for their “concern”, I would also like to express my own concern about the patronising culture of our society. Why is it so difficult for people to understand that we young Malay women are able to think for ourselves and have the capability (and yes, the right) to decide what we want to do and how we want to do it?

God forbid if we choose to be different. This is something they cannot comprehend. If we do not conform to their idea of what a Malay woman should be, then we have either been fooled into doing it (poor us), or we are simply doing it out of gratuitous self-interest, be it for monetary or political gain.

This attitude perhaps manifested itself clearly when a recent DAP recruit, Jamilah Rahim or better known as Melati, was told that her decision to join the party was akin to prostituting herself and her religion, simply for the riches offered.

Let me make one thing clear. If we really wanted to prostitute ourselves for material gain, then we would have joined the most powerful and wealthiest party around. At least then we can be assured of gaining something through their well-known rent-seeking practices.

Instead, we have chosen to follow our hearts and stick to our principles by joining a party that we believe best represents our shared struggle to create a Malaysia for all Malaysians. And we did this despite knowing how we would be ridiculed, especially because of our race and gender.

The crux of the matter is the low level of respect that our society has towards women. Until and unless we address this widespread discrimination and stereotyping of women in our society, we will never progress.

For starters, although women make up half the society, we are barely represented. This becomes a self-perpetuating problem because policies and laws that are made by gender insensitive men would further suppress women.

Take India, as an example. In the aftermath of the gang rape and murder of a young woman in Delhi back in 2012, citizens gathered to protest the government’s response. Rather than working to address the failures of a system that has been unable to empower the fairer sex and proven ineffective at preventing sexual violence against women, the government’s approach was condescending, treating women as defenceless and weak creatures in need of protection.

The problem was not that the government did not try, but more that they could not understand, being themselves trapped in a patriarchal mind-set. This is why it is all the more important for women to be fairly represented in politics.

While the situation is not quite as critical in Malaysia, the same attitudes exist, as is evident by the reactions towards those of us who manage to find the inspiration to take the leap into politics. As Melati, Rara (Young Syefura Othman, another recent DAP recruit) or I can attest to, it is even worse when we dare to do anything “different.”

Be that as it may, this is part of the change we seek to bring to our country. And I believe the time is opportune, as many of our sisters the world over are beginning to show. Just last week, a 17-year-old Afghan woman became the youngest Nobel Peace Laureate ever for her struggle in championing women’s right to education in a country that severely limits the rights of women.

At the same time, another high profile woman was inducted to a most distinguished order of chivalry by the Queen of Britain for her efforts to combat sexual violence worldwide. Not only is this new Dame one of the youngest ever recipients of the honour, she also joins an eminent list of former recipients, most of whom are either royalty or heads of government. Who would have thought that a Hollywood actress like Angelina Jolie could achieve such an honour?

Believe it or not, every woman, whether a teenage girl in an oppressive country or an attractive starlet, has the capability and potential to rise to the greatest heights that some men can only dream of.

And instead of belittling or feeling sorry for us, Malaysian men would do well to know this.

* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.

Religious conversion rears its ugly head again

Mariam Mokhtar

OUTSPOKEN: When Muslim clerics claim that Muslims are being converted in churches throughout Selangor and Perak, all hell breaks loose. When Muslims are accused of converting people of other faiths against their will, nothing happens.

On Oct 10, Sarawak DAP vice-chairman Leon Jimat Donald said that some parents had complained that their children had been enticed into converting to Islam, in their schools, in Betong. Children were allegedly prevented from bringing their Bibles to the MRSM boarding schools and boys had been forced to wear the “songkok”.

The parents’ fears were heightened after reading reports that a group had been visiting longhouses in Belaga, to convert the communities. It was alleged that the group had misused the “goodwill and welfare” programme, to entice them to become Muslims, with an offer of RM6,000 per person.

Earlier this May, another peninsular-based NGO, Himpunan Lepas Institusi Pendidikan Malaysia (Haluan) was alleged to have set up “religious camps”, under the programme called “Anak Angkat”, in schools in Kuching.

Following feedback from their children, parents had voiced their concerns to the Balai Ringin assemblyman, Snowdan Lawan. They met Parti Rakyat Sarawak (PRS) president, Tan Sri Dr James Masing to tell him about the alleged conversions. They said that some of the speakers from Haluan were religious teachers (ustaz), who lectured the children on things like how to differentiate between holy water and “Air ZamZam.” The programme was subsequently suspended prior to re-evaluation.

Of the 1.3 million Dayaks in Sarawak, 80% are Christian, but the indigenous people of Sarawak are not the only people who are the targets of religious conversion. Another vulnerable group of people is the Orang Asli (OA) community.

In 2006, it was reported that in an effort to propagate the spread of Islam, Kelantan offered Muslim preachers RM10,000 to marry OA women. Other incentives included free accommodation, a four-wheel drive vehicle and a fixed monthly allowance of RM1,000.

For the interior people of Sarawak, most of whom do not have a fixed income, RM50 is considered a blessing, RM300 a king’s ransom, and RM6,000 as heaven sent. The financial incentive to the Muslim preachers of Kelantan is morally wrong. These acts are objectionable and deceitful.

These underhand tactics, to convert non-Muslims, give Islam a bad name. A person who wishes to convert should only do so if there is a sincere desire to follow and adhere to the teachings of that particular faith.

He should not do it because of financial reward, a house, a 4WD or because he is to be married to one. We need only look at another part of the world, where the minority Kurdish Yazidis, are prepared to face death, when members of the extremist cult Islamic State (IS) warn them, that they will be executed unless they convert to Islam.

In the Kelantan case, did the state stop to consider that the financial reward would encourage bogus preachers? The idea of a marriage of convenience, because of material rewards is abhorrent.

What if the marriage breaks down and the OA woman wishes to return to her community and culture? She will find it an impossibility. Any children from the union will be subject to the same torture which is faced by Perakian Indira Gandhi, who after her divorce, found that her husband had converted to Islam, and forced all his children to convert. Despite a High Court order to return the youngest daughter to her mother, the husband has refused to comply and remains a fugitive. A very inept IGP has been unable to apprehend him.

In Malaysia, it is apparent that some Muslim NGOs and the Islamic state departments have the backing of the Umno-Baru government to play politics with religion. All of them give Islam a bad name. They forget that being a Muslim is not about scoring points or a numbers game.

Hasan Ali a Selangor politician, Harussani Zakaria, the Perak Mufti and other infamous Muslim politicians have used apostasy as a scaremongering tactic amongst Muslims, presumably to divide the Malays. Hasan said that a solar powered talking bible was used to convert Muslims. To date, not one solar powered bible has been produced.

Harussani said that a church in Ipoh, was used to convert Muslims. His irresponsible lies, nearly caused a riot. A church in Kuala Lumpur was said to be the seat of Malay conversions and two reporters infiltrated Sunday mass and desecrated the Holy Communion service. A dinner in the Methodist Church in Petaling Jaya was raided, because of reports of Muslims being proselytised.

In each of these cases, no Muslim has been produced, as evidence of their conversion to Christianity. The perpetrators have not been prosecuted for spreading seditious rumours. No apology has been forthcoming.

Muslim preachers and politicians should leave the non-Muslims alone. Enough damage has been done to their communities. They threaten to burn their holy books. The authorities take years to approve the building of a church or temple. They grab the OA or indigenous peoples’ lands and deny them their rightful place in society. Their social and political dues are withheld, their identities removed, their culture and language downgraded, and when they die, their bodies are confiscated.

The actions of these religious zealots, makes one ashamed to be Muslim.

Mariam Mokhtar is "a Malaysian who dares to speak the truth.”

- See more at: http://www.theantdaily.com/Main/Religious-conversion-rears-its-ugly-head-again#sthash.5Z0PQKox.dpuf

The rise of extremism and death of reason – Syerleena Abdul Rashid

The hostility and animosity targeted at fellow Malaysians whose opposing views may not be in line with the doctrines endorsed by the ruling elite, is dangerously becoming a standardised template used to instil fear in would-be “dissenters”.

Ironically, just a few weeks ago, our prime minister told the world there was a need to “break the cycle where one group gains power only to wield it against another” and to provide an “inclusive” platform that reflects the “pluralistic society” we live in. His speech was nothing more than yet another lip service to appease and deceive international critics – an ideological dishonesty Malaysians have grown to love and hate.

On October 12, 2014, Suaram and GHAH (Gabungan Hapuskan Akta Hasutan) organised a gathering in Penang to call for the abolishment of the Sedition Act. What should have been a peaceful gathering turned into a whirlwind pandemonium, instigated by none other than the usual suspects – hired hooligans from the far right. Just a few minutes after the event started, a mob of Malay men disrupted the event with overzealous fervour, reaffirming that the threat of extremism is fast becoming a disease that may eventually destroy our country.

The ruling elite saturate our society with fear. They tell us to fear the loss of certain socio-political rights, the Communist threat, the Christian agenda and other creative fibs they conjure in order to remain in power. They exploit the fears of those who are most gullible and uninformed. For the rest of us, we can see through the lies and recognise the price our future generation will pay if we allow the rot to perpetuate further.

Calls that condone extremism and racially motivated intimidation have become more apparent and several right wing groups have become increasingly vocal because they have been granted undue consent to do so. This occurs because the ruling elite are aware that socio-political reforms in our society are inevitable; it is just a matter of time before the walls of oppression start crumbling down.

Fanaticism and bigotry have found a certain stronghold in our society: as the acceptance and influence of universal values have slowly eroded, genuine intellectualism is now seem more of a taboo – a threat that should be exterminated rather than a quality we should uphold. Such causes are due to a number of factors and are often seen as a “chain reaction” that reflects ineffective policies, waning quality of life and education, unemployment and questionable political leadership. It can be said that although political ideologies fuel the fire of extremism, it is the psychological aspect that facilitates and perpetuates such evils in our society.

The disillusionment that becomes increasingly apparent in some factions gives way to radical and extremist philosophies. Only the victims of severe socio-economic and political inequalities will start rebelling against universal values that uphold tolerance, respect and sound moral logic. When disenchantment and resentment become widespread, it makes it easier for the ruling elite to utilise the “divide and rule” tactic – masked under nationalistic catchphrases and patriotism that is anti-democratic, totalitarian and somewhat fascist.

The sentiments of an overtly strong nationalism and weak democratic practices allow extremism to flourish. The ruling elite will use this concoction to manipulate the broken dreams and the unfulfilled hopes of certain factions by feeding them government-backed propaganda.

The only way out of this is through comprehensive and accurate understanding of such phenomenon. Extremism and other racially motivated violence are all part and parcel of a political agenda created by the ruling elite. Although Malaysia’s political ethos may not seem to honour democracy and the just rights conferred on its citizens, the terror created by extremism is man-made, fabricated and by all means not natural and therefore can be brought down. – October 13, 2014.

* Syerleena Abdul Rashid currently serves as Dapsy Bukit Bendera secretary and DAP Wanita Bukit Bendera political education director.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.
- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/the-rise-of-extremism-and-death-of-reason-syerleena-abdul-rashid#sthash.9LPsNhjo.dpuf

Whose country was this? Whose is it now?

We cannot move forward as a country until we sort out who we were and who we are. These questions lead to an unsettled debate on the impartiality of state: should this country treat everyone the same?

Wong Chin Huat

Let’s first accept a fact: there is not a single version of history. Never, not in any country.

Granted, official history – that appears in official documents and is taught in primary and secondary school classrooms – cannot afford to have many versions. The single version therefore should be as far as possible inclusive to do justice to all parties.

Why Malaysia is not Malacca’s successor

In the state’s official narratives, Malaysia is simply a successor state of the Malaccan sultanate.

I consider that a distortion because the Malaccan sultanate never extended its power across the South China Sea, even at its height.

The north coast of Borneo Island – namely, what we today call Sarawak, Brunei and Sabah – was nominally the territories of the Brunei sultanate, with the Sulu sultanate later making some claims on east coast of Sabah.

To me, the official history is a distortion because it hides the fact that today’s West Malaysia and East Malaysia were never ruled by the same power before the British.

Malaysia is largely and was intended to be the successor state of British Southeast Asia – officially known as British Malaya (including Singapore) and British Borneo.

Our modern boundaries are largely the result of the British, the Dutch and the Siamese self-dividing their imperial realms.

I can understand why and how my more inclusive narrative of Malaysian history is inconvenient and troublesome for many parties with vested interests because it leads to at least two implications.

First, in designing and debating the nation’s future, we cannot just look at certain periods of ancient history and overlook the more immediate periods that shaped us into what we are today, especially for Sarawak and Sabah. They became a political entity only during and because of the rule of the Brooke dynasty and the British North Borneo Company.

Second, our anti-colonial discourse was not as straightforward as per the official narrative. Our founding fathers were both collaborators and opponents to the British. They were not anti-colonial throughout.

Who owns the state?

A Muslim Dusun reader from Sabah reacted angrily towards my interpretation of history. He saw it as a deliberate attempt to erase the Malayness of Malaysia and to deny historical continuity.

This is completely untrue. I always see Nusantara (for me, maritime Southeast Asia which stretches from Aceh in northwest to Luzon in northeast and Timor in southeast) as a civilisational zone, on which post-colonial states were built.

I recognise that migration within the region before the emergence of nation-states was very common. I also recognise that Malay has been the lingua franca in the region for millennia.

I want to take my Dusun friend’s concern to a larger and more normative question in the context of nation-building and multiculturalism: how impartial should a state – in this case, Malaysia – be?

In simple terms, should the state treat everyone the same? This comes back to a more fundamental question: who owns the state?

A universalist view would see the state as a common possession of all citizens, therefore the state should treat everyone equally. This is now the global norm, at least for countries that call themselves democracies.

However, if some segment of population can be unreasonably denied citizenship – in the extreme form, they could be treated as slaves, which was the norm in many countries till two centuries ago – then equal treatment for citizens becomes hollow.

Hence, equality and inclusion would demand that citizenship be extended maximally to all residents who are willing to pledge their loyalty to the state.

Can new citizens shape the nation-state’s identity?

But as immigration becomes more prevalent, this poses a threat to the existing citizens of a state: will they be overwhelmed by newcomers?

Malaysians are so familiar with ethno-centrist calls of “Balik Tongsan” or “Balik India” that some may think this is exclusively our problem. It is not.

The fear of immigrants is in human nature. From neighbouring Singapore to Hong Kong, to Europe, America and Australia, immigrants are faced with hostility and discrimination.

To begin with, immigration is a very powerful self-selection process to produce the fittest survivors – the meek would not start their journey or might not make it.

Immigrants are therefore often hardworking, tough and determined to achieve a better life. Their competitiveness and aggression then often force the less competitive ones among the existing population out of jobs or businesses or university enrolments, even though the economy as a whole may become wealthier because of the immigrants. This is the interest-based resentment.

But immigrants are also different culturally, linguistically and religiously. They change the social fabric and cultural landscape of the nation-state, making it different and strange. This is the identity-based resentment.

Combining the interest and identity aspects, you can then have at least four basic positions on immigrants: first, reject them (no citizenship); second, accept them but force them to be assimilated (assimilationist equal citizenship); third, accept but constrain them if they refuse to be assimilated (assimilation-driven differentiated citizenship) ; fourth, accept them and celebrate diversity (multiculturalist equal citizenship).

In Malaysia, the debate is all the while dominated by the third and fourth positions, with the first position now increasingly voiced out by the Malay-Muslim ultra-nationalists.

What is problematic is that identity- and interest-based arguments against equal citizenship are entangled together and protected from rational reflection and scholarly examination by draconian laws like the Sedition Act.

For Malaysia to move on, we will need to disentangle and debate the issues and contentions in nuanced ways. Here I would attempt to deal with the identity concern.

State impartiality – to what degree?

The state’s cultural identity is mainly manifested in two ways: religion and language.

Between the two, religion is older and more intense in shaping the form and boundaries of states.

But there is a commonality as to why states are inherently tempted to wed themselves to religion and language: they help to homogenise the population in thought and facilitate control. One argument for state impartiality is therefore to reduce control and advance freedom.

If state impartiality is preferred, how impartial should it be? A maximal position is to completely exclude religion from state affairs to ensure impartiality. No religion should have its explicit influences in state laws and policies, or receive state aid.

As states cannot operate without any language, a comparable maximal position in language would be creating as many as feasible official languages. The best examples are perhaps India (as a national-state) and the European Union (as a supranational state).

In Malaysia, multiculturalism is often seen as pursuing these two extreme ends, and hence making the nation a faceless entity with no specific historical ties, which is unacceptable for the Malay-Muslim majority.

Preservation of the religious and linguistic roots of the state governing a multi-ethnic population then naturally takes the form of dismissing state impartiality.

That Malaysia is commonly owned by all Malaysians become politically incorrect and even legally seditious. To me, the delegitimation of state impartiality is the “intellectual” basis of Ketuanan Melayu in the post-colonial contestation of nationhood.

In religious field, its variant “Ketuanan Muslim” goes on to deny that Malaysia is a secular state by defining secularism in the maximum, like France or the United States – which Malaysia cannot be.

Malaysia’s secularism is modelled on the United Kingdom, where the monarch is the patron of the national religion – the Anglican Church – and 26 bishops sitting in the House of Lords, but the Church does not dictate state policies. Any wonder why we don’t read about British non-Christians’ resentment against the Anglican Church?

In this soft form of secularism, the state is not impartial, only impartial in dealing with citizens. The state has a religion but it does not impose it on its citizens. This was in fact very much the essence of the Westphalian notion of secularism to end the wars between the Catholics and the Protestants.

Taking this Westphalian notion of soft state impartiality to language, this would mean the state can promote Bahasa Melayu as the national language but the speakers of other languages should not be unreasonably discriminated against.

But making a Westphalian settlement work requires effort and trust from both sides. A Westphalian-neutral state should receive full support from all in upholding its non-threatening cultural identity.

The advocates of a multicultural Malaysia should therefore be comfortable in believing both that “Malaysia belongs to all Malaysians today” and “Malaysia was the lands of Malays and the indigenous tribes”.

They should enthusiastically embrace both the Malay language and linguistic freedom, and support Islam insofar as religious freedom is fully respected.

On a personal note, I would like to thank my Dusun friend, mondouotogod, a long-time critic of this column, for pushing me into starting my Bahasa Melayu column in August. – October 3, 2014.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.
- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/opinion/wong-chin-huat/article/whose-country-was-this-whose-is-it-now#sthash.wzms2cpN.dpuf

Melayu pemalas?

Uthaya Sankar SB, Malay Mail Online

Kata-kata Tun Mahathir Mohamad baru-baru ini bahawa orang Melayu adalah “pemalas” dan “kurang amanah” membuatkan ramai tersentak.

Bekas perdana menteri itu memang terkenal dengan sikap “mulut laser” selepas jawatan perdana menteri diserahkannya kepada Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi (2003), dan selepas itu dimintanya supaya diserahkan kepada Datuk Seri Najib Razak (2009).

Najib juga tidak terlepas daripada kritikan di mana Mahathir berkata, jika dia berada di tempat Najib sekarang, dia tentu sudah melepaskan jawatan perdana menteri.

“Harapan saya, Najib akan mengambil ikhtibar daripada prestasinya yang buruk dalam PRU-13. Malangnya sehingga kini tidak nampak apa-apa perubahan dari segi dasar atau pendekatan walaupun saya cuba menyampaikan pendapat saya secara langsung kepada Najib,” akui Mahathir di blognya pada 18 Ogos 2014.

Agak menarik untuk diperhatikan bahawa media arus perdana (elektronik dan bercetak) yang sering menjadi alat propaganda Barisan Nasional (BN) tidak berani bersuara menentang hujah bekas perdana menteri itu.

Ketika melancarkan sebuah buku di Kuala Lumpur pada 11 September lalu, bekas perdana menteri berdarah Malayali itu dilaporkan menyindir orang Melayu dengan menggelarkan mereka “malas”.

Mahathir yang menjadi perdana menteri selama 22 tahun (1981-2003) turut menuduh bangsa Melayu sebagai “kurang amanah”.

Sedap mulut sahaja mamak ini menuduh orang Melayu di negara bertuah ini sebagai “malas” dan “kurang amanah”.

Demikian saya meluahkan rasa marah saya menerusi Facebook kerana saya amat tidak bersetuju dengan kenyataan Mahathir yang bersifat serkap jarang dan stereotaip.

Saya menunggu juga Perkasa, Isma, Umno, Pekida, Kimma, Ridhuan Tee Abdullah, penari tarian punggung, pengusung kepala lembu dan para pejuang Melayu bangkit membantah tuduhan liar itu.

Menunggu juga golongan penulis Melayu bangkit berjuang mempertahankan maruah bangsa Melayu menerusi tulisan-tulisan yang bernas.

Menanti pertubuhan-pertubuhan penulis yang menerima habuan kewangan daripada Najib dan BN bangkit menyatakan sokongan padu yang tidak berbelah bagi.

Golongan penulis tidak berani bersuara

Pada suatu majlis penyampaian hadiah di kediaman rasminya di Putrajaya pada 7 Januari lalu, Muhyiddin dilaporkan berkata bahawa golongan sasterawan (Melayu) sentiasa bersama BN dan tidak pernah bersama pembangkang.

“Sekiranya ada pihak yang mendakwa golongan sasterawan berada di haluan sana (pembangkang), manakala pemimpin negara berada di haluan sini (kerajaan), itu adalah dakwaan yang tidak benar sama sekali,” katanya (Utusan Malaysia, 8 Januari 2014).

Akan tetapi, sepanjang pengetahuan saya, sehingga makalah ini ditulis, mereka belum berani bersuara menentang tuduhan liar Mahathir.

Agak menarik bahawa apabila Pengerusi Majlis Gagasan Malaysia, Manivannan Rethinam membidas kritikan Mahathir, Yang DiPertua Perkasa Selangor, Abu Bakar Yahya memberikan amaran kepada Manivannan supaya tidak masuk campur.

Selain tuduhan “malas”, golongan belia (lelaki) Melayu pula dilihat oleh Mahathir sebagai lebih berminat menjadi mat rempit dan sampah masyarakat.

“Kalau kita pergi universiti, 70 peratus perempuan. Budak-budak jantan, apa dia buat? Jadi mat rempit. … Semasa saya jadi perdana menteri, saya tidak mahu orang Melayu jadi bodoh,” katanya dalam suatu wawancara khas yang disiarkan di akhbar Mingguan Malaysia (14 September 2014).

Semasa berkongsi tuduhan “malas” dan “kurang amanah” itu menerusi Facebook, saya terpaksa membuat catatan berikut: Jangan pula ada lagi puak kurang cerdik yang menuduh “Uthaya kata Melayu malas dan kurang amanah”.

“Dalam al-Quran, ada satu Islam sahaja. Kita yang buat tiga Islam, empat Islam. Sekarang ini, ada 1,000 Islam,” katanya lagi menerusi Mingguan Malaysia.

Petikan itu juga saya kongsikan menerusi laman rangkaian sosial dengan catatan berupa harapan bahawa tidak ada sesiapa yang memutar-belitkan fakta lalu membuat tuduhan “Uthaya kata sekarang ini ada seribu Islam.”

Catatan berupa sindiran halus itu adalah disengajakan kerana semua paparan saya di Facebook adalah umum (public) dan sering disalah tafsir golongan kurang cerdik, etnosentrik dan rasis yang turut memantau tulisan saya.

Sekadar contoh, tidak lama dahulu, saya mengulas buku “Sensitive Truths in Malaysia: A Critical Appraisal of the Malay Problem” (2013) tulisan AB Sulaiman.

Segera muncul sekelompok kecil manusia yang kurang mampu membaca, lalu memutar-belitkan fakta berdasarkan fikiran sempit mereka.

Jangan lupa ‘Dilema Melayu’

Kelompok fanatik yang kurang cerdik itu membuat kesimpulan “Uthaya kata bangsa Melayu tidak wujud” sedangkan itu adalah hujah penulis buku berkenaan.

Anehnya, apabila Mahathir menyelar pemimpin Melayu serta bangsa Melayu secara terang-terangan, mereka memilih untuk membisu seribu bahasa.

Mungkin kerana mereka menganggap Mahathir maha berkuasa dan pengkritik akan terbakar hangus jika cuba melawan hujahnya.

Kalau mahu dikatakan kelompok ultrakiasu itu tidak mahu “cari gaduh” dengan pengkritik daripada kaum sendiri (Melayu), ternyata Mahathir berjaya mengabui mata mereka dengan menyembunyikan identiti sebenar keturunannya.

Dalam pada itu, ada pihak yang terlalu taksub dengan Mahathir mempersoalkan mengapa baru kini kita mahu mengkritik Mahathir, sedangkan sejak dahulu dia mengkritik orang Melayu secara terang-terangan.

Contoh paling mudah adalah buku “The Malay Dilemma” (1970) di mana Mahathir mengkritik, menyindir dan menyelar orang Melayu dengan berani dan tanpa simpati.

Ada dua faktor asas yang perlu diperhatikan berkenaan buku itu untuk menjawab persoalan mengapa orang tidak marah-marah pada waktu itu.

Pertama, buku berkenaan ditulis menggunakan Bahasa Inggeris dan sebagaimana selalu diingatkan oleh Mahathir sendiri sehingga hari ini, orang Melayu kurang membaca buku “bahasa penjajah” itu.

Kedua, selepas terbit, buku berkenaan diharamkan oleh perdana menteri waktu itu, Tunku Abdul Rahman. Maka, tidaklah dibaca secara terbuka atau dikritik secara terbuka kandungannya.

Pada 1981, sebaik Mahathir berjaya menjadi lelaki berdarah Malayali pertama memegang jawatan perdana menteri Malaysia, buku “The Malay Dilemma” tidak lagi diharamkan.

Malah, Ibrahim Saad menterjemahkan buku itu ke Bahasa Malaysia dengan judul “Dilema Melayu” (1982) demi manfaat pembaca Melayu (Umno).

Orang Melayu mudah lupa?

Memandangkan buku berkenaan dikarang oleh perdana menteri yang amat berkuasa dan disifatkan bersikap “kuku besi”, tentulah tidak ada sesiapa pun berani mempersoalkan segala hujah, kritikan, sindiran dan cemuhan Mahathir terhadap orang Melayu.

Orang Melayu mudah lupa. Demikian juga sering diingatkan oleh Mahathir.

Sajak berjudul “Melayu Mudah Lupa” dibacakan Mahathir dengan penuh perasaan pada akhir ucapan penggulungan semasa Perhimpunan Agung Umno di Pusat Dagangan Dunia Putra (PWTC), Kuala Lumpur pada 23 Jun 2001.

Harap maklum bahawa Mahathir masih perdana menteri waktu itu dan tidak ada sesiapa yang berani melawan atau membantah hujah-hujah yang disampaikannya menerusi sajak berkenaan.

Menurut laporan di Utusan Malaysia, “sebaik sahaja beliau (Mahathir) selesai membacanya (sajak), seluruh perwakilan (Umno) bangun secara spontan dari kerusi masing-masing sambil memberikan tepukan gemuruh.”

Walaupun saya dan Mahathir sama-sama mempunyai darah Malayali, saya masih tidak bersetuju apabila Mahathir menyelar orang Melayu sebagai malas, tidak amanah dan sebagainya.

Kalaulah benar orang Melayu masih malas dan tidak amanah, bukankah itu bukti kegagalan Mahathir sendiri sebagai perdana menteri, presiden Umno (baru dan lama) dan pengerusi BN?

Timbul pula pertanyaan berkenaan motif sebenar Mahathir membuat segala tuduhan dan kritikan itu.

Apakah dia sebenarnya mahu melemahkan Najib yang sudah sedia “retak menanti belah”?

Apakah Mahathir mahu segera mengangkat Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin atau Datuk Seri Zahid Hamidi menjadi perdana menteri baru menjelang PRU-14?

Atau apakah pemimpin veteran itu asyik terimbas akan kegemilangan masa lalu dan menyimpan sedikit cita-cita untuk kembali memegang tampuk pemerintahan negara?

“Bangsa saya tidak tahu bersyukur”

Persoalan-persoalan di atas hanyalah andaian-andaian yang timbul semasa berbual santai dengan rakan-rakan pelbagai kaum dan agama sejak seminggu lalu.

Kalaulah kata-kata Mahathir boleh dipercayai, segala kritikannya tidak bertujuan meraih simpati dan tidak juga bertujuan memburukkan kaum Melayu.

“Saya sedih. Bukanlah saya berharap kerana kesedihan saya akan menarik simpati sesiapa. Hanya saya ingin menyatakan perasaan saya – perasaan apabila melihat kaum bangsa saya, orang Melayu, begitu sekali tidak tahu bersyukur, begitu sekali mudah lupa, begitu sekali mudah dipengaruhi dan diperalat oleh orang lain sehingga sanggup memburukkan bangsa sendiri.”

Demikian petikan “Suara hati Dr Mahathir” yang disiarkan di Utusan Malaysia (23 September 2012) untuk renungan bersama.

“Orang putih, secara terbuka menyatakan orang Melayu adalah bodoh dan malas, tidak mampu menyumbang apa-apa kepada pembangunan negeri-negeri mereka. … Orang asing dari India dan Cina [sic] perlu dibawa masuk untuk mengatasi masalah Melayu malas dan tidak cekap,” katanya lagi.

Ternyata tidak seorang pun individu kaum Melayu yang terlepas daripada kritikan pedas Mahathir.

“Untuk bekerja sebagai budak pejabat memerlukan kelulusan tertentu. Tetapi untuk menjadi Yang Berhormat, menteri, bahkan Perdana Menteri tidak memerlukan apa-apa sijil atau kelulusan.”

Kata-kata Mahathir di atas seiring keluhan orang ramai yang sudah meluat, kecewa dan menyampah dengan perangai buruk para politikus yang tidak layak menjadi pemimpin.

Dalam tulisan sama di akhbar Utusan Malaysia (23 September 2012), Mahathir meluahkan rasa sedih dan kecewa kerana bangsanya (Melayu, bukan Malaysia) “jelas tidak dapat menangani kejayaan”.

“Bangsa saya mudah lupa. Bangsa saya tidak tahu bersyukur,” katanya.

Memang hebat lakonan dan persembahan Mahathir. Memang besar sumbangannya kepada negara.

Namun, saya tetap merakamkan rasa sedih, marah dan kecewa berikutan kenyataanya bahawa orang Melayu “malas” dan “tidak amanah”.