[Editor's note: These musings from commentator 'ctw' were first a response to Helen Ang's article 'Ridhuan Tee's reverse take on racism' and is republished here with permission and some later additional input from 'ctw'].
***********************************
I have just read Dr Mohd Ridhuan Tee Abdullah's articles [listed in endnote here]. My comments are as follows.
Firstly, Teoh Beng Hock's case has nothing to do ‘adultery’ (zina), nor the illegitimacy of unborn children. Ridhuan Tee fails to see the bigger picture of compassion. Legalism has not the warmth of the human heart. This is probably where he has crossed the ethical boundary by which he incurs the wrath of many Malaysians. And he still cannot understand why.
Ridhuan Tee can make any critical comments about the Chinese or the Chinese culture. But I am not sure whether he is aware of the cultural lens he himself is using:
- the accusative and self-righteous moral language,
- the authoritarian tendency of his moral order, and
- the sheer lack of the language of the Rights of Humankind.
Racist ideology not only makes a differentiation among people but creates a hegemonic and authoritarian structure of one superior over the other. Once justified, there is the fight to control resources for only certain members of the group.
Then, the question of Rights of Humankind becomes why the other race is not grateful to the dominant race. The language of universal ethics is then drowned in the hate speech of violence or coercion.
The obvious example of Ridhuan Tee’s lack of compassion is his moral condemnation of children born out of wedlock. This helps only to entrench the social stigma and discrimination against this category of children who have done nothing wrong.
Teoh Beng Hock died because civilisation had abandoned him. Ridhuan Tee does not seem to be sensitive to the tragedy in human relationships. He is much more concerned about the imposition of doctrinal law or the purity of his religious ideology.
Social/career advantages when racism pays
Secondly, Ridhuan Tee has grouped the moral rules of different religions as if they are all the same. He has yet to make a distinction of the different moral reasoning between them.
For example, Buddhist morality is neither a commandment nor a rigid law like ‘Buddha banned liquor’. The Buddhist moral guide of abstaining from alcohol is a simplification of the original version of abstaining from intoxicants.
In modern living like ours, it would logically include refraining from the consumption of [‘intoxicating’] items from the print/electronic media that contain toxins of racist ideology.
The rules are not meant to be used as a big stick to cane its followers into Nirvana. Nor are they to induce toxic shame or toxic guilt or fear so that adherents will conform to fixed rules.
Instead, the rules are guidelines for self-training, awakening and liberation.
Imposing one’s morality on others
Thirdly, this [inability to make distinctions] also applies to how Ridhuan Tee sees the relationship between the races. The Chinese culture that he is so critical of has one universal aspect: The Confucian ethical principle -- "Don't do to others what you don't want others to do onto you".
How far does Ridhuan Tee's religious moral order embrace this maxim? He has yet to show that he is consistent in this.
[Eminent psychologist Lawrence] Kohlberg had provided some insights into the stages of moral development:
Level 1, for children up to about 9 years old
What is right or wrong to them depends on whether they are punished or rewarded for doing something,
Level 2, for most adolescents and adults
Conforming to other people's expectations -- be a good boy or nice girl, and maintaining [keeping] a society in order.
Level 3, for adults
Defining moral values with social contract orientation and then going further to the higher stage of universal ethical principle (equality of human rights and respect for the dignity of human beings).
Many people get stuck at the social contract stage or below because social or career advantages tend to numb or stifle human conscience. Besides, there is the fear of being ostracised by their own group members if they choose to think and act differently.
It is difficult to eradicate racism when racism pays.
Distortion of Buddhist core beliefs
Lastly, someone commented that 'Helen Ang might be reincarnated as a cockroach or siput babi if she is a naughty girl.' This remark is derogatory.
[Editor’s note: A commentator ‘mawarhitam’ who strongly supported Ridhuan commented: “ … mungkin Helen Ang ingat kalau dia buat baik di dunia, lepas mati nanti bila kelahiran semula dia akan jadi manusia yang lebih baik, tapi kalau Helen Ang buat perkara jahat, nanti dia akan menjadi lipas atau siput babi.]
The idea that human beings would be reincarnated in different life forms of animals, insects or other humans is a distortion of Buddhist core beliefs.
This Buddhist concept of non-self is a difficult one to understand. A human being is seen as a body-mind complex. By this, it gets rid of religious and ethnic or gender identities. You are not seen as a Malay or Muslim or Buddhist or Chinese, but a self that has the conditional factors of body and mind.
The self is a label. The sense of self appears and disappears depending on conditions. The purpose is to ensure that individuals do not cling on to identities as if it is a fixed and unchangeable entity. If the self is believed to reincarnate, it means the person has not come to terms with the sense of self that can die.
No one has come back from death. It is absurd to talk about life after life [death].
It is also against Buddhist teaching to place nature and all other life forms under the human feet. It gives rise to the desire to destroy the ecosystems that sustain all life forms. Human-centricity is a very damaging developmental model.
The insinuating idea of reincarnation to cockroach/siput babi is a reflection of the arrogance of one human against another, and the arrogance of human against nature and other life forms.
_____________
Ctw hopes that this interesting video clip on racism would be helpful in making us reflect on its deeper meaning.
