AUG 1 — We have just entered the month of Merdeka as a nation for the 51st time — the thorny issue of East Malaysia aside. It is really a shame that we have yet to come to terms with unity. Over 50 years on, we are more torn than ever about what kind of unity we want and need, when what we should have been united behind was clearer than ever over half a century ago.
Today we are embroiled in talk of "Malay unity". Umno and Pas, two predominantly Malay parties, even though one permits non-Malay Bumiputeras and the other permits non-Bumiputera Muslims to join, are discussing areas they have in common, for the sake of Malay unity.
Strangely enough, nobody has bothered to define "Malay unity" so the Malaysian public can actually know what is going on. "Islamic state" and "Malay rights", "Malay unity" have become standard catchphrases, something to be supported by Malay Muslims and something to be opposed by anyone else.
What are the Malays supposed to unite behind? An Umno-Pas political coalition? The ideology of ketuanan Melayu (Malay supremacy), already rejected by de facto Pakatan Rakyat leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim? Islamic laws, namely hudud and qisas? This has to be clear.
The whole premise of the Barisan Nasional coalition in reality is national unity through intraracial unity. When the Malays unite behind Umno, the Chinese behind MCA and the Indians behind MIC — and all the other crazy nuts behind the various mosquito parties — then the whole country will be united, or so the thinking goes.
The obvious problem is that not everyone will agree politically. Some Malays are for ketuanan Melayu, some are against it. Some Malays want hudud law in every state applied to everyone, some want it only in states which choose it and applied to Muslims only, while others insist that as a secular state, Malaysia should never implement hudud.
And on less touchy issues, some Malays are protectionist while others are for free markets. Some Chinese want to keep the Sedition Act while others want to abolish it. Some Indians think we already have free and fair elections while others think our elections are blatantly rigged. It is blatantly obvious to any person with a couple of brain cells that no human being will ever agree on every political issue, whether they are from the same race or not.
So why then should everyone from one race support one political party, and by implication one political stand? The understanding, according to the BN formula, is that party leaders will hash out "sensitive issues" in private — the different ethnic communities elect BN leaders to represent them in sensitive intercommunal negotiations, not to take specific stands. So therefore we do not vote based on the issues, but on the people.
The obvious flaw is that the people we elect as leaders will choose to pursue courses of action we disagree with. So for 50 years we have had to put up with a simple choice: either blindly accept whatever one racial leader tells us, or pick another leader to represent our race.
Obviously this kind of political system is not tenable. You can make the argument that a politically immature and heterogeneous society such as ours was then cannot tolerate full democracy, although I would probably disagree. But modern Malaysia is moving away from this kind of thing.
Issues such as fundamental liberties and economic advancement are more important than race, after all. And our founding fathers anticipated this, as you can easily tell from the formulation of our Proclamation of Independence.
Compare ours with that of Brunei's, which gained independence 27 years after us. The Bruneian Proclamation declares Brunei "a sovereign, democratic and independent Malay Muslim monarchy". Our proclamation, on the other hand, announces that we "shall be forever a sovereign democratic and independent State founded upon the principles of liberty and justice and ever seeking the welfare and happiness of its people".
Our founding fathers were not too worried about things as petty as race. They did not establish us as a Malay state or a Muslim state; they did not need to call for Malay unity or Muslim unity. Even if they did believe that in the short term some authoritarianism was necessary to clamp down on ethnic tension, they knew that in the long run all that matters is that the people of Malaysia are happy, that they have liberty and justice.
So what were Umno and Pas talking about when they met over "Malay unity"? Was it about how to improve the lot of the Malays by lording it over other Malaysians with some ideology of ketuanan? Or was it a more forward-looking talk, based on the principles our founding fathers espoused, looking to further the happiness and liberties of all Malaysians?
I wish it was the latter. But if that were so, would it not be better for us to label these talks as dealing with "Malaysian unity" as opposed to "Malay unity"? When will we be able to talk about the importance of being Malaysian in more fundamental terms, as in our Proclamation of Independence, instead of ridiculous non-issues such as the number of people flying the national flag?
Fewer things are more important in the Malaysian political world than rights. Whenever we talk politics, it boils down to our rights — the rights of the Malays, the rights of the Chinese, the rights of the Indians, the rights of the East Malaysians, the rights of the Muslims; it goes on and on and on. Yet, paradoxically, while we let our politicians roil us into an uproar over the rights of our respective communities, we hardly ever seem to care about our rights as Malaysians. Even though we supposedly rejected communal politics in the most recent election, at the heart of our political discourse lie communal rights, rather than Malaysian rights. If we want lasting political change, this is the most fundamental paradigm change we have to effect.
Let's start by defining "rights". What is a right? Look it up in a dictionary, and you will find a plethora of meanings. I don't think we have ever bothered to standardise the definition of "right" in the Malaysian political context, so any definition I put forth here is probably unacceptable to many, but nonetheless I will try: for our purposes, a right is something guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. We can talk in terms of rights already guaranteed, and rights we would like to see guaranteed, but ultimately, the only rights we really have are those protected by the supreme law of the country.
Now, returning to our original problem, you might wonder what is so wrong about fighting for communal rights. Don't the Malays have their rights to defend? Don't the non-Malays have their rights too? What of the East Malaysians, or the Muslims and non-Muslims? The Federal Constitution guarantees us all certain rights, doesn't it?
The flaw in this reasoning is that, first of all, many rights we supposedly claim as ours under the Constitution are not there. The right to government funding for vernacular schools? Not there. The privileges of the New Economic Policy? The Constitution doesn't even mention the NEP. Ketuanan Melayu? Not even a whisper of it. Most of these rights are nothing more than privileges the government grants under other laws subordinate to the Constitution; they are not unrevokable rights, but privileges which can be as easily repealed as the privilege to stroll down a city street (ask the lawyers who marched for human rights not too long ago) or even the right of a fair trial (ask anyone detained under the Internal Security Act or Emergency Ordinance).
The second flaw is that although the Constitution does indeed separate us out communally, the vast majority of the rights it guarantees are for all Malaysians. Not for Malays and non-Malays, not for Muslims and non-Muslims, but for everyone. The right not to be enslaved? That goes for all of us. The right to a fair trial (now a de facto privilege because of laws gutting the Constitution)? For all Malaysians. The right to worship in peace? All Malaysians have that. The right to equal treatment under the law? Article 8 guarantees it for all Malaysians. When we talk about Malay rights and non-Malay rights, Muslim rights and non-Muslim rights, we implicitly assume there is a meaningful difference between these things. In reality, we all enjoy practically the same rights as Malaysians.
What about the handful of different rights we enjoy? For the Bumiputra (Malays and East Malaysian natives), Article 153 says they have a "special position" which the government must pay heed to. No specific rights are guaranteed, although the Constitution lists out a number of areas such as scholarships and civil service positions where the government may intervene to advance the Bumiputra. In the very same breath, Article 153 explicitly warns that the government must also protect the rights of other communities. In short, it says "Yes, there are some slight distinctions between the Bumiputra and non-Bumiputra for historical reasons, but everyone is a Malaysian now, and just because the Bumiputra need affirmative action doesn't mean you can ride roughshod over the rights of other Malaysians." In reality, we don't even need the clause protecting non-Malay rights, so to speak, because Article 8 guarantees equality under the law, but the Constitution doubly guarantees protection to all Malaysians.
Some might see hints of doublespeak and cognitive dissonance here; how can you protect the rights of one group without disenfranchising the other? Is Article 153 asking us to do the impossible? I don't think so. I think it clearly leads to the conclusion that certain privileges (e.g. those under the NEP) might be necessary to protect the rights of certain Malaysians, and little more than that. It is literally impossible to read any defence of Malay supremacy into that; if anything, Article 153 upholds the notion that there are only Malaysian rights, not Malay and non-Malay rights, because the only real way that you can defend the rights of the Malays and non-Malays concurrently is to defend the rights of all Malaysians.
The way I see it, all this talk about the rights of the Malays and non-Malays, this community and that community serves as little more than a smokescreen, distracting us from how the government continually impinges on the rights of Malaysians of every different race. Why should freedom of religion be a non-Malay or non-Muslim issue when the Constitution guarantees it to every individual citizen? Why should the citizenship of non-Malays be constantly questioned when everyone's rights as Malaysian citizens are enshrined in the Constitution?
While we bicker over this and that, the government has steadily taken away the liberties that don't belong to any one community in particular. Who benefits from freedom of movement, the right to travel wherever one pleases? Every one of us. Who suffers when that right is arbitrarily taken away, as happened to some West Malaysian opposition activists when they tried to set foot in East Malaysia? Every one of us. Who benefits from freedom of speech, the right to express our own thoughts? Every one of us, from the Indian labourer who marches for HINDRAF to the Chinese shopkeeper who marches for BERSIH to the Malay factory worker who marches for Malay economic interests. And who suffers when the government continually enacts laws which reduce and shrink this right? Every one of us, of course.
If we want a country where every Malaysian can live in peace, where every Malaysian has the same rights and opportunities to strive for their own prosperity and to lead their own lives, then we have to stop talking about the rights of this community or that community. The supreme law of our country draws no such distinctions in the rights it grants. It treats us all as Malaysians, and guarantees us all the same rights. When one of us suffers, all of us suffers.
I know it is a lot to ask of suffering people to be bighearted, to realise that the other side suffers too. But the next time your heart breaks over some outrageous travesty, be it a Bumiputra boy starving to death or a non-Bumiputra straight-A scorer who cannot obtain a place in any public university, just remember: when one of us suffers, all of us suffer. We all have the same rights to human dignity, the same rights to make the most of ourselves. We gain nothing by fighting for the rights of one individual or one community. We gain everything by fighting for the rights of the people of Malaysia, regardless of race or religion, colour or creed.
Writer John Lee Min Keong is a young and articulate Malaysian student of Economics at an American university who blogs prolifically at http://www.infernalramblings.com/. This website focuses on current events and socio-political issues.
Fellow Brandon Teoh sent me an email with the title, ‘Blogger being sued by an arrogant corporate company…’.
These days, bloggers involve in so much branding, so that when I read the word ’blogger being sued…arrogant company’ I almost flipped. Oh man, not again. These bloggers are having a ball of a time.
Nolah. It’s just the way Brandon wrote. The matter here concerns Mr. Edward Skading, a man just like any other man, who bought a can of F&N TeaPot condensed milk and found mould in the can.
Mr. Skading brought up his concern with F&N Customer Services. Having received no response, Mr. Skading wrote them two consecutive letters of complaint detailing his case in black and white. They replied, by tip-toeing around the issue, and tried diverting attention too.
Following that, the manufacturing plant was inspected by Petaling District Health Officers. The filthy plant was found to be an ideal breeding ground for bacteria and microbes, that Mr. Skading said could have been lingering in the air. Although the tins were sterilized, microbes and bacterias could still enter the can during the process of packaging. Spores thrive with oxygen, and luck had it that this can was dented and it had a hole, supplying the tin with oxygen, bringing mould to life.
Mr. Skading isn‘t interested in monetary compensation. He‘s not suing them. All he wants is for F&N to come forth, make a statement and apologize. But what Mr. Skading received were intimidations through F&N‘s own appointed lawyers. At one point, they even demanded Mr. Skading to pay RM1,000 for allegedly hurting their image. They even had the cheek to ask Mr. Skading give that money to F&N‘s choice of charity.
Why, of course, F&N couldn‘t take that money themselves. It wasn‘t a court order. So that‘s why they came up with a plan, by asking Mr. Skading to do ‘charity‘ instead.
The latest Mr. Skading received was a letter concerning a hearing session at the Shah Alam High Court. It seems F&N wants to bankrupt this old man.
Oh, not my words. Mr. Skading himself said that he‘s a poor old man.
I have to urge you on something. Please hold your opinions until you’ve read his blog through and through. The latest post didn’t sound convincing to me, for Mr. Skading wrote in a casual tone. Further readings proved Mr. Skading to be someone simple but streetwise. He also happened to be an ex-soldier who had served with the UN. His stand against the lawyers and intimidations are notable. Mr. Skading sounds calm in his blog, sometimes witty as well. Folks around his age are like that, huh?
If you’re familiar with my blog, you might recall the case of Pei Lee at SJMC, and the incidence when I almost drowned at the swimming pool. Recall the people who questioned and called names. The nitpickers on Mr. Skading’s blog sounded exactly like those who picked on me. They almost said the same things, same words, same style, same reasons. Their reasoning similarly hold that corporate companies are always right. You small consumer, small fly. You know nothing. You got it all wrong. Quit whining and go back into hiding.
That’s why when I read Brandon‘s email, I could not be so moved as to cry bloody murder. Not anymore, after being told to shut up so many times. But it is also for the same reason that I began identifying with Mr. Skading.
And I feel Mr. Skading’s case should stand alone, without being masked by the word, ‘blogger’. We don’t want people dismissing him as just another blogger playing up issues. Not that it’s true, but that’s the impression created by our traditional news media.
________________________________
So dear readers, I hope you have enjoyed Y&A Blogger Yvonne's post from yvonnefoong.com. If you have similar good writings on current events you want to share, please feel free to contact me. ~~ Wan Fadzrul, YouthSpeak Coordinator, via This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
Reeling from the humiliating defeat in Permatang Pauh, a desperate UMNO is pulling out all the stops to act against anyone it thinks is a threat to its survival - and it’s beginning to attack Malaysian cyberspace.
They have now instructed the MCMC - Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission - another running dog statutory body - to block all Malaysian internet access to the Malaysia Today website. The original website is no longer accessible from Malaysian ISP’s. The new alternate website is here: http://mt.harapanmalaysia.com/2008
In doing so UMNO is tacitly acknowledging that Malaysia Today - run by Raja Petra Kamarudin - has done enormous damage to UMNO-BN, by publishing incriminating documents, news and insider revelations about the corrupt inner workings of UMNO. With an estimated readership of 1.5 million, Malaysia Today and Malaysiakini are the two foremost independent news portals in Malaysia and wield enormous influence, as witnessed in the build-up to the March 8 political tsunami.
The person most likely behind the current assault on Malaysia Today is Najib Tun Razak, who has gone from PM heir-apparent to a political pariah, hounded by the ghosts of Altantuya, defence kickbacks, his 1987 ‘we-will-bathe-the-country-in-Chinese-blood’ keris-waving stunt, the intimidation of PI Balasubramaniam (in relation to the Altantuya case) and attempted intimidation of Dr. Mohd. Osman (whose refusal to ‘amend’ his leaked medical report is a pain in the arse for the Sodomy 2 conspirators) and many, many other scandals.
Najib is also widely seen as one of the prime movers behind the ‘Sodomy Part 2? conspiracy against Anwar - after all, who was this failed student Saiful Bukhari who could approach the Deputy Prime Minister himself for a ’scholarship interview’? Just as damaging, the ‘imam’ who witnessed the sodomy swearing ceremony chickened out in the face of eternal damnation and confessed that he had been ‘acting on instructions’ - a trail that points back to IGP Musa Hassan, AG Abdul Gani Patail and ultimately Najib.
Najib’s rapid reversal in fortunes is due in no small part to the extraordinarily damaging allegations levelled against him by Malaysia Today - particularly with regard to the Altantuya murder, where a continuing series of articles, published documents and statutory declarations have tightened the noose on Najib.
Of course, this being Malaysia, the ‘law enforcement agencies’ chose to persecute the whistleblowers rather than investigate the allegations. Najib and his police thugs managed to silence Altantuya, Razak Baginda and the hapless PI Bala, but he could not intimidate Raja Petra. The revelations have proven to be so damaging that Najib himself had to swear on the Quran that he had nothing to do with the murder and he did not know Altantuya.
But we all know how effective swearing on the Quran is: a cheap, desperate publicity stunt. Permatang Pauh proved that people can see through the charade. Any dumb shit can swear on the Quran (or other holy book). Money is the greatest religion of all; Saiful Bukhari forsook Allah for the God of Holy Ringgit.
In the aftermath of Permatang Pauh, the dogs are turning on their master, and the same fractious voices (Mahathir, Tengku Razaleigh, Mukhriz, Muhyiddin) are once again openly calling for Badawi to step down. But - as some astute MSK readers pointed out, it was Najib - the Prime-Minister designate - who led the UMNO-BN campaign in Permatang Pauh, a campaign that quickly and predictably descended into the blatant ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ racist rhetoric that UMNO always falls back on in its intellectual bankruptcy.
The victory is especially significant for all Malaysians, as the Malay-majority electorate bluntly rejected the ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ rhetoric in favour of Keadilan’s multi-racial platform.
Without discounting the personal charisma and ‘home-ground advantage’ of Anwar Ibrahim, the overwhelming rejection of UMNO-BN in the primarily Malay constituency of PP was not only a rejection of the UMNO agenda, it was also a personal rejection of Najib Tun Razak as PM-in-waiting. Ground reports indicate that Najib’s ceramahs drew as few as 50 people, mainly UMNO members - a situation previously faced by Samy Vellu in his home constituency of Sg. Siput.
The message is clear: the time of UMNO-BN is over. Najib Tun Razak is persona non grata. We are tired of race politics and this corrupt, fascist government.
We want our country back. And we will take our country back.
We are reproducing excerpts from two recent articles in The Guardian exposing attempts by the departing British government to cover up embarrassing state crimes carried out during the final years of its empire, including in colonial Malaya.
We are reproducing excerpts from two recent articles in The Guardian exposing attempts by the departing British government to cover up embarrassing state crimes carried out during the final years of its empire, including in colonial Malaya.