Cynicism holding us down. Join us and we shall overcome, says opposition insider
By NIK NAZMI NIK AHMAD
(Editor’s note: This article, written by a member of the opposition, is another response to John Lee’s 6 Feb. article Prosperity vs. ignominy, and how the opposition isn’t really helping Malaysian politics.”)
Most of my friends have long known where my sympathies lie. When they find out I’ve actually made the decision to actually work full-time in opposition politics, I attract a lot of curious questions. Some express support, some wonderment. The rest probably become a bit worried.
Many more continue to express the sentiment that was mentioned by John Lee. Now, everyone knows Barisan Nasional is far from perfect, but what can Malaysia’s disparate opposition offer beyond criticism? What have I personally sought to achieve?
Admittedly, the opposition is not without its faults, and some things that were cited by John Lee have a ring of truth to them, such as the inability to form a cohesive coalition, infighting, and the lack of alternative policies. In other words, opposition members have the mentality of the permanent opposition, rather than of the government-in-waiting.
But we must also note that the challenges are daunting, though most if not all of us are aware of the problems. In my opinion, some of the issues include the control of the media and misuse of government machinery by the ruling party, the restrictive and deteriorating democratic space and the lack of funds, not to mention the prosecution of opposition leaders.
The biggest challenge however, is confounding cynicism. Cynicism perpetuates a vicious cycle: people become cynical about the opposition, which pushes them to the fringes of politics, which only causes more people to become cynical about the opposition. In the words of Spiro Agnew in his 1968 vice-presidential campaign, they become the “nattering nabobs of negativity.�
Cynicism can be expressed in different ways. First is the view that the opposition has not projected itself in such a way that people perceive them to be credible alternatives to the government. Secondly is the mindset that, well, the opposition is going to lose anyway, so why should you go out and vote for them? Finally, there is the idea that the opposition is in reality no different from those in power, with the only difference being that the opposition is deprived of power and therefore has limited opportunities for abuse and misuse. Better stick with the devil you know.
John Lee wrote about how the opposition throughout Malaysia’s history has only reached out to its core supporters. This has been largely because most of the others are fence-sitters, floating voters or worse, cynics who do not even bother to register to vote.
Then, there’s the fear factor. Recently, I organised a private program for the opposition and one participant kept asking whether she would end up being charged through the Internal Security Act. Another’s father forbade her to attend for fear of our “hidden agenda.� Yet another friend who has been active with the opposition while also doing some business with us through her family company has been warned by her family members, for fear that their company would bear the brunt of her political involvement.
In this issue, do not have any illusions about your self-importance. Merely attending or becoming a normal member of the opposition does not land you in the Kamunting prison. The concern regarding business is perhaps more understandable, but it’s still possible for one to survive in business even if you’re involved with the opposition.
As for our so-called “hidden agenda,� I invited my friend to come and decide for herself what agenda we’re supposedly trying to hide. It’s fine if you disagree with our views, but first listen to what we have to say.
Ultimately, we have to overcome cynicism. Why don’t you join the opposition and offer your views in order to broaden their perspectives? If everyone wants to remain a cynic or become an armchair critic, how can the opposition change? How can they win if everyone has the mindset that they can’t, and so doesn’t even bother voting?
If that is indeed the case, how can the opposition have an effect on the government? The government juggernaut can only be defeated if more and more Malaysians join hands in the struggle for change. There are different levels of involvement for you to contribute to the cause for change.
Recently, following the revelation of the LDP toll concession by Parti Keadilan Rakyat leaders Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim and Tian Chua, Works Minister Dato’ Seri Samy Vellu wanted them to be jailed for revealing official secrets, and the police investigated them for allegedly breaching the Official Secrets Act. But now the government has decided to reveal the concession agreements, after pressure from the opposition!
The case is the latest among many examples of how the opposition throughout history has affected Malaysian politics far, far more than the government would care to admit. Many issues that would have escaped the government’s attention have been taken up due to the opposition’s relentless pressure. The 2004 Abdullah platform of combating corruption, promoting transparency and accountability was essentially distilled from the 1999 opposition manifesto.
Most importantly, Malaya’s first multi-racial coalition was AMCJA-PUTERA (also see Ahmad Boestamam’s Dr. Burhanuddin Al Helmy: Putera Setia Melayu Raya), not the Alliance; the former also pioneered the call for “Merdeka (Independence!)� when all the United Malays National Organisation dared to say was “Hidup Melayu! (Long live the Malay people!)�
The opposition consists of human beings, warts and all – just like the cynics. But the opposition becomes stronger when people become less cynical. This becomes more crucial for the educated and the middle classes, because they have gone so far partly because of society, and so have a bigger obligation to repay their debt to the country.
Unfortunately, the middle classes generally form the core of the cynics. When things get really bad, they pack their bags and migrate. This is the sad reality.
In life, you must eventually make a decision. Do you just want to complain in your blog or at the neighbourhood mamak? Or do you want to participate and contribute, so that the opposition can actually do the impossible and become government?
As more and more people make the decision, a critical mass for change will form, and we will gain some momentum. By then, everyone will want to join the cause for change. But for us to reach critical mass, each of us must be willing to make that step. No effort is too small, and no challenge is too big.
Many years ago, a small group of individuals dreamt of an independent and prosperous multi-racial nation. No one took them seriously: the Malayan society then was divided, poverty was widespread and the country was a protectorate of the world’s biggest empire. We can’t even make a needle, the cynics laughed, how can we become independent from Britain?
But the individuals understood that the zeitgeist was anti-colonisation and hence that change was inevitable. They made a decision. And they were proven right, although many of the cynics later joined the struggle and claimed they were the ones who gave us our independence. As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of Merdeka, it is time we rekindle the dream for a better Malaysia.
–
NIK NAZMI NIK AHMAD is a contributing writer for theCICAK.
Nik Nazmi, 25, was educated at King’s College in London and currently works as Special Assistant to Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. He was the founding editor of youth webzine SuaraAnum.com, contributes to Malaysiakini.com, the Edge and the Sun. Visit his site.
If you liked this article, here are some related posts:
- Cynicism holding us down. Join us and we shall overcome, says opposition insider
- Are you in or are you out? Why the opposition isn't broken
- The Malaysian general election is over, expect to see...
- Kissing could get you arrested. What about farting?
- Bersih rally a farce, its organizers are hypocrites
Responses || Discussion || Debates || Commentaries
Post your opinion
Does your comment encourage responsible, intelligent discussion?
All comments are moderated for impersonations and defamatory, racially, sexually and religiously offensive content.
By the way... since you're sharing your comments, get paid for it.
- The rise of left-wing politics in Malaysia
- Fuel price hike in Malaysia: Bane or blessing?
- Malaysia’s first LGBT weblog
- Kick the overspending, underachieving habit, Malaysia
- The best thing Pak Lah has done: Drastic reduction of petrol subsidies
- FFF2008 announces competition winners!
- Different races all loving each other?
- Part 2, Analyzing Malaysian Parties: Should DAP compromise its principles?
- Why I’m for Tibet being part of China, and against the Chinese Communist Party’s actions
- Is Islam, Judaism and Christianity still relevant today?
Subscribe via RSS
Latest News
Register to receive the best articles, comments, and competitions in your inbox!
Part 1: Creating a new manifesto for Malaysia
Malaysia has a government that treats the constitution as nothing more than the toilet paper that adorns your bathrooms. They run roughshod on it, treating it like joke, a document of whimsy and games. Thus, as a result...Young Malaysians, here are ten steps to become better citizens
A very basic list of things that twenty-something’s can do as citizens.The hunt for subversives: Malaysian Government arrest Bersih, Hindraf activists and lawyers
Does the "Malaysian way" condone detention without trial, arbitrary arrests, tear gas, water cannons, violence and lies?Adultery does not justify battery
How far would you go if your lover cheated on you? Be honest.
Comment of the week
I defend my right as a Malaysian to talk about anything that concerns Malaysia.
Powered by FireStats
I find it odd that everyone keeps harping on this, but the purpose of my criticisms are not to discourage or dissuade people from joining the opposition. The entire point of my piece is that the opposition is failing, and that’s why all Malaysians who want a better country need to step in and work for change.
And also, as I said in response to Nat Tan’s rebuttal, there are two classes of armchair critics. One class simply complains and blames. The other finds solutions. It’s an important distinction, because at least one class of critic is trying to make a difference in a small way.
I’m not denying the importance of actual activism, but at the same time, there’s a real dearth of meaningful and constructive commentary in Malaysia, and often the opposition seems unwilling to tolerate criticism of itself. The responses made are usually valid, but if there’s anything the opposition can do to fix itself, it should be doing it.
For example, take the problem of people fearing to be involved with the opposition. Is the solution to sit down and blame them for being apathetic, or is the solution to reach out to them and explain to them how being in the opposition can make a difference? Whenever the opposition can do something to reach out to the average voter, it should - but yet, it rarely does. The perception on the ground towards the opposition remains one of overwhelming apathy.
Perhaps this is despite the opposition’s best efforts, but at times, I have trouble believing that the opposition is making its best effort. Instead, the opposition seems obsessed with its own personal agendas like internal politicking or pressing on issues not many average voters can relate with.
The opposition has to be willing to accept criticism. No doubt the people are apathetic, and this is why the opposition is so weak and ineffective - but surely so much more can be done to change this apathy? The opposition never seems to change its tactics. Correct me if I’m wrong, but they seem stuck in the same rut, harping on the same issues and doing their own “syok sendiri” thing. The definition of insanity, it is said, is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. If the old ways are not working, maybe it’s time to try something new.
Whatever the case may be, the point of my article was two-fold. The first was to get the opposition to look at itself and how it can better reach out to the people. The second was to make the point that if Malaysians truly want a better country, a better society, they need to work for it, because now is not the time for apathy. It’s possible this point may have gotten lost, but it’s the point I was trying to make.
Some may say, then why turn a critical eye to the opposition if you are trying to convince people to join it? It’s because you have to be honest about your cause, and because you have to know what needs fixing. If you can’t identify the problems that need to be addressed, if you’re saying, “oh, we have no issues to worry about”, then it’s a blatant lie that does a disservice to all. The people need to know that the country needs fixing, and that if we want to fix our country, we’ll need to fix the opposition first.
Was this a good comment?
I have been involved in entreprenuership and new business development for more than 10 years now. I have also have had the privilleged to have met and watch politicians and government work in countries of many countries including US, Europe, Asia, Latin America, Africa. So let me add my two cents worth of what I understand in social and political change.
Real change in politics and government does not come from individuals nor even just plain ideology or believes. It is actually not that different than in business - yes you need a good idea for real change but opportunity and the ability to execute is just as important.
The issue with Malaysia is that there is really some good ideas but the opportunity and the ability is not there. The good idea is we all know Malaysia and Malaysian government can do better, it should have done better already. But conditions and the parties involved failed. Its not that different from thousands of proposals that I have seen.
The truly smart entreprenuer and real change agents understand these conditions and failure and more importantly how to change it. Ray Kroc understood that while hamburgers and fries have been around a long time but until industrial engineering and modern marketing and management came around, McDonald could not be done and he saw the opportunity while even the original founder of McDonalds did not. Marx understood the problem with Capitalism but did not understand that the problems would be superceeded by technology and a faster political democratisation than his ideology would allow.
The question really is not about changing people, its really whether conditions will allow people to change and whether the opposition have the ability to make that change. Politicians like to believe that there is no such things a the right time and right place. This is far from reality. Like entreprenuer, their job is to ignore risks and take on challenges because if they wait for all the risk and challenges to go away, no one would even try.
I believe those who try to do better are brave and deserve respect. I don’t necessary believe in what they do but its not my place to stop them or make it harder for them or even demand that they change to my view (unless its my capital, monetary or otherwise, they are working with).
So its OK not to believe that Keadilan and the opposition are futile but its not right criticize their effort if your capital is not involved. If your capital is involved such that I believe with PAS for me because their goal to create Islamic state takes away my most important capital of personal rights, I participate and give - to Keadilan and DAP. I don’t necessary think Keadilan and DAP are doing the right thing but I also don’t think its my place to change it at arm’s length.
Was this a good comment?
[…] ee join the Opposition to change it into a credible force? My response was published yesterday - the thesis was similar to Nat’s. I admit that the Opposition has […]
Was this a good comment?
If you read the web sites published by Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad, you will realise that he is a staunch supporter of an Islamic theocracy. He has failed to condemn PAS-led Kelantan and Trengganu government move to enact anti-murtad laws that allow murder on murtads (apostate Muslim).
To murder a murtad (apostate Muslim) is genocide on non Muslims since apostates from Islam are no longer adherents of Islam and so not Muslims, and so non Muslims.
PAS must be banned because of these reasons:
(1) PAS is a racist political party advocate supremacy of the Muslim race and inferiority of the non Muslim races;
(2) PAS advocates genocide on non Muslims (murtads);
(3) PAS outlawed gambling in Trengganu and Kelantan despite knowing gambling is a sacred act to non Muslims, particularly Chinese.
(4) PAS opposes abolishing the Bumiputra priveledges that accord special political, economic and social priveledges to Muslims rather than non Muslims. For example, the Yang Di Pertuan Agong must be a Muslim.
These are the reasons why I will vote Barisan Nasional if I get to choose between PAS and BN. However, I do want a strong opposition in parliament, which is why I will vote for DAP. I consider Parti Keadilan Rakyat as a stooge for PAS, so I will not vote for them if they contest in my area - my vote in such contests goes to DAP or Barisan Nasional.
Was this a good comment?
Also, let it be known to every human being that PAS refused to allow pig farming for export purposes in Kelantan and Trengganu, which it controlled after the 1999 general election.
PAS hates Jewish people and Chinese people and tries to assimilate us into the Malay culture by masuk Melayu. A Chinese who refuses to convert has to pay humilating taxes, Jizyah and Kharaj and live as non citizens. That’s how Islamic Iran treats its non Muslim minority.
Was this a good comment?
Mr. K.T. Ong,
I am a member of Keadilan. Yes, I have not hesitated to praise PAS where credit is due (just as I praise DAP), but in all my writings any objective reader can find the following salient points:
1. The need to move away from a race-based affirmative action to a needs-based affirmative action;
2. Condemning terrorism whether commited by Muslims or the West;
3. Encouraging Muslims to reach out in a diverse society whether back home or in the West;
4. Strengthening our original constitutional guarantees on the separation of powers and preservation of fundamental liberties.
It is because of my commitment to the above principles that I chose Keadilan, and I do not believe they conflict with my identity and faith as a Muslim at all.
As I’ve mentioned above, I’m a big proponent for Muslims to engage more broadly with the society they live in. At the same time, other sections with society should also engage with Muslims across the spectrum in the process of building a credible alternative to the Government.
Was this a good comment?
[…]
Posted By menj on February 27, 2007
Via Nik Nazmi, I somehow found my way to John Lee’s article which basically derided the Opposition as “a gang of peopl […]
Was this a good comment?
KT. Ong
What a religious bigot you are?
Your mind is as big as a pinhole, the way you described PAS. You have no non Malay Kelantanese friends, for one, or you are one fundamentalist Christian with a myopic view of others, no better than the Taliban.
Geez, never knew people you do exist in Malaysia.
Was this a good comment?
I wonder what is John Lee’s source of information with regards to the opposition parties internal going ons. I must say that the this BN led government has succeeded imensely over the last 25 years by putting in place a propoganda machine aimed at making the opposition look like one eyed, monsters with turbans and long drooping finger nails.
I am sure the opposition, as Nik Nazmi confessed, is not perfect - as long as there are people it’ll never be perfect. I have made it a point to meet some leaders of the opposition (including Nik Nazmi) who may surprise many of you as decent young fellow who grew up in urban PJ and went to a La Salle missionary school in his 1st 6 years of primary education.
My take is that the opposition has never been so promising as it is….and perhaps this is the critical mass among the younger generation which Nik Nazmi is talking about. The reason I say so is because there is a significant group of young malays who are ready to see some change and are not happy with the traditional UMNO. When the opposition takes on a non racial tone, the BN is at a lost because it survives by dividing the nation racially and exploits racial issues in order to justify the existence of each component party.
It would be good to question every piece of news which comes from the mainstream newspapers. Speak with opposition leaders or people who are involved to understand the main issues. Most of the time the media blows a story up more than it actually is.
Maybe I have always sided the underdog; but this time I feel the underdog is in a very good position to do something for the better. I remain positive….
Was this a good comment?
I am directing this comment of mine to both Nik Nazmi and K. T. Ong.
I am a Chinese convert to Islam and therefore proudly consider myself part of the bangsa Melayu despite my yellow-skin and Chinese ancestry. This is because I have all the rights of a Bumiputra and I am proud to be an UMNO life member. Also, all my non Muslim friends refer me as Melayu
United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) is not a racist party as being Melayu has nothing to do with skin colour or ancestry. Its like being Arab. The Prophet Muhammad(SAW) told us in a Hadith that any human who speaks Arabic is an Arab regardless of his birth or ancestry. Egyptian Muslims are racially Copts but they proudly call themselves Arabs. That is the meaning of Tun Dr Mahathir’s concept of Bangsa Malaysia - a vision where all rakyat regardless of ancestry or skin colour are seen as one race, Melayu as they speak Bahasa Melayu.
We need positive discrimination towards Chinese and Indians to encourage them to convert to Islam, which is locally called “masuk Melayu”. Even the Prophet Muhammad(SAW) encouraged such positive discrimination towards ethnic Copts who were then the majority of Egypt. When the Caliph Umar conquered Egypt, he imposed a ban on the Coptic language due to fact it is a kaafir language. This forced the vast majority of the ethnic Copts to “masuk Arab” and eventually converted to Islam in the 12th century C.E. That is why Egypt today is 90% Arab and 10% Copt and Coptic language a dead language.
However, relationship between Arab Muslims and Coptic Christians is not good because the ethnic Copts want revive the Coptic language like the Jews did in 1948 in Palestine. Those ethnic Jews revived Hebrew as a spoken language and then forced the Muslims to speak it. Arabic language is banned by the Jewish State.
Arab Muslims (eventhough ancestrally Copts) do not see themselves as Copts but rather Arabs. They simply hate the ethnic Coptic minority (10%).
Was this a good comment?
I find this perception that if you criticise the opposition, you have to have been relying on government misinformation, quite perturbing. If you think my criticisms are inaccurate, then it shouldn’t be hard to point to information inconsistent with my claims.
It’s quite clear, IMO, that the opposition has rarely focused on bread and butter issues. Certainly, its campaigns have rarely been centred on them. I don’t have many objections to a human rights-based campaign or what have you, but these abstract issues, IMO, don’t resonate with the average voters, even if they are effective at mobilising the opposition’s base.
After all, ask yourself how many Malaysians (beyond the intellectual and/or middle/upper class circles) actually care about whether Pak Lah bought a new jet for himself using taxpayer funds? They might say, “Aiyo, that’s terrible”, but it’s not an issue that resonates with them, sadly. At the polls, they’re still liable to vote for BN because BN’s weak grandstanding about economic issues is still something that resonates with more voters.
The opposition shouldn’t be afraid to run a campaign centred on bread and butter issues. If you think about it, the average person only cares about his or her self-interest - if he or she cares about society’s interest, that’s already an added bonus. In Malaysia, however, other potent issues have been race and religion. Obviously, these should not be harped on to win a campaign, but when race and religion were utilised in the 1969 campaign, it led to the opposition’s best result to date. I think something similar - minus the bloodshed, of course - can be achieved if we look at what else really appeals to the lowest common denominator of voter. And I think bread and butter issues hold this appeal.
it is of course great that the opposition has been highlighting toll hikes and the rising cost of living. But I am not sure if demonstrations are the right way to go about doing this. For one, the mainstream media blackout means any publicity gained from this will be close to nil. (I know many avid readers of theSun, the only truly independent English newspaper, and even they seem to know nothing ot these demonstrations - they just don’t make an impact because of the way the media is here.) All it does is rally the opposition base, which is a good thing, except that we would really need to reach beyond the base if we want to win.
For another, demonstrations are rarely a democratic way to effect change. Of course, in a democracy, we have (or should have) freedom of assembly and speech - but demonstrations are for social activists, not politicians. Political parties should be working on advancing their cause by campaigning for votes, not demonstrating in the streets.
it is of course true that in our faux democracy, we can’t have things as they would ideally be. But I think that the opposition truly could accomplish more if only it could hold ceramahs blasting the government on issues voters truly care about. Abolishing the ISA is a nice to have, but fixing potholes is an absolute must for many voters. Despite the perversity of these priorities, if the opposition wants to win, it has to focus more on bread and butter issues - it shouldn’t ignore the abstract issues like human rights, but it shouldn’t be almost completely ignoring the bread and butter issues voters care about.
There are so many things the opposition can harp on, after all. For example, in many schools, even in urban areas, there’s a total mismatch between teachers and subjects. You have IT teachers teaching history and physics teachers giving biology classes, for example. The opposition can promise to rectify this problem by allocating greater funding for training teachers.
Then you have our haphazard ad hoc town planning, with roads being built and LRT lines being expanded only after the existing roads are jammed at an insane level. Or you have the utter inefficiency of our local government. Or you have problems with a slow and inefficient civil service. Or - heck - you could even (and correctly, I might add) point out that civil servants and teachers are often woefully underpaid and overworked, and promise to address the problem.
These issues aren’t as sexy or, to the intellectual eye, important as human rights or transparency. However, they are issues far more likely to resonate with the voters. Not many people live in fear of being detained under the ISA. Many people live grumbling about their horrid day at the immigration department, however. Promising change in these areas would be a very effective platform.
Furthermore, some of these issues could serve as launching pads to bolster the existing abstract planks of the opposition campaign. For example, the opposition (I believe) is campaigning for the restoraton of local elections. Instead of holding ceramah about restoring local elections, why not hold ceramah about fixing potholes, and at the end of the ceramah, conclude that the only way to truly improve the quality of life is to hold the government accountable and restore local elections?
It’s important to take new angles in campaigning, and that was really the main point of my piece (for the opposition; as mentioned above, its main point for the layman was that if they want to avoid seeing our country wrecked by BN, they need to stop sitting on their asses). My criticisms are meant to make the opposition turn a critical eye to itself to see where it can improve - not to discourage it. It’s offputting, how everyone seems to assume that if you are critical of the opposition, you only want to tear it down.
Was this a good comment?
John;
Great points and you are right bread and butter issues need to be the rallying point for the campaign. I was most encouraged to see the pictures which were circulating of the Toll hike protest at the IOI mall. It was not a malay thing, nor a chinese issue but an issue that affected all urban Malaysians.
I think Keadilan’s New (or National) Economic Agenda is a step in the direction. It just needs some publicity and what it means in simple terms to the average Malaysian and how it can affect them. Although I think pot holes are a bit too simple a cause but I think I understand your main contention.
You know just as Razaleigh chose to contest against Pak Lah for UMNO presidency not for the sake of being President, and Ralph Nader runs as a US Presidential candidate; I think its imperative for the sake of Malaysia’s future that we have the opportunity of having an alternative government - a choice which ultimately puts the people back in power. Having held power for 50 years and beyond is hardly a democracy.
That is why I think it is so important to see the opposition not just as a policeman in Parliament but “Government in waiting.” I am glad that you do care enough to critique the opposition!!!
Was this a good comment?
First and foremost, I am happy that at least one member of the Opposition had the chance to bring up his points, which has made this discussion, although somewhat hostile, bear some importance.
I would first like to note that I cannot agree with the stance taken by Nik Nazmi that PAS deserves any credit where credit is due, because I personally see the people of Kelantan deserving better than that which is currently provided to them by the government, especially in terms of waste management. Also, I have a few unsettling thoughts about how the Kelantanese state government now seems a bit 2-faced in their laws, especially in their laws on entertainment and dress codes.
As for how “Keadilan is a stooge for PAS” I would like to point out to Mr. K.T Ong that this is a falsehood and misrepresentation which would probably be based on the fact that Anwar Ibrahim and most members of Keadilan were either with ABIM or supporters of PAS. After reading Anwar Ibrahim’s blog, your worries may have merit, or they may just show that Anwar himself is a religious person.
My main quarrel with the entire Opposition side is the fact that they don’t have a medium to promote their ideas to the public in general, due to the control and pressures put forward by the ruling coalition. This is not so much the fault of the Opposition, but more of the strong handed methods used by certain members who support the ruling coalition who are, well, fanatical.
Also, I noted that someone said that we should have no say if we do not have any capital involved. Are we not all voting citizens of this country? Are we not all subjected to the laws and reforms brought forth by this government? This statement stuck in my craw because it seems the commentator wishes to point out that if you don’t have anything to do with the Opposition, you have no right to complain.
Screw that. It’s partly my country, and I am a citizen. I can bitch about whatever that I see is being done wrong by anyone. That’s the right of every citizen of the country, although recent activities show that apparently we can’t criticize newspapers. They get mad and sue.
John brings up some really glaring points which is their lack of highlighting the local people’s problems (high crime rates, potholes, illegal parking which blocks roads and other local problems). Why does the local Opposition members of each district look for these issues and highlight them?
Was this a good comment?
muhammad lee, I thought you were a Malay Christian convert?
I wonder how you could change you ethnicity and religion so quickly.
Was this a good comment?
alee,
when you convert to Islam in Malaysia, your religion is then changed to ‘Islam’ and your ethnicity will be listed as Bumiputera, not Malay as he states.
Was this a good comment?
On matters of race and religion, I feel one of the biggest challenges facing PAS and to a lesser extent, Keadilan in their attempts to reach out beyond their core base of supporters is the ability to convince those outside that
a) The systemic practice of race-based discrimination at present will not just be replaced by a systemic practice of religion-based discrimination.
b) The freedom to make lifestyle choices that do not adhere to the creed of the majority will not be heavily curtailed by law. There is a heavy difference between preaching to the unconverted (or expousing your beliefs through positive example) as compared to outright enforcement, penalty or suppression.
The prospect of big government infringing on personal space will always be a major fear factor if not addressed with conviction and consistency.
Was this a good comment?
Quoting comment published by alee on 28 February 2007:
alee, can you tell us why you thought I was a “Malay Christian” convert? There is no such thing as a “Malay Christian” or a “Melayu Bukan Islam” in any of the 13 Malaysian States since every Muslim (and Muslimah) regardless of race (ie skin colour and ancestry) are considered ethnic Malays.
This ignorant statement simply shows you do not know that the 1963 Constitution of Malaysia (as well as the 1957 Constitution of Malaya) clearly says that every Muslim (and Muslimah) regardless of race is an ethnic Melayu. I am an ethnic Chinese convert to Islam and that means I am now an ethnic Melayu (bangsa Melayu). I qualify for all Bumiputra priveledges and take pride of being an UMNO life member.
Quoting comment published by alee on 28 February 2007:
For those who are still clueless, you should learn via the Internet from web sites such as FaithFreedom.org that ethnicity can be changed like sex. These (ethnicity and sex) are simply artificial human constructs and Western scholars have found every human regardless of his skin colour, ancestry or language is actually one race, the race of Adam and Eve.
In Malaysia, there is no apartheid or organised racism towards Chinese (and Indians), if we speak about race as skin colour or ancestry but not religion. Rather, Chinese (and Indians) face discrimination on grounds they are non Muslims because the Constitutional definition of an ethnic Malay is any Muslim regardless of his race (ie skin colour or ancestry). So, Chinese Muslims and Indian Muslims are ethnically Malay. The procedure of conversion to Islam is locally known as “masuk Melayu” and occurs when a Chinese “ucap”, which means he recites the Shahada.
If you don’t know even this, I feel very very sorry for you. Many gullible people get deceived by opposition propaganda, especially the Parti Keadilan Rakyat deceit that Malaysia was for 49 years a racist state. The reason why I reject Parti Keadilan Rakyat (and of course Parti Islam Se Malaysia) is because they are: (1) dishonest and continue to uphold “Ketuanan Melayu” and “Bumiputraism” both which actually mean Muslim supremacy; and (2) simply hate UMNO and concort untruths like “racist” about United Malays National Organisation, of which I am a life member.
I continue to tell everyone online and offline that I am proud to an ethnic Chinese, who upon conversion to Islam, “masuk Melayu” by simply “ucap” the Shahada. A yellow-skin person faces no racial discrimination and can hold UMNO life membership.
Malaysia is a truly wonderful country if not for money politics that exist in UMNO, the country’s longest existent multi-racial party. Yes, I always proclaim UMNO is multi-racial since being ethnic Melayu is being part of a multi-racial “super-race” that unites all races as one. That’s what Tun Dr Mahathir refered to by Bangsa Malaysia, a condition when the rakyat have a unified identity, both lingustically and religiously.
Was this a good comment?
This is an addendum to my previous comment:
I would like bravely proclaim that when the next general elections are held (perhaps in 2009), I will vote in this way, if I have these choices of parties:
CHOICE 1:
Democratic Action Party against Barisan Nasional
CHOICE 2:
Democratic Action Party against Barisan Nasional against Parti Keadilan Rakyat
CHOICE 3:
Barisan Nasional against Parti Keadilan Rakyat
CHOICE 4:
Barisan Nasional against Parti Islam Se Malaysia
My answers are:
CHOICE 1: Democratic Action Party (straight fight)
CHOICE 2: Democratic Action Party (three cornered fight)
CHOICE 3: Barisan Nasional (straight fight)
CHOICE 4: Barisan Nasional (straight fight)
Can you grasp what I am trying to tell you? If yes, you will notice that despite the cynical views of johnleemk, who is an opposition supporter, we, the common Malaysian (including me) want change but we do not want Parti Keadilan and Parti Islam. Our “bread and butter” issues are for equality among religions and we would love Democratic Action Party to be the next government (if they contest in all 222 parliamentary seats or at least in 148 parliamentary seats to have a two-thirds majority). But we reject any change proposals from Parti Keadilan or Parti Islam, which are one party, Barisan Alternatif.
Was this a good comment?
Dear Muhammad Lee;
Adam was a man and Eve a woman, at least my Bible tells me so. If sex was an “artificial human construct” then my Bible is wrong. If sex can be changed like your ethnicity, then my Bible is also wrong when it says that homosexual relationships are wrong and a perversion (Romans 1:26/27) II celebrate my ethnicity, my roots and the way God made me.
A malay is a race. An ethnic group of people from the Malay archipelago. Some anthropologist like Blumenbach have extended this to include people from the Philippine islands, Malukus, Sundas, Pacific and Tahitian. Many will disagree. The fact is that ethnicity means your place of origin, no matter how UMNO or the early malay politicians wanted to view this for the sake of politics.
Muhammad Lee seems bent on denouncing his ethnicity and takes pride in the fact that he is an UMNO life member and entitled to all priveleges accorded to him, a malay and UMNO member…and oh yes, a muslim.
I am not sure how the other muslims on this thread see this, but I will be offended that Muhammad Lee should think that only good muslims are UMNO members and vice versa!!!
Was this a good comment?
First off, I would like to say to Muhammad Lee that your belief of Mahathir and the Malays being the “super race” sounds too much like Nazi rhetoric.
Mahathir was a moderate who got along with everyone, except the press…he hated the press, he was always cynical during press conferences…
And for you to use his name to further this rhetorical belief that Malays are the supreme race, well, sieg heil to you too….
I would believe that in this multicultural society of ours, that we would stop looking at our differences in race and religion and start looking at issues of importance.
What renewable energy are we researching? Can we implement a minimum wage plan? Can there be a better management of student loans which are unbiased?
I am all for the Bumiputera’s having their privileges, but at the same time, I would like to see a higher amount of cash going to the lower income groups, no matter their race.
I would like to see the middle class get more tax deductions to help the starting of new families.
I’d like to see tax exemptions for seniors, who are no longer earning.
I’d like to stop hearing of churches having to wait 10 years to be built in the shape of factories or shop houses, or even Hindu temples being moved about just because rich fat land owners have no care for cultural importances.
These are the issues we should be discussing, not about race and religion. Those are issues that will never have a solution in this country, because of our current constitution, which states that all religions are equal, but Islam is the official religion.
Which basically means Islam, followed by the others. Don’t even try to argue that point.
Was this a good comment?
Sorry, Muhammad lee is either schizophrenic or being Fecitious. Don’t speak in riddles or are you playing the “devil’s advocate.” Follow his blog name and it leads you to an “anti-islamic” group called “faith freedom.org.”
I am a simple man and find it hard to follow your trend of thought or what you actually stand for.
Was this a good comment?
Regarding Mahathir being a moderate…I wonder how many people who believe this actually follow what Mahathir said during his time as a backbencher. He declared that there is “Malay rule” in Malaysia, and his famous work, The Malay Dilemma, argues for the NEP not only on grounds of past discrimination, but also on grounds of Malay supremacy and the fact that Malaysia ostensibly belongs only to the Malays. He was even denounced by Tun Dr Ismail as belonging to a group of ultras who believe in the dominion of others by the Malay race.
And when Mahathir was asked after assuming the Prime Ministership whether he still endorsed these views, he answered in the affirmative. Mahathir was no doubt a moderate during the economic boom of the early 90s because he could afford it - with a strong economy, there was no need to play up distracting issues like race or religion. But it’s questionable as to whether his early “ultra” beliefs ever really went away.
Was this a good comment?
In the Malay Dilemma, he is seen to have pointed out how the Malays in rural areas were lacking than those in townships. This was caused by the mixing of blood among the Malay race with other races, and also the competition provided by the other races as well.
In it, he states that Malaysia should be a country “dominated” by Malays, but at the same time he states that the Malays cannot achieve this without the other races. He basically states that Malaysia needs to be united, with Malays leading the way.
Sure, sounds like a Malay ultra. But at the same time, he admits the need for cohesion among all the races, instead of putting down the other races.
And let’s not forget when he said he didn’t need the Chinese to win, and lost his seat in Parliament. A glaring lesson.
I consider that selfish, not ultra.
Looking from then to now, I now see the religious councils exercising their powers without any control whatsoever. I see the AP issue not getting the coverage it deserves. I see Hindu temples being demolished and moved next to sewage plants. Even the demolishing of Chinese temples.
The Islam Hadhari plan which was Pak Lah’s stepping stone is so biased.
Then we have the cancellation of all Inter-faith forums.
So when you compare individually, sure. Mahathir may have seemed like a Malay ultra, but he let this slide in his administration.
Look at Malaysia now. It’s losing it’s moderation.
Was this a good comment?
I think it’s important to distinguish between racial and religious moderation. One good thing I’ll always see in Mahathir is that he was a religious moderate, and used his iron will to keep the fanatics from taking over - even if it meant making ridiculous proclamations such as that Malaysia is an Islamic state simply to pacify weakminded Muslims who think they can’t be true Muslims unless their country is a theocracy.
But on the other hand, I’ve seen far too much of his racialist tendencies to be inclined to be forgiving of his errors in this area. By the time he actually tried to do something about the problem our racial policies have created, it was far too late. By focusing on politics of cronyism and convenience for most of his premiership, and putting off issues of statesmanship and legacy to the end, he hurt our country a lot.
Remember, the keris-waving culture was not born overnight. Culture does not arise out of nowhere. This culture was being nurtured during the Mahathir years. It just so happens that Mahathir had the iron will necessary to make its proponents shut up. Now that we have a weak PM at the helm, the cracks are showing.
Was this a good comment?
I can find no objection to your points, john.
Mahathir did rule with an iron fist. Operation Lallang showed that much.
And as for keris waving, the whole thing started with Hishamuddin’s counsin, our TPM Najib himself.
Although I don’t remember any historical record of Tun Abdul Razak doing it, I think it may run in the family….
Was this a good comment?
We are cynics who don’t vote do we? Vote for what lah? Life as a samseng so much better than being a dumb ass assembly line ants like those police…they think they very great ah..we have do surveillance on them lah…when push comes to shove we can pull down certain prominent people with us too! After all 21st century mah, technology rules…just look at our cybercrime wooh so easy make money
Was this a good comment?