Why 2014 is not 1969 and 513 won’t replay

Wong Chin Huat

 Clearly, many politicians do not believe that the specter of May 13 had been buried after the 2008 Tsunami and/or the 2011 Bersih 2.0 Rally. Or perhaps, they just don’t want to do so.

And the firebomb attack of the Church of Assumption in Penang perhaps just makes a stronger case for this fear of riot.

Lest anyone overlook, Umno’s weapon to defend its regime is not just 3Rs – Race, Religion and Royalty – to mobilise the Malay-Muslims. It has actually 4Rs, the fourth one is of course Riot, which aims to scare the ethnic minorities and middle-ground voters across the board.

To threaten riot in the past would require a “perceived challenge” on the sensitive issues like Bumiputeraism, Islam and royalty. Under Najib the Moderate, the threshold has been much lowered. Even vegetarian offers can make bloods boiling.

The logic now goes:

1. Although my leader likes “kangkung”, you feeding my leader “kangkung” is insulting him.

2. Since my leader is a Malay, you insulting him is insulting all Malays.

Insulting Malays? That is of course a good enough excuse to stage an intimidating protest to demand an apology for feeding the great leader Kangkung or to threaten a replay of May 13. And our police who are known to be tough on protesters just watched and did nothing, ensuring the complete unrestrained freedom of assembly for the anti-kangkung protesters.

Unlike the expensive “The Wolf of Wall Street”, this “Wolves of the Kangkung Street” drama is much low cost. It nevertheless strikes to drive home one message: May 13 is near; we must do whatever necessary to avoid this!

How to avoid May 13? Basically two solutions are offered.

The first is a return to authoritarianism. For politicians like Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the communal tension today has all got to do with liberalisation and democratisation. If we roll back free speech and human rights (of course, the likes of Perkasa and Isma will always have their maximum right), bring back ISA, everyone will toe the government’s line, and Perkasa and Isma don’t have to demonstrate, and peace shall prevail.

The second is grand coalition. The talk of national reconciliation, if happened behind closed doors and smoked rooms, may well be the first step of some power-sharing arrangement. Just not long ago we read reports about the failure of such negotiations which started soon after May 5, and no one openly denied it.

Both these solutions point to one common goal – peace without politics. When everyone gets silenced, or when every major party gets to share power in the government, of course we won’t hear any quarrels, because we virtually won’t have politics. And without politics, we won’t have democracy!

Before politicians continue to fool us to think that 2014 can be the replay of 1969, let us look back at what happened in 1969.

Malay – not Chinese – desertion of Alliance

To set the record straight, there was no more Chinese desertion of the Alliance (the forerunner of BN) in 1969 than in 1964.

In the 1964 Malayan parliamentary election, the four non-Malay-based opposition parties – namely the Socialist Front, the People’s Action Party (PAP), the United Democratic Party (UDP) and the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) – won 25.82% of votes.

By the 1969 election, the SF was dissolved, its Chinese-majority component Labour Party boycotted the election while its Malay-majority component Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM) soldiered on in a small number of constituencies. UDP too met its demise while its key leader Lim Chong Eu set up a new party called Gerakan. As a result of the expulsion of Singapore in 1965, PAP was succeeded by Democratic Action Party (DAP). Only PPP stayed the same.

But adding together the three non-Malay-based opposition parties, DAP, Gerakan and PPP, one would get 25.88% of votes in the Peninsula, marking a 0.06% point increase compared to their forerunners five years ago.

What actually happened in 1969 was a desertion of the Alliance by Malay voters. In 1964, PAS and the only other Malay opposition party, Parti Negara, won between them 14.99% of Malayan votes. (PRM is counted as part of Socialist Front here).

By 1969, Parti Negara finished its journey while PRM joined the field of Malay-based opposition parties. PAS and PRM together won 25.02% of Penisular Malaysia votes, marking an increase of 10.03% points compared to the Malay-based opposition in 1964.

Specifically, PAS won 9.10% points more of Peninsular Malaysia votes while Umno lost 4.64% points. And the ratio of Umno:PAS vote share had diminished from more than 8:3 to less than 3:2.

A two-party system in Malay politics was almost established, and Umno’s monopoly of Malay representation almost ended, if not because of the May 13 riot.

What has not changed – illusion created by electoral system

Why did we always see the 1969 election as one of Chinese revolt against Umno?

Merely because of our electoral system. The gain of PAS merely translated from nine parliamentary seats to 12 while the three non-Malay-based opposition parties saw a jump from 6 to 22.

In 2013, PKR and PAS respectively won 20.39% and 14.77% of federal votes. Together, they won nearly 20% points more than DAP’s 15.71%. However in terms of seats, PKR and PAS merely won 6% points more than DAP.

The “Chinese Tsunami” in 2013 and 1969 (although Najib was not there to coin the word) was very much a perception created by our highly-distorting electoral system. Like visual illusions, the electoral system successfully created a post-election impression of Malays being under siege.

But this is as much as 2013 is similar to 1969.

What has changed – inter-communal solidarity

What has fundamentally changed between 1969 and 2013 is the ethnic relations. Contrary to so many people’s view of worsening ethnic relations today, this is not true.

In 1969, while there were anecdotes of Malays and Chinese protecting their neighbours from the other side of the ethnic divide from attacks of their fellow co-ethnics, there was not anything comparable to Pakatan Rakyat.

There was not any move between PAS and three non-Malay opposition parties to form a coalition to defuse the political tension. Then, Gerakan leaders handed an olive branch to Umno, but not to PAS.

Certainly there was no PAS’ Unit Amal or Angkatan Muda Keadilan (AMK) to vow dying to protect the Chinese from any Malay ultra-nationalist thugs.

The very reason why May 13 would not replay in Malaysia is the very fact Mahathir laments – there will be no Malay unity to start an ethno-religious warfare.

While a small group of Malays may be blood thirsty and may even want to package their violence in the name of Allah, true Muslims will stand up and stop them.

Many Chinese were politically transformed after the baptism of tear gas and water cannon in Bersih 2.0 rally, the first street rally since 1969 which saw massive Chinese participation.

While most of these Chinese might have grown up being brainwashed that both Malays and politics were dangerous, they realised some Malays in politics – like PAS’ Unit Amal and other Bersih supporters – not only were far from dangerous, but the most trustworthy allies.

Many still remember the legendary anecdote of how a Malay man who found a way out of Tung Shin Hospital at its backyard and shouted to his fellow protesters who were running away from police violence: “Cina lari dulu!”

Why? The most moving version was “If there must be bloodshed today, let it be Malays’ blood. Malaysia cannot afford to have a second May 13!”

To me, a new nation Malaysia 2.0 was born when this unsung hero – no one knows his name – offered himself to save his fellow countrymen and women of different ethnicity and faith.

He and plenty other Malaysian patriots out there are the very reason why Malaysia won’t have a second May 13. It’s a shame that some Pakatan leaders actually forgot about the difference that Pakatan has helped greatly to make.

Happy and Fearless New Year!

According to Chinese ancient legend, “Year” was a monster that came to snatch people and eat them alive once a year. And firecrackers were the weapon to scare the monster away.

For this Chinese New Year, I wish all Malaysians, no matter how old or young you are, to be free from this fear of May 13. Light the firecracker in your heart if necessary.

You cannot find the firecracker?

So how? Macam mana?

Just join the next demonstration. When you find yourself standing up with other Malaysians peacefully demanding a better life – not just cheaper kangkung – your fear will vanish!

Dr Wong Chin Huat is a political scientist at Penang Institute. He believes the most relevant question to ask in Malaysian politics may not be "why", but "so how

When Malaysians should ignore Dr Mahathir’s thoughts on Kajang

THE MALAYSIAN INSIDER

It is a free country. Correction. It is a relatively free country. As such, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad is free to articulate his views on anything, the weather in the North Pole to the quality of leadership in the country.

But Malaysians are free to disagree and reject whatever escapes from his lips these days.

Even a show of disdain would not be out of place for this political chameleon, who, day by day, shows a convenient ability to forget that many of the country's ills were sowed and took root during his time.

When he laments about the self-serving nature of Umno politicians and the money-grabbing culture of politics today, Dr Mahathir hopes that we forget about the obscene wealth amassed by his ministers and members of his inner circle.

When he talks about how Christians are being unreasonable by insisting on using the word “Allah”, Dr Mahathir hopes that we forget that his government in the late 1980s allowed the prohibition on the use of the word by Christians be held in abeyance.

When he complaints about rising racial and religious tension, Dr Mahathir hopes that we forget that he is the patron of Perkasa, the right-wing group that has only one brief: to divide this country.

Now, the former prime minister is giving Malaysians his two cents’ worth on the Kajang by-election.

He is entitled to poke fun at Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and call him whatever he wants. But the minute he talks rubbish, he should be called out.

Today, he urged the voters of Kajang to give MCA a chance. Why?

Because according to him the Barisan Nasional (BN) component party is trying to make a comeback after its dismal performance. Really?

One can only guess with his elastic sense of right and wrong, bartering for positions between Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek and Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai is evidence of a party on a comeback trail.

Can you imagine how selfish and self-absorbed these two MCA leaders are that they are carving out largesse for themselves even after their party was rejected by the community for being self-serving?

Liow is listless while Dr Chua... well, the less said about Dr Chua, the better.

But here is Dr Mahathir, hoping that Malaysians will give these self-serving individuals another chance.

But nothing should surprise Malaysians about Dr Mahathir. He will always speak his mind and offer unsolicited advice.

As a general rule, Malaysians should do the opposite of what he wants. After all, the man has an elastic view of what is right and wrong. – January 31, 2014.

Besmirching Allah’s Name By Trying to Protect It

By Imam Muhammad Musri
 
I’m not Malaysian. I haven’t visited Malaysia. Nor have I engaged in intense academic study about Malaysia. So I don’t claim to be an expert on all the local dynamics that led Malaysia’s high court in October 2013 to declare it illegal for non-Muslims to refer to God as Allah, which led recently to hundreds of Bibles being seized from a Christian group because they used the world “Allah” to refer to God.
But I am a Muslim scholar and an Imam who has memorized the Qur’an. And I’m fully convinced that the Malaysian court’s decision runs counter to the core values and spirit of Islam. Moreover, I call on the Malaysian high court when it hears the appeal on February 24, to correct what I believe is a tragic mistake.
My understanding is that, because of their use of the word Allah to refer to God, certain non-Muslims have been accused of trying to mask their true identity and, by stealth, woo Muslims away from the Islamic faith.

To the degree that the accusations are true, such behavior should be condemned–not because other faith traditions don’t have the right to engage Muslims in religious dialogue in the hope of converting them, but because misrepresentation is always unacceptable. Honesty is a clearly established moral expectation in the holy writings of every major world religion.
Fraud deserves appropriate penalties. But making it illegal to refer to God as Allah is not an appropriate solution for fraud — if indeed fraud is the real problem. Could the real problem be the anger of poor Malay Muslims over the rising prices of fuel and basic commodities? And could this be an attempt by some in the Malaysian government to deflect that anger?
In the same way that God is referred to as Dios in Spanish and Dieu in French, Allah is the name for God in Arabic. Dios, Dieu and Allah are not three distinct beings in a pantheon of gods. They’re simply references to the deity that in English we call God.
When cultures overlap, it’s not uncommon for words to pass from one culture to another — which is precisely what has happened in Malaysia. Because Islam has for so long been the predominant religion of the region, centuries ago the name “Allah” became the standard term used by Malaysians to refer to God.
Non-Muslim faiths use the name “Allah” in their spoken liturgies and printed materials. It’s the word used for God not only in the Malaysian, but also Arabic, Urdu, Farsi, Turkish, and many other translations of both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures.
People called God as “Allah” before the Prophet Muhammad began teaching Islam. In the Qur’an (43:87), God stated: “And if you (Muhammad) asked them who created them, they would surely say, Allah!” Therefore, everyone has the right to call God “Allah” not just Muslims. As a Muslim, I feel honored that when our beloved faith arrived in Malaysia centuries ago it made such an impact that the entire population adopted our term for God.
What concerns me about the court’s decisions is that a word that has been so fully embraced, and that should symbolize the ultimate in love and justice, could in the minds of some come to symbolize hate and oppression. Punishing for the use of a word that’s so ingrained in the daily life and worship of non-Muslims guarantees a backlash.
The Malaysian high court’s decision goes contrary to what “Allah” commended in the Qur’an (3:64) Muslims to do: “Say: O’ People of the Book! Come to a common word between us and you: that we worship none but Allah!” The court’s decision is not only wrong, but it is besmirching Allah’s Name!
___
Imam Muhammad Musri is president of American-Islam and of the Islamic Society of Central Florida, one of “The Three Wise Guys” on the Orlando-based public radio program “Friends Talking Faith,” and a member of the advisory board of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida.

East Malaysians ! Beware the Malayan Disease

By SakmongkolAK47

The Allah issue between Muslims and Christians in Peninsular Malaysia does not affect Sarawakians because they are a tolerant people, said Chief Minister Tan Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud. Here is an interesting statement coming from Taib Mahmud. Are peninsula Malaysians intolerant?

In other words, he is saying to Najib, keep out from Sarawak. Since you can’t handle an issue regarding Allah, don’t burden Sarawak with your indecisiveness and morbid intolerance. Najib and his brand of politics has no place in Sarawak. Even though Taib invited Najib to officiate and be present at the PBB congress, Taib didn’t waste any time in giving Najib a few lessons in mature politics.

Taib has the mental disposition to disassociate himself and PBB from UMNO’s machinations.

In regarding the issue as being simple and localised, Taib Mahmud adds salt to injury by instructing Najib on living a life of tolerance. Taib went on to say- “To us (people in Sarawak) there is no issue. We have lived with people of different races and different religions for many decades, even before Malaysia,”

See, the issue wasn’t even heard of before Malaysia was formed. Once Malaysia was formed, the aggressors in peninsula wanted to invade the east Malaysian states and wanted to superimpose their stupidity in East Malaysia. They brought in the Malayan disease- intolerance and racism.

When Sarawak and Sabah joined Malaysia, they entered into agreement as sovereign states with the Federation of Malaya as a single entity. That put both Sabah and Sarawak on the same level as Malaya as a whole, not placed Sabah and Sarawak as component states in the federation. The inclusion of Sabah and Sarawak isn’t like the inclusion of Hawaii as an additional state into USA. The chief Ministers of Sabah and Sarawak should be styled Prime Ministers of Sabah and Sarawak respectively.

So 'PM' Taib Mahmud declared the ruling was not binding on Sabah and Sarawak. PM Najib, the PM of Malaya must take note of the hidden messages in Taib’s comments “We cannot alter the status quo in Sarawak”.

He then went on to instruct Najib on how to live a life of tolerance; the use of the word was not a problem in the state as the “spirit of tolerance” among Sarawakians is high, one of the features of multi-racial Sarawak which made it a bedrock of stability and harmony. “When I travel to the longhouses, I'd just look for a Muslim cook from the city and they (the longhouse folks) would buy the food and even buy praying mats for me to pray in one of their rooms. “This is quite natural with us in dealing with people of different religions.

In other words, the way peninsula Malaysians deal with the problem is unnatural. Taib said it did not bother him when other people made the sign of the cross because it’s their religion, expressing their respect for the Almighty. I can understand it.”

Najib and the UMNO right wingers don’t understand it. Taib said he would bow and offer his own prayers the Muslim way when his Christian friends made the sign of the cross in their prayers. “The Chinese would probably do it their way. The intention is the same. “It's all praying to the superior being which we believe is the Creator of this world.”

“It's this kind of spirit we have in Sarawak,” Taib said, stressing again that it is not the thorny issue that is in the peninsula. “The Ibans, the Malays, the Chinese have shown their respect for other religions and cultures even before Malaysia. “When we came to Malaysia, we carried this with us and it has become one of the features of Sarawak.”
 In 2010, Taib had also spoken out against an attempt to prevent Bahasa Malaysia bibles from being freely brought into the state. He described the order to stamp the Bahasa Malaysia bibles with serial numbers by the Home Ministry as a “stupid idea” that should not be applied to Sarawak. He had also called the strictures on the Al-Kitab nonsense.

Taib uses the PBB Congress to turn the tables on PM Najib- instead of East Malaysians being looked down, Taib is saying, the west Malaysians are the stupid ones.

The AG and then the Home Minister both said, the banning of the word applies only to the publication of Herald. What happens if the Christians now decide to publish another paper using the term? Will the ruling on Herald which everyone said was specific thereafter be extended as a general rule applicable in almost every means of dissemination?

Malaysia: Nation of Strangers

Written by Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah 

Where have all the non-Malays gone?

This is the excerpted text of an address given by Malaysia’s former finance minister recently to a breakfast meeting at the Kuala Lumpur Convention Center organized by Paddy Schubert Sdn Bhd

As you are aware, our nation became free from the fetters of colonial domination about five and a half decades ago. Sadly and strangely, after 55 years of independence, I think we are now farther apart than we have ever been before. On Aug. 31, 1957, our freedom from the shackles of a colonial past was greeted with euphoria by the different races who came together on the basis of a common vision for a shared future.

 

We then had a prime minister who believed that the purpose of independence was the pursuit of happiness for the different races in the country, and our success in that pursuit was to him the ultimate test of our success as a nation.

Tunku Abdul Rahman’s vision for the newly independent nation was based on the “greatest happiness principle,” a subject of intense political discourse in 18^th and 19^th Century Europe. Like the enlightened political philosophers in the western world, our father of independence believed that governments existed to provide for the happiness of the people, and nothing more.

Tunkuʼs policies were tied up with the golden rule that we must have respect for one another and treat others just as we wish others to treat us. This golden rule was an important principle in an interdependent, multi-ethnic society such as ours.

Tunkuʼs basic concept of happiness is best expressed in his favorite maxim, “live and let live.”

It is a maxim that calls for acceptance of people as they are, although they may have a different way of life. Tunku applied the maxim in the public domain.

If Tunku had boasted that he was the happiest prime minister in the world, it was only because the people were happy. In Tunkuʼs words at that time, “I pray and hope that this happy state of affairs will continue for all times.”

Unfortunately, however, Tunkuʼs dreams were dashed to dust by the events of May 13, 1969.

This once happiest prime minister expressed the pain he felt as Father of Merdeka (independence) as he relived those traumatic moments:

“I have often wondered why God made me live long enough to have witnessed my beloved Malays and Chinese citizens killing each other.”

Such was the man that Tunku was. He was the moving spirit of the nation. He has long gone, and today his premiership is a distant memory. Since the time he left, inter-ethnic relations have taken a turn for the worse on all fronts.

Today we have a regime that promotes the concept of 1 Malaysia with all its contradictions.

We have an official document that explains the 1Malaysia concept as a nation where every Malaysian perceives himself as Malaysian first, and by race second.

However, we have a leader who openly transgresses his own official policy by declaring that he is “Malay first” and “Malaysian second”.

The statement comes as a severe blow not just to the concept of 1 Malaysia, but also as a nullification of Jiwa Malaysia or the National Spirit that Tunku was trying hard to inculcate.

No wonder that people can no longer recognize the jiwa — they just don’t feel as though they are fully Malaysian.

It is strange that after 55 years of freedom, we have not learnt the simple art of living together as brothers and sisters. The country’s source of strength is unity, and this source of strength has been slowly whittled away over the years. We have become a nation of strangers, as evidenced in the fields of politics, the economy, education and the civil service.

The strong presence of communal political parties in the country is chiefly to be blamed for the sad state of race relations in the country. These political parties invariably support racial policies and imbibe racial sentiments among the people whom they represent.

In their day-to-day administration of the country, the powers that be often give scant regard to the constitutional provision contained in Article 8(1) which states that “all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law”; and Article 8(2) which states that “there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment”.

One major sore point in the area of race relations is the New Economic Policy, whose original intention to create unity has been subverted to become a major source of disunity not only between the various races but also among the Malays and Bumiputeras in general.

The New Economic Policy, which was conceived in 1971, not long after the Tunku had retired as prime minister, was primarily created to address poverty and to raise the level of Malay participation in the economy.

It was intended for all Malaysians, and not just for the Malays or Bumiputeras. As a former finance minister, let me emphasize that it was never the intention of the NEP to create an incubated class of Malay capitalists.

If we visit the government departments or universities, we wonder where all the non-Malays have gone. After 1969, suddenly there was this attempt to recruit mostly Malays into the civil service.

It is tragic that the civil service does not reflect the racial composition of the Malaysian population, as the predominant presence of only one race tends to engender a sub-culture that is antithetical to the evolution of a dynamic and efficient civil administration in the country.

Our school system is not as it used to be. The non-Malays prefer to send their children to vernacular schools, as the national schools have assumed an exclusively Malay character.

Needless to say, national schools have become even less attractive to the non-Malays as English is no longer used in the teaching of mathematics and science. The situation will be very different if all discriminatory practices in the education system were to be abolished, and a common system of education for all is adopted.

National unity is the one area that we cannot afford to ignore, and the real genesis of national unity, I submit, is from an unlikely source: Parliament, warts and all. It is the Parliament that has the final say in charting the direction the country is heading to.

We must have a strong and resolute government which recognizes the needs of all Malaysians, and formulates the right policies for the propagation of a cohesive and integrated society. If Parliament enacts policies that are just and fair for all Malaysians based on meritocracy and need, more than half the battle for national unity would be won.

In this respect, the rakyat’s [people’s] voters must realize that in the ultimate they alone hold the key to the future of this country.