==> Pls visit new site at http://malaysia-today.net/ <==

The fight in bolehland is for wealth and power. It is easier to get them as Malays, and there must be numerical strength. The word unity is the call for gathering their number together, to vote or to bully in brute force. An issue has to be created so that division is clear, and that too would demonstrate that the people are together. The opportunists would appeal directly to racial issues, or indirectly through religion which was the prerequisite for classifying humans into Malays. All we see are games to achieve only that objective. The problem is like cancer; the people fight and the country dies.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 1

///The root of the problem seems to be this: Despite the introduction and imposition of modern tools of statecraft such as the Parliament, the Constitution, the Judiciary etc. the operative mode of politics in Malaysia – like in many other post-colonial societies – is anything but modern. Feudal, essentialist and primordial loyalties to race, religion and culture predominate and determine the norms of political praxis, and are still being used by all political parties to maintain the support of their respective sectarian constituencies. Hence the Islamist party’s preponderance to defend and foreground causes deemed relevant to Muslims; while other ethnic-based parties continue to foreground the interests of their respective ethnic communities.///--Farish A, Noor

The different communities were never so segregated before Malaya became independence, and the formation of race-based parties which together constituted the Alliance party was a winning formula for negotiation with the British. Since then the Alliance stuck to its race-based formulae, while the people did not bother to think that there were any meaningful implication about the economic, cultural or religious interests taken collectively as a race.

Life in Malaysia went through a dramatic change with May 13, and Tun Razak had to rationalize why the riots took place. He started adding things up by race, thus we hear about ownership of corporate equity capital by race, as if the rich Chinese tycoons had ever allowed their coffers to be shared by their extended families, let alone other Chinese. That started the polarisation of races where people start to consider everything in terms of race, on a collective basis.

Loyalty to the Sultans by Malays is an interesting speculation. Mahathir as Indian Mamak was able to strip the Rulers of the immunity to prosecution in 1992, and yet the Malays supported him. So either the Malays were loyal to the Sultans, or the Malays co-opted by Article 160 of the constitution have outnumbered those who were the pure Malays.

The Muslims in the days of Tunku were modern Muslims by today’s standard, and they were not less Muslims. They accepted that religious belief is a personal thing, and they were happy to dine with non-Malays on the same able, though not partaking in the non-halal meals the others were having. This was what happened when PM AAB was a student in the residential college at the University of Malaya. That was then. Now, Malay students overseas would do the same when having meals with their non-Muslims classmates. Why can’t they do it at home what they did overseas?

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 2

The closing of pig abattoir in Kedah became the headline news. Malays are free not to eat pork, and in fact there are more food items than pork that are non-halal. When they could freely view food that they are prohibited from consuming, what make it offensive that pork should be in Muslims full view? There was no such problem during Tunku’s reign. That is religious sensitivity, a fake one that is. They have the numerical strength to be precious.

The Chinese had only wanted to be allowed to live in peace with the descendents knowledgeable about their language and practice their culture. All citizens are free to practice their religions as provided in the constitution, and the people are free to learn their mother tongues in written language, as provided by the UNHR convention. The Chinese only wanted those safeguards, and as citizens, law abiding and contributing to national taxation, they are entitled to enjoy education facilities at government expense; they indicate their preference in pursuance of the norm of a democratic country. There is no proof that people educated in Chinese were communists, and that Chinese education made them anti-Malays. If some Chinese choose not to be sociable that does not imply that they are threat to national unity. But we hear UMNO racist championing to close down vernacular school. These Malay politicians are aware that the parents of 60,000 Malays in Chinese school would not agree with their antics, but they were looking for the support of those they can fool.

The so-called racial and religious problems has only one source, the fight for political power in Malay based party so that they can avail the wealth and excess through legalised corruption protected by racial and religious politics. The PM would not want to forgo his power. One ex-PM is still working on his dream of political dynasty for his son. Scholars can continue to research, and yet find no equivalent elsewhere.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 2

That is because of 52 years of Barang Naik's stupid views and ideas...that what we have assume today...

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 1