Auto Added by WPeMatico
AS EXPECTED, when Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad repeated his call for Malay unity, the racists and chauvinists — that had been hiding behind the veil of liberal democracy and multi-racialism — showed their true colours and came out in knotted knickers to berate him.
While they accused the centenarian of being racist and encouraging segregation, they are obviously fully aware of the concept of reverse psychology, in which “before you get exposed, you accuse others of the crime and sin.”
The concept is not difficult to comprehend. A simple version would be a thief on the run who joins the posse and shouts “thief,” preferably louder than those giving chase.
So those who shout and rant about others, in this case Dr Mahathir, of being racist, are actually exposing their racist and chauvinistic nature.
Firstly, when Dr Mahathir urged the Malays to unite and vote for a Malay candidate, obviously, it is because the Malay grip on political power in the Peninsula has eroded to a point where anything Malay or Islamic is being questioned and opposed.
A couple of recent examples that prove this point are the case over the Selangor Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah’s demand for the ban of pig rearing in the state and the opposition to the construction of a mosque opposite the Tun Razak Exchange (TRX) in Kuala Lumpur (KL).
When the Sultan decreed that, he was performing his task as the last bastion and defender of Islam and Malay, a constitutionally stipulated role.
While it can be argued that he is also expected to be protecting the interests of non-Malays, in a situation when the interests of Malay and Islam are in jeopardy if the non-Malay interest is being imposed, then obviously he would have to protect the former first.
Then, it is up to the executive to figure out how to assist and convincingly advise the Sultan on attending to the interests of the non-Malay.
Again, the Sultan has to be Malay and Islamic first, as being a Malaysian is a given, as he is a Malay Ruler, and only a Malay Muslim can be the Ruler.
Instead of finding ways of convincing the executive, some DAP leaders chose to raise issues over the Malay Ruler’s limitations as a Constitutional monarch.
It then raises the essence of the debate in which, if the Malay Rulers are constrained by constitutional definitions, obviously, the Malays need substantial grip on political power for their interest to be pursued or defended.
The next question that would be raised would then be why should only the Malay interest be important, while not that of the non-Malays? Aren’t they citizens of Malaysia as well?
Indeed, superficially, it is discriminatory and segregationist.
Actually, it is very much the opposite. When Malaysia was incorporated in 1963, it was a union of four territories — Persekutuan Tanah Melayu, Singapore, the then North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak. Singapore, as everyone knows, left the union in 1965 to be its own republic but not before sowing the idea of Malaysia.
Recent years saw the demands of Sabah and Sarawak that the Malaysia Agreement of 1963 be observed to the letter, which repositioned them from being states in Malaysia to being partners to Persekutuan Tanah Melayu.
While the status of the indigenous or Bumiputera in Sabah and Sarawak is supported and defended by not only the locals but also by politicians from the Peninsula.
Yet, when Sabah and Sarawak regained and were given their due recognition, the Persekutuan Tanah Melayu was never addressed publicly and taken as being Malaysia, which is actually not quite correct if the Sabah and Sarawak factor are of the essence.
That means that the Peninsula is the Persekutuan Tanah Melayu, and it is something that the Malays cherish and would want to protect their identity for as long as it takes.
That sentiment is not different in any way from the way Sarawakians and Sabahans feel over the position of their indigenous Bumiputera and the identity of their territories, and as that of other races in the world over, be they Chinese in China or Indians in India.
While the non-Malays can understand and appreciate these sentiments felt by the Bumiputera in Sabah and Sarawak, they, however, begrudge the similar sentiments felt by the Malays in the Peninsula.
In a recent podcast session with Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) Institute of Ethnic Studies (KITA) principal fellow Prof Datuk Dr Teo Kok Seong, whom the non-Malays disliked extremely for his supposedly pro-Malay, pro-Islam views, the academic pointed out that one of the reasons for the hostilities is the disinterest in understanding the concept of multi-racial which is being widely bandied by populist politicians.
Teo was quite succinct in stating his opinion, in which he said that when talking about multi-racial, it is in reference to the demography or how the population is stacked up, but the primacy and the philosophy of this nation is based on Malay and Islam.
Despite that, there has been dilution in parts of the culture and lifestyle, much because of the readiness of the Malays themselves to let it pass, but the primacy and philosophy cannot be compromised, as it is the identity of the nation.
Defending this in other parts of the world would have been described as nationalism and patriotism, but unfortunately, in Malaysia, it is labelled as racism, discrimination and segregation.
Policies and legal provisions which are put in place to ensure that the Malays are not swallowed over time by the economic prowess of the migrant community are viewed as discriminatory and or worse, apartheid, when they are merely tools to ensure a pittance share and continued existence in a nation they called theirs.
In fact, if truth be told, apartheid would occur if the minority took control of the political power after having dominated the economic sector.
That was the very essence of the South African apartheid when the minority “migrant” white controlled both the economic and political power over the majority indigenous black community.
Obviously, that is something no fair-minded human would want.
PART TWO will discuss multi-racialism, segregation, the static and reactive nature of the constitution and Malay dominance versus primacy.
- This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of TMR editorial board.
The post When equality is not fair (Part 1) appeared first on The Malaysian Reserve.
