Time for a Malay Counter-Movement?

commentary: it is doomed to be a failure... super Flop!! other than a few handful of idiots like u who think they know it all, disillusioned under so called liberal influence and actually least bother abt their own race. u urself are aloof of what the malay ground's sentiments..

by Suflan Shamsuddin qualified as a barrister at law from Middle Temple and has been called to the Malaysian Bar. He is currently working in a Fortune 500 company as a senior counsel and is based in London. He is also author of the book “RESET: Rethinking the Malaysian Political Paradigm”.

FEB 21 – With the ever-increasing profile of racially divisive rhetoric spun to purportedly protect the interest of Malays, shouldn’t the alternative point of view be made equally forcefully, by way of an effective and organised Malay counter-movement?

Although right-wing Malay NGOs would like you to believe that Malays are united behind the notion of Ketuanan Melayu, there are actually a very large number of us who view this ideology as being immoral and unIslamic, and therefore unacceptable.

We also believe that it actually serves to weaken our community because it prevents many from developing a sense of personal accountability, it impedes the development of the capacity for critical and informed analysis, and it promotes short cuts and patronage.

In addition, this approach discourages playing by the book, it prevents an understanding of the value of diversity and inclusiveness, and it creates an excuse to avoid becoming competitive and achievement orientated.

Today many Malays share a concern with other Malaysians that even though time-limited means tested affirmative action programmes have value, perpetual handouts and special privileges are like drugs.

This is because it creates an addiction to receiving from the “hand that feeds”, that which poisons them and affects the growth and well-being of the beneficiaries. With this comes elitism and cronyism, encouraged and supported by those who need, or offer, such protection and patronage.

With resources quickly drying up, there is a real fear of a rude and potentially violent awakening when this habit can no longer be maintained.

So, the idea for this Malay counter-movement has begun to germinate. If this movement were to materialise, it would look to advance a Malay culture and mindset, which rejects Ketuanan Melayu, and that is instead built on Islamic and universally held values, virtues and ideals, which include integrity, self-motivation, self-determination, a quest for knowledge, a desire for self-improvement, tolerance and respect.

It would operate on an independent and non-partisan basis so that it can stay true to a morally robust set of principles by which to pursue the cause of improving the welfare and condition of the Malays.

It would study and promote an understanding of the concerns that could impede the progress of the Malays. It would also seek to inform policy through consultation with all stakeholders such as the Government, political parties, and civil society.

It would look to help develop new ideas to address the concerns relating to why the Malays, in general, have not been as successful and self-actualised as they ought to have been, given the opportunities they have been afforded over the last fifty years.

Finally, it would look to make and market a convincing case to the Malays, as to what is it for them to gain, in life and in the hereafter, were they to lead their life by the values and principles espoused.

For this movement to be impactful, it must be structured as being wholly Malay, and its membership must be fairly representative of the community whether by reference to gender, age or background. This is because its ultimate aim is to win the hearts and minds of the Malays themselves.

This, of course, might hinder the participation of those who do not feel it right to associate themselves with a wholly Malay-only movement, although there will be some who will see its value in countering the rhetoric of the hardliners in right-wing Malay organisations.

Nevertheless, it might appeal to others who feel it crucial, and might want to help, to work together to promote meaningful change in their own community as an end in itself, and as a means to a better Malaysia.

Ideally, “towering” non-partisan Malays who are universally respected by all Malaysians should play an active role in the movement. These individuals would have achieved success in their own fields without the ill effects of Ketuanan Melayu, and should ensure that the movement has credibility, maintains its independence and moral compass, and remains unsoiled by the vested interests of any individual or political party.

Even though non-partisan, the movement should also attract members of all Malay-centric political parties who share the same ideals for their community. They might wish to support this movement because they all share a desire to get rid of an antiquated and bankrupt Malay political paradigm built on religious and racial intolerance, patronage and insecurity.

They would be united in wanting to replace it with one that builds the confidence and capacity of the Malays to compete and contribute fairly and successfully.

However, in order to maintain the credibility and independence of the movement, leaders and active members of such political parties should accept the need to confine their participation to a supporting role, and not expect to lead or influence its decision-making.

It should follow that Malay leaders of all parties who desire a united and workable Malaysia ought to fully support the creation of this movement, since the greater is the movement’s support from the Malay community, the less will they need to pander to the sentiments of extremists and racists inside and outside of their party.

Finally, such a movement should not be seen as serving to perpetuate an “us versus them” mentality, separating Malays from non-Malays. It must not become in anyway a threat to an inclusive Malaysia.

Instead it should be seen as doing the exact converse, i.e. helping to prepare the Malays to take the first and important steps to embrace the creation of the illusive Bangsa Malaysia, over the longer term.

Today, this movement is nothing but an idea. If you are interested in its development, please sign up as a member of the Facebook group Tabung Idea Mengukuhkan Martabat Melayu, which I have only just set up, to log ideas and comments about this proposal.

Tiba Masanya Untuk Pergerakan Melayu Alternatif?

Dengan keberleluasaannya retorik perkauman yang kononnya diajukan kononnya demi kepentingan orang Melayu, bukankah elok jika suara yang memberi pandangan alternatif,  melalui satu pergerakan yang berkesan, diberikan dengan kelantangan yang setanding?

Walaupun badan-badan NGO Melayu yang berhaluan kanan inginkan supaya orang ramai percaya bahawa orang Melayu semuanya bersatu menyokong konsep Ketuanan Melayu, tetapi sebenarnya ramai daripada orang kita yang memandang ideologi itu sebagai sesuatu yang tidak berwibawa dan tidak berlandaskan ajaran Islam, dan oleh itu tidak boleh diterima pakai. Ramai dari kita juga berpandangan bahawa falsafah ini cuma akan melemahkan masyarakat Melayu itu sendiri, kerana ia menghindar penerapan nilai keteguhan dan akauntabiliti diri, ia menyekat pembangunan pemikiran kritikal yang berasaskan maklumat, dan ia mendorong pendekatan mengambil jalan yang senang dan bergantung kepada system naungan. Selain dari itu, pendekatan sedemikian tidak memberi dorongan positif supaya bermain bersifat adil, ia menyekat pefahaman betapa mustahaknya perbezaan pemikiran dan bertindak secara inklusif, dan ia mewujudkan sebab kenapa tidak perlu menjadi kompetitif dan berkerja keras.

Hari ini, ramai orang Melayu berkongsi pandangan dengan orang Malaysia yang lain, bahawa walaupun program kerajaan memperimbangkan ekonomi berasaskan keperluan yang dihadkan dari segi masa mempunyai nilai, pemberian yang tidak ada hujung pangkal berasaskan hak-hak istimewa adalah seperti dadah. Ini adalah kerana ianya menimbulkan satu ketagihan dengan pemberian berasaskan naungan dari ‘mereka yang berkuasa’, yang akan membantutkan dan meracuni hidup mereka yang menerima. Dengan itu, maka wujudlah sistem elitisma dan kronisma, didorong dan disokong oleh mereka yang memerlui, dan yang memberi, perlindungan dan naungan tersebut. Dengan sumber-sumber mulai ketandusan, terdapat satu perasaan takut bahawa akan adanya satu detik waktu tegang, mengancam dan berkemunkinan ganas di mana kebiasaan kemewahan ini tidak dapat dikecapi lagi.

Maka timbullah satu idea untuk menubuhkan satu pergerakan Melayu alternatif untuk menyuarakan pandangan tersebut. Jika pergerakan ini dapat dijadikan kenyataan, ianya akan cuba memajukan budaya dan pemikiran Melayu, yang  menolak Ketuanan Melayu, dan yang dibentuk berlandaskan nilai-nilai murni dan mulia Islam dan universal, seperti kewibawaan, keteguhan diri,  keberdikariankemampuan berdikari, keinginan memperbaikki keadaan diri, toleransi, dan perasaan saling hormat menghormati. Pergerakan ini akan beroperasi sebagai satu pertubuhan yang independen dan tidak menyokong mana-mana parti politik, supaya ianya pergerakan ini dapat bertindak berasaskan prinsip moral yang lengkap dan teguh untuk membela nasib masyarakat Melayu.

Ianya akan mengkaji dan mempromosi kefahaman mengenai masalah yang menghindari kejayaan orang–orang Melayu. Ianya akan cuba mempengaruhi pembentukan polisi-polisidasar-dasar dan akan bertukar-tukar fikiran dengan badan-badan kerajaan, parti-parti politik, dan masyarakat sivil dan seterusnya. Ianya akan cuba melahirkan idea-idea baru untuk menangani masalah kenapa orang Melayu tidak seberjaya dan sematang sebagaimana sepatutnya, memandangkan  banyaknya peluang-peluang yang diberi sejak lima puloh tahun yang lepas. Akhirnya, ia akan membina dan menampilkan satu kefahaman baru kepada masyarakat Melayu mengapa tatacara hidup sebegini akan membawa kejayaan dan kebahagian, baik di dunia mahupun di akhirat.

Untuk Pergerakan ini betul-betul berkesan, ianya perlu dibentuk sebagai satu Pergerakan untuk orang Melayu sahaja, dan ahli-ahlinya mestilah terdiri dari segenapan lapisan masyarakat Melayu, baik dari segi jantina, umur, atau latarbelakang. Ini adalah kerana perjuangannya adalah untuk memenangi pemikiran dan perasaan masyarakat Melayu itu sendiri. Ini, sudah tentu, akan menghindari penglibatan mereka yang tidak berasa senang untuk menyokong satu Pergerakan yang hanya dikhaskan untuk orang Melayu sahaja, walaupun mungkin ada di antara mereka yang akan melihat nilainya dalam memberi tentangan kepada suara-suara ekstrim yang datang  dari pertubuhan Melayu haluan kanan. Walaubagaimanapun, ianya pergerakan yang dicadangkan itu mungkin dapat menarik minat dari mereka yang merasakan perlu, dan ingin tolongmembantu, berganding bahu untuk mencapai pertukaran perubahan pemikiran mind-set yang bererti di dalam masyarakat mereka, sebagai satu matlamat tersendiri, dan juga sebagai satu jalan untuk mencapai satu negara Malaysia yang lebih baik mantap dan murni.

Sepatutnya, individu-individu Melayu yang ulung, terbilang dan tidak berpolitik, dan yang dihormati oleh seluruh lapisan masyarakat di Malaysia, memainkan peranan dalam Pergerakan ini. Individu-individu ini, yang telah mencapai kejayaan dalam bidang masing-masing tanpa kesan buruk dari polisi-polisi berlandaskan Ketuanan Melayu, dapat menentukan supaya Pergerakan ini mempunyai kredibiliti, bertindak secara independen dan berhalukan berhaluan pegangan bermoral, dan tidak dicemari oleh muslihat mana-mana individu atau parti politik.

Walaupun Pergerakan ini tidak menyokong mana-mana partibergerak secara parti-parti politik, ianya patut menarik minat ahli-ahli parti-parti politik Melayu, yang inginkan perkara yang sama untuk masyarakat mereka. Mereka ini mungkin menyokong Pergerakan pergerakan ini kerana sama-sama berkongsi keinginan untuk menyingkir paradigma yang lama dan bankrap yang berasaskan sistem naungan dan perasaan tidak senang dengan kebolehan diri, dan yang ketandusan toleransi ugama dan perkauman. Mereka mungkin bersepadu ingin menggantikannya dengan sesuatu yang membina keyakinan diri dan kebolehan orang Melayu untuk berdayasaing dan memberi sumbangan, secara jujur dan adil, dan berjaya. Walaupun demikian, supaya kredibiliti dan status independen tidak tercabar, pemimpin-pemimpin politik dan ahli parti yang aktif mesti menerima hakikat bahawa penglibatan mereka dihadkan kepada peranan menyokong Pergerakan sahaja, dan bukan untuk memimpin Pergerakan ini ataupun cuba mempengaruhi tindak-tanduknya.

Sepatutnya, pemimpin-pemimpin politik Melayu yang inginkan satu negara Malaysia yang bersatu dan yang berkesan, akan menyokong penubuhan Pergerakan ini, kerana semakin besar sokongan yang diberi kepada Pergerakan tersebut oleh masyarakat Melayu, maka makin kuranglah perlunya keprihatinan terhadap sentimen-sentimen mereka-mereka yang ekstremis dan rasis, di luar dan di dalam parti.

Akhirkata, Pergerakan ini tidak patut dilihat sebagai sesuatu percubaan untuk terus mengasingkan orang Melayu dari orang bukan Melayu. Ia tidak boleh dilihat sebagai mencabari kewujudan satu Malaysia yang inklusif. Sebaliknya ia patut dilihat sebagai landasan untuk menolong orang Melayu supaya mengambil langkah awal dan mustahak untuk kecapi mengecapi pembentukan Bangsa Malaysia yang masih menjadi hanya bayangan, dalam jangkamasa panjang.

Hari in, Pergerakan ini hanya satu idea. Sekiranya anda berminat untuk menyokong dan menyumbang kepada idea ini, sila jadi ahli Facebook group Tabung Idea Mengukuhkan Martabat Melayu (TIM3) yang baru saja saya sediakan untuk mengumpul idea-idea dan komen-komen mengenai cadangan ini.

 

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The blog owner does not endorse the view unless specified. To share the above article, please click the followings:

 

 

Those Awful Aussies

 

commentary: I couldn't have said better.. kudos to you H.L...  aizley

by a blogger called Hantu Laut

 

After reading Pasquale's take on the bunch of nosey Aussie lawmakers demanding Malaysia to drop the sodomy case against Anwar Ibrahim, it kind of intrigues me as to the reason for such interference. If the proverbial "birds of a feather flock together" is any true than among the 50 or so Australian lawmakers there must be faggots and homophile who wanted to impose their will on another sovereign nation where such sexual anomaly is a criminal offence.

Homosexuality, sodomy and zoophilia may be accepted in Australia but it is not in Malaysia and is considered a criminal act.

Michael Danby the spokesman of the group said "A lot of people know Anwar Ibrahim, a lot of people have been to Malaysia, and a lot of Australian parliamentarians think it's a shame that this is happening for the second time to the leader of the opposition in what is a developing democracy,"

Wonder whether Mr Danby and his colleagues knew what Anwar does behind closed doors and on what basis they made their own judgement of his innocent?

According to Pasquale here the Australians must first stop the mass murder of Aboriginal people and foreign students before interfering in other people's business.

Are they still killing Aborigines?

I am not sure of that but killing Indian students seem to be a new past time for Australian new bush rangers.  A few Indian students have been bludgeoned to death in apparent racist attack.  Some Indians could have been mistaken for Abos.

These rich Indian kids came to Australia to study and being rich they also brought with them some bad habits, their affluent lifestyle the Indian way.  Expensive clothes,posh cars and extravagance lifestyle which the low-life Aussie couldn't understand and tolerate.

Black people are supposed to be poor and lead the low-life.The low-life Aussies have no clue where those goddam black asses came from (because low-life Aussies have no concept of the outside world), thought those Indians had made it good robbing and stealing from white men.

This reminded me of the early days when Britain exported its convicts to Australia hoping to make it the biggest penal colony on the face of the earth.  It didn't turned out that way.The country is just too beautiful to give it to the scums of the earth.  Today, Australia is an extension of the British Empire.

In 1788 six shiploads of convicts arrived Port Jackson in Australia.  The Abos were not pleased to see the British convicts land on their soil.They thought they are bad news....and they were right!


It's the beginning of terrifying times for the Abos.


In 1802 when the Brits landed in Tasmania there were 20,000 Abos living on the island for almost 12000 years,undisturbed,unperturbed and completely cut off from the mainland.  Eighty years later there were none.  They were wiped out by the great British past time......sport hunting and white man's diseases.


Those hardened criminals dumped on Tasmania took care of the Abos.  They see the Abos as wild game and to be hunted down.  Tied them to trees and used them for target practice.  They shot more Abos than the Tasmanian tigers then.  One brutal bush ranger (what they called this wandering criminals those days) said "I shoot an Abos as easily as I shoot a sparrow and I get a lot of fun from this sort of sport".


Another even more brutal bush ranger killed an Abo man, seized the dead man's wife, cut off his head and fastened it round the wife's neck and drove the weeping woman to his farm to be his slave.


Wherever the Brits and other Europeans landed the first thing they do is to enslave the natives, if they resisted, decimate them, it's a good holistic approach.It happened in Africa, America and almost in India but there were too many Indians and the Brits didn't have enough bullets to shoot them all.


Malaysians and Singaporeans were lucky, they didn't have to cut our heads or penises to get compliance, they have begun to be civilised.  We were spared the terror that befell the Red Indians,African and the Abos.


The 50 Aussie lawmakers must have forgotten to read the Bible, the impenitent sins of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah and divine retribution.

Today, God's mill have come to a grinding halt, we need human laws to take care of such indiscretion and Malaysia is doing exactly that.



Is Anwar Ibrahim innocent?

It is for the Malaysian court to decide not you 50 bumptious Aussie lawmakers.

So, shut up and mind your own business.

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The blog owner does not endorse the view unless specified. To share the above article, please click the followings:

 

 

Race-based quota employment policies: Can they be justified?

commentary: Dr Lim is obviously have not been out of Malaysia since he is "not" familiar with affirmative action such in country like US and in EU countries.  NAACP in US protects discrimination in the US for any employment against the black American and many more affirmative action committee that takes care of the minority interest group.  For the non-bumi(s) not being in the civil service is the choice of their own and in fact that is the drive by the present govt to get more non-bumi(s) to join their services.

Written by Dr Lim Teck Ghee

Since the article “Ethnic dominance in the civil service” first came out, there have been a slew of comments from readers. Most of these comments have been favorable and concur on the need to reform the present situation of Malay over-dominance in the civil service. There have also been dissenting responses arguing that Malay dominance of the public sector is needed to counterbalance the non-Malay dominance found in the private sector. Is the strategy of imposing racial quotas to arrive at some balance in the overall society and economy the right one for our country? In the effort to formulate the right mix of policies that can best address the issue of ethnic disparities in the economy and society, it is important to bear in mind that there is a fundamental difference between public and private sector employment. This difference appears to elude politicians seeking to impose controls and restrictions on the private sector. Employment in the civil service is paid for by the taxes levied on all racial groups and from the other revenue collected by the government. This sector includes employment in public universities such as the National Defence University where Dr Ridhuan Tee, a recent commentator on my article, is employed – see his article ‘Iktibar Tahun Harimau’ in the Utusan paper last Sunday (Feb 14, 2010). In any democracy, the public sector is seen as belonging to and catering for all the citizens of the country. It is never viewed as the particular enclave or entitlement of any community. Through a representative and merit-based civil service paid for by public funds, the Government of the day is expected to provide all its citizens – in our case, Malaysians of whatever racial origin – with fair and equitable treatment. A racially diverse civil service is acknowledged to be the crucial player in the planning and implementation of fair and equitable public policies. It is also needed to ensure that discriminatory action based on race does not take place. The case for – and process involved with – arriving at a racially representative private sector is different from that for the public sector. In the private sector, the most effective method for bringing about the higher level of employment of any target group – if that is seen as a desirable policy – is not through legislative imposed quotas but through a system of incentives, including those leading to voluntary self recognition and action by employers, in particular the larger sized ones. With regard to racial quota policies in the private sector, few if any countries in the world impose such quotas because race-based actions are controversial in their political and socio-economic rationale and are difficult to justify. A racial quota system in the private sector strikes at the basic freedom and right of the employer – who is paying from his own pocket or from the firm’s revenue and not from public coffers – to hire the right person for the job. Also, the private sector is not a monolithic employer the way the public sector is. It consists of hundreds of thousands of individuals and small and large organizations whose employment requirements vary enormously. Attempts to impose such a system would not only pose a logistical nightmare but would also be impossible to enforce. It would be disastrous for Malaysia to impose race based recruitment policies in the private sector as Dr Ridhuan Tee appears to be calling for. Imposition of a racial quota in private sector employment would be tantamount to approval of further racial rent-seeking that has already crippled the country’s development. In fact, it may well be the final nail in the coffin of the economy. This is not to say that quota systems on employment in the private sector do not exist or should be completely ruled out. A small number of Middle East countries, for example, in response to their over-reliance on a foreign labour force have introduced hiring quotas for their private sector but these policies are not on the basis of race. These quotas are only to ensure the employment of their citizens; presumably irrespective of their race. More common are quotas or similar affirmative action policies for hiring women and disabled people. These also have their special justification based on increasing representation of grossly under-represented or marginalized groups and to advance social diversity. They are not based on race. In fact, few if any countries in the world impose quotas mainly on the basis of race and ‘historical entitlement’ as Malaysia is doing. Where affirmative action policies are deemed necessary, they may be implemented following widespread public agreement and the imposition of various safeguards including public scrutiny and accountability at all times. Administrative actions in designing and implementing such programmes have to be made fully transparent to ensure that the means justify the ends and also to prevent abuse or partisan practice. We should learn from the experience of our recent history and from other countries that have attempted to implement race based quota policies in private sector employment. Richard A. Epstein in his book, Forbidden Grounds: The Case against Employment Discrimination Laws, has argued that the modern civil rights laws found in the United States are flawed in negating freedom of association and have led to government coercion that threatens markets and, ultimately, liberty. “At bottom are only two pure forms of legislation – productive and redistributive,” he points out. “Anti-discrimination legislation is always of the second kind. The form of redistribution is covert; it is capricious, it is expensive and it is wasteful.” Epstein also makes the key economic point: If we want to subsidize a “protected class”, he writes, it can be done more efficiently by just giving grants. Whilst generally agreeing with Prof. Epstein and other critics of the folly of using quota policies to correct whatever deficiencies that may be found in the private sector, resort to this drastic measure in the public sector in Malaysia may be the only way to bring about fairness, competitiveness and representativeness in our bureaucracy. A quota-based affirmative action policy ensuring a reasonable proportion of minorities in the country’s civil service may not be the solution to the many structural problems that are found in the civil service and other government institutions. However, it may be the only guarantee of race-neutral policies and services.

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The blog owner does not endorse the view unless specified. To share the above article, please click the followings: