Can the people of M’sia ever forgive Mahathir?

Bloggers Buzz

WRITTEN BY HUSSEIN HAMID

MONDAY, 21 JUNE 2010 14:35

“[Mahathir Mohamad has] ... created a legacy so monumental that no one could have presumed his mantle.” That was what Abdullah Ahmad gushingly said of Mahathir when the ‘great man’ announced his resignation as prime minister. Tan Sri Abdullah was group editor-in-chief of the New Straits Times when he wrote the above on June 26, 2002 following news of Mahathir’s intention. I believe that that came from Abdullah’s heart for you cannot write anything so ‘moving’ if it does not come from the heart. Now let me tell you what comes from my heart when I read that. Who would be foolhardy enough to presume Mahathir mantle? This man used money and power like no other PM of Malaysia has ever done! Like no other leader in most parts of the civilized world has ever done, save for some parts of Africa and some parts of our world where accountability for one’s action is easily dismissed through the barrel of the gun!  Who would dare to presume the monumental mantle of this Mahathir who was instrumental in bringing into our way of life such concepts as Operasi Lalang (ISA and the ends justify the means of preventive detention), nepotism, money politics, greed, privatization, IPPs, and Perwaja; the monumental mantle of this Mahathir that displayed such utter vindictiveness to those who simply do not agree with his point of view? It is a monumental mantle to have left as his legacy – negotiated tenders, a tainted judiciary, Bakun, Renong and its horrendous debts, Khir Toyo, Daim Zainuddin, and the list is endless. The monumental man almost left us a crooked bridge as well. Every government machinery, every high public office appointment, every political decision made during Mahathir’s time was at his pleasure and made to do your biddings. Not Dollah, not anyone …. nobody would be foolhardy enough to try and assume that mantle. All the personal excesses that we now talk about had its beginnings, development and reached its zenith during Mahathir’s time. Samy Velu, Rafidah, VK Lingam, Augustine Paul, Liong Sik, Daim, Vincent Tan, Abdullah Ang, Eric Cheah…the mind boggles at the billions these people made at the expense of the nation! Sir, you need to take responsibility What defines greatness in a man? “It’s not what you take but what you leave behind that defines greatness.” – Edward Gardner.  Mahathir left us with debts measured in billions, not millions!  This man left us with monuments of First World stature but failed miserably to prepare our then third-world mentality to be ready for these iconic structures. If you bring a nation into an era that it is not ready for, you are being irresponsible! If you cut corners and award projects to people who YOU think can do the job and they fail to do that job – you take responsibility!  If you do nothing about a leader that robs his own people blind – like Samy Velu did to the Indians – then you take responsibility. If you take power away from the Sultans and empower Umno with the same power and Umno abuses that power – you take responsibility!  When you remove two of your deputies and in so doing caused: 1) Within Umno, a factionalism that forever weakened the party; 2) and had one of these removed deputies, Anwar, come back 10 years later and inflict upon Umno its biggest defeat, you take responsibility.  When you take a dentist and make him Menteri Besar of Selangor – and this MB then proceeds to enrich himself so excessively that it finally culminated in the loss of Selangor to the opposition – then you take responsibility.  When you take oil royalties away from Terengganu and Kelantan because the people voted for the opposition, you take responsibility for the suffering of the people within that state who are now without the funds for development.  When you use Petronas money to bail out your son’s shipping company to the tune of hundreds of millions, then you take responsibility for abusing the trust the people placed in you as the guardian of public money.  Can he walk down a street unmolested? That a man of your previous stature would require me, a 62-year-old man living in Adelaide, Australia to write this biting and hurtful article about you simply indicates the depth you have allowed yourself to sink to.  Once you told us to look East. We looked East. You told us to buy British last. We bought British last. You told us to buy Proton, we bought Proton – albeit with a little arm-twisting. Possibly all those were relevant at that point in time. So Tun, using that analogy, let me respectfully tell you this: “Tun, you are no longer relevant”. You are no longer relevant in Umno except to serve the selfish purpose of certain factions. “Hear! Hear!” or as (the blogger) Antares said for the benefit of Ibrahim Ali, “Dengar, Dengar!” You are no longer relevant to the Malays. You have done enough damage to us and we see thorough your deceptions. You are no longer relevant to the people in this country. We have all moved on and demand a more open and responsible government. We see through your duplicity and untruths. Tun, you are only relevant to those that still love you for what you are – a grandfather, a father and a husband. Is it not time that you return their love and their need to have you back in their fold? And that you return the love and respect that they give to you for what you are today? An 84-year-old grandfather, father and husband. Sir, you would need all the goodness that is in Mecca, all the forgiveness that Mandela has shown to the very people that imprisoned him, and all the love that the families of Teoh Beng Hock, Kugan and Aminulrasyid have for their loved ones if you are ever to be forgiven by the people of Malaysia.  And I know that even with all that, you would still have a hard time walking down the streets of KL without worrying that someone might spit on you…and that Sir is the whole truth and nothing but the truth…so help me God!  This article was first published as ‘Sir, you need to take responsibility!’ in Hussein Hamid’s blog on June 21 and reproduced here with minor editing by CPI.

* 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:

 

 

The New Malay Dilemma

Najib’s Dilemma: PERKASA

March 8, 2010

http://www.asiasentinel.com

Written by Our Correspondent

Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak needs an economic policy but that unfortunately will offend a major part of his constituency. He apparently has decided that taking the wraps off his long-awaited New Economic Model, as he calls it, is politically too dangerous for now.

According to local media, although Najib who doubles as Malaysia’s  Finance Minister had been scheduled to introduce his new policy at the end of March, it is apparently off till June and he may not even introduce it himself, letting someone else take the heat.

Najib appears to be caught in a trap of his own, with a widening gap between what he would like to do as an economist and what a major chunk of his United Malays National Organization (UMNO) constituency wants.

What they want is not only to not forward but to repeal the limited reforms he has already put in place, and they are increasingly angry about it. That is playing havoc with his so-called 1Malaysia campaign, designed to bring the country’s fractious ethnic groups together and rebuild the flailing national ruling coalition.

One pessimistic aide to a prominent UMNO politician told Asia Sentinel it is even possible that UMNO could be superseded by a growing organization of 80-odd Malay superiority non-governmental organizations cobbled together in recent weeks under the title Malay Consultative Council, which is seeking to push the government to maintain so-called Ketuanan Melayu, or Malays First, a slogan embraced by former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who remains active at age 84 and despite his endorsement of Najib is a growing thorn in the Prime  Minister’s side, as he was with his predecessor, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, whom he helped to drive from power.

Mahathir appears to be shifting to the right to make an alliance with the rightists, according to longtime political observers in Kuala Lumpur.

In order to modernize, Malaysia, a country of 28 million people, needs to do away with a wide variety of subsidies and perks to ethnic Malays that are enshrined in the New Economic Policy, an affirmative action plan for ethnic Malays that was put in place in 1971 in the wake of disastrous 1969 ethnic riots that took the lives of hundreds of people on both side of the racial divide. The NEP supposedly ended in 1991 and a new National Development Policy was put in its place. It was largely the NEP under a different name. The NDP initials never took off. It is still called the NEP.

Among other things, the NEP was designed to give ethnic Malays 30 percent ownership of private companies, which led to what has been called an “Ali Baba” system, in which “Alis” – ethnic Malays, or bumiputeras – became the figurehead owners or chief executives of companies actually run and owned through by “babas” – the nickname for Straits-born Chinese. The Ali Baba title, of course, brings to most people’s minds the title of the tale “Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves.”

Non-Malays are largely shut out of the university system and overseas scholarships. Malays are given ownership of government-linked public company shares and housing. As a result, the NEP is held responsible for creating a rentier system in which some – particularly top officials of UMNO –became rich overnight by skimming the share ownership while the average Malay in the kampung, or rural village, got very little. The education system has suffered because bumiputeras are largely passed through the system with very low standards.

The country has also been afflicted by both a problem with capital flight and a brain drain as reported by Asia Sentinel, with Najib acknowledging that anywhere from 300,000 to 500,000 professionals are working abroad, about 40 percent of them in Singapore, which actively recruits ethnic Chinese students in Malaysia.

Both Mahathir and Badawi talked incessantly about the need to create a high-growth economy built on technology and industrialization, Mahathir by establishing the so-called multimedia super corridor and the national car, the Proton, as well as a long series of other projects, many of which were largely unsuccessful. Badawi sought to attract investment in high-tech industries including pharmaceuticals and medical technology as well as bio-science. But many economists argue that without removing the impediments of the NEP, Najib will be as unsuccessful as his predecessors.

Najib first talked about a new economic plan a year ago, but its introduction has been pushed back several times. Even as late as Feb. 8, during a two-day conference in Kuala Lumpur, Najib told reporters that his administration is open to suggestions for what would go into the policy. Principal elements are expected to be the removal of subsidies and further liberalization of the economy that appear certain to bite into Malay privilege. Many of Najib’s cabinet want nothing to do with the plan, concerned that the voter rebellion that began in disastrous March 2008 elections will grow.

The Malay NGOs are streaming into a perceived political vacuum for Malay ultranationalists, according to a source in Kuala Lumpur. No one really knows at this point how strong they are despite the noise they are making.  There has been no independent polling. They are feeling marginalized by Najib’s centrist politics and would like to take the country back to the days of absolute UMNO rule, the course say. So they remain frustrated and angry.

Any time word gets around that the fundamentals of the NEP are being tampered with, UMNO politicians rush to the microphones to say it isn’t true. Mukhriz Mahathir, the former premier’s son and a Deputy International Trade and Industry Minister in Najib’s government, for instance, was the latest to insist to reporters that the new policy “is in line with previous policies particularly the New Economic Policy.”

Najib has repeatedly said the country is confronted by a new reality, given the stagnating economy, which shrank by 3.3 percent in 2009 and faces relatively anemic 3.7 percent growth in 2010 and 5.0 percent in 2011. Last year, he removed a requirement mandating ethnic Malay participation in 27 economic sub-sectors as well as removing a requirement that 30 percent of shares in IPOs go to ethnic Malays.

That has played a major role in stoking ethnic Malay anger, although some observers say the leaders of the Malay Consultative Council are actually UMNO wheelhorses who fear the loss of their perks instead of the wider community.

One of the leaders of the Malay rights groups is an NGO called PERKASA, which is headed by an independent member of parliament named Ibrahim Ali, a long time Mahathir ally and former UMNO stalwart. It has been holding strident rallies across the country, demanding close adherence to the Malays-first policy.

Some pessimists say PERKASA members are trying to provoke the Chinese into a confrontation with the Malays that will result in the imposition of the country’s draconian Internal Security Act ISA. One Malay businessman told Asia Sentinel that “UMNO leaders who are not particularly sympathetic to its aims are climbing onto the speakers’ platforms to endorse them because they’re afraid not to.”

Others say they aren’t particularly concerned and that the Malay Consultative Council and its member organizations more resemble the Tea Party movement in the United States, which is loud, angry and vocal but which almost certainly will remain a splinter group.

Asked about the concern that the Malay Consultative Council would grow big enough to replace UMNO, and particularly PERKASA, a political analyst said that “PERKASA’s appeal is not broadly based. They may shout the loudest but it will take more than that to replace UMNO. UMNO needs other component parties in Barisan to sell their multiracial appeal. I doubt the component parties in Barisan Nasional can work with PERKASA as closely as UMNO.”

* 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:

 

 

What’s Dr M talking about Melayu?

Contributors

Written by Helen Ting

Introduction by Dr Lim Teck Ghee Dr Mahathir Mohamad has recently been giving distorted history lessons on minority populations. To top these rants, he even sounded almost regretful when he opined that the Holocaust had ostensibly “failed” in its ‘Final Solution’ to reduce the ‘Jewish problem’ beyond the six million loss of life. On January 28 in his reflections on Malaysian minorities, he claimed in the same regretful tone that “one million outsiders were given citizenships” during Independence. Awareness of history is always illuminating. However, instead of getting our knowledge of what really happened in our history from Mahathir and the propagandists of the Biro Tatanegara, Malaysians should take the opportunity to learn from reputed local and foreign scholars. This is not only because these researchers are more accurate and objective in their writings - having spent much of their lives studying and verifying the key historical events and developments, and going through the process of the results of their scholarly work being peer reviewed by other scholars. It is also because unlike Dr Mahathir and other propagandists of the official history, they do not have the same political agenda and racial bias that Dr Mahathir and his subordinates bring to the subject matter. With these scholars, we can be confident that our worry about the distortions that are being bandied about by Mahathir – based on either ignorance or more likely opportunism if not blatant prejudice – are at least not present. About the (in Dr M’s eyes) ‘immigrant problem’ Based on the Malaya 1947 census, 2.2 million of the population were Malays born in Malaya. Aside from Malays, this census also classed those of aboriginal and Indonesian ethnicities as ‘Malaysian’. Does Mahathir simply consider those not born in Malaya to be “outsiders”? Among the ‘Malaysians’ counted in 1947 were 187,755 Javanese born in Java, 62,356 Bandjarese born in Borneo and another 20,429 Boyanese born in Sumatera. The Minangkabau, Bugis and other ethnicities born in other Indonesian islands made up roughly 35,000 persons. So how does Mahahir define “outsiders”? Consider the first comprehensive census taken in British Malaya in 1911 when the total population was enumerated to be about 2.65 million. Of this number, 46.8 percent were classed as Malay, 34.7 percent Chinese, 10.1 percent Indian, and the rest ‘Malaysians’ (aboriginal) and ‘others’. What then does he make of the near 35 percent Chinese and 10 percent Indian who were already on this land 100 years ago in 1911? Or of those of Peranakan descent in the Straits Settlements who can trace their ancestry back generations – many to as long ago as between 200 and 500 years? Or of the long-settled and assimilated Chinese in Terengganu who were already successfully cultivating pepper in the 17th century? Rather than Mahathir’s claim that the horde of “outsiders” at the gates were being handed citizenship on a silver platter, the truth of the matter is that Umno pressured for citizenship criteria to be made very stringent. Following the scuttling of the Malayan Union plan, the subsequent negotiations for Independence in fact disenfranchised many Chinese and Indians who would otherwise have been eligible under the terms of the 1946 citizenship initiative. Certainly, a historical perspective on the shaping of Malay identity and this country’s mixed population will be enlightening. It should also be an eye-opener to the small band of politicians and agititors – such as the Kimma group in Penang – currently proclaiming Ketuanan Melayu the loudest. Political scientist Dr Helen Ting for instance, points out that the term ‘Malayu’ was initially associated with the Palembang-based, Buddhist Srivijayan kingdom, which existed from the 7th to 13th centuries. ‘Malayu’ was earlier neither the name of a people nor a language. Most foreigners referred to the inhabitants of the archipelago as Jawa. The name Nusantara was first used by the early Javanese Kingdoms to denote the area outside the political influence of Javanese culture, but still under their suzerainty, she writes. Among the discussions on bangsa Melayu during the nascent period of Malay nationalism was the issue of descent (keturunan). Ting cites Abdul Rahim Kajai, a renowned Malay journalist and writer, as arguing that bangsa Melayu should only consist of those of paternal Malay descent. Kajai’s definition would necessarily exclude Mahathir from the fold of the Malay race. We feel it pertinent to reproduce Ting’s essays on these topics to stimulate a more enlightened discourse so that we can all better understand the real history of how we came to be as a nation. This will enable us not to be blindly taken in by those who have little knowledge of our history but are prepared to distort it for their selfish reasons. ********************************************************* ‘Malaysianisation’ of the Melayu identity By Helen Ting Many of the arguments used regarding Malay identity are really peculiarly ‘Malaysian’ in dissonance with the wider reality and history. For instance, most of us would presume, or are told that all indigenous Indonesians are culturally Malay. However, in Indonesia, the term Melayu typically denotes only one ethnic group among others. Even a person as learned as the director-general of Ikim, Dr Syed Ali Tawfik Al-Attas, fell into the trap of erroneously claiming that “the Malay language is derived from the Arabic language,” which he characterised as “the language of identity for the Malays.” Syed Ali also said that “the Malays are Malays because of Islam.” He is unaware that the earliest issue of contention in the modern definition of Bangsa Melayu was the issue of descent (keturunan) versus Islam. Abdul Rahim Kajai, a prominent Malay journalist and writer, argued that bangsa Melayu should only consist of those of paternal Malay descent and stressed that “Islam does not designate a bangsa.” As late as June 1939, Utusan Melayu called Muslim organisations of jawi peranakan membership who identified themselves as Malays as musang berbulu ayam. The term Malayu was initially associated with the Palembang-based, Buddhist Srivijayan Kingdom, which existed between the 7th to 13th centuries. Malayu was then neither the name of a people nor a language. Most foreigners referred to the inhabitants of the archipelago as Jawa or Yava. The Malay language as the lingua franca of the region was initially referred to as Jawi or Bahasa Jawi. It was a living language which was enriched with loan words from Sanskrit, Javanese, Arabic, Tamil, Mon, Chinese and Persian languages. In parts of eastern Indonesia, “masuk Melayu” actually meant becoming Christian. Christianity was associated with the development of an earlier literary Malay style there, due to the proselytisation activities conducted in Malay by Portuguese missionaries, and its subsequent adoption as the language of the Dutch colonial administration. Christian Ambonese villagers abandoned their indigenous languages in favour of Malay due to the Malay-language Christian schooling and bible literacy acquired in the Malay language. Islamic influence The penetration of Islamic influence into the region, including the Melaka Empire which was founded as a Hindu Kingdom, was decisive in introducing the Arabic-based orthography as well as Arabic vocabulary into the language. James Collins, a professor of Malayo-Polynesian Linguistics, also suggests that the establishment of anti-Islamic Portuguese power in Melaka had led to the “strengthening, or at least the affirmation, of Muslim-Malay identity” and had “perceptible effect on the spread of Malay-speaking Islam.” The term Melayu in the Melaka kingdom initially designated solely the royal descent of its ruling elites. The notion of Melayu then was associated with the mystic pedigree of kingship descending from Srivijaya and Melaka or Pagarruyung (Minangkabau). Its cosmopolitan population related hierarchically to the ruling elite as orang Melaka or hamba/anak Melayu. The prosperity and authority of the Melaka Kingdom had endowed the name Melayu with great prestige associated with maritime trade. The death of the last Johor Sultan who claimed direct lineage to the Melakan royalty in 1699 unleashed political struggle by competing groups for the right to assume the Melayu identity associated with power in the region. A historian, Timorthy Barnard, contends that the Malayness as understood during this period “was not associated with Islam, although religion did play a part; it was based instead on a common trading culture along the Melaka Straits and South China Sea.” Meantime, a parallel dynamic was developing in places further away from the Straits of Melaka. After the fall of the Melaka port city in 1511, Portuguese hostility towards its Muslim inhabitants resulted in their exile throughout the archipelago, in search of new bases of operation. During the 16th and 17th centuries, these migrants appeared to have given rise to a new connotation of Malayness: “a commercial diaspora that retained some of the customs, language and trade practices developed in the emporium of Melaka.” This Malay-speaking Muslim trading diaspora dispersed by the Portuguese conquest composed of widely differing genetic stock: Javanese, ‘Luzons’, Chinese, Gujerati, South Indian, Ryukyuan. Unlike the stereotypical association of the Malays as peasants and fishermen during the colonial era, early Melayu diaspora were primarily traders. The 17th century Melayu community on the island of Sumbawa asked to be exempted from port duties instead of being rewarded with rice fields, because “we are sailors and traders, not peasants.” An exiled prince from Siak in the 18th century who was a claimant to the Melayu identity, described himself and his followers as “children of the sea”, “comfortable with riding the waves.” Subsequently, becoming a Melayu appeared to be increasingly based on the allegiance as a subject to a particular Malay ruler. Anthony Milner, the proponent of this thesis, suggests that Hikayat Deli and other Malay hikayat had served as teaching manuals for the acculturation of new adherents to such Melayu identity. European records of the 19th century indicated evidences of a process of “Malayisation” whereby animist Bataks embraced Islam and adopted Malay culture: learning and speaking the Malay language, wearing Malay costume, acquiring a “Malay imagery” and acting and thinking in a Malay style. Reversible identity Interestingly, this Melayu identity was actually reversible and changeable. There were instances whereby those who adopted the Melayu identity reverted back to their original social identity. It was also not uncommon for the subjects of a cruel sultan to flee and shift allegiance to another Raja. Notably, Milner did not regard the whole nusantara as “the Malay world”, but only clusters of Malay polities, each under the rule of a Malay Raja. In fact, the name Nusantara was first used by the early Javanese Kingdoms to denote the area outside the political influence of Javanese culture, but still under their suzerainty. The current concept of race and nation was clearly an epistemological heritage of the European civilisation. It was Stamford Raffles who first described the Malayu as a ‘nation.’ Raffles also renamed the Malay chronicle, Sulalat Us-Salatin (in Arabic) or Peraturan segala raja-raja (in Malay) as Sejarah Melayu, as if it was the story of a people. Then again, Stamford was merely referring to the population under coastal maritime sultanates and not the entire population of the archipelago. British colonialism was instrumental in introducing the categorisation of the Malay people as a race, and Malaya as Tanah Melayu. As late as the 1930s, leaders of the Malay State Associations admitted only anak negeri as their members. Recent migrants from the surrounding islands, the anak dagang, were barred from joining the associations. In fact, Ibrahim Yaacob who attempted to propagate a Malay nation covering the whole archipelago complained that most of those who migrated from the surrounding islands did not identify themselves as Malays. Even local Malays tended to be more attached to their respective state identity, calling themselves orang Kelantan, orang Perak, etc. rather than as Malays. It is indeed a point to ponder how the historical fluidity of the Melayu identity as well as its vitality has been rendered so rigid and peculiarly “Malaysian.”

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The blog owner does not endorse the view unless specified.