DAP is Racist!

LETTERS/SURAT

Sunday, 28 March 2010 admin-s

  

Please find below a description of the problems I face with DAP that seriously needs to change if it hopes to convince us to take it seriously as a genuine representative for Malaysians of ALL RACES and backgrounds.

By Captain Reinu Balakrishnan

I had previously raised numerous issues to DAP, being administrators of my area which included public works deficiencies as well as local illegal construction but they did not resolve any of those issues. Their explanation was that MBPJ does not listen to them.

Their inaction was so frustrating that the point came when I asked them if their apparent failures were just a ruse but that actually it was due to the fact that the complainant was not a Chinese. They did not deny this. I later went on to ask them if they only catered to Chinese-based issues and only if raised by a Chinese. Amazingly, they never replied or denied this. I had till then since GE12, never received a written reply or phone call of any sort from DAP in response to my complaints and follow up queries.

On 06/03/2010, I received an SMS soliciting support and funds for DAP. In short it stated:

‘DAP Paramount will be having a fund raising dinner on 17 April at 7pm in Sg Way Chinese School Hall. Tickets priced at RM50per pax, RM500per normal table n RM 1000 for VIP r on sale now.’ 

Taking into account my previous issues with DAP and the fact that they don’t reply when it affects the electorate but are fast to communicate when they want something, I took issue with that as well as the following:

a)      That the dinner, by being held at the Chinese school Hall, would give credence to allegations that DAP was only Chinese

b)      That no provisions were being made for Muslims, Hindus and vegetarians, all of whom form a segment in our society and who have special dietary requirements.

c)      That the ticket pricing and recognition was class conscious and as champions of a new Malaysia, we can do away with this classification. I suggested that even if all tickets were priced similarly and the seating ‘classless‘ it would not and should not impede any individual from donating funds of any amount to DAP. DAP not only disagreed with this but the rep decided to go on a personal attack of me which was meant to undermine my race, religion, upbringing and professional status (the text has been retained by me). She even threatened to use force against me. Now this is war.

d)      I wrote to and emailed DAP HQ on 06/03/2010 and phoned them repeatedly over the next few days about this latest development but,

a)      The phones were not answered until auto cut out.

b)      When finally answered, the staff told me that no one knew about my email or fax and then told me that there was no one who reads such emails and faxes and that there was no one to attend to me!!!

c)      When I finally insisted that I speak to someone as high as possible in the HQ, they told me to call a Ms. Foo who was supposed to be the assistant to Lim Guan Eng. However, they did not give me the contact number. After a lengthy debate again, I got the number and contacted the alleged Ms. Foo who first spoke to me in Chinese! When I told her I was not Chinese, she went “OH?“ and asked me why I had called her! Was she saying that only the Chinese should call her? That’s what it sounded like to me as she was not interested in the issue. I told her the issue and she stated that she was unaware of the issue, the staff concerned and  the problem of getting to her. She however denied the existence of anyone named Evelyn who I had claimed solicited funds for a dinner for DAP!!! She assured me that she was free to talk then but when I told her that her denial meant a police report had to be raised, the phone went dead … never to be answered again.

d)      Ms. Foo never got back to me and never answered my calls or sms again.

e)      I called DAP HQ again and was reverted to a Mr. Goh apparently from IT who then claimed that he now had found my email but had no idea of any of my previous communication and had been instructed not to say anything to me regarding the fundraising as well as the threatening and abusive behaviour of the DAP representative soliciting the funds. He said he was just a staff member and following orders.

f)        I demanded action and a written reply to the contents of my email of 06/03/2010 as it raised numerous issues including the fact that DAP was racist and only catered to the Chinese. I clearly stated to him that DAP should deny and prove me wrong if this was untrue and a failure to reply and/or deny would mean that all that I state becomes true at least in law. I told him that I would publish the issue and my accusations of DAP’s racism on the internet and even send it to Malaysia Today whom I regard as the most trustworthy of news providers that I know and I have travelled the world both in real distance and cyberspace (yah, yah think I’m crazy, tell me of another news provider so brave and at tremendous sacrifice, who so willingly posts absolute falsehood and lies that is propagated by the Government and tells you to read it and decide the truth for yourselves).

g)      Mr. Goh told me that he would get back to me immediately, within minutes after conferring with the ‘people he reports to',

h)      He did not get back to me again and 2 days later when I called, he told me that I could do as I wish.

i)        I then sent DAP a letter dated 23/03/2010 as found below which they have given me permission to state, publish and propogate without objection or denial.  In law it is called ‘ estoppel ‘ and I thank them for clarifying their position and informing the electorate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DAP Headquarters                                                                                                  23 rd March 2010

No.24 , Jalan 20/9 Paramount Gardens

46300 Petaling Jaya

Selangor                                                                  by email / fax 79575718

Mr.Lim Guan Eng

c/o  No.14 Jalan Talipon

10400 Pulau Pinang                                                 by email / fax 604-2288514

Dear sirs,                     

                                   DAP ADMITS IT IS RACIST

I refer you to my email of 06/ 03/ 2010 and the complaints therein and my specific request for a reply / response. I also refer you to the numerous phone calls made by me in an attempt to get you to reply to my complaints and the conversations between myself and your racist Ms.Foo ( hp 012-3725852 ) and one Mr.Goh allegedly of  IT HQ and the conduct of your staff at the DAP HQ in response to communication.

As I have been very clear with my requests and queries and was assured of a prompt reply by your staff above and you have failed to reply and have not denied my statements and since more than sufficient time has lapsed , you have by at least this failure to address the issues therein and refusal to deny them , agreed to my contention.

 I would like to thank you for making this declaration to the electorate, to clarify any doubts they might have had and to contradict any previous statements that were made in the alternative from what DAP is stating below. This will certainly assist the electorate in it’s decision making process in preparation of the next General Election

I thank you for Confirming and agreeing that DAP under the full instructions of it’s leadership and working within it’s established policies, are a Political Party that

1)       lies , lies repeatedly and are happy to do so.

2)      is Racist and class conscious in it’s activities and it’s representatives are free to abuse, insult and humiliate the electorate

3)      does not wish to reply to phone calls, letters and  emails in relation to queries and complaints, especially if it originates from non-Chinese as I have made many over the years and none have received a response. When I raised this issue of racism, it has never been denied.

4)      does not attend to complaints of serious problems of failures , damage and maintenance of public property within it’s administrative boundaries and has additionally provided proof of  poor and corrupt public property maintenance in at least my area.

5)      unlawfully solicits monies from unsuspecting members of the public for activities that are racist and class conscious. DAP are unwilling to reveal how this solicitation took place and as to how the contact was enabled. When challenged, the DAP representative soliciting the funds ( Evelyn 0162675006 ) threatened to use force tantamount to ‘ criminal intimidation ‘ to silence the complainant .  

6)      is a Chinese chauvinistic mirror image of the criminal Barisan Nasional.

7)      does not deny the issues stated above as raised by me to them in the past.

I am sure that you agree that it is my duty to inform the public of your brave admission and declaration and will also assist in the propagation of you kind declaration to the electorate by posting this on the internet. I also thank you for the kind permission you have given me to do so.

Yours faithfully

Captain Reinu Balakrishnan

Copied to

1)      MT

2)      www

And fax.nos.  

• 603-7983 7576
• 603-78738017
• 604-2613003
• 605-2417402
• 603-79837576
• 603-77260443
• 603-33243096

* 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:

 

 

Seeds of racism: A look at national identity from child developmental perspective

Contributors

WRITTEN BY CT WONG

A Malay boy – in his middle or late childhood years – was captured on video attempting to stomp on the gory cow head during the protest against a Hindu temple by Muslims in Shah Alam. The boy displayed a simultaneous attraction and repulsion to the act, and viewers were left with an indelible image of how he tried to step on it but nonetheless quickly withdrew his leg. One wonders what kind of attitude towards other races and religions the boy will adhere to when he grows up. We may be able to find some clues in general if we start from the question of how a child develops his identity from young. Children do not have historical baggage like adults. However, this does not mean that they are neutral or passive observers of events happening around them. In fact, studies have shown that in-group favouritism, i.e. positive feelings about the national group to which a person belongs, is common among children and adolescents. Individuals also hold stereotypes about their own and other national groups. Our federal constitution marks us out as different from one another. We are categorized as Malays and non-Malays, or the in-groups and the out-groups. This has far-reaching polarising consequences on the psyche and character of Malaysian citizens. Studies by Henri Tajfel, a British social psychologist, have shown that mere categorisation itself is a potential source of racial prejudice and discrimination. Hence, it is important to explore the meaning of identities so that we can avoid any possible blind spots of the early framers of the constitution. Group membership Racists are not born but made. One of the starting points in understanding in-group affiliation and bigotry is from child development as young people develop a subjective sense of national identity gradually. For this sense of national identity, children first need an awareness that there are groups or categories of people like Malaysians, Singaporeans, English or French, etc. These different peoples are seen as groups instead of singular individuals. In early childhood, children do not have this idea of grouping nor do they comprehend that they themselves are a member of a particular group. But once they are of an age to realise that they belong to a certain group, then just like adults, they attribute different levels of importance to their membership. Children often regard birth of place as a very important criterion to judge group membership. Other criteria commonly used include parentage or ancestry, ethnicity, religion, use of language, cultural practices, loyalty to traditions, national institutions, etc. In the Malaysian context, these criteria may be utilised deliberately for a political purpose, e.g. social markers in the segregation or exclusion of certain ethnic groups. National emblems such as the various institutions, symbols, historical figures and traditions which represent or symbolise the national group or nation form an important part of the subjective sense of national identity. Children may or may not identify strongly with these emblems. For example, a national museum that aims to portray mainly the legacy of only a certain ethnic group would alienate the other groups. In children, the symbols can evoke feelings of national shame or national pride or just sheer indifference. The sense of national identity is context-dependent and not static. It is closely related to everyday behaviour like the language(s) the child learns to speak, the way of life adopted by his family, contents of TV programmes and newspapers, contents of school curriculum etc. All these pervade our everyday life and yet, unless certain events prompt our thinking, we hardly analyse what impacts on the formation of identity. It is thus important to step away from the racial perspective that has dominated so much of debates and reflections on our race relations, and look at national identity from the social sciences models. Cognitive-developmental theory Expert viewpoints can help to shed light on this issue. The two main theoretical approaches to the development of national identity during childhood and adolescence rooted in different psychological traditions are the cognitive-developmental theory of Piaget, and the social identity theory from Tajfel. Piaget, a Swiss psychologist, links the development of national identity to children’s general cognitive development. He starts from the stage where children engage in reasoning at the concrete level up to the abstract level (e.g. from thinking in terms of cities up to national group membership). These thought processes happen irrespective of ethnic background. Using the concept of children’s development in cognitive abilities in general, Frances Aboud, a Canadian professor of psychology argued that the cognitive change leads to the reduction of in-group favouritism between 6-12 years old. Her studies showed that children’s in-group favouritism peaks at around the age of 6, attributing positive characteristics mainly to their own groups and negative ones to the out-groups. However, the polarising tendency decreases between 6 and 12 as children attribute more negative characteristics to their own group and positive ones to the out-groups. The children are able to use multiple classifications and to judge the deeper similarities between superficially different groups as well as to distinguish differences within their own group. The implication of this finding is that children develop bias and stereotypes as young as around six years of age. However, because of their capacity for abstract thinking, these biases do not remain fixed and unchangeable. Social identity theory Tajfel and John Turner’s social identity theory proposes that when a child identifies with the national group, in-group favouritism occurs. The child derives positive self-esteem or self-worth by being a member of that particular group. However, the in-group and out-group comparison could give rise to a sense of superiority and not mere comparison of differences – this is where racial differences turn into racism. Tajfel also argued that mere categorisation itself could lead to prejudice. Drew Nesdale, an Australian Professor of psychology, has linked the concept of child development to social identity theory. He argues that there are four phases in the development of national and ethnic identities: 1) Undifferentiated phase – prior to age between 2 and 3, racial and national cues are not yet important to young children, 2) Group awareness phase – beginning at 3 years of age, ethnic and national awareness starts to emerge. Self-identification as a member of the in-group occurs, 3) In-group favouritism phase – beginning at about 4 years, self-identification leads to in-group favouritism and, 4) Out-group prejudice – starting at about 7 years of age, there is a shift of focus to out-groups. Prejudice and negativity towards out-groups starts to emerge. According to Nesdale, whether children enter Phase 4 depends on their level of identification with the in-group, the extent to which other members of their social group hold negative or prejudiced attitudes, and whether the group feels threatened. This is where the parents, teachers and other significant influences in the children’s life condition them into holding prejudices against other racial or national groups. I-am-M’sian tag inadequate  Though the above theories are able to explain certain phenomenon, so far there is no empirically adequate theory to explain all the different aspects of development of national identities. There are many different factors involved in a child’s development like the geographical location (city or rural areas), language use (primacy of mother tongue) and ethnicity factors in equal education and employment opportunities, etc. Moreover, the media, school, family, social environment and the children themselves all mutually interact with each other in a web of relationships. Of all these factors, ethnicity as a social marker evokes much strong feelings towards or against national identification. Hence, national identity is not just a name-tag or badge which we wear that says “I am a Malaysian”. It is a complex and dynamic psychological structure involving a system of core beliefs about the national group, and associated emotions and feelings. Mere categorisation in racial entities has sowed the seeds of prejudice which leads to the pervasive racial discrimination. The insights from the above studies of child development are mainly from the West. If we really want to address the urgent issues of racial prejudice and to develop anti-racist education, then we need to do own exploration and investigation. Without reforming all the racialist approach at governmental policy and implementation level, merely changing the name tag or labelling to ‘1 Malaysia’ is tackling the issue at the wrong end.

* 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: