Anglo Chauvinist or Chinese?
Both politicians and the media have painted the above picture as something of the Great Merger, the coming together of a Malay and a Chinese political heavyweight. Bullshit. The only plausibility that they stand together is because both are Anglophiles, sharing an identical, imported western culture with a common worldview.
Their coming together was a political strategy to pull back Malay fears (first instilled by Mahathir Mohamad) of Chinese chauvinism in the DAP and then to re-bridge the popular Malay perception that Pakatan is Chinese driven, a perception that has tainted and worked against the political fortunes of PKR and Amanah, and so to reverse that. Amanah, PKR and Bersatu especially need Zaid to be in DAP more than the DAP needs Zaid. In the DAP, Zaid is superflous — redundant. Now, Pakatan Malays and Bersatu don’t have to explain why they are with Chinese chauvinists who have been considered for ages as anti-Malay and anti-Islam, thanks to Mahathir who started it.
The Chinese Chauvinist
Still saddled with Umno’s bigotry, still haven’t shaken off Mahathirism from his guts, Syed Akbar Ali has this to say on the significance of Zaid Ibrahim in the DAP:
It is an opportunity to show that ‘No we are not Chinese chauvinists‘.
From the annals of Umno bigotry, Chinese chauvinism was made into a bad thing, the ultimate badge of the unpatriotic and the disloyal. In racist Mahathirism, it means the Chinese are unwilling to ‘integrate’ (whatever that is) or, worse, assimilate. Either of which Malays like Kadir Jasin and, of course, Mahathir Mohamad mean to ‘masuk Melayu‘. Before Najib Razak, these Malaiyoos would have preferred Ridhuan Tee to, say, Lim Kit Siang.
What then is Chinese chauvinism? Or, what defines a Chinese chauvinist?
Looking under the sheets for an answer, the term chauvinist isn’t reliable. Framed within the western lexicon-thought, there is no Chinese equivalent because there isn’t an identical concept. Without a word for it, chauvinism had to be made up: 沙文主义 shāwén zhǔyì which reads ridiculous in literal terms, sand/culture/master/righteousness.
The western idea says chauvinism is ‘exaggerated patriotism or nationalism’, that is, the belligerent belief in a national superiority and glory. You could fit a Malaiyoo, say, Kadir into that category and so called him a Malay chauvinist — although strangely nobody, the media especially, do it. Why? Because chauvinism is derogatory. The Chinese is fair game though.
Kadir is Malay chauvinist because that’s what he himself has professed: only Malays are the rightful heirs of Malaysia, others are pendatangs, and that the Malays are in possession of a great (but fictitious) culture and civilization (imported from Arabia).
Apply that frame of Malay chauvinism to a Chinese and it doesn’t make sense in any nationalist way. On the contrary, the Chinese chauvinist is considered to be the embodiment of disloyalty. Hence, the term becomes a convenient Umno and Malay tool to beat up on the Chinese, so justifying half a century of discrimination in Malaysia.
In the justification, the NEP is considered, falsely, ‘reverse affirmation action‘ (a term every motherfucking English language reporter uses) when, in point of fact, it was and remains an apartheid policy today set in stone. (In the US, affirmative action arose as a result of a long history of minority discrimination — education, jobs, even getting a bus seat — without making the majority worse off. In Malaysia, the opposite, bizarre thing happens where Mahathir’s NEP discriminates against the minority as punishment and as if the Chinese were collectively responsible for Malay poverty.)
In China where one would expect to find numerous Chinese chauvinists, the term is a contradiction in terms since everyone in every ethnic group is by state policy Chinese, policy as opposed to the legal definition (in Malaysia). One would be hardpressed to find a chauvinist out of 1.3 billion. Here’s Mao Zedong in 1956:
“…on the relationship between the Han nationality and the minority nationalities…. we put the emphasis on opposing Han chauvinism.”
In that Mao line ethnocentrism is the closest rendering to any semblance of western chauvinism. Han chauvinism is rendered in pinyin as da hanzu zhuyi 大汉族主义. Mao ordered any expression of that zhuyi 主义 eradicated on the grounds that China is a civilizational state not a legal contraption (like is America or France or Malaysia) where laws were made up, sometimes implicitly, often explicitly (the Malaysian Constitution), to give legal existence to multiple ethnicities. The civilization that defines China has long been well established, indeed since the Han dynasty 2000 years ago wherein there was then just one emperor and all are equally his subjects. The People’s Republic follows that tradition, a single unitary state from which is created in whose name all its nationalities (actually ethnicities, 56 in total).
If Chinese chauvinism cannot be framed in (western) political terms what then is its intrinsic meaning? Asked in this way then there seem to be no other point of reference in Malaysia other than this: A Chinese chauvinist is someone who is steeped in Chinese culture, learning and in its traditions.
Who would be the perfect example of such a Chinese chauvinist? Helen ‘Aku Cina‘ Ang? How about Lim Kit Siang? (Care to nominate anyone of them, you are a stupid clown.)
Not even among the contributors at shuzheng could you properly fit that label because such a chauvinist would have to, by its internal logic, embody all that’s intrinsic in Chinese-ness. These characteristic qualities of Chinese-ness wouldn’t be something you can fake, as a Malaiyoo can be faked — the Malay has no determined roots nor any fixed indigenous past. Nor fake to be a Muslim or Christian wherein all one needs to do is to open your mouth and wag your tongue’s allegiance to some God. Ridhuan Tee would claim he is Malay and who is to say he can’t?
The Chinese does not exist by a declaration.
Since the eradication of Han ethnic-centricity, Chinese-ness, by taking in a history of traditions, has acquired a metaphysical dimension. Tang ren 唐人 or Tang people, from an era around 1,000 AD, is often treated as synonym to being true Chinese. In another form the Chinese is also called huaren 华人 or flower people, any of which underlies the traditional notion the Chinese is defined by a set of certain character qualities — and perpetually cultivating them.
Cultivation begins with learning, which comes from the idea that the qualitative being of a person changes from moment to moment — we are different in the way we react to a girl friend or as a son. A person never ceases to change; no person is fully form not even in death so that the cultivation of individual character is itself the goal of humanity.
This, the ceaseless drive to cultivate the self, is the essence of what’s to be Chinese so that, contained within the idea, is the English phrase, ‘let people be’. The Chinese invented liberalism centuries before the word came into vogue in modern political discourse.
To be steeped in Chinese culture and learning, one could try imitating but there’s a 3,000 year long history to start. When? Which starting point? Confucius is still your best bet because he was, by historical consensus today, one of the three persons who best defined what’s to be Chinese; the others being Qin Shihuang, first Qin emperor of a unified China, and Sima Qian 司马迁 (145 or 135 – 86 BC), a court scribe who wrote the first Chinese history (3,000+ pages) during Emperor Wu in the Han dynasty era. (Without him, many nationalities such as Mongolians and Manchus would have no existence in name today; they would be unclassifiable as an ethnicity.)
Question thus: What is it to be a Confucian? Some aspects are taken for granted and which are today text-written in Chinese books and others passed on by word of mouth in the homes, from mother/father to son and so on. An example: filial piety. Another, the Rule of the Golden Mean.
Confucius was the world’s first ‘liberal’ and ‘democrat’ and ‘humanitarian’ nobody in the West could well imagine, except that they don’t know and don’t read widely and can’t.
Now, wouldn’t it be nice if, in Malaysia, all Malays were Chinese chauvinists as well?
In the circumstance, one would have hoped that all 7 million Chinese in Malaysia would be chauvinists. But, alas, Mahathir, like Zaid Ibrahim today, preferred Anglophiles and still haven’t learned nor have they gotten rid of the confusion in their minds the difference between the two.
See a Malay Pig slouched in his chair contemplating Chinese chauvinism?
A Malay Pig Arm Stretched Out to the Chinese
That man with an arm over the shoulders of a Chinese chauvinist is Kadir Jasin, one of Mahathir’s henchmen. In Mahathir’s days, his Umno government slapped a toll gate in the middle of Cheras where Tan Kok Wai was, and still is, the MP (he has been since 1995). The suburb is near 100 percent Chinese, and this was the days of Mahathir’s privitization.
To milk the Chinese of what they had, Mahathir got Samy Vellu to add two to the existing four lanes of a 3 km portion of the Cheras Road into KL. After which the stretch was labelled a ‘highway’. Two years on and the toll drawing only a meagre income, JKR cut off the only other but congested access out of Cheras, forcing everyone to pay an extortionate rate to the concession holder, an Umno company owned by an Anwar Ibrahim crony. Because of this extortion, Tan launched a series of protest. Police broke into Tan’s house late one night, threw him into jail for inciting riots, and Kadir Jasin used the New Straits Times to promote the Mahathir line that Tan was an anti-national element, a gangster and especially a Chinese chauvinist.
Numerous Chinese, both the ordinary and the politicians, have suffered greatly under Umno hands, under Mahathir, and maligned by Kadir. Now these same motherfuckers — these insufferable assholes — are pleading to Save Malaysia.
Tan or 陈国伟 Chen Guowei in pinyin speaks bad English and Malay but his Mandarin is perfect. He has a bad eye and isn’t the sort of Khairy J poster boy so admired by that Lady of the Valley bitch named Annie. (Kit Siang would be nowhere today without the like of Tan, slogging behind.) Like many DAP politicians, though, Tan has worked quietly and tirelessly for a fairer and just administration, no matter who ruled. Is that too much to ask? (Photo below was taken ten years ago, December 2006.) Kadir, among numerous Umno racists, twisted fairer and just to mean Chinese chauvinism. But fairer and just had to be applied to be Chinese, and not Malays, because millions of them (and Indians) were at the receiving end of a huge truncheon wielded by Umno and Mahathir.
Only in the Chinese chauvinists could they have endured Mahathirism and oppression with such fortitude and forbearance and not permit everything to descend into chaos and civil war, as did in Sri Lanka and Syria. The most drastic step the Chinese chauvinists took in protest was to emigrate. More than a million did, twice the number of Syrians who fled to Europe.
I did, too, and I don’t give a fuck for Saving Malaysia. So, Kadir, take your filthy Malaiyoo hands off our shoulders. It’s payback time and may Najib turn you into minced pork then toss off your shrivelled prick to the dogs.
The Malay Pig
Another day, another Malay Oppression of the Chinese
Malaiyoo! Take your filthy hands off our things!
These Malaiyoos don’t know how to be sensitive. For centuries, the Chinese have been selling (to Chinese!) and using these brushes in schools and at homes. Now, suddenly out of the blue, on some frivolous pretext, and because of their Umno and PAS, because of some Allah and Jakim Allah-keepers, they find those brushes illegal. The Malays are truly insufferable: how have we been bothering them? By selling custom-made Chinese things to Malays?
Without hudud they do this; imagine then during hudud. It isn’t enough for Malay authorities to go after their girls and boys on bikes, now they want to tell the Chinese how to do their business — among the Chinese themselves.
Fuck off, Malaiyoo! We will remember your oppression, and you will pay. That we promise.
Chinese Chauvinism is a Pig Bristle Brush
At some point in his work, the Muslim man above would have had to use pig bristle brushes. He, you see, lives in China. Hear him complain that Allah told him the brushes are haram.
These insufferable Malaiyoo pigs, endlessly inventing grievances, a cake before now a brush!