Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Lina Joy Writings’ Category

To Subra, a Letter on Honesty

Dear Mr S. Subramaniam:

To you this UTM education business on Hinduism and Sikhism in its Tamadun Islam and Tamadun Asia (Titas) course modules is about (a) “pools of ignorance”, and (b) “intellectual dishonesty” in academia.

To your political colleague P. Kamalanathan it is about “misrepresentation”, which has delivered a “painful experience” that’s not to be repeated. Painful? Is pain for real?

The same arguments, almost to the near exact words, would have been said or heard five years ago or ten or 30, 50 years. And in that duration, the ignorance continues, the dishonesty repeats itself and the misrepresentation and the pain find their way into some temples, in Penang most recently, Selangor before. You know of course what happened: People wreck your gods and they piss on them. Immediately, one can imagine who would have done such a thing because, before Penang, it had happened in Kerling. Why did it happen? Is it unrelated to the UTM and its life ‘kehidupan‘ courses?

You think those acts and those courses happened from nothing? They happened from the misdeed of just one person? Or, do you still think, they stem from your notions of ignorance, intellectual dishonesty and that they are a matter of misrepresentation?

Only days earlier, PAS people, from Hadi Awang down, were pissing on the Chinese. Ismail Sabri, your Cabinet colleague no less, thinks that Muslim-Malays are the only righteous people fit to run the country. Hishammuddin Hussein, yet another Cabinet colleague of yours, has argued that Teresa Kok shouldn’t be in a mosque. There is, in H2O’s thinking, the problem of whether Teresa is sufficiently ‘clean’. Jamal Yunos, Umno divisional leader, could have been an MP, even a Minister like you. He says the Chinese are pigs — filthy. And one can go on and on but that’s already a lot of intellectual dishonesty, and they didn’t come from universities, Subra. You sit next to them every Wednesday.

Now, flip around this ‘pool of ignorance’ or this ‘misrepresentation’. Do you know what it got Vivian Lee for her ignorance? And that’s not even any sort of representation or misrepresentation that Nathan-in-a-Kamal talked about. Her’s didn’t happen in some university run by your fellow Umno Cabinet colleague. No; it was a personal, trashy, nobody-gives-a-shit Facebook page that didn’t even belong to her. And the photo on the page was what? A pot of pork meat in tea and no Melayu has to eat it, which they won’t of course. No. But, for all that: Six months, Subra. Six fucking months in the slammer for being ‘insensitive’, for being not ‘responsible’ to Malay feelings on Ramadan.

Everything in this country has to be made sensitive to Malay feelings. It is a crime to be insensitive. But for Hindu feelings or Chinese feelings, it’s purely a matter of ignorance and misrepresentation — and this is not according to them but to you — so that if you compare Vivian with Jamal or UTM then what do you get, Subra? Intellectual dishonesty? Pool of ignorance? What the fuck did you learn in school?

Ti Lian Ker may be on to something when he said — and here’s someone saying it at last:

It is rather unfortunate that Muslims, on the one hand, demand high reverence for their religion but at the same time some are loose cannons when it comes to understanding and respecting the religious practices of others.

What is he on to?

Go back to the course description (above). Is it about the philosophy of Hinduism or Sikhism? If not, what misrepresentation is there to worry? For the answer, anyway, ask a UTM student. Or try Hadi Awang in private. He’ll say to you, no, you got it all wrong thambi. It’s about the Malay life, talking about how they should view other gods, other faiths, other peoples, people like you. True or false, honest or dishonest are not in question. God, you see, is not mathematics nor reasoning, and so this UTM business has nothing to do with academic honesty or dishonesty. Creating ignorance is precisely the purpose in such courses. After which, why are you surprise someone should turn up in Penang to wreck your gods?

In Orlando, they will blow your brains out, even if you are the most honest Hindu thambi in Malaysia.

Enough therefore with your pontificating when, clearly, you can’t even convince yourself about what is it you’re saying because you are wrong and you want to be wrong. Or are you just plain stupid? To be wrong in your case is to apologize for Barisan, Umno in particular, for its racism, and to pull a cover over your association with such kinds of conduct that are completely intolerable. But you accept them, the official, unstated, unwritten policies through which institutions like UTM are created and then to serve those policies.

So, please, Subra…, cut the crap. Save it for your kids. Or your mother. Asshole!

Sincerely

rihaku

PS: What’s with people like you? You get a Minister’s job and you start to pontificate?

***


Surprise, Class! Pop quiz today

Look at photo. Answer the question. 5 marks go to final grade.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/bviN6m0nhpI/maxresdefault.jpg

***

The history so far:

The Marcos family flees the Philippines…

…leaves behind 2,500 pairs of shoes.

https://images.monocle.com/1/0/800/uploads/image/gallery/4-514994e67695f.jpg

***

The Najib family flees Pekan…

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/79/4e/29/794e29a34afe21b7b9927e15cae50050.jpg

…leaves behind 2,500 pieces of bags.

https://i0.wp.com/s3-media2.fl.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/HJsaaj-ogzQWu8-Y1AjOPw/168s.jpg

*

In the nick of time, Rosmah returns for the bags. What’s inside?

*

https://shuzheng.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/f070e-3.jpg?w=500

Me and my bag: Rafizi Ramli is just jealous. His wife got him to smear my name. She’s got no bag, no class. Bitch!

***

Now, for the truth!

Quiz answer

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSbStIbNqeROVs29yk8PwO4o4UyEVqpB8clhKzHJIhDO7cs16HL


All those things in the bag were promised Jian as well (below). There is just one short, one more to collect; only one. Ran out of money, you see. Should call tonight to let her know. She will understand and might even scold me for wasting money on things that won’t make her prettier. You know, money don’t just drop off in the desert from galloping camels.

mug

*

In the palm lies the heart…

Read Full Post »

  • 5,000 Steven Gan news items,
  • 10,000 Helen Ang blog posts, and
  • 30,000 Bersih street marchers.

Sue the bastard.

They went first for the Melayu (above) who Umno could not and would not protect for 40 years. To come this far now, going for the Chinese today (below), must then mean that they understand the Chinese also have no protection by the DAP. At best, there will be statements to Malaysiakini. But so what? Doesn’t the Christian DAP want a clean, moral society? (bottom)

Statement or no statement, Hadi Awang, Nik Aziz, and their mullahs know they have made their point: “This is Allah’s country. If they don’t like the way it is done, the Chinese infidel can fuck off. And this goes for those stupid Hindus as well, praying to stones and trees,” says Petra Kamarudin, the mullahs’ Yang Mulia spokesman at one time.

Chinese Pays the Price for a PAS Revolution That Never Came

PAS had begun life with a proselytizing purpose on a political platform. Once this order of priorities is turned upside down, switching to politics first and missionary work second because of the Putrajaya crown, then something has to break in the party. Why? And what?

The why answer stems from the PAS presumption 30, 40 years ago that it could replicate in Malaysia, Iran before, Egypt today: it has only to install a mullah clique then wait for the revolution.

But that’s precisely the problem. Their revolution never came. Nik Aziz and Hadi Awang will still be waiting, dead, in spite of Arab Spring, Bersih and especially Anwar Ibrahim goading.

That the revolution didn’t come it is because half the country is Chinese, Indian, Kadazandusun, Dayak and so on. Haris Ibrahim was so incense that the Chinese weren’t on the streets during Bersih1 that his blog postings went up on fire during Bersih2. Hence, Haris, who had started blogging against the state’s Islamic morality, was soon instigating for something more down to earth like Lynas – but that was in the midst of campaigning for yet another Islamic morality, PAS For All.

(Helen Ang, a one-time Haris associate, would soon adopt his form of footsie double-dealing deceit. She had started with an Aku Cina declaration, then going on to spit at anything Chinese, and now ingratiates to Malaiyoo bigots that made them feel good about themselves and rationalize their Sinophobic racism.)

Ethnicity therefore had everything to do with PAS politics and its revolution-in-waiting, but not religion. Obviously. If all the Chinese and Indians – fully one in three Malaysians – are Christians then the waiting wouldn’t have been frustrating. Other than Anwar, of course, Haris, Lim Kit Siang et al would be there for PAS. Arise! Ye Christians Arise! Haris could again trumpet, as he had done so in 2011, and before that by the DAP in Sarawak.

Between the democratic vote and the revolution, the second is still the better because democracy poses risks to a PAS state and, besides, in post-revolution, you can change the ground rules to suit your taste. You could, for example, declare democracy un-Islamic because it had once sustained the fallen regime, a regime so corrupt that it brought Allah’s intervention – revolution in the country.

Whereas the vote is a human decision, the revolution on the other hand bears all the semblances and contains all the ingredients of intervention from above, but acted on the ground. It is the ideal route to an Islamic – or any theocratic – state because you don’t have to account for the future. The wrath of Allah (or God or Jesus) is decisively swift and one time only – the old regime is killed – so that any future democratic vote is purely an optional item.

But the waiting, meanwhile, has to come to an end.

As a girl you have three options when the boy, after three phone calls, does not show up: (1) you go to the movie alone, (2) go home, or (3) wander the streets, with the hope to either find your ex b/f  or bump into a new one.

PAS didn’t pack up, close shop, or retreat to Kelantan to sulk after the revolution failed to happen. But, when it chose Option No. 3, taking to the streets, hand-in-hand with Anwar and Lim Guan Eng, the mullah clique had much explaining to do.

Where is Allah in all this humanly acts? Why will you not wait for God’s sign? What about the dakwah? Why is politics now above dakwah, and why are those mullahs poisoning the purity of the ummah by co-habitating with murtads, infidels and the kafir?

PAS proceeded of course to answer that the dakwah could come once they reach Putrajaya; from there, they add, Islam would be delivered more effectively and swiftly. This explains why PKR and the DAP were at one time busy declaring Anwar Ibrahim and Lim Guan Eng as the Messiah, God’s Gift and Caliph: it gave the mullah’s excuses some backbone. See, they would say, those men are also chosen by God, the God that is also Allah.

But all this talk wasn’t just contrived, it won’t even sell to a kid so that PAS is today seen as pursuing after earthly power, not fulfilling Allah’s will. By preferring the vote over revolution, the mullahs didn’t merely break the PAS raison d’etre, they were also getting ahead of God.

To answer this sacrilege, to make this sacrifice of a principle pay, to cease waiting, PAS commits to the very thing Islamic revolutions are supposed to do: attack the infidels and the kafirs, the Chinese hair salons, Chinese boy-girl alone together, men watching the nights, they demand Islamic design to temples, wreck shrines inside a Hindu house, and so on.

The Chinese (and Indians), already kafirs, are a sitting duck for exacting Islamic justice once Islamic attention shifts from the Melayu to the Chinese. In a perverse sort of sense the Chinese are punished because they have been in the way of the PAS revolution – and God’s will – that never came. Should it come, next time aided by the vote, tudung in schools would be child’s play.

The warning signs from Kelantan, Kedah, Penang and Selangor are ominous. Should Hindraf and P Uthayakumar back Pakatan, then the stateless Indians will be have their citizenship papers they want so badly the next day. But they would have to choose between their new ICs and their names written in Arabic. This is the dilemma Uthaya will put the Indians through although he may think it is unlikely or improbable. And why not? Surely the Chinese boy and girl were picked up not to fulfill any Islamic bylaw obligation. PAS will say it is for the violation of ‘universal values’, nothing new, old story, adds Teresa Kok, just as they and the DAP had acted before against gambling, 7-Eleven beers, indecency, and hair salons, all nests of the MCA rich.

For PAS to deliver the revolution ahead of the revolution that never came, Chua Soi Lek and Umno in particular should see a window of opportunity. But to exploit this to the hilt, Barisan should cease talking and act. To act is to go the opposite direction of PAS: change the school rules on tudung; return Tan Yi Min (or Chen Yimin) to her father; rebuild the Hindu shrine for the Indian family, sue PKR; reimburse the fines on the hair salons, then sue PAS and Haris Ibrahim (for constitutional violation); have the Chinese couple admit to khalwat, pay their fines, and sue the DAP.

One civil suit each against PAS, PKR and DAP will be worth 10,000 ceramahs by Barisan and Najib Razak.

Hannah Yeoh (second from left) doing her righteous part for the PAS revolution.

*****

End of revolution signs…

Sign outside a Kota Bharu hair salon: It’s safe! Your hair done by real men.

Sign on a Tumpat street: Hold hands. It’s OK.

Sign inside a Kelantan jungle: Gua Musang is PAS free! You can come out.

Read Full Post »

Nurul the Princess, above. Below, Siti Zabedah Kasim as attorney with the deep-rooted Melayu empathy for a heart-broken client.

This is suggested:

My name is Nurul Izzah Anwar; Nurul is my short name, Anwar Ibrahim my father.

On Nov 3, at a church, place paid for by it, I made the remarks pertaining to a question asked from the floor. It is a constitutional question: Is freedom of religion applicable to non-Malays only, meaning Chinese and Indians and the native peoples of Sarawak, Sabah and the peninsula. In another phrasing that question, which was posed by Siti Zabedah Kasim to who goes my thanks and gratitude, also means this: Is this freedom not applicable to the Malays.

My answer to Siti was that she was wrong, freedom has to be applicable to the Malays as well. This position is the same as its constitutional clause from which it came. Freedom must apply to all. It has to. If not then the constitution is invalid: some parts are good only for Malays, other parts are for the Chinese and Indians. Even this differentiation, a sort of legalised division, is unconstitutional: all are equal before the law, the constitution says.

Here is the problem: the three-part constitutional Malay definition says a Malay, such as I, must be Muslim. In other words, professing Islam (other than speaking the Malay language and observing Malay custom) is a constitutional requisite – an absolute requirement – to be Malay.

Inverse the logic. Am I – Nurul Izzah Anwar who speaks Malay, observe Malay traditions – Malay if I am not a Muslim? The obvious, personal, individual answer says, ‘yes, I’m Malay‘. Constitutionally, however, this answer is wrong because it is silent.

Suppose I give the constitution the leeway to claim my identity, rather than for me to claim mine, then the ‘no’ answer from the constitution leads to a deeply personal dilemma: If my name is Nurul Izzah, daughter of the Malay Anwar Ibrahim, is not a Malay, then what am I? Who am I?

This way of phrasing questions stops at the door of the constitution although the bureaucratic and legal apparatus of the state, of Malaysia such as its Islamic institutions and agencies insist that they and they alone will decide the answer. For them to decide is to ask their permission; for example, I should get affirmation or otherwise from the Syaria court.

If however the question – who am I? – is a personal, individual, existential question then I alone and only I can answer it. Not even my father. Here’s my answer: I’m Malay. I’m Melayu anyway you want to toss the elements of its definition.

This answer suggests I’m in conflict with the constitution, my birth records, my personal, legal identity, my IC, not to mention the Islamic apparatus of the state. My existence however is not unlawful, I’m just illegal. There are two probable ways out: either the state removes me as Malaysian citizen or tolerate my existence and so let me fall into the other legal category such as DLL, dan lain lain, that is, Others.

Siti’s question and my answer has the effect I just described above. That is, if I choose to accept the constitutional guarantee on religion, I choose either to remain a Muslim or to be an apostate even though being apostate is not for me to affirm, legally; I have not had Syaria court clearance.

Now, to the crux of the issue, which is this: did I say Malays are entitled to freedom of religion? Answer, yes, I did.

By the answer was I encouraging apostasy or murtad. Answer, no. If I did then the constitution is equally guilty of the charge because, recall, I’m regurgitating the constitution. It is the constitution that planted the idea – even empowers me – to say I’m free to decide as I wish, whether I’m a Malay or not.

If another Malay, such as my father Anwar Ibrahim, chooses to go down the path of leaving Islam, then should I be held responsible for his decision? If I’m held responsible, then I shall be accused of instigating apostasy. Once accused, my prosecutors will have to ask my father: did he leave Islam on account of his daughter or because his daughter had said so?

Thus, my fate falls into my father’s hands, his tongue actually so that if I despair today it is for the concern that my father might speak with a forked tongue and a muddled mind. He must be clear headed and honest.

My regret is that I was dishonest to have lied in the backward inference that Malays, in order not to be apostate, are not entitled to choose.

My remarks on Nov 3 (Malays are entitled to religious freedom) has to mean, by logical progression, that if a Malay has religious freedom then leaving Islam is possible, and on leaving Islam apostasy is committed.

Again, however, my remarks is not the equal of encouraging apostasy because the choice or the freedom thereof is not mine to decide. But in denying the inference that apostasy would invariably result – and logically flow – from religious freedom, I was wrong. Siti Kassim is right to be disappointed and I thank her for saying so.

My error, simply stated, is to say and mean one thing today, another thing tomorrow.

Here’s what I say to Umno, PAS members, Utusan, PKR and other Malays: the Malays are already a free people and the constitution validates that. And here’s what I appeal to Umno and other Malays: Trust the Malays, trust yourself, because the alternative to Islam is … what? Christianity? Allah forbid.

To Siti: indeed you are right, and I lied about what I mean in my words on Nov 3. It is I who must reform, undergo reformasi. The Chinese Confucian call this self-cultivation. To show my commitment, I shall cut off my forked tongue; you’ve only to say the word and lend me a pair of scissors. You are welcome to perform the task.

To those who had contributed statements in my defence (Nathaniel Tan, Hannah Yeoh, Steve Oh, Raja Petra, Mariam Mokhtar et al), this is my response: shut up and get out of my face. None of you make sense. I also withdraw my threat to sue Utusan. To Steve Oh in particular, I trust the police will put you away – for good; you are everything that is not a Malaysian.

To Steven Gan and Malaysiakini, here’s a scoop-tip: I’m thinking of quitting PKR and joining Umno. You are welcome to call me a frog.

Now, leave me…. There’s a lake I want to visit – alone.

Read Full Post »

 

Burn Malaysia, Burn 

KOTA BARU:  …[C]onstruction of a Buddhist building must, say the PAS-led state government, include Islamic designs to reflect the state capital’s status as an Islamic city.

State Local Government, Culture, Arts and Tourism committee chairman Datuk Takiyuddin Hassan (above) said developers must incorporate some Islamic elements in their plans or the proposals would be rejected. “We will ensure development will be based on Islamic principles and features,” he told a press conference here yesterday.

He claimed the ruling was well-accepted by the majority of developers, including non-Muslim developers. “I do not see it as an issue or something that could cause religious tension, as it only involves architecture and design.”

***

That, by now, is past the point of being annoying and oppressive: Islam is not meant to serve the Malays only; it is used to beat up Indians and Chinese. This isn’t new of course – Muslim authorities egging towards open war – it’s only that they don’t have the gall yet to declare it openly.

All the fault lines in Malaysia’s 50 odd years is pressed into and summarized in that single Kota Baru decision, explaining why Taki Din said what he said: “I do not see it as an issue.” Fascism lurks behind rainbow colours.

Such decisions like Taki Din’s contain the same motivations – differing only in degrees of their racist fascism – in the destruction of a Kerling temple (1977), Hindu shrines in Selangor (2005-2007?), the Bamiyan statues in Afghanistan (2001), the abduction and conversion of schoolgirl Tan Yimin (2010), the murder of Teoh Beng Hock (2009), the Satu Sekolah (SS) Malaiyoo campaign to shut down the Chinese schools, and Mahathir Mohamad bringing Anwar Ibrahim into Umno.

Which is also to say none of the above started with PAS nor will all of that end with Umno. Meanwhile,

MCA: politically castrated by Umno and incapacitated to act, even for show, it is reduced to speeches pontificating about multi-religious Malaysia as if those mullah pig heads don’t know that.

Umno: When openly resisting PAS would be nationally beneficial to it and since it would serve inter-ethnic relations, Umno keeps silent instead and do nothing because of a party principle and one assumption: (a)  the Malay, any Malay, all Malays, regardless of politics, supercede the Chinese in importance and priority under any and all circumstances; and (b) supporting Chinese, Umno assumes, it will lose Malay support. Since Mahathir, Umno has never thought it fit to see things the other way around – help Chinese, Malay support grows – a self-fulfilling victim of its propaganda.

PAS: They can see that the Malay, being a construct, have no legacy of a civilization, culture much less: tombs, buildings, written and art works…. The consequence? It is to appropriate one, forcing it on kampung Melayus, so as to give the impression that PAS stands for and inherits a grand, old religious civilization, camouflaging  a desert import that is entirely at odds with the riverine, monsoon buffalo and padi land culture of the Malay forebears. This raises a question: what might be Taki Din’s cultural or artistic administrative role or mission if he had been raised in a diet of padi swamp frogs?

Dzulkefly Ahmad & Khalid Samad: When necessary in front of church congregations, they’d preach about the wonders of an imported Arabian religion in the service of humanity, except to declare truth in the face – Islam is an oppressive, tyrannical dogma; a cruel religion made by Man that only Man is capable of, Jesus and Allah are inventions of a superstitious era of dead foreign societies; and Man can be good, better in fact, without their voodoo or their God.

DAP: Along with PAS, Anwar Ibrahim, ‘Father’ Paulie Tan and Teresa Sassy Kok they import into local politics and into the national consciousness a history of foreign fights between Europeans and Arabs in a distant land called the Middle East. But – and here’s the catch – neither they nor their children will suffer the consequences of war with dead and casualties. It is paid instead by Chinese and Indians, Buddhists and Hindus, the innocent in the war. It is for this deceit, people like Lim Guan Eng shall deserve the highest form of Chinese punishment: strapped to five horses, pulled apart, and his body parts returned to Marcus Lim as reminder of duplicity’s price, plus a bill for its expense.

Dunggu Malaiyoos & Dunggu Syed Akbars: In front of their monitor screens, the like of Ahirudin Attan, Syed Akbar Ali, Shamshul Anuar are gloating at the PAS Kota Baru news, still wondering why Malaysians are not ‘united’ or ‘integrated’. Dunggu is their common middle name.

Mahathir Mohamad: Sometimes credited as the only national politician who had stood up to PAS, the strategy was flawed from the beginning. For his belligerence, he had to compensate the Malays on matters of Islam (lest he is considered anti-Islam) and this included using it as a beating stick on the Chinese. He shares with Malaiyoos the Dunggu middle name.

Stevie ‘Wonder’ Gan: Controversy? Kota Baru? What happened? When? No-lah, it’s a small matter, w’at. Why make a big fuss?

Ronnie Liu: Soon after March 2008, he was singing the praises of PAS, and in meetings with them he’d call its ulamas ‘brothers’. The ‘brothers’ had permitted temples and even a pig abbattoir, he would say. Of course, he never told about fine red print in the conditions attached. He was colour blind.

Haris ‘Bangsa Malaysia’ Ibrahim: This isn’t the fault of Islam but a Muslim, he’d say, suggesting therefore that that there can be a Muslim without Islam. Bangsa Malaysia equals a dunggu Ahi.

Chinese: Mahathir used to promote the fiction that the Muslim-Malays are a super-tolerant race of refined etiquette when it has been Chinese forbearance that has permitted his Malay government to be dominant, thereby getting away with so many, many things. Chinese patience lasts an eternity, but the time for playing nice is over.  When Taki ‘Take-Out’ Din of Kota Baru or that Dr Fly of Kuala Selangor come to the Chinese village for an inspection or an election visit, slaughter pigs to welcome them. When Ibrahim Ali distributes angpow, even if red, keep the ringgit and shred the envelope in front of his face. If Ahi visits, feed his pig tail to the pigs. All the while, remember to take out a residence insurance elsewhere, and sit on those damn municipal bills if default is not possible.

Malaysia’s bureacracy, Islamic and civil, prodded on by dunggu Malaiyoos – Pure Shit et al – is full of holes to exploit and to get even.

After which, , we must leave; it is the only permanent, safe way out. Everything else, even in these shuzheng pages, is just spittle. Only remember what our forefathers have advised: hide your capabilities, never claim leadership, and time everything…. Always time it, and time it well: 一年之计在于春,一日之计在于晨

 

Read Full Post »

The Chen Yimin Answer to Hudud …
as DAP & Haris Ibrahim mollycoddle Syaria & the PAS Mullahs

Muslim! Give Us Back Our Child!

Above: Syaria kidnaps an infidel, kafir daughter 陈乙敏 Chen Yimin (or Tan Yi Min) from the Chinese and her father at the point of a gun (below).

If the constitution today cannot even protect the Tan family in Penang from infringement by Syaria issued in another state, Selangor, then the worse is to be expected for the Chinese (and Indians) once a federal, country-wide, Islamic regime of penal laws are introduced – guarantee or no guarantee.

This Islamic tyranny is clear as day. But Petra Kamarudin, whose son would be missing a leg today, says let’s ‘debate’. Teresa Kok might say not to racialise the matter.

Bishop Paul Tan, DAP’s preacher and church mouthpiece, has the best answer to hudud. In open connivance with Anwar Ibrahim and PAS, he has the gall to talk of ‘iron-clad’ guarantees. Here’s one answer to the Paul Tan’s guarantee: Please take back your iron and shove it down Anwar’s arse where it belongs.


*****

After Anwar Ibrahim’s defining statement of support for PAS by PKR, and then matched days later by Paul Tan from the Church, the hudud and Syaria laws for Malaysia have today gone beyond the matter as a PAS-only agenda. It’s way beyond.

Once hudud goes to referendum stage (Khalid Samad talks of it and so, too, the Dr Fly of PAS Kuala Selangor), starting with Kelantan, the inevitable result takes place because the kampung Melayu fearful of saying ‘no’ would say ‘yes’ to it. (A Kelantan-only, Malay-only referendum is like telling the church choir boys this: “those who say no to the Ten Commandments for inclusion into the Charter of the Church of Fatima, stand up!“)

Other Malays will know if they, for example, commit rape or incest (which by then would be defined differently), the chances of being prosecuted, conviction much less, is on a sliding scale falling into their favour and against the female victim, especially if a 14-year-old niece or neighbour.

After Kelantan, Terengganu next, Kedah, Perlis, and the rest of the country; the constitution is no obstacle no matter what the Muslim academicians might say through The Star.

This advancing progression of hudud and Syaria from mere party ideology into referendum then law, state by state, suggests something defective in the constitution. But, this also says that, better than the constitution, the Chinese (and Hindu Indian) presence in Malaysia stands between the Melayus and a medieval Arab law that no Melayu can challenge or dare to.

So far, the Chinese unstated response to it has been as straightforward as it is simply: do what you want to your own – and, please, by all means stone all your women and cut off all the legs especially those from the Mahathir Malay magpies and blog heads, see if we care – only don’t you dare touch one of us.

In this attitude, however, there is an underlying problem: how to trust PAS or Niz Aziz or Anwar or Paul Tan, with or without their iron promises?

But their promises are worth nothing. There is no such a thing as an iron clad guarantee: Syaria was applied to Chen Yimin 陈乙敏 and father (plus countless other cases, involving in particular Indian Hindu families) who, ill-advised, perhaps deliberately, by an Anwar-PKR lawyer diverted the case from a supposedly constitutional ‘iron-clad’ Syaria-not-for-Chinese issue into a family, custody law dispute.

And the result of the dispute? The father Chen Zhaohong 陈招宏, much to his eternal regret, lose hands down to his ex-wife and Yimin’s convert mother Fatimah Foong Abdullah.

Without the protection of the constitution and never to trust untrustworthy judges and politicians (those Umno blog politican wannabes don’t count), and betrayed by the PKR and DAP, both looking the other way over Yimin, then the Chinese must seek an alternate response to hudud.

One way out is to stand with and alongside any Melayu who wants to say No to hudud, No to guarantees, No to PAS, No to Anwar and No to Paul Tan. That means:

  • (a) no deal, no talk, nothing, regardless of how hudud is packaged. Anwar and PAS in the name of their Allah can do what they want to the grandchildren of Mahathir and his shitty Shiites, it is no business of the others.
  • (b) Because Anwar says hudud should be respected – it is democracy, he says – then every Malay, over age 18, must be constitutionally permitted to decide if the person is Muslim once hudud be forced on the Melayu. Anwar must respect every Melayu whether to be Muslim Malay. Freely deciding is also democracy, mah. (Mahathir blog heads can stay Islam since they, so they say, own MALAYsia.)

This Chinese (and Indian) political position rest on the platform: since federal powers supervene the state, and because federal matters impinge on the Chinese, then the Chinese citizenry steps in. The Chinese is entitled, constitutionally and legally, to have a say not on the hudud construction but whether or not the federation says OK to PAS doing whatever it wants to Kelantan.

This legal situation, going backwards, upon reaching the Chinese produces a situation in which the Chinese have before them a Sino-Confucian duty to the Melayu. This duty is known as citizen-kin.

The duty demands a straight answer: what is the Chinese to do for their own sake and for the sake of their Melayu citizen-kin, whether the Melayu is for or against hudud? (This kin duty is ethically valid, possessing the force of familial truth, unless of course those Mahathir barking and spinning blogheads make good their threat – cakap saja – to evict every Chinese from this land they had sequestered and fictitiously labelled ‘Tanah Melayu‘.)

A ramification from this citizen-kin principle extrapolates, thus:

Hudud can enter Kelantan only after every Melayu and Chinese and Hindu Indian in all Malaysia agrees to a PAS Muslim-only hudud referendum in the state. That is, PAS must get agreement from every Chinese, Melayu, and Indian in order to conduct a Kelantan-only, Malay-only referendum.

Nik Aziz, et al, cannot expect to slip hudud into Kelantan by the backdoor without everybody, by the front door, first agreeing to let them do it. Kelantan is a part of the federal state of Malaysia, not a separate independent entity – i.e. PAS can do whatever it wants there – whether constitutionally or on religious grounds. Consequently, (i) Kelantan cannot usurp the legislative powers of the federation, and (ii) it belongs to the Chinese citizenry as much as it is to the PAS Malays.

This answers Khalid Samad of PAS Shah Alam and Dr Fly of Kuala Selangor.

Because hudud has now gone beyond PAS, nation-wide, widened and instigated by Anwar and Paul Tan, then the task is to take it head on by as many people as may be found, all throwing into its path as many rocks as Gunung Tahan has on its slopes.

Not for one person, not for anybody, not one; hudud was never meant to see even the light of day. Yet, how has it come to this stage in which PKR in Anwar and the Church in Paul Tan join hands in its support, guarantee or no guarantee?

Answer: the DAP and the Haris ‘Christian Arise’ Ibrahim.

Rock, Rocket, Rocking Haris

The rock clique of Paul-James-David with a tokkish ‘guru’ in the background while Haris shouts from behind “Don’t worry, be happy! Yea, Yea, we’ve the Rock of Gibraltar to defend us”.

In 2003, James Ngeh Koo Ham:

DAP Perak fully support the CEC decision requiring DAP Terengganu members to quit PAS appointed political posts. We must never accept the implementation of an Islamic State in Malaysia just because we are accommodated in the Government.

In March 2010, the same James Jesus son of Ngeh seven years later to Nut Graph:

The words “secular state” and “Islamic state” connote different meanings to different people. I would prefer to discuss this from the stand point of a theocratic state versus a secular state.

After pussyfooting with the term that’s as straightforward as ‘Islamic’, he side-steps the dichotomy and suggests instead an Islamic state co-existing with a “secular state” but not a “humanistic secular state”. And the difference between the two being: the former is a joint Islamic-Christian state that has ‘God’ in it, upper case ‘g’, meaning Jehovah God and Allah, whereas the latter has infidel Sino humanism or Hindu kafir stone statutes. On those, says James, never, never, never.

Plainly he was trying to hide his sedition against the constitution. Here’s James obfuscating on the proof of his attempt to initiate a hudud state:

A secular state must not also mean it is anti-religion or anti-God. Good values taught in [all] religions must be adopted by [people] in a secular state after they have been examined and scrutinised. Therefore, I support a secular state imbued with virtues, and not a humanistic secular state.

In between those two statements, 2003 and 2010 – which is a sea change, a betrayal in fact, of DAP’s beginning ideology, going from secular to part-Christian, part-Islamic, any which way it is still a religious state – enter Haris Ibrahim and David Nga Kor Ming.

Both go from town to town tilling the ground for the grand construction of PAS and to help it not just to emigrate from Kelantan, Terengganu into national, including Sarawak, Sabah politics, but also into constitutional policy making.

David Nga, first; the clip below is self-explanatory into herding the Chinese and Hindus into the arms of PAS policy ideology:

In 2009, before David Nga was proclaiming PAS righteousness, Haris would sing the praises of PAS For All.

Below is the PAS invasion of Kuala Sepetang during the Bukit Gantang by-election that eventually brought one more PAS person into Parliament, a man named Nizar. Pushing, needling and instigating from behind were Haris Ibrahim and his flock, the bangsa people with their assorted names, Zorro, Eyes Wide Open, Temenggong, Jaya, Fat-mah….

Haris at the time would say with much presumption and in a condescending tone of the Chinese of Kuala Sepetang:

They were no longer afraid of PAS like they once were.

Afraid? The Chinese afraid of PAS, hence of Islam? Kuala Sepetang told Haris Ibrahim they had been cowards hidden away in a corner of the peninsula? Afraid since when? And what’s there to be afraid of? Isn’t hudud for Muslims only, or has Haris the Muslim been lying?

PAS for all and Haris ‘Christian Arise’ Ibrahim for PAS.

In 2011, October, two years and a half after saying the Chinese had stopped being afraid of PAS, they were told to be wary instead. Haris (in this) speaks as if he has only just discovered what the PAS mullahs stand for and where they are headed with their Islam politics, and so urges his flock to…

go on, take a peek at Nik Aziz’s hudud and see if you still want to remain silent on this issue.

That clip he refers to is about three years old, meaning at the time he was campaigning for PAS. Nik Aziz’s speech at the 3:40 minute mark which Haris points to reads as follows

Dah dia buka aurat. Dirogol. Padanlah muka dirogol. Dia jual murah-murah. Dia dok jual murah-murah. Betis dia, muka dia, peha dia. Rogol lah! Peduli apa?

(in translation at Jebat Must Die) She did not cover herself. She got raped. Serves her right. She made herself cheap. She sells herself cheap. Her calves, her face, her thighs. Rape her! Who cares?

For three years or more, Haris, like Umno before, has been mollycoddling PAS in order to simultaneously win from and for it an electorate constituency. Now Haris does a 180 degree turn against PAS For All – PAS is not even for the Melayu pendatangs from Indonesia; it is PAS For Arabs.

The Haris refutation is strange, which wins him praise and it is bought even by the Umno people and sympathizers in the like of Jebat Must Die.

But can Haris be true or genuine because the diversion of votes from PAS ends up in the PKR and the DAP. Landing either in PKR or DAP, those votes turn up on Anwar’s side (the Prime Minister elect, who DAP’s Lim Guan Eng has vowed to support in life or death). PAS For Hudud gets a ride under a new banner Pakatan For All.

This would explain why Haris has today a new slogan, anointing DAP as the ‘Rock of Gibraltar’. Yet, this is the same piece of rock that boasts a double-dealing James Ngeh, a prevaricating David Nga and especially Bishop Paul Tan. The Church in particular is, after all, the bedrock on which stands the the DAP evangelical rocket.

Paul Tan cited in Harakah:

I say it’s time to allow Muslims in Kelantan, if they so desire, to implement shariah only for them…. It shows he is not dogmatic. I say let him and all who hold with him have their way.

Haris’s sloganeering and mistakes are legendary, equaled only by his deceitful ineptitude – starting with Save the constitution, Petition the King, PAS For All, Hartal, Bangsa/Anak Malaysia.

In all the cases, he leads his idiot flock – the EWOs, the Tem-gongs and the Fat-mahs – from one dark hole into another darker hole. And in this progression Haris’s ‘Anything But Umno‘ (ABU) gets PAS in by getting DAP in, Anwar in, back door or front door doesn’t matter.

Hudud inches its way into Parliament, with helping hands by the dozens and from all directions: the bishop, Allah’s gift, the MCLM Anointer of Saints, president of ABU, Teresa the Kok, Hannah ‘Mother-of-Sham’ Yeoh, Eli ‘Sexuality’ Wong, and then that half-gweilo, half-Melayu chairman in the UK going round in cosmological circles, an old man arguing with boys.

After hudud gets into Parliament, perhaps they could cut off that man’s Quran-Bible citing tongue as appropriate punishment for a prevaricating apostate. The people wishes to, as the good bishop has kindly suggested, stand to one side and watch the public spectacle: Haris ‘Christian Arise’ Ibrahim chopped off his tongue.

Before you lose it any last words, bro?

Read Full Post »

As with countless other cases (Lina Joy, for example) in which the interest of the state and individual freedom end up colliding in a courtroom, Zhao Mingfu’s death and Chen Yimin’s abduction also ended up nowhere. Why do they go through all the trouble if the results are invariably fated from the beginning?

But if any plaintiff were to bother, if a complainant wants to just try – and hope – and if an aggrieved party wants to take a wild shot, then it is incumbent on lawyers acting on their behalf to go on all the way.

If ferreting out the truth is supposed to be central to the coroner’s inquiry into (Teoh Beng Hock 赵明福) Zhao Mingfu’s death, then there was no dearth of evidences from two material things, a body and a handwritten note (top). Of these, the unsigned note or a letter is pertinent because it was evidently written when Zhao was held for interrogation overnight, 13 hours dusk to dawn, treated as if he was the criminal and not a potential prosecution witness. The circumstances fit like gloves to hand.

On the note, government lawyers relied solely on the lobby that it was a death wish. But, when determination of suicide rested primarily on the hanzi script, zaijian 再见 whether translated as ‘goodbye’ or ‘meet again’, it was clearly and plainly a stab in the dark.

The suicide hypothesis has one advantage to the government, however: establishing the writer’s identity becomes only a secondary consideration once the note is ruled as a death wish because only Zhao had died at the building. In other words, the logic was supposed to work backwards: death, note, leading to person. This is as opposed to, person to note to death – the opposite, converse idea which says that if the note is not a suicide confession then the writer’s identity wouldn’t matter. Whoever had written it is inconsequential to MACC’s desire for a suicide ruling.

Lawyers acting for Zhao’s family appear to have gone down the same converse line of argument; they wanted to discredit the suicide theory so badly that nothing else matters, not even the writer’s identity.

Their fear of knowing the identity is genuine because that may set off the fundamental issue: if the writer is indeed Zhao, then is the note a suicide confession? This says the lawyers weren’t sufficiently confident to take the chance that the note isn’t a death wish, even though plainly it isn’t. Which is to suggest this, the lawyers preferred a no-risk legal strategy – in the vernacular, play safe – rather than hang on to the conviction of certainty that Zhao wouldn’t kill himself because he had life to look forward to, a child to raise, a wife to care for, and he wasn’t at risk of being charged for corruption anyway.

Mingfu’s father and sister Lilan 丽兰

So what if the handwriting is Zhao’s?

If by logical induction any written document is a suicide confession once death followed, then it has to be concluded that a man’s Will is also a death wish. This is of course patently absurd.

But if truth is central to a coroner’s inquiry, then a first task of the lawyers is to check the authenticity of the note, that is, if it is Zhao’s handwriting. Any one or combination of at least four sources for verification – Ouyang (DAP’s Ean Yong Hian Wah?) to whom the note was address, Sin Chew where Zhao once worked as a reporter, his wife and his family – would yield a definite answer.

If the handwriting is not Zhao’s, the matter ends there, and the MACC won’t be able to pin a death wish on Zhao. If, however, the handwriting is Zhao’s, then there is no risk at all of losing to the government’s demand for a suicide ruling anyway because nothing in it – not script, not tone, not nuances, not even zaijian – speaks of such an intention.

But knowing that the note was written by Zhao opens instead a wholly new meaning and a new direction into the discovery of his death because in it the note speaks of using extraordinary and extra-legal means to destroy Ouyang. Similary, Zhao under interrogation at the time became the means and was into the pathway for the MACC to try and destroy Ean Yong.

Although brief, the note described identical circumstances and makes the same point, above, astonishingly vivid. In it is a witness confession to state malice and coercion, with nuances to the writer’s powerlessness against the forces of oppression, hence a regret at the inability to defend a friend and colleague. The penultimate words in the text: 我帮不到你,抱歉。对不起,我很累了. Translated: ‘I can’t help you (anymore), forgive (me). Sorry, I’m so tired‘.

There is a suggestion in the text that the writer had refused to submit, to go along with the fabrication of evidence. And if the writer is indeed Zhao, then his death reveals the extend to which brutality was actually inflicted.

In that event, the note points to the plausibility it was written, so to speak, just in case the writer doesn’t make it out alive. Which is to say, the writer, seeing the cruelty inflicted by (MACC) interrogators, anticipated death and he wanted the recipient Ouyang to know why it came to him should it come. In another way of phrasing, the note helped to put together a picture of violence, spite and brutality – that is, interrogation methods such as ‘you orang Cina?’ And in doing so the note pointed towards the flipside of suicide, that is, homicide and, if not, then death’s malicious or violent intention.

If the note is Zhao’s, Rafick’s hypothesis (here) bears great relevance. In it Rafick speaks of Zhao being beaten on the head, at the neck region, falling unconscious, and when attempts to revive him failed he was thrown out the building through the window. The assault and cover-up correlate with another thrust in the note’s message, that of making up evidences, fixing up people, which the writer had warned Ouyang about.

In real life, Rafick’s contention says the MACC went further: they assaulted Zhao then made it look like a suicide. That being the case, Zhao spoke from the dead – indeed, nuances and tones in the note confess obliquely to possible, imminent death as opposed to confessing a suicide, a death wish. It suggests, from the writer’s experience, interrogators might just go that far – kill.

The inquiry into Zhao’s death wasn’t merely a failure of the judiciary and of legal counsel but it was also a consequence of a perverted public opinion such as represented in the amateur and incompetent translators at HartalMSM (Eyes Wide Open) and AirKosong (Guan Sin), elementary with their English, incoherent in their hanzi readings. In their fanatical zeal to reject the note as a suicide confession, they, as well as the lawyers, effectively dismissed and closed all further examination into the note — ultimately to deny truth along with justice to the Zhao family (image above).

Perhaps, just perhaps, Zhao did write it and, if he did, he was being prophetic about death’s plausible outcome, which is completely different to saying it is a death wish, a suicide. Did the family know and so, too, did counsel whether if the note was Zhao’s but they had insisted on nothing, one way or the other?

Regardless, here was one more reason why, after one year, nobody is closer to the truth than when the case started off and Justice gets another day off. An open verdict is on point of probability a 50-50 outcome, so all that’s needed now is a little extra weight to interpretation of evidence – just to tilt the scales.

*****************

丽兰: 我们不相信警察和法院,如果他们进行调查是为了躲避证据我们的。我们自己必须进行的调查。

*****************

Next: the case of Chen Yimin (陈乙敏 Tan Yi Min), another judicial, legal and public opinion failure.

 

Read Full Post »

For Zhao Mingfu (赵明福 or Teoh Beng Hock, dead)

&

Chen Yimin (陈乙敏 or Tan Yi Min, in captivity)

(By repetition this answers the questions in the post dated 2009, July 9.)

****************

It has been said that Thomas Mann, the German novelist (Felix Krull, Death in Venice) arriving in New York from escaping Nazism, was asked the question about his cultural heritage since he had fled his homeland. His reply: “Wherever I am, I’m German (culture).”

While being subjected to ridicule, “Cina bodoh” (stupid Chinese), Tan Boon Wah, the Kajang municipal councillor, was asked by an MACC interrogator if he was from China. But Tan’s disclosure leaves out a critical piece of another information: What was his answer?

Almost routinely, it appears, MACC interrogators asked the same sort of question or related questions. To Dariff Din, an assistant to the Selangor state legislator Lau Weng San, the interrogator asked him if he was Malay or Chinese.

Both men were not the subjects of an ongoing MACC investigations, supposedly for corruption; rather, they were called in to offer evidences. So was Teoh Beng Hock, accurately Zhao Mingfu (赵明福). What might the MACC officers have asked him? More pertinently, what had they said to him? Or, how had they insulted him?

The picture drawn by Tan and Dariff is uniformly clear: the MACC do not expend niceties on citizenship assistance in an investigation or to prefer questions pertinent to the same. Instead, they were more interested and eager to insult, to ridicule and to harangue the Chinese (or Chinese-looking) politicians that challenge the Umno government. This is not new; in Parliament, the Chinese is told to leave the country. A Chinese, especially if political, in front of immigration, police, the road transport office, or the anti-corruption agency, MACC, is always a liability.

More than anybody else, the former premier Mahathir Mohamad must bear responsibility for this racism, promoted in his pseudo social commentary, The Malay Dilemma where he virtually invented Malay grievances and directed them to the Chinese as the primary cause. This is racism par excellence because it mirrors the way Nazism pinned the problems of the entire German nation on the Jews. Which probably explains why Mahathir is still so loved by many Malays, whose identity is simultaneously exalted and ridiculed while the Chinese existence gets the boot. This way shows that Mahathir lacked any viable means to deeply anchor the Malay self, save for directing it to a materialist culture. And why not, if such a culture offers a chance to distribute positions and wealth among his underlings in Umno and outside.

More than 20 years of Mahathir’s grand vision, openly lifting up one race while insidiously subverting the other, is not without neutral or no effects. In his material legacy – Tajudin Ramli, MAS, Proton, Perwaja, and so on – they are left standing, essentially with only their shells. They collapse without government infusions of money. But his existentialist (that is, the nature of identity) legacy is something else. For this, it is found in the MACC interrogation rooms. Its interrogators lift material straight out of the pages of The Malay Dilemma, using the existence of the Chinese as a bludgeoning tool, to browbeat and to cudgel people into submission. To be Chinese in Malaysia has in the days of Mahathir, and after, become a very serious liability, even a death question: “You dari Cina? You orang Cina?”

What were Tan Boon Wah’s answers to the questions?

Probably, anyone of those kinds of questions was intended to be rhetorical. It means, as the interrogator intended it, to be an insult, “stupid Chinese.” But this method is not restricted to MACC. It is also a favourite of Raja Petra Kamarudin, a half-Malay, half-Welsh, and his horde at Malaysia Today, where like in MACC interrogation rooms they adopt race as a popular sport, a destination place for mockery and derision rather than as a source of national strength and, therefore, an asset.

So, what insults did they hurl at Teoh Beng Hock? Did they use “you-orang-Cina?” to bludgeon him? Or, “Cina bodoh”?

The answers are self-evident; after all, the MACC had used the race question as a target-tool against two of Teoh’s political colleagues. But here is the thing left untouched: the answer to the MACC question, are you Chinese?

That answer has to be found, not just because it will help determine the actual cause of Teoh’s death, but because it has the corollary, why MACC deploys such racism. And the upshot is this: the liability of being Chinese is today converted into a national shame.

This shame is so prevalent and now so deep-rooted that the Chinese among the English-educated class become the most vocal in criticizing not just MCA as chauvinistic but also the very existence of the Chinese schools. To shed the shame, you therefore attack your ethnicity (think of the Sinophobic Chuah Siew Eng, grandmother of Malaysian fascism; it seems she used to write propaganda disguised as news for the Mahathir regime). It is like the flip side in speaking of a “mamak” being more Malay than the Malay, a favourite topic among the Malaysia Today horde who, not coincidentally, is an English-educated, semi-literate lot. At the individual level, the respond to the shame might be to take on an English name so as to subsume the Chinese name; Nathaniel might be an example. Or, a variant of that method is to put on a cover and typically it is Western garb, “ e contrario” for example.

Another answer to the MACC question – are you Chinese? – is given as “Bangsa Malaysia”. That answer is in a sense linguistic and referential, that is, to call each other Malaysian and so drop the Chinese or Indian or Malay prefix. Dariff Din gave that answer, “I’m Malaysian” when asked if he was Chinese or Malay. Dariff had no choice with that answer and, besides, it is true: his father is Malay and his mother Chinese. But, what if both parents are Chinese?

Never mind if Bangsa Malaysia is just a surreal thing; the trouble is, it doesn’t get you off the hook. Only when Dariff finally acknowledged he is Malay-Muslim did his interrogators eased up on him. But, more to the point, the Bangsa Malaysia proponents (Haris Ibrahim et al) have thrown open an idea that, if its surface was scratched, it exposes a fundamental principle parallel to the you-orang-Cina? method used in MACC interrogation sessions and found in Mahathir Mohamad’s legacy. The principle is to suppress individual birth identities and after that to root it out. If not suppressed, then, as Chinese, a man is in trouble with MACC. It could even be so with a “Bangsa Malaysia” government, that is, if it comes into being. On point of principle, therefore, a Bangsa Malaysia state rule is similar in ways to Pol Pot’s Year Zero concept that all Khmer history was to be rooted out and individual identities purified to conform to a single model, Kampuchea. (See how Asian followers of the Western Left are equally prone to and have a great proclivity for social re-engineering?)

So, what then if you are not a Chinese but a Malay during a MACC interrogation session? The answer is found in Terengganu where Umno members arrested by the MACC have alleged they were beaten. This is to suggest that racism is effective as a bludgeoning tool, but without it there are other means to inflict terror or to extract a confession. To be a Malay during interrogation is only to have one reason fewer to be tortured. For a man to say he is a half-Chinese is no less patriotic than to say he is a Malaysian, or Malay-Muslim, because the former is true while the latter would be equally true, only self-serving under duress, not that there is anything wrong ethically.

For Bangsa Malaysia to propose dropping all ethnic identification is, in essence, a category that says, let’s give in, acquiesce to and, thereby, accept the MACC interrogation technique that demands this answer: “I’m sorry I’m Chinese, I’m sorry my culture is Chinese, please forgive me; I promise to be Malaysian.” Kampuchea’s Year Zero has an identical psychology. They merely switched ethnicity for social class: never say you are a capitalist, always say you are a peasant; it is safer. Year Zero reduced everything to one class, the Kampuchea peasant class and all became equal, the same, and indistinguishable. They became united and those who refused this unity and equality were exterminated, about a million or more.

What then was Tan Boon Wah’s answer to the question, are you a Chinese? What was Teoh Beng Hock’s answer?

So much of shame is attached to the Chinese identity that it is today a popular subject of ridicule, of slur, of abuse, and now, in MACC, of legally sanctioned intimidation so that well-meaning people like Nathaniel Tan, already converted to the cause of Bangsa Malaysia, is bound to dissolve under pressure and is likely to answer, “no, I’m not Chinese. Forgive me for being Chinese.”

Did Teoh submit? Not likely, because he is dead. For him to do so is to deny his family, his community, his language, that is, all the elements that go into his existence. (Are Bangsa Malaysia people capable of comprehending what that means?) Death, given such options, might have been more tolerable.

For Teoh to say yes – I’m Chinese – to the MACC question, then his interrogators might rain down on him. This is, of course, speculation but given the testimonies of Tan and Dariff not implausible. They might even call him stupid, a pig, a communist, that they will imprison his sister, then brother, mother and father, in that order, all driving him to his death. They might say if Anwar Ibrahim can be fixed, Teoh Beng Hock can be fixed so that if any of these is true, then Teoh might have wished for a noble way out of his predicament.

Teoh died a Chinese – and a Malaysian. The two are not mutually exclusive; the first is identity, the second is citizenship. Without the first the second is fickle. But the Bangsa Malaysia clique of Haris Ibrahim, unable to tell apart the distinction in the two, has inadvertently made identity a liability – and not just liability but also a shame – to citizenship. In Teoh’s case, had the MACC made it a death question?

On point of causation, Teoh’s death arose in the MACC, that is, it must answer. On point of principle, his death was also seeded outside MACC. Up and down the country, some classes of people – the Mahathir legacy boys, inside Dewan Rakyat and outside, the make-pretend People’s Parliament, the Malaysia Today horde, the English-educated, the Anglophile Nathaniels, the philistine suburban class – have ruled that one class of people, that is, those who wish to stay true to their roots, their culture and identity, must convert. Or, to be made to do so. (On this point, Mahathir likes to compare Malaysia to Indonesia and Thailand where no Chinese is allowed to keep the Chinese name.) Uniformly, then, all pick on the Chinese to surrender his original identity – that is, don’t be Chinese.

Wherever I am, I’m Chinese – now, is that a crime?

As depicted by Zhang Yimou, the Chinese identity and soul: filial respect, family, community, language, education …

Postscript: In Malaysia, the agonies men endure to stay Chinese; one losing a son, the other a daughter.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »