I have written on how racist Lim Kit Siang is in Part 1 dan Part 2 prior to this final part.
Lim Kit Siang is not only a racist, he was also against any attempt by the government to counter communist revolutionary ideology.
Two days prior to the 3rd General Elections (1969), Kit Siang held a press conference to accuse his now right-hand man Christopher Ross Lim’s stepfather as “Lying Education Minister.” Christopher Ross Lim now uses the name Zairil Khir Johari. No “bin (Arab for ‘son of’)”.
Kit Siang accused the Alliance government then of enrolling Malaysia into the World Anti-Communist League, an accusation denied by Khir Johari.
Question: why did Kit Siang slam the government even if it was true that Malaysia had joined the World Anti-Communist League?
Answer: the Opposition at that time was teemed with members and sympathisers of the Communist Party of Malaya.
Communist slogans displayed in anti-government ralliesCommunist slogans carried by Opposition supporters
A month before that, on 24 April 1969, an UMNO worker, Encik Kassim bin Omar, who was on his way home after the end of campaign hours for the day was stopped by Opposition supporters as he passed the Datuk Keramat section of Pulau Pinang and brutally murdered. His face was smeared with red paint used to paint anti-government slogans by the Opposition supporters. This is among the reasons long campaign periods can be detrimental to public safety and order.
Since July 1968, that is a month after the commencement of the Second Malaysian Emergency (second armed uprising by the Communist Party of Malaya) that ended 21 years later, Kit Siang fired up racial hatred among the Opposition supporters.
Among the events of incitements that he did were:
On 27 July 1968, at a DAP rally in Tanjung Malim, Perak, Kit Siang on purpose twisted the facts of the National Education Policy by telling the audience that the policy had been designed to eradicate the Chinese newspapers, Chinese schools as well as the Chinese language.
On 24 August 1968, at a rally in Slim River, Perak, Kit Siang intentionally twisted the facts of the policy on the National Language to raise suspicion of and hatred for the Malays .
On 7 September 1968, at a DAP rally at KM38, Jalan Sungai Besi, and on 21 September 1968, at the Sungai Way new village, Kit Siang intentionally incited hatred towards the Malays and the Government by slandering MCA accusing the party of assisting a Malay government to eradicate the Chinese language by not recognising the Nanyang University project.
On 29 September 1968, at a DAP rally in Batu Pahat, Johor, 2 November 1968, in Lawan Kuda Bahru, Gopeng, Perak, and on 26 January 1969, at Jalan Yow, Pudu, Kuala Lumpur, Kit Siang incited hatred by informing the audience that the government’s policies are racist policies by giving priority to the Bumiputera to enter the public universities, automatically placing the other races as second-class citizens.
On 12 February 1969, at a DAP rally held at Jalan Lengkongan Brunei, Kuala Lumpur, Kit Siang once again incited racial sentiments by telling the audience that the Government has shown its racist character by giving priority to the Malays to enter public universities, giving government jobs and distribution of land.
What Kit Siang did not tell any of his audience is that even in government posts (except for the Malaysian Armed Forces), the percentage of non-Malays in the civil service far surpassed the number of Malays as evident in the excerpt from the National Operations Council’s (MAGERAN) White Paper below:
It is evident that Kit Siang’s racist and agitative character has never diminished till today. The General Election was conducted on Saturday 10 May 1969. The Alliance party (UMNO, MCA and MIC) won 66 seats, 23 lesser than in the 2nd General Election while the Opposition won 54.
At 5.30pm, 11 May 1969, DAP held a victory parade without police permit that comprised of five cars and 15 motorcycles that started from Brickfields towards Jalan Lornie (now Jalan Syed Putra).
When they passed in front of the Brickfields Police Station (now demolished), the mostly Chinese participants shouted:
“What can the police do? We are the rulers! Throw out all the Malay policemen!“
At 10pm on the same day, while parading in front of the Jalan Travers Police Station, they shouted:
“Death to the Malays! Sakai (derogatory term for aborigines) go back to the jungle!“
The same insults were hurled at policemen on duty when they again passed the Brickfields Police Station.
At the same time at Changkat Thamby Dollah near the old Pudu Jail (behind Berjaya Times Square), about 40 Opposition supporters shouted:
“Kuala Lumpur belongs to the Chinese!“
On the next day, Monday 12 May 1969, 500 scooters rode by Opposition supporters passed Jalan Ipoh, Jalan Parlimen, Jalan Gombak, Jalan Raja Laut before returning to Jalan Ipoh shouting at every Malay person they encounter:
“The Malays are now powerless. Now we are in control!“
When this convoy arrived at the threshold of Kampung Bahru, they shouted to the Malays:
“Malays get out! Why are you still here? We’ll beat you up! Now we are bigger (more powerful)!“
At night, more insults and abuses were hurled at Malay policemen on duty:
“Mata-Mata Lancau! (Penis Constables)”
“Butoh Melayu! Pergi matilah! (Fuck the Malays! Go and die!)“
I did not make all the stuff above up. You can read them in the MAGERAN report as per the images below:
Where was Lim Kit Siang when abuses and insults were hurled at the Malays in Kuala Lumpur?
Lim Kit Siang on the morning of Tuesday 13 May 1969 was ready to flee to Kota Kinabalu so that he would not be in Kuala Lumpur if any untoward incident was to happen.
The moment he arrived in Kota Kinabalu he immediately went to a DAP public rally in Kampung Air. Sabah was scheduled to vote on the 25 May 1969 and Sarawak on 7 June 1969. In Kota Kinabalu he not only incited hatred towards the Malays but also towards the religion of Islam.
He told the audience that the Government was trying to create a Malay Malaysia by dividing the rakyat into Bumiputera dan Non-Bumiputera. He also lied by saying that the Government wants to turn the Sabah Government into a Malay Government. He also incited hatred towards Islam by saying that the Government would send Malaysians including non-Muslims (including Sabah Christians) to fight and die in the Middle East to help other OIC members to free Jerusalem from the clutches of Israel.
That is how racist and despicable Lim Kit Siang is as well as the DAP that he leads. Almost 48 years have passed since 13 May 1969, Kit Siang is still attacking what he calls the ‘Malay’ government. Back then, the Malays were united in protecting their rights that have been in existence way before the arrival of Lim Kit Siang’s ancestors – rights that have been agreed upon by representatives of all the Nation’s races and enshrined in the Federal Constitution.
Unfortunate for us now there are those who claim that they are Malays but forget easily. Now this traitor and his worshippers stick a straw up Lim Kit Siang’s rear orifice and suck up to the DAP Supremo.
It is called “reverse racism” and among the ways it works is by making racist remarks against the majority claiming it is a reaction against oppression.
Yesterday I received a WhatsApp message that has been making its way around on the Internet purportedly sent by DAP’s people:
Forgive me for getting technical with this but I have to endeavour to make people understand the background of this nation to understand the current situation we are in. I cannot possibly answer all the allegations above as I do not work for the government therefore I do not have all the data needed but I shall make references to publicly-available documents.
The Malay States were rich with tin and land for rubber plantations. This led to the signing of treaties to enable the British to have a share of the wealth and the creation of British protectorates of the Federated Malay States (formed in 1895 with common institutions such as the State Constitution, and a Resident-General administering the states on behalf of, and answerable to the Sultans and Yam DiPertuan Besar as his salary was paid by them) and the Unfederated Malay States (C.D Cowan, 1961; Emily Sadka, 1968; Eunice Thio, 1969).
The economy was divided into two systems – tin mining and rubber plantations dominated by the Chinese, and peasant farming and inshore fishing conducted by the Malays (M Yusof Saari, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia; Erik Dietzenbacher and Bart Los, Univeristy of Groningen, The Netherlands – World Development, Volume 76, December 2015, pp. 311-328).
EW Birch, the 8th British Resident of Perak, recognized this dire situation and quickly proposed a policy of preserving the Malay land. The only way to him to preserve the Malay race was to “free them from the clutches of those people who now remit to Indian large sums of money, which they bleed from the (Malay) people.”
This later became the Malay Reservation Land Act which spirit is preserved in the Malaysian Federal Constitution. Even Sir Frank Athelstane Swettenham conceded that something had to be done to preserve the Malays. He wrote:
“In the Malay sketches contained in this and a previous volume, I have endeavoured to portray,…the Malay as he is in own country, against his own picturesque and fascinating background…The position he occupies in the body politic is that of the heir to the inheritance. The land is Malaya and he is the Malay. Let the infidel Chinese and evil-smelling Hindu from southern India toil, but of their work let some profit come to him.”
The Chinese and Indians brought over by the British were British subjects as far as the colonised parts of Malaya were (Pulau Pinang, Melaka and Singapore). However, the ones in the Malay States were disinclined to give allegiance to the respective Sultans as they pledged allegiance to their homeland.
In 1911, the Malays made up 53% of the population. By 1931, they were already outnumbered and in 1941 formed only 41% of the population. The Chinese community was at 43%, displacing the Malays as the dominant racial group. The Malays were in a disadvantageous position and this proved explosive in 1946 during the Bekor tragedy. The Malays remained as the minority until 1970.
And if you think the Malays have done well since then, the table below will show that despite the NEP being in place, the income of the Chinese grew tremendously as compared to the Malays (M Yusof Saari, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia; Erik Dietzenbacher and Bart Los, Univeristy of Groningen, The Netherlands – World Development, Volume 76, December 2015, pp. 311-328):
Allegation 1 – Of the Top 5 Banks, Only One is Non-Malay
The top five banks are Malayan Banking, CIMB, Public Bank, RHB Capital, and Hong Leong Financial Group.
If you see who the top 30 shareholders of Maybank are, you would see that they are mostly government investment agencies, or nominees especially by Citigroup. Citigroup is NOT Malay. However, you would see that at Number 28, a private individual is an individual shareholder. He is NOT Malay.
The top shareholders of CIMB as of 30 June 2015, are Khazanah Nasional – 29.34 %, Employees Provident Fund (EPF) – 17.51 %, Kumpulan Wang Persaraan (KWAP) – 3.61 % and Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group – 4.61 %.
Public Bank, although third in the list, was the second largest bank in Malaysia by market capitalisation in September 2016. Its major shareholder is Tan Sri Dato’ Sri Dr. Teh Hong Piow, who has a 23.79% stake in the bank as of 26 January 2016. Teh is also the bank’s founder and chairman. He is NOT Malay.
I can skip and go on to Hong Leong Financial group if you want to see the shareholding information.
Allegation 2 – 99% of PETRONAS Directors Are Malays
The DAP and Pakatan are famous for plucking numbers from the sky.
Two of 16 directors of PETRONAS are non-Malays so that makes 12.5%. Therefore, only 87.5% are Malays. Now look at their respective background and tell me of they are not qualified to be there.
PETRONAS is a government-owned company. It is not an Ah Beng Enterprise (no reference to Lim Guan Beng) and the board is answerable to the Government on all matters.
Allegation 5 – 100% PETRONAS Contractors Are Bumiputeras
Bumi Armada is one of the largest suppliers of offshore support vessels, Floating Production, Storage and Offloading (FPSO) units, Floating Gas Solutions (FLNG/FSRU/FSU) to PETRONAS. It is an Ananda Krishnan company. Ananda Krishnan is NOT Malay.
Allegation 6 – Chinese Companies Must Have 30% Bumiputera Employees; Malay Companies Can Have 0% Chinese
Again, this is very racist and a blatant lie.
There is NO legal requirement that companies have to employ 30% Bumiputera. Otherwise you will not get these racist advertisements:
You are only required to show your Bumiputera equity be it 30%, 51% or 100% if you are tendering for a Bumiputera-open or Bumiputera-limited contracts. That is EQUITY, not employees.
In reality too, most “Bumiputera” companies that tender for government contracts are actually Chinese-run companies that use Malay names on the license and application forms. Malays are given 30% allocation while non-Malays have 70% but even the 30% has non-Malay participations.
Do you think if policies are not in place they would care for the Bumiputeras?
And by saying Bumiputera, I mean the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak who are economically second-class citizens in their own land as the Chinese are the ones who dominate the economy there.
Allegations 7-10: Minimum Participation of Non-Malays in Government Sector
In 2014, the Royal Malaysian Police had had to lower the entry requirements to cater for the non-Malays – all they need to do is PASS the Bahasa Malaysia subject in their SPM exams.
Even that they cannot do.
In 2016, out of a force of 90,000, Indians made up 3.3% of the total while Chinese 1.77%. In 2016, the Royal Malaysia Air Force the non-Bumiputeras number about 5% of the total 15,000.
Allegation 13 – Kedah Chinese Rice Farmers Have To Sell To Malay-owned BERNAS
BERNAS is a company that regulates the supply and price of rice in Malaysia to deny millers exorbitant profit at the expense of end users.
BERNAS’s top 30 share holders in 2012 are as follows. Note the solo individual top shareholder. Again, he is NOT Malay.
Allegations 19-22: Malay Schools versus Non-Malay Schools
First – THERE ARE NO “MALAY SCHOOLS.” They are the National Schools where all children are supposed to go to, mix, learn and grow up together. Most Chinese or Tamil schools are private schools and are self-funded. That is why we see only a small chunk of the budget go towards the latter two.
Now if we go back to the first paragraph of the WhatsApp message that I received, it is mentioned that the Malaysian government practices racial discrimination, yet the baseless allegations made that I am familiar with have been shot down.
We have seen also that because of their weakness in their command of the Bahasa Malaysia, a language they are supposed to have mastered after 60 years, they have failed to join the public sector. This is due to the fact that they refuse to learn anything that is not taught in their mother tongue.
They would rather that their children do not grow up with the children of the Malays or learn to speak the language that has always been the language of this land and is enshrined in the Federal Constitution as the language of the nation.
So who is it that wants segragation? Who is being racist?
NOT the Malays.
As for those who migrated from Malaysia, those are the free-riders with no loyalty whatsoever to the nation. When the going gets tough, leave for seemingly easier life. For those people, loyalty lies in the pocket.
If this government is being racist do you think that there would be vernacular schools? Do you think DAP’s Chen Man Hin would have made RM790 million from a government company?
So who is being racist here? Obviously DAP itself. Out of the 30 Central Executive Committee members there are only four Indians/Indian diaspora. one Malay and two Sabah/Sarawak Bumiputera.
Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi delivering his speech at the 71st UNGA in New York – photo courtesy of BERNAMA
I admit I cringed when Zahid Hamidi delivered his speech at the 71st UNGA in New York yesterday. My wife and cousins were in fits. This wasn’t the first time that I cringed when a Malaysian stood in front of an international audience delivering a speech or presentation with a poor command of the English language. The first was the late Tun Ghafar Baba who also delivered a speech on behalf of the government also at the UNGA 27 years ago next month talking about the Antarctic Treaty System. In various oil and gas meetings and conferences, I had to endure speeches delivered by Malaysians and cringed everytime they burst out in a self-made English-sounding slang to accompany their already poor command of the English language. Definitely Zahid et al need to brush up their command of the English language. However, there have been meetings and conferences that I have attended where even non-Malaysian speakers struggle with their English-language presentations and discussions. It is not just Malaysians who have this problem.
Most of those who criticise Zahid are those who still use ‘CONGRATES’ and/or ‘STUCKED.’ And many cannot even converse in Bahasa Malaysia despite having Malaysian birth certificate and identity card. Zahid could of course speak in Bahasa Malaysia, Javanese, a Chinese dialect (his foster father is a Chinese) and as we know now, some English. My only complain is of the quality of some of the English language teachers that we have. I still see some English teachers on social media
Grammar?
We have had two reports on the importance of Bahasa Melayu becoming the National Language published prior to the 13th May tragedy (Razak Report, 1956 and Rahman Talib Report, 1960). The Mahathir Mohamad Cabinet Report (1985) emphasised the importance of Bahasa Melayu as the unifying language for all races in Malaysia. In fact, Article 152 of the Federal Constitution and the National Language Act 1963/1967 have uphold Bahasa Melayu as the National Language. The Razak Report pointed out not only should the medium of teaching in schools be in Bahasa Melayu, but also for a uniformed curriculum to be taught at all schools. However, this was not thoroughly implemented. Children still went to schools with different medium of language. Different languages instill different values; and the use of Bahasa Melayu as a medium of teaching became a serious issue (Abdullah Hassan, 1996: 265).
As an outcome of the 13th May tragedy, political leaders got together and agreed that a single language as a medium of teaching is the way to foster unity amongst the different races of Malaysia. Tun Datuk Patinggi Hj Abdul Rahman Bin Ya’kub, the Education Minister in 1970 instructed all English-medium schools to use Bahasa Melayu in stages. Only a few Chinese schools continued to teach lessons in Mandarin (Abdullah Hassan, 1996: 266).
The rift is getting worse now. We have chauvinistic organisations championing the right to teach subjects in the vernacular to their students, while the National Language becomes just one of the subjects. Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, Myanmarese now have better command of the National Language than many of the people’s representatives. Who are we to blame? So, stop complaining about Zahid. If he can improve his command of the English language, can you improve your Bahasa Malaysia too?
There is nothing wrong with wanting to be a moderate. Moderation is what is preached in Islam. Moderation is what seems to be eroding by the day not just in Islam, but in other religions and cuts across the racial board as well. And this applies to every single country there is on the face of this Earth. And to have a group of people advocating moderation is a more-than-welcome effort in this young-but-amnesiac country that seems to have lost all institutional memory of the events that had brought about the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.
Reading the The Star’s interview with Tan Sri Alwi Jantan (Torchbearers for founding fathers – Sunday, 4th September 2016) I cannot help but agree to some of his points, but at the same time feel as if there is some form of misguidance, or misinterpretation of the Federal Constitution, and a deliberate misleading on the respected Tan Sri’s part.
I agree that rather than focusing on petty issues such as whether or not the Langkawi statue is haram, the religious councils as well as JAKIM should focus more on the development of correct as well as balanced knowledge on Islamic subjects such as Tauhid, Fardhus Ain and Kifayah. This is important to counter the influence of deviationists especially that of the Da’esh. However, religious as well as racial extremism is not confined to Islam alone. In the name of pluralism as advocated by the G25, there should only be single-stream schools. Children who do not grow up together will grow up apart. We can never talk about unity and understanding if we do not understand each other. Preserving the mother-tongue can be done after formal classes are over and this can be done at the school itself, perhaps after lunch. So could the Islamic religious classes. In the latter category, this would ensure that correct teachings are being imparted to the children rather than by private religious schools whose curriculum are not being monitored effectively by the religious councils. Also that way working parents do not need to worry about the whereabouts of their children and can pick them up at school after work, or a similar arrangement could be made.
In a plural society such as ours, the need for our children to grow up together for the sake of unity is paramount. Sending children to separate schools based on mother tongue rather than a common national language is against the spirit of the Constitution. When the Constitution was being drafted for it to be in operation by Merdeka Day 1957, the Reid Commission adopted the Alliance’s (UMNO, MCA and MIC) proposal to establish Malay as the official language of the Federation. However, there were differences on how to go about with this. Ng Ek Teong, the MCA representative submitted that English should be allowed to be used for official purposes for a minimum of 10 years. MIC was in support of this. Both MCA and MIC also proposed for Mandarin and Tamil be allowed to be used in the legislatures for a minimum period of 10 years. UMNO however proposed that English be allowed to be used for a maximum period of ten years after independence. Ng Ek Tong told the Commission that this would only serve as a temporary measure(Colonial Office CO 889/6, Minutes of Alliance hearing before the Reid Commission, 27 September 1956, pp 290-294). Tunku Abdul Rahman however said:
“At the end of 10 years, the general trend will be that people will still demand for it and the people who propose it now are not sure that they would be there to guarantee it. It is bound to cause a lot of debate later on.”(Ibid.)
Even Lord William Reid himself was not in favour of the proposal by MCA and MIC saying that it would cause practical difficulties (Ibid/Making of the Malayan Constitution, Joseph M Fernando, pp 128-129). It was for this reason that the Tunku promoted the Rumi script for the Malay language at the expense of the Jawi script to enable the non-Malays to learn the national language rapidly (Tunku Abdul Rahman (1984), op. cit., pp. 112-114). This has been enshrined in Article 152 of the Federal Constitution as well as in the National Language Act, 1963/1967.
The reality of it now is that the migrant workers from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Myanmar are more able to grasp the Malay language than many of our own Identity Card-wielding citizens. Mind you, they also stood still at Dataran Merdeka while the NegaraKu was being played. Our own citizens refuse to stand up when the NegaraKu was being played in the cinemas, extinguishing the very torch of our founding fathers.
The Constitution is secular only up to a certain point. The Reid Commission, commissioned by both Her Majesty The Queen of England and the Malay Rulers had initially omitted a proposal by the Malay Rulers to have Islam as the religion of the Federation. Reid saw it fit that matters of religion be handled only by the Ruler of the respective States, and that the special position of the Malays be reviewed after 15 years.
When the report was published, the strongest objections came from the man revered by Malaysians now as the father of multiracialism – Dato Onn Jaafar, who as the leader of Parti Negara said that the Malays had been let down. PAS claimed that the Malay interests had been cast aside (von Vorys (1975), op. cit., p.132). Hence, the Tunku later submitted that Islam be made the religion of the Federation with two provisos added: first that it would not affect the position of the Rulers as head of religion in their respective States; second, the practice and propagation of other religions to the non-Malays in the Federation would be assured under the Constitution (UMNO/SUA 154/56, Minutes of Alliance ad-hoc political sub-committee meeting, 2 April 1957).
Sir Donald Charles MacGillivray personally felt that such a provision would be advantageous because the Yang DiPertuan Agong could at the same time become the head of the faith in the Settlements of Penang and Malacca (CO 1030/524 (10), MacGillivray to Secretary of State, 25 February 1957; See also CO 1030/524 (18), MacGillivray to Secretary of State, 21 March 1957).
Fast forward to the present, Article 3 of the Federal Constitution has clearly mentioned Islam as the religion of the Federation with the Rulers being the Head of religion in their respetive States, while the Yang DiPertuan Agong becomes the Head of religion in the States of Pulau Pinang, Melaka, Sabah and Sarawak, as well as in the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya. It is not an official religion but the religion of the Federation. The provisos added to safeguard the practice and propagation of other religions are now enshrined in Article 11 with limits to propagate given in Clause 4 of the said Article, to safeguard and honour the position of Islam as the religion of the Federation.
There is even a separation of jurisdiction when it comes to the position of Islam in the Federal Constitution. The Syariah Law comes under the purview of the respective Rulers, and the Attorney-General of Malaysia, under Article 145(3) does not have the jurisdiction over proceedings before a Syariah court, a native court of a court-martial. This separation of jurisdition is also present as provided by Article 121(1A) where both the High Court of Malaya and High Court of Sabah and Sarawak do not have any jurisdiction over Syariah matters. Therefore, the respected Tan Sri should be aware that, borrowing the words of Sir Stamford Raffles in a 1815 letter to his cousin mentioned how “Religion and laws are so united” in Muslim dominated areas that the introduction of Christian beliefs will bring about “much mischief, much bitterness of heart and contention”. (Seademon, A Case For God, 1 Jan 2013) .
Even Act 355, the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act, 1965 (last revised in 1988) states the following:
1. (1) This Act may be cited as the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction), 1965.
1. (2) This Act shall apply to all the States of Peninsular Malaysia.
2. The Syariah Courts duly constituted under any law in a State and invested with jurisdiction over persons professing the religion of Islam and in respect of any of the matters enumerated in List II of the State List of the Ninth Schedule to the Federal Constitution are hereby conferred jurisdiction in respect of offences against precepts of the religion of Islam by persons professing that religion which may be prescribed under any written law:
Provided that such jurisdiction shall not be exercised in respect of any offence punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding three years or with any fine exceeding five thousand ringgit or with whipping exceeding six strokes or with any combination thereof.
The Act, clearly says that it first and foremost, applies to all States of the Peninsular Malaysia. It is not applicable to where the Yang DiPertuan Agong is the Head of religion ie. the Federal Territories, Sabah and Sarawak. Second, it applies only to Muslims and any matters in List II of the State List of the Ninth Schedule to the Federal Constitution. Third, it cannot propose any punishment that prescribes any jail term exceeding three years, or with any fine exceeding five thousand ringgit, or with whipping exceeding six strokes or with any combination thereof.
Therefore, there is no question of introducing stoning to death, amputation of limbs etc. Anything above those limitations will be referred to the Criminal Courts.
So, Tan Sri, care to explain how are secularism and pluralism being attacked with examples of provisos of the Federal Constitution or any laws made under it?
Finally, let me quote the interview given by the respected Tan Sri to The Star:
G25 has also expanded its scope to include good governance and tackling corruption. As not only the former head of the PSD but also former secretary-general in the Local Government and Federal Territory Ministry, Health Ministry and Agriculture Ministry, Alwi has focused on good governance, which he calls the precondition for a constitutional democracy: “Those in power must be made accountable for their actions and conduct.”
During his time, civil servants were able to do their jobs without fear or favour, he recalls. “The division of responsibilities between the politicians and civil servants was fairly clear cut.”
But over time good governance has been eroded at an alarming rate, he says.
“There are hardly any more checks and balances.”
What either the good Tan Sri or The Star have also failed to mention is the fact that for more than three years, Tan Sri Alwi Jantan was the Deputy Secretary-General for the Prime Minister’s Department under the founder of Parti Pribumi, Mahathir Mohamad. Mahathir’s now good friend, Lim Kit Siang, wrote not so long ago, on Thursday, 12 February 2015 at 12.57pm:
“This shows the rot in Malaysia, but it is a rot which was started during Mahathir’s 22-year premiership, and by Mahathir himself!
Today, Mahathir is obsessed with the toppling of Najib as Prime Minister, but this is not because he wanted to stop the rot in Malaysia, to restore the independence and integrity of the judiciary and a just rule of law; to end the subversion of the independence and professionalism of national institutions whether the civil service, the police, the elections commission or anti-corruption agency; eradicate rampant corruption; restore ethics and honesty in public life; re-establish a good education system or restore Malaysia’s economic competitiveness.
Mahathir wants Najib out as the Prime Minister for Malaysia, not to stop the rot which was started by him during his premiership, but for an agenda personal to himself.
This is the rot of Hamlet in Malaysia.”
I’m surprised the good Tan Sri had made no mention whatsoever of this episode. And he was a civil servant by definition, under the tutelage of the Pribumi person himself and remained in public service until 16 April 1990, thirteen years before Mahathir steped down.
So, Tan Sri, it is good that you want to become the torchbearer of the founding fathers of this blessed nation. However, please ensure that you are on the right path first before you decide to light that torch and guide others.
Sarawak memilih lagi.
Kali tok, sifat tamak DAP dapat kita lihat bila sidak nya dengan sengaja sik peduli dengan rakan sidak dari PKR. Di sia sidak PKR bertanding, di sia juaklah sidak DAP tok bertanding juak. Pabila apa yang di maok sidak sik dipenuhi, lalulah DAP nyumpah seranah rakan sidak ya, lalu nak main ngembak sentimen hal perkauman dan ugama. Toklah yang membuktikan bahawa Pakatan Harapan Rakyat tok sebenarnya cuma topeng ajak untuk sidak DAP bagi mancapai kuasa memerintah.
DAP bukanlah suatu parti yang memperjuangkan nasib semua rakyat seperti apa yang dipadah sidak. Sidak DAP tok parti rasis yang memperjuangkan nasib sigek kaum ajak. Sebagai contoh, kerusi DUN Pending dimenangi hanya kerna DAP dengan terang nyebut sidak adalah parti untuk suara satu kaum ajak.
Ternyatalah Sarawak yang sejak dolok lagik negeri yang harmoni, kinektok dah diperkenalkan dengan hasutan perkauman yang di embak sidak DAP tok, sebuah parti yang bukan nya asal dari Sarawak. Budaya pecah belah dan perkauman tok wajib kita tolak.
Di Pulau Pinang, bukan ajak kaum Bumiputera, kaum-kaum lain yang sik berkemampuan terpaksa pindah keluar dari sia sebab harga rumah dan hartanah yang melampau. Rakyat miskin memang sik ada peluang bersuara langsung. Malah, wakil rakyat Pakatan Harapan di Pulau Pinang yang maok memperjuangkan suara rakyat miskin pun sik diberik peluang meluah masalah rakyat.
Bayangkan ajak kalau Pakatan Harapan berkuasa di Sarawak tok. Parti bukan Sarawak seperti DAP akan berkuasa. Suara golongan Bumiputera Sarawak serta mereka yang miskin sik kira kaum, akan ditindas.
Sarawak akan memilih. Apabila Sarawak memilih pada 7 haribulan kelak, tentukan Sarawak memilih dengan tepat. Tolak parti dari Semenanjung nun seperti DAP yang tamakkan kuasa ajak dan akan membawa perpecahan .
Keluarga kamek urang urang Sarawak tok bukan seperti DAP. Kamek urang di sitok ada ahli keluarga yang Kristian, Islam, Buddha dan lain-lain, yang mewakili rupa wajah perpaduan negeri Sarawak tok. Bayangkan kalau kamek urang tok bergaduh, berkelaiee adik-beradik dan keluarga berpecah-belah hanya kerana oleh hasutan parti sidak DAP!
Tolak DAP! Tolak Pakatan Harapan! Kekalkan perpaduan keluarga Sarawak!
I am opposed to any form of rally in open public places but it was freedom of speech and assembly and within the constitutional rights guaranteed to each citizen when BERSIH 4, the supposedly DAP-defined apolitical movement called for a 34-hour rally to last until the stroke of midnight on the 31st Augusr 2015, on Malaysia’s independence celebration day.
The rally was made up by 90 percent Chinese participants when PAS refused to participate. But it was held where very few, if any, Chinese businesses are run.
When a rally by an opposing party was organised by a largely Malay group, to be held on Malaysia Day in largely Chinese business area, this was what Lim Guan Eng, co-driver of BERSIH 4, had to say:
The philosopher Jorge Agustín Nicolás Ruiz de Santayana y Borrás or George Santayana once said that those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. The recurrence of history is part of life’s cycle, but always in different forms. Those who do not remember how certain historical lows were handled are bound to make even bigger mistakes.
Recently, there was a furor following the statement made by UMNO’s Ismail Sabri , the Agriculture and Agro-Based Industries Minister, asking consumers to boycott greedy Chinese businesses. While it is normal to hear the communal-party-disguised-as-a-non-communal-party DAP lashing out at Ismail Sabri, the call by MCA’s Youth Chief, Chong Sin Woon, for the sacking of Ismail Sabri did not go down well with UMNO and 92 Divisions of the latter rallied behind Ismail asking for Sin Woon to be sacked instead.
While I refuse to indulge in a debate over what was said by Ismail Sabri, there is a need for consumers to boycott profiteering businesses who whine about high cost of fuel and pressured the government to allow them to increase the price of their services, but refused to lower prices when the price of fuel has gone down by half. What I am more interested in is the bittersweet alliance between UMNO and MCA, and how history is repeating itself.
While the movement for the independence of Malaya had started decades before, there was no cohesion between races. In 1946 when the Malayan Union was formed, the republican-in-nature Partai Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya (PKMM) and the non-Malay Malayan Democratic Union (MDU) were quick to support the formation. The PKMM, a spin-off from the Batavia-leaning KMM of Ibrahim Yaacob, was all for a Malaya not ruled by the Malay Rulers, while the MDU liked the idea of automatic citizenship (read more in Seademon’s The Road To Merdeka: Persekutuan Tanah China ) for the immigrants. On 1st March 1946, more than 40 Malay organisations met up and 41 decided to form the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) to champion the Malay rights. The Malays were then a minority in his own land, poor, sidelined from economic development, health care and formal education. With the help and encouragement of the then-British High Commissioner, Sir Henry Gurney, the Malayan Chinese Association (MCA) was formed on the 27th February, 1949. Gurney aimed at winning the allegiance of the Chinese community away from the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) (Colonial Office Record 537/773(1) Memorandum by Henry Gurney, 28th January, 1949).
There was apprehension and distrust between the Malays and Chinese. The alienation of the Malays by Chinese mining tycoons and rubber estate owners, followed by the preference of the Japanese of the Malays over the immigrant Chinese, and this in turn followed by retribution against the Malays by Chinese sympathizers of the CPM after the Japanese surrender have had contributed enormously to this animosity between the two.
It was since 1950 that Henry Gurney had wanted to introduce some form of democracy to Malaya through elections to satisfy the public’s hunger for democracy versus the communist’s way of winning self-government. Alas, he was only a High Commissioner and still had to go through the true rulers of the Federation of Malaya – The Malay Rulers. So, during the 10th Malay Rulers Meeting on the 22nd and 23rd February, 1950, Gurney presented his recommendation, only to be met with reluctance of the Malay Rulers. In the minutes of meeting, the Sultan of Kedah stated his reservation:
“The most important prerequisite for democracy is education. Without enlightened public opinion a democratic system of Government will be liable to unsteadiness or even confusion and chaos. One danger is that it may be transformed into a single party government through a few skilled electioneers working among the apathetic population and this will work towards dictatorship.” (Colonial Office Records 537/6025(1))
The Malays, as mentioned above, were left behind educationally and may not know what is best for them. For the same reason the PKMM and MDU were in full support of the Malayan Union four years prior to this event. And whatever the outcome, the Malays would have ended up the biggest losers if no one champions their rights. Noted William L Holland in “Nationalism in Malaya” (WL Holland, 1953):
“There was already Malay discontent in the pre-war period over the poor economic position vis-a-vis the Chinese and Indians. Malay peasants and fishermen, noted S.H Silcock and Ungku Aziz, were dependent on Chinese middlemen while Malays worked as messengers in offices where Chinese and Indians were clerks.”
The phrases made bold above by me, still holds true today and became the basis of Ismail Sabri’s main grouse against profiteering businessmen.
Gurney had to bring about some form of democratic self-rule that would benefit all races. Separately he discussed on numerous occasions with both MCA and Dato’ Onn and impressed upon them that self-rule would only happen if there is a closer relations between the communities (The Making of the Malayan Constitution, Joseph M Fernando, 2002, Page 15). Gurney was all for the promotion of Sino-Malay talks to tackle long-term problems. Gurney minuted the following:
“The outstanding issues at that stage were citizenship and the economic backwardness of the Malays. The Chinese leaders sought a more liberalised citizenship than those contained in the 1948 Federation of Malaya Agreement. Onn meanwhile , had approached the Colonial Office to secure financial assistance for the Malays.” (Colonial Office Records 537/773(1))
Onn Jaafar, however, was more open towards a better relationship between the Malays and other races if UMNO was to achieve the long-term ambition of self-governing the nation. In the UMNO annual general meeting in Arau, Perlis, on the 28th May 1949, he said in his speech:
It is absolutely important for the Malays to obtain closer ties with the other people in this country. It is time for us to take the view wider than the kampung view. I ask of you, which will you choose, peace or chaos, friendship or enmity?” (Straits Times, 29th May, 1949)
It was at this meeting that UMNO had agreed to accept non-Malays as associate members. Two years later, in June 1951, Onn went a step further by proposing that UMNO should open its doors to the non-Malays, and that UMNO be renamed the “United Malayan National Organisation.” While the top echelon of the party was supportive of this idea, the grassroot felt it was too radical. The bitterness resulting from the years of resentment and occasional interracial violence were too new for them to accept the non-Malays into their political fold. As a result, Onn left UMNO to form a new party called the Independence of Malaya Party (IMP) despite Gurney’s insistence that the former should remain in UMNO. Onn gambled that UMNO would fall apart and would rally behind him. Instead, UMNO rallied behind its new leader, Tunku Abdul Rahman, who sought to retain and strengthen UMNO’s communal organisational structure. The Tunku also threatened to expel from UMNO any member that joins or had joined the IMP (Straits Times, 18th September, 1951).
The MCA meanwhile remained a loose association of both “neutral” Chinese and the hardcore sympathizers of the CPM. Gurney had felt that the MCA had not gained much support from the Chinese community and the CPM sympathizers especially to help bring about a speedy end of the First Emergency. The Perak MCA Chairman, Leong Yew Koh, wrote to Cheng Lock on 1st June, 1950:
“Although the Perak MCA membership is 40,000 strong, the branch is a mere basin of loose sand.” (Tan Cheng Lock Papers, ISEAS Singapore, Folio IX)
Cheng Lock was quick to suggest that the MCA should become more political in order to better represent the Chinese:
“The MCA should not exist only for the limited, though vital, purpose of the meeting the emergency. It is a living institution which should consolidate itself on a strong and broad democratic foundation, in order that it may be ready to play a part in Malaya of the future as well as the present.” (Colonial Office Records 1022/176)
Thus, the stage is set for two political giants to go against each other for political power, after which we will see whether it was the Tunku or not who played the pivotal role in making the alliance between UMNO and MCA come true.
When people think they have too much freedom and show disrespect to others, you get the very person Jebat Must Die identifies in his latest blog post. If showing disrespect towards others, questioning the fundamentals, criticising the religion of others is being regarded as a right, but in turn being criticised is portrayed as being victimised by racists, then the atmosphere is set for the undermining of the unity of this nation.
While Jebat Must Die refers to a posting by the said person, this whole fracas had started more than a year ago as the person identified by Jebat Must Die has on several occasions been taunting Malays and criticising Islam. The apex of the brawl happened yesterday (3rd December 2013) when the person tweeted the following (please read the image bottom up):
During the 13th May 1969 tragedy, a well-known Imam in Kampung Baru by the name of Dahlan made an amulet to protect his brother, Abdullah (a.k.a Abdullah Botak) who was a senior police officer, from harm as the racial clashes escalated. Abdullah declined and asked Dahlan to use it to protect himself saying:
Don’t be fooled by the Chinese. I have seen what they are capable of in Bekor!
Not many young Malaysian would know where Bekor is, let alone what had happened there. But Bekor was witness to what was to come 23 years later.
A subtle reminder of the atrocities that had taken place in Bekor
The incident in Kampung Bekor, near Manong in the district of Kuala Kangsar was not the first incident that had involved the killing of Malays by the Chinese, led by the Malayan People’s Anti Japanese Army. What is even sadder is the fact that some Malays were also involved in assisting the Chinese slaughter their own kind. To understand the mood of the day, we would need to go back in time to when migrant Chinese workers started flooding into the Malay states.
According to a paper jointly written by Mohamed Ali Hanifa and Mohammed Redzuan Othman of the History Department, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, the University of Malaya, the Chinese immigrants first came to the Malay states in 1777, and first settled in the state of Perak in 1830 (Patrick Sullivan, 1982: 13). Within 44 years, they numbered 26,000 in Perak alone. In 1921, the number of Chinese immigrants in the Malay states numbered 1,171,740. Ten years later, it was 1,704,452. In 1941, it became 2,377,990 while the Malays were at 2,277,352 (Paul H Kratoska, 1997:318). The explosion of numbers of Chinese immigrants brought about social ills. In 1901, the ratio of Chinese women to men were 1:100 in the Federated Malay States alone (Victor Purcell, 1948: 174) and this brought about the setting up of prostitution dens. According to the Straits Settlement Annual Development Record 1906, there were 543 prostitution dens in the Straits Settlement alone, employing 3,894 women (Siti Rodziah Nyan, 2009:200). The Malays remained a minority in their own land until 1970.
When the Japanese invaded Malaya, they portrayed themselves to the Malays as liberators, getting rid of the pseudo-colonialistic British, and began hunting for the Chinese whom were known to have sent money back to assist the Chinese in their war against the Japanese. As such, the Malays did not face as much hardship as the Chinese did during the Japanese occupation. Although the Malays and Chinese share the same hatred towards the Japanese, it was the Chinese that ran a boycotting campaign against the Japanese. This led to the execution of 70,000 Chinese in Singapore labelled by the Japanese as Communists (Colonial Office Records CO 537/3757: 27-28). As a result, many Chinese formed the Malayan People’s Anti Japanese Army (MPAJA), a subversive organisation that was administered by the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) (War Office Records WO 172/9773, No 23: 384).
After the war, the Sino-Malay relations took a turn for the worse. The Chinese, known for their coarse and rude behaviour began upsetting the Malays. Kenelm O.L Burridge quoted the Malays as saying:
Before the war we and the Chinese lived in peace. But now they want to swallow the people (makan orang). We Muslims do not chase money. That is the Chinese way. They are not Muslims and they do not have the same understanding (faham). If they became Muslims it would be all right (Kenelm O.L Burridge, 1951:163)
Economic competition caused the Chinese to spread rumours about the Malays to put the latter in bad light (War Office Records WO 172/9773, No.30:479). In Batu Pahat, Johor, there was a community that did not respect the local culture (Kenelm O.L Burridge, 1951: 166) and brought about the culture of drinking alcoholic drinks and gambling, and were often found meddling in the affairs of the Malay customs (Seruan Ra’yat, 17 November 1945: 2).
Between the Japanese surrender in August 1945 and the formation of the British Military Administration on 12 September 1945, the MPAJA/CPM left the jungle and occupied police stations and towns and displayed its authority (WO 172/1784, No.51: 180). They took the opportunity to take revenge on the Malays. Throngs of Imams, religious teachers, Malays who had worked in Japanese offices, and commoners were captured and executed. Many Malay houses were burnt at night while their occupants were fast asleep (Mohamed Ali & Mohammed Redzuan, 2011:280).
The violation of the sanctity of Islam also became a factor in the bloody Sino-Malay conflict (WO 172/9773. No.30: 478) when the Bintang Tiga/CPM disrupted religious activities in Muslims places of worship. This started in Batu Pahat, Johor, just before the surrender of the Japanese occupiers, during the Muslim month of Ramadhan. Muslims were forbidden from congregating at mosques or suraus to perform the Terawih prayers (Hairi Abdullah, 1974/5: 8-9). The same occurred in Perak and some parts of Batu Pahat where Muslims were gunned down and burnt together with the mosque they were in during Friday prayers. Mosques and suraus were often used as places of meeting for the Chinese community (WO 172/9773, No.30: 478) and were tainted by incidents such as slaughtering of pigs, and mosques’ compound was used to cook pork, where Malays were forced to join the larger Chinese groups. Pages were torn from the Quran to be used by the Chinese using these mosques as toilet paper.
Facing the atrocities by the Chinese communists, and the betrayal by the British through the formation of the Malayan Union, the period between 1945-46 saw the Malays struggling for the survival of their race and religion.
According to Dr Cheah Boon Kheng, a historian at the School of Humanities, University Sains Malaysia, who is also the author of “Red Star over Malaya”, the Sino-Malay conflict in Johor began between march and August of 1945 (Cheah Boon Kheng, 1981:109). In May 1945, a Moain bi Saridin @ Shahidin, and a Hassan Akasah were brutally murdered by the Chinese communists. When found, they were just a mixed pile of bones without their head. They were murdered for not supporting the CPM. In another incident, a group of Chinese communists attacked the house of the penghulu of Kampung Sungai Tongkang near Batu Pahat, where 30 Malays sought refuge and shot them repeatedly before burning down the house. This conflict spread to the towns of Semerah and Sungai Balang.
When the Japanese announced their surrender on 15th August 1945, the CPM assisted by the Chinese in the MPAJA began to round up Malays suspected of working or assisting the Japanese. Many Malays had their hands and feet bounded and put into gunny sacks before they were thrown into the sea alive (Ibrahim Mahmood, 1981: 32). The Chinese community in Kampung Koh, Sitiawan, Ipoh, Kampar, Langkap and Chuchap assisted the Chinese community in Sungai Manik. Several small skirmishes ensued. In one incident, two of my granduncles were slaughtered by the Chinese near the Sungai Manik railway bridge, while their friend was put into a suitcase alive before he was thrown over into the Bidor river. In another incident, two Malay men returning to Sungai Manik were attacked by a group of Chinese who stabbed and slashed to death one of them while the other jumped into the Bidor river and hid for four days, moving only at night, before he reached safety.
In Bekor, near Manong in the Kuala Kangsar district, alarmed by the growing attacks by the Chinese, the villagers united and held a discussion with the Chinese in January 1946. Pressured by the Chinese who outnumbered them, the Malay representatives stated three demands to the Chinese:
Sa-orang guru Tauhid di-Manong di-dalam suatu mashuarat antara China dengan Melayu kerana hendak mendamaikan perkelahian di-situ telah mengeluarkan 3 tuntutan dengan chakap yang keras dan menghentam-hentam meja dengan tinju-nya sa-hingga China-China yang di-dalam mashuarat itu puchat muka-nya (Suara Ra’yat, 7 Januari 1946: 1)
The first demand was to return all the Malays captured by the Chinese and held in the jungles. If they were executed, the Malays demanded that their grave be shown. The second demand was for the return of their belongings confiscated by the MPAJA, while the final demand was for the Chinese to surrender all their weapons to the government.
Shamsiah Pakeh, a former Quran teacher, and member of the Communist Party of Malaya, approached the villagers of Kampung Bekor to persuade them to join the CPM. In a blog by Amam Fuadi, a descendant of one Haji Hassan bin Khatib Mat Sin who was present when the Chinese attacked Kampung Bekor, he described the story as told by the late Haji Hassan:
” Shamsiah Pakih pakai baju kebaya putih datang kerumah mengajak Tok masuk komunis Tok tak mahu. Pada masa itu siapa yang tidak mahu masuk kominis akan di bunuh. Orang Bekor banyak terlibat dan berdosa kerana bersubahat dengan kominis dan membunuh orang melayu yang tidak mahu masuk kominis. ” (Akhirnya mereka juga mati dibunuh komunis dalam perang Bekor- Penulis) ” …………….dibekor Ada telaga yang di panggil telaga lubang raya tempat memancong orang yang tak mahu masuk kominis.” ”Tok ngah juga hampir hendak dimasukkan kedalam lubang. Salah seorang penduduk Semat yang mati dalam lubang raya ialah yeob tali”
On 5th March 1946, the Chinese began their attacks on Kampung Bekor. At 10am, approximately 100 armed Chinese attacked the village, but this attack was repelled by the defending villagers (WO 172/9773, DT00 07:281). This attack was believed to be the CPM’s gauging the village’s defence.
On 6th March 1946 is what Abdullah Botak was talking about to his brother, Imam Dahlan, on 13th May 1969.
Between 5am to 5.30am, Kampung Bekor was again attacked by the Chinese, assisted by the CPM. All roads leading in and out of the village were guarded by members of the CPM while the Chinese, reinforced by 500 Chinese from Kelian, attacked the villagers. It was a well-planned and orchestrated attack (CO 537/1580: 21 and Majlis, 24 Februari 1947:5).
The attack lasted two hours. 57 men and women who were about to leave the Kampung Bekor mosque after Subuh prayer were murdered by the Chinese (WO 172/9773, No.19: 234-235). From this figure, only one had gunshot wounds while the rest had slash and stab wounds. 24 children were murdered while they were sleeping in their homes, while 15 men, seven women and eight children were missing. The defence of Kampung Bekor was quickly organised by Tuan Haji Abdul Rahman bin Abdul Manan, Tuan Haji Kulub Alang, Tuan Haji Salleh bin Abdul Manan and a few others who managed to kill several Chinese attackers. The Chinese moved in three waves: the front-most attacked, followed by a second wave whose duty was to retrieve bodies and injured Chinese attackers, then move behind the third attacking wave to carry out the dead and wounded. As a result, not one single body of the Chinese attackers could be found in the aftermath of the attack.
The above was what senior police officer Abdullah Botak had described to his brother, Imam Dahlan.
More Malays were attacked and killed by the Chinese in Kota Bharu (Kelantan) on 19th September 1945, in Alor Gajah (Melaka) on 26th September 1945, in Selangor, the districts of Selama, Taiping, Parit, and Sitiawan in Perak, and in Terengganu. In Batu Malim, Raub (Pahang), a skirmish at the local market on 11th February 1946 involving 200 Malays and 150 Chinese caused the death of 30 Chinese including 10 children, while 16 Chinese and 10 Malays were injured.
So heightened was the anger of the Malays towards the Chinese that when the British formed the Malayan Union and planned to grant Chinese and Indian immigrants with automatic citizenship, the Malays united for a common cause, and that is to return the power of the Sultans and reinstate the ownership of the land to the Malays. Left behind economically and lacking education, as well as being the minority in their own land, the Malays never saw any good in granting citizenship to the outsiders. To appease the Malays, the administration saw it fit for the Chinese to be sent back to China. Some 15,000 were sent back until Mao Zedong proclaimed the People’s Republic of China in October 1949. This led to closure of ports, and subsequently beaches, to prevent overseas Chinese from returning. Hence, the Chinese in Malaya had no choice but to learn to live with the Malays. The administration insisted that only those Chinese who would pledge loyalty to Malaya would be granted citizenship.
The Malays and Chinese lived peacefully side-by-side. But when China launched the Cultural Revolution, the Communist Party of Malaya issued a directive on 1st June 1968: Hold High the Great Red Banner of Armed Struggle and Valiantly March Forward. This brought about the Second Emergency and again, the Malays being minority, prepared to defend themselves and their religion. Almost every weekend strikes and rallies would be organised by opposition parties, supported by the Communist Party of Malaya, and this culminated in the 13th May 1969 tragedy.
The history of Malaysia, contrary to belief, has been filled with bloodshed. We, as a growing nation, have seen more than enough to last us a life time. And as time goes by, piece by piece our history is being forgotten. When we are a nation without a past, we will become a nation without soul. The above demonstrates how dangerous racial strife can be, and how easy it is to explode again if sensitivities and assimilation is not done or handled well. I strongly believe that both vernacular schools and Islamisation of the National schools do not benefit anyone in Malaysia, and will only contribute to greater rift between the races. Children who do not grow up together will never learn about or respect each other.
As for the Malays, we seem to feel comfortable hiding behind the fact that we make up 71% of the population of this country (including the Bumiputras of Sabah and Sarawak) but we fail to see that we are in fact split into various groups. I doubt if ever an event such as the above were to happen, that the Malays would unite, as we now have the Malay liberals, the so-called Islamists, and the pro-Malays. I won’t be surprised if only 20 percent of the Malays would be prepared to defend their race and religion again.The Malays, are once again, minorities in their own land. But this time, they are asleep as the villagers of Kampung Bekor were almost 68 years ago.
SeaDemon Says 
You must be logged in to post a comment.