Posted in Hasnah Yeop

Wannabe club members who give me the creeps

On Friday I wrote about the narrator of a homemade YouTube clip who’d accused the prime minister of hypocrisy, and pronouncing his name “Dar-took Sri Najeeeb Rey-zeck”.

The video was uploaded by a Ms Betty Sung. Its voiceover, which sounds like a Chinese employing a Mat Salleh Celup accent (“Moss-lemz”), rolled the PM’s name in a very creepy way — quite hair-raising to ears attuned to our loghat tempatan.

Aside from thinking that Ms Betty buat mengada-mengada aje, it really should make you wonder about the demand by Lim Guan Eng, declared to a Chinese predominant crowd: “We want to be first class citizens”.

As with any other club, there are certain terms and conditions for one to belong.

At the 2010 Umno general assembly, the party president Najib recited a pantun describing siapa Melayu (the constitutional Firsters):

Melayu itu, kaya falsafahnya,
Melayu itu, orang yang bijaksana,
Akal budi bersulamkan daya.

Jawa itu Melayu, Bugis itu Melayu,
Banjar juga disebut Melayu, Minangkabau memang Melayu,
Keturunan Acheh adalah Melayu.

Jakun dan Sakai asli Melayu,
Arab dan Pakistani, semua Melayu,
Mamak dan Malbari serap ke Melayu,
Malah mualaf bertakrif Melayu.

Kadazan, Bajau, India Muslim dan Siam,
Melanau, Bidayuh dan berpuluh suku kaum,
Kita bersama dalam serumpun.

It appears Najib and Umno consider the peninsula’s original inhabitants, the Jakun and Sakai, as ‘Malay’. That’s a reverse takeover to deftly justify the ‘special position’ of the Malays retrospectively.

The pribumi of Sabah and Sarawak – Kadazan, Bajau, Melanau, Bidayuh – are Malay too, according to the poet. With Najib and Umno though, absorbing the mostly Christian natives is simply strategic planning given how many Parliament seats the two Bornean states hold.

Then comes the Muslim quarter – Arab, Pakistani, Mamak, Indian Muslim and Malbari – who are absorbed into the Malay polity as well.

But to give Umno its due, it was willing to appoint Zambry Abdul Kadir – described “metallic black” by DAP Perak state secretary David Nga – as Menteri Besar. Zambry is a card-carrying club member who’s living proof that the ruling party can accommodate those willing to be totally assimilated.

I’m somewhat puzzled as to why the Siamese are included as Malay but not one bit baffled by the deliberate and pointed exclusion of non-Muslim Chinese and non-Muslim Indians.

I do comprehend that the DAP Malaysian First thrust is a roundabout way to try making equal the status of citizenship for all.

But practically speaking, the majority of Chinese and Indians have rejected the existing and mutated terms and conditions of the club which initiate members into the “bersama dalam serumpun” (bangsa Malaysia).

If we’d ever been agreeable to acquiring first-tier status on the stated terms – as the poem read by Najib said, “Malah mualaf bertakrif Melayu” – we Chinese and Indians would have become Ridhuan Tee Abdullahs and Chandra Muzaffars many generations ago.

Hence the T & Cs have to be re-negotiated so that the only two excluded races in the Najib list, i.e. the Buddhist, Taoist Chinese and Hindu Indians, etc, and not forgetting the crusading Christians, can acquire equal membership without having to abide by the DAP promoted Selendang Squad dress code.

Reverting to the intro paragraph of this posting and the (likely) Chinese female with the thick orang putih slang, the truth is we rarely hear Chinese speak the national language with such rollicking enthusiasm. If the Malaysian Chinese don’t even want to speak BM, how many do you think are eager to emulate Hannah?

DAP 2.0 politics is far from grounded in reality.

Back to my earlier discussions (I) The ‘chauvinist’ label, Chinese self-destructiveness & changing dynamics and (II) Malay support emboldening biadap syndrome (for which today’s posting is the concluding segment, my take is that the evangelical Anglophiles in DAP have no qualms pawning the Chinese/Indian language and culture in exchange for the Putrajaya crown.

If not for the way the Umno-MCA partnership played out, the ethnic minorities could have been like the Indonesian Chinese.

The Chinese electorate, currently so gung-ho in their unconditional support of DAP, fail to see the fact that we’ve remained Chinese can be considered part of the success of the MCA-Umno union albeit this marriage has failed in several other respects.

On the other hand, what will the DAP affair with PAS-PKR bring us?

Compare: MCA says ‘No!’ to hudud, Umno says ‘err No lah‘, PAS says ‘Yes, Yes, Yes’, Anwar says ‘Ya, why not’, DAP supporters say ‘Yah lor, can what‘, and DAP assumes the Caliph Umar posture.

Those Chinese who’ve accepted the Firster terms sadly come across as self-hating. Ridhuan Tee Abdullah, for example, is not willing to mention ‘Chinese’ (the term sticks in his throat like a fish bone) but instead persistently calling the race “ultra kiasu”.

Below is what he wrote in his Sinar Harian column (18 Dec 2011):

“Sekadar berkongsi pengalaman tentang ultra kiasu, tahun lalu adik saya pernah menempelak secara kasar beberapa ultra kiasu yang berbual di kedai kopi, gara-gara perbualan menghina saya. Adik saya jadi berang, lalu menumbuk ultra kiasu tersebut, lalu adik saya berkata: ‘Kalau kamu tidak kenal lagi siapa abang saya, janganlah berkata atau kutuk dia sembarangan. Saya selaku adik dia, walaupun tidak Islam, saya lebih mengetahui isi hati abang saya’.”

“Saya tidak pernah menyuruh adik saya bertindak sedemikian. Tetapi itulah hakikat yang berlaku. Ultra kiasu memang tidak sedar diuntung. Mereka akan melakukan apa sahaja untuk mematikan watak yang boleh menggugat mereka.”

Clearly there is no love lost between Ridhuan Tee and the ordinary Chinese in the kopitiam.

Her 40,000 Twitter followers, the Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysians, Bangsar Malaysians and Firster wannabes are yet to see that Hannah and Ridhuan are spiritual cousins.

I’ve characterised the behaviour of the Chinese today who are full of anger and angst as being self-destructive – evidenced by their berserk attacks on Lim Boo Chang, Ceylyn Tay, Dr Yeow Chai Thiam, Michael Yeoh and others simply for holding a different opinion.

Hannah’s shenanigans are part and parcel of the Malaysian First grand design appealing to the anger-fulled and angst-ridden Chinese grasping at straws (read: clutching their GE13 ballot paper).

Some of the existing members who now enjoy the ‘special position’ may be thinking the club rules are sacrosanct. One must follow the rules if he wants to become a member. You don’t like the rules, go join another club.

I’m saying the contrary and arguing that the club has to relax the rules which it made in 1957 and are “archaic” (to borrow the description from Anugerah Tuhan’s recent interview with the Wall Street Journal) because we’re now living in an expanded, globalised world and the understanding of nationalism has evolved.

The question for the Malays to think about is this: Whether you still regard those Malaysians who are unlike you (e.g. don’t dress like you by wearing tudung) to be in the outgroup and hence distrusted.

Specimens of those wanting to be in your in-group are Ridhuan and Hannah. Promoting policies that endorse concepts such as Satu Sekolah will create more Ridhuans and more Hannahs. You Malays are welcome to them.

A further exclusionary attitude, for instance that shown by some Malays to Hindraf over the Jalan Kebun incident, will – in the same roundabout way that DAP is carrying out its Malaysian First campaign of aggression – end up creating more belligerence (Chinese and Indians against the Malays) and the same antagonism that Malays (or a wannabe like Ridhuan) display to the non-Malays.

Ultimately, the way we’re headed is two extremes at either end of antagonism (Ridhuan) and pandering (Hannah) rather than a mutually beneficial interaction.

Our strengths e.g. Mandarin competency to do business in China, Malay diplomatic skills can actually be complementary. Unfortunately the Hannahs cannot contribute to this sort of exchange because they are ciplak who even deny they’re Chinese to begin with.

DAP walking down the Hannah path “with God” is disastrous not only for Chinese but for the country too.


I have no Faceook or Twitter.

58 thoughts on “Wannabe club members who give me the creeps

  1. It is like telling that the actual pure blooded Malays are not enough and there are not enough Malays in the UMNO or Barisan Nasional and other races should be Malayised which is against the law of genetics.

  2. Helen, you wrote:

    “On Friday I wrote about the narrator of a homemade YouTube clip who’d accused the prime minister of hypocrisy, and pronouncing his name “Dar-took Sri Najeeeb Rey-zeck”.

    The video was uploaded by a Ms Betty Sung. Its voiceover, which sounds like a Chinese employing a Mat Salleh Celup accent (“Moss-lemz”), rolled the PM’s name in a very creepy way — quite hair-raising to ears attuned to our loghat tempatan.”

    I’ve watched and listened the video twice and I come to the conclusion that most likely the narration in there is voiced by a computer program instead of a human. It’s coming out from a text-to-speech program. It’s a common feature in most smartphone and mobile devices (like an Amazon e-reader) nowadays that they can read out the messages or text aloud.

    Okay thanks for the second opinion. Still creepy to me! — Helen

    1. btw, Since you’re online, would you mind having a listen to this YouTube.

      The transcription can be read in my comments #2 & 3 in ‘Kenapa Uthaya menolak ABU.

      I hear several parts where the speaker has been blacked out by whoever uploaded the clip. I’d like your analysis, if you can oblige. Thanks.

      1. Hello Helen, thanks for asking.

        I’m not good in writing socio-political analysis like you.

        However, in your earlier post, you asked which NGO these folks represents. You asked if it’s Perkasa. I think probably not.

        Out of curiosity I decided to google the name Hj Abdul Manaf Kasmuri (the first guy who was interviewed in the clip) and I found this:-

        Kolonel Jihad: Antara Mitos dan Realiti

        It appears that there’s one Abdul Manaf Kasmuri who has wrote a book called Kolonel Jihad. However I’m not sure if it’s the same Abdul Manaf Kasmuri.

        Here is the biodata snippet from that page; I quote over here:

        Abdul Manaf bin Kasmuri dilahirkan pada 28 Mei 1955 di Kampung Batu 7 Jalan Kebun, Klang Selangor. Beliau mendapat pendidikan ketenteraan diMaktab Tentera Diraja, Sungai Besi sebagai seorang Putera. Seterusnya ……

        So, it appears that this Abdul Manaf Kasmuri is coincidentally born in (from) Kampung Batu 7, Jalan Kebun. Could it be the same person in the video?

        Here’s another link to this name Abdul Manaf Kasmuri:

        The Old Putera Association

        The site is a link to an association called The Old Putera Association. So this Abdul Manaf Kasmuri is also a member of this association.

        The next name I searched from Google is Shaari Basri, the second guy who spoke in the video.

        And I found this old news from Sinar Harian:-

        Protes henti perkhidmatan bas

        The name Shaari Basri (who may not be the same Shaari Basri from the video) appears in the news article in that link.

        I quote a line from the article over here:

        Sementara itu, Shaari Basri, 53, yang mewakili pertubuhan bukan kerajaan (NGO), Waris Malaya berkata, tempoh seminggu diberikan untuk menyelesaikan isu tersebut.

        The next term I searched is Waris Malaya and I found the following:-

        Lagi NGO Desak Tubuh Suruhanjaya DiRaja Siasat Kesahihan Video Seks


        It appears that Waris Malaya is a so-called NGO who have joined in some past protests in regards to Anwar Ibrahim’s sex video.

        Here’s a photo stock that shows these Waris Malaya folks protesting (the photo is from the page):

        Protest Photo

        Notice the guy on the left wearing the red shirt and white cap? Does he looks like the Abdul Manaf Kasmuri from the video?

        So, is the NGO that the guy claimed to represent, Waris Malaya? Why the uploaded video is being edited out the NGO name?

        Last comment: I can’t find much about Waris Malaya either other than news of their past protests.

        Thanks for the interesting info & the effort that you took.

        I’ve also been informed that someone by the name of Abdul Manaf Kasmuri [the same one?] is an ex-ISA detainee during the 2003 swoop of Jemaah Islamiyah and Kesatuan Kumpulan Mujahidin M’sia (KMM) militants. — Helen

  3. WOW!!! “menumbuk “…….a learned gentleman will apologized profusely to the “yang ditumbuk…not egoistically mentioning the violent act!!! We cannot just simply menumbuk anyone who disagreed or belittle us….or then the other parties could also menumbuk us….what is this…budaya samseng??? Today we tumbuk other, then be prepared to ditumbuk by others…
    NO! the chinese not first class…the chinese proudly called themselves descendent of the DRAGON! with 5000years of civilisation, we have seen lots of Machiavellian who will use religion , race, money , sex and whatever….. Riduan Tee or AH-chuan…I salute you..he is one of the great chinese son who make a name in Malaysian history…another dragon son…

    1. First of all, dragon didn’t exist and if you add the period from the out of africa theory, Chinese could have a 200,000 years of civilisation, which is same with Malays civilisation.

  4. Helen, I’m UMNO member since my youth, and as such will champion the cause of my race, whatever it takes. throughout my experience, I’ve found that even though I think of myself as a malay rascist, the chinese community are more so. I have many non malay fiends, whatever their beliefs, but I’ve found that those who can accept the multicultural hues of the nation are those educated since childhood at Sekolah Kebangsaan.
    I’m not saying SJKC/T are bad, they have their good points too. but in order to bind the nation as one, no more races, just Malaysian, I think all our children need to go to one school, to mingle, to learn, to respect, and there’ll be no more incidents of white ang pow, shoes inside homes and others too many to write.
    That generation of citizens will be able to accept any Malaysian as their leader, regardless of race. No more race oriented political parties or ngos.

    Ya Allah, please protect us from the evil that men do.

    I fear that in 1Sekolah, we’re going to have a white angpow mindset environment due to Malay dominance & the collusion of the Ridhuan Tees & the Hannah Yeohs. Remember that even Marina Mahathir famously pulled her daughter out of national school. — Helen

    1. all of two cousin’s children, and one nephew went to SJKC. I don’t see them handing out red Hari Raya angpows.
      For Marina maybe the English standard at Sek Keb is very pitiful, or maybe she didn’t want her daughter victimised for her outspoken opinions. Orthodox Malays were outraged at some of her opinions.

    2. I think what Marina Mahathir says or does is of no consequence. I don’t see her as having brilliant ideas, thoughts and observations and she does not lead any significant organizations as to be making an impact and her views becoming noteworthy.

      She is simply riding on the name of the father, Tun Dr Mahathir, and unfortunately, she holds views anathema to his. Perhaps she got mentioned in the mass media for being different from the father, even given a column in The Star because, being so attracts some readers and helps sell newspapers.

      I’m told that TDM informed inquisitive others that he has spoken to her about her Malay apologist or “neo-liberal views” (akin to the Mongkol fellow of new DAP recruit fame), but the father of course could not tell the daughter what to say and not to say.

      Marin’a pulling her daughter out of national school is of no consequence – I know of it only now and I’m sure many of the Malays who send their children to Chinese schools got attracted with the the so-called better prospect by having knowledge in Mandarin, not really knowing whether such prospects are real or not. There have been endless complaints of Chinese businesses not opening up to Malays and Bumiputeras and the few who have been there (including OverseasBumi, if I remember his many comments well) complained of discriminatory treatment.

  5. technically Dr Riduan Tee adalah melayu dalam perlembagaan malaysia… beliau berjuang untuk Islam dan Melayu untuk perkasakan Islam di Malaysia…dia tak pernah kutuk bangsa Cina..dia cuma kutuk ultrakiasu dan kafir harbi ..kepada kafir zimmi dan yg bukan ultra kiasu jgn la nak terasa hati..

    isu kerajaan malaysia masukkan syarat melayu mesti Islam adalah isu lama…melayu austronesia di luar malaysia dah lama tahu isu ni

  6. “I’m somewhat puzzled as to why the Siamese are included as Malay but not one bit baffled by the deliberate and pointed exclusion of non-Muslim Chinese and non-Muslim Indians.”

    Helen, ever try telling another chinese that he is a malay, or beter still that’ otak dia otak melayu.’???? you dare, meh????, can you predict the outcome ?

    And since you are the resident expert on chinese customs and feeling,elaborate for the ignorant non chinese readers here

    In interesting play on this speech, And you talk about the white Ang pow as a big INSLUT??? .if najib say the chinese are also Malays, you thing all of will agree??????

    Helen, give strait answer on this if you can. Dont pussy foot around with your answers , dear.

    p.s. my late, mother in law is a chinese. May god rest here soul, Amin.

    Lazy Dragon,

    Fair enough, I don’t think a Chinese would want to be called a Malay, except for Ridhuan & the all MALAY-sian Hannah.

    While I understand that Malays have traditionally absorbed others, why make it a state policy that deliberately excludes the non-Muslim Chinese/Indian in particular as outsiders or as our friend in the comment above categorized — as “kafir harbi”.

    And can you also explain how the Siamese have become Malay in Najib’s book?

  7. Let demography play its game…just look at the US..soon will an extension of mexico…look at china..hannized..true the hans are not conducting racial having hans permeate in all aspects of tibet and yunnan governance..the minorities will be gradually the Hui who have abandoned islam.the only thing they inherit from islam is that they dont touch pork..but so is the singaporeans who are technically not discrimnating the malays because he chinese are dominant and lee kuan yew maintain the balance by importing the PrC citizens..there is no such thing meritocracy in a multicultural society…one race will dominate all business and politics..

    The daps complain that mahathir imported new malays from the philliopines and indonesia illegally to boost the malay number..but they forget..the same UMNO legalized 4 million non britosh citizens as citizens despiye ni cultural compatibility in 1957…and some UMNO zealots actualky curse at the TAR for these actions..some PAS members actually demonize UMNO for making million kafirs into the fold…’malays in malaysia will be as comfortable as the Bruneians without 4 milion conniving kafirs who strive for the downfalll of muslims’,…you think PAS enjoy shaking hands with pig tainted DAP hamds…once they are do e wit the kadir turn

    The humble malays may soon become muslims only if the non especially the ultra kiasu stop being kiasu…..white ang pows..what a joke…and you think you want to violated the sancity of the Malays one Allah into a ridiculous 3 in 1 express coffee god without fighting bac…you called that fanaticism……the DAP christian have made it worse..mow the malays see the entire chinese race as KAFIR…no more apek..

    1. Interesting comment, Forest Cat.

      (1) Can you pls point me to an online link on the “4 milion conniving kafirs” who were supposedly naturalized by the British at Independence? I doubt it.

      The total pop. of Malaya at 1957 was only 6,278,758 — source HERE.

      (2) Like you, I’d thought that demography would soon do the work to establish Ketuanan Melayu as facts on the ground. Heck I’d even written a widely quoted & circulated article on the shrinking Chinese ratio of the population.

      (3) Yet despite Project M in Sabah & the mass absorption of Muslims (Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Thais, etc) as ‘bumiputera’, Malays today are still only 50.4% (source CIA 2010 via wiki) see under Malaysia: Demography.

      However, the national census of 2010 gives the Malay ratio at 2-3 percentage points higher but most govt. references lump Malays together under bumiputera on purpose to cover up the real size (smaller than we’ve been taught to believe. What a sneaky govt. we have for fudging!).

      (4) Only the Hasnah Yeops & the Ridhuan Tees among the Chinese will be assimilated. You are welcome to have them.

      (5) You write: “now the malays see the entire chinese race as KAFIR”, and “you think PAS enjoy shaking hands with pig tainted DAP hands … once they are done with the kafir’s turn” (I’ve cleaned up your typos).

      Erm, so you mean that Umno sees Chinese as Ah Pek? What are the connotations of the label?

      (6) Can you also pls elaborate on the PAS-kafir thingy? I’d really like your honest assessment. I’m pretty critical & sceptical of the PAS-DAP partnership myself.

      1. The population figures – these have also been politicised.

        The percentages that were used by the Economic Planning Unit of the PM’s Dept prior to the 2010 Census results were: Malays 59%, Chinese 23%, Indians 7%, Bumiputeras of Sabah and Sarawak 11%, Others less than 1%.

        With your “widely quoted & circulated article on the shrinking Chinese ratio of the population”, the Chinese % should now be less. Any one cares to provide the 2010 Census figures c/w the link for easy access to verify? We also need to know how the classification was made by the Statistics Dept – citizens, non-citizens, permanent residents, tourists and over-staying visitors, legal, illegal workers etc.

        I’m not a government apologist but seriously doubt the statement “most govt. references lump Malays together under bumiputera on purpose”. Now, the term “Malays” has been spelt out under the Constitution and “Bumiputeras” refer to both Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak. But how do the Statistics Dept people instruct their enumerators or census takers on the ground, indeed how do the young (part-time, randomly selected?) people decide which slot to place the person interviewed? If I remember correctly, no proof of identity (ICs, passports etc) were asked, if that was so, the latest Stats Dept figures could be inaccurate. I’m however prepared to be proven wrong on this.

        Interesting that you said “to cover up the real size (smaller than we’ve been taught to believe”, Helen. Wonder who taught you and if there was any evidence that the “real size” was smaller etc.

        1. The EPU figures you cite puts bumiputera at 70%.

          The 2010 census says bumiputera 67.4% (see page 5)

          Click to access Taburan_Penduduk_dan_Ciri-ciri_Asas_Demografi.pdf

          The census pie chart has four slices: Bumiputera, Chinese (24.6% higher than EPU figure), Indian 7.3%, Lain-lain (0.7%).

          Malays are not separately distinguished, so the Bumiputera looks big and imposing.

          Historically, and you’re surely aware that they roped in Sabah & S’wak in 1963 b’cos they were afraid that with S’pore on board, the demographics shifted too much in Chinese favour.

          The Federal Constitution says in Article 153, ‘Malays’ and – added after formation of M’sia – the natives of Sabah and S’wak are given ‘special position’.

          Bumiputera is not mentioned in the FedCon. The orang Asli are not given special position in the FedCon.

          Using the purported 70% EPU bumiputera figure, Perkata lays claim for 70% quota privileges for ‘bumiputera’ (code for Malays).

          And unless you’re being purposely naive, Perkasa is all about Malay. (Do Christian Kadazans, Bidayuh, Orang Asli etc ever associate themselves with Perkasa? Or do Perkasa events and activities feature non-Malay bumiputera?)

          So what’s the real Malay percentage? Not shown in the pie chart. I had to calculate it myself.

          See page 15: Malays are enumerated as 14,191,720 of citizens, out of 26,013,356. That’s 54.56%.

          You say “Interesting that [Helen] said “to cover up the real size (smaller than we’ve been taught to believe”.

          The EPU makes economic plans catering for 70% bumiputera & the NEP largesse goes to cows in condos. You don’t hear the Orang Asli or Iban or Kadazan etc being embroiled in NEP money misuse scandals & GLC bailouts.

          Ibrahim Ali screams for 70% share & his Malay followers demand that Malays should really rightly be ‘entitled’ to 70% quota (see the fudge, i.e. shift in mental frame — were talking about the appeal of demagoguery to IA-type supporter & not thinkers like Anon).

          If we asked the ordinary man in the street to guess, how many do you think will actually come close to hitting the real Malay percentage, since it’s always being bandied about that Malays are the majority & thus the minority are required to follow the will & dictates of the majority?

          Malays according to latest census are only 4.56% above the half-way mark of 50% (compared to homogenous countries like Japan, Korea, etc).

      2. Population figures, Wikipedia sources, Project M or IC Projek in Sabah etc –

        It does sound ridiculous, Helen, that “Malays today are still only 50.4% (source CIA 2010 via wiki) “. I thought, with your journalism background, you could do better than to rely on CIA and “via Wiki” on top of that.

        It is a recorded and an established fact that CIA even told General Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq and the good general laboured at the UN to get “a coalition of the willing” to bomb Iraq. And until now, no WMD is found, though Iraq not bombed to smithereen, Iraqis suffered like hell. Apart from gathering secret information, lies, deception, propaganda, misinformation, disinformation (there are differences between the last two) have been the business of the CIA as much as the British MI6, the Russian KGB (whatever its present name), the Israeli Mossad, the Chinese Secret Service, etc.

        Wikipedia cannot be a reliable source of information simply because it allows any Ahmad, Chong and Thambi to write. Often Wiki editors write comments here and there on the articles, asking for sources of information, authority etc. Only the information quoting authoritative sources may be quoted (certainly not CIA) and such sources must be quoted when mentioning Wiki. Otherwise, “50.4%” and such become laughable, misleading, and can cause misunderstanding.

        1. The CIA’s 50.4% Malay is 4.16% off the 2010 census figures. The Economic Planing Unit’s 59% Malay that you cited is 4.44% off mark.

          So if you want to fault the CIA factbook as laughably inaccurate, then our own EPU in the PM’s Dept is even more laughably inaccurate.

          As for Project M in Sabah, the population explosion was incredible. Johor had 1,638,200 pop. in 1980 and Sabah had 983,100 the same year.

          In 1991 (both census years, census taken in 10-year cycles), Johor had 2,162,400 and Sabah had 1,800,800.

          The population of Sabah doubled over the decade from (rounded) 980,000 to 1,800,000 whereas Johor’s only increased from 1,600,000 to 2,100,000.

          According to 2010 census, out of Sabah’s 3,206,742 people today, a whopping 889,779 are non-citizens.

          The non-citizens found in Sabah number more than Malaysians who are citizens in our smaller peninsular states.

      3. Your statement “the mass absorption of Muslims (Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Thais, etc) as ‘bumiputera’” needs to be addressed.

        The Thai Muslims, practically all of whom are from southern Thailand, are, to all intents and purposes, historically and culturally, Malays. They belong to the same group like the Kelantanese, the Kedah and Perlis Malays who were descended from the ancient Malay kingdom of Langkasuka, that existed since the 2nd Century AD.

        The Thai Malays became pawns in the bloody British colonialists’ game of politics, the states of Narathiwat, Songhkla etc were handed over to Thailand in an Anglo-Thai friendship treaty of 1812, and the British conveniently forgot to take them back in later years. Damn the colonialist-imperialists. Though they had not colonized Malaya at that time, they used the power of the gun when in this area to make political arrangements to suit their purpose and the locals suffered.

        There is no evidence of those Thai Malays who entered this country after Merdeka being given citizenship and, if they were mistakenly lumped as Malays under Census 2010, so too the Chinese and Indian tourists might have been entered in the population figures as a part of the Chinese and Indian population of Malaysia.

        The Pakistanis and Bengladeshis who married Malays in recent times may be taken as Bumiputeras only if they habitually speak Malay, practise the Islamic religion and Malay culture. But how many were they, actually? And who can deny that Zambry MB Perak and Abdul Kadir Sheikh Fadzil, a former Minister, are Malays per the Constitution? (Except perhaps Kadir when he started whacking UMNO! – pls note the exclamation mark).

        1. I’m aware, and consider the Muslim Thais (nationality) in our neighbouring country’s southern provinces as ethnic Malays – I know my history – & already mentioned in response to a reader (Lazy Dragon methinks) earlier that I’ve tumpang with my ex-boyfriend’s Malay relatives in Narathiwat before.

          The discussion is on why Thais in Malaysia are considered by Najib as Malay. If they were Muslim and spoke Malay as native tongue and practised Malay customs (like their kinfolk in southern Thailand), then there’s not the faintest reason this group under Lain-lain Thai/Siam would not have simply been counted as Malay here.

          Therefore, the ethnic Thais who are included as bumiputera in Malaysia must be the Buddhist ones. If so, why are they bumiputera, i.e. on what parameters, since your citation of constitutional Malay requires Islam as religion?

      4. And now the matter of “Project M in Sabah”, locally called “IC Projek”. Which has been heavily politicised by the Opposition.

        I’ve been reading that a lot and for so long. Until now I’ve not seen any real evidence, information that can withstand arguments in court – only wild accusations, unfounded complaints, unsubstantiated allegations, innuendos and vitroil. Sad. Very sad.

        Even the Memo of the group calling for a RCI contains only a limited number of names, with IC numbers only. Note that if those were fake ICs (there was a racket selling them some time back), Immigration Dept would not have them on their record. Now, how can they or the Police trace those names when only fake numbers were provided, no addresses, and Sabah is a huge state.

        The fake IC racket was discovered and smashed. The serious offenders even sent to ISA detention centre. Jeffery Kittingan who wrote about his ISA experience some time back (may be googled) even mentioned of Immigration offenders being around in the camp during his time. Even so, those still around with the fake ICs cannot be very many.

        There has been a lot of hula baloo about illegal entries into Sabah of Indonesians and Filipinos. But those are the Rumpun Melayu that the books “The Malay Civilization” and “Tamadun Alam Melayu” (published by the Historical Society of Malaysia) spoke about. Those people in the area between Sulu and Sulawesi (said to be where the Malays originated some 7,000 years ago) have been plying in and out of the Sabah coastal areas since ancient times.

        Yes, they must not be allowed to do so without valid documents and we must keep trying to enforce our rules and regulations. But the measure of success of the authorities must be compared with the success of the US preventing Mexicans crossing their long and porous land borders. Despite putting concrete walls, chain link fencing and barbed wire on hundreds of miles of “no-man’s land”, Mexicans still come in continuously.

        We must not tolerate illegal entries. But at the same time not make wild accusations on the so-called Projek IC quoting ridiculous figures to the tune of hundreds of thousands. Sometimes, people confuse them with those Muslim Filipinos given asylum from the political persecution and hounding by the Filipino authorities. They carry different identity documents and are small in number, too.


        I grant you fair argument about Sabah’s porous borders, esp. long coastline.

        As to whether your rumpun Melayu Filipino & Indonesian Muslims have been legitimised or not by the state, note Umno members (ha-ha-ha) in

        Sabah: 449,805 (Umno established only since 1991)
        Johor: 428,663 (party birthplace)
        Selangor: 414,142 (Malaysia’s most populous state)


      5. Helen at 9:19 am –

        Some quick words on what you wrote:

        1. No, I’m not aware “that they roped in Sabah & S’wak in 1963 b’cos they were afraid that with S’pore on board, the demographics shifted too much in Chinese favour.” You made it appear that the formation of Malaysia was at the behest of then Malaya, and the British masters of then Sabah and Sarawak had no part. Perhaps more on those another time.

        2. Wonder why you raise the point “Bumiputera is not mentioned in the FedCon”. I agree the orang Asli are not given special position in the FedCon and it’s a valid argument that they should.

        3. No, I’m not “being purposely naive” about Perkasa but they have not made it a platform calling for 70% quota privileges for ‘bumiputera’ (code for Malays)”. Do put out the link(s) – preferably Perkasa sites – showing so. 1-2 may have said so to caution those who keep asking for more, more and more in the country. Note that the term Bumiputera has been confused by people and I dispute your implying Perkasa’s “‘bumiputera’ = (code for Malays)”.

        4. Malay percentage .. “enumerated as 14,191,720 of citizens, out of 26,013,356. That’s 54.56%”?. Those figures include the Malays of Sabah and Sarawak? The figures on the natives of Sabah and Sarawak include the Malays? Whatever ethnicity they prefer to identify with, so long as they habitually speak the Malay language, practise the Islamic religion and the Malay culture. I suspect your figure has not taken that into account.

        5. The EPU cannot be faulted for using figures higher than the 2010 census figures, as they were estimates based on the census in 2000. That’s a DAP/PKR line, Helen, talking about “NEP largesse goes to cows in condos”. Remember, the NEP concept cannot be faulted, its implementation, yes. And the cows didn’t go into EPU planning, though I wonder if the huge Penang sPICE project was planned to be given on turn-key basis to Lim Guan Eng’s crony as alleged in the vernacular papers, they say.

        6. Demagoues there’ll always be and we should try to restrain them on both sides of the political divide to ensure no more 13 May race riots.

        7. I’m also perplexed by the Stats Dept presentation of the Census 2010 stats and their classification of ethnic groups. Hope to write on this later.


        (4) Census figures, not mine. Have already given you url & page number of Stats Dept report.

        (8) Let’s make a deal, okay? I regard you as someone who can back up what you say with relevant data or scholarly citations (else you wouldn’t have offered your opinion) & also as one who’s interested in exploring a fair, accurate & holistic contextual interpretation.

        Pls return the good faith by not having it in your mind that whatever I respond is deliberately to be antagonistic, to counter you or to pursue an anti-Malay agenda. If your research is useful, I’ll say TQ, process it & factor in.

        Hence on my side, the exchanges are on the basis that your input is valued & your insight/wide perspective is adding to my knowledge.


        1. I don’t mind if my mistakes are pointed out. I take it as saving me from making bigger and more embarrassing errors to perhaps a larger audience on future occasions (a little misconception at the start can snowball along the way).

          Your sharp comments have questioned areas where I strayed into assumption & forced me to recheck. I appreciate that.

      6. No, Helen, I don’t have it in my mind “that whatever (you) respond is deliberately to be antagonistic .. or to pursue an anti-Malay agenda.”

        To “counter” me, of course – it’s absolutely your entitlement. In fact, it’s everybody’s entitlement. To disagree and argue, not necessarily academic-research kind. So long as within reason and the bounds of decency and decorum.

        I even said in my comment on the KFC thingy that I believed you put out the original post for the purpose of generating discussions. But I later said in the 2nd post I wondered if lengthening the discussion would not mean something else, or words to that effect. Surely I’m entitled to that opinion.

        Same like the 11:32 am comment.

        Cheers (hope nobody chides me for saying this as a Muslim).

      7. You are only making an inference and stretching it thin when saying “whether your rumpun Melayu Filipino & Indonesian Muslims have been legitimised or not by the state, note Umno members (ha-ha-ha) in

        Sabah: 449,805 (Umno established only since 1991)
        Johor: 428,663 (party birthplace)
        Selangor: 414,142 (Malaysia’s most populous state)”

        But isn’t there the possiblility that those who had been there since before Malaysia, and their children, who habitually speak Malay and practice the Islamic religion and Malay culture, rushed in to join UMNO as soo as it started operating in Sabah?

        Note that Malay is a Large Family of Languages, the linguistic experts have identified some 1,200 Malay languages (excluding dialects) in this area called Gugusan Pulau Pulau Melayu. And Malay literature and culture are inter-linked among the Malays and the Indonesians at least. You do Malay studies at the university, you of course will study Indonesian literature and cultural forms as well. Hence all of them of whatever perferred ethnic names, if practicising Islam, were qualified to become UMNO members in Sabah.

        Note also that Islam is a strong factor that attracts the various Islamic ethnic groups to UMNO in Sabah. PAS went in only very recently and has not appeared to make any significant inroad.

        Still ha-ha-ha, Umno Sabah has more members than party stronghold Johor & this question mark is not standalone but taken together with Muslim pop. explosion in the state — a fact which merits Royal Commission of Inquiry. If Najib okays the RCI, we shall know more. — Helen

      8. The following excerpts from Sabahdaily provide info which I wan’t clear about previously and which may explain the larger-than-Johor UMNO membership in Sabah:

        Umno membuka keahlian kepada Bumiputera selain bangsa Melayu.

        Keputusan Umno untuk bertapak di Sabah sebenarnya membawa banyak perubahan kepada dasar, perlembagaan dan landskap parti nasionalis itu. Jika sebelum masuk ke Sabah, Umno dikenali sebagai parti Melayu dan hanya menerima Melayu (yang ditakrif mesti beragama Islam) sebagai ahli; namun setelah masuk ke Sabah, Umno mula menerima ahli bukan Islam asalkan ia seorang Bumiputera.

        Seorang Kadazan atau Murut beragama Kristian layak menjadi ahli Umno kerana mereka ialah Bumiputera. Malah Umno telah mencatat sejarah apabila seorang ahlinya yang beragama Kristian, Dato’ John Ambrose dipilih sebagai Ketua Umno Bahagian Penampang.

        Fasal 4 perlembagaan Umno menyebut bahawa ahli-ahli Umno adalah dua jenis iaitu ahli biasa dan ahli bergabung.

        Ahli Biasa ialah Warganegara Malaysia yang berbangsa Melayu atau Bumiputera yang berusia 18 tahun ke atas (Fasal 4.2).

        Ahli Bergabung adalah sebuah pertubuhan politik yang bersetuju berkerjasama dengan Umno dan menerima syarat-syarat yang ditetapkan oleh Majlis Tertinggi (Fasal 4.3). Kongres India Muslim Malaysia (Kimma) kini menjadi Ahli Bergabung Umno.

        Pada Fasal 5 berhubung pendaftaran keahlian, disebut bahawa tiap-tiap orang Melayu dan Bumiputera berhak mendaftar diri sebagai ahli Umno mengikut Perlembagaan dan peraturannya.

        Thanks for the info. Since there’s this kelonggaran diberi kpd Umno Sabah, what’s your opinion on BN becoming one big party, i.e Umno, MCA, MIC etc merging to get rid of the race distinction? — Helen

      9. Helen,

        Not sure if my earlier comment disappeared into moderation mode or into non-existence. If the latter, I hope you’d print this after Anon’s comment No. 24:

        The following excerpts from Sabah Daily provides info that I wasn’t clear about previously but should clarify the Sabah UMNO membership being higher than Johore and Selangor:

        Umno membuka keahlian kepada Bumiputera selain bangsa Melayu.

        Keputusan Umno untuk bertapak di Sabah sebenarnya membawa banyak perubahan kepada dasar, perlembagaan dan landskap parti nasionalis itu. Jika sebelum masuk ke Sabah, Umno dikenali sebagai parti Melayu dan hanya menerima Melayu (yang ditakrif mesti beragama Islam) sebagai ahli; namun setelah masuk ke Sabah, Umno mula menerima ahli bukan Islam asalkan ia seorang Bumiputera.

        Seorang Kadazan atau Murut beragama Kristian layak menjadi ahli Umno kerana mereka ialah Bumiputera. Malah Umno telah mencatat sejarah apabila seorang ahlinya yang beragama Kristian, Dato’ John Ambrose dipilih sebagai Ketua Umno Bahagian Penampang.

        Fasal 4 perlembagaan Umno menyebut bahawa ahli-ahli Umno adalah dua jenis iaitu ahli biasa dan ahli bergabung.

        Ahli Biasa ialah Warganegara Malaysia yang berbangsa Melayu atau Bumiputera yang berusia 18 tahun ke atas (Fasal 4.2).

        Ahli Bergabung adalah sebuah pertubuhan politik yang bersetuju berkerjasama dengan Umno dan menerima syarat-syarat yang ditetapkan oleh Majlis Tertinggi (Fasal 4.3). Kongres India Muslim Malaysia (Kimma) kini menjadi Ahli Bergabung Umno.

        Pada Fasal 5 berhubung pendaftaran keahlian, disebut bahawa tiap-tiap orang Melayu dan Bumiputera berhak mendaftar diri sebagai ahli Umno mengikut Perlembagaan dan peraturannya.

        I was away from the computer. Went to watch the Iguana Eng show. — Helen

      10. Helen,.

        My opinion on BN becoming one big party – I think it is desirable to reduce the race distinction, but may not be realizable in the immediate future.

        Far too much rancour, race biting and race dominance resenting at the present time. A lot has been due to non-respect of the Constitution of the country. So much propaganda has been put out that all races have become defensive and all political parties needing to politicise it to get votes. It’s gotten to a stage that even misdemeanours at Shah Alam KFC are blown up as racial.

        I think there needs to be a strong government in power that can reign in the rampant indecent, even, unlawful words, acts and omissions such as against the Sultan of Perak (which now has become a case before the Courts), demo beside the High Court asking to “free Anwar” even before the Judge makes a decision and the Police allowing it.

        When there is a strong Government with no-nonsense attitude in so far as “unlimited freedom” is concerned, there’ll be relative peace, mutual respect, goodwill and harmony. I think under such circumstances the idea of a political party among “politically like- minded people” will become attractive. I’m not concerned whether we become a 2-party system whatever, so long as we can become a truly united and cohesive Bangsa Malaysia. We need that for long term peace and prosperity in this country.

        The Government needs to be firm when dealing with the wayward – even Britain, known to be among the staunchest defender of freedom of expression, now has a PM who scolded the British Police for not being tougher on the rioters some time back. Hopefully a firm and strong government will emerge and an atmosphere conducive to BN being a party of all races will come about.

        1. Thanks for your views.

          I fear that if the govt should firm up, it would be a strong Umno govt. Like the Mahathir admin under which racial outbursts managed to be contained.

          But Mahathirism mark II post-GE13 would not integrate the Chinese either. Not sure how Indians & others would fare tho.

  8. After reading the (lagi …) part of your article, I feel a need to make a few comments to present “the other side of the coin” and, noting that you said only a tiny percentage of the comments in here are censored, you would published mine.

    First, on Najib considering “the Jakun and Sakai, as ‘Malay”, let me copy paste a comment I’ve read elsewhere as follows:

    The Malays belong to the same Large Family of Malays or Rumpun Melayu as the Orang Asli of the Peninsula and the Bumiputeras (natives) of Sabah and Sarawak.

    The Constitution spells out the definition of Malays in Malaysia. Habitually speaking the Malay language, practicing the Islamic religion, the Malay customs and traditions are the key factors. Language experts (linguists) have determined that there is also a Large Family of the Malay Language, totaling over 1,200 in all.

    The books “The Malay Civilization” and “Tamadun Alam Melayu” published by the Historical Society of Malaysia, provide a broader classification of the Malays, which include the Orang Aslis and the Bumiputeras of Sabah and Sarawak. The books say that the Malays originated in the Malay Archipelago or Gugusan Pulau Pulau Melayu, to which Semenanjong Tanah Melayu, Sabah and Sarawak belong, over 7,000 years ago. They cultivated padi and had the rice-eating culture even before the mainland Chinese.

    The Malays have been in and out of the islands within the Archipelago, including the Malay Peninsula and the island of Borneo, and outwards to Madagascar, Australia, New Zealand, Indo-China, Taiwan, the Malayo Polynesian and Pacific Islands up to Hawai, earlier with their “perahu” fitted with outriggers, later in multi-tiered ships the size of the ancient Roman galleons. They had remarkable ship building and navigational skills which were noted in the historical records of China.

    The terms Proto-Malays (Orang Asli), Deutero Malays (the Constitutional Malays, Bumiputeras or natives of Sabah and Sarawak, Indonesians and others), Malayo-Polynesians and Austronesians refer to the same “Large Family of Malays” comprising some 350 million people. The classification was done scientifically by experts in the relevant fields, based on language, physical characteristics, blood types, DNA etc.

  9. I suppose you’d find the following comment more difficult to allow but I trust you’d show the fair mindedness that I think you have shown from what I read your writing so far and have it published as well.

    This one is in reference to the innuendo attached to “the Muslim quarter – Arab, Pakistani, Mamak, Indian Muslim and Malbari – who are absorbed into the Malay polity as well… Zambry Abdul Kadir – described “metallic black” by DAP Perak state secretary David Nga – as Menteri Besar. Zambry is a card-carrying club member who’s living proof that the ruling party can accommodate those willing to be totally assimilated.”

    Another one that I read elsewhere:

    You people keep making fun of the Malays, mamaks, etc, what about you Chinese? What’s the equivalent to call you all also having mixed blood? Now, now, don’t say you people are pure Chinese.

    Here is what Professor C.P. Fitzgerald says in his book, “A Short Cultural History of China” (600+ pages) – he lived in China for 5 years to research and gather material for that book:

    The phrase “origin of the Chinese people” is in itself misleading.

    1. Chinese culture took root in the plains of Manchuria, a foreign country until after World War II

    2. The northern provinces have always to some degree been mixed with “peoples from the Mongolian steppes”

    3. The southern and central provinces of China were, before the northerners moved southwards, “covered” by non-Chinese, the Miao, small in size and who the Chinese were contemptuous of.

    4. The south was originally occupied by “aboriginal tribes”. The ancestors of most of the migrants to Malaya/ sia came from the south. The Professor said, “A large proportion of the population of the south calling itself ‘Chinese’ is in fact descended from one or other of the aboriginal races” – page 6. Even in modern times, in Yunnan and Kueichouu, tribesmen number half the population.

    The southerners comprise the following major groups:

    a. Fukienese, “a separate stock, mixed with immigrants from the north and the Yangtze Valley” and speaking “a peculiar dialect”.

    b. Cantonese, also speak a somewhat alien language, a form of old Chinese – the south was colonized by the northerners, colonization completed in the 7th Century – some 800 years after China was formed as a political entity by Chin Shih Huang Di.

    c. Hakkas, of Kuantung province, known as “guest families” – they speak a peculiar dialect, despised by the Cantonese and do not inter marry. These people were said to have come from the north, running away from frequent Mongol invasions in the 13th Century.

    So, if any of you are referred to as descendants of the Miao (who are aborigines and non-Chinese), or other aborigines of south China, don’t blame me, I’m just a messenger of the news. You can’t also blame Professor Fitzgerald any more because he died some years ago.

    So, how about we refrain from racial profiling and name calling, ha? Still angry with me, wanna call me names? Don’t la, coz you also can be called names.

    1. Name calling and make fun is wrong but who told you Chinese believe that we are pure Chinese except that sayaorangcinabodoh? Chinese is about civilization and culture and that is how we recognize ourselves, we don’t need a piece of paper to define who we are.

      1. So is Malay, its about adat, culture and civilisation too, the problem is that, suddenly their land was invaded by the colonialist and that colonialist bring in the Chinese that later given a right the same as theirs in their own land.

  10. In defence of Ridhuan Tee Abdullah, I think he does not use the term “ultra kiasu” for ALL Chinese, but only those who “tak mahu ketinggalan … tak mahu kalah … asyik nak menang sahaja”. Do tell us if there is a more accurate translation of that terminology.

    I agree with you “the behaviour of the Chinese today who are full of anger and angst as being self-destructive”. No such thing as First or Second Class citizens. Those who feel or think of themselves as Second Class do so because of their unwillingness to respect and adhere to the Constitution of the country fully. Including the sensitive clauses which are protected by the Sedition Act. All those that have been discussed and approved by Parliament.

    DAP’s Malaysian Malaysia slogan is anathema to the Special Position of the Malays and the Bumiputeras of Sabah and Sarawak under Article 153 of the Constitution. Wanting equality without manifestly acknowledging that Special Position and the need to level the playing field tends to subvert that Special Position. It’s not good for national unity.

    Dear Anon,

    Amendments (e.g. stipulating quotas) to Article 153 were made after May 13, 1969 as well as amendments to the 1948 Sedition Act, incl. those rendering “sensitive clauses” in the FedCon off-limits to public discussion through the fear factor.

    Hence the later provisions to entrench the ‘special position’ (SP) is naturally seen by Chinese as an outcome of the massacre & Chinese sentiments vis-a-vis SP via NEP is seen as brutally enforced after the bloodshed.

    But I will concede that looking at Kg Buah Pala, I doubt that DAP upon victory (1969 in urban states) would have treated the marginalized Malays back then any better than it does Indians post-2008.

    As for RT, there’s the syndrome of the “self-hating Jew”. He manifestly has a problem living in his own skin & it shows in his articles. That’s why he’s universally reviled by the M’sian-Chinese community.


  11. I think those asking the rules made in 1957 to be relaxed are unrealistic and unwilling to accept the fact that

    1. the minority should adjust to the ways of the majority – a plain and simple principle of democracy. Note that David Cameron, Prime Minister of one of the oldest established democracies, has said that “multi-culturalism is dead”, in the face of non-compliance by the minority groups with the norms of the Anglo-Saxons there. That statement was echoed by the German Chancellor Angela Merkel and 2 other EU leaders.

    2. 1957 was a compromise: the Malays agreed to the non-Malays getting citizenship and the Malay Special Position enshrined in the Constitution. Note that the Malay Special Position has always been there “since day one”, as the British Colonial Secretary said in the British Parliament when debating the Malaya Independence Bill in 1956.

    3. The Malay leaders had already relaxed their position – Chinese leader Tun Tan Siew Sin and Indian leader Tun Sambanthan had acknowledged it in the Malaysian Parliament saying that “the Malays have been generous enough” – twice, once at Merdeka when agreeing to citizenship for the non-Malays (who had been stateless in the country for about 100 years, even throughout the British colonial rule, and before) and another when relaxing the regulations for the issue of citizenship certificates after Merdeka (relaxing the language proficiency tests).

    There must be give-and-take and there cannot be only one-way traffic for long-term harmony, peace and prosperity in this country. There must be acknowledgement and honouring of the Social Contract. “Promoting policies that endorse concepts such as Satu Sekolah” will not “Ridhuans and more Hannahs” make. No, not “You Malays are welcome to them” but you Chinese and others who do not reciprocate the goodwill shown by the Malays in the instances stated above need to show give-and-take and follow two-way streets.

    Note that even in the US, 3-4 lane roads are laid side by side for two-way traffic on extremely wide highways. And in Malaysia, PLUS Highways are 3 lanes laid side by side for two-way traffic. The minorities adjust to the ways of the majority Anglo Saxons in US. So should the minorities in Malaysia adjust to the ways of the majority Malays. And BM, for example, is stated in the Constitution as the language of the country.

    1. 1. Yes, true about “multi-culturalism is dead” issue that some of the EU countries are facing.

      2. Which other country in the world privileges one race above any other by law? The number one offender today – Israel. In S. Africa, apartheid has been done away with. This SP thing is open to people of Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Yemeni (am thinking of someone involved in a face-off with Haris recently) descent & only closed to non-Muslim Chinese & Indians (about 1/3 of pop.)

      I’d be interested if you could expand your views on point (2) as SP is a concept & you may have your interpretation which I ought to be aware of so that we don’t argue in circles.

      3. (a) What I read was that in 1957, the conditions were made very stringent to deliberately exclude Chinese & Indians (non-Straits Settlement dwellers). That’s why one of the major issues being raised by Hindraf is the statelessness of poor Indians (i.e. till today no ID papers, can’t register for school, etc).

      But to be fair, in 1946 (Malayan Union) & 1948 (Persekutuan Tanah Melayu) were not really all that interested in taking up citizenship. The crunch to make a decision, I suppose, must have come in 1957.

      3. (b) 1Sekolah: On a theoretical level is one thing, what people choose to actually practise is another. Most figures from various sources quote the Chinese enrolment in (i.e. percentage of Chinese parents who send their kids to) SJKC to be in the mid-to-high 90s.

      There must be a reasons why millions of Chinese have pragmatically made this decision in the face of fighting very hard to get a place (limited & in demand), and driving their kids to an over-crowded Chinese school with no facilities 8km away when there is a fully-equipped & well-appointed SJK nearby.

      I read a recent article by Dr Kua Kia Soong about his children’s old school where due to lack of land for expansion & the enrolment bursting at the seams, its buildings are being stacked higher & higher (more storeys added on).

      And they are cramped as land is a scarce. No precious space can be spared for a basketball court much less a football field.

      And what I say about RT is relevant. He’s like a walking advertisement of the Chinese parents’ fear. Any surfing on the Net will reveal Chinese general sentiments against him (unanimously negative) & he gripes a lot about it himself in his writings.

      As for HY, I stand by my views that you Malays are more than welcome to her type. Again, this (whether her type is prevalent or as rare as a flying chicken) is open to empirical testing.

      If a Chinese converts to Islam & thereafter wears a tudung, I’ve no issues at all. But you can send thousands of field surveyors throughout the peninsula to collect data on how many Chinese women have a fetish for wearing tudung. None will be sighted. She’s a grotesque aberration.

      3. (c) Two-way street & adjusting. The element of tyrannical coercion deters efforts to accommodate. Take the reaction to 2 fiascos:

      (i) When the Star published its first apology for printing the picture of pork ribs in its Dining supplement tagged ‘Ramadan Delights’, the apology was not considered enough. There were demos. And The Star had to issue a second & this time a most grovelling apology.

      (ii) When IA made the white angpow insult, a number of Malays could not even see that he had done anything wrong.

      Let’s grant that both Star & IA made the mistake inadvertently. There was about equal public uproar from Malays & Chinese in each case. There was demand for an apology in both cases.

      But the force brought to bear on either was different. IA’s ‘apology’ (1x) – if you could call it that as it neither contained the word ‘sorry’ nor ‘apologize’ – was selambe aje.

      The Star‘s apology (2nd time) was demanded to be made on the front page as the earlier one was not considered prominent enough or apologetic enough. The Star‘s faux pax went all the way up to the highest levels of govt. & its editor-in-chief was hauled up by the Ministry.

      Perhaps the Star-IA incidents illustrate your statement that “So should the minorities in Malaysia adjust to the ways of the majority Malays”.

      Buut when this adjustment comes about from being taught lessons (like Star & like how IA learned that white is funeral envelope) through such an acrimonious process, then the resistance to adjusting is most understandable.

      Postscript: The pressure brought to bear on The Star also included threats of violence (c.f. church bombings) whereas while IA suffered verbal abuse, he would not realistically fear that someone would physically set upon him in retaliation. You say two-way street but I see lopsidedness.

      1. 1. Your understanding of democracy is interesting, or shall I say different from mine. Both Cameron and Merkel actually refer to Muslim, so what do you propose? UK has sharia law and many US state propose bill to ban sharia, you think US is wonderful right? Let us see first where are you are coming from than we discuss again on Muslim in Europe and US, we can talk veil, mosque, language, religion and many aspects.

  12. Many comments raised that need commenting on. Let me give a general response first and, time permitting, will go into specifics in due course.

    First, the basis of our discussions must be no other than the Constitution of the country. It’s the highest set of laws of the land, all other laws emanate from it and cannot contradict it – they become ultra vires, null and void.

    Interpretation of the Constitution must be by experts in constitutional law who are not politically biased. For example, quotes from the now politically active Dr Aziz Bari (he’s no longer referred to as Professor unless he has a professor’s job in another university or a Professor Emeritus) may be suspect, but perhaps not those of Professor Shad Faruqi.

    The Special Position of the Malays and the Bumiputeras of Sabah and Sarawak is not negotiable, period. If non-Malays question the Special Positon and the NEP which was derived from that Special Position, it’ll bring the reaction of questioning the citizenship right of the non-Malays as well, and that’s not good for anybody. The Special Position is that which is spelled out in Article 153 of the Constitution.

    When the Constitution was discussed and approved by Parliament, it is not relevant, even unacceptable, to ask “Which other country in the world privileges one race above any other by law?” Note that each country has its own peculiarities based on their respective history. Britain has a Parliamentary Monarchy whereas the US is a Republic. The laws that were designed to protect the Malaysian system of Parliamentary Monarchy and the institution of the Malay Rulers cannot be touched. It is futile to do so and it’ll only disturb goodwill and harmony among the races which we badly need until we have a strong government that can bring about unity, parity in economy, education etc and a Bangsa Malaysia that no longer needs identification by ethnic origins except for legal and medical purposes.

    Those laws that provide the legal avenues for bridging the economic and educational gap between the 70% Malays and Bumiputeras of Sabah and Sarawak and the 23% Chinese must stay. Those laws were brought into being in a democratic manner. Those policies designed to “restructure society” and to level the playing field to reduce the feelings of envy, jealousy, and begrudging among the 70% Malays and Bumiputeras of Sabah and Sarawak should not be faulted in concept but only in implementation.

  13. Typos and thoughts not translated into action in my comments above include the 17.Anon comment @ 7.01 pm – the word “comments” in the 1st para should have been “points”.

    Helen’s comment @ 4.27 pm –

    It’s certainly far-fetched to equate a Constitution containing a Special Position for the Malays and the Bumiputeras of Sabah and Sarawak with apartheid or racism. It’s even unfair.

    Here is a Constitution that was drafted by the colonial British Parliamentary draftsmen, put to Parliament, debated and approved by the representatives of practically all the racial groups in the country, once at Merdeka in 1957 and another at the formation of Malaysia in 1963 – it was agreed by the entire population of the country in a democratic and fair manner. Now, why should that be called racist or apartheid? Let us remember that we must always be guided by the Constitution – the highest set of laws of the country.

    That “This SP thing is open to people of Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Yemeni” must also be looked at from what has been provided in the Constitution – the definition of Malays, the basic ingredients being habitually speaking the Malay language, practicing the Islamic religion and the Malay way of life or culture. These would include Ridhuan Tee who is a Muslim and has a Malay wife and habitually speaks BM and practices the Malay way of life at home and elsewhere.

    That Islam is one of the criteria for defining the Malays was based on the fact that all Malays, as the term referred to in 1957, were Muslims, and Islam was taken into, and clearly stated in the Constitution, as the religion of this country.

    1. (1) FedCon drafted by colonial British — agree. Agreed to by everyone? — nope.

      It was agreed to by MCA that represented tauke interests. In fact, MCA founder Tan Cheng Lock was a Baba who did not speak any Chinese — source HERE. There were objections to 153 in FedCon from other Chinese.

      While Umno was chosen by the Brits to represent Malays, the Malay leftists who were a political force too at that time were left out. (See Dr Syed Hussein Husin Ali writings.)

      (2) Did all the Sabahans & Sarawakians agree? re: FedCon amended to incl. them under Art. 153

      Even today the interior of Borneo still inaccessible. How many of the natives actually agreed? Were they asked? (Postscript: I meant was ‘everyone’ asked in a referendum?)

      It was a decision by the powers that be. The British colonialists acted in the same way high-handed way they did when the decided to split the Indian subcontinent into India & Pakistan & cross-transferred entire populations. Brunei balked at being absorbed into Malaya.

      Some of the native Sabahans today think that 1963 was their Nakba.

      (3) RT ‘Malay’ by constitutional def. — agree. Like I said before, the Malays are welcome to him.

      (4) “based on the fact that all Malays, as the term referred to in 1957, were Muslims”. It codified a reality at that time — agree. But this (Article 160) is a straightjacket.

      What about people of the Malay archipelago in Bali? They’re Hindus. The Malay inhabitants of the peninsula before the takeover of Islam in the 1400s? It’s only been 600 years since all Malays are Muslim.

      For thousands of years before that, the Deutro Malays were not Muslim.

      1. If you talk about “There were objections to 153 in FedCon from other Chinese”, the Malays can talk about “There were many Malays who object to giving free citizenship to the Chinese”. So what now? Surely we must not talk irresponsibly.

        You asked “Did all the Sabahans & Sarawakians agree (to the formation of Malaysia)?” How about those who agreed? Were they not the majority? Can you show proof that those who disagreed were in the majority or even constitute a substantial number? The Red Indians disagreed to being pushed out into the Indian Reservations in USA. So we call the Russians, Europeans and everybody else to tell the Americans to reverse their actions?

        You said “Even today the interior of Borneo still inaccessible. How many of the natives actually agreed? Were they asked?” Come on, Helen, surely you know it was not a referendum, as such a procedure was not possible then, even now, by your very own words “interior .. inaccesible”. Indeed it was a “determination of the wishes of the people of Sabah and sarawak” by “the powers that be” via consultations, the Cobbold Commission etc. So what? Call the United Nations to disband, bring back the Iraq of Saddam Hussein, the Germany of Adolf Hitler, the Palestine without Israel, the Malaya without Francis Light and Stamford Raffles? How far back do we go? And not respect the Constitution?

        It’s largely the pendatangs who instigated the locals and it led you to say “Some of the native Sabahans today think that 1963 was their Nakba.” Largely the DAP, as PKR and PAS came into Sabah and Sarawak only recently, not listened to by the locals and fared badly in the the last PRN.

        Yes, exercising my discretion, I omitted 1-2 paragraphs in my earlier c&p:

        “Pendatangs refer to those who were brought in by the British who they called “coolies” to work in the tin mines, rubber and pepper plantations and in railway construction beginning from the late 19th Century. And those others who came not as coolies.

        It should be noted that differences in religion do not preclude the Aslis and the non-Muslim Bumiputeras from being of the Rumpun Melayu stock. After all, the Muslim Malays were largely Hindu in religion or animistic before the advent of Islam in this region in the 13th Century.”

        1. (1) I said “There were objections to 153 in FedCon from other Chinese” b’cos given our politics today, I think it’s pertinent to be reminded that MCA should not be regarded as synonymous with the Chinese voice or protecting Chinese (meaning ordinary, not business) interests.

          Prior to 2008 tsunami, we were indoctrinated by the formula Umno=Malay, MCA=Chinese, MIC=Indian but the position of MCA today at least enables us to imagine that in 1957 MCA would not have been entirely supported by the Chinese (e.g. communist sympathizers, socialists, etc)

          The flip side: “the Malays can talk about ‘There were many Malays who object to giving free citizenship to the Chinese’.” Fine with me for you that say that — it’s fact & perhaps the Firsters should be reminded of this too.

          (2) Good. So fact then: There was no referendum in Sabah & S’wak to ask the people whether they wanted to merge with Malaya.

          (3) Sabah Nakba. Agree with you about Pakatan venturing into Borneo politics, but hey, Umno entered Sabah earlier. But even before the last couple of years, the non-Muslims were reeling from Project M.

          (4) Just a shot in the dark: I used to look forward to reading Anon’s comments in FMT. Quality commentator I’d thought. :)

      2. Sis, let’s build a united and cohesive Bangsa Malaysia where one day we need not be identified by our ethnic origins except for legal and medical purposes, and get out of this rut called Bangsa Rojak, shall we?

        We must start together and always remember that a bad or unacceptable deed always breeds another. Let’s put 13 May behind us and avoid those factors that led to it, as explained by The Report prepared by the National Operations Council or MAGERAN, in late 1969.

        We must exist as a nation called Malaysia, not Little Malay Kpg Baru, Little China in Bukit Bintang, Little India in Brickfields – ok to have them but don’t accentuate the differences among us.

        We must be guided by the Constitution and go to history only to understand our past, not to find faults with our Constitution that has been accepted by the majority of the people.

        Meanwhile, best wishes to you and all the readers here.

      3. I can’t understand why most Chinese in Malaysia are pre-occupied with issues concerning NEP and affirmative action. I hate it when they complain about being ‘second class citizens’.

        Don’t they see that in the SEA region, the Malaysian chinese are actually more privileged? Former governments in Thailand, Indonesia and Burma have tried to suppress their Chinese minorities.

        In Thailand, chinese people were forced to adopt Thai names. Chinese vernacular schools were banned. In the early 1900’s, the Thai PM, who was partially Chinese himself, forced Chinese businesses to pay extra taxes. Many chinese owned corporations were subject to discriminatory control or were forcibly taken over. It was a similar story in Burma and Indonesia.

        But look who are now the economically dominant groups in those SEA countries? None other than the Chinese communities. Who are the labourers and beggars in the streets of those countries?

        Have you visited those SEA nations and seen their level of poverty? At the same time, ask yourselves who are the elite in those countries? In Thailand, they have had 3 successive PM who are of Chinese ancestry. Nearly all their wealthiest are fully or partially Chinese.

        Malaysians should realize that despite the controls enacted by the Thai, Indonesian and Burmese governments, the Chinese still succeeded. Clearly, the Chinese still knew who they were. They just needed to look at facial features and customs to identify each other. And from there, they managed to drive their business dealings and associations further underground, away from government or public scrutiny.

        As of now, I WANT the vernacular schools to exist. I WANT the Chinese to continue to speak Mandarin, Canto, Teochew, Hakka. That way, I know who I am dealing with. I don’t want them to ‘assimilate’ because I know they never will. Also, their concept of ‘assimilation’ means it would be harder to enact policies that re-distribute wealth. Is that what the Chinese in Malaysia want? For them to always be at the top of the economic pile? Or is that what the new Liberal Malays want because they have some feelings akin to ‘white guilt’?

        I was in Monterey Park California a few weeks ago. I saw so many Chinese ghettoise themselves in that area. It isn’t “China Town,” it is “China City”. Their local officials are Chinese. But of course, their ghettos are much more affluent than the black ghettoes of Compton.

        I want the Malaysian government to continue their ‘race based’ policies because it helps protect the interests of the brown-skinned people, while acknowledging the challenges faced by the yellow-skinned people and the ‘black’ skinned people. We all know that in the end, it is the skin color that is immutable and most visible.

        It is good that Malays/Bumis see the need to remove some forms of affirmative action. But I think many Malays/Bumis also see the need to maintain NEP until there exists greater equity at all levels of society. This may take several more generations!

        I am disgusted when Chinese friends complain that they are ‘second class citizens’. Yet these same people live in nice condominiums or landed houses and drive nice Japanese or European cars. Some of them occupy high positions even in Malay dominated GLCs. How did they get there? I am sure it was through careful political maneuvering within each organization. For example, they know never to critique their own – Helen, you are the exception that proves the rule – They also know how to divert attention away from their own failings by making ‘outsiders’ look bad or incompetent. See LGE.

        So it is completely disingenuous for the Chinese in Malaysia to complain.

        Having visited and worked in many SEA countries, and having interacted with many professionals from those countries, I can say that Malaysia’s model is clearly superior. It provides nearly everyone with an equal chance.

        Malaysian Chinese should be more appreciative. Or they should do what many of their brethren have done, which is leave Malaysia entirely.

        The issue of who were the original ‘indigenous people’ is moot. I don’t care who the deutro/proto Malays were. This issue is for anthropologists to argue, not policy makers or politicians or even bloggers. It is irrelevant in today’s context. So, helen, please don’t bring it up. It’s like grasping at straws. Who were the original North Americans? Former Asiatics from Siberia. Do Black Americans deserve 40 acres and a mule? No. Do Native Americans have permanent seats in the senate or house of rep? No. These historical or anthropological arguments have no bearing on today’s political reality.

        I think the only chance for the Chinese to gain more control in Malaysia is for them to increase their population by 10-20%. This is highly unlikely.

        So let’s face the facts. And just work with what we have.

        If you have time, study Brazil. They are now trying to help those of African descent using affirmative action policies. Of course, the Brazilians with Caucasian features are against affirmative action because they stand to lose the most. Most of them willingly choose to ignore the fact their wealth grew on the backs of indentured labor coming from the under privileged African minority.

        As stiglitz wrote, “Those who are concerned about inequality see much of it arising out of luck — the luck of being born with good genes or rich parents or the luck of buying a piece of real estate at the right time… Those who are less concerned feel that wealth is a reward for hard work.”

  14. Helen’s comment @ 4.27 pm –

    Whatever the conditions were in 1957 and during the years of negotiations for self rule and independence prior to 1957, the fact remains that our leaders secured independence from the British, and a constitution had been debated and approved by Parliament. We must respect and abide by that Constitution. That which was and is forever important – it requires 2/3 Parliamentary majority to amend, and those provisions protected by the Sedition Act (which includes citizenship) cannot even be discussed, let alone be amended.

    We must therefore protect it to the best of our ability, amend it only when it’s absolutely necessary, and certainly not willy nally for the purposes of garnering votes, and never allow those who have beliefs contrary to the principles and values enshrined in the Constitution treat lightly, damage or remove the pertinent and sacrosanct aspects like the Special Position and citizenship rights. Doing those will only court disaster.

    We must value life with a Constitution, a Parliament and a democratically elected government always. Note that in Fiji where the British colonialists allowed the immigrants to outnumber the local Fijians, even when the political party comprising largely of immigrants won the general elections, they could not rule – the Military grabbed power and ruled by decrees. We have had the experience of rule by the democratically elected government and Parliament suspended for nearly 2 years when race riots broke out in 1969, curfews imposed and soldiers patrolled the streets. And there is no use in hounding the “fear factor” when what should be done is sounding out the need to respect and abide by the Constitution for long term peace and harmony in the country.

    No intentional or planned discrimination exists to “deliberately exclude Chinese & Indians” or cause “the statelessness of poor Indians (i.e. till today no ID papers, can’t register for school, etc).” These are acts and omissions which were largely of the public and not of the Government – these have been explained in the reports on the Minister of Home Affairs presenting citizenship certificates to the applicants who could not furnish proof of citizenship entitlement, many of whose parents did not have their births registered for one reason or another, including living in far-away rubber or oil palm estates. Note that even in Malay kampongs, as late as 30-40 years ago, there were 1-2 parents who deliberately delayed registering the birth of their children – so that “nanti anak aku lebih pandai dalam kelas” because of being older!

    Interesting that you should bring up Fiji — where a democratically elected-Indian party govt. was illegally unseated in a military coup by the non-Indian (i.e. indigenous) Fijians. So Race interests will not allow for democracy to run its course? — Helen

  15. My 17. Anon comment –

    What was drafted by the colonial British Constitutional Law experts were not simply their own ideas, thoughts and wants. They were based on the discussions the British had with the Malay Rulers and leaders of the various communities in the country over aperiod of years. More importantly, they were the result of the deliberate negotiations on independence between the British and the Malaysian delegation in Kuala Lumpur and London.

    There were of course a lot of one-to-one, behind-the-scenes talks and discussions, cajoling and arm-twisting all those years prior to the 1957 Independence of Malaya, and later, the formation of Malaysia Agreements. What is significant is that an important and highly legal instrument – the Constitution – was democratically adopted by Parliament, and hence by the country and its people, in 1957. That must be respected and adhered to fully and by everybody.

    Helen’s comment @ 4.27 pm –

    On the 1Sekolah, the “Kempen SSS” blog (just google that and you’ll get there) explains fully the hopes and aspirations of those behind the Kempen for single stream education or Satu Sekolah Untuk Semua (SSS). Go to the Fact Sheet pages for ease and speed of understanding what they are about. That which DS Najib has said in his blog “will be implemented when the rakyat wants it”, although he did not say how to determine whether the rakyat wants it now or not – he was vague, and even gave financial grants to Chinese schools, because of PRU13.

    The Kempen SSS calls for the creation of a united and cohesive “Bangsa Malaysia” (instead of a Bangsa Rojak that we have in Malaysia now) through the single school type of education where no children will be isolated among only their own kind – as still happens in the majority of vernacular schools now – but have the opportunity to mingle with children of all ethnicity, experience real-life mixing with other races, study and play with one another, develop common hopes and aspirations in Sekolah Kebangsaan. The hype about increasing SRJKC enrolment is not justified both in terms of number of schools and in terms of real benefits, especially for the Malays, as those trading with China will surely prefer Malaysian Chinese to represent them. And trade with China is not the only important segment of trade for this country.

    The 1Sekolah must occur sooner or later for the creation of a united Bangsa Malaysia. What has been there since British colonial times (vernacular schools) does not mean it is right. BM is the language of the country as per Article 152 of the Constitution. All schools should have BM as the medium of instruction. Mandarain and Tamil can be studied as elective subjects in SK. The vernacular schools should be merged with the SK, the teachers and staff absorbed into the national education system, the assets negotiated with the Government such that no one has to lose anything out of such an exercise, and only the Constitution of the country gains – respect by ALL the citizens.

    And Kua Kia Soong’s claims about the school “bursting at the seams” are very much DAP talk. Can any one in his right mind believe a man who wrote about the race riots of 13 May 1969 being caused by the all-time revered PM Tun A Razak, that he tried to project in his book? Isn’t that part of an attempt to re-write the history of this country, much like the Chinese in China had, for thousands of years, been doing to the history of China? Isn’t that an attempt to deflect DAP’s responsibility for the race riots? Can we therefore attach any significance to whatever he claims about vernacular schools?

    1. (1) 1Sekolah “will be implemented when the rakyat wants it”. The SSS petition has only garnered 3,000+ signatures despite all the heavy promotion. Look at this petition I signed — it’s a small local initiative but it got 1/3 the number of signatures (compare SSS petition) in a fraction of the time.

      (2) The Bangsa M’sia ‘aspiration’ of SSS – “where no children will be isolated among only their own kind”. Have you had a look at UiTM, MRSM, sekolah asrama & sekolah agama enrolment?

      Chinese schools are open to non-Chinese (enrolment about 60,000 non-Chinese or 10%). MRSM in a generous year allowed 255 Chinese to Form 4 (HERE).

      (3) Chinese schools bursting at the seams is not Dr Kua’s imagination, so pls don’t shoot the messenger. The data (below from MOE) prove his claim.

      Year – No. of SRJK (C)
      1970 – 1,346
      1980 – 1,312
      1988 – 1,312 (same as in 1980)
      1990 – 1,290
      2000 – 1,284
      2004 – 1,287

      Over the last 35 years, the number of Chinese schools have shrunk because the govt does not all new ones to be built.

      In 1970, there were 3,118,000 Chinese in the pop. & 1,346 SRJK (C)

      In 2005, there were 6,150,000 Chinese in the pop. & 1,287 SRJK (C)

      The Chinese pop. in absolute numbers doubled but the schools decreased by about 60.

      So whether one objects to the existence of vernacular schools or not, let’s at least be true to the objective fact that SRJK (C) are indeed overcrowded.

      (4) We can discuss Dr Kua’s book on May 13 another day. Too much acrimony still in the air from discussion on white angpow & Jalan Kebun.

      1. One ringgit to SJKC is one ringgit less to Sekolah Kebangsaan. Sekolah Kebangsaan is for all Malaysian, while SJKC is only for Chinese (non-Chinese is a minority in SJKC). With low standard of education in SJKC, rote learning, and racist element in it, why should government spend more on SJKC? It should be abolished when the Chinese decided to accept Malaysian citizenship 50 years ago.

  16. It has been acknowledged that the signatures, which came in steadily at first, tapered when DS Najib started visiting Chinese schools and giiving financal grants to a few of them to get votes, including at PRK Hulu Selangor (though not responded to in terms of votes by those concerned), giving the impression that nothing can be expected from him in respect of Sekolah Satu Aliran until after PRU13.

    But making History compulsory in schools was adopted and will be a reality in 2013. That idea was incorporated in the Kempen SSS.

    Don’t worry, I won’t shoot the messenger – at most, I just state my arguments, give the hard, cold facts and ask poignant questions.

    The numbers you gave do not prove “bursting at the seams” but I accept that there are very limited spaces in Chinese schools. I also have numbers provided by MOE to justify my arguments but agree with you, another time.

    “I just state my arguments, give the hard, cold facts and ask poignant questions.” — Good. People like you can influence me to rethink & to modify my opinions (if your hard, cold facts are convincing). The Ibrahim Ali & the Firster approach won’t budge me. Cheers. — Helen

  17. “Good. People like you can influence me to rethink & to modify my opinions”

    Sorry i don’t think so. The logic and contention defy basic human aspire and needs. It was purely argument for argument sake. Do you really care or believe in anything that even cast in stone? I am not, no matter how one criticize multiculturalism, the world is moving toward this direction, and who the hell is Cameron and Merkel to declare what is dead. All Malaysian PM agree to vernacular school, why not we agree on this as well?

    1. Anon are like most malays living under the perceived economic dominance of the chinese. They over-react.

      When Najib and his BN team started to give financial aid to chinese families considered the urban poor, I was quite surprised! I didn’t know that RM3000 and below is considered ‘poor’ in KL.

      Much more surprising to me was the fact there are poor chinese in KL?? Good on BN for drawing attention to that.

      The opposition should just come out and say it. There are poor and disadvantaged chinese.

      I think the Chinese community in malaysia are too proud to accept this new reality. The economic balance is shifting…

      1. “the perceived economic dominance of the chinese”?

        How long have you been away, man? Do visit Malaysia from time to time so that, when you walk, you do so on the ground – wherever you may be.

      2. Yes, I’ve been away for several years, and whenever I come back I’m sorta given the ‘guided tour’.

        Malays need to voice up. If it is really true that their situation hasn’t gotten better then complain online and make sure you flood the comments sections of open forums (like Helen’s), not closed ones like TMI, Mkini, Mchr etc… Complain to authorities to investigate those sites thoroughly. Gather evidence!

        It’s amazing how many opposition websites there are.. Who funds these sites? Who pays for their ‘reporters’ to make so many articles in a day, more than the theStar, NST, Bharian etc.. Is there a foreign link?

      3. You really have been missing a lot, mate. Good that you are at least trying to catch up by participating in blogs like this. I hope you’ll continue writing in a positive manner as far as creating unity in this country is concerned.

        Try also blogs like Jebat Must Die, Kempen SSS, etc. I also recommend Demi Negara, a blog that of late has taken a rest, but has lengthy but engaging posts entitled “Racial Polarization and the Need for a United Bangsa Malaysia” (or words to that effect) and “At Last Some One With the Testicular Fortitude” that stick out crying for unity in this country, written in quite a hard hitting manner.

        Thanks to NEP, more and more Malays now have the educational and the financial means to complain online etc but a vast majority of them are in Government or semi-Government service and are not expected to engage in public discourse. The rest can ill afford the laptop and/or the internet access fees.

        Of course the Opposition blogs get foreign funding, including form one or other of the so-called organizations promoting democracy, arranged or encouraged by the Opposition leader/ ex-Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim whose Parti Keadilan Rakyat doesn’t even practice basic democracy like free elections of party leaders – fellow UMNO run-away Minister Zaid Ibrahim bolted out of the party in disgust with the PKR election procedures not long ago.

        That Malaysikini, for example, received funds from such sources said above was stated during the run-up to the Bersih 2.0 Rally last year when even the Police spoke about such funds being channeled to several bank accounts of the leader.

        There have of course been allegations that the overseas sources of the funds being linked with the “Israeli Lobby” which one Professor from Harvard and another from the University of Chicago jointly wrote as having “unmatched power” in the US. Since you are in the US and we need our unity not messed up by them, try grab their balls sometimes, if you can!

  18. 10 million USD is alot to share amongst you people Helen….What a shame…being bought over just that….chehh!!

    Yawn. That’s the best that you Pakatan kaki putar alam can come up with? Hullo, your S’gor Aduns are the ones clearly getting millions in allocation & funding (receipted) & hiring 1/2 doz. PAs & polsecs per pax & here you are clutching at straws. — Helen

  19. Salam sejahtera Ms. Helen Ang,

    Orang islam beriman tidak memanggil seorang yang lain dengan kata-kata yang tidak enak;

    Orang islam beriman juga dituntut tidak merendah-rendahkan agama yang lain, Rasulullah SAW mengajar kita demikian agar penganut agama lain tidak pula mengutuk-ngutuk agama islam;

    Kejadian seperti di KFC tersebut hanyalah gambaran manusia Melayu dan Cina yang ‘berpenyakit hati’;.

    Namawee ada penyakit hati? Ya;

    Wajarkah kita menggelar dia dengan panggilan yang tidak enak, tidak;

    Dalam hal ini, pemimpin masyarakat harus berperanan memimpin, bukan menghasut;

    Dalam hal ini DAP pula menjadi racun dan minyak.;

    DAP penuh dengan orang yang berpenyakit;

    Ada orang UMNO juga kononnya bergerak atas NGO pun berpenyakit;

    Bagaimana Malaysia ini di masa hadapan, dipenuhi dengan orang yang berpenyakit? Aggota masyarakat hingga kepada orang politik berpenyakit;

    Semuanya Asal Dapat Undi.

Comments are closed.