Alifah Ting binti Abdullah’s testimony directed “khususnya buat Presiden Isma, umumnya buat kaum Cina” – which is only about 400 words – caused the Dapster-evangelistas to go criminally berserk.
Since her statement is fairly short, I’m going to dissect it line by line and we shall see whether the ‘problem’ is with Alifah or it is with the Dapster-evangelistas.
BELOW: The DAP evangelista YBs
(1) Alifah writes: “Saya adalah anak kepada bangsa pendatang ke Tanah Melayu suatu ketika dahulu sebelum merdeka.”
Is there anything factually wrong with this, her sentence? None that I can see. She pins a time frame “before Merdeka” and a locus “Tanah Melayu”.
The Dapster-evangelistas probably saw red at the word “bangsa pendatang” or immigrant race.
Oh, come on lah. Face facts.
Pre-1957, the Chinese were not Malayan citizens bar a handful who applied in 1946 and 1948 whereas the Straits Settlement Chinese resided in the British crown colonies and were proud to declare themselves subjects of the English King (later subjects of Queen Elizabeth II).
And if Alifah is referring to her own forebears and their arrival here, what’s the issue? It’s her personal family history.
(2) She wrote: “Saya juga adalah anak kepada serpihan kaum Cina yang memilih bernaung di Tanah Melayu suatu ketika dahulu di bawah pimpinan orang Melayu beragama Islam.”
She is still referring to Tanah Melayu. At one period in time, i.e. 1948 to 1957, that was what this land was officially called. The federation was created with the signing of the Perjanjian Persekutuan Tanah Melayu.
(3) She wrote: “Saya juga anak cucu kepada penandatangan kontrak sosial di antara Umno, MCA & MIC.”
See point (8) below.
(4) Alifah wrote: “Saya juga serpihan kaum Cina yang mempunyai kad kewarganegaraan Malaysia (Tanah Melayu) yang sah bukan warganegara China.”
The above is plain fact and can’t be disputed.
(5) She wrote: “Dan sebagaimana datuk nenek saya iaitu kaum Cina dulu datang ke Tanah Melayu untuk bernaung di Tanah Melayu, berada di bawah kepimpinan kaum Melayu (Islam), begitulah saya sekarang dan selamanya akan terus bernaung di bawah kepimpinan kaum Melayu (Islam).”
If the latter – “bernaung di bawah kepimpinan kaum Melayu-Islam” – is what Alifah desires, then it is her democratic right. She can vote for Umno in the general election or for PAS or her own Isma if they’re contesting.
About the kaum Melayu
Any Chinese living in Terengganu, Kelantan, Perlis, Pahang and Kedah are – practically speaking – living under the rule of the Malays. The “Bumiputera” population in the aforementioned states are 97.0%, 95.7%, 88.4%, 79.0% and 77.9% respectively.
If you’re living in Penang, then you’re not under the rule of the Malays lah. You’re under the rule of the Developers Above People party.
But not to worry, the DAP loves orang Melayu too.
Why did Alifah hit so many raw nerves?
The “Bumiputera” population in the other states are Malacca (66.9%), Negeri Sembilan (61.3%), Johor (58.9%), Selangor (57.1%), Perak (57.0%) and Kuala Lumpur-FT (45.9%).
All the figures above are taken from the 2010 census. In most of the states, Bumiputera can be assumed to be almost synonymous with the entire Malay population with the exception of Pahang and Perak that have Orang Asli populations.
Since ethnicity is sneakily conflated under the Bumiputera umbrella by the sneaky Statistics Department, and we’re not provided with a breakdown of the split between Melayu and pribumi in Sabah and Sarawak, we’re thus unable to address Alifah’s statement vis-a-vis the Malays in these two Bornean states.
Returning to the peninsula, we see that Negeri Sembilan, Johor, Selangor and Perak are states which have the Raja-Raja Melayu. Therefore, if you lived in Kelantan, Terengganu, Perlis, Pahang, Kedah, Negeri Sembilan, Johor, Selangor and Perak, you are – to all intents and purposes – under the rule of the Malays.
Go on, try to imagine that you’re residing in Terengganu where the Malay population is 97 percent.
Only in Penang, Malacca and the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur can it be said that you’re not under Malay rule, practically and technically speaking.
So why should the Dapster-evangelistas go ballistic on Alifah for bringing up this matter of Malay rule?
(6) Alifah wrote: “Untuk kaum Cina, ‘di mana bumi dipijak disitu langit dijunjung’.”
The Dapster-evangelistas went thermonuclear because they did not want her to speak on their behalf (“untuk kaum Cina“).
I guess they are the meludah-ke-langit types and hence Alifah and her tahu-langit-tinggi-rendah attitude struck a jarring note for them. Aaah, now we know.
(7) Alifah wrote: “Jika rasa tidak mampu untuk bertolak ansur dan punya rasa hormat seperti mana datuk nenek moyang kita dahulu …”
Have the Dapster-evangelistas got any problem with this bit about “bertolak ansur”, “punya rasa hormat”? I suppose the Dapster-evangelistas are mostly cucu-cicit komunis, so for their datuk nenek, the words bertolak ansur dan punya rasa hormat were in not in the vocabulary.
BELOW: Wow, impressed with DAP Serdang MP Ong Kian Ming’s Islamic vocabulary — “sahur”, “imsak”, “Insya Allah”, “Alhamdulilah” …
(8) Continues from the above sentence: “… yang dengan rela hati menandatangi kontrak sosial dan berada di bawah pimpinan tuan punya tanah sekarang (Malaysia) iaitu kaum Melayu (Islam), rasanya elok juga untuk memohon kewarganegaraan China iaitu bukan warganegara Malaysia.”
Is there a Social Contract to begin with? Revert to point No.3 above. Was the social contract signed between Umno and MCA and MIC?
The closest concept to this idea of a Social Contract would be the drafting of the Federal Constitution that spelled out the Special Position of the Malays (and later added, the natives of Sabah and Sarawak) where the Alliance gave its input and petitioned in London.
Are the Dapster-evangelistas disputing Article 153 of the FedCon? If they are, please be open and upfront about it, okay. “Bukan lepas baling batu sorok tangan, no.. that is not Isma!”, cries Alifah.
Unfortunately baling batu sorok tangan is the method favoured by the Chinese voters who have been denying the GE13 tsunami every which way they can.
(9) Alifah wrote: “Sebabnya dari dulu, kini dan selamanya Malaysia akan menjadi hak milik orang Melayu (Islam). Jadi corak kepimpinan mesti mengikut orang Melayu (Islam).”
Why must this upset the Dapster-evangelistas in any way? Penang is not majority orang Melayu (Islam) and yet the state willingly styles itself a Caliphate under Saidina Umar ‘Lim’ Abdul Aziz.
Furthermore, Penang under Lim Guan Eng had put up big billboards everywhere extolling the Islamic motto ‘Amar makruf nahi mungkar’.
Now if Penang – which is not Malay majority and is on the other hand ruled by the so-called secular DAP – can be in the forefront of adopting “corak kepimpinan mesti mengikut orang Melayu (Islam)”, I don’t see why the Dapster-evangelistas are kicking up a fuss at Alifah for saying the same.
Even in Selangor, the Puan Speaker has constantly graced the mosques and suraus with her exalted presence.
BELOW: Evangelista Puan Speaker Hannah Yeoh in masjid
(10) Alifah wrote: “Saya Cina dan yang paling saya bangga adalah saya mula mengenali Islam dan terbuka hati untuk menjadi Muslim setelah mengenali pejuang-pejuang Isma dan melalui tarbiyyah mereka, Melayu Sepakat Islam Berdaulat & Membangun Umat Beragenda …”
Wonderful, dear girl.
Similarly we’re all waiting with bated breath for Hannah Yeoh to “mengenali Islam dan terbuka hati untuk menjadi Muslim“. After all, she already looks the part. And over six long years already.
BELOW: Hannah Yeoh in her Muslimah get-up
(11) Alifah wrote: “Kontrak sosial kita pertahankan, ISLAM kita tegakkan.”
She is in good company.
The DAP goes around everywhere telling Malays that their evangelista YBs will tegakkan Islam too.
(12) In conclusion, Alifah wrote: “Kami (kaum Cina yang tahu asal usul kami dan bagaimana kami boleh berada di Malaysia-kontrak sosial) menyokong Isma dengan sebulat suara dan tekad. Saya bangga dengan tarbiyyah Isma dan insyaallah selamanya akan bersama dengan perjuangan mereka.”
She said “kami”. She did not say “kita”. She was not including the Malaysiakini Chinese readers in her scheme of things. She supports Isma, they hate Isma … to each his own. Or don’t they believe in democracy and the freedom of association?
BELOW: Different strokes for different folks … Evangelista Hannah Yeoh likes posing like a model wannabe in the mosques
So which is it? Do the DAP leaders love or hate Islam?
Now can somebody tell me again why the lynch mob went after Alifah Ting with their torches and pitchforks?
The Christian DAP leaders love Malays so much and love Islam even more (so much so that they’ve even set up camp in the mosques) but yet their followers hate a Chinese convert to the point of profanities. It does not compute, eh?
And after all, Alifah does admit that she is a Chinese. Hannah Yeoh, on the other hand, outright denies that she is a Chinese (see her tweet below).
So what were the Dapster-evangelistas foaming at the mouth for when they screeched at Alifah that one cannot change one’s race?
The diatribe about “race traitor” and “denying one’s roots” is better directed at Hannah Yeoh than at Alifah Ting.
A little piece of advice for Alifah: If you’ve found your calling, young lady, then you needn’t let the cyber hit squads deter you. You should just say, with an airy wave of your hand:
“DAP and Christian troops using nasty words on me and my family tree. Racist and distasteful. My response: Salam 1Negara Islam back to all of you!”
Okay, I admit the wording is not my original inspiration but never mind. We thank Puan Speaker kerana sudi bagi petunjuk.