The native Burmese are very hostile to the Rohingya while the Myanmar government takes a hardline position to the extent of refusing to recognize the minority Muslim group as a legitimate ethnicity.
So basically, if Malaysia and any other host country is willing to take the Rohingya, then Myanmar really wouldn’t mind exporting the whole lot of them.
Or to look at it another way, once Malaysia signals that it is soft and willing to open its door to Rohingya immigrants, then you can expect the government of Myanmar to quite happily push its entire Rohingya population out.
Thus the fear of an exodus of Rohingya refugees from Arakan that could flood Malaysia is not really such a far-fetched idea.
(1) Orang asing bebas masuk keluar Burma sepanjang zaman penjajahan British 1824-1948
“During the period between 1824 and the time we regained independence in January 1948, foreigners, or aliens, entered our country unhindered under various pretexts. They came to live in Burma and mainly for economic reasons. The first to come were the English who ruled our country. After them came many of their camp followers.” – Speech by General Ne Win on 8 October 1982
“Between 1826 and 1948, the Rohingya were brought from India by the British during their colonial rule to work in Myanmar.” – Newsweek on 11 May 2015
(2) Sejumlah 135 puak diiktiraf sebagai warganegara bangsa oleh perlembagaan Burma
“Nationals such as the Kachin, Kayah, Karen, Chin, Burman, Mon, Rakhine or Shan and ethnic groups as have settled in any of the territories included within the State as their permanent home from a period anterior to 1185 B.E., 1823 A.D. are Burma citizens.” – Burmese Citizenship Law 1982
(3) Syarat kelayakan dalam undang-undang mengekang Rohingya daripada menjadi warga
“The stipulations of the Burma Citizenship Law governing the right to one of the three types of Burmese citizenship effectively deny to the Rohingya the possibility of acquiring a nationality. Despite being able to trace Rohingya history to the eighth century, Burmese law does not recognize the ethnic minority as one of the national races. Many Rohingya families migrated to and settled in Arakan during the British colonial period which would immediately exclude them from citizenship.” – Human Rights Watch report in May 2000
(4) Istilah ‘Rohingya’ tidak pernah dipakai oleh British dalam mana-mana banci
“… the designation ‘Rohingya’ was completely unknown to the British who administered Arakan from 1826 to 1948. It is not to be found in any of the eight censuses compiled between 1872 and 1941. Nor does it appear in any gazetteers, reports or other official documents, nor yet in private reminiscences and correspondence. This total absence of any British record …” – Derek Tonkin, former British ambassador to Thailand on 17 August 2014
“In Rakhine State, [census] enumeration has not been completed in many households where respondents wanted to record their ethnic group as Rohingya. The Government last week announced that Rohingya would not be allowed as a response despite earlier assurances that everyone could freely self-identify their ethnicity. The Ministry of Immigration and Population asserts it acted to prevent possible bloodshed in the polarized region.” – Cabinet Minister U Khin Yi quoted by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) on 9 April 2014
(5) Presiden Myanmar berkata tidak pernah wujud bangsa bergelar ‘Rohingya’, hanya ada bangsa ‘Bengali’
“In the interview, Thein Sein said the Rohingya, who have lived in Burma for generations, are not a native population. He would not say whether he thinks they deserve citizenship, but he said it is possible if individual Rohingya meet the terms for naturalized citizenship under a 1982 law.
‘There are no Rohingya among the races’ in Burma, Thein Sein said. ‘We only have Bengalis who were brought for farming’ during British rule.” – President Thein Sein in interview with The Washington Post on
(6) Burma melepaskan tanggungjawabnya terhadap Rohingya kepada PBB
“Burma’s presidential office released a statement on Wednesday saying that it wants to hand over responsibility for the Rohingya minority to the UN’s refugee agency in Arakan State, adding that it is also ‘willing to send the Rohingyas to any third country that will accept them.’
“The presidential office said that “it is impossible for Burma to accept people who are not ethnic to the country and who have entered illegally.”
“In its statement, the Burmese government said it wanted ‘to hand over Rohingya people’ to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) which would provide shelter in the form of refugee camps, as well as food and aid.
“The president’s office also offered its version of historical events, saying that the Rohingyas were brought into Burma by British colonialists to work in agriculture. After independence in 1948, many of the migrants settled down in Arakan State and did not return home, it said, adding that many others entered Burma illegally after 1948.
“It went on to say that the Rohingya migration was a ‘threat to national stability and peace‘.” – President of Myanmar’s statement on 12 July 2012
86 thoughts on “Why exodus of one million Rohingya refugees is a real possibility”
Burmese Buddhists are bloody racists. After staying for many generations, the Burmese still refuse to consider the Rohingyas as Burmese Muslims. Just imagine if the Malays refused to give citizenships to Chinese and Indians in M’sia after these people have stayed in the country for many generations. Just imagine. Is it fair? Same case with the Rohingyas.
The Bamar in Myanmar are Muslim and recognized as one of the “national races”.
They’re native Muslim. The Rohingya are not native.
Re: imagine if the Malays refused to give the Chinese the citizenship..
Well, the Chinese in Malaya before independence saw themselves as citizens of Mainland China. Malaya was temporary home. Clannish leaders in Malaya would be recognised by the Qing government and titles conferred by the Qing government for legitimacy as officials of Qing government in Malaya. See the kapitans’ photos, their clothings were of Qing official clothings.
So, if citizenship was not given, most likely they would have return to China.
As for Rohingyas, they should go back to India. Burmese are just exercising democratic principle of majority rules by rejecting Rohingya, are they not? If they are not , why US of A and UK kept quiet?
As for Indians, like Rohingyas, I guess their motherland is not one which is as attractive to them to be called ‘home’, like China to the Chinese. It is not at all a god-forsaken place of course, but the slumps, overpopulation, high corruption rate, high rapists attack rate, etc. etc,. by comparison Malaya would be paradise. Occasionally too, they can be the loudest in shouting corruption in Malaysia as though they have a better way to govern like their counterparts in Tamil Nadu.
“Walk with me, or I won’t walk with you. I am bigger!”
True, there’s a possibility that 20-30 years down the road, Rohingya will be complaining about the lousy Malay gomen just like how the Dapsters are complaining today.
It’s general knowledge by now that Wahhabi Salafi radicalism has perverted the Muslim beliefs of the Bangladeshis and the Rohingyas. The Muslims are fighting against one another if not against the Burmese.
Good point. Should I highlight that the Rohingya might be introducing a harsher and more radical strand of Islam to Malaysia?
Do you have any further reading I can do on this?
The religious beliefs and practices of poor and disenfranchised Rohingya masses – ethnic Indian muslims – are certainly not impervious to neighbouring Bangladeshi wahhabism and their radical behaviours.
“Due to the influence of Wahhabism from Saudi Arabia, “South Asian Islam” began to change when private individuals and the Saudi government poured money into South Asian mosques and madrassas. As a result, many South Asians are now Wahhabis or members of related sects that practice a form of austere Islam similar to the type found in Saudi Arabia. One of these sects is a conservative movement known as the Deobandi movement, which, while indigenous to South Asia, is influenced by Wahhabism. The great rivals of the Deobandis in South Asia are adherents of the Barelvi movement, which was formed in reaction to the Deobandis and seeks to preserve the Islamic practices of South Asia, especially pilgrimages to graves and shrines…….
In Bangladesh, individuals radicalized in Wahhabi-funded mosques have coalesced under the fundamentalist organization Hefazat-e-Islam, which was implicated in the January 2014 incident when its members took to the streets in violent protests and demanded the implementation of Islamic law in Bangladesh.”
“The Deobandi center ended the year with fatwas against – ie. prohibiting – multimedia smartphones and the practice of showing prospective husbands the photographs of those girls seeking to be married.
Indian Muslims view the fatwa antics of Darul Uloom Deoband much like the Saudis have come to regard the similar behavior of Wahhabi “callers to religion.” That is, sensational fatwas are created to gain media attention for the “scholars” that improvise them.
Muslims and non-Muslims in South Asia and elsewhere in the world should understand the identical motive behind the activities of Deobandi and Wahhabi “fatwa factories,” whether originating in medresas or websites. The Deobandis and Wahhabis seek absolute direction over the lives of Sunni Muslims, and, by extension, over all Muslim relations with their non-Muslim neighbors. The aim of “fatwa fanatics” is not religious; it is political and totalitarian.”
Thanks. Will read later.
In the Name of God, the Most Merciful, Most Compassionate
Counsels of M. R. Bawa Muhaiyaddeen, an Indian Sufi saint
“Each of us who came here with wisdom must learn from this school:- Heaven does not come from building beautiful churches, mosques, and temples. Man must build his church, mosque, and temple within himself. The house of God must be built within. The place of worship must be seen within. The completeness of God must be built within the self. If man can understand his story and the story of God and then build a church within himself, that is victory.”
“There are many types of insanity in the world. We will talk about five common ones:
The biological insanity of the brain,
The insanity for women,
The insanity for money,
The insanity for intoxication,
The insanity for wisdom.
“At a crossroads near a park, there stood a shady tree. Five people with these five forms of insanity were sitting beneath the tree, and each was conversing with himself. To the passersby, the five crazy people all looked alike, but there were different reasons for their craziness.
The man who was mentally unsound had picked up scraps of paper and dead leaves from the ground and turned them around in his hands, repeating to himself, “You go this way, you went that way.”
The one obsessed by women also picked up scraps of paper imagning they were love letters. He muttered, “She wrote this, she wrote that. She is saying, ‘I will come to you!’”
The one obsessed by money picked up scraps of paper, looked at them, turned them this way and that, mumbling to himself, “This bank and that bank. This amount, that amount. All my money.”
The one who was obsessed with intoxicants stood up, staggered onto the road, and bumped into people and things. Finally, he fell unconscious by the roadside, and robbers stole his clothes. When he became conscious he was ashamed – he went home, fought with his wife, and blamed his family for his own faults.
Now as for the one who was obsessed by wisdom he took up a dead leaf, smiling wistfully. “What beauty you had when you emerged as a tender shoot. At first you were a soothing green color. Then you turned yellow, and now you are the color of earth. You are dried up and will return to the earth as fertilizer. Everyone and everything suffers the same fate. Everyone and everything becomes food for the earth.” He laughed and he cried… at his own explanation and uttered: “What a life this is! O God, I search for You and become crazy. You are the only doctor who can cure my craziness. If You do not come forth, I will die like the leaf. You are the One who creates, protects, and sustains me. You are the One who understands and knows me. Give me Your medicine of grace, wisdom, and love and fulfill my needs. I am Your slave in this world.” And thereby his heart was opened, and he surrendered to God on High.
The other four obsessed ones did not realize this. Each was expressing his own inner reality. To the world, all five people looked similarly crazy. Son, understand the difference of these states and do not follow the ways of the world. If you see one who truly understands himself, loses himself in search of wisdom, and dies in God, you should respect him and learn about wisdom from him. That will exalt your soul.”
Yang born in ‘British Malaya’ and ‘British Burma’ masa tu citizen siapa? Automatic given or ngaku as British citizen or still stateless?
Overseas citizens of the crown colony, I believe.
Do you remember the fiasco of those Penangites who were under the (false) impression that they were holders of the British overseas citizen passport? They tore up their Malaysian passport and tried to emigrate to the UK, only to be told that while the outdated passport is a travel document, it does not entitle them to live in Britain.
Prior to Merdeka, some small segments of the Penang population – who considered themselves subjects of Queen Elizabeth II – objected to the incorporation of their state into Malaya and tried to secede.
Is it possible that some of the Rohingyan are actually ‘native’ under Myanmar’s law?
I should suppose yes, if they could prove that their forefathers were in Burma BEFORE the year 1823 cut-off line.
An example, lots of Dapsters allege that Ridhuan Tee can convert himself into becoming a bumiputera. Actually he can’t.
He successfully meets the following criteria – Muslim (check), habitually speaks Malay (check), practises Malay customs (check)
but fails the requirement on the year of birth , i.e. need to be born in Malaya before 1957 or born to parents meeting all the criteria as Malay.
So a Chinese convert to Islam post-Merdeka cannot become a bumiputera.
‘So a Chinese convert to Islam post-Merdeka cannot become a bumiputera.’
Many did. My family side got two.
Article 160, “Malay” means a person who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language, conforms to Malay custom and –
(a) was before Merdeka Day born in the Federation or in Singapore or born of parents one of whom was born in the Federation or in Singapore, or was on that day domiciled in the Federation or in Singapore; or
(b) is the issue of such a person
Gotta fulfill the year and place of birth conditions too.
In what way were your relatives by marriage converted to bumiputera?
Saya punya rasis (Malay maa) Tok Su amik anak angkat Cina. Saya punya rasis (Malay maa) Mak Chaq (Auntie) amik satu anak angkat Cina.
How / in what ways did the government recognize them as bumiputera?
That was more than 40-50 years ago Helen, base on their age la, I agak-agak. Taulah, the Melayu rasis bila ambik anak angkat siap buh bin/binti si bapa angkat…
bin dan bintikan bukankah ada hukum nasab?
Betul Helen…I get back to you on this…need to ask my father details dulu
“”“Burma’s presidential office released a statement on Wednesday saying that it wants to hand over responsibility for the Rohingya minority to the UN’s refugee agency in Arakan State, adding that it is also ‘willing to send the Rohingyas to any third country that will accept them.””
So tell the bloody president of Burma that out of the so called 141k so called myanmars here that if that is the case then we to are willing to send back to them them burmese who are buddist and christians to them..If the want to play dirty the we can too.As they say it takes 2 to tango.
They can blatantly dictate what they want to do how come our politicians got no back bone to speak up.,just sit on the time bomb and wait for it to explode.
Singapore cuci tangan Thailand cuci tangan, Phillipines curi curi cuci tangan so in the end whose hands going to end up with all the shit? Malaysia of course
You think Australia or United Kingdom going to help out , think again
They already have set their standards ,maybe some meaning very few.What about the thousands more?
As far as UN is concerned they are just a puppet with no power,
Talk about sanctions against Myanmar that is very remote .
A lot of ppl from many countries making money there so who wants to poke the hoenets nest?
Nip the problem in the bud now !!!!!
British lagi cuci tangan! That’s why earlier I requested HH or Rithmatist or Ambiga to please use their influence to get better equipped ships so these boat people can reach great Britain!
Send those born during British Malaya here to help negotiate and convince Burma and their British lords to help la for the sake of those foreigners/aliens born in British Burma.
They could do as I suggested, i.e. take a leaf from the Hindraf class action suit and sue the British crown for historical grievances.
This solution to this Rohingya issue must begin with Burma and that country should be asked to resolve this issue amicably amongst its own people rather than drive the Rohingya out to other countries.
After all, whatever the history of how they got to be in Burma today, the Rohingya have lived in Burma for generations and Buirma must reconsider its policy of not recognising them as one of its many peoples.
Instead of shirking the issue, people like Aung San Syu Kyi should be calling for Burma’s government to change its stand on its acceptance of the Rohingya as one of its people.
re: “drive the Rohingya out to other countries”
That does seem to be the preferred option of the semi-democratic junta, doesn’t it?
Wrt DRIVING OUT, Czechoslovakia expelled three million ethnic Germans from Sudeten in the aftermath of WWII.
In 1974, some 165,000 Greeks were expelled/fled from the Turkish side of Cyprus whereas 45,000 Turks were expelled/fled from the southern part of the island controlled by the Greeks.
Hindus left Pakistan while Muslims left India during the Partition of the subcontinent, and altogether 10 million people were affected.
Armenians were driven out of Turkey, with one and a half million Armenians perishing between 1915 and 1923 in the Armenian Genocide. An estimated 350,000 Greeks were killed between 1913-1922 in Ottoman Turkey.
Below is the Holocaust table. So it’s not as if massive population transfers or decimation of a particular ethnic group in the population has not happened before in history.
re: “acceptance of the Rohingya as one of its people”
The race and religion gap too wide. Myanmar has got a lot of ethnicities and native Burmese Muslims as well. So what is it about the Rohingya that makes them unacceptable?
Btw, the Rohingya had once tried to annex a part of Rakhine to East Pakistan. That was an act treasonous to Burma.
“Btw, the Rohingya had once tried to annex a part of Rakhine to East Pakistan. That was an act treasonous to Burma.”
I guess that is what complicates matters for them.
This race and religion thing is a never ending problem anywhere in the world.
However much we may not like it, it is very difficult to resolve in the long term.
At least admit that Race and Religion are ‘real’ factors and stop pretending that Umno dan its satellites invented the race card.
What I find most nauseating is the Colour Blind and Beyond Creed posturing, particularly when it’s done by SNEAKY You-Know-Whos.
‘stop pretending that Umno dan its satellites invented the race card.’
Melayu rasis maa. ABU all the way till kingdom comes lor.
During the British ruled ,foreigners and aliens ,entered Malaya then unhindered ,under various reason .
How if Malaysia were to adopt the same measure , like the Burmese or Myanmar as it’s called now ?.
Some reply above said, they will simply go back to china!
I doubt that it was as simple as that….I think they will probably ended up the same as the “Rohingya” above….not accepted by the Malaysia nor accepted by the China….
They will be in limbo….murdered and raped by the pirate while faring the sea….starve to death etc etc….
The China government in the past did not accept Chinese Christians as their nationals. This is reflected in a Secretary for Chinese Affairs Enactments of 1899 applicable in the Malay Federated States – see below.
Chinese who converted to Christianity were viewed as anti-national. The policy above was made around the time of anti-foreigner (Christian missionaries) sentiment in China and there were the social upheavals.
I see….But there were only a few christian chinese back then in Malaya? So this would not have any significant impact…back then…
But today….now, regardless of the religion China wont accept anyway….
So back to Tebing Tinggi question, If Malaysia were to adopt the same rule as Myanmar today…then yes Chinese would have to suffer the same fate as the “Rohingyas”…..But back then…they would simply go back to China I guess…
the Malays hand were tied back then, in order to get independence peacefully they have to agree with the British to give citizenship to all…
So yes…the problem did start with BRITISH!
HINDRAF is correct afterall…
re: “But there were only a few Christian Chinese back then in Malaya?”
Surprisingly, the Chinese Christians numbers were disproportionately large in relation to the whole population of Chinese transient workers in Malaya.
It could be because they were fleeing religious persecution back in the motherland. “Persecution” here means murder and violence at the hands of the mobs, and not merely being at the receiving end of a noisy anti-cross protest.
You could have a browse of the Net on this – it’s an interesting nugget of info. We can continue this discussion further later if you like.
“Surprisingly, the Chinese Christians numbers were disproportionately large in relation to the whole population of Chinese transient workers in Malaya.”
88 to 89 percent are non-Christians. And this is based on the 2010 Census.
Hello! My comment refers to the year 1889 of the Enactment in the Federated Malay States. Why are you citing the 2010 census? We’re talking about different centuries woh.
Secondly, you even copypasted what I wrote, which was “population of Chinese transient workers in Malaya”.
Again, time check. “Transient” Chinese refers to the pre-Merdeka crowd and in those early years before it crossed their mind to settle down in – “Malaya” (nampak tak bentuk nama negara yang saya tulis) – more permanently compared to when they merely wanted to earn enough money and then return to their village China.
Read lah more carefully before you comment.
You claim that the “Chinese Christian numbers were disproportionately large in relation to the whole population of Chinese transient workers in Malaya”.
Do you have statistics from that period to back your claim?
If there were disproportionately large numbers of Chinese Christians as you assert, then considering that they suffer religious persecution back in China, wouldn’t they be more inclined to settle down in Malaya instead of being “transient”?
re: “Do you have statistics from that period to back your claim?”
That’s what I came across in my previous research and it struck me. I made an offer to the other fella (commenter) that if he’s interested, he can dig it up and we can have a further discussion. Same offer extended to you.
re: “If there were disproportionately large numbers of Chinese Christians as you assert, then considering that they suffer religious persecution back in China, wouldn’t they be more inclined to settle down in Malaya instead of being ‘transient’?”
Why don’t you do the research on the numbers breakdown? off-hand I can’t say for sure. By ‘transient’ I was referring to the whole phenomenon in general but a lot came, and also a lot returned to China too.
Note that the Enactment was 1899. The Boxer Rebellion or Boxer Uprising in China was between 1899 and 1901, and that was when the churches were razed and the Chinese Christian converts lynched.
“That’s what I came across in my previous research and it struck me. I made an offer to the other fella (commenter) that if he’s interested, he can dig it up and we can have a further discussion. Same offer extended to you.”
You made a claim so it is you who should furnish the proof. If you have done research on this then you should easily have the data and sources in your files.
I do not have the time to entertain you. As you can see from one of the other threads, I had also told regular friendly commenter Chris that I’ll read his links (which I solicited from him) only LATER, and with thanks.
I’m not exactly Prof. Khoo Kay Kim but this is to provide an analogy which I believe is applicable. If Prof. says something about a historical event and you dispute him, then it is you who have to furnish the proof (even though he was the one who said it) because he’s got the academic standing and you’re the challenger.
I agree on a general principle that in a court case and saman-menyaman, then he (the person) who asserts and wants to sue has to prove. However, the context of what I’ve said is casual reply to ‘jemuan Najib’ @ 2015/05/26 at 1:25 pm.
To clarify, the 1899 refers to the year of the Enactment that says a Chinese Christian is not considered a China national, and further suggesting that the rationale for that non-status was related to anti-Christian sentiments in China around the time of the Boxer Rebellion.
The Malaya population figure to be looked at should include the 1920s because we’re referring to the various census years prior to WWII.
re: “then you should easily have the data and sources in your files”
Yes, I have lots of files but that doesn’t mean that I need to look through them just to indulge a spoilt brat like you – see my Prof. Khoo-analogy justification. My offer to ‘jemuan’ was contingent on him looking up the data (and same to you – I already said I extend a similar offer to you) for further discussion.
It’s time-consuming to look for files and figures. If I do it for my own work, that fine. To do it to indulge you, under this present set of circumstances, hey, do you think you AC-DC merit my consideration?
If you don’t believe how time-consuming it is to trace data, try looking through my GE13 tables and charts.
I myself am trying to locate one table I did on the biggest majority wins in the Parliamentary constituencies. They’re the traditional DAP strongholds like Seputeh and Cheras on the oppo side, but on the BN side it is Najib who has the biggest majority in his Pekan win. I still haven’t found the table I was looking for and it’s contained in my own blog.
Huh, you expect me to locate the emigration figures for you in the www when I wasn’t even talking to you in the first place? If I thought the quibble was worth settling and you’re worth my effort, I’d do it. Unfortunately, you rank low in my priorities and my regard.
Thanks for my positive classification, Helen.
The general principle of a good discussion is to work honestly with others to come up with the best set of ideas or ways to deal with a situation. In an argument or a debate, only one side wins. In a good discussion, everybody wins – in terms of contributing to a deeper understanding of the issue! Civility demands that there ought not to be sore losers nor hog-wild winners.
Netiquette: Ground Rules for Online Discussions
AC-DC is not acting in good faith and only just trying to bog me down.
Imagine if Prof. Khoo says something about a historical event and AC-DC disputes him and the challenges Prof. Khoo to produce his citations.
(a) The Prof. could of course comply if he felt like it, but then again
(b) if he decides that AC-DC is not worth his time, tok seh layan …
In any case, I would not have invited ‘jemuan’ and Mulan to contribute to the discussion if I had felt that what I said was inaccurate or could be disproved.
Secondly, I’ve left the door wide open for AC-DC to come up with the data to rebut what I say if he doesn’t believe me.
“I’m not exactly Prof. Khoo Kay Kim but this is to provide an analogy which I believe is applicable. If Prof. says something about a historical event and you dispute him, then it is you who have to furnish the proof”
True, you are not Prof. Khoo Kay Kim. Neither are you a professor giving a lecture. Try not to mix apples and oranges together. If you make a claim, you should have proof and data to back you up.
“If I thought the quibble was worth settling and you’re worth my effort, I’d do it. Unfortunately, you rank low in my priorities and my regard.”
For someone you consider low in priorities, you sure did write a long-winded post in response to my short reply. ;)
re: “If you make a claim, you should have proof and data to back you up.”
True, I had mentioned (“made a claim”) that there were more Christians among the early Chinese immigrants than jemuan Najib realised or was aware of. He had commented @ 2015/05/26 at 1:25 pm, “But there were only a few christian chinese back then in Malaya?”
The data is out there. I suggested that ‘jemuan Najib’ go look it up and also that you can do the same.
re: “proof and data to back you up”
If Prof. Khoo were to give a public lecture and say, abc xyz, he is not expected to Power Point citations of his sources at the same time that he is talking. I’m not Prof. Khoo but I’ve uploaded a considerable amount of data in my blog.
I was talking to ‘jemuan Najib’ but I do not see that I’m required to show you the census tables. If you wish to dispute what I’ve said, you’re free to show your proof and data.
re: “For someone you consider low in priorities, you sure did write a long-winded post in response to my short reply.”
That’s what happens when you stoop to engage with idiots. You have to go down to their level. Idiocy requires long-winded explanations in order to penetrate the thick skull ;)
“I was talking to ‘jemuan Najib’ but I do not see that I’m required to show you the census tables. If you wish to dispute what I’ve said, you’re free to show your proof and data.”
So I have to provide proof and data in response to a factoid you first made without providing proof and data, apart from the statement ‘the data is out there’.
“That’s what happens when you stoop to engage with idiots. You have to go down to their level. Idiocy requires long-winded explanations in order to penetrate the thick skull ;)”
More like a long-winded ‘putar-belit’ excuse to worm your way out. ;-)
It’s a factoid I shared, correct.
Like I said, you’re free to disprove it.
If you’re thinking of the Taiping Revolution that was led by a Christian inspired cult, it was pretty much wiped out and the stragglers ended up mainly in Indochina, not Malaya.
The Chinese Christians in Malaya at that time is most likely the group of Peranakans who were Anglicans. The large proportion could be due to recognition of Straits born only while the labourers were not seen as residents to include in the census.
1899 coincided with the Boxer Rebellion.
re: “The large proportion could be due to recognition of Straits born only while the labourers were not seen as residents to include in the census.”
You’re right. But if I’m not mistaken, Sabah and Sarawak census also included.
re: “the group of Peranakans who were Anglicans”
Sounds like Mulan! Maybe she can join this conversation thread and help shed some light.
You are right. The Peranakans were the Anglophiles. Anything King George is cool. But many were still ancestor worshiping but the Christians were most the tradional churches like Anglican, Methodist etc. No evangelicals, 7th day, Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Do you think Anglican was conversion in Malaya was due to mission school and gweilo workplace/social influence?
Or was the Anglican faith brough along from China?
Combination of both, most likely.
But also want to point out that not all Anglophile Peranakans were Christian, many still maintained practising the syncretic Chinese religion but replaced their Malay patois with English. Hence they may sound Christian but are not.
Look at the history of the modern world and you can trace all its border problems to Britain or the Europeans
1. Israel/Palestine – [YouTube]
2. Iraq/Kurdistan/Iran – [YouTube]
3. The Falklands
5. and of course Malaysia, Singapore, & Burma
South East Asians should petition for the British government to clean up the mess the made since the last century. They should be the major force in helping to settle the Rohingya problems.
Thailand dan Semenanjung Tanah Melayu.
Sampai ke Tennaserim wor!
“The China government in the past did not accept Chinese Christians as their nationals. This is reflected in a Secretary for Chinese Affairs Enactments of 1899 applicable in the Malay Federated States”
i think “Secretary for Chinese Affairs Enactments of 1899” has nothing to do with china govt, or more precisely qing govt. citizenship is a foreign concept to chinese n the entire asia i guess, qing govt first enactments on citizenship was at 1908.
The exact wording of 40 (iii) is “Chinese Christian shall not be deemed to be of Chinese nationality.”
We’re talking Government to Government dealing.
40 (i) says: “In this enactment a person of Chinese nationality shall mean any person … who is a Chinese subject owing natural allegiance to the Emperor of China, or who has his domicile in the Empire of China …”
For sure, the first to go will be the Malaysian economy.
Boleh bersaing dengan Somalia, Sudan, Zimbabwe untuk “Failed States Index”.
So apa tunggu lagi? Kau dah BERAMBUS ke belum? IC masih simpan ke?
As they say: Take a chill pill.
Jangan marah sangat sampai terberak seluar, oke?
Ok2 aku dah cool sekarang. So aku tanya kau elok2 ye, IC simpan lagi ke?
Macam dia, masa tu mesti kena dok nyanyi “God save the Queen”, state or stateless, considered as citizen mana?
Dear kawan2 and Kak Helen
Can we support the petition to object to the most disgusting Chinese cultural festival – the Yulin Dog Meat Eating Festival – whereby dogs are captured and killed in a cruel manner for the love of Chinese culture.
There must be a reason where what is kosher or not, halal or not is in the Bible and Al Quran. Let us object to this barbaric Chinese festival.
Agaknya kat Tanjung dan Selangor ramai PATI yang datang naik kapalterbang? Agaknya 1million dapat tak? Tangkap dan kasi denda majikan2 mereka sekali kasi masuk dalam bot dan tolak kelaut aje..
Government shld encourage citizen to assist. Buat macam China, kasi reward.
Siapa curi mangga planted by the town council, just report, jiran saya cakap sebiji denda RM300. Klo tolong tangkap kasi satu kepala PATI RM300, pasti ramai rakyat akan turun Bantu. Satu kepala majikan RM300K sorang. Syndicate PATI RM30m satu kepala.
Kasi naik bot tolak kelaut..
Yang mana tak fasih dlam Bahasa Malaysia kasi tangkap juga. Selidik surat beranak asal, termasuk documents asal ibubapa mereka, genuine or fakes.
Kalo fakes tangkap whole family kasi naik bot dan tolak kelaut. All remaining asset confiscate dan serah kpd pihak Kastam. Kalo boleh tunjuk garang dengan Rohingyas, patut tunjuk garang dengan semua PATI.
We are ready to cooperate anytime.
Who is Rohingya ?
Here are the facts about Rohingya.
1. Rohingyas are not Burmese. They called themselves as
Rohingya. There are no such people in Burmese history
2. Rohingyas are in fact Bengali who speaks Bengali dialect,
dress Bengali clothes and eat Bengali food and have Bengali
3. Rohingyas are illegal immigrants who illegally entered to
Myanmar from Bangladesh.
4. The Burmese government gave citizenship to many Rohingyas, but more and more illegal immigrant Rohingyas comes from Bangladesh every year.
5. When they became citizenship, they are equal under the law. No one may be discriminated against on the basis of their race, religion, ethnic group, or gender.
6. Rohingya raped underage girls (under 13 years old), tortured them and killed these little girls.
7. Rohingya bullied Rakhine people, did several arson attacks, killed hundreds of Rakhine people and burnt thousands of houses.
8. Rohingya has been trained by fundamentalist Taliban and Al Qaeda (cited from wikileaks and other credible news).
9. Rohingya owns thousands of guns to shoot Rakhine people. (Please go to Rakhine state and research it. Dozens of Rakhine people are killed by Rohingya bullets)
Myth 1. They cannot marry and have children. Government restricts them.
Fact : Rohingya population extremely increases every year in Myanmar. The rate is higher than Myanmar population rate. How come their population increases every year?
Myth 2. They have discrimination on religion. They don’t have freedom of religion.
Fact : There are many mosques built by Rohingya in Rakhine state. If they have restriction on religion, how come hundreds mosques in Rakhine state?
Myth 3. They are so poor that they don’t have anything to eat.
FACT : The truth is they just want to get free money from UNHCR or organizations. They built a lot of nice houses and mosques. They bought a lot of guns and rockets. How can they build houses and mosques? How can they buy guns?
Myth 4. Rohingya are not Bengali.
FACT: Rohingya are in fact Benglai. Please check DNA. Please listen their dialect. Please research their language. According to the research, they are not Arab or Burmese ethic. How come they speak Bengali if they are not? Why cannot they speak Burmese if they are burmese. How can they wear like Bengali and have Bengali cultures.
Myth 5. They are tortured by Rakhine people.
Fact: There are many Rohingya in Rakhine state. Their population is more than Rakhine people population. Rohingya population increases every year and Rakhine population decreases every year. If they are tortured by Rakhine, they will run away from Rakhine state and they won’t be sticking around like a super glue.
Myth 6: Rohingyas are so peaceful.
Fact : Rohingya raped, tortured and killed Rakhine little girls. Rohingya bullied and killed hundred of Rakhine people. They burnt thousands of houses and dozens of Buddhist temples. How come the whole Rakhine towns and villages go to Ashes?
Why are many Rakhine people killed by Rohingya?
Myth 7. Government should recognize Rohingya as citizenship.
Fact: Bengali government denied its own people. Burmese government accept them and gave them citizenship and equal rights. However, more and more Bengali Rohingya illegally enter to Myanmar every year. They are rude and aggressive. They don’t respect native Rakhine and bullied Rakhine people. Then, they pretend to be like poor and nice guys. Why did Burmese government have to accept these kind of rude hypocrite terrorists? Burmese government already gave out a lot of citizenship to these so-called Rohingya and they are equal under the law. Nevertheless, government cannot accept any more illegal immigrants since they don’t do any good for Myanmar.
Myth 8 : Burmese hate Rohingya so much because they are Muslim.
Fact : There are plenty of Muslim people in Burma. Burmese people treat with respect to those people who are not rude, aggressive and murderers. Burmese people treat with respect to those Rohingya who entered Burma legally, and who are not murderers.
Short and Sweet:
Rohingya are Bengali who illegally entered Myanmar and killed thousands of native Rakhine people. Government gave citizenship and equal rights to thousands of Rohingya. They built hundreds of mosques and thousands of houses in Rakhine State. Their population extremely increases every year due to illegal immigrant Rohingyas. They bullied, raped, tortured and killed native Rakhine people every year. In this case, they are systematically attacking Rakhine state and Rakhine people. They killed many Rakhine, and burnt thousands of Rakhine’s houses. They made over 30,000 Rakhine people homeless. They were trained by Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Even though government gave citizenship and equal rights to many immigrant Rohingyas, their desires cannot be fulfilled. They want to make Rakhine state to become their state. They want to claim that they are native people. They allied with Taliban as well as Al Qaeda, and they want to kick Rakhine people out of Rakhine state. They want to govern Rakhine state as their own state.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 11:21
Do you have the figures of how many Rohingya have citizenship?
Son of Aung san on May 26, 2015 at 2:48 pm
You dok bohong atau United Nations dok bohong ni?
Can you point out where there is discrepancy between the two sets of info? If you’re specific, then maybe “Son” can respond to you or if he doesn’t, then I’ll have a look.
Short and Sweet or
US yang dok bohong?
I find it really hard to believe this “fact”…..
Even without looking at others source of establish fact…I can already point out a few “facts” that is obviously not fact!
(Point 1 -3 Maybe true however the fact is significant number of them is there now since ages ago so what to do with them? throw them to the sea?) Let others take care of them like Malaysia etc??
1. Rohingya raped underage girls (under 13 years old), tortured them and killed these little girls.??? Seriously???….this is not just exclusive to Rohingya! this happen to Malay, Chinese, Burmese etc…
2. Rohingya bullied Rakhine people, did several arson attacks, killed hundreds of Rakhine people and burnt thousands of houses.???
The same could be said to the Rakhine people as well!
3. Rohingya has been trained by fundamentalist Taliban and Al Qaeda (cited from wikileaks and other credible news). (Not sure? Maybe!)
4. Rohingya owns thousands of guns to shoot Rakhine people. (Please go to Rakhine state and research it. Dozens of Rakhine people are killed by Rohingya bullets).????
The Rohingyas must be really lousy at shooting with gun since the Rakhine people could simply hack them with knife/axe, swords etc
This one maybe I agree:
Myth 8 : Burmese hate Rohingya so much because they are Muslim.
Fact : There are plenty of Muslim people in Burma. Burmese people treat with respect to those people who are not rude, aggressive and murderers. Burmese people treat with respect to those Rohingya who entered Burma legally, and who are not murderers.
Yes maybe they dont hate them because they are muslim…They just hate them because they look and act more like bangla then burmese.
And for that they are entitle to kick/slaughter the Rohingyas out of Rakhine????
Good that you responded. I’m willing to have a go as well.
Just had a cursory glance at the long, long chain mail above earlier before moderating but I think it’s fair game for us all to give it a closer scrutiny. At least it provides a starting point to dig deeper.
About the ‘rape’ thing, I came across the following – see copy paste below – and it strikes me as obsessive. I’m going to relate the syndrome of racial suspicions to the fixation found in the American Deep South at one point in their history when white women lived in mortal fear of being raped by black men.
FROM BBC, emphasis mine
What are you trying to insinuate?
A young Buddhist getting rape by a couple of bad Rohingyas…and that justify them being kick out by the thousands???
So in future if a Malay get rape by a buddhist, the Malay can do the same??? Start a riot and throw the Buddhist out to the Sea???
News of people getting rape is abundance….among the same race….between people of difference races…and so on…
The underlying cause of this is deeper than the “rape” issue…..
In your earlier comment you said, “I can already point out a few ‘facts’ that [are] obviously not fact! … Rohingya raped underage girls (under 13 years old), tortured them and killed these little girls.??? Seriously???”
Were you questioning if the rape had really taken place?
Since you may have doubted the rape and since I had also come across the BBC article, I shared it with you. Why are you reluctant to process information?
re: “What are you trying to insinuate? A young Buddhist getting rape by a couple of bad Rohingyas…and that justify them being kick out by the thousands???”
I did not insinuate anything, You challenged the veracity of the “facts”. I pointed out to you that the rapes did occur and they were the trigger for the riots. Pointing you to the BBC timeline of events doesn’t mean that I endorse the motivation for the event.
If I pointed you to a Fact Box about the Holocaust, are you going to say that I support the motivations of the Nazis?
re: “So in future if a Malay get rape by a buddhist, the Malay can do the same??? Start a riot and throw the Buddhist out to the Sea???”
Why are you taking a leap of logic? I already informed you that I copypasted the backgrounder from a BBC report and I provided the link. I did not add anything to the BBC material and you can read the original for yourself.
Why the reluctance to read – especially since you’re disputing something and I’m spoonfeeding you the material? When I point out to you real-life events, you start jumping like kera kena belacan.
Do you realise how hysterical you sound when you write, “So in future if a Malay get rape by a buddhist, the Malay can do the same??? Start a riot and throw the Buddhist out to the Sea???”
re: “News of people getting rape is abundance….among the same race….between people of difference races…and so on…”
And what’s your point? There were riots in Rakhine and the rapes were the catalyst for the riots. Process that info and contribute some value add if you can.
I drew a parallel to the phobia of white women who fear rape by black men. It was a syndrome of its time and place, and the protagonist and antagonist. Similarly, in Rakhine three rapes of Buddhist women by Rohingya men (assuming the incidents to be true) sparked off three separate riots.
To any objective, inpartial observer, the above chain of events is an ‘interesting’ pattern worth studying for the psychology of its society. But I gather that you lack the spirit of enquiry.
Your first instinct when presented with some facts (I haven’t asked you to apply your moral judgment on them and there’s no cause either for you to impute my supposed moral judgment when I myself did not express my thoughts) is to jump around like kera kena belacan.
It happens. Some events trigger riots. The 2001 Taman Medan riots was apparently triggered by someone unhappy about a wedding canopy being put up.
re: “The underlying cause of this is deeper than the ‘rape’ issue…..”
Then by all means share with us what you interpret as the deeper cause. Using your keyboard or touchpad is more articulate than jumping around like a kera kena belacan.
Duh!…As you said earlier in your reply to other commenters: NEXT TIME READ THE WHOLE SENTENCES!
Now here is what I said in full: “1. Rohingya raped underage girls (under 13 years old), tortured them and killed these little girls.??? Seriously???….this is not just exclusive to Rohingya! this happen to Malay, Chinese, Burmese etc…”
See…where did I say that the event did not happen? It may or may not have happen! My point was simply that this does not justify the mass “kick ass” of the whole Rohingyas.
Or you dont understand ENGLISH?
I have read the whole chronological event from the PRO Buddhist side and from the PRO Rohingyas side as well…my interpretation might be a little bias because I am Muslim…including that BBC that you have “spoon feed” me!
However despite my bias, The fact is..it is the Rohingyas who has been displace by the thousands and it is the Rohingyas who has been killed by the thousands…Who is the victim and who is the oppressor???…
You sound like the jewish sympathizer or the jewish; of their defense of the Israel action, whenever I debate them about the atrocity they inflict to Palestinian.
Your defense of your Rakhine Buddhist brothers is really inexcusable.
Yes the rape (whether it is true or not again is another subject) may been the trigger…but there has always been deep resentment between the Rakhine Buddhist and Rohingya way back. Especially that they the Rohingyas has been stateless since the enactment of the 1982 citizenship law.
And yes back at you with your own word:
NEXT TIME READ THE WHOLE SENTENCES! before you “start jumping like kera kena belacan”
re: “Now here is what I said in full: “1. Rohingya raped underage girls (under 13 years old), tortured them and killed these little girls.??? Seriously???….this is not just exclusive to Rohingya! this happen to Malay, Chinese, Burmese etc…”
Talking about the American Deep South (1880-1930) – if a white man raped a white woman, or a black man raped a black woman, there would not be riots.
However if a black man is accused of raping a white woman and the charge may not even be true, then there would be public lynchings. http://law.jrank.org/pages/8375/Lynching.html
So understand the role that (possibly false) allegations of “rape” played in sparking the inter-ethnic violence. That’s the psychology of the sectarian strife in Arakan.
You are determined to pooh-pooh the element of “rape” in igniting the Rakhine riots. While you may dismiss the charge/’reason’ as irrational or an unsupportable excuse, your denial does not change the reality of what actually transpired there.
And it doesn’t mean either that BBC believes or supports this rape rationale when they compiled the timeline which I copypasted for your reading.
The BBC Fact Box is a record of HOW it happened. It does not mean that the factfinder endorses WHY it happened.
re: “Your defense of your Rakhine Buddhist brothers is really inexcusable.”
How does my pointing you to the BBC timeline, as an info resource, equate to a defence of my Rakhine Buddhist brothers? You cannot appreciate being provided info, meh?
You might want to repost all of this in another posting so maybe there will be others who want to join in this debate.
You said: “You are determined to “pooh-pooh” the element of “rape” in igniting the Rakhine riots. While you may dismiss the charge/’reason’ as irrational or an unsupportable excuse, your denial does not change the reality of what actually transpired there.”
Yes indeed “pooh – pooh” the rape event….I am determined of that…..while you are determined to start the “rape” as the timeline whereas as I said previously, the deep resentment were already there between the rakhine and the rohingyas long before the “rape”…the “rape” is just the tipping point. I disagree with your “what actually transpired there.”
You are actually “pooh-pooh-ing” this aspect of the conflict!
The same could be said with the “black – white” conflict.
First of all, I was responding to original commenters hence the insinuation.
Yes I agree that The BBC posting did not “rationale” the rape thing or what transpired after that. It was just reporting. But the original commenters were the one that I responded to. In the context of the original commenters….It apears that this is actually part of the excuse among the long list of Rohingyas “fault”…
My reading of your response and your writing unfortunately made me have the same conclusion about you as the Casey the evangelist.
I do not know what in your heart…Only Allah know….but from your writing…
The commenter ‘Son of Aung San’ you had first replied to appears to have copied in toto chunks of blog material. I came across the source just now when I was surfing but there’s no point going there to blog of origin as it will only expand our quibble unnecessarily.
But since I had approved/allowed his comment through moderation, I’m willing to debate it – i.e. explore whether each of the points raised is true or not.
You haven’t yet answered how my pointing you to the BBC timeline-Fact Box is tantamount to my purported defense of my Rakhine Buddhist brothers.
Did I justify the riots on account of rape? If anything, when I drew a parallel to the white woman-black man obsession, it only serves to illustrate how irrational the ‘rape’ excuse was in the context of the American Deep South.
re: “while you are determined to start the ‘rape’ as the timeline”
Do you agree with me that the allegation of ‘rape’ (whether true or false) triggered the three separate riots? Yes or No?
That is the dynamics of the race relations over there. It doesn’t mean we justify the morality or immorality of it. It’s similar to understanding that the Holocaust happened because the Nazis used the excuse of the purity of Aryan blood.
That’s how history understands Hitler’s Jewish/Final Solution.
Do you have a mental block wrt exploring how events (or riots) are catalyzed? Or are you simply unable to appreciate scholarship without jumping like a kera kena belacan gibbering about the contents of my heart just because I directed you to read a BBC timeline-Fact Box?
Here are my responses:
Helen: “You haven’t yet answered how my pointing you to the BBC timeline-Fact Box is tantamount to my purported defense of my Rakhine Buddhist brothers.”
My answer: No simply pointing to the BBC “fact” box does not imply your defense of your Hideous Rakhine Buddhist action.
However in context of responding to my earlier comment where I responded to the “rape” issue of the earlier commenter then it does imply that defense.
Helen: Do you agree with me that the allegation of ‘rape’ (whether true or false) triggered the three separate riots? Yes or No?
My answer: Yes as far as the reporting goes as reported by others.
And with your “scholarly” allegation:
“Do you have a mental block wrt exploring how events (or riots) are catalyzed? Or are you simply unable to appreciate scholarship without jumping like a kera kena belacan gibbering about the contents of my heart just because I directed you to read a BBC timeline-Fact Box?”
Maybe I do have mental block! with Exploring the catalyst alone which will not solve the issue. I recommend that we explore the source of the problem. This go beyond the “rape” case.
Looking at it from the “catalyst” point of view will frame the Rohingyas in bad light. Whereas if we actually explore the true underlying cause of this conflict, it will give more neutral picture of the conflict.
Now back at you with your own self righteous “scholarly” word:
Do you have a mental block wrt exploring the underlying cause how events (or riots) happened? Or you want to be “jumping like a kera kena belacan” whenever I clarify the context of my response??
re: Exploring the catalyst alone will not solve the issue. I recommend that we explore the source of the problem. This goes beyond the ‘rape’ cases.
Allow me to extrapolate.
(i) Catalyst to the May 13 race riot: The opposition procession on 12 May 1969 and the provocative behaviour of DAP members.
(ii) Underlying the Sino-Malay conflict: The Malays and Chinese in those affected areas had hated each other’s guts for years and were bitter rivals for political power and state resources.
(i) Trigger to a potential religious riot: Perhaps the fight over kalimah ‘Allah’, the ‘Allah’ Bible or a covert conversion of a Malay gelandangan to Christianity (evoking the Natrah riots in Singapore)
(ii) Underlying the religious conflict: Rivalry between Christians and Muslims over whose faith and religious truth is paramount as well as stiff competition for Putrajaya and state resources.
If you actually explore the true underlying cause of this religious conflict, you will find that the smoking gun points to the evangelistas. Indian Hindus and Chinese Buddhists/Taoists are not rivals to the Malay Muslims over theology or use of the ‘Allah’ word or the occupancy of Putrajaya. Only the evangelistas are.
So you should tell your Najib (even though he’s very distracted by his own personal problems) to take action against the evangelista enablers, for example TMI yang selalu kenakan institusi-institusi Islam umpamanya Majlis Fatwa, MAIS, JAIS, NGO-NGO Islam (terutamanya Isma), para mufti (terutamanya Mufti Perak) dan bahkan Majlis Raja-Raja juga.
‘Why did Burmese government have to accept these kind of rude hypocrite terrorists?’
The Malays did.
Rumoured raping a Buddhist woman by a Muslim Rohingya sampai bole macam tu? Itu baru kabar angin.
Kes Arw Dato Sosilawati and her innocent friends brutally murdered and burnt to ashes, you want to also impress us that all Indians behave that same manner ke? Kuat kelentong le Son of Aung san ni!
Itu Prostitutes yg masuk illegally by flight are more dangerous to Malaysian society tau tak? They sneak in and rape all the hungry men in Malaysia, lagi dasyat tau, bukan sorang dua! Tarak logic la kamu semua ni.
The possibility of a million Cina doll sneaking into Malaysia lagi rampant, infact been going on since zaman2 British lagi.
They simply sail or fly in, live in luxurious condos, apartments or hotels, rape our men and get paid some more!
Tak bising pon?
re: “Tak bising pon?”
Siapa kata takde? Kan si isteri-isteri tua dok bising. Pi jumpa Michael Chong lagi.
Hope you don’t mind saya minta laluan. Since I’m engaging ‘jemuan’, please allow me to sampuk. ‘Son of Aung san’ can reply separately if he wants to.
re: “Rumoured raping a Buddhist woman by a Muslim Rohingya sampai bole macam tu? Itu baru kabar angin.”
c.f. Baltimore rioting kicked off with rumors, see http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-riots/bs-md-ci-freddie-gray-violence-chronology-20150427-story.html#page=1
It doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily logical or rational or reasonable but violence can spark from triggers.
re: “Kes Arw Dato Sosilawati and her innocent friends brutally murdered and burnt to ashes, you want to also impress us that all Indians behave that same manner ke? Kuat kelentong le Son of Aung san ni!”
Ahmad Maslan didn’t answer the GST questions well and ‘they’ (disgruntled members of the public) say all Umno Ministers are dungu.
We’re not Rakhine and we don’t live in Arakan. What we can appraise is only the series of events that took place. The riots happened due to the rapes (which may or may not have been true). But even if you want to argue that it’s illogical to demonize Indian lawyers over the Sosilawati case, you can’t change the fact that the riots occurred in Arakan.
re: “Itu Prostitutes yg masuk illegally by flight are more dangerous to Malaysian society tau tak? They sneak in and rape all the hungry men in Malaysia, lagi dasyat tau, bukan sorang dua! Tarak logic la kamu semua ni.”
Rina, if they were governed by rationality instead of emotion, then they wouldn’t have rioted, would they?
That’s why I’m unhappy with Marina Mahathir’s loaded words “pregnant women”, an the “old and sick” when in reality the pregnant women were only less than one percent of the boat passengers (ref. news report about one boat with 585 passengers).
Rationally as the photo evidence overwhelmingly tells us, the bulk of the boat people were men aged between 20 and 40. Therefore our government’s consideration on its best course of action should be predicated on the significant majority of adult men on the boat, rather than the less than 1% pregnant women passengers.
If more people thought rationally rather than react to knee-jerk high emotions, then the chances of riots occurring would be reduced.
Sorry. Not relevant but newsworthy.
Another restaurant fiasco.
“PETALING JAYA: Restaurant chain Secret Recipe’s halal certificate has been revoked, the Islamic Development Department (Jakim) confirmed.
The department, however, clarified that the withdrawal was not due to “haram ingredients” but over issues of cleanliness.
It added that the certificate had been revoked on May 7.
“We had to revoke the halal certificate because there has been a violation to the Malaysia Halal Certification Procedures Manual that involves serious cleanliness issues.”
Apa pun CikHelen jangan pasai orang luar kita bergaduh sesama sendiri. Kita semua belajar dari sini.
Myanmar juga pasti dok peghati macam mana the once stateless foreigners and British Malaya subjects of her Majesty is behaving after they were given free citizenships in countries like Malaysia. Segalanya nak kikis, hak2 protected for the Bumiputras pun sedayanya depa terhegeh nak juga.
Yang enjoying themselves are the British dan waris2 depa yg dok sana sini. Celebrate dapat cicit , hadiah istana baru kat cucu , tukaq topi ikut color baju dan beg tangan tiap hari bergaya tak habis.
Subject2 depa dulu macam Gambia kata sekadar ajaq nyanyi ba ba black ship dan lagu God save the Queen. Yang pandai sikit macam HH dan Rithmatist dok kat Malaysia teliang depa dari jauh macam punggok rindukan bulan.
re: “Apa pun CikHelen jangan pasai orang luar kita bergaduh sesama sendiri.”
Very true, Rina.
Just because of the Rohingya, look at all the blanket attacks being made on Buddhists. Mufti Perlis leading the bandwagon.
Comments are closed.