In May 2009, blogger Kijangmas and his friends submitted a memorandum to the Malaysian Minister for Education, asking that the "menace of vernacular schools be totally eliminated" from Malaysia. What were their reasons for this request? They claim to believe that "...a strongly united Bangsa Malaysia will never be achieved as long as the menace of Vernacular Schools (National Type Schools or SJK) exists on Malaysian soil," (my translation from the original in BM). They also claim that vernacular schools (in their words a "divisive social cancer") are the reason why some Malaysians are "unpatriotic", harbour "anti-Malaysian" attitudes, "subversive" and "traitorous".
What heinous crimes would you have to commit, to be branded as "unpatriotic", "anti-Malaysian", etc. in their book? Not very much. Amongst other things, you could qualify by:
What heinous crimes would you have to commit, to be branded as "unpatriotic", "anti-Malaysian", etc. in their book? Not very much. Amongst other things, you could qualify by:
- promoting Mandarin and Tamil (which they refer to as "foreign languages") in Malaysia. They believe doing this is against our Federal Constitution
- "over-exaggerating" the contributions of immigrants in the formation & development of Malaysia
In the same memorandum, Kijangmas and friends also state their belief that the languages & cultures of Malaysian minorities must be removed from all national and public roles and confined to private community matters only, because, as they claim, that is what our Federal Constitution requires.
How did they arrive at their opinion of Malaysians who were educated at vernacular schools? Reading their blog, their beliefs seem to be based not on objective data, but on anecdotes, racial prejudice and stereotypes. One such stereotype that Kijangmas employs is this:
As part of of the questions used to gauge the respondents' social values, they were asked to complete following question:
How did they arrive at their opinion of Malaysians who were educated at vernacular schools? Reading their blog, their beliefs seem to be based not on objective data, but on anecdotes, racial prejudice and stereotypes. One such stereotype that Kijangmas employs is this:
"These functional illiterates end up as a cheap source of semi-indentured labour in the motor workshops, auto accessory shops, in the building trades, sleazy unisex salons, become cetak rompak aficionados, stalk shopping malls to harass shoppers with a myriad of worthless gizmos and, in the case of many if not most Tamil-educated Indians, become low wage general workers, lorry drivers and assorted hired hands for the towkays."So, are Malaysians educated in vernacular schools really unpatriotic and anti-Malaysian, as Kijangmas would have us believe? Let's look at some data. Recently, the Merdeka Center for Opinion Research conducted an opinion poll, the National Youth Survey 2008. In it, a total of 2,518 randomly selected Malaysian youth between the ages of 20 and 35 were interviewed by telephone about their perceptions of lifestyle, current issues, values, politics, and their own levels of civic and social involvement. The report of the poll results can be downloaded from their website. Here, I would like to highlight just one interesting finding from that poll.
As part of of the questions used to gauge the respondents' social values, they were asked to complete following question:
If you can only choose one identity, would you say that you are...?The results are as follows:
(Source: Page 30, National Youth Survey 2008 by Merdeka Center)
43% of those polled chose to identify themselves as Malaysians first. This is not surprising; as I have written about here, we Malaysians are not amongst the most patriotic people in the world.
What is interesting, however, is when those results were further analysed by looking at which type of school respondents had been educated at:
(Source: Page 31, National Youth Survey 2008 by Merdeka Center)
52% of respondents who had been to a Chinese school chose Malaysian as their identity. In contrast, 39% & 37% of those who had been to National & Tamil schools respectively, identified themselves as Malaysians first.
So, what are the obstacles to a united Bangsa Malaysia? Clearly, not vernacular schools per se. To answer that question truthfully will take lots of soul-searching, reflection & honest conversation among Malaysians. However, I'm willing to say that intolerance, racism & chauvinism will figure prominently on that list. I'm also willing to say that it is those three attributes that drive Kijangmas & his friends.
The next time Kijangmas comes across someone in the "building trades" or a "low wage general worker", perhaps he should pause & think hard before calling them unpatriotic & anti-Malaysian; for all he knows, in that person could beat the heart of a Malaysian truer than he.
Sincerely,
Malaysian Heart
Note: Please do visit all the links I attached to read the posting or article in its entirety. In that way you can judge for yourself if I have quoted them relevantly & in context.
Posts
good one, mh!
ReplyDeleteI would also suggest that Kijangmas and gang keep their Eyes Wide Open next time they come across someone in the "building trades" or a "low wage general worker". Most of them come from Indonesia do they not - the country that Kijangmas and gang hold up as a shining example of forced assimilation?
You have done your research MalaysianHeart.
ReplyDeleteDisunity lies not in schools. It's in the constitution. Division and discriminaton has been built into it.
Not accepting multiculturalism is what breeds insecurities, in all communities. Herein lies the answer.
The malays are outright jealous of the presence and success of vernacular schools, and their products. There is no other easy way to convey this. Their insecurities propel them to see it capped and rolled back.
But malay education is a lost cause, breeding mediocrity. For all the fervour, Kijangmas writes in english!
Dear Malaysian Heart
ReplyDeleteI wonder why must they incite hatred, why not care and love for one another - simply because they want to make-believe they are superior to others?
Nelson Mandela once said that "No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite".
temenggong,
ReplyDeleteWhile there is certainly some discrimination built in into our constitution, I believe that the major share of racism & chauvinism in our country stems from how we choose to interpret it, and how we approach & respond to the multiethnic, multireligious & multicultural nature of Malaysia. Constitutions can & should be amended to reflect the freedoms, rights & true wishes of the Rakyat, but it takes people to read meaning & significance into our laws.
Let me ask you a question, temenggong. When you wrote the paragraph, "The malays are outright jealous of the presence and success of vernacular schools, and their products...", whom did you have in mind when you wrote the word "Malays"? Were you referring to every Malay in Malaysia or the world? Do you really believe that it is fair & justified to impugn the character of a whole race based on the actions of a few? Sir, you have grievously wronged not only Malays, but all fair-minded Malaysians.
Why do you say "But malay education is a lost cause, breeding mediocrity"? Conventional thinking indeed holds that National schools are not known for their excellence in teaching. But are you implying that education in National schools can never be improved? Are you also implying that it is a "lost cause" & "breeds mediocrity" because it is "Malay" education? Would you say the same of Tamil schools, that they are mediocre because the teachers, students and medium of instruction are Tamil?
Working towards a free, just, democratic and truly multicultural Malaysia means that we must shun all ideas of innate racial superiority or inferiority. May I suggest that as we work to persuade all Malaysians to see each other as Malaysians first, we also examine our own stereotypes & prejudices. That will require that we eschew essentialist thinking of all types. It also requires that we learn to express our thoughts & opinions in a precise, conscientious & respectful way.
Thanks for dropping by,
mh
Dear Fisha,
ReplyDeleteI fully agree with you that love comes naturally to the human heart. Sadly, we all also carry parts of ourselves that can be traced all the way back to Habil & Qabil, and earlier.
So, it is not going to be easy to get humans to care for & love one other. Nevertheless, we must do so, and we must start with ourselves.
I have blogrolled you and given your url to MT
ReplyDeleteMalaysianHeart,
ReplyDeleteWhen we casually say 'malay' we mean the average, not the entire community. I though that was obvious and needs no qualifying mention.
Malay education is a lost cause because it is going nowhere, not uplifting or enlightening the people, and it's not just curriculam, teachers, etc. I would not say the same of tamil education as it is well established in the diaspora and international academia.
Did you not notice that my username is non essentialist?
I hope you have not missed my point on multiculturalism.
MalaysianHeart,
ReplyDeleteInteresting survey. When I downloaded the survey in question, I found that the objective of the survey was "...to get young adults in Malaysia to speak for themselves....." and the conclusions was that those who were low in self-efficacy level are "mostly chinese, attended chinese primary schools, mandarin speaking...". The conclusions further stated that for the same group, "...there is a sudden drop in self-efficacy for those have higher income..". This was the group, "43% who would first identify themselves as Malaysian" when asked the "identity survey" question. And as you shared with us here, 52% attended the chinese schools.
What can I observe from these?
1. The Survey was to determine the self-efficacy level of young Malaysians.
2. The survey concluded that the chinese who attended chinese school, speak mandarin etc are those of the low self-efficacy i.e. do not speak for themselves
(Note: the survey objective was for level of self-efficacy, not to find out who are more Malaysian from the young adults even though one of the survey question did explore the "identity" sense)
Is it of any surprise?
Do read a survey titled "Education System Perception Survey" by the same Merdeka Center organisation - Page 17 "Perceived Learning Method". The finding of this survey was "Again we found marked constrast between the views offerred by chinese respondents than that of other ethnic groups". They (chinese respondents) are more likely to say that schools continue to emphasize on "ROTE" learning. (ROTE by dictionary.com means fixed, habitual, routine, from memory, without thought of meaning)
So when chinese who are mostly from chinese schools answer the "identity survey" question, could they just be answering from their "fixed", "habitual", "routine", "without thought of meaning" minds?
Just look around and find it yourself.
Thank you.
Amir Hamzah
temenggong,
ReplyDeleteThanks for clarifying what you meant in your earlier comment. However, I would still dispute it if you claimed that the "average Malay" thought or felt in a certain way.
Firstly, is there such a thing as the "average Malay", "average Chinese", "average Indian" etc? We are all individuals with our own beliefs & thoughts, and we all have multiple identities. Speaking of the average anything as if it represents everyone, traps us into the concept of "singular identity". In the words of British anti-racism activist Dr Aneez Esmail, who spoke at a public forum on on race relations in Kuala Lumpur on 16 June 2009:
"You are never just a 'Chinese' or just a 'Malay'," Aneez told the public forum. "Just as I am more than just a British citizen, and more than just a Muslim. My multiple identities are shaped by my experiences, my work, and a variety of influences."
"The danger of defining ourselves by a singular identity locks everyone into fixed positions,"
There exists such a wide spectrum of opinion & attitude amongst us, even within one "race". Given that, when we assign an opinion to any group "on average", it is (I believe) meaningless, and we are ignoring their multiple identities & putting people into little boxes of our own design. Anyone from that group, who does not subscribe to the views we assign to them, has every right to take offense.
Secondly, how true is our assertion? How sure are we that our claim isn't coming from some old, deep seated prejudice or stereotype (like kijangmas& co's), instead of objective data? I believe that such questions bear careful consideration & reflection.
Unfortunately, when we use the name of an entire people, however casually, to refer to some of them, it is not obvious to everyone, exactly which individuals or sub-groups we had in mind. When I read your comment, it came across to me as if you were attributing jealousy, insecurity & petty vindictiveness to at least the majority of Malays in Malaysia; and that our National schools (which you termed "Malay" schools, why?) are doomed because of the ethnicity of the teachers & administrators, & the medium of instruction. Honestly, I felt quite angry & offended by what I believed you were trying to say.
(cont'd below)
(cont'd from above, & updated)
ReplyDeleteEven if wiser people than I would not read it in the same way, there are enough people out there who would be only too happy to take your comment & present it to their readers, as proof positive that you are "anti-malay" and "anti-islam", soon afterwards generalizing that to characterize the "average" MT commentator. If you have any doubt that such people exist, just look at this entry of mine and this comment that followed. We can see how easily our "casual" comments can be used to cause deep hurt, then much hate, in our blogosphere.
What I am saying here does not mean in the least that we should refrain from expressing our thoughts & opinions for fear of causing offense. However, we must take responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of our words, just as we are morally (and legally) responsible for the foreseeable consequences of our actions. Given that online text communication (by definition bereft of the vital cues conveyed by our tone of voice, body language etc.), is prone to serious misapprehension, our views, especially the sensitive ones, must be expressed using precise, respectful words, and our assertions must always be supported with sound evidence. Let me quote Dr. Aneez again, from his "lessons on race relations", (as reported by K.K. Tan):
"Lesson 2. To deal with racial disharmony, we need to be more open and honest but sensitive and respectful."
At the risk of sounding totally self-righteous, please allow me to humbly share what I try to do in all conversations & actions, real & virtual: I try to "Put the shoe on the other foot", i.e. reverse the situation & try to appreciate the emotions & thoughts that result if the tables had been turned.
Let me leave you with more words of Dr. Aneez:
“People are more than just race. Stop looking at yourself as a Malay, a Chinese or an Indian. You are either a rich Malay or a poor Malay. And a poor Malay is fairly similar with a poor Chinese and a poor Indian. If there is a greater recognition of that, perhaps some of the problems may be dealt with,”
If we believe that, perhaps we should also start looking at our fellow Malaysians as more than just Malays, Chinese or Indians.
As always, thanks for dropping by, and please accept my apologies if my earlier comment caused any offence.
mh
MH,
ReplyDeleteWhile I sync with your views, I think you are reading more in what I said in a quick casual response. I'm not presenting a paper you know!
Regarding malay schools, alright, national schools, I see no future because it is not producing graduates of calibre - the thinking, questioning open minded type of creative people free of feudal values that we are looking for, in tune with world developments, etc, etc.
Jelousy, envy, insecurities, vindictiveness, by all communities, is the stench that overwhelms me the minute I step out of my door. Lets get real, this is the real malaysia. A racist sea, which dna lies imprinted in the constitution.
The decision to change from english to malay medium education was not exactly to 'improve' education, to make it better than what it was, but to exert race dominance and to dilute education sufficiently enough for the 'masses' to sleepwalk through it.
So sometimes we may have to convey messages in cold brutality, so that the message, gets conveyed, to the high strung insecurity pumped racists.
You are sounding self righteous, but relax, I do that all the time too.
The national school education can only be described as a disaster, the pits, a failed experiment, the gold standard in mediocrity, racism and bigotry, mitigated only by the existence of vernacular schools. And 'this' is what KijangMas wants to substitute vernacular education with, as a panacea for unity? what can one say about such buffalo minds? Let me try.
ReplyDeleteWhat needs to be done is that, rather than the closure of vernacular schools, on the contrary the entire national education system needs to be closed down!
But why are we surprised by the suggestions by KijangMas, himself a product of such cultures, which knows no better, equating societal unity with a common medium of instruction in schools? Would that extend to religions too? Attire perhaps? Let me guess, it must also be sexual positions!
Which is why I treat such inane views with, not derision, but utter contempt! For contempt is reserved for the lesser. But I wouldn't be surprised if such ideas are swallowed by equally asinine minds in Umno and the bureaucracy.
We have moved to a stage where formal schooling is not necessary and can be replaced with home study, and in time this would become a favoured choice. No parent would want his kids to be instructed by fallow minds. It is 'this' that we should be discussing in the media - home study.
I'm sure you have read my article on 'Multiculturalism as the basis of Malaysia' that was published in MT, and which touched on education.
Amir Hamzah (anon 5:10 pm),
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment & the effort you have put into your analysis. Let's look at it more closely, shall we?
Firstly, you have made an error in your understanding of the findings of the National Youth Survey 2008. You seem to believe that, of those respondents who identified themselves as Malaysians first, 52% had attended Chinese vernacular schools. This is wrong; as the survey clearly states (and as I had quoted in my post), of the respondents who had attended a Chinese school, 52% chose to be identified as Malaysians first.
To use an analogy, instead of understanding that 100% (or whatever) of all Perdanas have automatic transmissions, you understood that 100% of all Protons which have automatic transmissions, are Perdanas. In statistics (and in leading a Nation), such misunderstandings could have very serious consequences indeed.
Still, it is but an error in understanding, and does not affect your subsequent arguments per se.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteNext, let's look at your first argument, which seems to be:
1) Respondents educated in Chinese schools are less self-efficacious
2) Being less self-efficacious means not speaking for themselves (in your own words, "those of the low self-efficacy i.e. do not speak for themselves")
3) Therefore, respondents educated in Chinese schools do not speak for themselves
4) Therefore, their responses to the question (and by extension, every question) cannot be valid.
Your major error here is in your definition of "self-efficacy". Self-efficacy was first described in 1977, by Dr. Albert Bandura, the Canadian psychologist, as an important element of theories of learning, and of his own social learning theory. He defines it as "people's beliefs about their capabilities to produce designated levels of performance that exercise influence over events that affect their lives."
Clearly, there is nothing in Dr. Bandura's definition there (and elsewhere too), to justify you defining those with low self-efficacy as, in the only definition you provided, "i.e. do not speak for themselves". Thus, a central premise of you argument is false, and your conclusions remain unproven.
If you'd like to read more about self-efficacy, and for the benefit of our readers, here is a good article on it. If you are a student, you might find this article on self-efficacy in an academic context helpful.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteNext, let's examine your argument on rote learning. It seems to go as follows:
1) Chinese respondents (in the Education System Perceptions Survey 2005) are more likely to say that schools continue to emphasize rote learning
2) Therefore, Chinese vernacular schools emphasize rote learning
3) Therefore, the respondents (in the National Youth Survey 2008) who attended Chinese vernacular schools also learned by rote.
4) Therefore, their minds (thought processes?) have become, in your words, "fixed", "habitual", "routine", "without thought of meaning".
5) Therefore their response to the question (and by extension, every question), is invalid
Leaving aside, for now, the question of fallacy of composition, your reasoning raises some glaring questions:
1) How do you justify saying that (in your own words "their "fixed", "habitual", "routine", "without thought of meaning" minds") about Malaysians who attended Chinese schools, when many have gone on to become successful not only in Malaysia but the world? Do you have any objective data that correlates rote learning with "their "fixed", "habitual", "routine", "without thought of meaning" minds"?
2) Are all subjects in vernacular schools teachable (& learnable) by rote? Rote learning may be fine for foundational knowledge, at the lower orders of Bloom's taxonomy perhaps. Is rote learning used to teach mathematics? What about any subject that requires quantitative methods & approaches? Complex subjects at an advanced level? Do you believe that Chinese school students have to learn by rote "I am a Malaysian"? Any data to share on that?
3) Our identities form an essential part of our psyche. We define ourselves by it, it affects what we do, say & believe. When it is taken away, we lose a sense of ourselves. many a time have people fought & died to preserve their identities. Do you believe that any amount of rote learning is going to destroy such a central part of our existence? Just what is it, in your conception of Chinese school students that allows you to believe that their sense of identity is any less important to them than yours is to you?
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteFinally, let's look at your characterization of the objectives of the National Youth Survey 2008. From Merdeka Center's press release that accompanied the survey report (my emphasis in bold):
"The opinion poll, National Youth Survey 2008, was conducted by the Merdeka Center for Opinion Research, with funding support from The Asia Foundation, to gauge youth perceptions of lifestyle, current issues, values, politics, and their own levels of civic and social involvement."
Furthermore, from page 4 of the survey report (again, my emphasis in bold):
"The objectives of this survey was to get young adults in Malaysia to speak for
themselves (rather than others who speak on their behalf) on issues pertaining to their participation in community activities and politics as well as their views towards lifestyles and values held."
Three points to note from the above two documents:
1) The term "self-efficacy" does not appear as part of the stated objectives in either the press release or the survey report. Granted, "Level of self-efficacy" was the subject of one of the two pages of conclusions; the other page covered the subjects "Desired future" and "Internet access".
2) Getting young adults to "speak for themselves" seems to be just the means by which Merdeka Center ensured that others did not speak on the youth's behalf (thereby ensuring that the data collected was representative of the youth's views). It does not seem to have been Merdeka Center's objective in and of itself. (Why should it?)
3) In the survey report, the data that spoke to respondents' self-efficacy can be found in two sections, namely "Political Efficacy" & "Electoral Participation". Data that spoke to respondents' social values (including responses to the question "If you can only choose one identity, would you say that you are...?") can be found in in the "Social Values" section. There are other sections are entitled "Media Consumption", "Lifestyle", "Issues", and "What do They Want?".
Therefore, your assertion that "the survey objective was for level of self-efficacy, not to find out who are more Malaysian..." is not supported by the evidence, and I might add, seems somewhat disingenuous.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteLet me ask you a question, Amir, and I hope that you will answer me honestly. In the light of (what I believe is) unambiguous data from the Merdeka Center survey, why do you find it difficult to believe that Malaysians who were educated in Chinese vernacular schools would, of their own free will, choose "Malaysian" as their first identity? Do you have a particular mental image of the "typical" or "average" Chinese school student? How did you form that image of them? Would you care to share that with us?
May I share with you this lesson from Dr. Aneez Esmail (as reported by K.K.Tan):
“Lesson 4. Everywhere in the world, to promote unity, we need to move away from a single identity of ourselves to multi-identities. Each of us is more than just our race or religion or culture on its own. Studies on a global basis have shown that moving towards a single identity is often the cause of social conflict or war. In Aneez’s case, he is more than just a Briton or an Asian or a Muslim. As humans, we have more in common than our differences and this is a guiding principle we must use to strive for racial unity. Sociological studies have also shown that the more social inequality in a country, the greater the incidence of racial unrest, crime and other social problems. Therefore, racial harmony can be better achieved if we improve social equality as a whole."
Again, thanks for putting in the effort,
mh
temenggong,
ReplyDeleteHere is what I believe. The success of any attempt at communication is judged by whether the receiver understands the message as the sender intended. While the receiver certainly has the duty to listen carefully & actively, the responsible sender must also be proactive, & think ahead about the many ways in which his message can be misunderstood (and abused) and convey it appropriately. This applies to casual online responses as much (perhaps more so, due to it's nature), as it does to academic presentations.
Believing that "sometimes we may have to convey messages in cold brutality, so that the message, gets conveyed, to the high strung insecurity pumped racists", is, in my view, untenable.
You may be aware of the "Gabungan Graduan Melayu Muda". On their website (which asks its visitors if "Orang Melayu perlu bersiap sedia mengulangi semula peristiwa 13 Mei 1969", and has entries with titles like "Tahniah Jib...Cino Koling sedang berpesta.... "), this is how they justify such "brutality":
".... Kata-kata kesat yang di gunakan dalam blog GGMM ini sememangnya di buat dengan niat dan dalam keadaan sedar dan waras.
GGMM berpendapat behawa orang Melayu telah bersopan santun selama 51 tahun.
Sebagai balasan kepada kesopanan dan kesusilaan itu,Orang Melayu di pijak dan di hina maruah, adat dan budayanya.
Kerana kesopanan Melayu jugalah, lahirnya generasi Melayu yang FREE THINKER....tak kisah berPerdanamenterikan Lim Guan Eng dan berTPMkan Uttayakumar.
Oleh itu, GGMM mengambil pendekatan kurang ajar...."
The qualitative differences between your messages aside, I hope that you can see how there is no objective difference between your justification & theirs. Both rely on the idea that the ends justify the means. After all, no one owns the exclusive license to define others as "high strung insecurity pumped racists", or to define the rules and what level of "brutality" is acceptable or not, do they?
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteI believe what drives "brutal" communication is not the desire for mutual understanding. It may be to emotionally polarize the audience, as is very probably the case with GGMM; it also may be driven by very human emotional responses. Whatever it is, we need to, as Covey says, first identify what end we have in mind.
I agree with you that racism has (very sadly) become a part of the Malaysian psyche. It was not always so. I believe that the answer lies in conceiving & realizing a vision of Malaysia so compelling that Malaysians see straightaway, that it is what they want for themselves & their children. Any vision can only be realized by attracting people to it, not by browbeating or bullying them into it. Think pull factor instead of push. Using brutality (of whatever temperature & even with the noblest end in mind), will never inspire or change people's hearts. It will lead instead to a downward spiral of reciprocal brutality and end with everyone losing their common humanity & decency.
OK, enough of my self-righteous chatter, as if I have never been caught breaking my own "rules" :-)
I have read your article on multiculturalism, and I appreciate your general thesis, although I can't say that I agree with everything you wrote there. For the record, I believe that the way forward to an excellent National education system, and for our Nation's unity, is for it to be thoroughly reformed.
1) Our education system must never become the excuse or political means for the cultures and languages of any Malaysians to be demeaned or "ghettoized", like kijangmas is trying to do. The cultures and languages of all Malaysians should instead be respected & given due recognition & emphasis.
2) The best practices, strengths & traditions from all schools in Malaysia & elsewhere be evaluated & implemented
3) Major revamp of leadership & curricula to emphasize wholistic human development and independent thinking.
All this can only be done with the enlightened consent & support of all Malaysians. I believe that when any school achieves excellence, parents will naturally want their children to study together there.
So while I categorically reject kijangmas & co's attempt to use our desire for National unity to realize their own supremacist agenda, I believe that a National Education system such as I described above is what all Malaysians should be working towards.
Thanks again temenggong,
mh
(Part 1)
ReplyDeleteMalaysianHeart,
Thank you for your response. In trying to practice as much as I can, the Kesopanan & Kesusilaan (Rukun Negara), I hope I have not crossed any line here especially when you have been such a fine "Tuan Rumah", entertaining guests like me. If in anyway, you may feel that I have crossed a line, let me just in advance seek your kindness to pardon my misbehaviour which certainly not of my intention. You are the "Tuan Rumah" and I, as a guest, shall not exercise "disrespectful-ness", like trying to impose my own rules while being in your house.
Allow me to start by clarifying that, most of what I have written previously, were not of my "own words" as claimed. I was merely quoting sentences contained in the Survey by Merdeka Center Org (MCO). If at all credits seem to be appropriate for earning your attention, that credits shall go to MCO.
Of course, you being "MalaysianHeart" and I being "Amir Hamzah", two people of different name-label (identity), will not always see the same thing when we both are looking at something even though at the same time. I tend to say, this is our nature as human beings living in this world. Again you may not agree with my tendency here. You have your "truth" and I have mine, but what is the Truth, nothing but the Truth? I believe each one of us is seeking this Truth, and on this journey we have acquired this more or less "individualistic truth", basically formed from each our own individual experiences. For example, we both are having differences on the number crunched by MCO leading you giving the Proton & Perdana analogy. Let me just short-cut it here by agreeing to what you have wrote, "..in the light of (what I believe is) unambiguous data from the Merdeka Center survey.."
Amir Hamzah
(to be continued)
(Part 2)
ReplyDeleteMalaysianHeart,
Your article has raised my eyebrow, therefore I commented, "Interesting survey". Forget all those numbers crunched by MCO which you believe, "unambiguous" (which means there is a degree of ambiguity, perhaps much less of a degree compared to those who may not agree with MCO findings).
But do I hear this correct? In 'identity' issue, you seem to assert that, those who attended chinese schools (by large) would first say they are Malaysian, not ethnic, religion or others first? And you based your assertion on one of the MCO's surveys.
If too I may add, your article here also in retaliation to bloggers who are campaigning for the so-called "One School for All", especially the initiator, whom I understand to be one "Deminegara"? To save the doubt, yes! I "signed" the petition and you can find one "Amir Hamzah" there. The signing has a little story behind it, but I shall not digress here. Suffice to say, whatever was mentioned in the campaign, at the end of the day the campaigners are asking the govt to re-look at our current education system/policy in detail. That is a good enough reason for me as I am all for the "re-engineering" of the education system. Therefore, I will not seek excuses, not to sign.
(to be continued)
Amir Hamzah
(Part 3)
ReplyDeleteMalaysianHeart,
While your assertion seems to be based on scientific approach (survey / research), my yard stick, I would say, largely rests on the old fashioned way, very much simpler, that is experiencing my daily life (observing, hearing, seeing, feeling etc). There's hardly any research on my part. I only came to know about MCO through your effort here.
While you will not spend much time (I guess) dwelling on those data which might "weaken" your assertion, I, on the other hand, may not have gathered enough data from my simple observations. But we both formed our own "truth for the moment" through our respective yardsticks.
You have looked and discussed on what appeared to be "my" arguments:-
(1) regarding self-efficacy
(2) claiming that "low self-efficacy means not speaking for themselves" was my own words
(3) respondents of chinese schools do not speak for themselves
(4) responses (by extension) cannot be valid
As I said earlier, I am no 'research' type person and I must thank persons like you who have the passion in researching. (1), (2), (3) above were none of my own words. They were all quoted and unquoted from MCO themselves. Whereas (4) was an extension by another finding of another survey, again done by MCO.
Amir Hamzah
(to be continued)
(Part 4)
ReplyDeleteMalaysian Heart,
When you assert that, those who attended chinese schools would first say they are Malaysian, it raised my eyebrow because my old fashioned and simple observations seem do not support your "survey-based" assertion. How come the imbalance? This then led me to another finding (the rote learning) by MCO on another survey which did narrow the imbalance that I felt. Personally, I do not like to touch on this, but during almost 4 years living in the US, I cant recall that I had come across any American who identify himself/herself as "African-American", "Italian-American", "Chinese-American" etc. All of them said, "I am American", regardless of skin color or origins. The moment they embraced the US citizenship, they started living the American way of life, they speak American, they accept the American's laws and orders. They are American. Period. I do occasionally hear the phrase "African-American" but this was uttered by non-American. An American would say "black" instead of "African-American" if they must to. I personally went through the experience whereby an American friend was confused when a fellow Malaysian told him that he was a "Chinese". "Isn't he a Malaysian?", this American friend asked.
But then, instead of me got carried away making unnecessary judgment on people, why not just look around and see. Take effort to revalidate the findings of the survey via the old fashioned way.
Amir Hamzah
(to be continued)
(Part 5)
ReplyDeleteMalaysianHeart,
Another thing about "identity" question was the "religion" which became one of the survey identifier. The first thing came to my mind was, "has Religion suffered so much such that people who identify himself with religion first seems to be less favorable than national identity first?"
To me, it is of no surprise at all when people would associate themselves with Religion first, and national identity second. Many people in the world see Religion as a larger thing, and to some, even larger than life itself.
What surprised me was that, the necessity of Religion being used in this case, as if Religion was another "discriminatory element". All great religions, to me, do strike similar chord. A man and his God, unification with the Creator seems to be the central theme. How much Religion has placed importance on "Unity". Even an atheist, must first had believed in the existence of God before he was able to deny such existence. Otherwise, what is there to be denied? My plea to everyone is that, please do not intentionally contaminate Religion, any Religion. I am not an expert to dwell on this, I better not get carried away.
A digression.
I am here typing while waiting for my son. I found out something. I cant copy-paste my comments into your blog's comment box for posting. Darn! Do I have to retype the whole thing again (in many parts) into the comment box for posting? Sighhhhhhh.....!!!!
(to be continued)
Amir Hamzah
(Part 6)
ReplyDeleteMalaysianHeart,
Ok. Since you have asked for my honest answer, I feel obliged. How frank is the frank-ness is up to anybody guess. As I said before, just look around and see.
I came from a village (not necessarily in remote area) named after a non-Malay ethnic (perhaps because the number of villagers I supposed). I now live in a community where the majority is made up from whom, most of them, will call themselves "Chinese". DOnt get me wrong, I am quite happy at both places.
The older generations (the 2 generations before me and I would say my generation too) - we are "truly orang se-kampung". As a young boy, I remembered we shared many things together, we spoke the same language, had many common values among us. There seemed to be no age or language barriers. While mixing around, we respected each other beliefs. But it seems, this is no longer hold true whenever I "balik kampung". The younger generation seems to be a bunch of strangers living in the same village. While in my current living place, everybody seems to be minding their own businesses, busy running after something as if nobody does really exist in the community. Of course, the nearest neighbors are the best & closest buddies, but it aint nothing like the former village people. Not at all bad, but we dont speak common language. I had to use English to understand each other better, instead of using Bahasa Kebangsaan. At one time, my neighbor spoke "Chinese" to another neighbor when all 3 of us were having conversations. They just paused for a little while when I interjected, "Please speak Bahasa Malaysia". They continued speaking "Chinese", nevermind me standing there. And these are the same neighbor who last time urged me to enroll my son into a nearby vernacular school. Every now and then, I have many advert-prints printed in non national language, not even the second language. If it was not for "know thy neighbors", I would have mistaken many of them as expatriates from China. Perhaps, common language is another reason for me to sign up the one school petition.
I am not entirely at ease writing this, but I hope you have gotten my honest answer towards your question about being "Malaysian". To me, it is not just by merely "claiming it with your tongue", especially when you are aware that you are being interviewed/surveyed, but to truly embrace that Malaysian identity.
Amir Hamzah
(to be continued)
(Part 7)
ReplyDeleteMalaysianHeart,
You shared with us, lesson from Dr. Arneez Esmail. I will try to be brief. I hope I am hearing it right from you. It seems that you are in favor of "multi-identities" in achieving unity, as opposed to "single-identity".
I understand that this is a lesson from Dr. Aneez as reported (as understood by?) by one K.K. Tan? The paragraph looks like more the understanding of K.K. Tan instead of direct lesson from Dr. Aneez?
Talking about "MalaysianHeart" and "Amir Hamzah" are more than just Malaysians since as humans, we have more in common than our differences and this is a guiding principle we must use to strive for racial unity. I agree.
Because I believe the time will come for "Amir Hamzah" and "MalaysianHeart" are "one". "I am You, You are Me. We are One". This is even greater unity than racial unity!
Dr. Aneez said (as reported) this is the guiding principle, a principle to be aware of in conducting our daily life. But, is this "multi-identities" practicable? If so, why do I see all around different nationalities, each one is proud of their own? While Shell uniforms are very different from Petronas (multiple-identities), no Shell employee will admit that he is a Petronas guy (single-identity). Try boarding MAS aircraft using AirAsia boarding pass? They try very much to maintain their single-identity by trying to be different as much as possible (different logo, aircraft color etc). If it ever practicable, do you hold a multiple-identity passport enabling you to roam free in any country in this world?
I agree with Dr. Aneez when he said that "this is the guiding principle", while in practice, he does not label himself as "a Muslim-Asian British" but simply "British" before he starts promoting the concept of multi-identities in achieving unity. If he does, I wonder what would someone of equal (being a british) and opposite of (being the native anglo-saxon? of Britain) Dr Aneez would say on the subject matter of British identity. I think Dr Aneez (being a British not of the origin of Britain) is well aware that he is subjected to the law and orders of Britain, in order to maintain his British citizenship.
The malay proverb saying, " di mana bumi dipijak, di situ langit dijunjung", warrants us as Malaysian to "kibarkan Jalung Gemilang" and be one proud citizen of Malaysia ,accepting the Rukun Negara & The Perlembagaan Persekutuan, whole heartedly.
If at all, "multi-identities" is practicable, right now, right here, in this segregated-by-nature world, then why "MalaysianHeart"? Why not just "Heart"?
Thank you for the time and space. Gosh!!! I would not want to do this whole retyping again!!!
Please accept my apology if I am anywhere, anytime, herein, went of the line.
Thank you again.
Amir Hamzah.
Mh, I was talking of 'instant and precise communications' and you went into drawing parallels with machiavellianism.
ReplyDeleteIf multiculturalism is recognised and promoted sans the discrimination and marginalisation, it will provide the pull factor for malaysian unity quite automatically, as everyone will feel they have a place under the malaysian sun. That would be real unity, without diluting the multiculturalness.
Added to this is that the various races should learn the languages of others and that should be part of the curriculum. I propose each student be taught at least 500 words each of chinese and tamil, so that at least they can understand any casual discussions and enough for basic communications. It is a sad indictment that after a century of cohabitation and mingling, most of the races do not know even a few words from other languages, i.e. chinese and tamil (as malay is already well known). Such are the insecurities and false sense of conmmunal pride that we have erected walls around us - walls that now entrap us in communalism, making us willing prisoners of racism.
Of course Article 153 is that last wall that must be brought down as soon as the natives intuit and are enlightenend that that is their ball and chain. There can be no intuition when insecurities remain. Insecurities can only be removed by propah education. There is no education in malay, I mean, national schools, which remain breeding grounds for sleepwalkers.
Malaysian Heart,
ReplyDeleteI prefer to validate any survey that caught my attention with the old fashioned "look, see etc" way (What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get)
1. A commentator in Malaysia Today said this "without vernacular schools in malaysia,I would rather go back to where my ancester belong". (Sorry, I could not copy paste the link, but I'm sure you can find it in MT as your article here has been featured there).
I wonder how "Malaysian" the person is, as opposed to your assertion based on MCO's finding.
I mentioned "Religion" previously, because I feel that using "Religion" as one of the survey parameter was not at all justified. To me, it looks more like as "pemecah undi". What I am trying to say here is, a survey can be designed to achieve certain result. (questions and answers can be thoughtfully designed, samples can be strategically selected, etc)
3. A commentator in Demi Negara, question the MCO itself, mentioning a professional surveys done (by Americans) supposedly to assist Boris Yeltsin. This caught my attention.
Just go around the blogsphere and you'll some find bloggers did little surveys in their respetive blogs. I am not at all interested in politics but just as an example, a crude one:-
Pro-govt bloggers tend to survey something like this:-
"ISA must stay" (Yes or No)
I would expect, the result displayed would be majority "Yes". (think about those who visit the blogs)
In opposition bloggers:-
"ISA must be abolished" (Yes or No)
Again, I would expect a majority "Yes" based on the visitors.
4. A survey can also have a little "story" behind it! (http://pendekar-perak.blogspot.com/2009/07/merdeka-center-rupanya-kaki-anwar-juga.html)
I like my WYSIWYG method!
Not being able to copy-paste here, does really inconvenient me. I dont know if what I have type before got posted (this very same comment). This is the second time retyping (I lost it just before I hit the "post comment" button)
Thank you.
Amir Hamzah
Amir Hamzah,
ReplyDeleteI am not a tuan rumah, just as those who comment here are not merely tetamu. We are all equal stakeholders in this conversation. If anything, I am just the tukang sapu, and my duty is to keep the place clean, so that stakeholders' right to converse in peace is protected. The "rules" are as much yours as they are mine.
Therefore, let us respect each other as humans, and not predicate the quality of our kesopanan dan kesusilaan on constructs like tuan rumah etc.
A) Is Merdeka Center responsible for what you think & write?
Reading your original comment of 5:10 pm, your point seemed to be that the responses of those who had attended Chinese schools were invalid, due to a) "those of the low self-efficacy i.e. do not speak for themselves", and b) "their "fixed", "habitual", "routine", "without thought of meaning" minds".
Even if the words you used in your original comment had been used by others before you, you made a choice to use them in your comment, to support the point that you were trying to make. Therefore, when flaws are found in your arguments, you are responsible for them. Come on Amir, you cannot blame Merdeka Center for that, any more than you can blame the Oxford Dictionary. I will leave it to our readers to refer to the original Merdeka Center documents and judge for themselves how "well" you have used their words.
I believe this: when one realizes that one has made a fallacious argument, the honourable thing to do is to acknowledge and retract it. Doing that is the mark of a person seeking truth, and it is a vital part of any intelligent civic discourse. However, trying to wriggle out of responsibility by claiming that one was "merely quoting sentences contained in the Survey by Merdeka Center" is unbecoming and ignominious. It suggests that one lacks the moral courage to stand up for what one believes in.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteB) Your point on truth & how to seek it
True, every individual will see things in a way that is influenced by their worldview & experience, but also by their prejudices & preconceived notions. That fact is never a reason to stop searching for the truth. The opposite is true; it is precisely because our "old fashioned and simple observations" (which you seem to be promoting as the best way to seek the truth) can be affected by our prejudices, we must always seek & use objective data when discussing important issues.
That every individual will see things differently is also a pretty lame excuse to use in disputing the interpretation of statistical results when the statement can be objectively shown to be either true or false. In the case of our "differences on the number crunched by MCO", it is easily shown that your interpretation (that, of the respondents who had identified themselves as Malaysians first, "52% attended the chinese schools"), is untenable. If your interpretation was true, the sum of the percentages of those who had attended Chinese, National and Tamil schools (52%, 39% & 37% respectively, by your interpretation) cannot exceed 100%. As you can see (please do the math yourself), this is not the case.
Therein lies the advantage of using objective methods like statistics to seek the truth. Readers can judge for themselves if the methods used and the data collected are valid, and if the conclusions are too. If anyone disagrees with the methodology, data or the conclusions, they may freely provide objective evidence to support their arguments. All you have done so far is cast unsupported aspersions.
So, in our search for the truth, let's not "Forget all those numbers"; instead, let's look for more objective data, shall we? My "old fashioned and simple observations", prejudices & pre-conceived notions (and yours too) are not what we should be basing National policies on.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteC) Your description of American identities & cultures
I disagree with you in the way you describe Americans. This is what you claimed in your comment:
"...but during almost 4 years living in the US, I cant recall that I had come across any American who identify himself/herself as "African-American", "Italian-American", "Chinese-American" etc. All of them said, "I am American", regardless of skin color or origins. The moment they embraced the US citizenship, they started living the American way of life, they speak American, they accept the American's laws and orders. They are American. Period"
Here is some evidence that refutes your point. I attach below a very, very small sample (limited to just one per ethnicity/culture; f.y.i. there are SIX Filipino-American organizations in ALASKA alone) of the websites that document how Americans of many different ethnicities & cultures embrace & celebrate their multiple identities:
Greek-American Festival
Assembly of Turkish American Associations
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
Japanese American Citizens League
Chinese American Citizens Alliance
Center for Korean American Culture
Vietnamese-American Heritage Foundation
Cambodian American Resource Agency
Laotian American Society (their tagline: Pride in Our Heritage, Passion for Our Future)
National Federation of FIlipino American Associations
Thaitownusa (you can read Thai, can't you? You'll like this website)
Indian American Leadership Initiative
Pakistani American Community of Atlanta a non-profit, social and cultural organization to promote culture, languages and heritage of Pakistani Americans
Nepalese Americas Council
Polish American Congress
German-American Heritage Foundation
National Italian American Foundation
Portuguese American Federation
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (having lived in America for "4 years", you should know that the term African-American is used quite a lot in America, as shown here)
US-PuertoRicans.org Sonia Sotomayor is Puerto Rican-American, and is proud to call herself a Latina.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteA Google search will show that there are many, many, many more like these. They are all websites of organizations, clubs and cultural events that help define the identities of Americans of various ethnicities and cultures. While they may identify themselves as Americans first (just like the 52% of the Chinese school educated respondents in the National Youth Survey 2008 who identified themselves as Malaysians first), they do not relinquish their other identities. Instead, their multiple identities (and heritage, culture, languages and religions), are valued, cherished, promoted, protected and defended. America's ethos (and laws) help them do this, and America as a whole greatly benefits from this diversity and the social capital it generates.
Does being American mean that African-Americans, Cambodian-Americans and everybody else must discard their heritage and practice Anglo-American culture and language instead? Does being American mean that they must accept orders from Anglo-Americans? Just you try telling that to any of them.
Does valuing their heritage in any way diminish their patriotism or American-ness? There are people who argue that it does; an example is the racist Ku Klux Klan. I hope that you do not walk in the KKK's footsteps; kijangmas and his friends certainly do.
Amir, I have to ask you this: how on earth did you manage to spend FOUR YEARS in America without realizing America's multiculturalism & diversity? Is this an example of how you "Take effort to revalidate the findings ... via the old fashioned way"? Your errors of fact & reasoning (like this one) are why I find your "yard stick" and powers of "observing, hearing, seeing, feeling etc", (just like your arguments), dodgy and very suspect.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteD) Your "data" on Malaysian Chinese
You related anecdotal (i.e. from casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis) evidence based on your "observing, hearing, seeing, feeling etc", which you seem to think supports your point that those educated in Chinese schools are not "Malaysian" in identity. Let's look closer at it.
1) There were Chinese schools in existence even back when you all were "truly orang se-kampung". It was not a problem then. Therefore, Chinese schools are not the reason per se why you are now "a bunch of strangers". You need to identify the true reason and not go tilting at windmills
2) You say that your neighbours continued to speak in Chinese, even when you expressed a wish to be included in the conversation. Obviously, they could have included you in the conversation if they had wanted to, by speaking in a common language. They were being very rude, since even if they had a legitimate reason to want to keep their conversation private, they could have informed you & excused themselves. They violated the principle of respecting diversity and making everyone feel valued as part of the group. However, to jump from rudeness in 2 of your Chinese educated neigbours to concluding that Chinese education causes all (or the majority of) Chinese educated Malaysians to be not "Malaysian" in identity is a humongous non sequitur (not to mention contradicted by the National Youth Survey 2008 finding).
3) Does choosing to speak in Chinese (for whatever reason) diminish one's Malaysian-ness? You seem to be implying that it does. I disagree with you. As we have seen above, valuing one's culture, language and heritage does not diminish one's multiple identities.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteE) Multiple identities
I think you have misunderstood the idea of "multiple identities". Let's look at Dr. Aneez own words from the talk he gave:
"You are never just a 'Chinese' or just a 'Malay'," Aneez told the public forum. "Just as I am more than just a British citizen, and more than just a Muslim. My multiple identities are shaped by my experiences, my work, and a variety of influences.
"The danger of defining ourselves by a singular identity locks everyone into fixed positions," he said.
(Bold emphasis mine) So, as we can see in his own words, he does not see himself as "simply 'British'", as you would have us believe (another dodgy assertion by you. If you keep going on like this you will lose all credibility Amir). In his case, although he is British, he has other identities coexisting at the same time. Being British does not require the destruction of his other identities, just as being a Muslim and born in Africa does make him any less British.
Believing that some identities are "obstacles" to unity is deluded and misses the true cause of disunity. Forcibly destroying some identities in the hope of bringing about unity is wrong and bound to fail as it will cause disunity and conflict.
Let's take your own examples. If Air Asia & MAS undertook some form of cooperation or code-sharing at any time, they may indeed share ticketing counters & boarding passes. Nothing wrong with having different colour planes & crew uniforms, it just makes the sky more beautiful.
Shell & Petronas employees may indeed identify as the other & wear the other's uniform, if they were seconded to the other or work in joint ventures. Let's go further. Even if they work for different companies, they may be residents in the same village, members of the same club, and ultimately they are all Malaysian citizens. In that way, they each have multiple identities, and may share many of them. Being in the same village does not make them any less Shell or Petronas. Multiple identities are not only a reality and practicable, but in my view, will help better relations & mutual understanding.
F) The true meaning of being a citizen
I agree with our proverb di mana bumi dipijak, di situ langit dijunjung. Now, what does junjung mean in the context of citizenship? I believe that if we truly love our country wholeheartedly and want to see it & our fellow Malaysians grow & prosper, we would junjung it, not by staying silent like a tunggul kayu while injustice is done, or blindly supporting whatever the government of the day had in mind, but by actively participating in our democracy.
Let's look at Dr. Aneez himself. Being a British citizen (and more) did not stop him from actively playing a part in his country, even if it meant criticizing the British government and other powerful parties. He did not let his being "not of the origin of Britain", as you put it, stop him from speaking and acting against injustice, even if the consequences to himself could have been serious.
Any country that wishes to progress, will work hard to ensure that citizens who are courageous enough to speak & act for right, will stay and continue their good work. Malaysia needs our citizens to be courageous like Dr. Aneez, not stay silent like tunggul kayus.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteG) Supporting deminegara's SSUS: swallowing a spider to kill a fly
You used the word "retaliate" to describe my writings regarding kijangmas & co. Allow me to clarify: I would not know kijangmas or any of his supporters from Adam's off ox; therefore, I have no personal grudge against them. However, I know that the intolerance and chauvinism they peddle is harmful for Malaysia.
Let's look at why you say you signed the petition:
You wrote: "...at the end of the day the campaigners are asking the govt to re-look at our current education system/policy in detail."
That is factually untrue. In their memorandum to the minister, Kijangmas & co. give reasons (like you, they seem to prefer prejudices & preconceived notions) why vernacular schools should be abolished. Immediately afterwards, they call for the total elimination of vernacular schools. They do not call for any study or re-look to be conducted on vernacular schools system or policy at all. In their words:
"Berdasarkan kepada fakta dan pendapat yang terpapar di sini dan segala hujah yang dikemukakan di pautan-pautan berkenaan, kami dengan hormat nya meminta agar gejala Sekolah Vernakular ini di hapuskan secara total."
Only after the total elimination of vernacular schools do they propose "Langkah susulan" or follow-up actions including "Pengkajian Semula Sistem Pelajaran Negara oleh Kumpulan Bebas".
A cursory reading the memorandum would expose the truth. Either you have been taken in by their lie, or you are trying to propagate it yourself. Which is it, Amir?
You further claim: "That is a good enough reason for me as I am all for the "re-engineering" of the education system."
Even if you (like myself and many others) are for "re-engineering" our education system, by not understanding the implications of SSUS (or misrepresenting them), you have supported their belief that the languages & cultures of Malaysian minorities must be banished from all national & public roles and be confined to private community matters only. Just like the nursery rhyme where someone swallowed a spider to kill a fly, without understanding (or caring about) the full consequences.
You also wrote: "Therefore, I will not seek excuses, not to sign."
This is a common kijangmas and co. tactic in comments sections to railroad the SSUS. By implying (without evidence) that people who do not support SSUS are not patriotic or "Malaysian" enough, they want to avoid addressing the real concerns Malaysians have about their scheme.
So, again Amir, are you a victim, or are you the perpetrator?
Thanks for taking the time to respond, look forward to seeing some good points from you,
mh
On July 7, 2009 9:01 PM, a reader who signed off as "Oneofthesedays" posted the comment below. It contained words that some readers may have found objectionable. I have replaced them with hashes. I have not changed anything else.
ReplyDelete(Oneofthesedays' reply begins)
Hmm..
You sure the Merdeka Center is independent? DO some homework. The answer will surprise you...or maybe not.
Well they have a new poll that says Najib is enjoying a 65% approval rating.
Still think they are independent?
As for the question at hand, why is it so hard to have a unified school system. No developed country has this ###### racially divisive vernecular school system.
Why not make mother tongue languages a compulsory class and part of the curriculum?
Why not improve the unified school system for the benefit of all.
You better better delete those bangsa malaysia graphics and MLK's image. You are part of the problem.
Malaysian Heart = Kijang Emas = part of the problem.
temenggong,
ReplyDeleteI seem to have annoyed you with my previous response. Well, let me apologize in advance now, because you are going to be even more annoyed by this one ;-)
You wrote: "...as soon as the natives intuit and are enlightenend that that is their ball and chain." May I ask whom did you mean by the word "natives"? The orang asli? Which suku? Or did you mean Malay Malaysians? All of them, the majority or just the "average"?
Have you considered this extract from a usage note from here:
"When used in reference to a member of an indigenous people, the noun native, like its synonym aborigine, can evoke unwelcome stereotypes of primitiveness or cultural backwardness that many people now seek to avoid. As is often the case with words that categorize people, the use of the noun is more problematic than the use of the corresponding adjective. Thus a phrase such as the peoples native to northern Europe or the aboriginal inhabitants of the South Pacific is generally much preferable to the natives of northern Europe or the aborigines of the South Pacific."
By any chance, was it your intention to "evoke unwelcome stereotypes of primitiveness or cultural backwardness" when you used the word? Instancy you may have achieved, but you cannot claim to have been both precise and respectful in your comment. It seems to me that you must concede that you have neglected either one or the other.
Having multiculturalism "recognised" by the government is not enough of a pull factor. The Rakyat need to be convinced of it, and government cannot do that effectively. The "natural" tendency of people is to segregate themselves out of fear, suspicion etc. I believe this is hard wired into our brains.
We need something with a stronger pull to overcome those tendencies. I believe it can be done by civil society & progressive groups gradually building Social Capital.
Similarly, parents should have the final say on their children's education. No point in mandating the teaching 500 words of Chinese, Tamil or whatever if parents do not see the need for it.
No one has a monopoly on "insecurities and false sense of conmmunal pride"; it plagues us all. The walls that entrap us need to be taken apart by us, not demolished by well meaning but impatient outsiders. If they did that, we might think that we were under attack, and fight back tooth and nail. Who could blame us for reacting in that way?
Article 153 of our Constitution, as well as policy instruments like the NEP, are vital tools to help us achieve social justice in Malaysia. While there undoubtedly are Malaysian Indians, Chinese and others below the poverty line, it is also undeniable that the majority of the poor in Malaysia are rural Bumiputras. It is also undeniable that corruption & abuse of the these tools have enriched a small multiracial group of elites at the expense of others, especially Malaysian Malays (thanks to BN policies & corruption, the GINI coefficient for Malays, which measures the gap between the rich and the poor, is now the highest). We need to fine tune the implementaton (e.g. need based aid instead of race based aid) of these policies until social justice (education, health, equal opportunity etc.) is achieved. Then, with the enlightened consent & support of all Malaysians, the necessity of these tools may be re-examined.
You have not yet shown conclusively why our National schools are unreformable.
As always, thanks for dropping by,
mh
temenggong,
ReplyDeleteWould you be so kind as to e-mail me. I have an idea for an article & your help would be greatly appreciated. My email address is malaysianheart@gmail.com
Malaysian Heart,
ReplyDeleteI like your MAS-Air Asia code-sharing example. My earlier example, stating that, one will not be allowed to board MAS aircraft using an Air Asia boarding pass, vice-versa. But with the code-sharing, it is possible to transcend this "MAS-Air Asia" segregation.
I agree with you.
There will be "unity" between MAS and Air Asia in this respect as long as both parties continue to adhere to the CODES of this (1)code (2) sharing. Never a "sharing" is a "one-way" thing.
(I have problem copy pasting my comment into your comment box. Here are the links for (1) and (2) above:-
(1) http://skgualsitok.blogspot.com/2008/09/tun-vt-sambanthan-di-dewan-rakyat-pada.html
(2) http://skgualsitok.blogsot.com/2008/09/ucapan-tun-tan-siew-sin-1969.html)
Looks like many things are going on in your mind when you responded. There seems quite a few perceptions of me in your mind when discussing the Merdeka Center surveys. Well, it is not that bothersome to me. But when you say intolerance and chauvinism they peddle is harmful to Malaysia when referring to kijangmas & co., along with the line of "racism, klu-klux-klan, etc" in the mind, I was a bit concerned. Why dont you take the bold step and make kijangmas&co. see your point of views so that this "dangerous" situation will not be further spread? Go to their blogsite and make them see your lights! I also interested to know "kijangmas & co" point of views as well in defending themselves against your view points. At least you can be a little bit fair to kijangmas & co., for they may not know of the accusations being levelled at them, here.
If I hold a US citizenship, I will call myself "American" when asked, even if (say) I am the President of one "Malaysian-American Citizen Alliance" based in (say) New York city. And I will speak American too, even though my mother tounge is "Jawi/Melayu". Because I am "American", I dont "invite" another fellow American into a conversation which he may not understand. I simply speak American, not "Jawi/Melayu"
I am Amir Hamzah, a Malaysian, perhaps just like you, Malaysian Heart? otherwise, your nick would be just "Heart", to say the least, I presumed?
Thank you for the space and time.
Sincerely,
Amir Hamzah
p/s: seriously, having to type each character of a long website link, because I cannot copy-paste it into the comment box, really a matter of inconvenience to me. Anyways, thanks again.
(1) http://skgualsitok.blogspot.com/2008/09/tun-vt-sambanthan-di-dewan-rakyat-pada.html
ReplyDelete(2) http://skgualsitok.blogsot.com/2008/09/ucapan-tun-tan-siew-sin-1969.html
These two articles mentioned, contained speeches made by the then chiefs of MCA & MIC, were first brought up by kijangmas in one of the series of his articles, after he made himself popular among the choir-boys some time around Dec 2008.
Since then it has been repeated ad infinitum by the 'ultras' as a god-send justification for the pendatang's ungracefulness towards the Malays Malaysian!
I had disputed this ‘conclusion’ made, using that two articles, in the same web site. Sad to say that my reply was ‘cold-storaged’ &/or lost in transmission!!!!!
So, there u r Amir – ‘Why dont you take the bold step and make kijangmas&co. see your point of views so that this "dangerous" situation will not be further spread?’
In fact, yr call is not alone, many of a choir-boys has voiced similar ‘proposal’ to bring the arguments to deminegara web site for further ‘actions’.
My readings, also mirrored within my peers, proved that deminegara did pick-&-choose to allow web comments. Of course he disputed such action vehemently in his web site. I believe Malaysian Heart probably faced the same problems too!
Back to the two articles;
First, note the date stamp of the speeches. Both speeches were made just before the 69 GE.
For those we have live through that period, they would have recalled that MCA & MIC during that period were living on ‘borrowed’ time. Both chiefs of the parties knew very well that their parties were going to lose big time during the coming 69 election. The ground sentiments, amongst their supporters, were overwhelmed with unhappiness.
The oppositions, DAP & Gerakan, were making head-ways into their traditional home grounds. Things were not looking good, as far as the non-Malay majority electorates were concerned.
During that time, due to electorate gerrymandering, many of the MCA & MIC contested constituencies had Malay majority. So that speeches were made to please the Malay supporters, to pull their weight behind Alliance.
2b cont..
anomie
Cont..
ReplyDeleteAny wonder why such speeches were made prior to an critical general election? By two component parties, to please the Malay electorate, almost one after the others?
Coincidences? Sudden discovery of the truth? Or r they just Machiavellian plays to win votes? U tell me!!!!!
Its a form of vote buying by politicians, period!!!
Perhaps, the subsequent loses of the MCA & MIC after the 69 election pointed to the right use of the strategy – simply because most of the then elected MCA & MIC MPs, gained their successful elections from the Malay majority electorates! Those in the other categories lost like sinking ship!
This situation created a form of mentality that the MPs of MCA & MIC needed Umno's (read Malays) supports in order to get elected, among the Umno warlords. Some even mentioned that Umno could form the Federal govt without the helps of the other component parties of Alliance & later BN!
It also planted the seed of kow-towism of MCA & MIC to Umno's wishes. This further eroded the base supports that these two parties enjoyed among their ethnic groups. More so with the Chinese Malaysian than the Indian Malaysian.
Of course with the on set of PAS & the reformasi movement of DSAI, the political games r difference now. The current gerrymanderings of electorates r more towards mixed race constituents than single-race majority, with the exception of hugely Malay Malaysian populace constituents, like the Malay heartlands.
Now, back to the story of holding the WORDS of the politicians to the letters.
So can u honestly think that Tan SS & Sambanthan's speeches could be contrued as PROMISES from the non-Malay Malaysians at large? Or it's only the last straw of breadth for these political players to survive a political storm?
If the answer is yes, then what about the similar PROMISES made by the Umno politicians to the non-Malays? There r many, least of all - made by the TDM about the building of more Chinese Primary schools when he was the then PM!
Blame the broken promises to the l'i napoleans? Then what kind of PM was that, if the l'i napoleans can easily twisted their way around a died-hard manipulator of nth degree?
If the answer is NO, then the perpetual propaganda of these two speeches should be taken as they r - political plays, period.
Food for thought? Amir?
anomie
Malaysian Heart,
ReplyDeleteWhether it was a speech prior to a General Election or it was not, the fact still remain, that is:-
Something had been given out (Tun Tan Siew Sin called it a major concession), and something in return was pledged by the taker, to honour the generosity of the giver.
"Free" citizenships were accorded to a large number of people, who were brought by the British from foreign lands, without much fuss from "Orang Melayu". Tun V.T. Sambanthan and Tun Tan Siew Sin, being the statesmen they were (and still are), recognised this as a major concession which warrant a reciprocal "thank you" note.
It does not matter when or where their speeches were made as long as what they said was indeed a fact.
If this was not a fact, then I stand to be corrected.
There was a code-sharing by MAS and Air Asia. The code-sharing (thus the unity between MAS and Air Asia in this respect) will remain as long as both parties adhere to the codes. Let's call this unity as "MASIA".
Malaysia is the symbol of Unity between the Malays & Pribumis with the rest. The codes, perhaps I can say, being the Rukun Negara & The Perlembagaan Persekutuan.
Amir Hamzah
Amir,
ReplyDelete'Malaysia is the symbol of Unity between the Malays & Pribumis with the rest. The codes, perhaps I can say, being the Rukun Negara & The Perlembagaan Persekutuan.'
May I suggest u read this excellent article by Dr Azmi Sharom;
http://www.projectmalaysia.org/2009/04/broken-promises-the-malaysian-constitution-and-multiculturalism/all/1
Indeed, something has been given out! Who is the giver & who’s the receiver, that's the question!
U seem to bang on relaying on the words of politicians. Good on u, but I won’t, even that politician projected himself as a saint! Better still, after u have read Dr Azmi’s interpretation of The Perlembagaan Persekutuan, can u then hold the umno warlords to fulfill what the founding fathers had compromised?
Or better still, the more recent promises, to all M’sians, that TDM had made while still 'holding the torch' for M'sia?
'It does not matter when or where their speeches were made as long as what they said was indeed a fact.'
Is it a FACT as u have alleged? Can u back it up with official documents, anecdotal/no-peer reviewed garbages aside?
There r some official entries on Malaya in the British Documents at the End of the Empire Project which states the followings;
There were already 4 million non malay citizens by 1938. About one million non malays were not citizens because they did not see an urgent need for it in British Malaya, a crown dominion, and besides in 1939 the British froze granting of citizenships. Then the war delayed it further.
It was after the war and the independence movements in colonies that brought the issue to the forefront. Now the question of citizenship became important as independence was imminent and people had to make up their minds. Some returned. About 50,000 Indians returned to India, and one million non malays applied for citizenship.
This was agreed early (by 1951) on by all parties including umno to accept all the current citizenship of the Malayan clown dominion as a prerequisite for allowing independence. It was a CONDITION OF INDEPENDENCE! Without this issue being resolved independence was out of the question.
It was very late in 1956 at the last minute that some malay groups wanted the special position of malays included to ensure malays are not LEFT BEHIND. (That’s why this provision is at the back in Article 153, and not upfront in Article 3 or 4.) It was a last minute inclusion, WITHOUT A QUID PRO QUO. Therefore there is NO LINKAGE between citizenship & any inter-racial compromises of the locals. (the emphasis r mine)
See the figure of 4 million non malay Malayan citizen before Merdeka? In fact without the subsequent 1 million who applied to become citizen, the populace of the non malay already overwhelmed the malay!
So can u please stand up to be corrected?
anomie
Part 1
ReplyDeleteanomie,
May I suggest u read this excellent article by Dr Azmi Sharom….
Excellent article by one Dr. Azmi Sharom – you say? Have you heard of what others might have said concerning same?
How about the possibility of the existence of many others, the likes of Dr. Azmi, only that they may not be of the same opinion with your Dr. Azmi here. They are all ‘wrong’ to you then?
Indeed, something has been given out! Who is the giver & who’s the receiver, that's the question!
See? You are not sure, neither am I. So who is right then? What is the truth, nothing but the Truth? (see my earlier posting regarding the Truth)
U seem to bang on relaying on the words of politicians. Good on u, but I won’t, even that politician projected himself as a saint! Better still, after u have read Dr Azmi’s interpretation of The Perlembagaan Persekutuan, can u then hold the umno warlords to fulfill what the founding fathers had compromised?
Or better still, the more recent promises, to all M’sians, that TDM had made while still 'holding the torch' for M'sia?
Hmmm… is this just because I quoted the speeches of Tun VT Sambanthan (MIC) and Tun Tan Siew Sin (MCA), who were indeed politicians, to you I have become “somewhat-I-don’t-what-mental-picture-of-me-you-have-in-your-mind”. Not that I am saying politicians are all saints, but you said politician projecting himself as a saint? anomie, what are you trying to imply here? Politician is “un-saint”? UMNO warlords? You seems to have problems with politicians, anomie? Especially those from UMNO? TDM I believe is “Tun Dr. Mahathir”? Oh yes, that former PM, former UMNO’s president. I think I can hear what you are NOT saying here, anomie.
Frankly, I see myself as “apolitical”, but I don’t see why I need to explain it any further to you.
Is it a FACT as u have alleged? Can u back it up with official documents, anecdotal/no-peer reviewed garbages aside?
Maybe I did not make myself crystal clear back then. There were (opened & closed inverted commas – “Free”) citizenships accorded to large number of people (as testified/mentioned/implied in the speeches). Were there or were there not? If there were not, then I stand to be corrected. I was not talking on how, where, why the citizenships were being accorded. I hope that is clear enough.
tbc....
Part 2
ReplyDelete“Anecdotal/no-peer reviewed garbages..”,
Garbages anomie? I am not sure what are you pointing at. Perhaps you may want to take a look at pages 36 & 37 of “Malaysia : The Making of A Nation by Boon Kheng Cheah – Published by Institute of Southeast Asian Studies 2002 - ISBN 9812301755, 9789812301758”. He discussed on citizenships, privileges, Reid commission etc, another one the likes of your Dr. Azmi perhaps.
There r some official entries on Malaya in the British Documents at the End of the Empire Project which states the followings;
There were already 4 million non malay citizens by 1938. About one million non malays were not citizens because they did not see an urgent need for it in British Malaya, a crown dominion, and besides in 1939 the British froze granting of citizenships. Then the war delayed it further.
Yeah. Read what Mr. Boon Kheng Cheah wrote about what had been demanded by UMNO regarding citizenships and what had been finally accepted by the Reid Commission.
So can u please stand up to be corrected?
Stand up to be corrected on what, anomie?
Malaysian Heart,
My apology. I didn’t realize it before that I should be addressing one ‘anomie’ here in my previous posting. I thought it was you because it sounded so similar, as it was you. My mistake. Sorry about that.
I think I can see where this is heading to. Perhaps there’ll be no end in commenting. As I said before, everyone has their own truth, but what is the Truth, nothing but the Truth? I will continue my own journey, perhaps one day we both can meet at a mutual crossing.
Frankly, what initially brought me here (beside Malaysian Heart) was, the writing that appears on your blog.
I am not Chinese, neither am I an Indian. I am Amir Hamzah ....a MALAYSIAN. …(who was then a Melayu Jawi)
Before words getting more tasteless than “garbages”, "warlords", I think I better move on. What more, when there seems to be questions or rather challenge against the very own Perlembagaan Persekutuan, which is regarded as the highest set of laws for a country named Malaysia. Please do not misunderstood that the Perlembagaan is the utmost divinely sacred untouchable set of laws for Malaysia. Discuss every aspect of it for the betterment, but while it is being discussed, show some respect as citizen of Malaysia by abiding the existing laws in effect, till they are further being improved as so needed.
Thank you for the space here. May you ever be…… Malaysian Heart.
Sincerely,
Amir Hamzah, a Malaysian.
Amir,
ReplyDeleteGetting personal & play semantic, ya?
Dr Azmi’s article is indeed excellence, at least to MY personal viewpoint. If there r any similar articles, written purely from the legal prospective of The Federal Constitution, that can be logically argued & construed to be otherwise of those expressed by Dr Azmi, pls do let me know!
I like history AND I read all history with full skepticism because I strongly believe what’s written is only a single aspect of the viewpoint put forward by the author. Like u, I strongly believe that there is a 100% possibility ‘of the existence of many others, the likes of Dr. Azmi, only that they may not be of the same opinion with your Dr. Azmi here. They are all ‘wrong’ to you then?’
I read all of them, without biase. Then, I analyse the thoughts generated with logics, based on surronding co-variances, to come to my OWN understanding of the events.
I have consistently argued my case, about history as a Rahsoman - A heinous crime and its aftermath are recalled from differing points of view.
Even though history does record happy events.
History is multi-layers. No single source is The Truth - they r all circumspect caused by events that r un-controllable & yet chaotic.
I must put forward a caveat that document like our Constitution is a historical record that’s NEUTRAL. Neutral in the sense that what has been stated in ITS words r agreed FACTS. Nothing can change its meaning, unless/until subjects to parliament amendments. There r many similar documents, mainly dealing with rules, all over the world.
Put it simply – if u steal u will be punished, that’s the law. & it’s neutral. Who steal & who punish will be another different issue!
So pls don’t confuse historical EVENTS with documents like The Rukun Negara & The Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Ok?
‘Indeed, something has been given out! Who is the giver & who’s the receiver, that's the question!’
When I wrote that phrase, I was very sure of what I meant – who’s the giver, who’s the receiver. I’m sorry that u didn’t!
In yr earlier comments u seemed to be very ‘sure’ who’s who.
‘"Free" citizenships were accorded to a large number of people, who were brought by the British from foreign lands, without much fuss from "Orang Melayu". Tun V.T. Sambanthan and Tun Tan Siew Sin, being the statesmen they were (and still are), recognised this as a major concession which warrant a reciprocal "thank you" note.’
Don’t u want to help me to see ‘yr’ ‘lights’ about the above statement?
BTW, yr subsequent paragraphs about politicians really lost me. U do need to explain them further to the others readers, as I’m already lost!
U throw a challenge – ‘There were (opened & closed inverted commas – “Free”) citizenships accorded to large number of people (as testified/mentioned/implied in the speeches).’
Fair. What’s wrong with me asking for proof? For that matter - Can u back it up with official documents, anecdotal/non-peer reviewed garbages aside? The last two categories r excluded because they r NOT established Facts! Facts r subjected to vigorous challenges & yet still stand.
2b cont..
anomie
cont..
ReplyDeleteWhat a coincidence, I’ve read “Malaysia : The Making of A Nation by Boon Kheng Cheah – Published by Institute of Southeast Asian Studies 2002 - ISBN 9812301755, 9789812301758”. In fact, from front cover to back cover (just to make sure u understood).
What the author has mentioned at those two quoted pages (pg 36 &37) was his PERSONAL viewpoint of some historical events. Also do note the date stamps of the events that he mentioned. He had shown NO other OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS to back up his writing at those pages. So this writing is still subjected to vigorous peer review!
Do note that Boon Kheng Cheah’s approach to the historical events IS very difference from the analytical sieving done by Dr Azmi on the Clauses of The Federal Constitution. One is an observed event that is subjective while the other’s is very objective & based on logical analysis. I do sincerely hope that u r not confused about this point!
‘Yeah. Read what Mr. Boon Kheng Cheah wrote about what had been demanded by UMNO regarding citizenships and what had been finally accepted by the Reid Commission.’
Pls refer to this - It was very late in 1956 at the last minute that some malay groups wanted the special position of malays included to ensure malays are not LEFT BEHIND. (That’s why this provision is at the back in Article 153, and not upfront in Article 3 or 4.) It was a last minute inclusion, WITHOUT A QUID PRO QUO. Therefore there is NO LINKAGE between citizenship & any inter-racial compromises of the locals.
Isn’t that the answer to yr ‘doubts’ about ‘that compromise’? It’s all in The Perlembagaan Persekutuan all this while iff one read closely!
BTW, the British Documents at the End of the Empire Project is an achieving effort to record all the official documents of the British Empire. It consists of all official British Empire factual documents!
‘Stand up to be corrected on what, anomie?’
On the FACT that u demand & I provided, comprender?
‘when there seems to be questions or rather challenge against the very own Perlembagaan Persekutuan, which is regarded as the highest set of laws for a country named Malaysia. Please do not misunderstood that the Perlembagaan is the utmost divinely sacred untouchable set of laws for Malaysia. Discuss every aspect of it for the betterment, but while it is being discussed, show some respect as citizen of Malaysia by abiding the existing laws in effect, till they are further being improved as so needed.’
U certainly lost me!
I certainly has highest respect for The Federal Consitution. And I strongly think that Dr Azmi does his! If we have not, then pls enlighten us. What we have, or at least I had done, was questioning the interpretation & implementation of the highest set of laws for a country named Malaysia - the utmost divinely sacred untouchable set of laws.
BTW do u know how many times has that utmost divinely sacred untouchable set of laws been amended since conception by the BN govt? It’s certainly not utmost divinely sacred untouchable set of laws to some people!
Yr parting shots sound very familiar. Tak p’yah layan org ni. Closed yrself in in the tempurung after discovering that the sky window that accidentally pared opened is fast falling down on yr closed logics! How sad, indeed!
anomie – an anak Malaysia
Hi,
ReplyDeletebeen following your discussions/comments with Amir. Interesting!! Amir, do you blog? I’d like to follow.
anomie,
you sound much in your own tempurung having closed mind your own. Just my tots! Don’t paw on me, just give it a tot if you like.
acitizen