Archive for the ‘Thoughts’ Category

YES to ISA + Hidup Melayu + Hidup Islam = Oxymorons.

Friday, July 31st, 2009 4,135 views

Epic FAIL picture of the week

Hidup Melayu? – 1Malaysia FAIL! What happened to discarding their ‘ethnic silo’ mentality?

KUALA LUMPUR, April 15 (Bernama) — Malaysians should discard their ‘ethnic silo’ mentality, said Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.The Prime Minister said Malaysians must “stand together, think and act as one people under the ‘1Malaysia concept’.”

(Source: Bernama)

Yes to ISA? – An oxymoron to ‘Hidup Islam’.  Islam doesn’t allow detention without trial. FAIL!

The ISA is against Islam for it violates the principles of truth and justice as mentioned in the Holy Book of Al-Qur’an in Chapters An-Nisa’, As-Syura, and An-Nahl, verses 58, 15 and 90 respectively. To arrest and detain a person only and only on the basis of suspicion and without trial, without opportunity to defend oneself is forbidden and considered haram in Islam.

(Source: ISA is against Islam)

Hidup Melayu then followed by Hidup Islam? – FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL!

Melayu is bigger than Islam? That’s an insult. Islam never champion any race. Perhaps some Melayu do think that way – Melayu > Islam. They are Melayu Umno, Melayu Perkasa, Melayu Pewaris. Melayu of same repulsive mentality and disgusting behaviours like Ibrahim “Raja Katak” Ali.

What’s next after YES to ISA? YES to custodial deaths? YES to corruption? YES to hypocrisy? YES to idiotic ministers? YES to yes man? More like YES to MAKE YOURSELF LOOK LIKE A FOOL AND STUPID! YES YES YES!

ps: Note the hair of those wearing the stupid shirt. Nicely trimmed. Short cropped. Conspiracy theorists.. enjoice!

Your blog sucks donkey’s cock.

Thursday, July 23rd, 2009 8,365 views

People always ask me:

“Why don’t you write more about yourself in your blog? Your political craps really boring. “

Or they would say something along the line:

“I love to read things about you. You should write more about yourself.  Especially posts about you growing up as a kid, memories and life when you were in school, your everyday’s life, your job. I find those personal posts more interesting. “

Or they would say.

“Your blog sucks donkey’s cock. “

Or they would say nothing at all.

“………..”

Well, I can’t do much about my blog sucking donkey’s cock so as long as the donkey is happy I’m happy. You can take the donkey’s place if you want to be happy.

I can’t do much about silent readers also, I can only go “………..”

For those who love reading my posts minus those ‘controversial-longwinded-boring-political’ craps, well thank you. That’s very nice. Em, and I have an ‘excuse’ why I don’t write those posts that you “love a lot” very often. I also can think of a reason why people love to read such posts.

I’m not an exhibitionist. I am more to a narcissist.

Exhibitionist. Ehem, I’m not talking about bodily exposure to get some kind of sexual gratification (ha! I know you googled for it! :P ), but more on the act to exhibit own’s personal life so as to attract attention, in this case writing about it in your blog. To put it in a crude way, attention seeker. ROTFLMAO!

An exhibitionist blogger loves to show off share his personal life with his readers. Think of actors. Or singers. An exhibitionist is a performer. It is about putting something out for others to see or appreciate. Nothing is wrong with that.

You can write about the food you just ate, what your boyfriend/girlfriend did to you last night, your new makeup, your new shoes, your flirtatious moment with the girl you met in LRT and many more personal stuffs and rest assured, that’s perfectly fine. I do that from time to time. So, yes please continue with your style. *making random gestures*

Narcissist. That’s self love. Don’t confuse narcissist with exhibitionist. A narcisssist loves himself (or things about himself) more than anyone (or anything) else. He doesn’t feel the need to get acknowledged by anyone for things he did, (in this case, the posts he wrote), it’s good enough if he himself is happy with the result. It is for self satisfaction. Think of masturbation, yes. You will get the concept.

Blog readers who love personal posts are voyeurs.

I always suspect blog readers who love personal blogs are into some kind voyeurism. The need to know more about someone, what he ate for lunch, where he went to during the weekend, who he’s dating now, what handbag she’s using etc. It is like getting kick from spying on people’s life. In this case, you don’t have to spy, it’s there for you to see. Exhibitionists complement voyeurs perfectly.

Actually, I want to write more about this blogger vs reader thing. But the clock is ticking closer to 5pm and being a punctual employee I must leave on the dot. We’ll talk about this again, depending on the response. *wink!* See ya!

ps: I can’t believe I came up with such crap. If you don’t understand this post, it’s okay. Me neither. *shrugs*

pss: Now that I really think about it hmmm.. I’m a bit of narcissist and exhibitionist. What do you think?

Open letter to Tun Mahathir

Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009 8,580 views

A reader has kindly helped me (thank you Daisy Sheppard!) with the translation works for my previous Bahasa Melayu post ‘Surat terbuka kepada Tun Mahathir‘ , so here is the English version for your reading. Please share it around if you think it is worth doing so.

Dear Tun Mahathir,

I refer to Tun’s article entitled “Walk in the Shoes” written on the 20th July 2009 on Tun’s website. Allow me to share my opinion with regards to what had been written by Tun.

2. I believe the questioner perceived that non-Malays are feeling very oppressed and disappointed with the “injustice” against them in Malaysia (by a Government that is controlled by Malays).

The non Malays have strong reasons for feeling very oppressed and disappointed with the injustice towards them in Malaysia. In fact non Malay bumiputeras specifically the orang Aslis and Sabah and Sarawak bumiputeras also share the same feels as they too were not given the same treatment as the Malays whereas they are the original inhabitant of this country. How many non Malay bumiputera were accepted into the government sectors and government owned corporations like Petronas?

3. I do not know if this questioner ever asked non Malay luminaries the same question that is the feelings of Malays as to the state of their ancestors’ country that they have now become a race that relatively speaking are the poorest and still lagging behind.

Tun, the keyword here is ‘the poorest and lagging behind’ and that means irrespective of race, Malay or non Malay. If aid had been given to those who are deserving and in need without taking in account race, skin colour and religion and it was found that the majority of the deserving poor are Malays, it would have been well received by all.

No one will question such a policy. It is only wrong to create on purpose and then systematically misuse a policy to provide priorities to a particular race without taking into account the merit and need. In fact if such a policy is implemented – by taking into account needs and merit in deciding the distribution of aid, the majority of the Malays will automatically receive the benefits.

It has been more than 30 years the NEP has been implemented and there are still many Malays who are poor and lagging behind. Does this not give an indication that the NEP has failed in its implementation and that something drastic needs to be done? The gap between the poor and the rich keeps increasing where wealth is only directed to a group of Chinese, Indian and Malay individuals.

When you were in power, you gave many lucrative contracts to your non-Malay friends and some of them went to become among the richest individuals in Malaysia. Why didn’t you give the contracts to Malays back then? If you did, what happened to them?

And by using the argument that the richest individuals in Malaysia are from those who are non Malays, Tun presumed that it is all right to continue the NEP by giving priority to the Malays and punishing the non Malays who are poor and lagging behind? Is not the original intention of the NEP to help all who are poor and in need of economic aid regardless of race? Since when has the NEP been exclusively reserved for the Malays only?

Oh yes, is it not according to anthropological and historical studies, that most of the Malays in Malaysia and their ancestors actually originated from Indonesia, Thailand and India? Even from China? So their ancestors’ country is actually not Malaysia, just like mine? For example yourself,Tun; Khir Toyo and Syed Hamid Albar?

4. If he were to ask and the luminary answered sincerely, he will find that the Malays are most disappointed with their relative poverty that they are forced to keep asking all the time and also lagged in various fields.

Does it mean that with the existence of the NEP for more than 30 years now (almost reaching 40 years actually), the Malays have truly progressed and no longer lagging behind in various fields? Has it ever been pondered that the number of Malays who have progressed and no longer lagged behind had increased is due to the lowering of the yardstick or standard as well as the quota given by the government to enable them to be accepted for participation in specific fields? Is this to be regarded as achievement to be proud of? Isn’t that self deceiving?

5. They try to convince themselves they are masters in their own country but they know that actually they are not masters. The non Malays are the true masters.

Is it so very important for the Malays or the non Malays who are all Malaysian citizens to be jostling to be the true masters? Why do Malay POLITICAL LEADERS like Tun so obsessed with the mission to be ‘masters’? Tun was almost correct by saying (ONLY VERY FEW) non Malays are the true masters even after 30 years of the NEP being used to give priorities to the Malays. The question then, how could this happen?

The Malays have been helming the country through UMNO. Priority is given to Malays in business, economy, education, job opportunities and etc. through the NEP, yet the ones who become lords are a handful of non Malays? How this can possibly happen? Is that not strange and weird? Whereas those in power are the Malays and policies involving important sectors gave priorities to the Malays?

And Tun, please rectify the misleading statement ‘non Malays are the true masters’ by adding ‘a few’ in the front. I am a non Malay and I do not feel at all that I am master.

6. Because they are willing to share their country with other races, the race that originates from much more ancient civilisation (4,000 years) and who are more successful, today what little that they still have is being removed from them.

Tun, please clarify ‘what little that they still have is being removed from them’. This statement is very confusing and irresponsible. Priorities set aside for the Malays and the Sabah and Sarawak bumiputeras are enshrined in the constitution and no one can change or amend those facts except with the power of 2/3 of the parliament.

What that is frequently disputed here is the lack of fair treatment and implementation that veered from its real provisions as well as the tendencies of political leaders who attempt to twist existing facts according their distorted interpretations for their own selfish interests.

7. Think only of the New Economic Policy (NEP). Corporate wealth distribution in the NEP is 30% for bumiputras (even though they are 60% of the population) and 40% for other races as well as 30% for foreigners. But after 39 years of effort, the portion that is with them is only 20%, while the portion that is with the other races is almost 50%, even though they form only 26% of the total population.

Thank you for sharing this statistic, Tun. This clearly proves that, the NEP policy implemented all these years has FAILED terribly! If it had been implemented regardless of race but looked only at needs, undoubtedly thos who will benefit the most would be the Malays as most of them are poor and from them who make up ‘60% of the population’. Why Tun is still tenaciously defending the NEP implementation that has failed and only benefits very few individuals?

In line with Tun’s logic (twisting statistics to support arguments and making it into a believable ‘fact’), I am a 3rd generation inhabitant in Malaysia, just like Tun. Why can’t I obtain the same treatment as that received by Tun? I have no statistics of non Malay citizens born in Malaysia who are the 3rd, the 4th generation compared to ‘Malays” who immigrated to Malaysia, lived here for less than 3 generations but received the same treatment as the original inhabitants. For example, Khir Toyo? Syed Hamid Albar? Many foreign citizens in Sabah possess MyKad and the ‘Malay Bumiputera’ status? Statistically (refering to the number of years living in Malaysia), I am definitely more qualified to receive ‘better’ treatment than them, right?

I believe the statement that corporate wealth distribution of 30% for the bumiputeras is not very accurate; instead 30 % for Umnoputra is more accurate. The total membership of UMNO is less than 2 million and this means that this 30% corporate wealth distribution is savoured by Umnoputra – who represent but only 7 % of the Malaysia population. Agree?

Additionally, is it the fault of the non-Malays that they were brought here and multiplied here? Why must the ‘blunder’ done by other people (the British) be borne by the non-Malays, particularly new generations like me? Non-Malays do not have the option but to serve and pledge allegiance to Malaysia and what is requested is fair and equal treatment as has been provided for them in the constitution. That is all, Tun.

8. The value of bumiputera owned assets totalled 15 % while the rest are owned by non-Malays because assets owned in urban areas are worth much higher than those in rural areas.

Is it a crime to be rich non-Malay in an economic climate that is based on capitalist principles and free market? Is the question of race still relevant in the global economy that Tun keeps harping on, for example while defending the PPSMI? Why after 50 years of BN government (which is held by the Malays) and 30 years of NEP implementation, the nation’s wealth has yet to reach the rural population who in general are the Malays? Is this the fault of the non-Malays.

9. Non-Malay luminaries who try to put themselves in the place of the Malays (in the shoes of the Malays) if they are sincere, will feel the disappointment of the Malays noting that that almost all businesses and enterprises as well as wealth obtained from them are owned by non Malays. All the grand estate houses are occupied by non Malays. Very few Malays live in such grand estates. More live in slum areas.

Yes Tun, why? Is this also the fault of people who are non Malay but able to still compete and monopolises wealthy even when they were not given an economic crutch? Have Tun ever compared the living standards of Malays who are rich with those who are poor, and non Malays who are rich with those who are poor, which would have a greater gap of wealth disparity difference?

Why are there still so many Malays who live in slum areas while political leaders like Tun live in splendour? Why your child Tun, could hold grand house warming parties but many Malays still live in destitute? Why politicians like Zakaria Deros, Khir Toyo can afford to build magnificent palaces that cost millions of ringgits while there are still many Malays who live in slum shacks?

10. Maybe all these are due to the Malays’ own fault. They did not use the opportunities prepared for them. There are some who even abused these opportunities. But if a trishaw rider is given a million Ringgit, will he be able to venture into business and be successful in this field?

True. Why are opportunities still being given to those who are ‘not clever, less skilled and not qualified?’ Would this help them to be successful? Tun, the good intentions to help the Malays are well received and appropriate. But the way that have been used, the implementations are not right, as postured by Tun yourself “if a trishaw rider is given a million Ringgit, would he be able to venture into business and be successful in this field?”

11. Social engineering is not only done by the Malays alone. Socialism and Communism are also types of social engineering to reduce or eliminate the gap between the poor and the rich. They are also not totally successful although they use speakable violence. The NEP was implemented carefully without violence, without confiscating and often amended when faced with opposition from the non-Malays. What is the perception of the Malays towards the NEP?

Tun, now is the year 2009, not 1959. ‘Social engineering’ needs to change according to current realities. If we keep returning to our history and lives are overshadowed by our pasts, we do not have progress. Do the Navajo Indians need to ask the United States of America to make a policy like the NEP with the excuse of past history?

Yes, it is true the NEP is implemented without violence and confiscation, but it has also systematically quashed the opportunities of many Malaysian citizens just because they are non-Malays. How many non-Malay citizens of Malaysia who are bright and brilliant have been taken and utilised by neighbouring country Singapore to develop that country because they are not accepted by their own country? Is that not a waste? Malaysia ‘raised’, educated and provided shelter for them for almost 20 years, and after obtaining excellent results were not utilised well by Malaysia but instead are ‘handed over’ to our neighbouring country?

The opposition of non-Malays, in fact also many Malays who did not get the benefits of the NEP is towards its implementation which only helped a select few. Refering to the statistics shared by Tun, the poverty gap is increasing and has not improved since the NEP was implemented.

12. Just look at the history of the Malay struggle. During the 1955 election, at a time when they controlled 82% of the constituencies, they willingly gave not a small number of their constituencies to the other races and voted candidates from these races until they won against other Malay candidates (PAS).

Is that not something that is should be carried out in line with the power sharing concept that BN harped upon? I definitely do not agree with BN’s concept of choosing its candidates based on race, and not ability or qualification. This should not be regarded as a ‘sacrifice’, instead the Malaysian citizens have been ‘sacrificed’ as most of the candidates and leaders chosen to represent them were chosen only because they were from a certain race, without looking at the ability of the individual.

13. Then they awarded one million citizenships without the usual conditions to other races so much so that the percentage of the Malay citizens fell from 82% to 60%. Who amongst others has similarly done so?

Tun, could Malaya (at that point in time) been able to achieve independence from the British without agreeing that citizenship be also given to other races? Was not citizenships given conditionally where priorities will be given to the Malays and the Sabah and Sarawak bumiputeras as enshrined in Article 153 of the Malaysian Constitution?

Why does Tun say it was given without the usual conditions when you know that is not true? Why does Tun still dig up past events? 50 years the non-Malays have lived in Malaysia, is that still not enough to repay the magnanimity of the Malays in awarding citizenships with that particular condition? How long more must these issues of ‘original inhabitants’ and ‘immigrants’ be raised, Tun? Each time BN or Umno feels it will lose its ruling grip?

14. At that time the official name of the country is The Federation of the Malay States. When the Malay States Peninsula was merged with Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah, the word “Malay States” were dropped and the merged states were named Malaysia. With that the Malay identity disappeared from the name of the country itself. They however did not seek to drop other names.

Tun, is this relevant to talk about? Do not many Malays still adamantly link the name Malaysia as Malay (Melayu) – sia? Why is something that has been agreed upon at one time long ago by all the Malaysian leaders, is made an issue by Tun?

15. Unlike other countries which allow only their national language in all national schools, the Malays agree that Chinese and Tamil be made the medium of instruction in Government-aided schools. The national language (Malay Language) did not become the national language as in other neighbouring countries and in Europe, Australia and America.

Was this (rights to use mother tongue) not also what had been agreed upon by all the leaders – Malay, Chinese and Indians when Malaysia achieved her independence from the British and is thus incorporated into the country’s constitution? Why does Tun need to question this issue? Was this not the condition for the Malay Language to be accepted as the national language, a ‘trade-off?’

16. And many more sacrifices had been made by the Malays so that other races get what ever they demand, for national peace and unity.

How long and how much more sacrifices have also to be made by the non-Malays so that the Malays can be satisfied?

17. What would be the apparent feeling of the luminary who placed himself in the place of the Malays, towards all these sacrifices? Will he still think that the Malays ought to sacrifice everthing that is demanded of them?

Does Tun think that the non-Malays have not sacrificed for the sake of helping their Malay brothers and sisters? Do you think they are very happy to be denied the many opportunities all because they have been born non-Malays? What would be your feeling Tun if you were not Malay?

18. With this article I will still be labelled as a racist by non-Malay racists. But if they are willing to accept the truth, they can compare the sacrifices of the Malays the original owners of this country with the their sacrifices made in the interest of this country.

With this article, it is proven Tun remains trapped in the old mindset. Tun still thinks that in this challenging era of globalisation of a world without borders, racial issues and communal politics are still relevant to talk about? Why does Tun only touch on the sacrifices of the Malays? Why does Tun not touch on the contribution and sacrifices of the non-Malays in nation building and development of this country?

19. I am of the opinion that if this country wants peace and development, wealth distribution and the quality of life of all races mush be just (fair) even though unequal. Let not any party or race bears the burden of extreme poverty, while other races live in luxury. Fishing support by taking the right of one race to give to another race is not the way – particularly taking from those who are lacking to be given to those already have plenty.

I am of the opinion if this country wants peace and progress, racially laced statements and those that can bring about disunity should be avoided, especially those coming from leaders like Tun.

Distribution of wealth and the quality of life of all races can only be fair if it is based on needs and merits, not racial identity and skin colour. Tun contradicts yourself when you said ‘fishing support by taking the right of one race to give to another race is not the way’ yet Tun appears to make arguments to support that very same action from point 2 to 18 with the excuse it is only right and proper because ‘the Malays have sacrificed more compared to the non Malays’.

What is the purpose of Tun writing the article above by pitting the Malays and the non Malays which can give rise to suspicion and dissatisfaction amongst the races? Does it help to build national unity towards a peaceful state?

1. At a forum organised by Gempita and UMNO entitled The Position of the Malay Rulers and the Malays in the Malaysian Constitution in the Age of Liberalisation and Globalisation, I was asked by a Malay lecturer from UIAM (Univeristy Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia) if I had ever thought to put myself in the place of non Malays (put yourself in the shoes of a non-Malay) with regards to the the discrimination against them in this country.

Oh yes, Tun has yet to answer the question of that lecturer, have you even thought to put yourself in the place of the non Malays with regards to the discrimination against them in this country.

That is all,

I, a non Malay citizen of Malaysia.

Surat terbuka kepada Tun Mahathir

Tuesday, July 21st, 2009 12,929 views

Updated: English version for this post here – Open letter to Tun Mahathir

Kehadapan Tun Mahathir,

Saya merujuk kepada artikel Tun bertajuk “Kaki Dalam Kasut” yang ditulis pada 20 Julai 2009 di laman web Tun. Izinkan saya berkongsi pendapat saya berkenaan apa yang ditulis oleh Tun.

2. Saya percaya penyoal berpendapat orang bukan Melayu berasa amat tertekan dan kecewa dengan “ketidakadilan” terhadap mereka di Malaysia (oleh Kerajaan yang dikuasai oleh orang Melayu).

Orang bukan Melayu mempunyai alasan yang kukuh untuk berasa amat tertekan dan kecewa dengan ketidakadilan terhadap mereka di Malaysia. Malah bumiputera bukan Melayu khususnya orang Asli dan bumiputera Sabah dan Sarawak juga berkongsi perasaan yang sama kerana mereka turut tidak diberikan layanan yang sama seperti orang Melayu sedangkan mereka merupakan penduduk asal negara ini. Berapa banyakkah individu bumiputera bukan Melayu yang diterima masuk dalam sektor kerajaan dan syarikat-syarikat milik kerajaan seperti Petronas?

3. Saya tidak tahu samada penyoal ini pernah bertanya kepada tokoh bukan Melayu soalan yang sama iaitu perasaan orang Melayu akan keadaan di negara nenek moyang mereka yang mereka sudah jadi kaum yang secara relatif termiskin dan masih ketinggalan.

Tun, kata kunci di sini ialah ‘yang termiskin dan ketinggalan’ dan itu tidak mengira kaum Melayu atau bukan Melayu. Sekiranya bantuan diberikan kepada mereka yang berhak tanpa mengira kaum, warna kulit dan agama dan didapati majoriti yang miskin adalah orang Melayu, ianya akan diterima baik.

Tiada sesiapa akan mempersoalkan dasar sedemikian. Tetapi adalah salah untuk membuat dan memperalatkan sesuatu dasar yang memberikan keutamaan kepada sesuatu kaum tanpa mengira taraf hidup dan keperluan. Malah jika sesuatu dasar itu dilaksanakan dengan mengambil kira keperluan dan merit, majoriti orang Melayu secara automatis yang akan mendapat manfaatnya.

Sudah lebih 30 tahun DEB dilaksanakan dan masih yang banyak orang Melayu yang miskin dan ketinggalan. Bukankah ini memberi petunjuk bahawa DEB telah gagal dalam perlaksanaannya dan sesuatu yang drastik perlu dilakukan? Jurang antara yang miskin dan kaya semakin bertambah, di mana kekayaan hanya tertumpu kepada sekumpulan individu Cina, India dan Melayu.

Malah Tun sendiri ketika berkuasa banyak memberikan kontrak kepada rakan-rakan Tun yang bukan Melayu yang kini gah tersenarai antara individu-individu paling kaya di Malaysia. Mengapa? Mengapa Tun semasa berkuasa tidak memberikan kontrak-kontrak tersebut kepada orang Melayu?

Dan dengan menggunakan hujah individu-individu paling kaya di Malaysia adalah terdiri daripada mereka yang bukan Melayu, Tun beranggapan adalah patut untuk meneruskan DEB dengan memberikan keutamaan kepada orang Melayu dan menghukum orang bukan Melayu yang miskin dan ketinggalan? Bukankan intipati asal DEB adalah untuk membantu semua yang miskin dan memerlukan pertolongan ekonomi tanpa mengira kaum? Sejak bila DEB itu khusus untuk orang Melayu sahaja?

Oh ya, bukankah mengikut kajian antropologi dan sejarah, kebanyakan orang Melayu di Malaysia dan nenek moyang mereka sebenarnya berasal dari dari Indonesia, Thailand dan India? Malah China? Jadi negara nenek moyang mereka sepatutnya bukan Malaysia, sama seperti saya? Contohnya, Tun sendiri, Khir Toyo dan Syed Hamid Albar?

4. Jika beliau bertanya dan tokoh tersebut menjawab secara ikhlas, beliau akan dapati bahawa orang Melayu amat kecewa dengan kemiskinan relatif mereka sehingga terpaksa meminta-minta sepanjang masa dan juga ketinggalan dalam pelbagai bidang.

Apakah dengan adanya DEB sepanjang 3o lebih tahun ini, orang Melayu sudah maju dalam erti kata sebenarnya dan tidak ketinggalan dalam pelbagai bidang? Pernahkan direnungkan bahawa bilangan orang Melayu yang maju dan tidak ketinggalan sudah bertambah adalah disebabkan pengurangan aras pengukur atau ’standard’ serta pemberian kuota oleh kerajaan bagi membolehkan mereka diterima masuk menyertai bidang-bidang tertentu? Apakah ini boleh dianggap sesuatu pencapaian yang membanggakan? Bukankah ini menipu diri sendiri?

5. Mereka cuba yakin mereka adalah tuan di negara mereka tetapi mereka tahu sebenarnya mereka bukan tuan. Orang bukan Melayu yang menjadi tuan yang sebenar.

Apakah amat penting untuk orang Melayu dan bukan Melayu yang semuanya rakyat Malaysia berebut-rebut menjadi tuan yang sebenar? Mengapa PEMIMPIN-PEMIMPIN POLITIK Melayu seperti Tun begitu taksub dengan misi untuk menjadi ‘tuan’? Tun hampir betul dengan mengatakan (SEGELINTIR) orang bukan Melayu  yang menjadi tuan yang sebenar walaupun sudah 30 tahun DEB diperalatkan untuk memberi keutamaan kepada orang Melayu. Persoalannya, mengapa ini boleh berlaku?

Orang Melayu memegang tampuk pemerintahan melalui Umno. Keutamaan diberikan kepada orang Melayu dalam perniagaan, ekonomi, pendidikan, peluang pekerjaan dsb. melalu DEB, tetapi yang masih menjadi tuan adalah segelintir orang bukan Melayu? Mengapa ini boleh berlaku? Bukankah itu sesuatu yang pelik dan aneh? Sedangkan yang berkuasa adalah orang Melayu dan dasar-dasar melibatkan sektor-sektor penting memberikan keutamaan kepada orang Melayu?

Dan Tun, sila perbetulkan kenyataan ‘orang bukan Melayu yang menjadi tuan yang sebenar’ dengan menambah ’segelintir’. Saya orang bukan Melayu dan saya langsung tidak merasakan diri saya adalah tuan.

6. Kerana mereka rela berkongsi negara mereka dengan kaum lain, kaum yang berasal dari tamadun yang lebih tua (4,000 tahun) dan lebih berjaya, hari ini yang sedikit yang ada pada mereka pun hendak dipisah dari mereka.

Tun, tolong jelaskan ‘yang sedikit yang ada pada mereka pun hendak dipisah dari mereka’. Kenyataan ini amat mengelirukan dan tidak bertanggungjawab. Keutamaan-keutamaan yang diperuntukkan kepada orang Melayu dan bumiputera Sabah dan Sarawak sudah termaktub dalam perlembagaan dan tiada sesiapa boleh mengubah dan meminda fakta tersebut melainkan dengan kuasa 2/3 parlimen.

Apa yang sering dipertikaikan di sini adalah layanan kurang adil dan perlaksanaan yang terpesong daripada peruntukan-peruntukan yang sebenar serta kecenderungan pemimpin-pemimpin politik yang cuba memutarbelitkan fakta yang ada mengikut tafsiran serong demi kepentingan masing-masing.

7. Fikirkan hanya berkenaan Dasar Ekonomi Baru (DEB). Agihan kekayaan korporat dalam DEB ialah sebanyak 30% bagi bumiputra (walaupun mereka adalah 60% dari penduduk) dan 40% bagi kaum lain serta 30% bagi orang luar. Tetapi setelah diusahakan selama 39 tahun bahagian yang terdapat bagi mereka ialah 20%, sedangkan yang terdapat bagi kaum lain ialah hampir 50%, walaupun mereka hanya 26% dari jumlah penduduk.

Terima kasih kerana berkongsi statistik ini, Tun. Ini dengan jelas membuktikan bahawa, dasar DEB yang dilaksanakan selama ini GAGAL! Sekiranya ia dilaksakanakan tanpa mengira kaum tetapi memandang kepada keperluan, nescaya yang mendapat paling banyak manfaat adalah orang Melayu kerana banyak mereka yang miskin adalah terdiri daripada mereka yang ‘60% dari penduduk’. Mengapa Tun masih degil mempertahankan perlaksanaan DEB yang telah gagal dan cuma menguntungkan segelintir individu?

Sejajar dengan logik Tun (putar belit statistik untuk menyokong hujah dan dijadikan ‘fakta’), saya merupakan penduduk generasi ke-3 di Malaysia, sama seperti Tun. Mengapa saya tidak boleh mendapat layanan yang sama seperti yang diterima oleh Tun? Saya tiada statistik rakyat bukan Melayu yang lahir di Malaysia yang merupakan generasi ke-3, ke-4 berbanding orang ‘Melayu’ yang berhijrah ke Malaysia, tinggal di sini dalam tempoh kurang dari 3 generasi tetapi mendapat layanan setaraf dengan penduduk asal? Contohnya, Khir Toyo? Syed Hamid Albar? Ramai warga asing di Sabah yang mempunyai MyKad dan berstatus ‘Bumiputera Melayu?’.

Rasanya kenyataan bahawa agihan kekayaan korporat sebanyak30% untuk bumiputra adalah kurang tepat, sebaliknya 30% untuk Umnoputra adalah lebih tepat. Jumlah keahlian Umno adalah lebih kurang 2 juta orang dan ini bermakna agihan kekayaan korporat 30% ini dinikmati oleh Umnoputra – mewakili hanya 7% daripada penduduk Malaysia. Setuju?

Dan adakah Tun dengan sengaja memanipulasi statistik yang menunjukkan sebahagian besar agihan kekayaan korporat itu tertumpu hanya kepada satu kumpulan individu sedangkan Tun patut sedar adalah satu fakta bahawa dalam konteks ekonomi dunia sekalipun, sehingga 80% kekayaan dunia itu adalah tertumpu hanya kepada 20% penduduk dunia? Malah senario ini berlaku di kebanyakan negara di dunia, dimana agihan kekayaan korporat sesebuah negara adalah dimiliki sekumpulan kecil penduduk negara tersebut, termasuk Amerika Syarikat dan Jepun. Kekayaan korporat adalah tidak relevan dan tidak menjadi isu untuk rakyat biasa seperti saya.

Lagi, adakah ia salah orang bukan Melayu mereka dibawa ke sini dan beranak pinak di sini? Mengapa ‘kesalahan’ yang dilakukan oleh orang lain (British) perlu ditanggung oleh orang bukan Melayu, khususnya generasi baru seperti saya? Orang bukan Melayu tidak mempunyai pilihan melainkan untuk mencurahkan bakti setia kepada negara Malaysia dan apa yang diminta adalah layanan yang adil dan saksama seperti yang telah diperuntukkan kepada mereka di dalam perlembagaan. Itu sahaja, Tun.

8. Nilai harta milik bumiputra pula berjumlah 15% sedangkan yang baki dimiliki oleh bukan bumiputra disebabkan harta di bandar bernilai lebih tinggi dari di luar bandar.

Adakah menjadi satu kesalahan menjadi kaya dan merupakan bukan bumiputera dalam suasana ekonomi yang berasaskan prinsip kapitalis dan pasaran bebas? Masih relevankan persoalan kaum dalam ekonomi global yang Tun sentiasa canangkan, umpamanya ketika mempertahankan PPSMI? Mengapa setelah sudah 50 tahun kerajaan BN (yang dipegang oleh orang Melayu) dan 30 tahun DEB dilaksanakan, kekayaan negara masih tidak sampai kepada penduduk luar bandar yang rata-ratanya orang Melayu? Adakah ini salah orang bukan Melayu?

Sekali lagi Tun cuba mengelirukan pembaca. Bukankah  hatta di mana negara sekalipun di dunia ini, milikan hartanah yang bernilai tinggi di terutamanya di kawasan bandar adalah dimiliki oleh peratusan kecil daripada jumlah populasi? Perkara ini adalah benar dan ia berlaku di seluruh dunia termasuk negara-negara maju seperti Jepun dan Amerika Syarikat, bukan sahaja di Malaysia. Adakah Tun terlepas pandang akan fakta ini ataupun Tun sengaja buat buat lupa?

9. Tokoh bukan Melayu yang cuba duduki tempat Melayu (in the shoes of the Malays) jika ikhlas, akan rasa kekecewaan Melayu melihat hampir semua perniagaan dan perusahaan serta kekayaan yang diperolehi darinya dimiliki oleh bukan Melayu. Segala estet rumah mewah juga diduduki oleh bukan Melayu. Sikit benar orang Melayu yang tinggal di estat mewah ini. Lebih ramai yang tinggal di kawasan setinggan.

Ya Tun, mengapa? Adakah ini juga salah orang kurang Melayu kerana mampu terus bersaing dan memonopoli kekayaaan walaupun tidak diberikan tongkat ekonomi? Pernahkan Tun membandingkan taraf hidup orang Melayu yang kaya dengan yang miskin, dan orang bukan Melayu yang kaya dengan yang miskin, manakan yang lebih besar jurang perbezaannya?

Mengapa masih ramai orang Melayu yang tinggal di kawasan setinggan tetapi pemimpin-pemimpin politik seperti Tun hidup mewah? Mengapa anak Tun boleh mengadakan parti ‘house warming’ yang mewah tetapi masih ramai orang Melayu yang hidup merempat? Mengapa pemimpin politik seperti Zakaria Deros, Khir Toyo yang mampu membina istana indah berharga jutaan ringgit sedangkan masih ramai orang Melayu yang tinggal di rumah setinggan?

10. Mungkin semua ini disebabkan kesalahan orang Melayu sendiri. Mereka tidak guna peluang yang disediakan bagi mereka. Ada yang salahguna peluang-peluang ini pun. Tetapi jika seorang pengayuh beca diberi sejuta Ringgit, apakah ia akan dapat berniaga dan berjaya dalam bidang ini.

Betul. Mengapa peluang-peluang masih diberikan kepada mereka yang ‘tidak pandai, kurang mahir dan tidak layak?’ Apakah ini akan membantu mereka untuk berjaya? Tun, niat baik untuk membantu orang Melayu memang disambut baik dan berpatutan. Tetapi cara yang digunakan adalah tidak betul, seperti yang dinyatakan oleh Tun sendiri “jika seorang pengayuh beca diberi sejuta Ringgit, apakah ia akan dapat berniaga dan berjaya dalam bidang ini.”

11. Social engineering bukan hanya dilakukan oleh orang Melayu sahaja. Sosialisme dan Komunisme juga merupakan sejenis social engineering untuk mengurang atau menghapus jurang antara yang miskin dengan yang kaya. Mereka juga tidak berjaya sepenuhnya walaupun mereka mengguna kekerasan yang dahsyat. DEB dilaksanakan dengan berhati-hati tanpa kekerasan, tanpa rampasan dan sering dipinda apabila menghadapi tentangan dari bukan Melayu. Apakah persepsi orang Melayu terhadap DEB?

Tun, sekarang ialah tahun 2009, bukan 1959. ‘Social engineering’ perlu berubah mengikut realiti semasa. Jika kita asyik berbalik kepada sejarah kita dan hidup dibayangi masa lampau kita tidak ada maju. Adakah orang India Navajo perlu meminta supaya kerajaan Amerika Syarikat membuat dasar seperti DEB dengan alasan sejarah lampau?

DEB betul dilaksanakan tanpa kekerasan dan rampasan, tetapi ia juga secara sistematik telah menidakkan peluang ramai rakyat Malaysia hanya kerana mereka bukan Melayu! Berapakah bilangan rakyat Malaysia bukan Melayu yang bijak pandai diambil dan dimanfaat oleh negara jiran Singapura dalam membangunkan negara tersebut kerana mereka tidak diterima di negara sendiri? Bukankah ini satu pembaziran? Malaysia ‘membesarkan’, memberikan pelajaran dan tempat tinggal kepada mereka hampir 20 tahun, dan selepas mendapat keputusan cemerlang tidak digunakan dengan baik oleh Malaysia sebaliknya ‘diserahkan’ kepada negara jiran?

Tentangan orang bukan Melayu, malah juga oleh ramai orang Melayu yang tidak mendapat manfaat DEB adalah terhadap perlaksanaannya yang cuma membantu segelintir pihak. Merujuk kepada statistik yang dikongsi oleh Tun, jurang kemiskinan semakin besar dan bukannya bertambah baik setelah DEB dilaksanakan.

12. Lihat sahaja sejarah perjuangan Melayu. Pada Pilihanraya 1955, diwaktu mereka menguasai 82% dari kawasan-kawasan pilihanraya, mereka rela memberi sejumlah yang tidak kecil dari kawasan – kawasan mereka kepada kaum lain dan mengundi calon dari kaum-kaum ini sehingga menang melawan calon Melayu lain (PAS).

Bukankah itu sesuatu yang wajar dilakukan sejajar dengan konsep perkongsian kuasa antara kaum yang dicanangkan oleh Barisan Nasional? Saya memang tidak setuju dengan konsep BN yang memilih calon berdasarkan kaum, bukannya kebolehan dan kelayakan. Ini tidak harus dianggap suatu ‘pengorbanan’, sebalik rakyat Malaysia yang ‘terkorban’ kerana ramai calon-calon dan pemimpin-pemimpin dipilih mewakili mereka hanya kerana mereka adalah dari kaum tertentu, tanpa melihat kepada kemampuan individu tersebut.

13. Kemudian mereka anugerahkan satu juta kerakyatan tanpa syarat biasa kepada kaum lain sehingga peratusan rakyat Melayu jatuh dari 82% kepada 60%. Siapakah yang lain yang pernah lakukan yang sedemikian?

Tun, bolehkah Tanah Melayu (pada ketika itu) mencapai kemerdekaan daripada British tanpa persetujuan bahawa kerakyatan turut diberikan kepada kaum lain? Bukankah kerakyatan itu diberi dengan bersyarat di mana keutamaan-keutamaan akan diberikan kepada orang Melalyu dan bumiputera Sabah dan Sarawak seperti yang termaktub dalam Artikel 153 Perlembagaan Malaysia? Mengapa Tun mengatakan ia diberi tanpa syarat biasa sedangkan Tun tahu itu tidak benar? Mengapa Tun masih mengungkit peristiwa lampau? 50 tahun orang bukan Melayu tinggal di Malaysia, masih tidak cukupkan untuk membayar budi orang Melayu menganugerahkan kerakyatan dengan syarat tersebut? Berapa lama lagi perlu diungkit isu ‘penduduk asal’ dan ‘pendatang’ ini, Tun? Setiap kali BN atau Umno merasakan ia akan hilang tampuk pemerintahan?

14. Pada ketika itu nama rasmi negara ialah Persekutuan Tanah Melayu. Apabila Semenanjung Tanah Melayu dicantum dengan Singapura, Sarawak dan Sabah, perkataan “Tanah Melayu” digugur dan cantuman negeri – negeri ini dinamakan Malaysia. Dengan itu hilanglah identiti Melayu dalam nama negara sendiri. Tidak pula mereka tuntut nama-nama lain digugur.

Tun, adakah ini relevan untuk dipersoalkan? Bukan masih ramai orang Melayu yang gah mengaitkan nama Malaysia sebagai Malay (Melayu) – sia? Mengapa sesuatu yang telah dipersetujui satu masa dahulu oleh semua pemimpin-pemimpin Malaysia, dijadikan isu oleh Tun?

15. Tidak seperti di negara-negara yang membenar hanya bahasa kebangsaan mereka sahaja untuk semua sekolah nasional, orang Melayu bersetuju bahasa Cina dan Tamil dijadikan bahasa pengantar di sekolah bantuan Kerajaan. Bahasa Kebangsaan (Bahasa Melayu) tidak menjadi bahasa kebangsaan seperti di negara-negara jiran dan di Eropah, Australia dan Amerika.

Bukankah ini juga telah dipersetujui oleh semua pemimpin-pemimpin – Melayu, Cina dan India ketika Malaysia mencapai kemerdekaan daripada British lalu dimasukkan dalam perlembagaan negara? Mengapa Tun perlu mempersoalkan isu ini? Bukankah ini adalah syarat supaya Bahasa Melayu diterima sebagai bahasa kebangsaan, satu ‘trade-off?’?

16. Dan banyaklah lagi korban yang dibuat oleh orang Melayu supaya kaum lain mendapat apa sahaja yang dituntut oleh mereka, demi keamanan dan perpaduan rakyat dan negara.

Berapa lama dan banyakkah lagi korban yang juga perlu dibuat oleh orang bukan Melayu supaya orang Melayu puas hati?

17. Apakah gamaknya perasaan tokoh yang meletak diri di tempat orang Melayu, terhadap semua korban ini? Apakah dia masih fikir yang orang Melayu harus korban segala-gala yang dituntut daripada mereka?

Apakah Tun fikir yang orang bukan Melayu tidak berkorban demi membantu saudara-saudara Melayu mereka? Apakah mereka berpuas hati ditidakkan banyak peluang mereka hanya kerana mereka dilahirkan bukan Melayu? Apakah perasaan Tun sekiranya Tun bukan Melayu?

18. Dengan rencana ini saya tetap akan di cap sebagai racist oleh racist bukan Melayu. Tetapi kalau mereka sanggup menerima yang benar, mereka boleh banding korban orang Melayu pemilik asal negara ini dengan korban mereka untuk kepentingan negara ini.

Dengan rencana ini, terbukti Tun masih berada di takuk lama. Tun masih berfikiran bahawa dalam era dunia globalisasi tanpa sempadan yang mencabar ini, isu dan politik perkauman masih sesuai diperkatakan? Mengapa Tun hanya menyentuh kepada pengorbanan orang Melayu? Mengapa Tun tidak menyentuh jasa dan pengorbanan orang bukan Melayu dalam membangun dan memajukan negara ini?

19. Saya berpendapat jika negara ini hendak aman dan maju, agihan kekayaan dan kualiti hidup semua kaum hendaklah adil (fair) walaupun tidak sama (unequal). Janganlah hendaknya mana-mana pihak atau kaum tanggung beban kemiskinan yang keterlaluan, sementara kaum lain hidup mewah. Mengumpan sokongan dengan mengambil hak satu kaum untuk diberi kepada kaum lain bukanlah caranya – lebih-lebih lagi mengambil dari yang kurang berada untuk diberi kepada yang sudah lebih berada.

Saya berpendapat jika negara ini hendak aman dan maju, kenyataan berbaur perkauman dan yang boleh membawa perpecahan harus dielakkan, terutama yang datang daripada pemimpin seperti Tun.

Agihan kekayaan dan kualiti hidup semua kaum hanya akan adil sekiranya ia berlandaskan keperluan, bukannya identiti kaum dan warna kulit. Tun membuat kenyataan yang bercanggah apabila menyatakan ‘mengumpan sokongan dengan mengambil hak satu kaum untuk diberi kepada kaum lain bukanlah caranya’ sedangkan Tun nampaknya cuba membuat hujah-hujah untuk menyokong perbuatan tersebut dari poin 2 hingga 18 dengan alasan ia adalah patut dan wajar kerana ‘orang Melayu lebih banyak berkorban berbanding orang bukan Melayu’.

Apakah tujuan Tun menulis artikel di atas dengan melagakan orang Melayu dan bukan Melayu yang boleh menimbulkan rasa curiga dan kurang puas hati antara kaum? Adakan ini membantu membina perpaduan negara ke arah suasana yang aman damai?

1. Di forum anjuran Gempita dan UMNO bertajuk Kedudukan Raja-Raja Melayu dan Orang Melayu dalam Perlembagaan Malaysia di Zaman Liberalisasi dan Globalisasi, saya ditanya oleh seorang pensyarah Melayu dari UIAM (Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia) apakah saya pernah fikir untuk meletak diri saya di tempat orang bukan Melayu (put yourself in the shoes of a non-Malay) bersabit dengan diskriminasi terhadap mereka di negara ini.

Oh ya, Tun masih belum menjawab soalan pensyarah tersebut, apakah Tun pernah fikir untuk meletak diri Tun di tempat orang bukan Melayu bersabit dengan diskriminasi terhadap mereka di negara ini.

Sekian,

Saya, rakyat Malaysia yang bukan Melayu.

Page 3 of 612345...Last »