Indians choosing to stay home leaves the arena to the two major races, Malay and Chinese.
Aliran,
the NGO that organized the Penang Bersih 3.0 chapter of Duduk Bantah,
carried in their website an eyewitness account by one ‘Bersih Mum’ on
the conduct of the rally in Kuala Lumpur.
‘Bersih Mum’ is from Subang Jaya – a middle-class, strongly
pro-opposition suburb. She wrote: “… to my Indian brothers and sisters …
Anneh, Thamby, where were you? We missed you-lah at Bersih 3.0”.
Her observation on Indians ‘missing in action’ is corroborated by
independent monitors, including the Human Rights Party. A HRP statement
said that YouTube videos, photographs via e-mail and in Facebook as well
as feedback received revealed “the very thin Indian participation”.
“Reporters on the ground also communicated the same thing to us,” said the HRP leadership.
A Hindraf analyst who requested anonymity pointed to the race disparity of the latest Bersih edition.
While the consensus is that the Indian presence was certainly
negligible and unreflective of their seven-plus percentage in the
national population, the analyst said the Chinese on the contrary made
an unusually strong showing.
For the first time in the history of Malaysians taking to the street
since 1969, the Chinese and Malay turnout respectively with regard to
Bersih 3.0 was estimated at almost half-half. This disproportion bucks
the country’s race ratio wherein the 2010 population census indicated
Malay 54.6%, Chinese 24.6% and Indian 7.3%.
Other Hindraf activists I spoke to similarly backed the findings of
the informal survey of who (ethnicity wise) had taken part. The usual
suspects from the Indian-majority Parti Sosialis Malaysia made their
presence felt but it was the conspicuous Indian absence that spoke
volumes.
Indians choosing to stay home leaves the arena to the two major races, Malay and Chinese.
Ethnic polarity
It is common knowledge that our security forces are predominantly
Malay. However, in Bersih 3.0, the confrontation between the authorities
in uniform and the agitators was not Malay versus Chinese but Malay
versus Malay. The more than 50 suspects linked to the outbreak of
violence and wanted by police for questioning were almost all
Malay-looking with only a handful of exceptions.
Although Chinese protesters thronged the streets around Jalan Sultan
(Chinatown) and anti-Lynas Himpunan Hijau members swarmed the KLCC area,
they managed to avoid notable skirmishes with the police.
Thus the Chinese-Malay polarity vis-à-vis Bersih is not a physical
manifestation but lies more in the mindset and was most tellingly
illustrated by the spat between the DAP vice chairman and the party
secretary-general.
Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim is an “anak polis” (coming from a ‘police
family’). His father was former OCPD of Alor Setar. Thus the take by
Tunku Aziz on Bersih’s potential for violence diverged from his Chinese
party colleagues, and his dissident stance earning him a sharp rebuke
from Lim Guan Eng.
Most Malays have close friends or at least a relative if not more in
the police and army, and this is where they deviate from the Chinese. In
view of the pro- /anti-establishment bias aligned along racial
affiliations, it was a wise decision by Indians to strategically sit out
Bersih.
Why should the mousedeer want to be caught in the middle when two elephants fight?
We can interpret the fence-sitting to be due to Bersih’s demands – a
few of which are abstract in nature – failing to resonate with
working-class Indians more concerned with pressing bread-and-butter
issues.
A regular commenter at my blog wondered aloud as to what it would
take to satisfy the protesters. With tongue in cheek, he declared the
government should indeed fulfil Bersih’s 7th and 8th demands, viz. “stop
corruption”, and put a halt to “dirty politics”.
My blog reader challenged: “Perhaps Najib [Razak] should suspend the
democratic process until Ambiga [Sreenevasan] and her friends are
satisfied that all the 8 demands have been met. The PM should take
Bersih 3.0 seriously, no GE [general election] until all the 8 demands
are met!”
His rhetorical flourish is intended as a counterfoil to highlight the impossibility of guaranteeing the whole Bersih wish list.
I agree with his calling Bersih’s bluff. As long as corruption
remains with us and politics is dirty, don’t hold the general election.
Postpone it indefinitely just as how the DAP party elections have been
deferred in recent years, why not?
What Bersih really wants
Then there is the matter of Bersih 3.0 shifting the goalposts. From
the initial eight demands, the movement has upped the ante by holding
the government to ransom with the threat of more street demonstrations
to rock the capital.
Ambiga
and her steering committee are now demanding the resignation of the
entire Election Commission. How reasonable is that? The EC is a legally
constituted agency and the entity with which to hold any negotiation.
Asking for the EC’s removal is alike to overturning the discussion
table.
In pointing the gun, there seems to be hidden motives other than
seeking a remedy for our electoral shortcomings. No wonder then that
former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad finds “the real objective” of Bersih
questionable.
“Sunday’s Bersih 3 demonstration is no doubt the biggest and the most violent in the series,” stated Dr M unequivocally.
His is a view shared by the prime minister and other BN figures, and
naturally echoed throughout the state media where Najib was widely
quoted as describing the rally to be an attempt to topple the
government.
“They wanted to make Dataran Merdeka like the Tahrir Square in Egypt,” he said.
The Star also reported an announcement by Inspector-General of Police
Ismail Omar that his men “have started an investigation to identify the
mastermind behind the so-called attempt to overthrow the government by
way of the [Bersih 3.0] demonstration”.
While the appeal to stability is admittedly an old chestnut, still,
non-partisan bystanders are beginning to ask if the Pakatan is stable
enough.
Politics is about compromise but with the opposition troika, this ingredient appears to be lacking.
Race-religion divide
Mahathir the maverick has opted to ring the alarm bells; clanging
that future Bersih masses are likely to be “even bigger and more
violent”.
Another top ex-cabinet minister Daim Zainudin is more shadowy but no
less influential. Although he speaks softly, oppositionists should not
forget that the elites and Umno vested interests carry a big stick.
In an interview with Nanyang Siang Pau in late March, Daim warned
that “Malaysia is akin to walking the tightrope, almost half the time is
spent on maintaining balance on the wire”.
He opined the above in the context of the 80% Chinese support for
Pakatan calculated by his intelligence, in contrast to Malay and Indian
voters generally preferring Barisan Nasional.
Most Chinese make the mistake of misreading the surface quiescence of
the Malay grassroots as a tolerance of the DAP push and push and push.
They appear ignorant of the Malay proverb ‘air tenang jangan disangka
tiada buaya’.
It’s not difficult to fathom why the Chinese are so clueless. One
viral Bersih 3.0 clip which has easily registered more than half a
million views to date (in total from several separate video uploads of
the same incident) hammers home the point.
The video(s) shows an altercation between a Chinese woman in the
Bersih yellow and a journalist attached to a “non-Western, foreign
channel which broadcasts internationally”.
According to the man’s account of the story, “she seemed to pick me
out from the group of journalists at the front line because I was the
only obvious foreigner among them. She began shouting at me, (she had
been shouting about various things from the beginning, like pushing the
protesters to enter Dataran Merdeka)”.
In her verbal assault, the woman screams, “You’re corrupted, corrupted” at the man whom she calls “you white idiot”.
The man retorted: “Saya orang Islam. Saya tinggal di sini. Isteri saya orang Malaysia. Jangan biadab kau.”
There have been a couple of thousand comments in Malay on YouTube to
this. DAP followers should read these responses as the public reaction
bears closer examination.
By asserting he is Muslim, the journalist immediately got the crowd
on his side but this tactic also signals an implicit demarcation of ‘us’
and ‘them’. By virtue of being Muslim, he is an insider; through
grating Malay onlookers with her pretentious English inflection, the
woman is perceived as alien and thus perpetuating the ‘pendatang’
name-calling.
Coupled with the fact that he spoke in our national language whereas
she spoke in English, the foreigner had the YouTube community cheering
him on while the woman was vilified with racist epithets.
Danger of riots
DAP has been assiduously flogging photos of participants passing each
other water and salt in order to promote their propaganda that the
Bersih event engendered a new camaraderie crossing racial lines.
In
truth, such assistance given each other is only situational. For
example, if I saw a writhing dog or a cat on the road that had been run
over, I’d help it too – an action across specie lines, no less.
The DAP yellow shirts should instead take note of the anti-Chinese
sentiments expressed by YouTube users where almost none credited the
said Chinese woman with an ability to speak Malay.
During the civil war in northern Ireland (1968-1994), the Irish
Catholics and Protestants – same nationality, same race, same language,
same religion and only separated by denomination – were killing each
other.
In Malaysia where we pronouncedly belong to different races,
different religions and not even effectively sharing a common tongue,
don’t you think that the situation is more volatile?
Even the developed democracies are sounding their doubts about multiculturalism.
In mid-October of 2010, German chancellor Angela Merkel admitted “the
approach [to build] a multicultural [society] … has failed, utterly
failed.” The crowd gathered in Potsdam greeted her remarks with a
standing ovation.
Nicolas Sarkozy, the then French President, declared on Feb 10, 2011
in a nationally televised debate that multiculturalism was “a failure”.
Sarkozy’s complaint on how France had been “too concerned about the
identity of the person who was arriving and not enough about the
identity of the country that was receiving him” is something that Malays
might endorse quite enthusiastically.
Preceding him was the British prime minister – quoted in a BBC report
on Feb 5, 2011 headlined ‘State multiculturalism has failed, says David
Cameron’ – lamenting “We have even tolerated these segregated
communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values.”
The anti-immigrant current in Western Europe has not abated. Earlier
in the opening round of the French presidential election, the far
right’s Marine Le Pen collected a remarkable 18% of the votes, nipping
at the heels of Sarkozy (27%) and François Hollande (29%).
Yesterday, ‘The Economist’ ran a copy that said ethnic Chinese and
Thais were deliberately targeted by the insurgents who exploded car
bombs in Ruammit Road in Muang district of Yala. The March 31 blasts
killed 11 people and injured more than a hundred.
Yala, together with its sister provinces Songkhla, Pattani and
Narathiwat in southern Thailand where Muslim guerrillas continue to wage
a separatist war, has recorded 128 deaths and 657 injuries in the first
quarter of this year alone from the militancy.
Dr M cautioned that “[t]he average Malaysian always think what
happens in other countries will not happen here” but the “possibility
[of shattered peace] is not farfetched”.
The writer blogs at http://helenang.wordpress.com
2 comments:
The UMNO government/ruling class agreed to set up a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) on the large presence of illegal foreigners in Sabah and the widespread issuance of Malaysian Mykads and identification documents. But UMNO has promised several times but has yet to do something concrete. UMNO/ruling class has to do something concrete before the General Elections(GE13). Starting the RCI work after the GE13 is a joke.
The Hindu Malaysians have the same problem. There is a UMNO minister who asked the Hindu Malaysians to have "nambikei" in UMNO. The word "nambikei" means "faith/trust" in Tamil language. The reality is that due cronyism and favoritism, most Hindu Malaysians, Chinese Malaysians and Malays were sidelined. Those who benefited under UMNO rule were the ruling class composed of Malays, Chinese, Indians, and East Malaysians who were cronies of UMNO. Now an UMNO Minister is asking Hindu Malaysians to put faith/trust in him. It means that if the Hindu Malaysians vote for UMNO in GE13, then UMNO will respond by helping to uplift the Hindu Malaysians out of poverty. But faith/trust can be given to the Almighty, not human beings because human beings do err all the time. It is dangerous to put faith/trust in human beings because they may betray you too. What Hindu Malaysians need is equal rights and meritocracy; what all the poor underclass Malaysians need is equal rights and meritocracy. The ruling class in Malaysia is opposed to equal rights and meritocracy. The ruling class favors cronyism, nepotism, and favoritism. The underclass in Malaysia favors equal rights and meritocracy. This is a class struggle.
There is UMNO with a 2/3 majority in Parliament and UMNO without a 2/3 majority in Parliament. Let's now discuss UMNO with a 2/3 majority. UMNO (with a 2/3 majority in Parliament) would be remembered for using cronyism, nepotism, and favoritism for many of her actions. UMNO, with a 2/3 majority in Parliament, would be remembered for putting itself even above the judicial system. As a result of cronyism, nepotism, and favoritism, it created a ruling class composed of Malays, Chinese, and Indians. As a result of cronyism, nepotism, and favoritism, the majority of the population of all races and religions became the underclass and had reduced opportunities. It would be difficult to separate cronyism, nepotism, and favoritism from electoral fraud: that is, cronyism and electoral fraud may be interdependent.
There is UMNO with a 2/3 majority in Parliament and UMNO without a 2/3 majority in Parliament. Let's now discuss UMNO with a 2/3 majority. UMNO (with a 2/3 majority in Parliament) would be remembered for using cronyism, nepotism, and favoritism for many of her actions. UMNO, with a 2/3 majority in Parliament, would be remembered for putting itself even above the judicial system. As a result of cronyism, nepotism, and favoritism, it created a ruling class composed of Malays, Chinese, and Indians. As a result of cronyism, nepotism, and favoritism, the majority of the population of all races and religions became the underclass and had reduced opportunities. It would be difficult to separate cronyism, nepotism, and favoritism from electoral fraud: that is, cronyism and electoral fraud may be interdependent.
At some point in time Sabahans must draw the line somewhere. Waiting for GE13 to be over before the RCI can do what they should do may not be a good idea. Any way, its up to Sabahans to decide. Should the RCI do its work before GE13 or after GE13 is the burning question. If the Sabahans continue to tolerate and have faith/trust in UMNO, then it is their own problem. It is for Sabahans to wise up. It is for Sabahans to realize that they have been shortchanged. It is for Sabahans to decide their own future. Sabahans cannot and should not wait and wait for the RCI to do its work. I say that the RCI should do its work before GE13; and this should be the ultimatum. I say that RCI should complete its work before GE13; and this should be the ultimatum. I say that RCI starting its work before GE13 is insufficient. Starting its work and completing its work are not the same. Starting is only starting. Starting and completing are different. Sabahans have waited too long for RCI. There should be no more delays. The RCI must complete and finish its work before GE13. RCI must complete and finish its work to the satisfaction of the Sabahans before the GE13. It is important that the Sabahans be satisfied with findings of the RCI before the GE13 is held. This should be the ultimatum.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The political history of Malaysia can be divided into two chapters: that is, chapter one and chapter two. Chapter One is about UMNO rule with a 2/3 majority in Parliament. Chapter Two is about UMNO rule without a 2/3 majority in Parliament. We are now in Chapter Two. The beginning of Chapter Two is the end of Chapter One. Similarly, the end of Chapter One is the beginning of Chapter Two. Is it a class struggle? Is it a class struggle between the ruling class and the underclass? Is it similar to Bastille? Is Chapter Two a result of the rise of the underclass in Malaysia? May be the underclass are becoming bolder in Malaysia to demand equal rights and meritocracy. May be. We will wait and see.
They have had Bersih 1.0, Bersih 2.0, and Bersih 3.0. From Bersih 1.0 to Bersih 3.0, the crowd seems to be getting larger and bolder. I am getting worried. Please try using the ballot box.
Chapter One had its social, political, and economic effects for the nation. Chapter Two has just begun and its social, political, and economic changes are something we have to wait and see.
Post a Comment