What is takes for many bad men to prevail is for good men to do nothing and even get fewer by running away from the problems. If Malaysia is one’s place of birth and home, what does one do with problems like institutionalized racism in one’s home and country? Sure one can shift out to someone else’s home, which one thinks better and treated more justly, or one can stay in one’s home and try the settle the problems within one’s home between the occupants, a majority section of whom are bullying. The first option has but only one main consideration – self interest especially for one’s or one’s children future. The second option is based on trying, no matter how discouraging, to do what one can to resolve the problems within one’s home, to negotiate and fight for one’s rights between family members inter se. It is more than self-interest. It is about one’s rights, so entitled in one’s home but unjustly deprived, and to persevere fighting for them, to right a wrong, and never surrender than the taking of the perceived easier way of going elsewhere where rights, according to rules there, are given more freely and mandated by law.

In respect to Wang’s preceding posting, migration by young bright well educated non malays may, in part be attributable to the “pull” factor of maximizing the chances, in this Age of Globalisation and porous borders, of putting their productive capacity to greater use, but having acknowledged this, it must not be forgotten that the main motivation is probably the “push” factor of extricating from the quagmire of marginalisation suffered in home country, that year after year shows no prospect of being ameliorated much less corrected when the system is stacked against it, and where parachuting into another more developed country – where the playing field is believed leveler, infrastructure and facilities, and most important mentality of the larger society more developed – seems the more convenient way out!

This, I submit, is a selfish and self-interested decision. It is something that we do with a touch of apology than glee (which I believe is the case of J), much less encourage others to emulate in relation to what ought to be done.

But having said this, no one can or ought pass adverse judgment on such a decision premised on the natural human tendency of preservation of and benefit to self, future and children. Let us not be hypocrite and pretend the majority all of us are martyrs for wider cause than immediate self!

But, no matter, it is a sad and heart-rending situation for those who have to stay behind, whether due to lack of means to do otherwise or other reasons.

They may stay behind for reasons other than just self-interest. Some may stay due to comparative advantage, they have stayed in white countries, may be during studies, and find that even if white laws are against racial discrimination, the glass ceiling of it still exists, with the subtle difference that there you are discriminated as a lesser race of being non white whilst here you are by being a perceived more competent race with economic prowess and other undesirable cultural attributes, and between the two, the latter allows a leeway to still make a success in work or business with collaboration between the competing occupants of the same house.

But many may stay behind for reasons beyond self interest, extending to DUTY: duty to be around with family members and duty to be with aged parents in the evening of their lives who have dedicated their whole lives in toil and sweat for singular purpose of giving you the best in education and everything else and who for your best interest will even encourage you to migrate even if it goes against their own emotional inclination and solace of having the children around when days pass faster and each day is a gift from God.

And there are others like YB Kit who stay because, staying isn’t that bad – its how one makes his way around here – but staying to fight for one’s just right is a birth entitlement, where leaving, without the fight, is out of character, and where no matter how bad the affairs of men in the country deteriorate by reason of misgovernment and abuse of power of the goons in power and could stay in power by manipulation and deceit, does not change the bond with the country of birth or the beauty of and love for one’s home that one knows no other!

Now for those who stay to fight, it is particularly hard rending when they ask who they are fighting for, and whether it is worth while to fight for a so called marginalized group whose members, especially the brightest and most mobile, take the path of least resistance of exit, leaving less and less behind to contend against the forces of oppression.

Malaysia today is the last surviving Apartheid, the one in South Africa, dismantled not too long ago. Would that have been possible in South Africa, if Nelson Mandela had emigrated when he was young to escape incarceration or the masses of black youth who rally behind him?

Your heart grieves at a heart-rending email from J and you ask, “Does it bother Pak Lah, our Prime Minister and the Cabinet?”

I ask why should Pak Lah, our Prime Minister and the Cabinet grieve? Had J stayed would he not vote against them?

The pertinent question is whether you would grieve when those whom you fight for and on behalf, give up the fight themselves.

The question they, the ones for whose birth rights you fight for, must ask is whether if Malaysia were the last bastion of Apartheid after its dismantling in South Africa, would the dismantling of Apartheid in South Africa be possible at all if Nelson Mandela has ceased the fight (and earlier on migrated?), and those for whose rights he fought, the disenfranchised black youths especially the best, brightest, and educated amongst them, have also emigrated to Australia, New Zealand, USA or Canada telling the likes of Mandela, they appreciate the sacrifice but that’s not practical, and don’t waste his time?

Dragon88, You are assuming that a woodpecker wants to contribute. By nature, it does not. It does not look at the whole tree of the argument or an opinion, whether it could stand as an oak or creep like a clinging vine…A wood pecker selectively looks for interstices between or holes in the bark from which it could peck at insects, carpenter ants and woodboring beetle larvae.

Dear RealWord

I was frustrated first but now amused that you are still harping after – what I think 4 months? – about the discussion on what a person should do, whether to lodge a police report when bullied by police. I believe I have explained extensively the position then. You have a long memory but short understanding and I cannot possibly improve your understanding by further elucidation here nor will I try. Cheers.

“To the extent you seek to paint the Chinese with a very broad brush stroke, you can do the same with the Malays” (Undergrad2 to Realworld).

You cannot reason with a person whose business here is not to reason and discuss for the end of common understanding but whose agenda here is sinister, to harass, vex posters, sow the seeds of confusion and disrupt the operation of the blog.

The proof of this is here: –

1. RealWorld said in Blog thread Ops Lallang and Chinese Primary School Crisis in his posting on April 28th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
“Just got back from Ijok today. From the look of things, I would say BN and PKR chances are just about equal. The 51% malay population seem to be supporting PKR, but the Chinese in Ijok will vote for BN. Indians there are split down the middle. So, it is going to be close. VERY DISAPPOINTING TO SEE THE CHINESE SELLING OUT AGAIN”.
Why does this posting convey? That there would be a split – that it is disappointing Chinese in Ijok would vote for BN, that “Chinese are selling out again”, meaning vote for BN (in such a close fight), the word “disappointing” conveying the impression that the poster is either not in favour of a BN’s win or has utter disdain against Chinese voters supporting the BN. This is made clear in this posting April 28th, 2007 at 10:01 pm in which he said “The GE in 1999 comes to mind. If you can recall then it was the chinese votes that swung it for BN when the malays voted for the Opposition due to the Anwar factor. One can hope till the cows comes home but the makeup of the Chinese here are a bunch of sell outs”.

2. Then in a subsequent thread (Open Letter to Tawau MP) RealWorld in posting of April 30th, 2007 at 11:32 am explained how “ I support my party by being personally being there in Ijok. Helping out the candidate from making sure food and water be delivered to all the party workers to going to the ground explaining policies to the locals. I do not call the country Bodohland.”

Now which is his party?

3. In response to Dawsheng’s posting ““May I suggest Uncle Kit put realworld as DAP candidate to contest in Tawau”, RealWorld then clarified in his posting April 30th, 2007 at 11:42 am (I quote) “Hahahahah … lawak la you ni!!! DAP???? Sorry , my party is UMNO. I support BN”.

My Question : What kind of a person who supports the BN’s Cause, who boasted he went to the field and grass roots to work for the BN’s cause in Ijok would complain, without a feel of internal inconsistency, that the Chinese are a bunch of sell out to vote for the BN?

I pressed him to explain in what context he meant it.

This is his disingenuous reply in posting April 30th, 2007 at 12:30 pm in same thread :
“Well, if you are in active grass root politics you will understand. Kit, Guan Eng, Karpal and all have done a lot for the people. They have always put the interests of the people ahead of theirs. Kit could have walked away any day and be a Tan Sri (like someone) if he wanted too. I admire their principles and dedication. However, despite what they have done for the chinese especially, I feel in a way saddened to see them shaking their hands and cheering them on during election campaigns but only to vote the other way come polling day”.
Comment here : If “Kit, Guan Eng, Karpal and all have done a lot for the people” and “have always put the interests of the people ahead of theirs”, why does it suggest of the thinking and political ideology of a person who is dedicated to the Cause of the opposite side (the BN)?

There are two possibilities here:

First, the man is a hypocrite when he said he respected the principles of Kit, Guan Eng, Karpal in putting the interests of the people ahead of theirs – and yet work for the opposite cause of BN.

Second, if we give the benefit of the doubt to the man that he is not a hypocrite, then the conclusion is that he genuinely respects the principles of Kit, Guan Eng, Karpal in putting the interests of the people ahead of theirs, except that the word “people” here are not “his people” and that he supported the opposite side BN because it represented his people!

This has got to be inevitable conclusion that the man does look at “people” or Malaysians in terms of their interest as one group but two groups notwithstanding RealWorld said in his posting of April 30th, 2007 at 12:00 pm “Jeffrey, Whether I support UMNO and you DAP doesnt mean we are external enemies, right? We are still Msians, though I will never call my country, Bodohland. And this blog is open to all , right???We are here to discuss and discuss , we will…”

Again I have no beef with that : we can discuss, he can expound BN’s ideology of Ketuanan and NEP here, it is fine, and if he does it cogently enough who knows many of us here may also come to agree and vote for the BN.

But he does not do that. He snipes, insults, irritates, discredits and tries to tell posters to shut up and not comment about policies here unless backed with action (work amongst grassroot like him) – unless one is deprived “basic education, amenities and are living in a 5′ x 8′ cardboard under a bridge? – unless one returns from thousands of miles away and not seek relative safety outside – should not use words like ‘Bodohland’ (which may reflect on him).

In doing so, it looks as if he is carrying on the grassroot work in Ijok for BN right inside thuis Blog after that by-election. This is the part that is not right : he is a guest here of a blog owned by Opposition leader. He is at liberty to express political views including opposite and contrary political views but it is altogether a different plate if he carries out political work here as well that includes sabotage of the blog. Just so that you understand where I am coming from, this is my main beef.

Correction : This has got to be inevitable conclusion that the man does look at “people” or Malaysians in terms of their interest as NOT one group but two groups