This question is for Lim Kit Siang:

I see you have always championed the cause of a “Bangsa Malaysia”. Can you please tell me what this means and HOW it can be achieved within the diversity of Malaysia’s social demography?

You need not make your answer long, simply list practical points as to how this ‘Bangsa’ can be achieved.

Thank you.

Jeffrey says:

>> based on a latin concept

Just look up “social contract” on any authoritative website or better still read into Rousseau’s works.

As I wrote on another thread; In Malaysian context, it refers to the agreement made by the country’s founding fathers in the constitution. It refers to a quid pro quo “trade-off” through Articles 14–18 of the Constitution, pertaining to the granting of citizenship to the non-Malay people of Malaysia, and Article 153, which grants the Malays special rights and privileges.

Since the Malay leaders agreed to relax the conditions for citizenship, the leaders of the Chinese and Indian communities accepted the special position of the Malays. Clearly the contract agreed to by their forefathers does not sit well with the new generation, therefore alienation and resentment and hatred is a natural reaction.

What is interesting however is that another description of the social contract declares it to be an agreement that “Malay entitlement to political and administrative authority should be accepted unchallenged, at least for the time being, in return for non-interference in Chinese control of the economy”.

Even though it has been heavily criticised by many in Malaysia, the social contract should not be seen as the defence of the principle of “Ketuanan Melayu”; nor be seen as non-Malays’ “debt” to the Malays for citizenship – This is the aspect of the contract that UMNOputras have failed miserably to explain to the new generation.

Critics too have a point when they say that you won’t find the term “Malay rights” in the supreme law of our land, instead, you will find terms such as “special position” of Malays. A “right” implies something inalienable and a “privilege” on the other hand is a benefit. I shall leave it with the discerning readership to make up their own minds after their own research.

Good day.

Jeffrey Says:

>> As YB Kit is unlikely to respond,

I ask for a chisel and you recommend a hammer! I do not want to know what Yatim has to say on this matter; it is Lim Kit’s answer that I need.

It’s becoming typical of Pakatan leaders to shun serious questions and dialogue in place of empty and hollow slogans like “reformasi” and “bangsa Malaysia”.

The rakyat is listening and reading into the inability of Pakatan to provide precise and detailed answers.

swipenter Says:

>> In an earlier thread Zak said that because a religion is recognised as official it has a higher status than others. Adherents of the official religion by extension have a higher status other non adherents?

I would be very interested to see where I said this. Please be kind enough to copy and paste my exact comment. I did not even use the words you are paraphrasing with! Islam is the official religion and practised by majority of Malaysians. Therefore in terms of ratio and numerical representation, it goes without saying that it will have more exposure and prominence. The government by extension is mostly Muslim and the Malays wield political power, therefore Islam by its definition will naturally influence public decisions. Why? Social demography and because of areas where the majority of the rakyat wants it.

For this reason, I believe it is because of DAP’s commanding position within Pakatan and its secular agenda which will be the achillies heel for the opposition.

Going back to the issue of democracy, I concur with imranj. Even though there is no universally accepted definition of ‘democracy’, there are two principles that any definition of democracy include. The first principle is that all members of the society have equal access to power and the second that all members enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties.

By principle, majority rule is a means for organising government and deciding public issues; it is not oppression. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual.

Minorities, whether as a result of ethnic background, religious belief, geographic location, income level, or simply as the losers in elections or political debate, enjoy guaranteed basic human rights. Democracies understand that protecting the rights of minorities to uphold cultural identity, social practices, individual consciences, and religious activities is one of their primary tasks.

We know BN has failed in both these cases. Do you blame BN policies or the democratic process they were trying to forge? Or perhaps we need to think about the uniqueness of each nation state and manipulate “democracy” to suit the geo-social realities on the ground. No 2 countries can ever have an identical system work in the same way for both of them; therefore we take the relevant and discard the unworkable.

In the case of Malaysia, there can be no single answer to how minority group differences (in views and values) are resolved. It is logical that only through the process of tolerance, debate, and willingness to compromise can free societies reach agreements that embrace the twin pillars of 1) Majority rule and 2) Minority rights.

Adios.

* katdog Says:

>> Before LKS answers I’d like to hear YOUR vision of a Bangsa Malaysia that ought to be interestingly distinct because of your islamic cause.

Your cannot deny that the prominence of Islam is reflective of the 60% of the rakyat rather than any unnecessary drive to force the religion down non-Muslims’ throats. As for a “Bangsa Malaysia”, I can not fathom such a concept thus my question to uncle Lim. I do however believe that without national consensus of what Malaysia must be working towards re: Bangsa, how will you get to the destination?

Someone suggested that a Bangsa means “all Malaysian must be treated equally.” I certainly would not disagree with this, but is this really the Bangsa vision?

For example, you have X, Y, Z (who combine the major races of a country) where X is 60%, Y is 25% and Z is 10% – Is it unfair to ask for proportionate representation without diminishing the rights of anyone? Even thought Y and Z may differ in race or religion, why must X deny them of their inherent rights as citizens? This question is not for me but the incompetent leadership of BN.

>> I am curious how a Bangsa Malaysia with an islamic cause would look like.

Not so much a ’cause’ than an inherent identity of a bangsa that reflects the demographic reality of its people. I can’t give you a wholly modern day example, but Islamic history is replete with unparalelled Bangsa where all inhabitants enjoyed privileges and rights that only came to existance in the ‘West’ as recently as the last century. During the Spanish inquition that saw the end of Islam in the iberian peninsular, the Jews who lived lives of prosperity and freedom under Islamic rule, sought residence and protection from Othoman Turkey when they too were driven out of Spain. For over five hundred years
Jews have flourished there, enjoying uninterrupted rights, freedom and safety.

This example may not be applicable in the Malaysia context, but what I am getting at is how the Muslim representive leadership in Malaysia (and elsewhere) has failed miserably in applying Islamic principles when it comes to a multi-racial and religious environment like Malaysia. Kelantan, which PAS holds as an emerging example of Islamic governance seems not to be devoid of the social needs of it’s non-Muslim populace however, but more needs to be done.

In 628 C.E. Prophet Muhammad (S) granted a Charter of Privileges to the monks of St. Catherine Monastery in Mt. Sinai. It consisted of several clauses covering all aspects of human rights including such topics as the protection of Christians, freedom of worship and movement, freedom to appoint their own judges and to own and maintain their property, exemption from military service, and the right to protection in war.

An English translation of that document can be found by a general search. You my also want to visit cyberistan dot org for glimpse of history and civilisation.

>> And if you cannot envision a Bangsa Malaysia because you do not believe it is possible I’d like to hear YOUR reasons as to why Bangsa Malaysia is something that cannot be achieved.

I gave a lengthy response to this previously, but I am happy to re-answer this if you tell me whether you understand Bangsa to be in the context of a nation or a race? It

* HJ Angus Says:

>> Inter-marriage can be a good solution provided the state does not interfere and allows freedom of religion for all, including Muslims to revert like Singapore.

To some extent, I personally like this idea. However Malaysia can not incorporate secular laws relating to religion because of the social democraphic differences. Within Islam, a Muslim woman is not allowed to marry a non-Muslim without the conversion to Islam of the latter.

* dawsheng Says:

>> Islam encourages corruption? Rakyat wants corruption?

Clearly not and far from it, this takes the whole issue back to the self-proclaimed representatives of Islam and Muslims. I was NOT speaking about UMNO in my context, the responsibility would fall on anyone who came to power.

kerishamuddinitis, it is insulting to suggest that Chinese are not protected or accorded rights. The fact they continue to flourish in education and business may be despite BN, but the climate that is needed in order to excel is there to one extent or another. The unbalances that do exist need to be amended, no one disputes this.

You are a by-product of Pakatan and by extension, on the other extreme of the political spectrum. A middle way needs to be found in order to correct the imbalances you speak of.

Tengku Razaleigh recently said many non-Malays believed that Umno or the Malays are the drivers of Malaysia. ”Of late, the Malays have become reckless and bad drivers until the Government is branded as inefficient,” he said.

Surely if a driver is known to be bad and reckless, so sane person would hitch a ride with him for fear of an accident or worse still, fatality. UMNO’s ‘mati bus’ is full of the die-hard putras and puteris.

AAB is the driver and Najib is the conductor.

Emily Pratt Says:

>> but at the end of the day, it is the Rakyat who are able to vote who has the final say,

>> not some foreigner who OVER-ANALIZEs issues.

I can assure you I am no more a “foreigner” than you are. I employ 15 of your sorry backsides. I think you amply display the lack of will and interest to get to the bottom of any pressing issue facing the country. Generalising and over-simplifying problems while glosses over substance will always lead to a dead-end.

>> How much more indication does one need to see that RACE/ETHNIC based political scenario is rejected by the RAKYAT.

And I reject it also, what on earth gives you the impression I am for racial politics!? Have you not understood anything? Talking about it however and discussing why geo-social politics will remain a defining force for the foreseeable, you are living in cuckooland if you think you can change this global ‘norm’ in a matter of months and years.

You have also missed out the most crucial factor in all this: Islam. Faith as they say, is thicker than blood.

One4All4One Says:

>> The correct history of peninsular Malaysia would verify that unless a person belongs to any one of the native tribes found in the peninsular, he/she would/should/could be considered as an immigrant to this part of the world.

I can go one step further and explain that human trans-migration is as old as man himself. There remains no truly “native” community in any land of the world today. Race and religion also does not have an exclusive monopoly over any geographic place today.

One4All4One Says:

>> Don’t you see something peculiar here in Malaysia, that the Malays seem to be treating religion as a “possession”. They seem to be very possessive of Islam: nobody, other than a Muslim is supposed to touch on Islam.

There are 2 aspects to this: One is that unless you are qualified in Arabic and the sciences of Islam, it is arrogance to want to speak about something that one does not truly understand (esp. of the finder points of creed and jurisprudence). Would not ask a Bhuddist to explain Christianity? Would it be even more unnerving to explain it to a Christian. Again this would not be a problem if indeed he is qualified to do so and/or for academic studies. We know how ignorance and misinformation can quickly lead to very explosive situations.

Second is that for some UMNOputeras in Malaysia, Islam is a source of protection for their political agendas. They know that using the “Islamic-pretext”, they can pretty much get away with anything, even if they are not practising and even when Islam does not condone their actions. This is the sad fact of life, and the duty falls upon each and every Muslim to rise and air their dissatisfaction. It is the Muslims who will have the biggest impact in correcting some injustices that are done in their name: We have extremism and terrorism as other uglies to deal with!

>> In order to learn about anything, religion included, one would question and enquire, argue and contemplate, disagree and wonder aloud about this and that.

Indeed Islam asks mankind to contemplate; Whether one chooses to accept Islam or not is NOT the issue, it is actually getting it’s real and unadulterated message across. The discerning person makes his/her own mind.

>> All these processes should not be seen as “questioning” and disrespecting Islam.

I believe there are ways and methods to do this. Most are done at academic instututions and debating societies, others are done through published works and yet others through informed forums. What is unwise is to go about doing this in a knee-jerk reaction or organising last minute forums.

>> But if you start questioning fundamental points and try to comprehend the practices of Islam, as an approach to under the religion, you would come under attack for sure by Muslims here.

I have never found Muslims attack anyone for questioning any aspect of Islam (not to say it does not happen). I can tell you that I for one, enjoy very much discussing Islam and giving and answering and counter-answering questions that others may have. In fact, I became a Muslim after 6 months of my own vigorous questioning various people and places in the UK. Today there is a vibrant debate scene in London esp. when we take delight that we are not there to convince anyone, it is making available authentic info to the public domain. Essentially, in Islam it is the Almighty who guides, humans do not as the Qur’an states.

>> I often observe that some people who practice Islam here do not exhibit the virtues required of them?

I could not agree more. If it were for the characters of some Muslims, I would never have become Muslim. I had to rise above and beyond what I saw and it was not until Hajj that I was truly content with my choice.

The virtues that you speak of are inherent parts of Islam. What I would however ask of you is to always see the “context” of everything you question. Where Islam promotes peace, stability and tolerance, it also defends war if the need arises. I do not know the full details of your example of barging into private property, but this is unacceptable if done on an ad hoc basis to impose on the occupants. What were they accused of?

>> There are just too many instances where the virtues of the religion were not practised or exhibited. Perhaps that contribute to what you have often brought up: “Islamophobia”.

Agreed. But I do distinguish between sincere misinformation and misinterpretation and deliberate maligning of Islam by some quarters. Primarily, it is indeed the Muslims who need to lead by example to counter the negativities that Islam has become the target of. We can not shoot a reporter who publishes a story about indicents involving Muslims, but we certainly can show the reporter the other reality that he may have overlooked. In their quest for senationalism, I have seen how disproportionate reporting can lead to ill-will.