Logic cooked to a Tee

Tue, 17 Aug 2010 10:51

By Kee Thuan Chye

COMMENT The Mingguan Malaysia columnist Ridhuan Tee Abdullah is a PhD holder, but, judging by his recent assault on Helen Ang for her piece ‘Enforcing NEP on Minority Religions’, his thinking seems hardly logical.

Some of the points he makes in his column ‘Jangan Terlalu Berani Mencabar’ (Don’t Be Too Brave to Challenge) are reflective of a bankrupt intellect.

He does, however, make a case for Islamic values and the tolerance inherent in the religion’s teachings, which I agree with. I believe that Islam preaches tolerance and does not oppress. I have high respect for the true Islam. It is the people who misinterpret its tenets and practise it in unsavoury ways who give it a negative image.

Such people include those who would make it hard for non-Muslims to form religious societies in national schools, which is the crux of Helen Ang’s article. They also include those who would remove Christian icons from missionary schools and confiscate crucifixes worn by students. True practitioners of Islam would not do these things.

Neither would true Malaysians, those who abide by Articles 3 and 11 of the Federal Constitution which guarantee freedom of religion and the peaceable practice of all religions.

But how does Tee defend these unconstitutional acts? He says, “It’s not a big issue if the identity of the colonialists, like the symbol of the cross, is changed for a local one. Isn’t it necessary to Malaysianise such attributes in line with the local identity? Why do we still want to maintain the colonial identity?” [Bukanlah menjadi isu besar jika identiti penjajah seperti lambang salib ditukar kepada identiti tempatan. Tidakkah ia perlu diMalaysiakan sifatnya sesuai dengan keadaan masyarakat di sini? Kenapa masih mahu mengekalkan identiti penjajah?]

Is he being dense or is he deliberately confusing the point? The symbol of the cross is not colonial identity, it is the symbol of Christianity. How do you “Malaysianise” that? He is obviously speaking out of turn, if not rubbish.

Worse, he extrapolates it into something bigger, something that was never an issue in the first place: “Do we simply reject assimilation, even a little bit? Does the majority not have rights in the view of the minority?” [Apakah kita langsung menolak asimilasi walaupun sedikit? Apakah majoriti langsung tidak ada hak dalam masyarakat minoriti?]

No one has ever said anything about rejecting assimilation, or that the minority consider the majority as having no rights. All Ang is asking for in her article is that non-Muslim religious societies be allowed in schools as they used to be before. This kind of extrapolation is a tactic we have often seen being used by alarmists and ultras. Perhaps it’s a first here for a PhD holder.

“
Why does he sneer at the Singapore Malays? By all accounts, they are happy being where they are.

There’s more. In response to Ang’s remark that if she were a mother, she would not send her children to national schools to have their race, traditions and faith beliefs disparaged, Tee says: “She doesn’t need to send her ‘children’ (if she has children who are legitimate) to a national school, if she has no confidence in national schools …” [Beliau tidak perlu menghantar ‘anak’nya (jika ada anak sah taraf) ke sekolah kebangsaan, jika dia tidak yakin dengan sekolah kebangsaan …]

Tee’s insinuation that Ang may have illegitimate children is a low blow, and totally uncalled-for and irrelevant. And insulting.

Unfair comparison with Singapore

This comes after he has made an obnoxious sweeping statement: “There’s only one thing I ask of her and her community – practise the teachings of their religion by eschewing gambling, adultery, free sex, etc. Then this country will be peaceful.” [Satu sahaja yang saya pinta agar beliau dan sekutunya, beramal dengan ajaran agama mereka dengan menjauhi judi, arak, zina, seks bebas dan lain-lain. Barulah aman negara ini.]

What does he mean by this? Which community is he insulting? What is the relevance of this remark to the debate at hand? Is this person who holds a doctorate so incapable of dealing with the points related to the issue that he has to resort to personal insult?

Is he alleging that non-Muslims gamble, commit adultery, indulge in free sex and bear illegitimate children, and that that is the cause of the lack of peace in the country? Is he provoking non-Muslims to cry sedition? Does he not realise that he is insulting Ang’s morality and her religion by making these absurd and uncalled-for assumptions? Is that the strategy for a civilised intellectual debate?

Is it also Tee’s strategy to make a personal attack on Ang? “To say that she’s proud of her ancestry would not be right either, because she prefers to use a white man’s name although she has slit eyes.” [Nak kata beliau bangga dengan keturunannya, tidak juga, sebab beliau lebih gemar menggunakan nama Mat Salleh walaupun matanya begitu sepet.] You mean, he’s not aware of the existence of Christian names?

That aside, there are at least a couple of other things that he needs to be enlightened on.

“
Really, it is this fixation on the issue of race that has brought our country into a fine mess.

One concerns the Malays of Singapore. He alleges that Singapore was stolen (dirampas) from them and that they have accepted it quietly, even though Muslim and Malay rights are gradually being withdrawn (dicabut) and eroded (terhakis). He even says these rights are being diluted (dicairkan) by the Singapore Malays themselves.

This shows Tee’s lack of understanding of History 101. Singapore was not stolen from the Malays. In 1965, it was agreed to that Singapore would secede from Malaysia, a move that in fact caused its leader, Lee Kuan Yew, to shed tears. It was a move agreed to by the Alliance, spearheaded by Umno, which was led then by Tunku Abdul Rahman.

Now that Tee has been duly informed, perhaps he should take up the case against Umno, the Alliance (which has since become Barisan Nasional – also History 101) and the Tunku.

Why does he sneer at the Singapore Malays? By all accounts, they are happy being where they are. Hasn’t he read the recent testimonies of Malays in Singapore saying how much better off they are there? How about the one by the Berita Harian editor Guntor Sadali? For Tee’s benefit, here are some excerpts:

“For Malays in Singapore, power is not about wielding the keris. For us, knowledge is … THE real power … We do not believe in getting any special treatment, because it would only reduce the value of our achievements and lower our dignity … Dr Mahathir [Mohamad] and some Malay leaders across the Causeway do not like the way we do things here and have therefore warned Malaysian Malays not to be like us. On our part, there is certainly no turning back. Meritocracy has proven to be a good and fair system. It pushes us to work hard and makes us proud of our achievements. We can see how it has benefitted us by looking at the growing number of doctors, lawyers, magistrates, engineers, corporate leaders and other professionals among us … So, the question is: Shouldn’t our friends and relatives across the Causeway be like us – Malays in Singapore? … We need to help and strengthen each other while at the same time reach out to the other communities in multi-racial, multi-religious Singapore. A successful and prosperous Singapore can only mean a successful and prosperous Malay community. Can we do it? Well, to borrow US President Barack Obama’s campaign slogan, ‘Yes, we can.’”

That is truly positive thinking, which is so refreshingly different from the chasing-at-shadows, dog-in-the-manger mentality demonstrated by Tee. So who is Tee to tell the Singapore Malays what to do?

Stop the narrow compartmentalisation

And who is Tee to tell Helen Ang to go back to her homeland, meaning, to him, China? Ang has no other homeland than Malaysia. She was born here, raised here, has lived here her whole life. This is her homeland as much as it is Tee’s. What makes Tee so special that he can tell her to go home?

If one wants to get personal, one could even say that Tee’s ancestors also came from China and therefore his homeland, by his own reckoning, should be China. But that would be going down to his level, and I’m not a PhD holder. Perhaps he hasn’t heard the saying, “People who live in glass houses should not undress.”

CIMB’s CEO, Nazir Razak, recently told the Chinese Economic Congress that the family of Tan Siok Choo whose grandfather was Tan Cheng Lock, one of the leaders of Malaya’s independence, came to settle in this country even earlier than his own.

This means that Tan’s family was here even earlier than our prime minister Najib Razak’s family, since Nazir is his brother. Doesn’t it make nonsense of Tee’s point that Najib can become prime minister when a Chinese person like Ang cannot speak the truth without being told to go back to China?

And what is this hogwash he says about Lina Joy? That since she cannot be considered Malay any more by leaving Islam, because the Federal Constitution defines a Malay as being someone who professes the Islamic religion, she is no longer eligible to live in this country because she has no race? Where is it written that you need to belong to a race to live in Malaysia?

Really, it is this fixation on the issue of race that has brought our country into a fine mess.

As Tee came from an ethnic Chinese background, he should understand this quite well. If he is a true scholar, he would celebrate diversity rather than settle for narrow compartmentalisation.

After all, Islam celebrates diversity and accepts all the different kinds of people and cultures that God created on Earth. Shouldn’t Tee follow that Islamic spirit?