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?

Utusan columnist tells critics to ‘go home’

Utusan columnist tells critics to ‘go home’

Go home where ? Traitor ? Your lancau sudah potong , now your brains also got shit , shit , shit inside . Go and do a 69 position with your Perkasa Idiot !

Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani, Malaysian Insider

Controversial Mingguan Malaysia columnist Dr Mohd Ridhuan Tee Abdullah continued his weekly diatribe against non-Malays, saying today that minorities who cannot respect the special position of Islam and the Malays should return to their homeland.

The Muslim convert also sneered that Malaysia should be renamed “Cinasia” or “Indiasia” if every demand by non-Muslims was accommodated when commenting on Centre for Policy Initiatives (CPI) columnist Helen Ang’s recent piece “Enforcing NEP on minority religions.”

“Will the practice of prayer (doa) cause the heart of the non-Muslims to melt and embrace Islam? She really (Helen Ang) hates Islam. Prayer (doa) is part of the Malay Muslim culture.

“Why would we want to delete all of our identity for merely wanting to accommodate others. If that’s the case, just change the name of Malaysia to Cinasia or Indiasia. How strange it is this species, never cease trying to challenge the position of Islam and Malays,” he wrote in his Sunday column headlined “Jangan terlalu berani mencabar” (Don’t be so brave to challenge).

In her piece, Ang questioned why non-Muslim religious societies were banned in national schools.

Ang added that the restriction on non-Muslim fellowship in schools has stopped many Chinese parents from sending their children to national schools.

“If I were a mother, I would never wish to subject my vulnerable child to a bellicose environment where my race, and the traditions and faith beliefs I’ve imparted to my son or daughter are disparaged,” she said.

In response, Tee said that the country does not want Ang’s children, whether legal or illegitimate, a favourite line he continually implies about the Chinese.

“She does not need to send her ‘children’ (if any were legitimate) to national school, if she is not confident with the national school or she is scared that her ‘children’ will become Malays. Her ‘children’ are not needed here.

“Just send her ‘children’ to schools in her homeland or overseas. The presence of ‘children’ are not needed here,” he said in a personal attack on Ang, who has also had two police reports lodged against her over her article.

Tee also said that Ang should migrate to the West if she is obsessed with their culture.

“I suggest that she migrate to another country, if this country does not provide her with any freedom. She should go to her country of origin or to the West because there is more ‘freedom’ there to build the biggest church and the highest statue in the world and have vernacular schools as well as having free sex.

“I do not think that she is proud of her ancestors because she prefers to use a white man’s name even though her eyes are sepet,” he said.

Tee stressed that non-Muslims should be grateful because the Malays have been very tolerant.

“Let us compare how the situation of Muslims living in countries where non-Muslims are the majority. Tolerance is very high. Muslims do not pose a problem for non-Muslims, except when their rights taken and exploited like in southern Thailand, Philippines and Palestine. Malay Muslims in Singapore do not make any noise when their land was stolen. They just sat quietly even though their Islamic and Malay rights are slowly taken away by the Chinese community.

“See our tolerance here. For me because the Malays embraced Islam 600 years ago, non-Muslims can live comfortably in this blessed land. The Islamic values have taught the Malays to protect the rights of non-Muslims and to not oppress them,” he added.

On Monday, Malay right-wing group Perkasa today lodged a police report against Ang for allegedly questioning the rights of the Malays and the position of Islam in the country.

Dr Ridhuan Tee Abdullah : Pariah Running Dog of Pakatan Rakyat ! as what one anon posted !

Thanks, Tee, for drawing votes to Pakatan — Thomas Lee

DEC 28 — I wish to thank Utusan Malaysia columnist Dr Ridhuan Tee Abdullah for being so clever to suggest that Malay-Muslims have more rights because they form the majority in Malaysia. His articulate political reconnaissance will surely contribute a much bigger swing of votes to the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) at the next general election.

Tee has proposed in his article a formula based on the racial and religious breakdown of the 27 million population of the nation, to apportion the share of what is due to each community in terms of rights, festivities and celebrations.

His so-called formula is based on the statistical breakdown of races and religions in the Year 2000 census, where the percentages of Malaysians by religions were 60 per cent Islam, 22 per cent Buddhist-Taoism-Confucius, 9 per cent Christian, 6 per cent Hindu, 3 per cent other races and religions.

Am I correct to interpret the Tee formula to mean that the numbers of residential houses, number of festive and religious holidays, allocation of land for places of worship and burial ground, permits and premises for business and trading, number of educational institutions and scholarships, quota of jobs in both the public and private sectors, number of professionals in all fields, or even the number of inmates in old folk's homes, orphanages and prisons, must be all be apportionable or assigned according to 60 per cent for the Malay-Muslims, 22 per cent for Buddhist-Taoism-Confucius devotees, 9 per cent Christians, 6 per cent Hindus, 3 per cent followers of other religions?

Tee said that his formula can be applied in the context of the nationalisation (read: forced enforcement), including the justification on the rights of religious festivals and celebrations of all races.

He claimed that there were an overwhelming number of non-Muslim places of worship, with their festival celebrations actually drowning Muslims celebrations even though the non-Muslims are the minority races.

As a university lecturer, Tee must provide tangible evidence from empirical observation and in-depth studies to justify such a general sweeping assessment. Otherwise he stands condemned as a mere rumour-monger for his speculative conjecture.

The authorities should haul up people who make such unsubstantial and seditious allegations which could incite racial disharmony.

Tee gave as an example the widespread celebration of Christmas, with the shopping malls going all out to promote the festival, although Christians constituted only 9 per cent of the population.

Such an example reflects uninformed and shallow thinking, unbefitting someone who holds a doctorate degree and is a university lecturer.

Such a person simply does no understand that the Christmas celebration, although associated with the Christian faith, has now evolved into an international multi-racial, commercial, cultural festival. Christmas is celebrated nationwide in even a Shinto-Zen Buddhist country like Japan, with nothing much to do with the Christian faith.

It is sad, but true, that the real meaning and significance of Christmas, which is the birthday of the Lord Jesus Christ, has been degenerated into a mere cultural event. Even a so-called "educated" person like Tee associates Christmas with Santa Claus. He has condemned a state executive councillor for taking a Santa Claus to meet his leader, implying that what he knows or understands about Christmas is merely all about Santa Claus.

Tee also accused the DAP, which he labelled the "ultra kiasu group", of allegedly raising sensitive issues that could lead to racial chaos similar to that of the May 13 riots in 1969.

If what the DAP has been doing since its establishment more than 40 years and is still doing — that is raising issues and fighting for true democratic practices, social justice, human, civil and constitutional rights of the citizens — is being "ultra kiasu" (meaning extremely afraid of losing), then people like Lim Kit Siang, Karpal Singh, Lim Guan Eng, the late P. Patto and many others would have been thoroughly broken and destroyed by their unjust incarceration under the oppressive legal instrument called the ISA (Internal Security Act), and the DAP would have disappeared from the face of this Earth years ago. It is simply their brave, bold and bona fide conviction and commitment to the causes of democracy and social justice and their passionate love for the country that they have the strength and courage to go through the intense emotional sufferings of separation from their loved ones while under detention.

To alleged that the DAP, and by implication its leaders, is "ultra kiasu" is simply the unkindest cut of all, and armchair critics like Tee should be thoroughly ashamed to have made such an unjust allegation.

The DAP and its leaders have proven over the last 40 years that they have been consistent in their vision of a fair, just and united Malaysian Malaysia, and have worked and struggled truthfully and tirelessly, without fear or favour. The party's clean, corrupt-free record is testimony to the character and conduct of its leaders.

Kiasu? Please conduct an honest scholarly research studies into the political history of post-Merdeka Malaysia, Dr Tee. I also give you the benefit of doubt that you are not writing what you wrote to draw attention of the political bosses to the fact that you have truly become in essence a Malay as defined in the Federal Constitution, despite your ethnic origin as a Chinese.

AN AFTERTHOUGHT: Sometimes I wonder about the intellectual capacity or even the simple level of intelligence of many of the so-called doctorate degree holders in our country, given the way many of them articulate the vital issues of the nation. For example, there is a Ph.D holder who did a thesis on the evil of the ISA, but then endorsed and supported the oppressive law. Another Ph.D holder and university lecturer wrote a thesis about social justice but made unfounded and unjust allegations against Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

NOTE: Thomas Lee, who retired as a deputy editor in The Star in June 2009, has been a socio-political analyst for nearly 35 years.