Loyal Followers

Monday, June 27, 2011

Dear Brother Anas,

I am moved to comment on your "Open letter to Lim Guan Eng."

First of all, I have no doubt of your centrist stance. Having known you for close to 27 years, I think I could state, with some level of authority, that your centrist stance is one which you have embraced all this while. Now you are just utilising that stance for what you think is for the good of the society. I respect that.

As unity is a subject which is really close to your heart, allow me to put my thought to that subject, especially in relation to what you had written in your said open letter.

Unity is a concept, an abstract, if not an intangible one at that. Being an abstract, it cannot be physically measured. It is a state of mind. It exists within parameters of perception. It is not like health or financial success, where someone could declare that our nation is full of healthy people, or that it is full of wealthy people.

By contrast, unity is like the concept of safety. One can declare that statistical data shows that crime rates have fallen by, say, 20%. But one cannot, armed with that statistical data, conclude that the country is safe.

In similar fashion, with respect, one cannot just create a slogan and a nice little symbol and paste the slogan and symbol on banners and shirts as well as bombard the media with them  and declare that unity has magically, if not miraculously, delivered itself to this country and her people. It does not work that way when it comes to unity.

When we speak of unity, or rather the concept of unity, we have to understand what the concept entails; what it really means and what it is all about. And when we want to achieve unity, we have to have a definite and tangible plan to make it a reality.

An intangible and abstract concept such as unity cannot be achieved or brought to reality with intangible and abstract moves, such as the creation of a slogan or symbol.

To me, unity, in so far as a nation – more particularly, Malaysia - is concerned, consists of two kinds. They are:

  • situational unity, and,
  • transcendental unity.

Situational unity is pockets of one-ness shown or practised by the people as individuals or as members of a group which they belong to. It arises out of cultural practice or individual beliefs. It might even arise out of certain circumstances and even out of purely selfish reasons and not precipitated by any altruism at all.

Examples of these situational unity are seen daily in our lives. People of various races and faiths sit together at a stall sipping their teh tarik while talking about how our Magistrate Courts had turned into a sex video cinema, for example.

When the  Malaysian football team won the Suzuki Cup not so long ago, Malaysians of all races went berserk with a little burst of spontaneous patriotism and nationalism everywhere; at teh tarik stalls; at homes; in cyberspace over Twitter or Facebook etc. A long time ago, when Malaysia beat Saudi Arabia at Stadium Merdeka, I spontaneously stood up together with 45ooo other Malaysians to sing Negara Ku, without being prompted by anybody or anything.

In my office, I, a Malay partner, am in unison with my partners of other races, for a purely self-altruitic purpose, namely, to make a living.

Those are what I call situational unity.

Although at macro level, these pockets of situational unity may seem insignificant or even irrelevant, to me, they are reflective of a positive mind set. They show that there are certain situations or set of situations where people of various races and faiths are driven to disregard and put aside their cultural and genetic differences and spontaneously unite to become one.

That is proof that while unity, being an abstract concept, cannot be directly engineered, situations or circumstances conducive or leading to it may be created to foster unity.

Meanwhile, transcendental unity, in terms of a nation and nation building, would mean the people, regardless of their race, faith and cultural background or even genetic make-up, coming together and moving in unison towards the greater and common good of this nation while at the same time, putting aside self-altruism and interests.

I  call this concept of unity transcendental unity because it is an ideal and not real. A complete transcendental unity, I would dare say, can never be achieved because it is against human nature.

Human beings are by nature selfish. Francis Fukuyama, in his book, “The Origins of Political Order”, pointed out that human beings, for example, have the propensity for favouring their family and friends, something which Fukuyama calls “patrimonialism”. If I may, I would stretch Fukuyama’s patrimonialism even beyond family and friends. I think it is also human nature to prefer one’s tribe, race or community.

Notwithstanding the fact that an absolute state of transcendental unity can never be achieved, a civilised society led by a government which is committed to achieving a common good for the nation must, at great cost and effort, work to achieve a state of transcendental unity or as close as possible to that state.

It is of course easy to disunite the people, especially when the people consist of various races and faiths and coming from diverse cultural background, than to even maintain a facade of unity.

Unity exists even as a facade. History would of course show that facades of unity were often created by dictators, authoritarians and totalitarians. These facades of unity would soon disintegrate as the dictators, authoritarians and totalitarians fell.

As soon as Saddam Hussein was defeated for example, the almost serene and tranquil racial, religious and cultural “melting pot” of Iraq became a boiling porridge of tribal and sectarians divisiveness. Just as the Berlin wall fell, glasnost and perestroika liberated the Russians from years of communism, the country broke into pieces and some former colonists, like Yugoslavia, descended into hellish war fuelled by centuries of racial and religious wounds. 

The danger  with creating a facade of unity, instead of working towards the establishment of a transcendental unity, is that we might be lulled into sleep with a dream-like belief that our people are united for the better good of this country while on the ground, racial bigotry and hatred are allowed to fester and infest the very fabric of our society, hidden behind this facade of unity which we created for whatever purpose which only we know. Deep underneath this veil or facade of unity, there is a virulent form of disease working insidiously. God helps us if or when this viral infection becomes too late to treat.

As I had stated earlier, there are innumerable pockets of situational unity displayed by us day in and day out in Malaysia. This proves that if left behind on their own and without interference by politicians and self-altruistic rebel- rousers, we, Malaysians, regardless of racial, religious or cultural background, are able to switch on our natural love for a peaceful co-existence. We are able to put aside our differences and become one if a situation conducive for such unity is present.

Towards achieving a state of transcendental unity, it is therefore the duty of a responsible government to create these  conduciveness. This conduciveness will not be present when there are newspapers like Utusan Malaysia being allowed, by the continued patronisation of the biggest political party in the ruling government, to spew racial hatred and bigotry almost on a daily basis.

This conduciveness will also not be in existence, regardless of how loud we shout 1Malaysia and 1this-and-that if at the same time ultra-right-winged organisations such as Perkasa be given a free hand – and mouth and leg – to threaten blood-shed and create racial fear by issuing warnings and mongering fear with impunity as if these people are above the law.

This conduciveness will not exist when a  rational discourse is not granted to minority groups who are trying to voice out minority’s concerns, insecurity as well as well as fight for the recognition, at least, of their rights.

At this juncture Anas, your call for the acknowledgement by DAP that this land had always belonged to the Malays; that the Malays have been kind enough to let the non-Malays to be here and that DAP should be grateful for this kindness come into play.

Although various historical as well as anthropological studies could very well be used to at least dispute your assertion that this land had always belonged to the Malays, I do  not wish to go into such dispute in this post.

For the sake of argument, let’s just assume for a while that you are correct, that this land, ie, this land which was otherwise known as Tanah Melayu, had belonged to the Malays.

With respect Anas, you had failed to recognise, or give any consideration at all, that such acknowledgement had been given by the non-Malays during the inception of this country as an independent state in 1957.

I say so based on the argument which has always been used by the likes of Dr Mahathir and his ilk. Not based on any arguments made up by myself, the so called Melayu Liberal who has given a bad twist to the word “liberal” and “Melayu”.

Dr Mahathir and his band of nationalistic scholars argue that in 1957, there was a “social contract.” This social contract, in effect, consists of the Malays being kind enough to “grant” citizenship to the Chinese and Indians. Because of that kindness, and to show gratitude towards the Malays, the Chinese and Indians agreed to grant “special rights” to the Malays. These “special rights” are enshrined in article 153 of our Federal Constitution.

I have written so many articles on this subject. I will not argue with Dr Mahathir anymore on this.

Now, let’s just assume that what Dr Mahathir said about the compromise to be a correct and true historical fact.

If the Chinese and Indians who were given the right to citizenship by the kind and gracious Malays had in turned gladly conceded that the Malays have special rights under our Constitution, that would of course mean that the Chinese and Indians had in fact acknowledged that Tanah Melayu had belonged to the Malays before 1957.

The acknowledgement which you sought dear Anas, had been given in 1957 by the Chinese and Indian community. This acknowledgement, based on Dr Mahathir’s own historical postulation, took the form of the concession of special rights being given to the Malays in article 153 of our Federal Constitution.

If that is so, why is there a need for the non-Malays, especially DAP, to make such acknowledgement again, in 2011?

While I agree that acknowledging the past is sometimes good for us – just so we do  not forget our roots – a demand for such acknowledgement times and again would be regressive in terms of achieving transcendental unity in my humble opinion.

What we need is an acknowledgement by all Malaysians and by all political parties, that all of us have our respective rights guaranteed under the Federal Constitution. The government then must assure that all these rights will be respected and they will not be trampled willy-nilly as of we are some ant colonies being ruled by a bunch of hungry ant-eaters!

As it is, we can’t even wear a yellow t-shirt nowadays! What conduciveness towards unity are we talking about?

In my humble opinion, it would do nicely for a state of transcendental unity of the government could start creating a situation conducive to unity instead of patronising pseudo-nationalist individuals and organisations. If there is any acknowledgement which is necessary for unity, I think the acknowledgement should come from the State and not from the people. That is because the people’s ability to unite is amply shown by the countless of situational unity day in day out by the people.

Before I end Anas, allow me to tell the story of the Melanesian societies of the Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands.*

The societies existing in these two newly independent “Westminster democracies” are based on tribal lineage and kinsman. To say that they are fractious would be a gross understatement. Papua New Guinea has more than 900 languages, which is nearly one-sixth of the number of languages in the whole world! The Solomon Islands are not far behind. It has a population of about 500000 people and yet it has about 70 different languages.

Each tribe is headed by what they call, a Big Man (certain tribe is headed by a Big Woman, of course). In each society, the position of Big Man or Big Woman is earned and not passed by generations. A Big Man must therefore prove himself as a leader and is constantly aware of a  challenge being mounted by a challenger.

The ability of a Big Man or Big Woman is judged in accordance with his or her ability to distribute pigs, shell money and other resources to the members of his tribes.

As and when a Westminster democracy was introduced, the concept of Parliamentary representative was transposed on these societies. The result was of course, chaotic, to say the least. The various tribe do not vote based on political ideologies or programmes for the common good of the country. They vote for their Big Man or Big Woman.

In turn, when these Big Men or Women are elected, they do not work for the common good of the country or for the people as a nation or state. They are more concerned with how many pigs they could get and deliver to their tribe. If not, they would lose their respective position as the Big Man or Big Woman.

That fractious approach towards nation building makes a mockery of the Westminster democracy that these two states practise. Unity is unknown to these two as the people are only move in accordance with their self-altruistic motivations.

We might laugh when we read about this. But doesn’t it remind us of a modern and semi-developed place we know?

Unity starts with a resolution. And that resolution is a resolution to move in unison for the greater good of the nation.

Have a good day Anas.

*data are from Francis Fukuyama’s The Origins of Political Order, Profile Books, 2011


Anonymous said...

Bro,thanks for the totful note. My letter to guan eng is a respond to their endeavor to attract the malays a few weeks ago. Tunku Aziz, whom i respect, lamented that he has failed his job in attracting the malays. They blamed the BN, i am suggesting they do not understand the malay sentiment - as per in my letter. i am giving a little more time to write back to TMI's demonising and ballistics my letter. see u soon cheers and salam, anas

Anonymous said...

Art, this is a well written piece. I think it has the depth that befits the subject matter. Personally, while I think Anas may harbour some good intent, I feel that his understanding of the matter is shallow.
I have read his more recent FB posts which seem to look like justifications of what started out to be a terribly misplaced statement and argument that the 'Non-Malays' should thank the 'Malays'. Based on his current postings on FB, one can only expect that he would dilute what he claims to be his stand and add more 'factual diversions'

Anonymous said...

Dear Art,

Great article.

Despite Anas's response to your article above, it does not detract the fact he had exposed himself as a fake. He will very well claimed he was misunderstood and his letter to Guan Eng was in response to Tunku Aziz. But thoroughly analyzing his open letter, he comes out exactly as a closet ketuanan supremacist/racist like the obnoxious loud mouth Ibrahim Ali and the Utusan Awang. The only difference between Ibrahim Ali and Anas is Anas expresses himself a bit more eloquently without the fanfare of keris waving and spitting venom on his audience. But Anas is nevertheless a closet racist who has now come out in the open. And nothing he says, writes and do from now on will ever convince me and my friends that he really stood for what he professes in his previous adverts and slogans.

Anonymous said...

I loved this article.
Anas seems to have several templates of answers which he dishes out wherever the issue of his open letter is discussed.
His reluctance to apologise for what he has written only goes to show the extent of his resolve in disguising what he had written as a misunderstood centrist stand.
He is gravely mistaken if he believes he can fool many with this

Anonymous said...

i have researched much in this area. Unity comes with merits of the people too.

Afif said...

Blardy long novel uncle

Anonymous said...

Mutual Understanding
In the 21st century, the world has transformed to unrecognizable portion and we are too changing by minute and there is no ending to such nature, it is like the universe itself. In such a ever changing world , it is very hard to think like a mind of one individual .In such a vast space of different spices , it is understandable that everybody doesn’t think s and shares the same dreams. Moreover, it is always wise to respect others view and feeling and that will save us from a lot of troubles. In addition, you may not agree others thoughts, however, you may just listen and try to understand their point of view, may help us to except our surrounding and respect others views. Therefore, what really makes us stand among others is, by listening to what others say, respecting their views and finally give them sense of belonging!!!
We can make a difference only possible if you are willing to understand my dear!

Anonymous said...

‎Because I affirm nothing, none can refute my point of view.

Anonymous said...

..saw the documentary channel 555 entitled "Emergency"- chinese and indian immigrants were imported by the British Colonists for the tin mining and rubber industries. It was the Rulers(advised by British) that gave citizenship (as incentive) to the immigrants to fight the enemy during Communist Insurgency. This was British brilliant strategy of using local chinese to fight communists which consist mainly of chinese

Anonymous said...

.."The politicians are bent to divide us, using racial politics.However the rakyat are bent to stay united and live in harmony"...

BY and large , i think the non-malays are grateful to make Malaysia their homeland, they are respectful of malays and their culture.Btw having say that,who dilute the power of the Rulers? ..not DAP!, not PAS,.. give a guess??

Old Fart said...

Thanks for the elaboration on unity and the different kinds of unity that might exist. Isn't it like sets where different kinds of unity might exist between us and others with several over-lapping situations when 2 or more sets of individuals or communities may come together united for a common cause.

But sadly, the word has been misused in Malaysia. UMNO leaders and Ibrahim Ali call for Malay Unity, and sometimes they also use Islamic Unity interchangeably and synonymously. MCA of course calls for Chinese unity and MIC does so for the Indians. And together they are supposed to be our national leaders. Who ever amongst them have called for national or Malaysian unity? One would assume that the demons lie within rather than without.

That being so, communal, as defined by the political parties, unity is paramount and supercedes that of national unity.

In a political situation, communal unity is demanded when a threat exists to that community.

Isn't it about time where the relevant parties, who call for unity amongst the communities who they claim to represent, pronounce who their communities enemies are or might be? Or would antagonists be a better description? Or is competitors a friendlier reference?

With screams of Chinese, Singaporeans and now, Christians, UMNO is very quickly exhausting bogeymen who might get the Malays to be united. What are they going to do when the bogeymen just keep ignoring them and do what is hoped of them?

Anonymous said...

But real happiness doesn’t exist in escaping the present; it comes from recognizing that what we really want is to stop suffocating the moment with thoughts, fears, beliefs, and opinions. What we really want is to choose our pleasures not because we’re hurting, but simply because we enjoy them.

Anonymous said...


No doubt you will be looking forward to the usual, "great article", "wise man" commendations. I, for one, tend to view this as a bloody waste of time, time that you could better use on making bigger impact elsewhere.

You see, Anas, knows exactly what he wants, when he wrote to LGE. He doesn't give a hoot about anything else as long as he can get patronage from UMNO. The world can burn in the meantime.

So ... why are you wasting your time replying to him. Anas wouldn't understand what you write because stuff like this is too compplex for his simple mind. Even if he understands, he doesn't give a hoot.

If you really want to make an impact with this article, write it in Bahasa Malaysia and in simple tone so that it is understandable by the Malay fence-sitters. This is the group you need to influence.

Have a good day.

Greg Lopez said...

Appreciate people like you Art.

Anonymous said...

Good article. Well written.

Anonymous said...

Anas wanting LGE to apologise for wanting to be equal is like this story. "Ah kow and Ahmad, both were given $100 by their boss. Ahmad said to Ah Kow, you cannot be equal to me. You must give me $30, but Ah Kow refused, because he earned it and both of them do equal work. Ahmad forcefully take it. Now Ahmad has $130 and Ah Kow has $70. Ah Kow cried foul and wanted back his $30 to make it up to $100. He said he doesn't want $130 but just $100 which is his due. Ahmad scolded him for wanting to have equal pay with him. He told Ah Kow to apologize. So, poor Ah Kow has $30 less and still have to say sorry to Ahmad. He has his rights taken but still have to be grateful and say sorry".

One day Ahmad sells his handphone to Ah Kow for $200. So Ah Kow paid him $200 and got the handphone. But Ahmad said he should be grateful to him for sharing his handphone with him. Ah Kow said, since I bought it, it belongs to me. How come, you said you share it with me.

Ahmad said I am very generous and share this land with you. Ah Kow said, I bought this piece of land with my money and built a house on it with my money. You did not give it to me free of charge. I bought it. It belongs to me now.

Ah Kow said to Ahmad, if you have the money, you can buy up all the lands and nobody will said anything, because it belongs to you now legally because you bought it with your money.

mpn kadaram said...

Dear Art,its a splendid writing:recent FB post of Anas are tainted with his prejudice towards DAP.His advertisements has always inspired me and the nation for his love for togetherness and unity. I have on many occasions flabbergasted with his writings especially during the Malay Bible issue. I think this article of yours must be kept as national treasure. Kudos Art.

Anonymous said...

Anas is a fake. He is not centrist. He is 'true and true' a Malay Chauvinistic Pig.
A centrist looks at his neighbour as a Malaysian - not Malay, not Chinese.
Anas should remove his mask and join any of the BN parties.
He has exposed himself as a BN sympathiser and win some brownie points from Najib.
Tell me what has ever said about the mass abuse of power, corruption and arrogance of the government.

Anonymous said...

Allow me to first remind you that Anas is Umno's two-faced Janus- and he ain't so stupid- cos he at least knows enough to make his one face real pretty.

Next, you gotta be aware of who you're dealing with here- Anas is the self-proclaimed expert on Penang affairs, Art- didn't you know that?
He knows better than anyone else ..... he's I hear, the Mr. "Centrist" Know-it-all, which Umno has hired in their propaganda drive (like APCO lah- you think those full-page ads are for charity ah?).
He believes that DAP is in "grave danger" of losing Penang, and even predicts a 98% landslide for BN in the coming 13GE- yeah ... according to him, apparently Penangites are raving mad with LGE la- and all he needs to do is stoke the fire a little and the govt will be toppled.
That's how "smart" this guy is ....

As the "first commenter" said, the letter was apparently written with a certain "context" in mind- which he conveniently ignored He took refuge in "generalities", and demanded that LGE apologise for all that had been done to "hurt" Malays' (that includes the Penang Umno poo - Kimmas, of course) sensitivities.... in "proper Malay tradition".

Mark my words- that slithering wormtongue of a "centrist" Umno-mouthpiece, will come with plenty of pathetic excuses for his stupidity in letting the racist & bigoted cat in him out of the bag.

He will come out with plenty of full-page ads quoting some religious/political/humanist philosophers in The Star to "reclaim" his "Balls-busting" centrist stance (for the sake of UMNO).
Yup- he'll do that despite not understanding "jack" about his own add- but like I said .... he smart enough to know how to keep his one face smiling & pretty ....

Anonymous said...

Art, I agree with Anonymous that what you have written is too deep for Anas to understand. If you were to read the stuff he has written, you would find that he has a shallow mind. It is therefore unlikely that he will grasp your postulations on situational and transcendental unity. Perhaps you need to spell it out to him in simpler terms the erroneous premise on which he has based his call on the DAP to apologise to the Malays, etc. He does not see the racialist (perhaps even racist) taint in his thinking. This is dangerous because he continues to exert influence on simple Malaysian minds like his through his other channels, like his full-page ads and Facebook page. He needs to be set right, and you are the person to do that. But in ways he can understand.

shar101 said...

Could have sworn I know THAT BIG WOMAN you are referring to, Art.

But let's not name names here for the sake of our collective sanity.

FF1 said...

Once again spot on Art. You are indeed the articulate one.But Art, at the risk of sounding like a pain-in-the-you-know-where pedant, can i draw your attention to your use of the word "self-altruistic"?. I think "selfish" is the word you have in mind because anything done altruistically is done unselfishly
Have a good day.

Anonymous said...

Writing is one thing, writing with passion is another thing. A piece out of your heart, I presume.

Anonymous said...

Please correct me if I'm wrong...Do we rather have equality in race and religion (which means no special rights and Malaysian being a secular country and not an Islamic country) or try to find the right balance between bumi's and non bumi's. When there is a certain tribe superior than the others, there always will be hatred and jealousy. As same for religion, can we just be a secular country whereby all religion are treated equally? Just a thought of mine. If there is equal treatment among religion and races in Malaysia, I believe we all can live as brothers and sisters without questioning the next person beside us about their his/her race and religion. We all be Malaysians!!!

Anonymous said...

Brilliant mate.

m7m said...

Wow! What a wonderful well articulated piece that was. I thank you most sincerely for being the epitome of that abstract notion of unity.

Anonymous said...

Hi Art,
You have shown the level of maturity in which him whom you write to could only dream to attain.
His current FB postings (and he has been busy with them) only show how desperate he is to mask his supposedly centrist stand.
His attempt to 'undo' what he has said with a massive dose of crowd pleasing posts - is hypocritical at best.

Anonymous said...

Just because Anas got money to place ads on newspaper does not make him less of a racist.


Interesting parts is that his ancesters were from Yemen. Yemen! That camel riding boy should stick with camels rather than preaching to the non-Malays. At least the Nazi, Ibrahim Ali, is an actual Malay, or is he?

Hopeful Msian said...

Dear Art, I can see how our country needs more people like you. Many many more. At the rate it goes, where do we go from here? Where will we end up?

What centrist? said...

Fence-sitter is a good euphemism for a centrist stance at times.

Anonymous said...

"Dear Brother Anus,"


Yours lovingly,

Wee Willy

moment2moment said...

Dear Art,
I agree with what one Anon said -- simplify and translate into BM for the folks in non-urban areas .. we anglophiles already are in synch with what you write ..
and Anas best stop being a hypocrite - a closet ketuanan acting like a centrist .. or he is simply inviting all the online ballistic missiles onto himself

Anonymous said...

Anas wrote".. DAP should learn malay-ness, adat and islam".

WE dont mind learning but we scare non-malay can become 'malay race' bcos in this country it is constitutionally defined.Yemenis arab also can become 'malay', only in Bolehland

kiru said...

Art, if only Malaysia had you as Prime Minister, I could die in peace knowing that my children would have a place under the Malaysian sun.

Kris said...

Art your dissertation on unity was well researched, thought out and written.

However you only touched once on Anus's main point. That the Malays 'sacrificed' and the rest of us needed to understand that.

While I agree that acknowledging the past is sometimes good for us – just so we do not forget our roots – a demand for such acknowledgement times and again would be regressive in terms of achieving transcendental unity in my humble opinion

Anas's main and only point is that to ensure unity, the non-malays needed to understand the 'sacrifices' made by the malays. Which is a ridiculous yet oft repeated statement. All Malaysians made a collective sacrifice. Back then I am sure there would have been some who worried if Malaysia could stand alone against the likes of Indonesia and possibly even Thailand. Could we maintain our sovereignty without the umbrella of the British? Could we govern ourselves? These and many other questions would have run through the minds of the people back then and this would have been across board. But they made a collective sacrifice to get out of their comfort zones and brave the unknown.

There were also 'sacrifices' made to work towards a united stand, to show the British that we can and will and were prepared to stand together, setting aside our differences. This at a time when the Ghee Hin would slaughter a Hai San so much as look at him, when a chettiar would not sit down for a meal with a tamil. In other words when the divisiveness ran deep. These and others were the sacrifices that were made to create a nation of peoples and when we emerged independent we were united and strong and the better for it.

That is the past that needs to be acknowledged, not some woeful fictional notion of sacrifice.......

Anonymous said...

I have read Anas' opinion.
Then I read Msian Insider's (MI).
And lastly, yours Art Harun.

I sum up my observations as follows:
a) Anas is out of his depth. He tries very hard but lacks the clarity of mind.

b) In war, one tactic to fool the masses is to have a "neutral" guy trump up your position. But as with all wolves, the sheep's clothing will eventually shed. This Anas chap is 100% - a BN wolf!

c) To read that he is a "trainer" of some sort must bring great disrepute to the Training industry. I personally would require he pay me fees to sit in his workshops ... and then I would require my iPod and earphones.

d) I don't know if Anas laddie is chinese, malay, indian, thai, filipino or arab - does it matter? What matters is he's writing like a standard 4 kid and trying to pass off his essay as independent / centrist. Now, that I dislike! In a kungfu movie series, this character would resemble the sneaky spineless turncoat with the thin moustache, beady eyes and accountant spectacles.

Thank you Msian Insider and Art for your swift riposte to that dastardly Anas lunge.

hari kumar ondiveeran said...

Art, well written piece. I guess being from the same generation and same sort of mindset we see life in a similar way. A Libyan colleague of mine was thinking about spending some time in Malaysia during Ramadan. He has been quite impressed with Malaysia.(Well compared to Libya, many countries would look good).
We discussed the existence of 2 Malaysias. One, the ever bickering, political, racially motivated landscape that is being created/or attempts being made to do so. The other, the one you and I know and love. The one that takes us back to our school days where we mixed with one and all. Days in university where, where we acknowledge each other slight differences but got together anyway because there were far more uniting factors than dividing ones(red rooster comes to mind). This still seems to be the more pervasive. After all, the man in the kampung, town and estate ahs the same drive. To put food on the table for his family and give them a better life.We need to work on the uniting factors more and stop the self-centred bigots from dividing us. I may be naive but to me Anas' letter spoke of one person understanding where the other is coming from. But it is a two way street. As much as the non-Malays need to understand the Malays, so do the Malays need to understand the non-Malays. I am tired of hearing this concept of you should be grateful we let you stay after 1957. Most Malaysians now were born in Malaysia. They were not here by choice. Their parents may have come from elsewhere, but the only country these non-Malay malaysians know is Malaysia. They too want Malaysia to be great. - hari

Anonymous said...

I am not impress at all with your thinking. One dimensional and anti establishment. The Malay will always be seen as prejudice and ultra. This is despite others being opportunist