Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Malaysia’s Mongolian Murder Mystery Continues

By Kim Quek (Asia Sentinel) - The acquitted Abdul Razak Baginda does little to dispel suspicions over Deputy Prime Minister Najib’s involvement

There appears to be only one motive in Abdul Razak Baginda’s press conference on November 20 in the wake of his acquittal for murder in the case of Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaariibuu, who was executed in October of 2006 in a case with connections to the top of Malaysia’s power structure.

The press conference was designed to alleviate the mounting pressure on Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak and his wife Rosmah Mansor, who have found themselves irretrievably entangled in the murder case.  These entanglements spring from two sources: a judicial process bruised by numerous irregularities and dubiety that are widely perceived as motivated by the desire to protect the real culprits; and the suffocation and dubious response to incriminating new evidences.

In the 40-minute press conference, Razak Baginda only delivered two solid points: one, Razak himself is innocent; and two, Najib & Rosmah are also innocent, as Razak claimed that the latter never met Altantuya, and that all allegations against them were lies.  Beyond these two assertions, Razak did not yield even one inch of facts that might have thrown some light on the numerous puzzles that have found no answers in the one year old trial. 

And since the court has already acquitted Razak of the charge, why should he bother to hold a press conference to perform the redundant act of once again declaring himself innocent, if it is not meant to help out his close friend and benefactor?  (Some view this as a quid pro quo, saying Razak deliberately cancelled a previous press conference on Nov 6 so that it could be held after the end of the allowable appeal period, which fell on Nov 14, just to make sure that the prosecutor would not appeal against his acquittal.)

But if Razak and the intended recipients of this supposed reciprocal gesture think that Razak’s declaration of Najib’s innocence is of any help, they are mistaken.


How Did Razak Know?

It was interesting to observe that when Razak was asked how he knew that Najib never met Altantuya, Razak was stunned and speechless for a moment, before he found his composure to emphatically utter: “I know …. I know”, without explaining how he knew. 

Stacked against this simple answer of “I know, I know” is of course a mountain of facts and events that point to the contrary of Razak’s claim of innocence.

The first event that strikes the mind is the mysterious disappearance of private investigator P. Balasubramaniam (Bala) after implicating Najib in the case.   On 4th July 2008, Bala disclosed an explosive affidavit revealing the existence of the alleged Najib-Altantuya-Razak triangle of relationship – in direct contradiction to Najib’s repeated vows that he never met Altantuya - in addition to furnishing other details that helped to make sense of this otherwise puzzling case.  The next day, under apparent coercion, Bala signed another affidavit retracting every paragraph in the first affidavit with links to Najib; and immediately after that he and his entire family disappeared, never to reappear until this day. 

In the first affidavit, Bala said he wanted to prevent a miscarriage of justice, as many details with links to Najib given by him to the police had been left out in the police statement and also never raised in court.  He therefore sought to appear in court to provide these missing links.  Regrettably, he never had that chance.

Upon disclosures of these two affidavits, the police promised to investigate them.  They later claimed to have located Bala and his family in a foreign country (the identity of which the police refused to divulge), and they also claimed to have taken a statement from Bala.  However, to this day, the police have remained silent on these investigations as well as the whereabouts of Bala and family.

Critical Evidence Blocked

Meanwhile, Karpal Singh, the lawyer for the family of Altantuya and the Mongolian government, applied to have Bala’s affidavit included in the trial, but was blocked by the concerted objections from all the participating players in the trial – the judge, prosecutors and defense. This instance of blockade of evidence to the trial is only one in a series of similar blockades that appear to fit into a pattern whereby critical evidence that was deemed important leads to this murder mystery was blocked, apparently to prevent the truth from surfacing. 

Important examples of these court incidences were the mysterious erasure of immigration records of Altantuya and her female companions at the material times of the crime, and the mention in court of a photo allegedly showing Najib having a meal at a round table with Altantuya and Razak.

In the latter case, Altantuya’s cousin Burmaa Oyunchimeg (called Amy) testified on 29 June 20007 that Altantuya had shown her the photo in Hong Kong when the former returned from a trip to France.  However, before Karpal Singh could lead the witness further, he was stopped by the judge, upon strong protest from the prosecutor, enjoined by defense lawyers. 

According to Amy’s testimony, the photo was taken after August 2005, and she considered it an indication that her cousin’s love affair with Razak had not ended by then.  This testimony clearly contradicted Razak’s claim that his affair with Altantuya ended in August of that year.  That brings us to the question of the reliability of his statements.


Emotional Outbursts

In fact, Razak was found wanting in honesty in his replies to questions on the two emotional outbursts – one by himself in mid-trial in February 2008 and one by his wife when he was first charged in 2006.

On Razak’s outburst in court on 20 February 2008, this is what the New Straits Times reported: Before proceedings began, Razak’s father Abdullah Malim Baginda whispered something to his son who was in the dock.  Razak’s demeanor changed and he walked back to the holding cell, turned to face his father and angrily shouted: “Shall I shout it out?”   His father pointed his finger at him and indicated no.

Then Razak loudly said “I am innocent! I am innocent!” before going into the cell.

When the trial judge adjourned proceedings for lunch, Abdullah walked up to his son and again whispered something into his ears.  Razak jumped up from his seat and in an animated way shouted : “Oh no, oh no.”  He then kicked the dock gate angrily as he walked out and banged on the lock-up door and looked terribly upset.  He was in tears.

And what was Razak’s explanation during the press conference for this outburst?  He said he was only venting his anger as he was upset with the postponement of the case.  That answer did not sound very convincing, did it?  So, what is the secret that Razak is hiding from us?

On the second outburst when he was charged in Nov 2006, his wife shouted hysterically “Why charge my husband? He does not want to be the prime minister.”  Razak explained that his wife was then under stress as she had not seen him for some time.

That certainly didn’t sound like an honest answer. A more reasonable guess is that she was angry that her husband was made the scapegoat for someone who was aspiring to be the next prime minister.  The identity of this person is so obvious that it needs no further elaboration.

Finally, with regards to Razak’s claim that allegation of Altantuya’s involvement with the submarine deal was a lie because the contract was signed in June 2002 while he first met the deceased at end 2004, my answer is this: whose words are to be believed – Bala’s or Razak’s?  If Bala told the truth, then there is no credibility gap in the two dates, as according to Bala, Altantuya was passed on from Najib to Razak, as Najib did not want her to harass him since he was then the deputy prime minister (Najib became DPM in 2004).

If Bala did not tell the truth, why wasn’t he sternly dealt with?  Why should the authorities be so fearful of him that he was forced to retract his statement, made to disappear and his affidavit barred from court?

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Sarawak for Sarawakians !

First of all, Sarawak Headhunter wishes to make it clear that he is only anti-BN Malayans and not Malayans in general. All references to "Malayans" here and in his other postings should therefore be read accordingly.

Sarawak has contributed more than its fair share to Malaya, and the Malayans have messed things up. Not only have the Malayans messed things up, they have ignored Sarawak's contributions and have never even acknowledged the same or shown any gratitude to Sarawak or Sarawakians.

Even worse, they look down on Sarawak as being backward while enjoying and wasting the fruits of Sarawak's natural resources, especially its petroleum. It is as if the Malayans refuse to invite or even allow Sarawakians to sit at the banquet table and eat the food that the Sarawakians themselves have provided. This is of course a typical colonial and feudal mentality and attitude, even if the Malayans may deny it.

Must Sarawakians beg to be let into the banquet hall? Or do they grace the festivities only as performing artistes showing off the purported multi-ethnic culture of Malaysia? Do the Malayans really know anything about the culture of Sarawak and Sarawakians? Do they care or even bother?

Can Sarawakians expect anything different from PKR, a Malayan-based political party whose main aim it would appear is to get Anwar Ibrahim to become Prime Minister of Malaysia?

These are some of the tough questions Sarawakians themselves have to answer.

Sarawak Headhunter has increasingly come to the opinion that the sooner Sarawak parts ways with Malaya the better off it will be. Not even a purportedly born-again Malaysia should deter this from happening. The Malayans will never understand Sarawakians because they are too lazy to make any real effort. Sarawakians have made it too easy for them by allowing them to live the good life at Sarawak's expense, so why should they bother? Enough is enough!

Sarawak will then be in a position to adopt a more representative form of government, along the lines of a Presidential system, where every citizen will have a right to vote for the head of the nation, unlike the present system where a few hundred and at most a couple of thousand people (at the UMNO General Assembly) decide who is going to be the Prime Minister. How will anyone who is not from UMNO or not a Malay get to be Prime Minister? Impossible or only with very great difficulty.

In fact there is nothing to say that even the Chief Minister of Sarawak cannot be elected in this manner - by popular vote. All it needs is a few constitutional changes, which of course we cannot expect the BN government to make and which is why BN needs to be overthrown in the next state elections or earlier.

Sarawak Headhunter believes that Sarawakians should have full control of their own government without having to answer to the Malayans, whether Pakatan Rakyat or Barisan Nasional.

Many of the Dayaks (effectively the Ibans) believe that Sarawak's problems can be overcome through "Dayak Unity" and that Taib can be overthrown through such "unity". This is misconceived and they are wrong. Other than for the fact that this idea is not shared by all Dayaks, it also ignores the Non-Dayak races of Sarawak and this is a mistake.

Taib Mahmud and the Sarawak BN government can only be overthrown only through a unity of a majority of Sarawakians, Dayaks and Non-Dayaks alike.

It is also a fallacy to believe that only a Dayak Chief Minister can solve the problems of the Dayaks. What would happen if a Dayak Chief Minister were to behave like Taib Mahmud and get away with it? What would happen if he were to discriminate against the Non-Dayaks? Sarawak does not need this and it would be another disaster.

In reality, it is only necessary for whoever is chosen to be the Chief Minister of Sarawak to be fair to all Sarawakians, irrespective of race or religion. Sarawakians must choose the best man for the job, not because of his race or religion.

Finally, Sarawakians should stop looking to the Malayans for solutions to their problems. The Malayans only know how to create problems, then offer their own self-serving solutions as if they were doing us such big favours.

Sarawakians can look after themselves, and the first thing they should do is to kick Taib and the BN out, and preferably limit the role of PKR in Sarawak.

Sarawak for Sarawakians!

Sunday, November 9, 2008

Obama's exciting victory and the boredom of 'Ketuanan Melayu'

Thursday, 06 November 2008 00:30

Azly Rahman
http://azlyrahman-illuminations.blogspot.com/

'O people! Your God is one and your forefather (Adam) is one. An Arab is not better than a non-Arab and a non-Arab is not better than an Arab, and a red (i.e. white tinged with red) person is not better than a black person and a black person is not better than a red person, except in piety. Indeed the noblest among you is the one who is deeply conscious of God.' - a saying of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon Him)

Malaysia - to whom does it belong? To Malaysians. But who are Malaysians? I hope I am, Mr Speaker, Sir. But sometimes, sitting in this chamber, I doubt whether I am allowed to be a Malaysian. This is the doubt that hangs over many minds, and ... [once] emotions are set in motion, and men pitted against men along these unspoken lines, you will have the kind of warfare that will split the nation from top to bottom and undo Malaysia.' - Lee Kuan Yew, now Senior Minister, Republic of Singapore

Instead of defining Ketuanan Melayu as 'Malay superiority' which is quite meaningless, philologically inaccurate, and philosophically arrogant, I think the word 'dictatorship' is closer in meaning. As you read this piece, please refrain from value judgment and from bring trapped in the prison-house of language pertaining to the word 'dictatorship'.

To dictate connotes to tell, which connotes to narrate. To narrate means to weave a story based on an ideology. To ideologise means to encapsulate. To encapsulate means to be trap. Dictatorship, here might also mean an entrapment. Instead of acknowledging one's freedom to rule, one is acknowledging being in an entrapment - and to rule out of that condition. This is a form of false consciousness.

Words, as a literary theorist Raymond Williams might say, must also be contextualised/situated within the economic condition they emerge in. Marx's famous dictum that human beings' existence is defined by the economic condition they are in and that this condition is already predetermined. This is a deterministic view of human history.

I first read heard the phrase "Tuntutan Melayu" in the mid-1980s from a book by one Malik Munip. I was reading his work, at the same time reading Lim Kit Siang's 'Malaysia in the dangerous 80s', to get a sense of the argument. I was an undergraduate reading Literature, Education and International Politics.

I also heard that Malay students were discouraged from reading Kit Siang's work and encouraged to read 'Ketuanan Melayu'. I love banned books and books that others tell me not to read. There is a sense of intellectual challenge to be able to read banned books.

I read Mahathir Mohamad's 'The Malay Dilemma' and Syed Husin Ali's 'Malays: Their Problems and their Future' and Syed Hussein Alatas' 'The Myth of the Lazy Native' at the same time. Again, to get a sense of balance.

I read Malaysian official publications on economic outlook, juxtaposing them with a close reading of analyses on the political-economy of the Malaysian capitalist state.

I read the work of Freud and Marx to see where some of the major authors of the Frankfurt School of Social Research are going with their arguments on totalitarianism. I read the Quran and the Bhagavad Gita, the Ramayana, and the Mahabharata to see where the arguments on race superiority lie and what the fate of humankind will be.

The idea of social dominance and racial superiority might all be primarily about economics, if we are to read the history of the development of ideologies of superiority. But my question is - who has the right to claim that this or that land belongs to this or that group of people. At what point does culture and citizenship meet and negotiate the issue of egalitarianism? When does 'the truth of one's culture' reach its limit and the question of 'the truth of citizenship' dominate?

This is a very complex question Malaysians must answer after 50 years of Independence. We must open up the dialogue on this issue.

Lyrical propaganda

Let us look at how the idea of ketuanan Melayu is disseminated to the young. One way is through indoctrination camps in which songs are used.

Over the decades, perhaps millions of Malay students like me were taught the dangerous propaganda song, 'Anak Kecil Main Api'(A Child Plays with Fire). One verse concerns the power of the Malays::

kini kita cuma tinggal kuasa

yang akan menentukan bangsa

hasil mengalir, ke tangan yang lain

pribumi merintih sendiri…

My loose translation of this 1980s propaganda song by the Biro Tata Negara reads:

political power is what we are only left with

one that will determine the fate of our nation

wealth of this nation flows into the hands of others

sons and daughters of the soil suffer in solace...

I do not think we have a clear understanding of what the lyrics mean. I doubt if the songwriter even understand what a 'people's history of Malaya' means. It is a song based on racist intents; its lyrics penned by one who does not have a good grasp of the political-economy of Malaysian history, let alone the latest advances in the field of psychology of consciousness.

The training programes that encapsulate the theme of this song are meant to instill fear of the Malays, not of others but of themselves, and to project hatred onto other ethnic groups without realising who the enemy of the Malays really are.

Using relaxation techniques to bring the brain waves in the alpha and state (conducive for suggestive and subliminal messages), trainees were put under 'half-asleep' conditions to get the ketuanan Melayu message to colonise the consciousness. The technique pioneered by Russian brain scientists Barzakov and Lozanov in the1970s, called 'suggestopedia', is used to instill the deep sense of fear for oneself and hatred of others.

History is a complex syntagmatic pattern of interplay between technology, ideology, culture, inscription and institutionalisation not easily reduced to simplistic lyrics as such sung to the tune of pre-war German-nationalistic-sounding compositions.

History is about the complex evolution of the ruling class which owns the technologies of control. As Marx would say, at every epoch it is the history of those who own the means of production that will be written and rewritten. The winners write history, the losers write poetry or study anthropology, some would lament.

Back to the lyrics. After 50 years of independence, who is suffering in Malaysia? Who has become wealthy? Who has evolved into robber barons? What has become of our judiciary system, our universities, our city streets, our sense of public safety and security, our schools, our youth, and our entire socio-economic arrangements at the eve of the 12th general election. How has the idea of ketuanan Melayu contributed to this state of affairs?

Language of power and ideology is at play in those lyrics. The definition of 'bumiputera' is at play. It has become a problematic word in this age of deconstructionism; an age wherein as the poet WB Yeats said, "the centre cannot hold".

Rock musicians will recall the Scorpions' famous song 'Winds of Change' to serenade the fall of the Berlin Wall and the beginning of the breakdown of the Soviet Empire. We have to face the 'wrath' of the word.

Put an end to Ketuanan Melayu

For Muslims in Malaysia, this saying by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is familiar: 'Your descent is nothing to be proud of. Nor does it bring you superiority. O people! All of you are the children of Adam. You are like equal wheat grains in a bowl ... No one has any superiority over anyone else, except in religion and heedfulness. In order to consider someone a wicked person, it suffices that he humiliates other people, is mean with money, bad-tempered and exceeds the limits…'

I would say that ketuanan Melayu is a dangerous concept that is threatening race relations. It is an arrogant interpretation of selective history; of a history that is largely benefiting those who profits from the ideology.

Those promoting this concept are not well-versed in the matters of philosophy of history. I do not think thinking Malays these days subscribe to the idea of 'Malay dominance and dictatorship'. If there is a ketuanan of one race, then the rest are 'slaves' and 'serfs' and 'sub-citizens', if we are to analyse it from the point of view of 'Master-Slave' narrative?

As a Malay wishing to see the withering of and an end to the concept of "ketuanan Melayu" and the birth of a new consciousness that will respect the dignity of all races and the humility of all ethnic groups, I call upon Malaysians to continue to be critical of any attempt by any race to project their own sense of false superiority that would only breed dangerous ethnocentrism bordering on xenophobia.

We should work together to deconstruct all forms of race-based political arrangement and work towards establishing a new order based on a more egalitarian economic design that takes into consideration the basic needs and dignity of all races.

We should teach our schoolchildren how to deconstruct such sense of racial superiority, through the teaching of not only tolerance but social egalitarianism - via peace education strategies. We will have a lot to gain for generations to come.

Let us learn from the message of multiculturalism, peace, and reconciliation
crafted in the victory speech of Barack Obama and work towards the kind of
Malaysia all Malaysians want.
For -- is not Malaysia too a land of immigrants?

Saturday, November 1, 2008

Malays Are Not a Race

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

 

Source :  Nuraina A Samad's 3540 Jalan Sudin

Bergen is one of my favourite bloggers. He is witty, smart, funny, irreverent, sometimes self-effacing, and a lot more.

He sent me a very long comment from a commentator to his posting on "Freedom to Choose A Religion". The commentator by the name of Micheal Chick, says that there is no such thing as a/the Malay race. Of course, many of us would beg to differ.

I have sought Bergen's permission to reproduce his message (in bold) , followed by Micheal Chick's comment (in italics).

I reproduce here the comments posted by a Micheal Chick in my blog. Maybe it has nothing to do with your father's struggle, or maybe it has. I don't have the brain for this. You don't have to post it in the comments box if you don't want to.

"It's been interesting to read such free-flowing comments on an all "Malaysian" free for all. While we are on the subject, how many of you have read the book entitled "Contesting Malayness"? Written by a Professor of National University of Singapore. Cost S$32 (about). It reflects the Anthropologists views that there is no such race as the "Malays" to begin with. If we follow the original migration of the Southern Chinese of 6,000yrs ago, they moved into Taiwan, (now the Alisan), then into the Phillipines (now the Aeta) and moved into Borneo (4,500yrs ago) (Dayak). They also split into Sulawesi and progressed into Jawa, and Sumatera. The final migration was to the Malayan Peninsular 3,000yrs ago. A sub-group from Borneo also moved to Champa in Vietnam at 4,500yrs ago.

Interestingly, the Champa deviant group moved back to present day Kelantan. There are also traces of the Dong Song and HoaBinh migration from Vietnam and Cambodia. To confuse the issue, there was also the Southern Thai migration, from what we know as Pattani today. (see also "Early Kingdoms of the Indonesian Archipelago and the Malay Peninsular")

Of course, we also have the Minangkabau's which come from the descendants of Alexander the Great and a West Indian Princess. (Sejarah Melayu page 1-3)

So the million Dollar Question... Is there really a race called the "Malays"? All anthropologists DO NOT SEEM TO THINK SO.

Neither do the "Malays" who live on the West Coast of Johor. They'd rather be called Javanese. What about the west coast Kedah inhabitants who prefer to be known as "Achenese"? or the Ibans who simply want to be known as IBANS. Try calling a Kelabit a "Malay" and see what response you get... you’ll be so glad that their Head-Hunting days are over.

In an article in the Star, dated: Dec 3rd 2006

available for on-line viewing at:
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2006/12/3/focus/16212814&sec=focus

An excerp is reproduced here below:

"The Malays – taken as an aggregation of people of different ethnic backgrounds but who speak the same language or family of languages and share common cultural and traditional ties – are essentially a new race, compared to the Chinese, Indians and the Arabs with their long histories of quests and conquests.

The Malay nation, therefore, covers people of various ethnic stock, including Javanese, Bugis, Bawean, Achehnese, Thai, orang asli, the indigenous people of Sabah and Sarawak and descendants of Indian Muslims who had married local women.

Beneath these variations, however, there is a common steely core that is bent on changing the Malay persona from its perceived lethargic character to one that is brave, bold and ready to take on the world. "


The definition of “Malay” is therefore simply a collection of people's who speak a similar type language. With what is meant by a similar type language does not mean that the words are similar. Linguists call this the "Lego-type" language, where words are added on to the root word to make meaning and give tenses and such. Somehow, the Indonesians disagree with this classification and insist on being called "Indonesians" even though the majority of "Malays" have their roots in parts of Indonesia? They refuse to be called "Malay"…. Anyhow you may define it.

The writer failed to identify (probably didn't know), that the "Malay" definition also includes, the Champa, Dong Song, HoabinHian, The Taiwanese Alisan and the Philippino Aetas. He also did not identify that the "Orang Asli" are (for lack of a better term) ex-Africans. If you try to call any one of our East Malaysian brothers an "Orang Asli", they WILL BEAT YOU UP! I had to repeat this because almost all West Malaysians make the same mistake when we cross the South China Sea. Worse, somehow, they feel even more insulted when you call them “Malay”. Somehow, “kurang ajar” is uttered below their breath as if “Malay” was a really bad word for them. I’m still trying to figure this one out.

Watch “Malays in Africa”; a Museum Negara produced DVD. Also, the “Champa Malays” by the same.

With this classification, they MUST also include the Phillipinos, the Papua New Guineans, the Australian Aboroginies, as well as the Polynesian Aboroginies. These are of the Australo Melanesians who migrated out of Africa 60,000yrs ago.

Getting interesting? Read on...

"Malay" should also include the Taiwanese singer "Ah Mei" who is Alisan as her tribe are the anscestors of the "Malays". And finally, you will need to define the Southern Chinese (Southern Province) as Malay also, since they are from the same stock 6,000yrs ago.

Try calling the Bugis a "Malay". Interestingly, the Bugis, who predominantly live on Sulawesi are not even Indonesians. Neither do they fall into the same group as the migrating Southern Chinese of 6,000yrs ago nor the Australo Melanesian group from Africa.

Ready for this?

The Bugis are the cross-breed between the Chinese and the Arabs. (FYI, a runaway Ming Dynasty official whom Cheng Ho was sent to hunt down) Interestingly, the Bugis were career Pirates in the Johor-Riau Island areas. Now the nephew of Daeng Kemboja was appointed the First Sultan of Selangor. That makes the entire Selangor Sultanate part Arab, part Chinese! Try talking to the Bugis Museum curator near Kukup in Johor. Kukup is located near the most south-western tip of Johor. (Due south of Pontian Kechil)

Let's not even get into the Hang Tuah, Hang Jebat, Hang Kasturi, Hang Lekiu, and Hang Lekir, who shared the same family last name as the other super famous "Hang" family member... Hang Li Poh. And who was she? the princess of a Ming Dynasty Emperor who was sent to marry the Sultan of Malacca. Won't that make the entire Malacca Sultanate downline "Baba" ? Since the older son of the collapsed Malaccan Sultanate got killed in Johor, (the current Sultanate is the downline of the then, Bendahara) the only other son became the Sultan of Perak. Do we see any Chinese-ness in Raja Azlan? Is he the descendant of Hang Li Poh?

Next question. If the Baba’s are part Malay, why have they been marginalized by NOT BEING BUMIPUTERA? Which part of “Malay” are they not? Whatever the answer, why then are the Portugese of Malacca BUMIPUTERA? Did they not come 100yrs AFTER the arrival of the first Baba’s? Parameswara founded Malacca in 1411. The Portugese came in 1511, and the Dutch in the 1600’s. Strangely, the Baba’s were in fact once classified a Bumiputera, but a decided that they were strangely “declassified” in the 1960’s. WHY?

The Sultan of Kelantan had similar roots to the Pattani Kingdom making him of Thai origin. And what is this "coffee table book" by the Sultan of Perlis claiming to be the direct descendant of the prophet Muhammed? Somehow we see Prof Khoo Khay Khim’s signature name on the book. I’ll pay good money to own a copy of it myself. Anyone has a spare?

So, how many of you have met with orang Asli’s? the more northern you go, the more African they look. Why are they called Negrito’s? It is a Spanish word, from which directly transalates “mini Negros”. The more southern you go, the more “Indonesian” they look. And the ones who live at Cameron Highlands kinda look 50-50. You can see the Batek at Taman Negara, who really look like Eddie Murphy to a certain degree. Or the Negritos who live at the Thai border near Temenggor Lake (north Perak). The Mah Meri in Carrie Island look almost like the Jakuns in Endau Rompin. Half African, half Indonesian.

By definition, (this is super eye-opening) there was a Hindu Malay Empire in Kedah. Yes, I said right… The Malays were Hindu. It was, by the old name Langkasuka. Today known as Lembah Bujang. This Hindu Malay Empire was 2,000yrs old. Pre-dating Borrobudor AND Angkor Watt. Who came about around 500-600yrs later. Lembah Bujang was THE mighty trading empire, and its biggest influence was by the Indians who were here to help start it. By definition, this should make the Indians BUMIPUTERAS too since they were here 2,000yrs ago! Why are they marginalized?

Of the 3 books listed, "Contesting Malayness" (about S$32 for soft cover) is "banned” in Malaysia; you will need to "smuggle" it into Malaysia; for very obvious reasons.... :( or read it in Singapore if you don’t feel like breaking the law.

The other, "Kingdoms of the Indonesian Archipelago, and the Malay Peninsular" (about RM84) are openly sold at all leading bookshops; Kinokuniya, MPH, Borders, Popular, Times, etc. You should be able to find a fair bit of what I’ve been quoting in this book too, but mind you, it is very heavy reading material, and you will struggle through the initial 200+ pages. It is extremely technical in nature. Maybe that’s why it wasn’t banned (yet)…coz our authorities couldn’t make head or tail of it? (FYI, if I wasn’t doing research for my film, I wouldn’t have read it in its entirety)

While the "Sejarah Melayu" (about RM 35) is available at the University Malaya bookshop. I have both the English and Royal Malay version published by MBRAS.

Incidentally, the Professor (Author) was invited to speak on this very subject about 2 yrs ago, in KL, invited by the MBRAS. You can imagine the "chaos" this seminar created...... :(

There were actually many sources for these findings. Any older Philippino Museum Journal also carries these migration stories. This migration is also on display at the Philippines National Museum in Luzon. However, they end with the Aeta, and only briefly mention that the migration continued to Indonesia and Malaysia, but fully acknowledge that all Philippinos came from Taiwan. And before Taiwan, China. There is another book (part of a series) called the "Archipelago Series" endorsed by Tun Mahatir and Marina Mohammad, which states the very same thing right at the introduction on page one. “… that the Malays migrated out of Southern China some 6,000yrs ago…”. I believe it is called the “Pre-History of Malaysia” Hard Cover, about RM99 found in (mostly) MPH. They also carry “Pre-History of Indonesia” by the same authors for the same price.

It is most interesting to note that our Museum officials invented brand new unheard-of terms such as "Proto-Malay" and "Deutero-Malay", to replace the accepted Scientific Term, Australo-Melanesians (African descent) and Austronesians (Chinese Descent, or Mongoloid to be precise) in keeping in line with creating this new “Malay” term.. They also created the new term called the Melayu-Polynesian. (Which Melayu exists in the Polynesian Islands?) Maybe they were just trying to be “Patriotic” and “Nationalistic”… who knows…? After all, we also invented the term, “Malaysian Time”. While the rest of the world calls it “Tardy” and “Late”. It’s quite an embarrassment actually…. Singaporeans crossing the border are asked to set their watches back by about 100yrs, to adjust to “Malaysian Time”…

In a nutshell, the British Colonial Masters, who, for lack of a better description, needed a “blanket” category for ease of classification, used the term “Malay”.

The only other logical explanation, which I have heard, was that “Malaya” came as a derivative of “Himalaya”, where at Langkasuka, or Lembah Bujang today was where the Indians were describing the locals as “Malai” which means “Hill People” in Tamil. This made perfect sense as the focal point at that time was at Gunung Jerai, and the entire Peninsular had a “Mountain Range” “Banjaran Titiwangsa”, as we call it.

The Mandarin and Cantonese accurately maintain the accurate pronunciation of “Malai Ren” and “Malai Yun” respectively till this very day. Where “ren” and “yun” both mean “peoples”.

Interestingly, “Kadar” and “Kidara”, Hindi and Sanskrit words accurately describe “Kedah” of today. They both mean “fertile Land for Rice cultivation. Again, a name given by the Indians 2,000yrs ago during the “Golden Hindu Era” for a duration of 1,500yrs.

It was during the “Golden Hindu Era” that the new term which the Hindu Malay leaders also adopted the titles, “Sultan” and “Raja”. The Malay Royalty were Hindu at that time, as all of Southeast Asia was under strong Indian influence, including Borrobudor, and Angkor Watt. Bali today still practices devout Hindu Beliefs. The snake amulet worn by the Sultans of today, The Royal Dias, and even the “Pelamin” for weddings are tell-tale signs of these strong Indian influences. So, it was NOT Parameswara who was the first Sultan in Malaya. Sultanage existed approximately 1,500years before he set foot on the Peninsular during the "Golden Hindu Era" of Malaysia. And they were all Hindu.

“PreHistory of Malaysia” also talks about the “Lost Kingdom” of the “Chi-Tu” where the local Malay Kingdom were Buddhists. The rest of the “Malays” were Animistic Pagans.

But you may say, "Sejarah Melayu" calls it "Melayu"? Yes, it does. Read it again; is it trying to describe the 200-odd population hamlet near Palembang by the name "Melayu"?(Google Earth will show this village).

By that same definition, then, the Achehnese should be considered a “race”. So should the Bugis and the Bataks, to be fair. Orang Acheh, Orang Bugis, Orang Laut, Orang Melayu now mean the same… descriptions of ethnic tribes, at best. And since the “Malays” of today are not all descendants of the “Melayu” kampung in Jambi (if I remember correctly), the term Melayu has been wrongly termed. From day one. Maybe this is why the Johoreans still call themselves either Bugis, or Javanese until today. So do the Achehnese on the West coast of Kedah & Perlis and the Kelantanese insist that they came from Champa, Vietnam.

Morover, the fact that the first 3 pages claiming that "Melayu" comes from Alexander the Great and the West Indian Princess doesn't help. More importantly, it was written in 1623. By then, the Indians had been calling the locals “Malai” for 1,500 yrs already. So the name stuck….

And with the Sejarah Melayu (The Malay Annals in page 1-3) naming the grandson of Iskandar Zulkarnain, and the West Indian Princess forming the Minangkabau. Whenever a Malay is asked about it, he usually says it is "Karut" (bullshit), but all Malayan based historians insist on using Sejarah Melayu as THE main reference book for which "Malay" history is based upon. The only other books are “Misa Melayu”, "Hikayat Merong Mahawangsa", and “Hikayat Hang Tuah” which is of another long and sometimes “heated” discussion.

I find this strange.

I also find, that it is strange that the "Chitti's" (Indian+Malay) of Malacca are categorized as Bumiputera, while their Baba brothers are not. Why? Both existed during the Parameswara days. Which part of the “Malay” side of the Baba’s is not good enough for Bumiputera classification? Re-instate them. They used to be Bumiputera pre 1960’s anyway.

Instead of "Malay", I believe that "Maphilindo" (circa 1963) would have been the closest in accurately trying to describe the Malays. However, going by that definition, it should most accurately be "MaphilindoThaiChinDiaVietWanGreekCamfrica". And it is because of this; even our University Malaya Anthropology professors cannot look at you in the eye and truthfully say that the word "Malay" technically and accurately defines a race.

This is most unfortunate.

So, in a nutshell, the “Malays” (anthropologists will disagree with this “race” definition) are TRULY ASIA !!! For once the Tourism Ministry got it right….

We should stop calling this country “Tanah Melayu” instead call it, “Tanah Truly Asia”

You must understand now, why I was "tickled pink" when I found out that the Visit Malaysia slogan for 2007 was "Truly Asia". They are so correct... (even though they missed out Greece and Africa)

BTW, the name UMNO should be changed to UTANO the new official acronym for “United Truly Asia National Organization” . After all, they started out as a Bugis club in Johor anyway….

I told you all that I hate race classifications…. This is so depressing. Even more depressing is that the "malays" are not even a race; not since day one."


“Truly Asia Boleh”
Technorati Tags: ,

Race and Islam

Farish A Noor PDF Print E-mail
Posted by St Low   
Friday, 31 October 2008 09:48
 

The dilemma that Malaysia is facing now is the same dilemma faced by many other Muslim societies where the defence and promotion of religion often goes hand-in-hand with the defence and promotion of communitarian interests of Muslims

It is odd, to say the least, that after more than fourteen centuries, there remain some people who claim to be Muslims but who still have not internalised the universal values of Islam. Odder still that there remain those who on the one hand can embrace Islam’s universal claim of brotherhood (and sisterhood) but still cannot get around to understanding the simple idea that Islam and racism do not mix.

Evidence of such discrepancies can be found pretty much everywhere these days. It has, sadly, become the normative cultural norm in so many Muslim societies today that those who are fair are better off and given the privileges that they feel are the natural right of all light-skinned people. It is also interesting to note that Muslims tend to rejoice whenever a white American or European converts to Islam, but seem less enthusiastic in their recognition of the fact that thousands of Africans and Asians are converting to Islam every year.

Furthermore, when it comes to governance and politics, it remains painfully clear that some Muslims still place blood and race above competency and merit even today, and that despite their profession of faith, they remain embedded in the stagnant mode of racialised thinking that operates on the basis that some races are better than others.

One such case has popped up recently in multi-cultural Malaysia, where a row was sparked by the nomination of a Chinese woman — Low Siew Moi — as the head of a state institution linked to the economic management and development of the state of Selangor, the PKNS. Despite the fact that Low Siew Moi was selected by the chief minister of the state, Tan Sri Khalid, on the basis of merit, some quarters chose to publicly disagree with her appointment on the grounds that the Malay-Muslims of the state would object to the appointment. But objection on what grounds? That she is Chinese?

Here, the already convoluted waters of Malaysia’s racialised politics turns a shade murkier, for among those who objected to the appointment of Low Siew Moi were some members of the Malaysian Islamist party PAS.

Malaysia’s politics has been defined by racial concerns and the communitarian demands of the various religious and ethnic groups of the country since its independence in 1957. Over the past three decades, however, the tone and tenor of the country’s conservative, rightwing, ethnonationalist politics was further coloured by the Islamisation race in the country with the Malaysian government attempting to further inculcate Islamic values into the norms of governance.

Ironically, however, Malaysia’s Islamisation programme seems to be more concerned with book-banning, fatwas on social behaviour (including the recent revelation that there may be a fatwa on yoga soon, wait for it!), and moral policing instead. Where, the Islamic scholar may ask, were the universal values of Islam in the midst of all this social engineering? Did the leaders of Malaysia not realise, or forget, the simple idea that Islam is an egalitarian faith that is colour-blind? And that the concept of ‘race’ is an alien idea in Islam?

The dilemma that Malaysia is facing now is the same dilemma faced by many other Muslim societies where the defence and promotion of religion often goes hand-in-hand with the defence and promotion of communitarian interests of Muslims. In Malaysia’s case, where Muslims are overwhelmingly Malay, this then also translates as the defence of Malay interests — to the extent of propagating the ethnonationalist idea of Malay cultural dominance. Now what on earth is Islamic about this?

Here is where orthodox Muslim scholarship has to make a timely intervention. It has to be remembered that the success of Islam and the success of Muslims are two entirely different things, which may also clash and negate each other at times.

The victory of Islam, so to speak, has to be understood as the victory of universal values such as egalitarianism and equality before God. The victory of Muslims, on the other hand, may at times be understood as political victories that may or may not conform to the standards of Islamic ethics.

The defeat of the Kuwaitis at the hands of Saddam Hussein, for instance, was a case of one Muslim state defeating another, but was this a victory for Islam? Likewise, when Muslims openly and abrasively demand special rights and privileges for themselves at the cost of equality and meritocracy, is this really a victory for Islam?

Those who have criticised and opposed the appointment of Low Siew Moi as the head of PKNS on the grounds that the job should have been given to a Malay-Muslim should instead look closely at themselves and ask: what is it that we are fighting for? Malay-Muslim dominance or a better form of governance that is based on merit and equality? The Islamic scholar will remind you that the latter is Islamic, while the former is not.

In any case, for Muslims to even think in racialised communitarian terms is a misnomer of sorts, as such modes of communitarian, sectarian thinking have no real place in Islamic orthodoxy and ethics. To quote Tuan Guru Nik Aziz Nik Mat, spiritual leader of the Malaysian Islamic Party, PAS: “Tell me, what race was Adam?”

‘Nuff’ said, I think.

Dr Farish A Noor is a Senior Fellow at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore; and one of the founders of the www.othermalaysia.org research site

- Daily Times, Pakistan

Source : Malaysia-Today