The Star, by unfairly criticized PERKASA in its 4 July’s editorial, had intentionally or unintentionally confirmed its naked Chinese chauvinism and unmasked its strong anti Malay stance.
If the Star is truly convinced that “championing one’s own community interests need not diminish another community’s interests is blatantly hollow in the Perkasa “model””, and I do share the same, then did the Paper similarly criticized the unconstitutional demands made by the various Chinese groups and political parties? A classical example was demanding Chinese language to be treated at par as the Malay language which is ultra vires Article 152?
Indeed almost all the requests made by the Chinese and Indian Communities (CIC) are at the expanse of the Malay rights, for example, more places in the IPTAs, more scholarships, more jobs in the public sector which are enshrined in Article 153. Hence, the CIC must appreciate that the Malays feel threatened because of these perceived unreasonable demands; especially there is no reciprocity from the CIC such as more opening in the private sector, more places in UTAR and AIMST.
Similarly, did the Star condemn Wee Ka Siong for his unbecoming remark that the Malays are primitive just because they rightly vocalized their constitutional rights at the right forum and at the right time?
These unfair and threatening demands (real and perceived) as well as such unbecoming remarks had triggered Newton’s Third Law of Motion (The third law states that for every force there is an equal and opposite force. For example, if you push on a wall, it will push back on you as hard as you are pushing on it) and “some of its adherents” had put the country “in the mess (we) are in now.”
If PERKASA is construed as anti-social, what about Dong Zong, Siqui, Hindraf, etc? Is it because the Star is chauvinist that these big and powerful organizations escaped its attention and beyond its comprehension?
Hence, can one rightly label the Star as pretentious, double standard, hypocrite, Chinese chauvinist and anti-Malay, like the vernacular Chinese papers?
However let all of us appreciate that racial tension and bickering is approaching a dangerous level. Hence, the government, especially Tan Sri Koh, politicians and community leaders must quickly sit down and collectively solve the volcanic problem to avoid an impending catastrophe.
For a peaceful, safe and prosperous 1Malaysia, let us try to reengineer the kind of relationship Tunku – Siew Sin – Sanvanthan used to harmoniously forge.
Sunday July 4, 2010
No way for any true Malaysian to act or talk
THE STAR SAYS…
FOR many, the plight of Suara Perkasa newsletter over its demand that MCA Youth chief Datuk Dr Wee Ka Siong be held under the ISA is voluntary and deserved.
The editor concerned had reportedly met Home Ministry officials on Friday to try to explain away his decision to publish the commentary. He is scheduled to report to the ministry again tomorrow for more explanations.
It does not matter who the Perkasa NGO or any of its derivations happens to target at any particular time. What does matter, however, is the inflammatory manner in which they choose to pursue their particular agenda.
In a modern multi-racial, multi-cultural Malaysia, their chauvinistic style cannot be accepted or condoned. To make this clear to all, as well as to deter other wanton attempts at undermining the 1Malaysia concept, a firm official response is warranted.
It is all too evident that their typically callous and contentious approach to Malaysia’s nation-building project amounts to rejecting, opposing and attacking it. In the process, such champions of impudence seem oblivious to the harm they invariably foist upon our nation.
The very nature of the Malaysian nation depends, sometimes precariously, on a sensitive and advised approach to treating issues of inter-community relations. Using ill will to accuse others of bad intent is to set a sorry example for all decent, well-meaning Malaysians.
The claim that championing one’s own community interests need not diminish another community’s interests is blatantly hollow in the Perkasa “model”. If only that were true, some of its adherents would not be in the mess they are in now.
The essential subtleties and implications of harmony and unity in diversity may escape the comprehension of chauvinists. But what is inescapable is the fact that theirs is an anti-social attitude that is particularly dangerous in our society.
Is it too much to expect Perkasa and its ilk to be more mature and considerate? Their words and actions will tell us.
In the past, the authorities have used the very instrument at issue, the ISA, to clamp down on these incendiary provocations. As before, it is for the authorities to decide how they should handle this matter today.