The writer of “Non-Malays take Malay tolerance for granted, says Chinese lawyer” does not take a look at the roots of intolerance.
In his article, the writer makes a presumption based on symptoms seen in our society today and hearing statements by some people with political motives.
But what started the intolerance and who is intolerant of whom?
People of all ethnic groups and religions had lived fairly comfortably with each other, respecting each other, understanding each other’s “pantang larang” (forbidden practices) for generations.
Then came the inter-ethnic tensions in the run-up to the 1969 general election and Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s book The Malay Dilemma in which he labelled the minorities as “pendatang” (immigrants).
This word amplified the fires of racial and religious intolerance for the small number of racists and bigots to play with.
Malaysia’s first prime minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, realised the damage this would do to generations of fraternal relations among the multi-racial population. He doused the fire by banning the book shortly after its publication in 1970.
- Sign up for Aliran's free daily email updates or weekly newsletters or both
- Make a one-off donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara, CIMB a/c 8004240948
- Make a regular pledge or periodic auto-donation to Aliran
- Become an Aliran member
The ban was not to last long. When Mahathir himself became PM in 1981, he lifted the book ban. The result: an open season free-for-all for certain quarters to start labelling the ethnic minorities as pendatang, even in Parliament.
This disrespect for the minorities kept gaining momentum, to the extent of some ethnic minority schoolchildren being told to “balik India, balik Cina” (go back to India and China).
The Islamisation drive, with Umno and Pas trying to outdo each other, contributed to the rifts in society. This combination of ethnic and religious politics has proved to be divisive.
We had a case of non-Muslim students being ushered into washrooms during recess to have their meals so as not to hurt the ‘sensitivities’ of children fasting. Crosses had to be removed from mission schools.
In recent years, the vernacular schools matter was taken to further heights with calls for their abolition. These schools have existed for about 200 years. Interestingly, almost 100,000 ethnic Malay children are studying in Chinese schools, ie almost 20% of the enrolment of Chinese schools.
This abolition issue was fought tooth-and-nail by some quarters right up to the Federal Court, which ruled that vernacular schools cannot be closed down. What did this do to race-relations? Who didn’t respect whom? The repercussions of such actions reverberate in society.
At the “Malay Dignity Congress” in 2019 (49 years after The Malay Dilemma), Mahathir was still not happy with the minorities. Now he fanned the flames with another term: “orang asing” (foreigners).
Yes, pendatang and orang asing are just two or three words, but their impact on race relations has been damaging. Under the pretext of freedom of speech, the bigots were not stopped from using these words freely. In some quarters, it even extended to labelling non-Muslims as kafir.
Let’s not forget the indoctrination of the “ketuanan” (supremacist) mindset into civil servants (mostly Malay Muslims) at the Biro Tata Negara (National Civics Bureau) compulsory courses.
Now, is questioning matters like the above deemed as disrespecting the Malays?
Why isn’t action being taken under Section 298A of the Penal Code against all those (Muslims and non-Muslims alike) who cause “disharmony, disunity, or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will, or prejudicing, … the maintenance of harmony or unity, on grounds of religion”?
For example, doesn’t removing crosses from mission schools (and even a church) come squarely under this section? Was anyone charged – let alone charged under this section? Why not?
Both sides have shown a lot of tolerance, so it is not right to claim that “non-Malays take Malay tolerance for granted”. It is groups with vested political interests who are the cause of disharmony, not the people without such motivations.
Communal tensions have been fuelled by politicians who find that using race and religion to win votes is a ‘lucrative business’. They seem to enjoy the freedom to exploit this productive vote-securing ‘strategy’ in the name of ‘freedom of speech’.
If the country’s leaders are genuinely keen on restoring the fraternal relationship that existed in our multi-racial population, they cannot turn a blind eye to the underlying causes of disunity and intolerance.
It is hypocrisy to talk about restoring unity and harmony without acting firmly, without fear or favour, against those creating disunity and disharmony, whoever they may be. This should be done if we are to believe that nobody is above the law.
Unfortunately, we do not see the toxicity, the poison, introduced into a peaceful society being removed.
If this cancer is not removed for fear of losing votes, then leaders can keep on singing about unity until the cows come home just to placate some people while the rot goes on and fingers keep pointing at those who question racism and bigotry.
- Tegakkan maruah serta kualiti kehidupan rakyat
- Galakkan pembangunan saksama, lestari serta tangani krisis alam sekitar
- Raikan kerencaman dan keterangkuman
- Selamatkan demokrasi dan angkatkan keluhuran undang-undang
- Lawan rasuah dan kronisme
