Who calls Malaysia home?

Yesterday, the Malaysian Insider carried a hotly discussed article headlined 'Utusan columnist tells critics to go home'; home in this case referring to China and India.

The columnist Mohd Ridhuan Tee Abdullah (left) is Dr Mahathir Mohamad's spiritual cousin in how they eerily think alike. One advocates racial supremacy, the other religious supremacy, but both advocate supremacy for the majority group with which they have elected to align themselves.

“This country might as well change its name to 'Cinasia' or 'Indiasia' if the strange species that is continually challenging the position of Islam and the indigenous people persist in their demands,” Ridhuan wrote.

“Go back to (your) countries of origin or head on West because over there, (you) have much more 'freedom' to build the biggest churches and the biggest statues (Mazu) in the world, and have vernacular schools and can engage in illicit acts like free sex.”

Ridhuan once famously wrote that he daresay almost 100 percent of non-Malay youths have engaged in premarital sex - a favourite theme of his is the immorality prevalent among non-Muslims.

Compare with this paragraph in Mahathir's 'Malay Dilemma': “Since Independence, there have been other arguments about the Chinese and Indians having as much right as the Malays to claim Malaya as their own country. These claims have ignored all precedents and facts of history.”

Another comparison is similarly noteworthy. Anyone who reads Ridhuan can see how desperately he attempts to posit himself within the 'in-group' - Malay-Muslim - with his constant refrain ofkita (we, we, we in this and that).

Ridhuan's rejection of his ethnicity of birth is as total as Mahathir burying his paternal lineage.

In the 'Malay Dilemma', Mahathir had written this revealing paragraph: “The Indians and Arabs (traders) … were regarded even by themselves not as foreigners but as Malays. … therakyat were serviced by competent merchants and shopkeepers whom they could still identify with their own race, even though the racial origins were different.”

Mahathir was arguing that the locals identified the 'trusty' Indian Muslim traders as one of their own.

'Us' versus 'them'

For Mahathir and Ridhuan, the 'them' is the non-Malays. Yet paradoxically, the duo is equally keen to re-engineer the 'us' that they identify with, presumably remodelling the gullibles into an improved version.

Mahathir has a problem with what he views to be the Malay's inherent nature. According to his 1970 book, the negative traits of the Malay are: self-effacing, accommodating, willingness to compromise, painstakingly polite, old-fashioned courtesy, good breeding/manners.

The 'Dilemma' thesis proposes that these characteristics hampered the progress of the Malays when their competitors were the go-getting Chinese and Indians.

Ridhuan's problem is that he feels the Malays are unable to grasp the true nature of the Chinese whom he repeatedly describes asgunting dalam lipatan (the enemy within), musang berbulu ayam(wolf in sheep's clothing), seperti kadok naik junjung (an overeaching lowly creature that doesn't know its proper place) andkacang lupakan kulit (ungrateful for past favours).

His use of the word 'ultra kiasu' to portray the Chinese reaches the epic proportions of an uncontrollable Hitlerian rage.

He furthermore incessantly scolds the Malays for giving these 'ultra kiasu' too much face, and lecturing them that if you give thependatang an inch, they will expect a foot.

And he cannot for the life of him see why some Malaysians are less than contented. He wrote in his yesterday's Utusan Malaysia column 'Jangan terlalu berani mencabar': “Their religious activities have never been curbed and they are even free to practice (their faith) without any disturbance.”

Elaborating on his complaint, he added: “Oftentimes I have raised (the issue) why is there a need for many houses of worship that are so big and so tall, when the adherents of these (minority) religions are so few.”

“Justeru, tidak perlulah gatal tangan membeli dan buka gereja di rumah kedai. Lepas itu salahkan kerajaan kerana tidak membantu membiayainya. Janganlah jadi kafir harbi.” (Therefore, there is no need to be itchy fingered and purchase and establish churches in shoplots. And after that, turn around and blame the government for not helping to pay for them. Don't be kafir harbi.)

To understand the context of kafir harbi vis-à-vis kafir dzimmi, please refer to my last article.

Casting the other as cancer

The polemics of ketuanan Melayu has intensified alongside such developments as Ibrahim Ali labelling Chinese groups “ungrateful” and “extremists”. In fact, the Perkasa women's wing chief Raihan Suleiman Palestin desires the Agong to strip me of my citizenship.

When we mentally picture ketuanan Melayu, we see Hishamuddin Hussein waving his keris. Or the kompang-bunga manggar-and-silatshow graced by patron Mahathir where the Perkasa chieftains are holding aloft their keris.

When we think of ketuanan Melayu, we're not reminded of, say, the satay seller in Kajang. The Malay hawker is not one to wear a symbolic six-inch high songkok - a fashion accessory the Perkasa Youth chief is becoming famous for. Ketuanan Melayu is given an aggressive and aggrandised connotation by only certain segments of the population, and not by Malays all and sundry.

Likewise ketuanan Islam is an ideology propagated by a particular segment of the population only. In my Aug 4 CPI article that was the subject of the Perkasa and Umno Youth police reports, I had said Ridhuan Tee is the face of ketuanan Islam.

As poster boy, Ridhuan has the requisite fan club. The Che Det blog is legendary for its comments from readers who extol Mahathir as being “you're absolutely correct, ayahanda Tun”, you're our hero, defender, saviour, etc. Similarly Ridhuan's writing and public speaking is considered by certain quarters to be heroic and showing great religious leadership qualities too.

Those who admire the Utusan columnist heap praise how it takes that special someone, who was formerly Chinese, to discern the devious duplicity of the Chinese now in their midst. Malaysia's minority is a community hiding their perfidy behind the mask of bland faces and sepet eyes.

Mahathir was the guest of honour at this year's May 13 'Gertak' rally; Ridhuan has been invited to speak at the next Gertak gathering; the first person to agitate for my arrest was the blogger better known as Big Dog, an Umno man closely aligned to Mukhriz Mahathir.

In our Boleh system, they all have free rein to say whatever they please. The rest of us mere mortals without privileged protection are constantly threatened with sedition and the ISA.

Let's assume that Ridhuan's wish comes true, and Chinese and Indians emigrate in droves. At the end of the day, what do you envision the country becoming for those who remain behind?

Is it a Malaysia with religious mores shaped by the likes of Ridhuan, just as our social mores have been darkened by Mahathir's long shadow?

Try to imagine a religious landscape that is Ridhuanised, just like how the racial landscape has been Mahathirised. This future could be your children's inheritance.

comments of HELEN ANG who used to be a journalist. In future, she would like to be a practising cartoonist. But for the present, she is in the NGO circles and settling down to more serious writing and reading of social issues. Courtesy of Malaysiakini