I’M upset that the Malaysian football team is not playing in the Fifa World Cup in South Africa. In fact, Malaysia has never made it to the Fifa World Cup. Ever.
Doesn’t the rest of the world realise that they cannot expect the Malaysian team to compete on an even playing field? Don’t they realise that they need to give a helping hand to Malaysians, particularly our Malays, who cannot be expected to compete with the rest of the world without some assistance?
Why, in Malaysia our wonderful government has set up various programs to assist economically challenged Malay [Malaysians]. These “affirmative action” programmes used to have a time limit on them, but now these programmes [seem] permanent as the government cannot foresee a time when Malay [Malaysians] would ever be able to compete on equal footing with other ethnic groups in Malaysia, let alone the rest of the world.
Similarly, I would argue that Fifa should give special exemption to the Malaysian team to play in the World Cup, but not because we deserve to play there on merit like the rest of the world. Rather, it should reserve a place in the World Cup solely for us, just as the Malaysian government reserves places in university, schools, the civil service, the armed and police forces exclusively for Malay [Malaysians].
Only then can Malaysians, particularly our politically dominant Malays, take their rightful place in the pantheon of world soccer.
I don’t think it should end there. If Malaysia is to play in the World Cup, then our team must be given special privileges. For instance, how about widening our opponent’s goalposts just to make it easier for us to score? Also, how about allowing the Malaysian team to play with 15 players, while the opposing team is limited to only nine players?
If we don’t have sufficient players, Fifa should allow us to use naturalised Indonesians, southern Filipinos and southern Thais for the Malaysian football team. This would assist in bringing about a more equal outcome. Allocating 30% of the opposing team’s goals to the Malaysian team would be a nice gesture, too, in order to be consistent with the New Economic Policy (NEP). Actually, why not go for broke and make it 67%, as Datuk Ibrahim Ali suggests?
And for the life of me, I don’t understand why the likes of Ibrahim, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Perkasa, Gertak, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin and Umno are not fighting for our God-given right to play in the Fifa World Cup. They go on and on about fighting for Malay rights here in Malaysia. Why are they wasting their time?
Why don’t they fight for Malay rights on the international stage, starting with the Fifa World Cup? Only then can Malaysia compete on the world stage. Only then would they truly be fighting for “bangsa, agama dan negara”, and in that order, too.
Ta’ Melayu Hilang Di–Dunia
23 June 2010
suanie says
+1 sokong
Z says
Were you trying to be funny when you wrote this article? If you were, it’s not even remotely satirical, and if you weren’t, you just sound like a douchebag.
Have a nice day.
Fifas says
It’s hilarious! Siapa makan cili dia lah rasa pedas
Y says
Awww Z… lookie here… must’ve pressed on your ‘urat sakit’ rite… pls TNG… have an allocation for nicely-worded criticism too, it’s the hak Melayu hahaha…
Z says
Well guys, I just don’t find it funny. What you don’t know is that I agree with the writer, and I am all up for equality. But I just don’t find it funny. Its hardly what I would call sociopolitical satire.
That’s the problem with a lot of Malaysians nowadays, its either you are pro-government or pro-opposition. Nothing in between. I commented on how unfunny his article is and called the writer a douchebag (since all that I get out of it is just a writer who is angry and bitter, similar to the act of a kid calling names when he doesn’t know how else to retaliate), and automatically you assume I am fighting for Malay rights i.e a pro-Umno/Malay rights supporter whose “urut sakit was pressed”. Hardly.
I love the articles by TNG as they dare to ask and probe. Open it up to the public by having a Letters to the Editor, and this comes up.
This article would be more suited for a website like The Onion or something, and maybe then, just maybe I would snicker. But in the meantime, I still stand by my opinion that its not funny. 🙂
Jason Mark says
You’re being immature by calling him names i.e. douchebag. Exactly why is this not funny? The ludicrousness of Ibrahim Ali and Malaysian policy is a cause for laughter locally and internationally. He only applied the NEP logic to the World Cup, it was downright hilarious for the rest of us.
FYI
Douche usually refers to vaginal irrigation, the rinsing of the vagina, but it can also refer to the rinsing of any body cavity. A douche bag is a piece of equipment for douching—a bag for holding the fluid used in douching. To avoid transferring intestinal bacteria into the vagina, the same bag must not be used for a vaginal douche and an enema.
Wilson Wong says
I agree with Z.
The Nut Graph had distinguished itself from others such as Utusan Malaysia or The Malaysian Insider because of their objective and independent viewpoints. I think that’s how TNG was intended to be set up in the first place.
This sort of article is the kind you would find in TMI or Utusan. Sad, really. But who’s fault? I pin it on readers, who seem to enjoy tabloid rants more than objective analyses.
Explains why TNG had been struggling for readership, whilst TMI seems to be struggling with overcapacity at times.
g says
Awesome… brilliant… truthful! And yes, it is funny!
joshuaongys says
Well said.
Roscoe says
Come on! Such type of story is no longer funny. Just move on!
ehs says
This has been the truth all the time, it is just that Malaysians are so used to the situation, thus we strive for living a good life despite of all the disadvantages of non-Malay [Malaysians] have.
Anyway this is really funny while managing to voice out [the feelings of] many fellow Malaysians! Cheers!
voster says
I second what Z says, only because the writing style fails to be satirical in failing to keep a straight face and being too literalist.
I prefer my satire dry.
Lainie says
Oooooh, burn!
wong kon fah says
What a joke, [South] Korea was [of the] same standard before with Malaysia and now they are world standard. It [is] just hard work. Why were Chinese [Malaysians] and Indian [Malaysians] ignored [in the] Malaysian team. […]
We will be a laughing stock for the world, [if the writer of this letter gets] the privilege requested for. [It’s gutless and sissy].
This is what our Malaysian government is promoting. This the reason football is rock bottom. Stop all this privilege and subsidy[-mentality]. Get back to earth.
Chode McBlob says
I’m with Z on this one. This is something you’d expect to read in The Onion, not The Nut Graph. Sounds like the author is just bitter. Not very funny either.
Z says
It is also interesting to note how the author kept referring to the “Malaysian” football team, and yet this whole article is about, let’s be honest now, a bashing of Malay [Malaysians] and an issue that they are struggling with (i.e Malays [Malaysians] losing their foothold in country). Last I remember, we are trying very hard to identify ourselves as “Malaysians” and not “Malay”, “Chinese” or “Indian”.
In that sense, the author is writing how Malay [Malaysians]/Umno are implementing racist policies, and yet, he/she is writing things that are to me, a bit racist too? Because I know for a fact that not all Malay [Malaysians] are as such, and not all Malay [Malaysians] think like Umno.
So it begs the question: is the author hypocritical?
Just an observation.
Jason Mark says
@Z & @Voster, @SalmanS & @Matdene:
I fail to see where there’s any bashing of any race going on. The only bashing here is the actual policies and ridiculous excuses given for those policies, which is a cause for laughter, ridicule and mockery.
The only group of people losing their foothold in this country are the poor, the disabled and the weak. They are systematically abused, exploited and oppressed by the by the rich, the government, the private sector and the police. We’re divided and ruled by these policies, we’re failing to see the bigger picture. We can increase quotas, we can even increase taxes on non-bumis or whatever else Ibrahim Ali suggests. The bottom line is it’s not going to help any Malaysian but Vincent Tan, Ananda Krishnan & Daim Zainuddin.
We need a minimum wage for everyone in every sector. RM1.50 an hour is threatening all of us, not other races. If we had a minimum wage at RM10 an hour, in an an instant we will raise the living conditions and equity for all Malaysians. The NEP & NEM are just distractions and sleight of hand, it doesn’t matter and it will never and has never improved the lives of ordinary people. It’s been 50 years, don’t you think it’s time we tried something new?
voster says
@Jason Mark
“Don’t they realise that they need to give a helping hand to Malaysians, particularly our Malays, who cannot be expected to compete with the rest of the world without some assistance?”
This sentence is a microcosm of the tone taken by the article, one that is snide and emotionally invested. This is mockery with a strong undercurrent of anger.
It is also, crucially, not just a judgment of policy, but also of the people who genuinely hold such views, which in itself is not necessarily incorrect, as there are people who, by the context of their situation, cannot compete, not least because of barriers of entry.
And by that, it verges on the ad hominem and not, as you say, only talking about the policy.
The tone is continued throughout the article and is therefore more negative and destructive than positive and constructive.
I’m all for satire, but I do understand that in the bigger picture of achieving a change in Malaysia, that some satire is less helpful than others.
Why antagonise needlessly?
“We’re divided and ruled by these policies, we’re failing to see the bigger picture.”
On the contrary, it is these sorts of articles that don’t see the big picture, preferring the small, specific issues that go well as complete scapegoats, as if solving this one issue will make every other bad thing go away.
“If we had a minimum wage at RM10 an hour, in an an instant we will raise the living conditions and equity for all Malaysians.”
Since we’re talking about this, no, it won’t instantly raise living conditions, as there is also a balance of labour flexibility and inflation to take into account. What you’d get with overtly high minimum wages is higher prices and lower business competitiveness, which ends up depressing living conditions and reducing jobs in the long run.
You might think RM10 is not too high as it might not even be enough for KL, but I think if you’re gonna have a national minimum, it is.
Jason Mark says
@Voster,
“It is also, crucially, not just a judgment of policy, but also of the people who genuinely hold such views, which in itself is not necessarily incorrect, as there are people who, by the context of their situation, cannot compete, not least because of barriers of entry.”
It’s incorrect & hilarious, because the *policy* assumes that *all* people of a particular race are not able to compete by virtue of belonging to that race. Are you saying that every person who can’t compete, is a member of only one race ? Poverty is blind.
Let me try a different context: The largest percentage of the poor in the European Union are Caucasians who’ve lived in Europe for thousands of years. Hence the EU institutes a policy to assists *exclusively* *all* Caucasians in Europe regardless if they arrived from Australia the day before and what their income bracket is. Because the logic is, Caucasians are the majority, have lived a lot longer in Europe and can’t help themselves, hence the majority of them are poor. While the recent migrants from North Africa & the Middle East live in slums and can’t get jobs. I’m trying to present the argument that the policy is absurd.
The author satirised a policy & it’s excuses, not any particular race. I find it ridiculous that every time we try to have a conversation about policies, immediately it’s either an attack on race, religion and head of state or a traitor to you your own race. Hence, [that’s] why we’re reduced to articles such as this to point out the absurdity. You’re asking for kid gloves to be put on when we deal with the ridiculous, when it actually needs to be mocked, which hopefully causes some embarrassment because our politicians should know better.
~I’m going to leave the discussion around minimum wage for another day, it’s too far a digression from this article and it’s my fault, I know that.
voster says
@Jason Mark
“Are you saying that every person who can’t compete, is a member of only one race ?”
Jason, you’re continuously not getting my point, or refusing to understand what I’m saying.
The passage you quoted from me was about how the article did not just attack the policy, but also the character of people who hold those views. It’s ad hominem.
Please read what I say properly if you’re gonna counter-argue.
I agree with your stance on competition, no problem.
“The author satirised a policy & it’s excuses, not any particular race”
Nope, as I’ve argued previously, it was pretty clear that he/she was being hostile to those who hold those views.
My point is, regardless of whether those views are right or wrong, you cannot convince the people who believe in them by attacking them bluntly and brashly, which is what’s happening here.
Which is also why, this piece is more harmful than helpful.
It doesn’t matter how accurate what you’re saying is, if you’re gonna shout it on the streets and berate those who disagree with you.
It’s not just what you say, but how you say it, and this author says it in an utterly snide manner that will not do justice to his/her opinions, no matter how justified it is.
You say that this needs mocking, I disagree. This is not the first piece of mockery to exist in Malaysia, it won’t be the last.
And yet we still haven’t won enough centrists to the cause. That’s because moderates don’t like hostility.
Need to get back to work now, but as I’ve said, it’s one thing to have an opinion, it’s another to express it. How you do in both matters, matter.
Jason Mark says
@Voster,
“This sentence is a microcosm of the tone taken by the article, one that is snide and emotionally invested. This is mockery with a strong undercurrent of anger.”
Ad hominem is when you dismiss a persons argument for an irrelevant reason i.e. the person is angry, the person is mocking/sarcastic/emotional etc. Unfortunately you are that person dismissing this article because it’s snide. Honestly, go look up ad hominem.
The sentence you quoted “Don’t they realise that they need to give a helping hand to Malaysians, particularly our Malays, who cannot be expected to compete with the rest of the world without some assistance?”
Is this not what the political parties have been preaching ? The author is merely regurgitating what we’re all being fed. You’re telling me we need to keep a straight face at absurdity, lest the centrist among the lunatics won’t join the cause? Voster, you are insulting the intelligence of the Malaysian people. You’re being condescending towards fair minded people who want to see a better Malaysia, they are the real centrist people of Malaysia. You assume they need people like you to treat them like children. They are the silent majority who look at Ibrahim Ali and Tun Mahatir and feel ashamed.
Voster, you don’t have to pretend not to see the elephant in the room to appease anyone. You should point it out to them and make fun of them. Malaysians are a strong race who can compete on any stage. Yes we have the poor and the weak among us who need assistance, and they’re definitely not getting it thanks to our divide and rule policies. The next time some fool says an entire race is weak and can’t compete, laugh out loud, berate them and mock them.
The author attacked no one in this article other than the policy. Where you say an attack did occur, he/she was merely channeling Ibrahim Ali’s words. Any insult towards any race was made a long time ago and is continued to this day by our politicians.
voster says
Ad hominem is an attack on the character of the ones presenting their argument, and is NOT necessarily irrelevant. Using ad hominem arguments on witnesses whose testimony’s validity relies on his/her character is perfectly valid.
Now, while I agree with the sting this article has for Ibrahim Ali, I know of many people who have respect for what he does, even if they disagree. Rash and snide attacks against him will not persuade them to change their views.
Simply said, I do not see ad hominem arguments as a sin, per se, but within the context of achieving change, it is more harmful than not.
Good, mocking satire has only worked as a social mobiliser in countries trapped in dire straits. An honest appraisal of our state of affairs indicates that is not true for us, doom-mongering aside.
The bottom line is, while reiterating common talking points, it does impinge on those who feel genuinely beholden to these views directly, and that is ad hominem.
“Voster, you are insulting the intelligence of the Malaysian people. You’re being condescending towards fair minded people who want to see a better Malaysia, they are the real centrist people of Malaysia.”
No I’m not. Take a look at our voter registration rate, or how in 2008, PR still failed to get a majority of the popular vote.
It has been a point of contention not just in Malaysia, but in other states with elections, that a completely hostile and adversarial mood in national politics decreases participation. Blind and complete partisanship is one thing. Expressing those opinions in a hostile manner is another.
The silent majority you speak of is silent precisely for that reason. They are turned off by the ubiquitous confrontation, the angry and emotional attacks, the uncivil manner in which we conduct our politics.
I’m all for savage satire, but not until we have an open system of politics, where multiple views are more accommodating. And we can’t achieve that until we have a broad front supporting it. The present political climate prevents that.
Your assertion of the “real centrist people of Malaysia” is merely an idealistic and romantic notion, one that I used to share with you. But at the end of the day, the true centrist is not picking sides, and is not seeking to ridicule any side as a result. They may see the utter imbecility of the present ruling elite, but they see the same in the alternatives of the PR. And precisely because of this, selective mudslinging on one side reeks of partisanship more than constructive consensus-building.
You say that we “don’t have to pretend not to see the elephant in the room to appease anyone”.
Who’s advocating that?
I certainly wasn’t.
I agree with the underlying argument of the article.
What I oppose is the way it is expressed.
You get these sorts of articles in Umno sites just as much, even if in another language.
Until the PR coalition goes down the more pragmatic route of lesser confrontational politics, the many “silent” centrists will see no reason to take up civil politics in an uncivil environment.
Do not assume some shadow bloc of centrists share your ideals and are just waiting to be prompted out of their inactivity. That’s as much a phantom group as they are of wild celebrations of American troops as liberators of Iraq.
voster says
@ Jason
My point is, there are liberals and centrists in Umno, who aspire to rid ourselves of the racially-inclined affirmative action system we’ve built over the years.
There are those who vote Umno not because of their support of Malay nationalism, but because despite their knowledge of its corruption and inefficiency, they feel that the trade-off is that they do see vital programs being run in the rural areas and general economic growth is achieved.
Choosing single issues and savaging talismanic characters to target these issues will not win these voters over.
Pragmatism also demands that we acknowledge the gerrymandering operation BN has nicely setup, in which rural constituencies gain a lot of weight. These sorts of arguments repel those sorts of voters.
Your idea of a “Malaysian race” is itself a blanket generalisation of a mightily diverse society, in the mold of the generalisations that you may consider damaging. The fact is, there is a vast hinterland of rural voters, disillusioned voters and disinterested voters (mostly youth) who do not wish to indulge in blatant point-scoring.
It is all fine and well for the urban middle-class (full disclosure: I am one too) to indulge in their self-righteous indignation of the ruling clique, it is another for them to pursue the democratic task of getting a broad majoritarian front behind them to achieve their ideals.
Sharp and hostile attacks don’t help as much as we think it does. It may perhaps sate our indulgence, but nothing more.
Jason Mark says
@Voster,
adj. Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents’ motives. – dictonary.reference.com
I don’t see any form of ad hominem here if he’s reiterating common talking points:
“The bottom line is, while reiterating common talking points, it does impinge on those who feel genuinely beholden to these views directly, and that is ad hominem.”
That is not ad hominem. If you call a race incapable, and I repeat it to point out it’s absurdity, it is not ad hominem. You’re crying foul for no reason. Even if people are offended by his arguments or statements, it still doesn’t constitute ad hominem. It’s only ad hominem if you point to a person’s personal characteristics as a *means to nullify or dismiss the argument*. The full Latin term is argumentum ad hominem, which means argument to the man. Voster, you were the one who dismissed his argument, based on the fact that you didn’t like his presentation of it, i.e. snide and emotional.
The author on the other hand, quoted Ibrahim Ali’s talking points that a particular race was weak and couldn’t compete. You incorrectly labeled this as ad hominem. Take it up with Ibrahim Ali if anyone is offended or feels impinged [upon].
“No I’m not. Take a look at our voter registration rate, or how in 2008, PR still failed to get a majority of the popular vote.”
BN won the 2008 GE with a margin of 1% (51% majority – Asia Times Online), you’re kidding yourself when you say you’re not insulting and condescending 49% of the Malaysian people. Also, if you exclude phantom voters, you’re insulting well more than half of the Malaysian people.
This author is neither hostile nor adversarial, he’s sarcastic & comedic at best. If we go by your logic, we’re bound to lose this nation to the Ibrahim Alis. You want to use proper logic and reason to negotiate, you’re being the naive romantic here. This piece, if presented in a more serious note would have landed the author in a “three- letter-acronym” detention centre with allegations of sedition.
You’re advocating civilised dialogue with lunatics, we tried that, it didn’t work. The silent majority is silent because of voter suppression and intimidation. They will be ever mobilised come GE 13, thanks to the events that occurred after 2008. For the first time we have a genuinely strong opposition, that is willing to put its differences aside and work together. Keep in mind that there wasn’t a coalition opposition until after they realised they had won. The silent majority have realised what the possibilities are.
I’m not deluded in thinking that we’ll have a new federal government anytime soon, but there will be a balance of power after GE13. And yes my friend, there is a shadow bloc of voters out there who *may* share my ideals, 46% of the Malaysia voting age population abstained […].
Imagine if they did vote, what percentage of them would vote opposition? GE13 would be very interesting indeed. It’s articles like these that get them thinking and voting, not abstaining. You oppose the way it is expressed, that’s your prerogative. Your insistence that it should have been more “civilised” is neither realistic nor pragmatic.
voster says
@ Jason Mark
I agree that I was wrong in saying this article was ad hominem. I should have made a closer reading.
However, as I’ve said previously, argumentum ad hominem is not necessarily fallacious, if the character of the speaker bears a causal relationship the integrity of his/her arguments. As I’ve said, this is relevant in court cases involving witnesses etc.
I decry the tone of the article not as a means to nullify his arguments on affirmative action, which I’ve reiterated many times I agree with. I do not use ad hominem arguments fallaciously.
I decry it because I know it is less helpful that we might think. It’s preaching to the choir. Those who disagree with this view would be further repelled. Those who support the view will relish it, but there will be some like myself who don’t.
And the centrists? They just want to avoid partisanship. How many times have we seen polls in the U.S. having a large majority agreeing that blatant partisanship or a harsh political environments being one of their largest concerns?
So yes, my arguments are ad hominem, because I feel that the tone and character of the article bears a causal relationship to its effectiveness.
Get your logic right.
“BN won the 2008 GE with a margin of 1% (51% majority – Asia Times Online), you’re kidding yourself when you say you’re not insulting and condescending 49% of the Malaysian people”
You are insulting me. I am one of the 49% who voted for the PR (Christina Liew of Kota Kinabalu).
You are insulting the portion of those 49% who have reservations over the PR, or who don’t actually like them but cast a vote for them merely to oppose BN and not supoport the PR.
You are insulting the the portion of the 49% who think that harsh and uncivil comments are ruining political discourse.
But most of all, you are insulting all of the 49% of those voters by assuming quite simply that we all think alike, that we all must surely share your ideals, share your ideas, share your thoughts and opinions. That we cannot be more diverse than you think. That to disagree with you means I am insulting the 49%.
Who made you our representative?
“You’re advocating civilised dialogue with lunatics, we tried that, it didn’t work. ”
1) Who said I was advocating civilised dialogue with lunatics? You seem to misinterpret me at every turn.
2) We never tried that, we never should.
3) I advocate civilised discourse to attract the centrists, the swing voters.
As I’ve said previously, the electoral system is gerrymandered in favour of rural voters, many of which share some opinions with Ibrahim Ali.
They ARE NOT lunatics. They are merely individuals working towards self-interest, as we all inevitably are to a great degree.
I advocate engaging with them, not Ibrahim Ali. Please read what I say carefully, especially before you seek to represent what I am saying.
I advocate engaging the rural conservatives who hold so much voting power as to be able to swing the elections with just a minor change of heart and as far as I can see, continuing to diminish their views harshly and condescendingly WILL NOT help.
“Imagine if they did vote, what percentage of them would vote opposition? GE13 would be very interesting indeed. It’s articles like these that get them thinking and voting, not abstaining.”
It’s not hard to imagine. A vast majority of them are urban, which tends to lean towards the PR anyway.
Gaining their votes will unfortunately not have the desired impact on the electoral maths.
And the electoral maths has been what I’m primarily concerned with. Not some fuddy-duddy imagination of a silent bloc of voters who agree with me. That’s romantic idealism.
You want a pragmatic solution, start thinking of how to attract swing voters, instead of dreaming about an ephemeral majority.
“You oppose the way it is expressed, that’s your prerogative. Your insistence that it should have been more “civilised” is neither realistic nor pragmatic.”
I never insisted anything. Please stop misinterpreting me.
I was giving a commentary on its effectiveness. I never sought to change the tone of the article, or to insist that this website change it.
I am an advocate of unrestricted freedom of speech.
If expressing my view on the usefulness of this article’s tone is unpragmatic, then really, no one ever is pragmatic in expressing their view on anything at all.
Jason Mark,
At the end of the day, the success of any idea in democracy must stand the test of democracy the way it is defined.
Our democracy’s method of measurement, its method of testing ideas, is via the elections to a Westminster style parliament with a strong federal executive. The means to change this is to win the elections.
And that won’t be helped by preaching to the choir, like this article does, or trying to appeal to disinterested or disillusioned voters this way.
Nor does it make a good attempt at swinging those voters with the most disproportionate level of power – the rural voters.
If you think that some romantic notion about some silent majority (which is probably silent because it is ineffectual, not a majority or non-existent) coming in as the cavalry to save Malaysia will materialise, then you’re up for a long wait.
Never mind that any majority will in itself contain a diversity of views to contend with, some of which may contradict each other. The PR may well win with a 51% majority in the future, but I assure you, you won’t be able to claim that those 51% all share your ideals. I’m sure we voted similarly, but yet, we disagree on this.
Remember, Jason (incidentally my middle name), that not everyone will vote based on their views of affirmative action.
To assume so would just be insulting to a lot of people who vote based on other issues.
Jason Mark says
Voster,
It’s gracious of you to admit your arguments were ad hominem.
However, I’m not sure why I’ve been insulting you or the 49% who voted opposition.
Also, I’m not deluded into thinking that any group of people will share *all* of the same ideals. If you cared to read my statement properly regarding the shadow bloc before writing about it, you would have noticed the *may* highlighted.
“there is a shadow bloc of voters out there who *may* share my ideals”
And I’m not nominating myself as representative for anyone, I’m merely speculating how they *may* vote. Hence, my question about imagine how they would vote. Actually scrap that, you don’t have to imagine, go check Merdeka Center’s recent poll.
Bumiputeras are split 45/48 with regards to whether government policies benefit the ordinary folk or connected folk.
40% of Bumiputeras think people should be treated and accorded the same rights in Malaysia regardless of race or religion.
70% Bumiputeras feel that the main threat to Bumiputera political position is corruption among its leaders, 22% thought demands made by other races was a threat.
FYI The survey included 42% rural and 58% urban Malaysians.
And disagreeing with me doesn’t mean you’re insulting me either. When I mentioned insult, I meant to convey you would be insulting the intelligence of the Malaysian people, by assuming that they wouldn’t be able to see the merits of the authors opinion purely because of his sarcastic/comedic presentation. Politicians tend to do this a lot, claiming somehow they know better. When I mentioned the point about the elephant in the room, it’s about telling it like it is, without assuming that people are not intelligent enough to understand.
You then argued that voter registration and those who vote opposition was marginal/low (this is what I deduced from “take a look at our voter registration rate, or how in 2008, PR still failed to get a majority of the popular vote.”). You attributed the low/marginal support due to hostile politics. I attribute it to voter suppression, intimidation and phantom voters.
It’s quite clear that we disagree on how this article was/should be presented. Let’s agree to disagree on this.
voster says
@Jason Mark
You said,
“And I’m not nominating myself as representative for anyone, I’m merely speculating how they *may* vote”
You were claiming to represent us, when you said that I was insulting 49& of Malaysians, you were assuming that you spoke for all 49% of those Malaysians, including me. You assumed you knew what we would consider insults. This is a common misleading rhetorical tool employed in politics, to claim, without justification, to speak for others when you don’t.
“However, I’m not sure why I’ve been insulting you or the 49% who voted opposition.”
By assuming that all 49% of us think like you, or would appreciate this article just like you, is insulting, as you have imposed intellectual uniformity on a group of people unilaterally without regard.
“If you cared to read my statement properly regarding the shadow bloc before writing about it, you would have noticed the *may* highlighted.”
If you cared to read my statements, you would realise that I agreed with you, but I believe that not enough people sharing your ideals live in the right places to affect the electoral maths.
“Bumiputeras are split 45/48 with regards to whether government policies benefit the ordinary folk or connected folk.”
You’re still not getting my point and running down the same track for the last 3-4 replies.
I AGREE WITH YOU ON THE BUMIPUTERA POLICIES.
Is that clear enough?
You can argue until the earth eats away our flesh about how righteous or popular your view is.
THAT’S NOT MY POINT!
I disagree with the tone of this article, in that I feel that even those who agree with its contents (like myself) may be alienated by its hostile and unconstructive tone.
THAT’s my point.
So stop trying to sell the merits of trying to switch from a race-based affirmative action system. I’ve agreed about that for many weeks.
“When I mentioned insult, I meant to convey you would be insulting the intelligence of the Malaysian people, by assuming that they wouldn’t be able to see the merits of the authors opinion purely because of his sarcastic/comedic presentation”
Jason Mark,
I NEVER said that the Malaysian people would not see the merits of the article.
I said that they would be repulsed by the tone of the article.
Humans are fundamentally irrational. This is not an insult, it’s the stark reality. Behavioural research has shown again and again that cold, logical rationality is not our default mode of operation.
And for some who may be amenable to the views of this article, they could well be persuaded with a level-headed argument for it, as opposed to a vitriolic snide review of it!
Individual preferences (in this context, for the tones adopted in prose) have NOTHING to do with intelligence, but subjective inclinations.
I do not insult anyone’s intelligence by saying that a good number of ELECTORALLY important people will be turned off by spiteful remarks hurled around.
Maybe the Merdeka Centre will also produce a poll mirroring polls in the U.S. gauging voters’ attitudes towards partisanship (where the results were of course, many independents being turned off by the bileful nature of what mny politicians say).
“You attributed the low/marginal support due to hostile politics. I attribute it to voter suppression, intimidation and phantom voters.”
I did not attribute it to “hostile politics”. And I agree with you in that voter suppression plays a role.
My point is, these obstacles cannot be overcome by hostile politics.
You’re basically attempting to fight fire with fire.
“When I mentioned the point about the elephant in the room, it’s about telling it like it is”
Telling it like it is can come in MANY forms. Some hostile, some level-headed.
I am merely saying that in our current climate, the latter would prove far more useful than the former.
You don’t need snide satire to tell it like it is.
voster says
@Jason Mark
Addendum:
You continue to assume that just because some people may agree with the underlying point of what is said, means they would not mind this article.
But just take anecdotal evidence from your own life, and you’d see people not being agreeable to completely logical arguments, even if they are intelligent.
That’s because how you say it is as important as what you say.
That’s why we have people who are more masterful story-tellers than others.
It’s not just an issue of transmitting information, but in what form.
And if that form discourages and devalues the underlying meanings of what is being transmitted, then it would distort or distract from the meaning.
In our case, presenting a case using ridicule may certainly work.
But as I’ve argued again and again, it won’t work on the ELECTORALLY SIGNIFICANT.
matdene says
@ Jason Mark,
You said that this is about mocking the policies and the excuses given to it, and the ones on the losing side are the poor, disabled and weak people. However, I fail to see anything on the article that is near to what you’ve said. The author, I believe is just those bitter people who believe the cause of all the problems in Malaysia are caused by Malay Malaysians, when in actual fact all of us are partly, if not equally the cause of the problem.
This article, represents what the whole of Malaysia is facing now – we are increasingly becoming more communal. Look at the comments here, the fact that someone disagrees with the way the author is writing will get the ‘you must be a Malay’ comment by others.
I agree with you about the implementation of the policy – only a few people by way of connections are benefiting from it. But that mockery shouldn’t be done at the expense of Malay Malaysians while the rest play ‘I am being unfairly prejudiced’ theme. As much as I agree with you that certain policies regarding Malay Malaysians need reform, do you really think that by having this article you could make any real benefit?
Jason Mark says
@Matdene,
I think it all depends on our perception prior to reading this. I’m race agnostic, or try to be as much as possible. I find it has no bearing on anything worth caring about.
What I see in this article while reading it, isn’t an insult but a different perspective on what our political leaders, Utusan and BTN hammer in daily to Malaysians. The author is trying to embarrass the people who make these statements while living in 24 million dollar Balinese palaces.
“But that mockery shouldn’t be done at the expense of Malay Malaysians”
Could you point out how exactly this happened ? Please quote from the article.
“do you really think that by having this article you could make any real benefit”
I do think this article will actually make a lot of people see things in a different perspective. This is quite a standard persuasion technique by applying other context.
The article mocked
– the way in which the NEP policy is incorrectly applied
– the excuse that an entire race of people are incapable for fending for themselves.
My view is
– the NEP is supposed to “membasmi kemiskinan tanpa mengira kaum”
– your race has no influence on whether you are poor. Daim, Ananda and Vincent will vouch for that
– the real inequality in this country is between the rich and poor.
If you use race as a factor for equality, then you can use gender as well. I read somewhere that women get paid less than men and they’re economically challenged. This is a serious problem as it is affecting a majority of Malaysians, women being the majority gender in Malaysia . You’re not going to say I’m mocking women now are you ?
Azizi Khan says
Absolutely hilarious! The funny thing is I was watching North Korea play and I was wondering the same thing about Malaysia. Also I think Malay Muslim players might need to obtain approval from their various Jabatan Agama for playing football. There might be a fatwa issued for this and IKIM would churn out a working paper linking World Cup and Islamic society.
We would need to send out a group of Umno ministers and their wives on a “lawatan sambil belajar” to FIFA HQ and attend a few matches to endorse “merits of the game”. There will be Datukships for goal scorers and public holidays. Free land titles will be handed out if the players are Malay Muslims. If you’re Indian, sucks be to you, dude!
Malaysian TV and radios will air how our World Cup team were doing very well and how the other teams “denki” towards us so that’s why we lost…
Six months and RM2.3 billion later, [we will] be right back [where] we started. Malaysia… memang boleh!
AK
Neozypher says
There are serious messages embedded in this piece of article. It was not meant to be funny. People who find it funny fail to see the serious message that author is trying to bring out. On the other hand, the people who find it funny are just sick and tired of listening to this broken record.
I find it funny. 😀
yeo kien kiong says
It would be wonderful if Z and the rest who are supporting Z [could] debunk the real situation that is happening in this beloved country.
voster says
What’s there to debunk? I agree with the underlying point of the article, but that doesn’t mean I have to like snide remarks full of bile and lacking in subtlety that make the same point.
There’s what you say, and how you say it. The two are different things.
yeo kien kiong says
Everybody can try to [have] a better understanding of life.
₪ says
I’ve a good feeling that ‘z’ and everyone else supporting him are of a race indigenous to Malaysia […].
voster says
₪,
You, sir, are truly a product of Malaysia.
Ignore all the logical arguments given and head straight to ad hominem attacks on a person’s character focused on his/her race.
I’m Chinese [Malaysian],btw. Which doesn’t stop me from thinking. Nor does it force me to share the same opinions as everyone else of my ethnicity.
Your “good feeling” is just that.
Unfortunately for us all (you included), this country has ruined itself by running itself based on feelings.
You’ve just added to the malaise.
MYoungin says
HAHA.
The only funny part of this article is the title.
Malaysia? In FIFA?
TAKE. A. HARD. LOOK. AT. MALAYSIAN. TEAM.
I’m just saying that maybe Malaysia should find a new sport to be obsessed about, rather than forever sucking at the same old game.
Yuen Woh Voon says
So sad that “Fifa, reserve place for Malaysia!” is now in the funny category. Malaysia used to beat South Korea. The fall is emblematic of standards in many areas in our nation ranging from education, university rankings to economic growth to the police force, judiciary, civil service, etc. The way to go back on top is to compete at the highest level and see for ourselves where we really are. Instead of scrapping the UPSR and PMR examinations, why not we replace SPM with the Cambridge examinations. Dare we?
voster says
You mean the GCSEs right? I’ve seen them, and really, you’re not moving up by much.
Yuen Woh Voon says
The quality of the exam is one thing — the integrity is quite another! With the SPM there’s leakages, etc. Due to collapse of standards (integrity-wise), the Cambridge (external) represents an option whereby we can compare results e.g. with Singapore and other commonwealth nations. It will also prevent tampering with the entire exam system from exam questions preparation, delivery of papers to the exam centres, marking (esp marking). Currently with the corruption that has caused the fall of ethics and standards, it’s difficult to accept the integrity of anything. (Yesterday the ceiling of the court complex in Jalan Duta just fell off! And it’s only three years old, this not being the first time!)
voster says
@Yuen Woh Voon
Standardisation of exams is one thing. Having our standards dictated beyond our control is another.
There’s no reason to conform to an exam standard defined based on research on British schools, as opposed to our own.
Switching to a foreign standard just to secure integrity is a short-term workaround that does not fix the underlying flaw we suffer from – why the exams lack integrity in the first place.
salmanS says
I’m with Z on this. The writer is an outright [racist]! Period.
K. P. VARAN says
The article may appear to be a satire and hilarious to many BUT it is the sad truth expressed by a disgusted Malaysian perhaps. This is the destination to which Umno has led the Malay [Malaysians] to and poisoned their thinking resulting in ‘Affirmative Action’ being defined politely by many as a form of ‘BEGGING’. Not all Malays – the word ‘Malay’ needs proper defining too – are beggars. There are thousands of them holding noble positions in all fields and who are God-fearing and incorruptible. It is so very sad if they have to be the victims of Umno’s greed and vulgar ego.
m.k. says
Fantastic piece! Hope the targeted group will read this.
matdene says
Let me come up with a scenario:
Just imagine one day the Chinese [Malaysians] are the dominant force (politically and socially) in Malaysia. Imagine all the TV channels having Chinese drama with only Chinese subtitles, […] with gambling adverts in between shows […]. You’ll also realise that underground activities, especially in the Ah Long industry have increased tremendously due to increased gambling lifestyle of Malaysians. The name Malaysia would be changed to ‘Malasia’ to conform to the Chinese language and it could attract more Chinese tourists to visit Malaysia.
If the Indians are the dominant ones, the first thing you’d know is there are no more duty imposed on all forms of liquor, and there will be a sharp increase of alcohol-related diseases in hospitals, resulting the Government spending [more] of its budget on [health care]. Probably there will be more toll booths as well.
If you’re Chinese or Indian and you laugh upon reading this as well as Ta’ Melayu Hilang Di-Dunia’s article, then congrats for not being a hypocrite. If you find both offensive, I’ll give a big hug to you because this is the point I’m trying to prove how unintelligent the author and some of the commentators here are. If you find this offensive but not the author’s, then think twice because you have bad taste in humour and more importantly you’re acting the same way as [some] Malay [Malaysians whom] you claim to be racist. It is people like you who would bring Malaysia backward, not forward.
Jason Mark says
Honestly this is what comedy is all about. I recommend you get online and watch Russell Peters do exactly this.
voster says
Russell Peters does absurdist and mockery as part of his routine. This article is neither, as it attempts to do satire, but falls flat in that department as well.
matdene says
Russell Peters is amazing because he mocks all races – irrespective of whether you’re White, Black or Asian. He even mocked his own ethnicity! And he always come up with new stuff. The author above is just spewing the same old boring Malay [Malaysian] joke revolving around Malay [Malaysian] privileges. No taste!
Jason Mark says
Voster, I don’t pretend to know all my comedy genres and sub-genres. However, if your critique on this piece is that it doesn’t fit a mould or genre of comedy, that’s very silly. It’s hilarious not because it’s racist or bashing any particular race (it is does neither by the way), it’s because of the Malaysian way of thinking, Ibrahim Ali, Tun Mahatir, Perkasa, Gertak and Bangkit. If you presume to think that these entities are representative of an entire race, you are wrong. These people make a laughing stock of themselves, not any race. They spout racialist views and claim others do
voster says
@Jason Mark,
I never mentioned any genres. I was just stating that your comparison of this article to Russell Peters is moot and incorrect.
My problem with this article is that it takes the same snide tone as people like Ibrahim Ali and other demagogues do.
cheers
Koko says
A racist article by a racist person. With your bashing of the Malay [Malaysians] like that, it is just increases my resolve to hold to what we have. [You can] wait a long, long time to be treated as equal citizens of this country. Second class citizen!! Ohhh, we don’t feel sorry calling you second class citizen, in fact, we don’t regard you as Malaysian anyway, read this […].
“Datang mu tak ku undang, pergi mu ku endah”.
Benny says
I thought this was about Malaysian football.
Azizi Khan says
Reading all these comments from people who were “offended” by this article makes me wonder where have you lot been all these while. Non-Malay and non-Muslim [Malaysians] get discriminated on a daily basis. Just open your daily newspaper and see how much crap our politics churns out.
On a daily basis the Chinese [Malaysians] are accused to be thieves, robbers and gamblers. The Indians are considered gangsters.
The fact of the matter is affirmative action exists. This post, while funny shows how real affirmative action is. Whether Malays (like me) like it or not, this is how the rest of the world looks at us. As cripples.
So long as we are “protected” by our “rights” we will be crippled to the world and will be denied a sense of achievement.
So cut your whining and go and make noise the next time Perkasa or Dr M spews racial hatred. Tell them in one voice that “Malays” aren’t like that and don’t need special treatment. If not – suck it up, princesses!
AK
Wilson Wong says
It is precisely because of articles like this that we’re seeing more and more Malay [Malaysians] being pushed away from the alternative to our current government.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m supportive of equality reform. That said, we’re not going to go any closer to that if articles like this keep churning out.
Any wonder why Malay [Malaysians] generally stay away from the alternative media? It is because of cheap shot articles like this one and the comments like what we see here.
matdene says
To Azizi. Of course Malay Malaysians are a privileged lot. But these type of hot-air articles will just result to ‘an eye for an eye makes the world go blind’ situation. Just because Umno and Perkasa stupidly make these comments, non-Malay Malaysians want to be as ‘cool’ as them? Speaking about generalisation in mainstream articles, I think you forgot to add Malay Malaysians for the Mat Rempit menace and baby dumping.
jcta says
There was biting truth in the letter. However, the writer could have made his point with equal force by omitting the reference to race.
Also, let’s not forget that the private sector in Malaysia is not exactly a model of fairness or meritocracy, and have gone to great pains to keep their boardrooms mono-racial when there is no rule against it.
MonMon says
There’s no pure equality, trust me. Either race comes up to the stand. They r fighting for their race. I say, kick all the people away except the Orang Asli. Give them back their lands! And you all dare to call the English, Dutch and Portugese invaders. LOL. Look at yourselves, guys/gals, redeem yourself before you want to redeem others.
Skywalker says
Brilliant!! Tears to my eyes!! How true…. well, the truth HURTS!
As far as I can see, there will never be Malaysians per se, just Malay Malaysian, Chinese Malaysian, Indian Malaysian, etc.
appa daa says
Fighting will never solve anything.
Guys, seriously, how can we compete (and win) in the next world cup? That’s should be the question. We need new Mokhtar Dahari + Soh Chin Aun + R.Arumugam + Sontokh Sikh (- Shebby)
Any of the author’s proposals that can be implemented?
“Doesn’t the rest of the world realise that they cannot expect the Malaysian team to compete on an even playing field? Don’t they realise that they need to give a helping hand to Malaysians, particularly our Malays, who cannot be expected to compete with the rest of the world without some assistance?”
“Our Malays” means all Malay[s]?
matdene says
We Malaysians will never play football as a full-time career. Why be a footballer when we could buy a football club and earn money for the rest of your life?