I’ll start with the latest issue that came last month, the ‘guidebook’ for Ethnic Relations subject, or ‘textbook’ as the media call it. It stated when a DAP MP raised up the issue of excessively seditious, factually inaccurate and heavily biased content of the UPM version of the book which put the whole blame on other non-Malay races and DAP politicians for the past ethic and religious friction in Malaysia.
It takes two to tango, or perhaps the Malay version of it bertepuk sebelah tangan masakan berbunyi can express it better. To put the words in a logical manner, a racial riot can only happen between at least two (2) races (mind the bracket), and must be instigated by at least one. Assuming only one side provoking, the other side must be on the defensive. Records that we have show that for every event the scale of each tension was rather alarming, on all sides. Apart from 1969 unrest, other cases were very much more localised and considered isolated thus can be more easily hidden from the public. Who started those races? Who were the victims?
Having said that, one could wonder how the public could actually gain access the true story behind each event since the investigation and reporting of such events had never been done in a transparent way. Chinese newspapers on the other hand have the leverage of limited public access to it to publish reports on more issues without fearing widespread backlash against it for “touching the sensitivity of other races” because very few other races can read them anyway. Despite having a few commissions to investigate these “disturbances” the reports would usually be swept under the carpet if not buried in the National Archive. Since the parliament cannot discuss such matter freely, and even if they do they will not get media coverage, it would finally lead to the ultimate question – how credible are the reports on these riots and to what extent can they be used for historical reference?
When the shadow cabinet, including my Uncle Lim was fiercely attacking the government and demanded an explanation over the use of the guide book for such a sensitive subject, my Tok Pa came to the scene only to add oil to the scorching fire by defending the use of the guidebook. A friend of mine told me that he thinks that I am likely to come to the defence of
The first one would be the Kampung Medan incident, where Dr Jeeyasooria himself refuted that he actually suggested that Indian youths were responsible for it. Instead, Dr Jeeyasooria merely listed that abovementioned factor as one of the many reasons that sparked the violence, and he had never discounted any factor above the others. He also attacked the ones who had actually misquoted his report in the UPM’s Ethnic Relations Guideline, not only for doing so without his consent but also for using it to paint a sheep black. As such,
Another one would be the DAP’s involvemet in 13 May 1969.
As for
What about the civil servants and advisors who are supposed to come up with advise to the minister? Did the officers do enough research before submitting the speech to the minister? Did the writers actually read the reports on those incidents in its entirety before using it? We know for a fact that even ministers do not read and talk as if they are the primary source of knowledge. A good example was when the whole Cabinet and Malaysian media condemned a terrorism ‘specialist’ for allegedly linking Malaysia to Al-Qaeda in his book, only to be embarrassed when Tun Dr Mahathir himself made a statement that he found nothing in the book that suggests so. This poor fellow had to come all the way to
My resolution is that all these happen because we Malaysians are ignorant. That’s that, and all there is for today. I wish you all a good time this summer, in
In the meantime, please enjoy a gaiden by the title “Kehidupan terlampau seekor kucing yang melampau” (Coming soon…) and my favourite blog.
