Before I begin my response, allow me to first state that this is totally my opinion. It does not mean to reflect the opinion of the general public, nor do I claim to be an expert in any field in relation to what is laid out by this article and my response. This is, I repeat, entirely my own view.
With that said, let me first draw your attention to the said article in malaysiakini about the controversial Ridhuan Tee Abdullah.
To begin, I want to first state that I have no issues with apologetics or even dialogues. This does not mean to refer only to the Christian apologetics, but apologetics in general. I, for one, enjoy discussions about the different theological viewpoints of different religions. Each religion is unique in their own respect and I respect that. So to me, I have no issues with Dr Ridhuan defending Islam.
Recently, we had a class wherein we were asked to discuss how can we make dialogue more effective in Malaysia. When pondering about this, I realized that first and foremost, the premise of it all is to foster a better understanding of another religion. For example, in a dialogue between Christianity and Islam, the underlying intention should be for each party to leave that place with a better understanding of the other religion. Sadly, most of the time this is not the case. Many enter a dialogue with an ulterior motive, be it to persuade listeners to convert, or to prove superiority of ones religion, or whatever other reasons they may have. This then results in the break-down of a dialogue.
Back to the matter at hand, like I said, I have no issues with Dr Ridhuan defending Islam. The issue I have with his statements is his inability to differentiate between a religious discussion, and one of race. The article starts off stating that "(he) has merely been defending Islam all along." Just so we're clear, the article starts off as a RELIGIOUS issue. The next paragraph changes this premise. It states that "he wanted the rights of the original inhabitants of Malaysia to be acknowledged." To me, the presupposition underlying here is that the original inhabitants he is referring to are the Malays. Now we see that this has changed from a RELIGIOUS matter to a RACIAL matter. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the original inhabitants are the orang asli, contrary to my assumption of his presupposition. But let's leave that aside for now.
Looking at the third paragraph, he then uses a badminton analogy saying that "When Datuk Lee Chong Wei meets Lin Dan, it is a good example to reveal one's love for Malaysia. Both these players are Chinese, but of course we will support the Malaysian Chinese instead of the Chinese from China," and then proceeds to ask what if "Lee were to meet Misbun Sidek, or if Lin Dan played against Misbun or Taufik Hidayat of Indonesia(?)" Let's change his analogy for one moment. If say Misbun Sidek was to play Lin Dan, who will the Malaysian Chinese support? I can tell you that the majority of the Malaysian Chinese, if not all, will be rooting for Dato' Misbun Sidek over Lin Dan. When Muhammad Hafiz Hashim was against Lin Dan, I think the majority of us, if not all, supported Hafiz. This is because being a Malaysian Chinese, we identify ourselves as being Malaysian! We support our country and those that bring glory to our country! To me, that analogy is one of prejudice and naivety. To say that we will definitely support Lin Dan just because we identify with him being a Chinese against our national players who are not Chinese is just plain ignorant. I believe many of the Malaysian Chinese will agree with me on this point.
But it doesn't end at his analogy. He goes on to accusing us Malaysian Chinese of being "pretentious". He said, "Therefore, there is no need to pretend to show one's love for Malaysia, but to vote in an
ultra-kiasu manner."
The Malay Mail quoted him saying, "So stop pretending to want to show love for Malaysia, but vote for the ultra kiasus";Whoa! Not only did he accuse us of pretending to show that we love Malaysia, not only did he doubt that we truly love Malaysia, he goes on to make this a political issue! The last I remember, Malaysia was a democratic nation. We have the right to choose who represents us in the Parliament. We have the right to choose a government that is fair and just and works for the betterment of the nation and her
rakyat. Is Dr Ridhuan mean that in order to show that we truly love Malaysia, we should only base our vote on the race of the incumbent and nothing else? Is he saying that a single-race parliament is proof that all Malaysians truly love Malaysia? Or is he saying that the so-called
ultra kiasus act in parliament not for the betterment of the nation but for her detriment? Frankly speaking, I expected much more from him seeing that he is an academician. I believe he used the phrase "shallow thinking" in the said Malaysian Insider article. I think, in my opinion, this is appropriate for him. For an academician who is expected to think critically, intellectually, and in a broad perspective, I am greatly disappointed.
And it does not end there. The disappointment grows with his next point. The article writes about his claim that the biggest taxpayers in Malaysia were the Malays. While I do not deny that tax evasion does happen today, I feel that he has adopted a very myopic view. Let me state why.
A 2010 statistics report from the Department of Statistics Malaysia would reveal that 63.1% of the population of Peninsula Malaysia are Malays. The proportion of working age population was 67.3%. It is safe to say that the majority of the Malaysian population is Malay. Let's use a simple analogy. Say in a group of 10 people, out of which 7 were boys and 3 were girls. They are asked to each kick a ball once. After the last person kicks, the conclusion drawn is that there were more boys kicking the ball than girls. Can you see how ridiculous this analogy is? I'm no expert in statistics, neither do I have the exact figures of the taxes paid categorized by race, but based on just logic, the majority race of the country will naturally be the majority race in paying taxes, simply because they are more in numbers than the others. Also, tax avoidance and tax evasion is illegal in Malaysia. Just basing on the numbers of the report of the exact figures of taxes paid categorized by race (I'm assuming he gave his opinion based on the acquisition of such a document or the like) is insufficient. There is no substantive proof, assuming that his allegations are true, to state that the reason why Malays are the biggest contributors in terms of tax in comparison with the other races is due to cheating in relation to tax payment. I'm no academician, but correct me if I'm wrong to say that his view is a rather myopic and presumptuous view for an academician.
Like I said in the beginning of this post, this is just my view. I would have preferred if he had kept to just responding to the comments made by The Star group managing director/chief executive officer Datuk Seri Wong Chun Wai, rather than making it a race and then political issue. I would have more respect for his view had he been more objective and fair in his view. I would have no problems if he was defending Islam as I have no issues and appreciate constructive and critical dialogue to understand Islam. One of my lecturers is like this. She does not impose her views on others nor does she downright reject the opinions of others. And when there is a matter that require clarification or misinformation or misunderstanding about Islam, she is always willing to share with us what Islam really taught and what Islam really is. In today's world where recent and global happenings have shed a bad light on Islam, I truly appreciate people who are willing to maturely discuss and dialogue about this so as to clarify and rectify the wrong impressions we have of Islam. But to take that and turn it into a racial and political issue, that, I will put my foot down and say a loud "NO".
0 comments:
Post a Comment