For want of a nail the shoe was lost

For want of a shoe the horse was lost

For want of a horse the rider was lost

For want of a rider the battle was lost

For want of a battle the kingdom was lost

And all for the want of a horseshoe nail

Asli's corporate equity report can be viewed as a nail in the grand scheme of things imagined by the popular rhyme. The report wouldn't by itself have capsized the country's entrenched patronage system but could have been a catalyst at least to redirecting economic strategies.

But predictably bureaucracy came down on it like a ton of bricks, burying the think-tank's CPPS, which prepared the study, under an avalanche of flak. From a cynical familiarity with politics as usual, we could have anticipated that any such research which challenges the government's official take would presage racial thunderstorms.

The silver lining behind the dark cloud is that conscientious folks have clearly recognised the integrity of CPPS director Dr Lim Teck Ghee who did the honourable thing by resigning and standing by his team's findings.

Indeed integrity is a value that transcends race, the latter a factor permeating the Asli debate. Following the last general elections, I wrote that Nik Aziz Nik Mat (Kelantan mentri besar) has managed to swear in his state government, given our political climate, is a shining testament to the integrity of the PAS representatives.'

PAS' razor-thin majority of 25 seats in the 48-seat state legislative assembly in March 2004 had given rise to fears that the incumbent government in Kelantan would collapse if even one of the party's elected representatives jumped ship. A parallel scenario in Sabah a decade earlier saw the Kadazan-led (then) opposition party lose control of the state after PBS assemblymen defected to the Barisan Nasional. It is trying situations that test a man's mettle: Dr Lim and the PAS candidates who stood the general elections passed with flying colours.

The good fight

For the majority safely aligned with the country's dominant cosy club, there's no requirement to go against the status quo. Theirs is an easy route of rubbishing the Asli report and dismissing it out of hand.

Noting this phenomenon, an ethical academician wrote to malaysiakini: ' I am outraged that the findings of a professionally conducted study have been disputed by means of allegations of racism, flat denial and the repetition of political dogma without a single reference to evidence.'

We've already owned that Dr Lim is man of principle. It's pertinent to remind ourselves of the overarching principle that he has valiantly defended. Few people care to take up the challenge of questioning the system's dominant ideology. Advancing truth against the bulwark of establishment vested interests almost always comes at a painful personal cost.

Dr Lim's resignation statement said: 'I hope the public space opened up by the centre's work on this particular, as well as other important, issues will be expanded on and vigorously defended by others. It is the fundamental right of the Malaysian public to question all government statistics and policies, more so when these are not transparent or defensible.'

Will we now proceed to 'expand on and vigorously defend' these issues with a sustained and informed challenge? Dr Lim is one individual who has spoken out poignantly. Nonetheless, we shouldn't rely on just a few good men to wear our favour at the joust when the fight should necessarily be taken up by the collective.

Pastor Martin Niemller's ' First they came ' poem comes to mind.

When the Nazis came for the communists,

I remained silent;

I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,

I remained silent;

I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,

I did not speak out;

I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,

I did not speak out;

I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,

there was no one left to speak out.

If we allow other people's honour to be sullied or rights to be trampled upon inch by inch, we'll soon find our own rights encroached upon by the yards.

What's it to me

Our lackadaisical attitude has also led many to think if the target in the line of fire is of no concern to us, there's hardly any need to involve ourselves. By keeping our peace, we quietly allow the 'system' that suppresses truth to hold sway. We remain detached while detractors predictably in truly Bolehland style cast aspersions on the professionalism of the academics who conducted the Asli study.

'Such stubborn insistence that the government is always right, faultless and flawless is wrong and is no different from intellectual oppression imposed by the Nazis in Germany that only the official line is the true line even in the face of contrary facts ' said DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng, whose delegation to Asli was pictured carrying a banner: ' Tell us the truth '.

Asli president Mirzan Mahathir in making the retraction displayed a profound insight, however inadvertently, when he said that 'this report and its reaction serve as a reminder of the unique qualities of our beloved nation'. This 'uniqueness' means no one is spared when it comes to the ruthless preservation of the elite's hegemony. Not even if one is the spiritual leader of an Islamist party.

In my article ' East coast: Comprehending the green tide ', I deplored how the mainstream media further to castigating the Tok Guru 'has not accorded Nik Aziz and the office he holds the respect due'.

Under the article's sub-heading 'Smear campaign', I had written: 'In a very obvious display of double standards, the same artillery barrage is never trained on BN leaders who have made far more provocative remarks [compared to the Tok Guru's PR faux pas].' I continued: 'On the other hand, Nik Aziz's statements are blown out of proportion, distorted and taken out of context. A blatant slur was the 'Tuhan it samseng' description widely attributed to him to tarnish his reputation.'

In contrast to prevalent mainstream reporting, I had described Nik Aziz's public behaviour as being always 'highly circumspect', and how he and the other PAS menteri besar at that time Abdul Hadi Awang of Terengganu are respected, popular and 'closer to the people's hearts'. Additionally, I recalled the laudatory public stand taken by late PAS president Fadzil Noor on national unity as an instance of the party's progressiveness.

In the run-up to the 2004 general elections, the mainstream media was on the warpath to discredit opposition parties and their leaders. I wrote the above defence of PAS because my stand has been consistently for upholding truth, and truth transcends religious affiliation as well as race, it would seem.

Pop psychology versus facts

As truth can have several facets, I do appreciate opposing views if they're well researched and well argued. Differing opinions can co-exist. But unfortunately as DAP's Lim has opined, Bolehland is awash with the Nazi modus operandi where belligerents wave their clenched fist in your face demanding submission to their own 'infallible' opinions.

Another Boleh norm is couching criticisms in sweeping statements one example is the accusation that I harbour simplistic 'notions of Muslims = terrorists'. And for good measure, throw in a few contemptuous remarks on the 'prejudiced worldview' and bigotry of the person (or report) you disagree with. Below is a sample derived from Leow Mei Chern's critique of my column.

I've faithfully excerpted Leow's original sentences from her three repetitive Letters to the Editor and one newspaper column. I believe my draft below to be a fair stencil of the gist of her work. The only substitution I've made is of subject matter (replacing 'terrorism' with 'marginalisation'), and these portions are indicated by square brackets.

An archetypal Bolehland criticism goes like this:

"[Systematic marginalisation] has nothing to do with genes

Reading Helen Ang's column [Game, set, match to LKY] makes me wonder what real purpose her article is for, aside from detailing the state of [affairs which Malaysian Chinese complain about]. Mind you, this is the writer whom in one of her previous article referred to Palestinians as people with 'a penchant for violence'.

My concern of Ang's column and use of language is simply this; that there is already such deep polarisation between [Singapore and Malaysia], that shouldn't we look to build bridges instead of burning them? Continuing to possess and to expound this prejudiced worldview without the slightest awareness of it only serves to further divide people.

We should be engaging with one another, if not actively, at least to keep check on whether one's language or action that reflects on his or her worldview, is fair, or otherwise, to support the latter efforts.

What concerned me as well, however, were her bigoted expressions in referring to [Malaysia and Indonesia as marginalising their compliant Chinese] and the use of statistics to associate a particular [people with systematic marginalisation].

There are reasons why [marginalisation] thrives and I seriously don't think it has to do with one's genes. One important factor we should not ignore is how it does so in an environment that threatens one's identity. [The Chinese big businessman's] aggression against Muslim majority nations has done a good job so far in fanning the popularity of [systematic marginalisation] and its support.

To assert that the cause of [Chinese marginalisation] is something inherent whether in religion or race, is not only unfounded, but also irresponsible, as this closes the doors for dialogue between communities and within our society. Let alone it being a pointless exercise in which to demonise an already [hard-pressed Malaysian government faulted] by the international media.

I am not [Singaporean] but I can see how this kind of association will not make things any better in our fight against [marginalisation, in Singapore's case, of its Malays]. Let us not forget that [marginalisation] is found in the name of all [countries], at some point in time or place.

And the question we ought to ask is why [marginalisation] breeds. Stereotyping people is just a lazy and irresponsible way to form conclusions.

So what exactly is Ang's agenda?"

In employing Leow's blanket-condemnation template to fictionally dismiss my last article on Lee Kuan Yew, I don't even have to put on my thinking cap or furnish any fresh input. Hers is a *QED ('quite easily done', my economics teacher used to joke) method which takes the tack that 'the best form of defence is offence' which is exactly what we're seeing happening over Asli.

Just substitute the key word and you can use Leow's one-size-fits-all generic formula to undermine any discussion as being racist. Plus her pop psychology is more subtle than shouting 'racist' 41 times in Parliament.

True or not

The passage in my column which prompted Leow's tirade and disturbed certain other readers could be this: 'On the other hand, extremist and militant factions in Islam have been fingered or implicated in urban terrorism worldwide targeting non-Muslims in general '

Extrapolating on that statement, I suggested Malaysian Muslims (almost 12%) who see suicide bombers as martyrs cared more about the ideology of their co-religionists than they do about the lives of fellow Malaysians at risk from acts of terror.

You don't have to be boarding a plane from Heathrow to put yourself in danger. Or even look as far as Mumbai where a string of explosions on a rush-hour train left some 210 people dead and over 700 injured on 11 July 2006.

Very close to home and only last month, six Malaysians were injured when half a dozen bombs went off in Hat Yai. Five people lost their lives and 72 were hurt in the terror attacks which occurred outside two shopping malls, a hotel, pub and cinema popular with tourists.

And even more recently, the Associated Press reported on Oct 10 that at least 12 people were killed and 20 more wounded when a bomb exploded during a town festival in the southern Philippines, terrorism which security officials linked to Al Qaeda.

I did not pull these death toll and casualty figures from out of thin air, and it's immaterial if I obtained the information from Googling or read it sandwiched between bundles of ads sold for RM1.20 at local newsstands. I'd written a straightforward enough sentence about Muslim terrorists. You simply have to ask yourself whether it's factually correct and an honest exposition of truth.

I'm not unconscious of the inflexible single-mindedness manufactured by the dominant mainstream here, be it on Palestinians/Jews, NEP or other 'sensitive' topics. Any tilt at this establishment consensus makes some people angry and emotional. Nonetheless, if we put a premium on rationality and critical analysis, we will know surely in our own mind what is true.

The realisation must have already struck you that freedom of thought and freedom of action in this country is highly constrained. Over the years we've not, every single one of us, effectively resisted the 'system' that would have everyone quiescent and compliant. Truth is a bitter pill to swallow but like medicine, it is the cure to free our minds.

* QED: Latin quod erat demonstrandum , that is what I intended to prove and I have proved it