Pink Panther 2
  Angels and Demons
  Vanity Drive: Interview with Author Yvonne Lee Shu Yee
  Delicious Does Dido
  The Maritime Exploits of Emperor Yong Le and Mohamad Zheng He
  THE SPIRIT CONTEST
  THE SPIRIT CONTEST
  BODY OF LIES CONTEST
  BODY OF LIES CONTEST
  Come work our poles
  Naik, Jatuh dan Bangun Semula
  The Survivor Meets The Challenge
  Dilema Melayu
  Dr Mahathir's Selected Letters to World Leaders
  Pandangan dari Tudor City, New York
  -    +  
Adjust font size:
Let's look beyond politics
Andrew Tan | Sep 18, 08 4:24pm
I refer to the Malaysiakini article Sept 16: Are we missing the point?

I fail to see Dr Mafeitz Mamat's stream of thought. With him being a doctor, I presume the writer is familiar with the scientific method of observing empirical evidence before proposing a hypothesis. Whether this hypothesis approximates the truth is fair game for the scientific community as the hypothesis is tested and verified.
 
In his letter, Mamat starts off stating: "The fact is the non-Malays never accepted the concept of 'Ketuanan Melayu' nor the special privileges of the Malays as laid down by the Federal Constitution".

The writer however, doesn't give us any evidence for it. Has he done some research and found the above to be true, or did he come up with it while mulling in his armchair? It's after all a bold and sweeping claim that's false if even one non-Malay is the exception.
 
But that's not all. He goes on to claim that this is the main stumbling block to non-racial partisan politics in Malaysia. Just as he avoided providing any evidence for his ‘fact’, Mamat doesn't argue for or defend his conclusion.

Even if we grant the writer his questionable armchair-derived "fact", it is contentious whether it could possibly be the major "stumbling block to non-racial partisan politics".

What, we may ask, is the empirical data? What has been said and done over the past few weeks, months, and years? Who are the ones who appear bent on a race-based agenda? Which are the political parties which are defined by race?
 
Besides the empirical data, there is also a logical connection which needs explaining. If the non-acceptance of the writer’s concepts block non-racial politics, that converse is that the acceptance of his concepts would lead to non-racial politics.

But how exactly does that work? Do the two really go hand-in-hand? On the face of it, it would seem that the two seem inevitably in tension.
 
The article was titled "Sept 16: Are we missing the point?" What is the point? The writer mentions "non-racial partisan politics". May I suggest we keep the non-racial bit. Admittedly, that's something we all have to work on as we each come from our own comfort zones.

Prejudices and stereotypes are stripped away only if we take the step out to get to know the mysterious other, who we may find is not so mysterious and actually quite like ourselves. I'd also suggest that rather than "partisan" politics, we look beyond political parties and agendas.

Malaysia is more than just any partisan cause. For better or worse, Malaysia is its people, each and every one of us. September 16 reminds us that this is so.

 
Guidelines for Letters
ADVERTISEMENT
CLASSIFIEDS
EVENTS
CLASSIFIEDS
Diy Day Banner

Advertise here ( RM15/day )

Advertise here ( RM15/day )

Diy Day Banner