RPK had dedicated several postings on his site to accuse DAP of being racist and chauvinist. He's not very happy that one DAP politician refused to wear a songkok to a palace function.
RPK reckons that refusing to don a songkok is:
(1) disrespectful of the royals and royal etiquette
The rulers cannot be the impartial rulers of Malaysians of all races & religions on one hand, and the uncompromising champions of Malays and Islam on the other hand. That proposition is as meaningless, contrarian and nonsensical as saying the NEP will ensure the economic special privileges of Malays while ensuring that non-Malays are not disadvantaged.
You can't be one whilst being the other. To possess one necessarily means to dispossess the other.
How do the rulers be relevant to Malaysians of all races, if they cannot get past the need for royal protocol to contort all Malaysians to look & act like Malays in their presence?
If the argument is that a baju Melayu, samping and songkok are the 'Malaysian dress', then shouldn't the mandarin collar, sari and cheongsam enjoy the same status and be acceptable at the palace? Are we not an inclusive society?
(2) disrespectful of the wishes of your host
RPK says here that the host of a house can impose a dress code on his guests. I'm not sure which code of courtesy that came from, but I have always been under the impression that a good host respects his guests' lifestyle and sensitivities - and would always go out of his way to accomodate them.
In addition, it also depends on who paid for the host's house. If all the guests chipped in and paid for the host's house, I'd take a rather dim view on the host who then imposes various terms and conditions on his guests before they can enter the house which they (the guests) paid for.
(3) not seeing the forest for the trees
Here I agree. Could the DAP assemblyman have compromised for the greater good? Sure. But make sure it's compromise, not submission. Mistaking compromise for submission is what got this country into trouble in the first place.
I would also add this point.
Refusing to wear a songkok is racist & chauvinist? How do you logically derive that? It may be unwise. It may be obstinate, uncooperative and unconstructive. It may be downright unfriendly. But racist & chauvinist?
How does one's brain have to work in order to conclude that refusing to don a songkok is racist? Is refusing to speak Malay chauvinist? Is refusing to eat halal food racist & chauvinist? It's unnecessarily unconvenient to all parties concerned for sure, but is it anything more than that?
Isn't it more racist and chauvinist to decree that everyone must wear songkoks, speak Malay and consume halal food only?
Which is more agressive, arrogant and seeking to impose your will on others?... Choosing not to do something (refuse to wear a songkok) or refuse someone a choice (to wear or not to wear a songkok)?
Balkis, Baiduri and Bakti
Apparently a bunch of BN politician wives felt that the RM9 million in a 'charity' are their personal piggy bank which they can move around as they please. They felt that they had worked hard to raise the money and since they weren't confident that the wives of the new govt would put the funds to 'similar' use as they did - they were entitled to endow it to another party of their choosing.
Firstly, I'm not sure if getting money from state owned companies owned or funded by a govt led by their husbands qualifies as hard work.
Secondly, think about this parallel situation.
What if... in the next election, the Pakatan Rakyat wins it to be the new govt... but the old BN govt moves the entire treasury to a Swiss bank account under UMNO - because they (BN) felt that they had worked hard to build the treasury reserves, and they felt that the new govt might not put the funds to 'similar' use?
Why the hell are unelected 'wives' getting their filthy hands on state funds anyway?
Hishammuddin 'The Keris' Hussein made a steeply qualified apology to the non-Malays 'IF' they were offended by his antics with his phallic symbol.
Let's not be coy about it. The non-Malays have no problems with a keris, or how it signifies Malay dignity etc. What offended us is the fact that someone drew a keris during an UMNO general assembly AND that act was accompanied by threats of violence and bloodshed against the non-Malays. And is it not fact that the keris has been repeatedly drawn, with the same racial threats being made, during successive UMNO functions since then? It is not the mere drawing of the keris from its sheath, but the manner in which it was drawn and the circumstances and statements surrounding the act which offends the non-Malays.
And the Sham's apology is like apologising to people who were kicked in the balls only 'IF' they objected to being kicked in the balls. The connotation is that no apology is necessary if they don't object to being kicked in the balls. Therefore, the act of kicking someone in the balls is nothing to apologise for, especially if those being kicked don't (dare to?) object to it. Furthermore, he also apologised to those who, like him, enjoy kicking other people in the balls... because he wasn't able to transform kicking someone in the balls - into an act that people (who get their balls kicked) would not be in a position to object.
Monday, April 28, 2008