By Helen Ang
The authorities are now intimidating Hindraf donors. And Samy Vellu was in India, saying everything’s hunky-dory, defending his Umno bosses. While civil society here is grappling still with the ramifications of the Nov 25 rally.
You may recall that Haris Ibrahim and Nat Tan were the two opinion shapers in cyberspace advancing antipodal schools of thought on the rally.
On Nov 24, Haris posted “Why I will not walk this Sunday and why the walk must not proceed”, while Nat vice versa. Readership for both websites – the People’s Parliament and Nat’s blog – experienced a sharp spike during this period; ours eliciting 105 comments.
Increased site traffic is an indicator of the influence that political blogs wield as opinion movers when information is blacked out or distorted in the mainstream media. In this regard, the lacuna was a dereliction of duty, that is, if MSM did not altogether abdicate duty at the behest of their political masters.
The Indian grassroots agitation must have been building up discernibly, yet the Hindraf groundswell washed upon us as suddenly as the tsunami. Reporters, not Haris and Nat, are paid to do the job of informing the public. When you fork over your money for your day’s paper, you’re part-financing their operations to keep you informed. They did not give readers value for money. They sinned by omission.
Now with the benefit of hindsight, it might be instructive to revisit the events of November that opened the curtain to the Hindraf saga.
When we spoke on the eve of the rally, Haris voiced his concern that violence may be deliberately engineered. He was wary of what the powers-that-be were capable of resorting to. I remember feeling a stab of fear on hearing him. Usually Umno and its goons evoking May 13 would piss me off no end but this time I had genuine apprehensions.
The security forces are all of one race. It worried me how our police and FRU would quell the crowds all of another race, or close one eye to provocateurs and agitators. I was indeed afraid there would be Indian blood spilled on the streets.
It’s for this reason that Haris declared the walk must not proceed. It is certainly not because he’s a Malay chauvinist, a presumption that could have arisen because most of the Malay commentators had condemned Hindraf. The movement’s non-inclusive approach was polarising and its language had alienated the racial majority.
Nonetheless, there developed a smear campaign against Haris for not supporting the march. I was saddened when he responded to the attacks with: “Those who know me, know me. Those who don’t, don’t”.
This is what I know. Long before Hindraf burst onto the scene, Haris was already standing alongside our Indian brethren. He has been involved in the conversion-apostasy cases – from Lina Joy (whose significant other is Indian) to Moorthy to Shamala, either as counsel or holding a watching brief.
In fact, I interviewed Haris on the Rayappan body-snatching affair for my Malaysiakini column. He supported the decision of the deceased’s wife not to comply with the subpoena issued by the Syariah Court, saying “This matter was properly to have been before the civil courts”.
Let me ask you how many Malay Muslims are willing to be associated with such religiously-tinged controversies, let alone take up the cases? Or be seen lending his support to a house of worship (Haris was at the Tambak Paya temple) to protest its demolishment by the Malacca local authorities?
Haris has been at the forefront of the Article 11 movement to safeguard our constitutional guarantees to faith freedom – one of the Hindraf struggles. He has strongly questioned the enactment of Article 121 (1A) which has led to Indian-Hindu spouses landing in court jurisdiction limbo. He has warned about the Ketuanan Melayu-propelled Islamisation, which among other repercussions is impacting marginalised Indians drawn to convert.
Like Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, Haris is on the Muslim fundamentalists’ hit list. Between being accused as traitor to Islam by one camp and a pro-Malay racist by the other, I daresay my friend – and honoured that he considers me such – has got the balance right.
(Part 2 to follow)
The MSM ” sinned by omission” and the internet sinned by “addition”.
“Between being accused as traitor to Islam by one camp and a pro-Malay racist by the other, I daresay my friend – and honoured that he considers me such – has got the balance right.”
You report, we decide.
I’m not so sure. Could that be the result of mixed heritage? A mother who is a Tamil Ceylonese?
“Like Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, Haris is on the Muslim fundamentalists’ hit list.”
C’mon! Let’s not exaggerate. If he was he would be dead by now.
“He has been involved in the conversion-apostasy cases – from Lina Joy (whose significant other is Indian) to Moorthy to Shamala, either as counsel or holding a watching brief.”
Haris I was told is part Indian.
To help a fellow Muslim convert out of Islam is according to Islamic theology a cardinal sin.
Here’s what one poster has to say to Haris about him on his blog:
Dear Haris,
Please dont hide the Tamilness in you by stating your Mum is a Ceylonese. Or is it because Cylonese consider themselves more Tamil than the Tamils from tamil Nadu??
I was one of those who posted critcism of Haris stand. I knew Haris witnessed/attended the Hindraf rally but did not walk with them so I knew most of his symphathy was with Hindraf. So I did not take issue with him as a person. He has a right to NOT walk with them on his stand and clearly state it.
Haris blog while he had every right, chose to go against the popular sentiment. In that regard, he failed to acknowledge the practicality of what Hindraf is doing. Its not that most critics do not see his view that Hindraf is racially polarizing, the issue really is for all practical purposes most had it with the establishment polarizing way and see no way about it but to NOT take the higher road. To ask Hindraf to take the higher road when the other sides have not for decades is just impractical and delusional. Hindraf has only been proven right post-rally where the government attempted to charge the Hindraf leaders with attempted murder.
Haris is a person to be admired and commended but he was NOT right about how he handled the issue. That is fair.
“This is what I know. Long before Hindraf burst onto the scene, Haris was already standing alongside our Indian brethren.”
He was not on the side of “our Indian brethren” but on the side of the Constitution which guarantees the freedom of religion.
Matter of fact, whatever socio-economic changes to materialise here, we must enlist Malays’ support & involvement. Please do not honeymooning too long with human rights stuff, those are privileges for the right mind people, we are still miles away. As professed by the author, we can be drenched by a hot blood bath, it is nothing new to wrench socio-economic-political clamour in such way.
If we are to resort to street/people power to correct our social predicament, all the races must involve, particularly Malays. As we know the legitimacy of street power itself is subject to fiery debate. Our immediate job now is not to waste our limited resources to spit on UMNO, MCA, MIC but to enlighten the silence Malays to open theirs golden mouth.
What has Haris parental heritage got to do with his thoughts and actions. He is a true Malaysian, plain and simple. It’s time readers at this blog start looking at him as such.
The likes of Haris and Malik are what our country needs for its survival!
I agree with Libra2. I think sometimes we are too quick to judge and in the process may just show a little bit more of us to others. Helen may be expressing her opinions, but also are many of the comments.
Helen Ang, a columnist with Malaysiakini, defends here Haris Ibrahim whom she is honoured that he considers her a “friendâ€.
She is defending here something else as well when she said “there developed a smear campaign against Haris for not supporting the (Hindraf) march. And it is all just because Haris was not prepared to walk with Hindraf because “the movement’s non-inclusive approach was polarising and its language had alienated the racial majorityâ€.
Haris is a western trained lawyer. Naturally he upholds constitutional principles and Rule of law and also tries to reconcile with his own beliefs as a Muslim. He took what he considered a rational objective approach, that as what tsn said, if Hindraf wanted to effect change by street power it ought to take an inclusive approach embracive of all Malaysians especially the majority race rather than just for Tamil Hindu in a language (ethnic cleansing) alienating the majority race.
I think that is fair enough.
But large sections of people fed up of the government do not take kindly to Haris’s approach for reasons that Bigjoe touched on above. People have reached a point of exhaustion of patience. They want change; they want it now; they want it concrete; and they want the results visible and present. They argue Hindraf’s street protests have brought results : the national government as well as public attention is now riveted unto the Indian’s plight which were it not for the intemperate actions and language of Hindraf, nothing else would have accomplished this – not the talk of law, not the talk of logic, not to talk of constitution for they are all talk and not action and when dealing this government action speaks louder than words…..
We see this kind of what, in my personal opinion, a highly emotional and radical approach based on exhausted patience even amongst some commenters of this blog accusing the other commenters who take the Haris’s approach of talk, talk and talk only of constitution, of law and too much talk means no action!
For a moment it is not necessary for me to discuss which approach is better in Malaysia. We may have different views.
Suffice to say, lets bear and argue our differences of opinion and approach with civility and respect : there’s no need to get personal, and emotional and hurl insults just because the other is of a view or approach that emotionally does not resonate with our own; worse still, condemn the other’s approach, leaning on the objective or rational, as mere sterile logic, a kind of intellectual masturbation and “talk cock” that conceives no concrete offspring in terms of change to the country.
Why the smear campaign against Haris for not supporting the march, Helen asks? Just like Libra2 ask, “What has Haris parental heritage got to do with his thoughts and actions”
Haris may not be on Muslim fundamentalists’ hit list as Helen dramatized as our Count Dracula said but he is on the same side fighting the conversion cases on 121(1)A, the Article 11 movement to safeguard our constitutional guarantees to faith freedom etc as stated by Helen.
Our Nathaniel of PKR,who had a run in with police over a comment left on his blog on fee-for-freedom involving some political bigwig, is, as Helen says, representing “antipodal schools of thought on the (Hindraf) rally in relation to Haris. But they can still be civil with each other bound by common cause though divided by difference of approach on how to advance the common cause.
There’s no need for smear campaign against Haris.
The real divide is not between people of same Cause though divided by different approaches like Haris and Nathaniel…
The real divide is between :-
· One group comprised of people who are racial and religious demagogues and bigots, powerful political and corporate vested interests and reactionary forces supportive of present BN hegemony or the advancement of further Islamisation; and
· the other group comprising passionate, often young but educated or rather Western educated Malaysians including those at forefront of NGOs (SDisters-in Islam & women groups), Blogs (eg Jeff Ooi Rocky Bru, RPK, Nat Tan etc), Professional bodies like Bar Council, lawyers like Edmond Bon, Malik Imtiaz Sarwar and Haris Ibrahim, acdemics like Farish Nor or Azly Rahman and many others engaged in the struggle and contestation of the public space and discourse arena for the soul of Malaysia, and which direction she is heading.
For the second group who are communicating and interacting through public forums, gathering, avenue of blogs and sometimes even on the streets for the same Cause of saving the country from clear and present danger of going the other way in abandonment of secular constitutional principles, curtailment of fundamental liberties and upholding of diversity and plurality on the road to greater racial institutionalization and political Islamisation, the least the members of this group could do, as between themselves, inter se, is to maintain unity and a modicum of civility in negotiation of their differences of approach in how the Common Cause may be served instead of lapsing into a smear campaign or other personal insults and aspersions.
If members of this group cannot appreciate diversity of points of view and accord to the others within the same group of differing views and approach the freedom of speech and thought (without smear and abuse) what right have they got to fight for these same lofty principles of freedom of speech and thought and the value of diversity against the vested interests in government, the reactionaries and the enemies of the Open Society?
Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim has said multi-racial harmony in his country is under threat by State-sponsored Islamic puritanism that has damaged the constitutional rights of other faiths in the Muslim-majority southeast Asian nation.
In a recent speech at a regional forum in Singapore, Anwar also suggested that the Malaysian government was using Islamic puritanism to win votes in a general election expected to be held later during 2008.
“The real issue is what I would describe as State-sponsored Muslim puritanism borne more by racist sentiments than religious principles,” Anwar told a gathering at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore. “It is this kind of theology that leads to the rejection of constitutional freedom of other faiths.”
http://the-malaysian.blogspot.com/2008/01/malaysian-government-misusing-islam-to.html
When a certain group of ppl is discriminated to the extreme, till that group can take it no more, things going to burst, when this happened, it will hurt everyone in that country.
It already happened around many countries in the world. We surely hope this WILL NOT HAPPEN in Msia!
Yeah, we would like to ask Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim what about Opposition PKR sponsored Islamic puritanism of PAS (against Hindraf and silent on the Herald’s “Allah” issue) with whom he is collaborating as well to win the elections for formation of a new government.
You are right there.
Some regular commentators have expressed shock that I am may not be voting and am planning to leave the country.
Regarding not voting, I believe its very important to know what we are voting for. I repeat I am for a secular state, no compromise. I will only vote for political parties or individuals who will fight for a secular state.
To me, the syariah courts which applies only to Muslims are an infringement on Muslims rights. At the same time, rights are negotiable. If Muslims agree to give up their democratic freedoms like freedom of religion in exchange for moral policing, that’s fine. The problem is syariah may have been shoved up ‘Malays’ throats. Note I don’t say Muslims cos ‘Malays’ need not be Muslims, except in the perverse constitutional definition, and Muslims need not be ‘Malay’. There are lots of non-’Malay’ Muslims.
http://jedyoong.wordpress.com/2008/01/17/making-a-stand-on-a-secular-state/#respond
“It is this kind of theology that leads to the rejection of constitutional freedom of other faiths to espouse and practise their religion in a manner they so wish,†Anwar said.
“It preaches the exclusivist doctrine that Muslims must constantly prevail over non-Muslims.â€
He labelled it ridiculous nonsense that only Muslims can use the word ‘Allah’ and backed up his assertion by quoting from the Quran, the Muslim holy book.
_____________________________________________
Anyone know what PAS has said on that? I`m really curious. Couldn`t find anything on their harakah site.
cheng on soo says “when a certain group of ppl is discriminated to the extreme, till that group can take it no more, things going to burst..” True, but this is where the main difference lies between the two approaches within the second group – the Hindraf/Natanial’s approach taking to the street, harnessing its power based on confrontation and show of force by civil disobedience and numbers protesting, maybe even as a prelude, afetr testing waters, to escalate to some other even more radical actions to come – I won’t speculate what they may or could be – and the other approach of engagement and dialogue with the government, talk, talk, talk, law, on the constitution, logic and rationality and rights, the courts, no matter perceived as not independent, and the use the ballot box, no matter again perceived as rigged a sytem weighted in favour of incumbent govt, as arbiter.
Talking is always better than walking as it requires more intellectual input but remember how the Section 11 roadshows were stopped by none other than our always-flying about PM?
The irony is that he refuses to allow talks in Malaysia but will whizz halfway round the world to discuss inter-religious dialogues. Meanwhile churches are being harrassed and temples demolished.
For a balanced approach on how we can safeguard Malaysia, I suggest the movie “The Great Debaters”.
http://malaysiawatch3.blogspot.com/2008/01/unjust-law-is-no-law.html
“What has Haris parental heritage got to do with his thoughts and actions. He is a true Malaysian, plain and simple.”
There is no such thing as a Malaysian. There is only a Malay Malaysian, a Chinese Malaysian and an Indian Malaysian. Just like you have a Chinese American, an African American, Irish American and a Pakistani American etc.
To understand the thought processes of any one individual one cannot ignore the influence race, culture and religion has over them.
“To understand the thought processes of any one individual one cannot ignore the influence race, culture and religion has over them.”
That’s right, now if you believe Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution, our ancestors were actually apes and monkeys. But as we developing on the outside to become more human, there are unfortunate cases when the thought process didn’t, these people remain very much apes and monkeys although they appear human. We have many fine examples in Malaysia; one of them is Khairy Jamaludin.
But the process of evolution does not stand still – it continues.
In Malaysia all those outside the loop of special rights become tougher and smarter if they survive or they become criminals peddling vice and illegal vcds.
Those with the special rights develop the crutch mentality and become more aggressive when you question their rights as that mode prolongs their survival. The smarter ones in this group can also become immensely rich.
That is the process of evolution in Malaysia.
“You know my friends, there comes a time when people get tired of being trampled by the iron feet of oppression …” Martin Luther King
Process of evolution stated by HJ Angus, is true for Msia, and is indeed very bad and sad for Msia in the long run! In this globalized world, Msia how??