We have a situation here where everyone is confused about the difference between rights and privileges and they want their privileges to be treated as rights while at the same time they refuse to respect the rights of others, which are real rights and not just privileges.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Yesterday’s article, ‘Still can’t get it?’ (READ HERE), revealed a very interesting phenomena. The readers from Sabah and Sarawak, plus a number of Chinese readers, were arguing about whether Sabah and Sarawak obtained independence in 1957 or 1963, whether Malaya and Borneo were ever colonised in the first place, and so on. One reader even suggested that Tunku Abdul Rahman shouted ‘Malaya Merdeka’ and not ‘Malaysia Merdeka’.
And, mind you, that article was not even about these issues.
I pointed this out before when I said if we write an article about cruelty to dogs and what we should do about it, some readers will hotly debate the colour of the dog collar — as if that will solve the problem of cruelty to dogs and address the issue of how the local council workers round up stray dogs and torture them to death (and mostly Indian workers, mind you, because Malays do not want to do any job that involves dogs or pigs).
Today, Dr Abdul Aziz Bari raised a very relevant matter in his article ‘The anomaly of the immigration powers for Sabah and Sarawak’ (READ HERE). I suppose those from Sabah and Sarawak who are most protective of their ‘autonomous’ status and their 20/18 Point Agreements would not readily agree with Dr Aziz’s views. They would be of the opinion that it is the right of Sabah and Sarawak as to who can and cannot be allowed into their states.
I would not disagree with that. As agreed, immigration is a state matter and Sabah and Sarawak can decide what their policies are going to be. So who can and cannot enter their states is for the state to decide. That is their right.
However, while the rest of the country is obligated to respect Sabah’s and Sarawak’s rights regarding their states’ immigration policies, are these two states also prepared to respect the rights of the other states regarding their policies as well?
You see, while you demand that others respect your rights, you cannot in that same breath say you do not respect the rights of others. If you want others to respect your rights then you, too, must respect the rights of others. This cannot be a one-way street. Others must respect your rights but you do not need to respect the rights of others. This is a very selfish and inconsiderate attitude.
For example, while we can agree that immigration is a state matter, but only in Sabah and Sarawak, religion, meaning Islam, of course, is also a state matter. Hence, just as Sabah and Sarawak can decide their state policies regarding immigration, other states can also decide their policies regarding religion.
Selangor, for instance, can decide its policy regarding Islam and the Sharia. And if Selangor says that Muslims cannot do this or the other, or non-Muslims cannot do certain things that in the opinion of the state affects the status and wellbeing of Islam, then the state has every right to do that and it would be very difficult to protest if we do not like it — just like it would be very difficult to protest when Sabah and Sarawak bar certain people from entering their states.
I agree that some Malays, meaning Muslims, are misguided and paranoid. They also suffer from a siege mentality. I have said so myself many times and many times I have criticised the Malays and Muslims because of this. And because of my criticism towards the Malays and Muslims, I have been labelled a traitor to my race and an apostate and have even been detained for the so-called crime of insulting Islam.
Hence you do not need to whack the Malays or Muslims. I have already done that so many times. But this does not mean the non-Malays or non-Muslims are not also guilty of the same attitude and mentality.
The Malays feel it is their right as Malays to enjoy the benefits of preferential treatment under an affirmative action policy — what used to be called the New Economic Policy and then the National Economic Policy and so on. The non-Malays, of course, do not call this an affirmative action policy but call it a rent-seeking policy or crutches policy, etc., to degrade and vilify the Malays. Some non-Malays even call it Apartheid, the ultimate insult to the Malays.
The Malays, somehow, feel that this is their right. I, personally, would not call it a right but a privilege. The Malays are given certain privileges over the non-Malays. They are not given special rights, as many Malays seem to think. And there are no special rights for the Malays mentioned in the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, as Malays also seem to think.
But how do I educate the Malays when Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad himself has admitted that he failed to change the mindset of the Malays when he was Malaysia’s Prime Minister for 22 years? If Dr Mahathir failed can I succeed? I doubt it.
The problem, however, is not just the Malays. Most Malaysians do not understand the difference between rights and privileges. For example, Facebook users do not understand that their Facebookaccount is a privilege, which Facebook can take back by closing down your Facebook account if you abuse your privileges. (Even I have had a couple of my articles blocked by Facebook because of ‘policy violation’).
And Malaysia Today readers, too, do not understand that you do not have any right to post comments in Malaysia Today. You only have the privilege of posting comments in Malaysia Today and the administration of Malaysia Today can decide which postings get approved and which do not.
As I said, not only Malays are confused about the difference between rights and privileges. Non-Malays, too, suffer this same disease.
Indians of Hindu persuasion consider it their right to build temples wherever they want, even on land that does not belong to them. Christians consider it their right to use Allah in the Bible even though religion is a state matter and the state has the right to decide on this matter. Chinese consider it their right to build Chinese schools and propagate Chinese education even though, under the national education policy and the Constitution, Bahasa Malaysia is the language of the Federation.
We have a situation here where everyone is confused about the difference between rights and privileges and they want their privileges to be treated as rights while at the same time they refuse to respect the rights of others, which are real rights and not just privileges.
Okay, and can we now debate whether Sabah and Sarawak ‘joined’ Malaysia or ‘teamed up’ with Malaya to form Malaysia and whether Merdeka was in 1957 or 1963 although my article is not about those issues?
