Ethnic Relation: Shamsul Amri Relativity

UKM's Malay World and Civilisation propagator, Professor Dr Shamsul Amri Baharuddin, the editor-in-chief of the New Ethnic Relations Module had this to say, in the Q & A with June Ramli of NSTP:

"Also, after reading all the chapters in the older module, I thought that it badly needed a rewrite. Some of the facts were totally wrong while some of the interpretations were biased."

"... with the ethnic relations module, people can say anything which otherwise would be considered seditious or whatever (if there was no module). But this book has allowed open discussions."

Q: But many are questioning why the government chose to omit incidents regarding racial clashes such as that in Kampung Medan in 2001 in the new module. Why?

A: There are many cases of ethnic clashes. Some 60 odd cases in the country, to be exact. ...But the course’s focus is not on ethnic relations crises. If people want to find out about the clashes, they can do so.

Q: Would it be good to list all the clashes in the ethnic relations module?

A: Well, the DAP does not like it. Not the government, remember that. Regarding the last module, no one gave an opinion that it was good to be open about these things. I told the minister that the DAP talked about freedom of speech and autonomy in universities but when its name was mentioned in the UPM book, its leaders got angry. So the answer to all this is hypocrisy, and not the students. The Press also practises hypocrisy. It is only concerned with Kampung Medan and does not look at all the other clashes.

Q: How do you think people should view this course?

A: I think that people should take the advantage of looking at the openness of the subjects and discuss them in an open manner. Malaysians should realise how lucky we are and they should see that everyone in the world wants to use our country as a model country. That means we must be doing something right. Sometimes we do break down and incidents like the one in Kampung Medan are testimony to it. The module is basically a healthy way of looking at ourselves.

I felt perplex by his statements, in particular, when he said that: "Malaysians should realise how lucky we are and they should see that everyone in the world wants to use our country as a model country. That means we must be doing something right."

Other than the Saudi princess who blurted something regarding the Islamic model at the WEF, I am anxious to know what kind of model is referred - ISA, NEP, MA, AP, exploitation, marginalization, 30% free shares, quota system, $600 million for MPs, Bring along your marriage certificates if you visit Malaysia, Deepa-Raya conundrum, Cobra Sultan, Altantuya & C-4 conundrum, Mat Rempit, MyTeam vs MayaTeam, etc.

En Amri, are you saying how lucky we are because we have the Never Ending Policy, that Malaysians are identified by their race, that non-Malays will never be admitted into UiTM, that Bangsa Malaysia is Rojak as claimed by MB Ghani, that 95% of KLC is reserved for Bumiputeras, that no non-Bumis Malaysians cannot be appointed as Director-General of GLCs and Civil Services, that projects are signified only for Bumiputeras, that non-Bumis are second-class citizens, and that all these are construed as we been lucky? Lucky because we are still called Malaysians without similar rights and privileges because of my skin colour and religion?

En Amri, I subscribed to Ethic Relations. I subscribed to the fact that the poor and needy, that include all the Malays and Bumis, must be aided and that the government must take effective actions to uplift their standard of living, to close the gap between the haves and have-nots. I agree that many Malays must be given opportunity, to get into business and enterprenuership, be given adequate education and be trained to be skillful in trades and commerce.

I subscribed that racial barriers must be removed, that individuals of all races must be integrated as a cohesive whole - that's what is the Malaysians' Malaysia ideology and philosophy. But then, the opposition to this ideology is none other than UMNO leaders themselves.

As Ghani said: "Eeven if the term Bangsa Malaysia is to be used, it must only be applied in the context of all the peoples of Malaysia with the Malays as the pivotal race.

En Amri, can you explain what is pivotal race? Which part of the Quran said the Malays are the pivotal race? Only in the Bible did they said that there is one community that is "the chosen people of God". In this context, isn't the statement by Ghani a direct deviation from the Holy Quran and blasphemous?

Raja Nazrin said: "I had a friend whose child has been told not to visit the homes of the non-Malays."

I thought the module of Ethnic relation is to bridge this gap?

This is what Raja Nazrin advised:

"We need role models to bridge racial religious divide."

I believed that Nazrin speaks with profound knowledge. Ethnic relations is not about university students discussing about "slanted information" as perpetrated by the module. The UPM fracas is a stigma in everyones mind and shall remain until the culprits are sanctioned.

If ever we are to bridge the gap, it has to be about role models and should begin with the ruling regime and the legislators. Barisan Nasional should no more be about UMNO-MCA-MIC. Malaysian of all races should be members of any political party as long as they subscribe to the democratic principles which should be the fundamental principles of each and every political parties. But will UMNO leaders, such as Ghani, Baharuddin, Khairy, Rizal, Hishamuddin, and all those aspiring political-powers, be able to accept this reality? If the answer is affirmative, then ethnics relation will be irrelevant and void. Will this be only a dream? As observed, it far more than a dream...

The philosophy of our history is central to the self-understanding and confidence of a modern liberal society. Without knowledge of the earlier modes of unproductive society, individual freedom and social interaction, it would appear that our natural way of life and the inhuman reality remains mystified. It is necessary that the ruling regime and the university professors devote all their intellectual energy to the task of uncovering the truth, the nature and causes of such specific limitations on our society, in totality. Overcoming the historicity of such limitations will provide hope (only, hope) to overcome them. The hope for the future is thus defined by negation of the limitations of the present and not by any specific Utopian blueprints as spinned.

We had to demolish the out-dated political visions of "cosmic" orders and exposes them as illusion. It is one thing to bear one's lot as the "chosen ones" as if it is one's appointed place in the hierarchy of things as ordered by God and nature. If the very idea of society as the embodiment of such a cosmic order is swept aside, if society is rather the common instrument of men who must live under the same political roof to pursue happiness and harmony, then the burdens and deprivations of this station are a savage imposition, against reasons and justice, maintained only by knavery and lies.

We can cry to heaven - if heaven ever existed - for redress, and even vengeance. For, if the political masters are only a subject of desires who aim at their own self-fulfillment of happiness, then nothing in heaven or earth compensates for the loss of happiness of the society as a whole.