Surely the author has forgotten to put quotation marks into the following statement and/or the editors of New Mandala have forgotten to remind him: “This activity is reinforced by the use of terms like ‘proxy war against foreign intervention, and extreme ideologies like communism and homosexuality’ “. Or does New Mandala really propose to think of homosexuality as an “ideology” and a “dangerous” one for that? I do understand that NM is interested in new articles, and this one is actually rather informative, but please read and edit the stuff before publishing it, otherwise it’s embarrassing.
Perhaps if I explain in more detail my comments will not be removed. How many articles has NM posted which are identical to this one? I can recall several, all from the same Beltway think tanks, and all identical in content. I did not mock Madeleine Albright’s role in the Genocide Prevention Taskforce to pour scorn on global victims of genocide, or on the author of this article. It is simply that the juxtaposition of a neo-con serial warmonger with ‘Genocide Prevention’ reaches Himalayan heights of irony.
To cut to the chase, this article is pure propaganda. I’m sure the author is a nice person, whose only error is in following the herd. However, there is a moral obligation to laugh at the absurd lengths to which dying empires will go to cover up their crimes and to fabricate bogus narratives. We are now at the stage where America’s credibility has long since stretched past it’s breaking point. The US lecturing Myanmar on the treatment of minorities, migrants and Islamic militants is offensive and totally hypocritical, but it is better to laugh than to get angry. In the past, I have sought to counter this kind of repetitive propaganda by repeating ‘Rohingya are Bangladeshi’ in reply, but now I have decided to just have a good laugh instead. In due course every one of these make believe imperial narratives will unravel leaving countless faux-liberal academics with egg on their face. One will be able to hear their bleating cries fading into the distance as history leaves them behind.
While I agree with the main thrust of the article, I am not aware that any Government has yet called for an independent international investigation, only “the usual suspects”. The reason is that such a call has little or no chance of broad support. Among the UN Perm Five in the Security Council, China has its own problems with Uigurs, Russia with the Chechens, the US under Donald Trump now seems hostile to Muslims, which leaves the UK and France who are in a tussle over Brexit and The War (Boris v. Hollande).
The OIC have suggested a “high-level delegation” which Suu Kyi will ignore, ASEAN proposed an “eminent persons group” which stands a little better chance, especially if this particular initiative could be taken up by the new UN Sec Gen Antonio Guterres who knows Myanmar quite well. To be of any value at all, though, such an initiative sponsored by the UN Sec Gen must have access to Myanmar, and this requires very careful negotiation for which the time has not yet come.
Yanghee Lee is doing an excellent job, but I would be surprised if she proposes any UN Inquiry initiative, as her predecessor Tomas Ojea Quintana was at one point inclined, as it is not in her mandate. It could be proposed at the Human Rights Council in March, but I wonder which Government would do so. No one likes pushing for a consensus which is bound to fail and could even make things worse for the Rohingya, not better. Kofi Annan is doing his very best with his team. At least he has access to the country and it would be a mistake to undermine his mission.
Suu Kyi, incidentally, has said that she was never a human rights advocate, but always a politician. It is our mistake that we thrust on her any human rights icon.
What is important is that the international community should maintain its interest and pressure, but already there are concerns that the international Rohingya lobby are monopolizing the field to the detriment of Kachin, Shan and Karen advocates who are finding it difficult to make their voices heard about equally serious problems in other parts of the country.
Bhumibol was the occupant at a time when the institution of monarchy evolved in a direction that brought back much of the power it had in the days of absolutism. As an individual he was suited to the process. He played the carefully staged rôle of public benefactor well. What undid him were his decisive actions in ensuring that challengers for that rôle were rubbed out at all costs. The costs have been enormous. Thailand would be a much better place with institutions that permitted more rôles for public benefactors, and more open competition for them. The fact that he was prepared to tear his country apart to crush that development indicates that as a man, he was more concerned for his own status than for the welfare of his people.
me thinks it is unfair and unusual for the author to portray the ‘Lazy Native’ thesis (her father’s own life’s work) as a ‘disgruntled trope’ by citing Mahathir and a Zaharah Sulaiman, a nativist quasi-historian.
I have thought for quite a long time that my view of the contribution to Thailand of the late King, was excessively bleak. I believe that far from being the father of the nation and the caretaker of all people Thai, he was actually the biggest problem and is ultimately the source of most of what ails Thailand now. This person, who (in my view and perhaps in collusion with the military but in any case no doubt savouring his final reward as we speak) was endeavouring to restore the absolute monarchy in Thailand, including its fabulous wealth, which now amounts to about 20,000 THB for every one of the nearly 70 million men, women and children in Thailand. Wicked is the only word for it. Wicked.
One of the ways he proposed (or was proposed to him) should be used to kid the populace that he didn’t need to defecate or urinate every day (and therefore must be a God, or at the very least a demi-God), was to persuade Thais of his divinity and therefor infallibility, which his legions of hangers-on made due profit from. In doing this, he follows the prime example of Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Persuade the poor proles that you speak for God or are God’s sole or otherwise direct representative on earth, and then threaten them with hellfire (or in this case coming back for the next life as a cripple or a pauper or some such nonsense). Simple stuff and effective, but cynical and dishonest, and much more fitting for the stone age rather than now. Never mind that you are in particular setting an example of patronage and corruption that will one day sink the nation.
In retrospect, far from being unduly gloomy about this guy and his legacy, it turns out I wasn’t nearly gloomy enough. I wonder if this post will make it through moderation…?
There are so many elite Malays who speak less Malay than Malaysian-Chinese, mostly having studied in UK. No one CARES about speaking ability/ It is the racist educational system at issue and the use of language by UMNO and PAS to conquer and divide. Anyone who knew Tunku (I did somewhat) knows that his English was better than his Malay and that Mahathir, Rais, Najib, Zahid and many other are illiterate in both languages. That is NOT why they are despised. Manglish, English, Malay, and all the Chinese and Indian dialects have been part of Malaysian society for centuries. It is the political manipulation of languages that degrades the social value of linguistic communication and NOT the language itself. EVERY nation has at lease 3-4 patois (“Rojak-Rojak” if you will, or “Campur-Campur”). Papua New Guinea has over 200 languages, maybe all these linguistic grumps should move to Port Moresby.
Thank you John, 88% is still far from the quoted “This country is Buddhist almost 100%”.
You are right about the Australian treatment not being civilized, far from it. in my defense I did say ‘more civilized’ as a response to:
“they MUST be thrown out of the country as many government can. They have NO RIGHTS TO CLAIM ANYTHING FROM THIS COUNTRY”
Yes we all know where sin comes from, I was responding to the word as used by the Burmese person.
Context is everything.
Zahid Hamidi is bashed for being the real PM of Malaysia and for being a racist Fascist. Yatim is not bashed for his Minang ancestry but for being a liar and hack for Mahathir during the Baling Incident and other lias that Rais put forward for his own gain. How well they speak Malay or English is hardly the primary reason for enmity. A bully and liar remain a bully and liar in any language.
Masturah is not being disingenuous whatsoever and in fact, like Syed, she is refreshingly not disingenuous, but honest. It is laughable to hear young folk who get their talking points from tenured faculty (all beholden to UMNO) but never personally experienced the Independence period. I have seen almost no defence of Kassim Ahmad, another Malay intellectual, on NM except by Professor Kessler. Likely, very few Malaysians even know who Kassim Ahmad is. The same would apply to Syed Alatas. The precociousness of his intellect cannot be substituted by bragging sociobabble.
One learns a language based on a perceived need. One does not like to learn a language if that is shove down one’s throat.
Unless you carry the Taliban’s mindset of shoving everything down someone’s, failing which you slice his/her throat, leave others linguistic preference alone.
Btw, I m proficient in English, Malay, Chinese (5 dialects) & Thai with a splattering of Urdu.
“My article here is about the Lazy Native book and Alatas, and the hyperlinked article again links to Alatas’ idea of the captive mind which is everywhere in Lazy Native.”
It is unfortunate that you have not elaborated or accentuated your father’s notion of ‘captive mind’. This oversight is present in your previous New Mandala article as well.
Yes, the ‘captive mind’ points to imitative thinking, but as Alatas wrote in 1974 (Education and the Captive Mind), the concept distinguishes between “constructive” imitation and its “negative” counterpart. The former can be seen as critical re-appropriation and the latter uncritical emulation.
Might I suggest that we would benefit more from current race scholarship if we applied that distinction? So for example, going by Alatas’ “constructive” imitation, local scholars could perhaps draw out parallels from foreign concepts and issues, and use them to examine domestic problems.
I would argue that Sangeetha and Adeline have utilised “constructive” imitation, albeit with lesser finesse. Both of them have acknowledged the limits and contextual problems of their conception of Chinese privilege.
Excellent, I wish I could refer to it on my website. The fact, however, is that my family (including my children) live in Thailand. I can, however, say, pls keep going, Andrew, the world needs people like you.
Language requirement for granting citizenship is not unusual. You can check citizenship requirement for UK and USA.
With regards to Malaysia, language requirement for granting citizenship also exist in Malaysian constitution. You can check 16(d), 19(1) (c), 19(2) (c).
As far as citizenship of anyone born after 31 August 1957, there is no language requirement. Nevertheless, since language requirement is needed for granting Malaysian citizenship, is it odd and ironic that people from outside had to learn Malay language to be granted citizenship while the people that born here not making any effort to learn the Malay language which is deeply rooted historically and culturally in this region and is Malaysian national language just because there is no need to because the Malaysian constitution does not say so. What kind of citizen is that???
Besides, based on this article:
“Datuk Zainal Kling wrote in Mingguan Malaysia, the Sunday edition of local daily Utusan Malaysia, that language used to be a requirement for citizenship, but Parliament removed this when then Gerakan co-founder Tan Sri Dr Tan Chee Khoon said Malaysians had already learned Bahasa Melayu, which is also the country’s national language, well in Chinese and Indian vernacular schools as well as in national schools”
Being citizen in this region not just because the constitution says so. It is more than that. It means the willingness to participate and accepting the culture of the society that you live in which Malay language is one of the important aspects.
Unwillingness to learn Malay language is like you are saying that you only a citizen by paper only but not in the true sense and essence since you are not willing participate and accepting the culture of the society that you live in.
It is true for any countries you reside in the world. You cannot reside in UK, China, Japan and Korea, not wanting to learn English, Chinese, Japanese and Korean and there is need or pressure to learn that language you are crying “violation of human’s right”.
“Koh and Thanapal are not mentioned once in the article apart from a hyperlinked reference.”
Why hyperlink to their work then? Why portray the discourse of racial privilege as “rants”? Sure, Thanapal seems eager to equate herself with the entire discourse, but why enable her work? Are they straw-men for you to easily knock down?
Why didn’t you hyperlink to the racial work of Tania Li or Suriani Suratnam or Daniel PS Goh or Lily Zubaidah or Chua Beng Huat or the many other proven academics who have covered the dynamics of racial privilege in Singapore?
“And Alatas’ work has helped in the analysis and discussion of racial problems and grievances in Singapore and Malaysia, not dismissed it. That is the point. Once again, this confirms that some people know so little about the man and his work and the work that others do on both.”
Nobody disputes the utility of Alatas’ work. He is a trailblazer, a giant among giants, beloved and revered. Instead, people are disputing yours.
Again, should readers be intimate with Alatas personally to know his work or be able to use, critique, or support it? Most of us don’t have the privilege of having him as our father, or the privilege to apparently interact with his distinguished associates, which you have no problem name-dropping.
“Koh and Thanapal are not mentioned once in the article apart from a hyperlinked reference. They (not me) attribute the concept CP to themselves. So do not make false attributions to claims I do not make.”
Yet, Koh and Thanapal seem to feature prominently in your New Mandala articles. I’m certainly not a fan of them, but I think it is in your intellectual interest to engage higher-quality scholarship, one that has touched on Chinese privilege. Readers would very much like to hear your own thoughts on race, racism, and racial privilege in Singapore.
Mind you though, that race relations in Singapore is different from Malaysia, so I hope your justified critique of Malay-Malaysian supremacy will not taint your critique of its equivalent in Singapore. We cannot risk indulging in the inappropriate linkage that you have rightfully criticised Koh and Thanapal of.
“Finally, Alatas gets called Alatas and not Hussein but I get called Masturah by a complete stranger.”
Apologies, you seem offended.
I also would like to again point out the reductionist logic you use in this article, where the category of race is depicted as a reflex of class and demographics.
I must admit to being constitutionally incapable of speaking about “Brits” and their perverse relationship with my language without getting my tongue (lingua) stuck firmly in my cheek.
Myth from the Greek mythos. Exactly what Alatas and translator wanted to evoke with the word Mitos, the referential association of the linguistic sign ‘Mitos’ to Myth and mythos.
Anyone who has read The Myth of the Lazy Native will know that the entire book is about racist and racialising colonial and postcolonial endeavours and discourse. It is Alatas who does not adopt this stance.
And Alatas’ work has helped in the analysis and discussion of racial problems and grievances in Singapore and Malaysia, not dismissed it. That is the point. Once again, this confirms that some people know so little about the man and his work and the work that others do on both.
Koh and Thanapal are not mentioned once in the article apart from a hyperlinked reference. They (not me) attribute the concept CP to themselves. So do not make false attributions to claims I do not make. My article here is about the Lazy Native book and Alatas, and the hyperlinked article again links to Alatas’ idea of the captive mind which is everywhere in Lazy Native.
Finally, Alatas gets called Alatas and not Hussein but I get called Masturah by a complete stranger.
Rohingya boys and girls as young as 11 and 12 spoke of atrocities they had witnessed that forced them to flee Myanmar’s Rakhine state in recent weeks, with some telling BenarNews they saw Burmese security personnel burn their siblings alive.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The dangerous ideology behind Bela Negara
Surely the author has forgotten to put quotation marks into the following statement and/or the editors of New Mandala have forgotten to remind him: “This activity is reinforced by the use of terms like ‘proxy war against foreign intervention, and extreme ideologies like communism and homosexuality’ “. Or does New Mandala really propose to think of homosexuality as an “ideology” and a “dangerous” one for that? I do understand that NM is interested in new articles, and this one is actually rather informative, but please read and edit the stuff before publishing it, otherwise it’s embarrassing.
The Rohingya crisis and Suu Kyi’s chance
Perhaps if I explain in more detail my comments will not be removed. How many articles has NM posted which are identical to this one? I can recall several, all from the same Beltway think tanks, and all identical in content. I did not mock Madeleine Albright’s role in the Genocide Prevention Taskforce to pour scorn on global victims of genocide, or on the author of this article. It is simply that the juxtaposition of a neo-con serial warmonger with ‘Genocide Prevention’ reaches Himalayan heights of irony.
To cut to the chase, this article is pure propaganda. I’m sure the author is a nice person, whose only error is in following the herd. However, there is a moral obligation to laugh at the absurd lengths to which dying empires will go to cover up their crimes and to fabricate bogus narratives. We are now at the stage where America’s credibility has long since stretched past it’s breaking point. The US lecturing Myanmar on the treatment of minorities, migrants and Islamic militants is offensive and totally hypocritical, but it is better to laugh than to get angry. In the past, I have sought to counter this kind of repetitive propaganda by repeating ‘Rohingya are Bangladeshi’ in reply, but now I have decided to just have a good laugh instead. In due course every one of these make believe imperial narratives will unravel leaving countless faux-liberal academics with egg on their face. One will be able to hear their bleating cries fading into the distance as history leaves them behind.
The Rohingya crisis and Suu Kyi’s chance
While I agree with the main thrust of the article, I am not aware that any Government has yet called for an independent international investigation, only “the usual suspects”. The reason is that such a call has little or no chance of broad support. Among the UN Perm Five in the Security Council, China has its own problems with Uigurs, Russia with the Chechens, the US under Donald Trump now seems hostile to Muslims, which leaves the UK and France who are in a tussle over Brexit and The War (Boris v. Hollande).
The OIC have suggested a “high-level delegation” which Suu Kyi will ignore, ASEAN proposed an “eminent persons group” which stands a little better chance, especially if this particular initiative could be taken up by the new UN Sec Gen Antonio Guterres who knows Myanmar quite well. To be of any value at all, though, such an initiative sponsored by the UN Sec Gen must have access to Myanmar, and this requires very careful negotiation for which the time has not yet come.
Yanghee Lee is doing an excellent job, but I would be surprised if she proposes any UN Inquiry initiative, as her predecessor Tomas Ojea Quintana was at one point inclined, as it is not in her mandate. It could be proposed at the Human Rights Council in March, but I wonder which Government would do so. No one likes pushing for a consensus which is bound to fail and could even make things worse for the Rohingya, not better. Kofi Annan is doing his very best with his team. At least he has access to the country and it would be a mistake to undermine his mission.
Suu Kyi, incidentally, has said that she was never a human rights advocate, but always a politician. It is our mistake that we thrust on her any human rights icon.
What is important is that the international community should maintain its interest and pressure, but already there are concerns that the international Rohingya lobby are monopolizing the field to the detriment of Kachin, Shan and Karen advocates who are finding it difficult to make their voices heard about equally serious problems in other parts of the country.
Eyes on the spies in Thailand
Bhumibol was the occupant at a time when the institution of monarchy evolved in a direction that brought back much of the power it had in the days of absolutism. As an individual he was suited to the process. He played the carefully staged rôle of public benefactor well. What undid him were his decisive actions in ensuring that challengers for that rôle were rubbed out at all costs. The costs have been enormous. Thailand would be a much better place with institutions that permitted more rôles for public benefactors, and more open competition for them. The fact that he was prepared to tear his country apart to crush that development indicates that as a man, he was more concerned for his own status than for the welfare of his people.
Four decades of a Malay myth
me thinks it is unfair and unusual for the author to portray the ‘Lazy Native’ thesis (her father’s own life’s work) as a ‘disgruntled trope’ by citing Mahathir and a Zaharah Sulaiman, a nativist quasi-historian.
Eyes on the spies in Thailand
Another (to my mind) important piece.
I have thought for quite a long time that my view of the contribution to Thailand of the late King, was excessively bleak. I believe that far from being the father of the nation and the caretaker of all people Thai, he was actually the biggest problem and is ultimately the source of most of what ails Thailand now. This person, who (in my view and perhaps in collusion with the military but in any case no doubt savouring his final reward as we speak) was endeavouring to restore the absolute monarchy in Thailand, including its fabulous wealth, which now amounts to about 20,000 THB for every one of the nearly 70 million men, women and children in Thailand. Wicked is the only word for it. Wicked.
One of the ways he proposed (or was proposed to him) should be used to kid the populace that he didn’t need to defecate or urinate every day (and therefore must be a God, or at the very least a demi-God), was to persuade Thais of his divinity and therefor infallibility, which his legions of hangers-on made due profit from. In doing this, he follows the prime example of Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Persuade the poor proles that you speak for God or are God’s sole or otherwise direct representative on earth, and then threaten them with hellfire (or in this case coming back for the next life as a cripple or a pauper or some such nonsense). Simple stuff and effective, but cynical and dishonest, and much more fitting for the stone age rather than now. Never mind that you are in particular setting an example of patronage and corruption that will one day sink the nation.
In retrospect, far from being unduly gloomy about this guy and his legacy, it turns out I wasn’t nearly gloomy enough. I wonder if this post will make it through moderation…?
Language shaming in Malaysia
There are so many elite Malays who speak less Malay than Malaysian-Chinese, mostly having studied in UK. No one CARES about speaking ability/ It is the racist educational system at issue and the use of language by UMNO and PAS to conquer and divide. Anyone who knew Tunku (I did somewhat) knows that his English was better than his Malay and that Mahathir, Rais, Najib, Zahid and many other are illiterate in both languages. That is NOT why they are despised. Manglish, English, Malay, and all the Chinese and Indian dialects have been part of Malaysian society for centuries. It is the political manipulation of languages that degrades the social value of linguistic communication and NOT the language itself. EVERY nation has at lease 3-4 patois (“Rojak-Rojak” if you will, or “Campur-Campur”). Papua New Guinea has over 200 languages, maybe all these linguistic grumps should move to Port Moresby.
Four decades of a Malay myth
If there is one word in Malay for ‘myth’, I think, it would be ‘karut’.
Reality check on Islam, Buddhism in Myanmar
Thank you John, 88% is still far from the quoted “This country is Buddhist almost 100%”.
You are right about the Australian treatment not being civilized, far from it. in my defense I did say ‘more civilized’ as a response to:
“they MUST be thrown out of the country as many government can. They have NO RIGHTS TO CLAIM ANYTHING FROM THIS COUNTRY”
Yes we all know where sin comes from, I was responding to the word as used by the Burmese person.
Context is everything.
Language shaming in Malaysia
Zahid Hamidi is bashed for being the real PM of Malaysia and for being a racist Fascist. Yatim is not bashed for his Minang ancestry but for being a liar and hack for Mahathir during the Baling Incident and other lias that Rais put forward for his own gain. How well they speak Malay or English is hardly the primary reason for enmity. A bully and liar remain a bully and liar in any language.
Four decades of a Malay myth
Masturah is not being disingenuous whatsoever and in fact, like Syed, she is refreshingly not disingenuous, but honest. It is laughable to hear young folk who get their talking points from tenured faculty (all beholden to UMNO) but never personally experienced the Independence period. I have seen almost no defence of Kassim Ahmad, another Malay intellectual, on NM except by Professor Kessler. Likely, very few Malaysians even know who Kassim Ahmad is. The same would apply to Syed Alatas. The precociousness of his intellect cannot be substituted by bragging sociobabble.
Language shaming in Malaysia
One learns a language based on a perceived need. One does not like to learn a language if that is shove down one’s throat.
Unless you carry the Taliban’s mindset of shoving everything down someone’s, failing which you slice his/her throat, leave others linguistic preference alone.
Btw, I m proficient in English, Malay, Chinese (5 dialects) & Thai with a splattering of Urdu.
Four decades of a Malay myth
“My article here is about the Lazy Native book and Alatas, and the hyperlinked article again links to Alatas’ idea of the captive mind which is everywhere in Lazy Native.”
It is unfortunate that you have not elaborated or accentuated your father’s notion of ‘captive mind’. This oversight is present in your previous New Mandala article as well.
Yes, the ‘captive mind’ points to imitative thinking, but as Alatas wrote in 1974 (Education and the Captive Mind), the concept distinguishes between “constructive” imitation and its “negative” counterpart. The former can be seen as critical re-appropriation and the latter uncritical emulation.
Might I suggest that we would benefit more from current race scholarship if we applied that distinction? So for example, going by Alatas’ “constructive” imitation, local scholars could perhaps draw out parallels from foreign concepts and issues, and use them to examine domestic problems.
I would argue that Sangeetha and Adeline have utilised “constructive” imitation, albeit with lesser finesse. Both of them have acknowledged the limits and contextual problems of their conception of Chinese privilege.
Eyes on the spies in Thailand
Excellent, I wish I could refer to it on my website. The fact, however, is that my family (including my children) live in Thailand. I can, however, say, pls keep going, Andrew, the world needs people like you.
Language shaming in Malaysia
Language requirement for granting citizenship is not unusual. You can check citizenship requirement for UK and USA.
With regards to Malaysia, language requirement for granting citizenship also exist in Malaysian constitution. You can check 16(d), 19(1) (c), 19(2) (c).
As far as citizenship of anyone born after 31 August 1957, there is no language requirement. Nevertheless, since language requirement is needed for granting Malaysian citizenship, is it odd and ironic that people from outside had to learn Malay language to be granted citizenship while the people that born here not making any effort to learn the Malay language which is deeply rooted historically and culturally in this region and is Malaysian national language just because there is no need to because the Malaysian constitution does not say so. What kind of citizen is that???
Besides, based on this article:
“Datuk Zainal Kling wrote in Mingguan Malaysia, the Sunday edition of local daily Utusan Malaysia, that language used to be a requirement for citizenship, but Parliament removed this when then Gerakan co-founder Tan Sri Dr Tan Chee Khoon said Malaysians had already learned Bahasa Melayu, which is also the country’s national language, well in Chinese and Indian vernacular schools as well as in national schools”
http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/academic-restrict-mykads-from-kids-who-cant-speak-malay
Being citizen in this region not just because the constitution says so. It is more than that. It means the willingness to participate and accepting the culture of the society that you live in which Malay language is one of the important aspects.
Unwillingness to learn Malay language is like you are saying that you only a citizen by paper only but not in the true sense and essence since you are not willing participate and accepting the culture of the society that you live in.
It is true for any countries you reside in the world. You cannot reside in UK, China, Japan and Korea, not wanting to learn English, Chinese, Japanese and Korean and there is need or pressure to learn that language you are crying “violation of human’s right”.
Four decades of a Malay myth
“Koh and Thanapal are not mentioned once in the article apart from a hyperlinked reference.”
Why hyperlink to their work then? Why portray the discourse of racial privilege as “rants”? Sure, Thanapal seems eager to equate herself with the entire discourse, but why enable her work? Are they straw-men for you to easily knock down?
Why didn’t you hyperlink to the racial work of Tania Li or Suriani Suratnam or Daniel PS Goh or Lily Zubaidah or Chua Beng Huat or the many other proven academics who have covered the dynamics of racial privilege in Singapore?
Four decades of a Malay myth
“And Alatas’ work has helped in the analysis and discussion of racial problems and grievances in Singapore and Malaysia, not dismissed it. That is the point. Once again, this confirms that some people know so little about the man and his work and the work that others do on both.”
Nobody disputes the utility of Alatas’ work. He is a trailblazer, a giant among giants, beloved and revered. Instead, people are disputing yours.
Again, should readers be intimate with Alatas personally to know his work or be able to use, critique, or support it? Most of us don’t have the privilege of having him as our father, or the privilege to apparently interact with his distinguished associates, which you have no problem name-dropping.
“Koh and Thanapal are not mentioned once in the article apart from a hyperlinked reference. They (not me) attribute the concept CP to themselves. So do not make false attributions to claims I do not make.”
Yet, Koh and Thanapal seem to feature prominently in your New Mandala articles. I’m certainly not a fan of them, but I think it is in your intellectual interest to engage higher-quality scholarship, one that has touched on Chinese privilege. Readers would very much like to hear your own thoughts on race, racism, and racial privilege in Singapore.
Mind you though, that race relations in Singapore is different from Malaysia, so I hope your justified critique of Malay-Malaysian supremacy will not taint your critique of its equivalent in Singapore. We cannot risk indulging in the inappropriate linkage that you have rightfully criticised Koh and Thanapal of.
“Finally, Alatas gets called Alatas and not Hussein but I get called Masturah by a complete stranger.”
Apologies, you seem offended.
I also would like to again point out the reductionist logic you use in this article, where the category of race is depicted as a reflex of class and demographics.
Language shaming in Malaysia
Thanks Ida Bakar.
I must admit to being constitutionally incapable of speaking about “Brits” and their perverse relationship with my language without getting my tongue (lingua) stuck firmly in my cheek.
Four decades of a Malay myth
Myth from the Greek mythos. Exactly what Alatas and translator wanted to evoke with the word Mitos, the referential association of the linguistic sign ‘Mitos’ to Myth and mythos.
Anyone who has read The Myth of the Lazy Native will know that the entire book is about racist and racialising colonial and postcolonial endeavours and discourse. It is Alatas who does not adopt this stance.
And Alatas’ work has helped in the analysis and discussion of racial problems and grievances in Singapore and Malaysia, not dismissed it. That is the point. Once again, this confirms that some people know so little about the man and his work and the work that others do on both.
Koh and Thanapal are not mentioned once in the article apart from a hyperlinked reference. They (not me) attribute the concept CP to themselves. So do not make false attributions to claims I do not make. My article here is about the Lazy Native book and Alatas, and the hyperlinked article again links to Alatas’ idea of the captive mind which is everywhere in Lazy Native.
Finally, Alatas gets called Alatas and not Hussein but I get called Masturah by a complete stranger.
Decades of denial as Rohingya genocide continues
Rohingya boys and girls as young as 11 and 12 spoke of atrocities they had witnessed that forced them to flee Myanmar’s Rakhine state in recent weeks, with some telling BenarNews they saw Burmese security personnel burn their siblings alive.
http://www.rfa.org/english/news/myanmar/rohingya-children-01232017172058.html