Rebutting Dr. M again

I read Dr. Mahathir's post titled "Melayu Oh Melayu" with bewilderment and amusement. Anyone who is familiar with his writings knows he favours writing in English but for this particular piece, it is in the national language, Bahasa Malaysia.
It is patently obvious he intends the conservative Malays to read it. The more conservative they are, the better.

Ignorant readers will not question the contents in this article.Instead, they will readily and blindly accept those as sacred truth.
But here I would like to be the devil's advocate and debunk certain myths he tries to propagate.

First and foremost, in his point no. 5; he readily acknowledges no religion is a specific and definite racial marker to any race before expanding it in point no. 6 that a Chinese could also be a Muslim though majority of them are Buddhists. His implied meaning here is that Buddhism is Chinese in origin.

I am surprised that he, like most people are oblivious to the fact that Buddhism was founded by one of the princes in India.
For his information, like the Malays; majority of Chinese profess religions which were once foreign to them, Islam and Buddhism respectively.

The above could be an honest mistake on his part but as you proceed to read his article, you will realise he asserts his belief that the Malays must be Muslims and if they convert out of the religion, then they cease to be Malays.

I am not encouraging the Malays to leave Islam nor do I dare to even think about it but here we can see our former prime minister's inconsistency in his article. Here I would like to ask two questions:

1. Before Islam came into our shores, the Malay ancestors were Hindus and Buddhists. Were they not Malays?
2. So, only when the later generations converted to Islam, did they suddenly become Malays?

As a person trained in the medical field; he should know better that it is not religion that maketh a man, but his DNA!
Besides, "Religion or Humanity"; which one came first? This is not too difficult a question to ask, unlike the "Chicken and Egg" conundrum.

I have begrudging respect for Dr. Mahathir but I feel it is purely out of political reasons that he wrote this article, not sheer ignorance.
Could it be that he underestimates the Malays' thinking capabilities with this propagandic article?
Politics and Religion cannot and must not be made bedfellows. Otherwise, the consequences would be very dire to a county's development and cohesion among its citizens.

Rebutting Dr. M on Semenanjung Tanah Melayu

It's a crying shame our 4th prime minister of Malaysia, Dr. Mahathir is now a former shadow of himself with his recent views that border on outrageousness and comicality.

Firstly, he tried to ride roughshod over our country's history by implying the Malays have more rightful claim to this country than any other race including even the original inhabitants, Orang Asli.

His audacious attempt at pulling the wool over our eyes must fail since the Malays are undeniably an immigrant race in this country too, much like the Chinese and Indians; only that they settled here earlier.

He may not be wrong on the premise that Malays were the first to put in place a system of government in this country.
Seeking to augment his point, he wilily and craftily quoted several examples of settlers setting up States and Governments in America, Australia, New Zealand and Latin America. Thereupon, the settlers are to be recognised as rightful owners of those lands.

Anyone not familiar with his earlier views may be impressed by this latest argument but taken in a fuller context, it actually rings hollow. Consider the fact he used to make that Malays ran the risk of meeting the same fate as the aborigines in Australia and America if there were no policies that favour the Bumiputeras to shield them from the competition posed by the non-Malays in Malaysia.

Is he trying to promote the idea that if the Malays were the original inhabitants of this land, their rights take precedence over those of other races but since that he now finally acknowledges Malays to be settlers as well, aborigine rights are subservient to the Malay rights? This is a sudden about turn!

He also mischievously took an indirect potshot at the non Malays by stating that immigrants in other countries have stopped identifying themselves as German Americans, Portuguese Australians or Italian Argentineans.

Be that as it may but he must realise that in those countries they do not have outright racist policies compared to Malaysia. With the absence of such regressive policies, surely it makes the assimilation of different races so much easier, no?

Moreover, who really accentuates the racial differences among Malaysians in the first place? Time and again, certain segments of Malaysian populace are being reminded that they are "Pendatang".

I would like to remind Dr. M that in America, persons of immigrant stock can rise to become the President of that nation. Presidents who spring to mind are John F. Kennedy (Irish), Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt (Dutch).

What about in Malaysia?