Lie hides violence - Violence maintains lie!

malaysiakini columnist Stanley Koh informed us in his article ‘UMNO bares its true colours’, that Russian ‘Gulag Archipelago’ Solzhenitsyn once warned humanity that: “Violence can only be concealed by a lie and the lie can only be maintained by violence.”

The racist comments, the promised violence, threats of Kuala Lumpur as a battle zone for a new May 13, blood. the drawing of the keris by the chief of its most virulent wing, UMNO Youth - what were these?

Just as a reminder Malacca delegate Hasnoor Hussein said: “Umno is willing to risk lives and bathe in blood to defend the race and religion. Don’t play with fire. If they mess with our rights, we will mess with theirs.”

The Perlis delegate called on UMNO Youth chief not to just draw, wave or kiss his keris, but to use it!

If those aren’t acts and threats of violence, then what were they?

An UMNO bloke tried to mask the significance of the keris, alluding to the King carrying two ceremonial keris as evident that the Malay weapon was only symbols of power, and even honour.

I response to that by asking for the context within which the keris was used.

So, let’s not forget that the keris is also a weapon, where Hang Tuah, Malay most famous hero, used one to kill his best friend, blood brother and the man who valiantly defended him (Tuah) against the oppressive ungrateful Sultan.

Thus in Malay legend the keris was a weapon to kill, and in the final conflict between Hang Tuah – Hang Jebat it was one, not of honour, but of treachery and betrayal, of the triumph of sycophancy over friendship.

OK, we have the violence, in fact lots of them, so where's the lie?

Stanley Koh commented:

“The most damaging aspect that has tarnished Umnoputeras and the integrity of Umno overall was the double standards its ruling leaders adopted. Umnoputera leaders in government banned the inter-faith dialogues under the pretext of preventing racial problems but at its own assembly allowing certain Umno delegates from getting away with strongly worded remarks viewed by many as seditious.”

He said: “… in truth, the assembly was more concerned with executing its foremost strategic priority to shore up maximum political support for its party president Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.”

“Secondly, the leadership turned a blind eye to delegates deliberately playing to the gallery or the racial card for a better preference to consolidate the mindset of the Malay voting masses on the Malay agenda through live telecast in view for the coming general elections. All other orchestrated logistic activities seemed to deem periphery to the main objectives.

“Seasoned political observers generally believed that the “thinking cap” was very much in place in executing the logistic and strategy of the huge event. Careful selection of speaking delegates and even the pre-planned agenda or content of speeches were subjected to finer tuning to ensure maximum exploitation of the political mileage. Vindictive criticisms were deliberately put in place to raise the mood and tone by selected political actors.”

“Without the hidden approval from some influential leaders, delegates would not have dared to forward such provocative remarks in the first place. It was an assembly trapped in history.”

Thus, UMNO had put on its greatest show on earth for its constituency, to remind them that come 2008, “fear not”, UMNO with its post-Mahathir era president (and his henchmen) are firmly in place to ensure ketuanan Melayu.

That only the UMNO elite enjoys the fruits of Malay supremacy is the real lie!