The Ham and Bull of 'Ketuanan Melayu'

In my post Social contract - a vigorously implemented 'fantasy' I quoted a Malaysiakini news article where Royal Professor Dr Ungku Abdul Aziz said that there was no such thing as a social contract between Malaysia's diverse ethnic communities.

I also mentioned that the Professor’s declaration had buried (at least intellectually) the UMNO ketuanan Melayu propaganda.

Today, Malaysiakini reported that Academics debate the 'social contract'.

Essentially, the concept of ‘ketuanan Melayu’ was resoundingly dismissed, though Professor Shamsul Amri Baharudin of UKM's Institute of Ethnic Studies (Kita) retranslated that term to mean ‘Malay sovereignty’ as opposed to ‘Malay supremacy'.

Dr Azmi Sharom, associate professor, law faculty, Universiti Malaya was more blunt, stating in no uncertain terms that “The original constitution has elements of compromise but that compromise is from the layman’s perspective, the document does not suggest Malay supremacy or mastery.”

He averred: “Ketuanan Melayu is a fallacy. I just don’t see the justification for this. The so-called social contract is relevant only to racists and people who want Malaysians to continue to be divided along racial lines.”

He also added that he was “… uncomfortable with Ungku Aziz’s view that the social contract should be called an economic contract. The society made a compromise and it is not a contract which implies the people are bound to it for life. Citizenship is not about the economy but the society”, meaning at some stage the so-called ‘economic contract’ must also cease.

The other academicians said what Professor James Chin, head of arts, Monash University said articulately: “The context of the 'social contract' that it is being used now implies that non-Malays, in return for their citizenship, have to acknowledge that the Malays are politically supreme and cannot be challenged, ever.”

“Keeping the ‘social contract’ alive implies that non-Malays can never ask for equality. The implication is quite clear as it means that the current argument in having a more equal Malaysia will not succeed.”

Racial supremacy is a nasty ugly piece of bigotry. There are some societies who not only consider themselves as racially superior but actually believe their ethnic supremacy had been divinely preordained.

Of course we are aware that some Jews believe they are the Chosen People, asserting that God has picked them above others of His creation. Some Christians also supported this racist theory. On this fallacious fable, they (those Jews and Christians) would refer you to the Bible, which incidentally was written by Judeans (ancestors of Jews) held in Babylonian captivity around 580-ish BCE.

The other race who believe in their own special divine status are the Japanese. The Japanese believe that Japan is a divine land and their Emperors were/are descendants of Amaterasu, the Sun Goddess.

Nippon or Japan means originating from the sun, or ‘source of the sun’, which incidentally and ironically has a 'cap* 3 kepala Tionghua' label, as the Nippon word can only be written in Kanji or Chinese language.

* 'cap' is a Malay word pronounced as 'charp', meaning 'brand'; 'cap tiga kepala' is a Malaysian joke

In years gone by, the English, and then the Americans believed that they were the true inheritors (or even descendants) of the ancient Hebrews, implying and believing they too were the Chosen. But these two ethnic groups weren't prepared to forego their bacon and ham ;-)

Once I saw on TV a white South African woman blatantly and unabashedly telling the TV interviewer that the blacks, being descendants of Ham, were born to serve as slaves to the whites. According to biblical scholars, Noah (yes, he of the Ark) had a son named Ham. The Bible said:

And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. (Genesis 9:20-22)

Noah was pissed off with Ham for seeing him in his nakedness, but instead of taking his grievance up with Ham, cursed Ham's youngest son Canaan and his descendants to be slaves to his uncles and their descendants. Sheeesh, why punished the poor innocent kid, but mind you, it's bloody convenient for the Hebrews who liked to have slaves.

However, the biblical scholars explained why Noah was mad at his son Ham just for seeing him naked. Apparently ‘seeing the father naked’ was just a euphemism for having sex with the mother. The Bibles also tells us:

You must not expose your father’s nakedness by having sexual intercourse with your mother. She is your mother; you must not have intercourse with her. You must not have sexual intercourse with your father’s wife; she is your father’s nakedness. (Leviticus 18:7-8)

According to Wikipedia: The curse of Ham had been used by some members of Abrahamic religions to justify racism and the enslavement of people of Black African ancestry, who were believed to be descendants of Ham.

Well, I may like bacon and ham but I am not a descendant of Ham ;-) so bugger off to this 'ketuanan Melayu' bull.