Melayu or Mamak UMNO?

Dato’ Mohd Ariff Sabri, better known as Sakmongkol AK47 in the blogging world, is pissed off with a certain group of UMNO-ites.

In his latest post Talking Malay on false premises Sak rails against the Mamak-wannabe-Melayu’s in UMNO. He wrote:

How can we force ourselves to suffer fools by allowing ourselves to consume the hate spewing writings of some bloggers whose Malay-ness are questionable?

Why isn't the peddler of rancid curry speaking on behalf and for Kimma members? He looks more kitol-ish that the person he castigates as Kitol. Why isn't the gold nugget seller doing the same? We thank you but no thanks.

Jadi jadi lah kita orang Melayu kena tipu.

I find myself in strange territory listening to people like Reezal Merican, or Azeez speak for the Malays. I would have thought, Malays are better off if these people speak on behalf of KIMMA. I think Malays have got enough talented people to speak for ourselves.

Peddler of rancid curry?

Wow!

I see two observations in Sak’s ire: (a) the Mamak-wannabe-Melayu’s in UMNO have been indulging in, as Sak puts it, 'hate spewing writings', presumably as part of the current UMNO desperate political campaign to agitate Malays into having a siege mentality, and (b) Sak opines these Kimma-ish mamaks wakakaka should be the last people to instigate Malays against nons, when they themselves are really nons, or in his angry words, peddlers of rancid curry (wow again!).

Sak is pissed off because he abhors the mamak-ish manipulative machinations, where these wannabes have brazenly hijacked and driven the Malay agenda into wrong directions, for their (Mamak-wannabe-Melayu’s in UMNO) own interests.

But then, who is a ‘Malay’?

According to the Constitution, even Dr Ridhuan Tee is one, and man, has that bloke ever stopped reminding everyone who reads his column in Utusan of this via his “Kita orang Melayu” mantra, where incidentally his “Kita” assumes all who read his articles would be Melayu’s.

Our Constitution is probably the only one in the world which defines one particular race, namely the Malay, where ...

... he/she is one who embraces Islam, speaks Malay and follows Malay customs and traditions habitually.

The first requirement, that of religion, prevents many baba-nyonya’s from becoming Malays though they are far more Melayu's (even in looks) than most of the Mamak-wannabe-Melayu's in UMNO.

Whether those Mamak-wannabe-Melayu’s in UMNO have fulfilled the Constitution's 2 latter requirements doesn’t seem important as they’ve been fully embraced, including some of those Johans-come-lately who converted after failed marriages to (a) keep full custody of their children, (b) avoid or minimise alimony payments, or (c) marry someone else (usually though not always a nice Melayu sweetie), or various combinations of (a), (b) and/or (c). There is also a fourth motive, sometimes pushed by male relatives (brothers?) of a male deceased, to retain ownership of property

Anyway, in politics, ambitious Mamak-wannabe-Melayu’s in UMNO have to be more vocal and more ethno-heroic than a 'genuine' Melayu (though I wonder who a 'genuine' Melayu may be?) to establish their Melayu credentials.

Sometimes the ultra ethnocentric behaviour could be born from a state of insecurity about their place in their adopted community. At times I wonder whether Dr Ridhuan Tee and one Dr Omar what’s-his-name* Uztaz Ann Wan Seng (who maliciously and gleefully vilified Chinese religious practices in front of a Malay-Muslim audience) could be suffering from such insecurity. I feel sorry for these lost souls.

* my mistake, the culprit is Uztaz Ann Wan Seng, not Dr Omar; I apologize.

Anyway, Sak asked what we already know, that after more than 50 years of Melayu domination in every aspects of Malaysian politics, royalty, government where its core has been UMNO, and public services (including the military and police), why are UMNO Melayu still complaining of being left behind. He stated succinctly:

So what conclusion can you deduce from these observations? The only valid and justifiable conclusion, is having Malays up there does not readily translate into Malay prominence in any of the fields we mentioned. It follows from here, that positioning Malays in strategic offices is not necessarily beneficial and advantageous to Malays.

The other conclusion is those Malays in power have not helped other Malays. So if UMNO insists that UMNO is Malay and Malay in UMNO, then by extension, Malays in power do not help the rest of Malays will also mean, UMNO in power does not help the rest of the Malays.

I wonder whether he was referring to just the Mamak-rised UMNO or UMNO in general?

But he concluded: UMNO people must be realistic on this. One doesn't stop becoming Malay if one dismisses UMNO. People are already doing that if you still don't realize it. 1.5 million UMNO members protested by not voting in UMNO candidates. That should be interpreted as a rejection of not merely the candidates but perhaps more so of the policies and vision that UMNO projects. 1.5 million members didn't share in the vision of UMNO. 3.7 million Malay (including the 1.5 million) voters didn't subscribe to the UMNO ideals pedaled by UMNO leaders.

Amin to that!