Khairy's multiculturalism and multiracialism claim suitable for DAP or PKR than to lead UMNO Youth

At ease sandwiched by PKR's Nik Nazmi and DAP's Tony Pua

UMNO is faced with a near-crisis political challenge, but the Setiakawan bloggers are selfishly dawdling in their promotion of Khairy.

In perhaps a preparation for TV9 Forum between the three UMNO Youth Chief candidates on February 17th, one wonder why they are still at it whitening Khairy's blacken reputation with excuses of misperception after more than six months.

On the same stride, there are those boisterously claiming Khairy as a great leader in the making with revoltingly self-praising titles. And, there are those making childish attack on other candidates based on shallow arguments and oversimplified conclusion.

If Khairy's hard campaign, free concert and RM100 each for concert attendee at the Kuala Terengganu by-election could not change the perception on Wan Farid, trust me, no amount of whitening cream can make Khairy as fair as Nori. Most of us veteran cyber warriors will only snigger at their distasteful campaign and jeer, "Si Luncai turun dengan Labi-Labinya. Biarkan! Biarkan!"

Thus, it gives me a great sense of pleasure and thrill to put them off-balance with this provocative posting. The last posting describing Khairy as UMNO's liability sent them frantic to defend and counter-attack this lone blogger. This posting will be no less.

Sun Interview Claim

Khairy gave an interview in The Sun on October 23rd, 2008. It was a typical denial interview piece trying to dispell his negative image as misperception.

This is the same repeated appeal by blogger Dato Arif whose argument try to validate rationale thinking as when one's view Khairy is void of the misperception. The problem is that it is telling UMNO members to be in-denial of happenings.

In the interview, Khairy was asked: "Are you a committed multiracialist?" In his cocksure way, he replied explicitly: "I’m committed to multiculturalism, multiracialism ..." .

If he had answered as tolerant and/or acceptance to multiracial or multicultural life, it would have been acceptable. But to express commitment to multiracial and multicultural with an -ism at the end is something else.

To understand the implication of such claim, I have reproduced The Star article dated August 22, 2006 by IKIM's Md Aslam Ahmad entitled "Debunking Multiculturalism" at the end of this posting.

Md Aslam described the origin of multiculturalism from passages of European history of religous intolerance, reformation, liberalism, and subsequently secularisation.

It emanates from the reaction to seek for other interpretation of Christianity justified as tolerance to other religion but later transformed to promote absolute personal freedom through safeguarding a plural lifestyle, and rekection of theology.

In Malaysia, multicultarilism is but a facade to justify intolerance and opposition towards the continuity of Islam and Malay historical heritage.

Multiculturalist conveniently ignore specific facts of history, and the political, cultural and religous tradition of this land. They reject and oppose the political compromise and tripartite agreement between the ruler, colonial and rakyat, today described as Social Contract.

Proponents of multiculturalist vehemently fighting against the agreed and constitutionalised position of Malay and Islamic tradition in the Constitution as the backbone of this nation together with tolerance and acceptance to the "private" practices of other culture and religion.

They are radical and threatening elements that promote factional hostility in this country. The multiculturalists reject the notion that Malaysia is a nation possessing a distinctive but encompassing identity. To them, Malaysia is a standalone country devoid of any identity. Thus, their promotion for a discourse in search of "the Malaysian identity”.

In my opinion, no self-respecting UMNO member and more so, one aspiring to be Youth Chief could afford to make such pronouncement. Critics may have often described UMNO as an organisation with an inadequately conceived ideology. Such sacriligeous view does not meet even the minimum ideology of UMNO as ascribed in Article 3 of UMNO's Constitution.

------------------------------

FASAL 3 PERLEMBAGAAN UMNO - ASAS DAN TUJUAN

Umno adalah sebuah parti politik yang berjuang mendukung cita-cita kebangsaan Melayu demi mengekalkan maruah dan martabat bangsa, agama dan negara.

3.1 Mempertahankan kemerdekaan dan kedaulatan negara;

3.2 Mendukung dan mempertahankan Perlembagaan Negara, Perlembagaan Negeri-negeri dan Raja Berpelembagaan;

3.3 Menegak, mempertahan dan mengembangkan Islam, agama rasmi negara serta menghormati prinsip kebebasan beragama;

3.4 Mempertahankan kedaulatan rakyat dan keadilan sosial dengan mengamalkan Sistem Pemerintahan Demokrasi Berparlimen serta memajukan ekonomi rakyat Melayu dan Bumiputera khasnya dan rakyat Malaysia amnya;

3.5 Menjamin kedudukan Bahasa Kebangsaan (Bahasa Melayu) sebagai bahasa rasmi yang tunggal dan Kebudayaan Kebangsaan yang berteraskan Kebudayaan Melayu;

3.6 Mewujudkan kerjasama antara kaum bagi melahirkan satu bangsa Malaysia yang kuat dan bersatu berasaskan kepada hak-hak Asasi Manusia dan Hak-Hak Istimewa Orang Melayu dan Bumiputera.

-----------------------------

Multiculturalism and multiracialism is a more suited manifesto for the Youth Leader of cocophonic PKR or secularist DAP but not for UMNO. Does Khairy deserve to head UMNO Youth? Or his real home is in PKR or DAP?

Malay Historical Right and for Cultural Prominance

Although the emphasis of Md Aslam's article rightly represent the Islamic Institution he represent, his point that Malaysia does not exist in isolation provide the basis for Malay historical rights and for a significant cultural prominence.

If Khairy subscribed to this perverse multiculturalism and multiracialism ideology, he is in opposition to what is specified in the Constitution. Cultures and religions, other than Malay and Bumiputera cultural and religion of Islam, have no legal basis to be given central prominance. Their basic human rights have been provided for. to exist.

A thorough analysis in favour of Malay and Bumiputera cultural identity as the rightful representation of Malaysian culture was well delivered by Dato Dr Rais Yatim in his speech at a Perkasa function on November 16th, 2008.

If Khairy had also refered to Article 3 of the UMNO Constitution, he would realised that Dato Dr Rais's points about Malay interest from the perspective of law and history and UMNO's constitution are in concurrence.

It is inconsistent with UMNO's aspiration for an aspiring UMNO Youth Leader to compromsie to such foreign ideology of multiculturalism and multiracialism.

Despite it's flexible party ideology, UMNO conceived a nation based on the Federal Constitution, Rukunegara as national ideology, and Vision 2020 as a Way Forward for the Nation. In these three sets of documents, the standing of Malay and Islam in the Federal Constitution as the core feature in Malaysian society, economy, politics and culture is distinguishable.

This has been UMNO's continuos struggle and purpose of existence. For a clearer understanding, refer to two postings on a discourse on United Malasyian Nation or Bangsa Malaysia here and here.

The political parties in-defiance to this historical and legal reality and legacy are the multiracially-claimed PKR and DAP. PKR are making all sort of commitment and populist promises to different ethnic groups but it still yet to conceive a practical direction for the nation.

Both PKR and DAP respectively will and have adopted multiculturalism and multiracialism ideologies.

This only mean that Khairy's ideal world is more suited to lead DAPsy or AMT than UMNO Youth. Thus, Khairy should stop deceiving himself and UMNO Youth members and be true to himself.

In fact, his family and personal background complimented with his prefered association with Oxford than anything Malay or Malaysian does not imbue himself as having the Malay semangat and embodied the spirit of the UMNO sttruggle. Tengku Razaleigh had touched this and him specifically in his speech on April 4th, 2008 when opening the UMNO Gua Musang Division EGM.

To transform the party, UMNO needs to get back to its original mission and reacquaint with it's role to reinforce the foundation this nation is build on. It should not be detoured from it's original purpose by some impatient wannabee who has yet to find his identity as a Malay and Muslim.

For Khairy, arrangement can be worked out for him to find a proper home for his ideals. But it is not in UMNO.

----------------------------

Tuesday August 22, 2006

Debunking Multiculturalism

IKIM Views: By MD ASLAM AHMAD,
Fellow, Centre for Syariah, Law and Political Science, Insitute of Islamic Understanding Malaysia

HAVING a multicultural society does not mean that every Malaysian must subscribe to an ideology referred to as multiculturalism.

With reference to Malaysia, having a multicultural society is a fact, but to subscribe to multiculturalism is to interpret that fact in a certain way.

Multiculturalism is an alien ideology which came into being out of a particular historical, religious, and cultural setting.

In order to understand multiculturalism, one has to keep in mind the long history of religious intolerance in Europe, followed by the Reformation movement, the rise of liberalism, and secularisation. It is a history that is full of horrible tales of persecution and intolerance in the name of religion (read Christianity).

Religious pluralism is the outcome of an attempt to provide a basis in Christian theology for tolerance of non-Christian religions; as such, it is an element in a kind of religious modernism or liberalism.

Liberalism in religion and in politics is historically and theoretically related to one another. Liberalism as a political ideology that emerged in the same period and locale alongside liberal Protestantism. Both took place in the aftermath of the Reformation.

Among the political and religious liberals, their attitudes toward moral, social, and political issues are often the same. They emphasise the importance of tolerance, individual rights and freedoms to safeguard a pluralism of life styles.

At the foundation of political liberalism is tolerance of different opinions about religion. Then came religious pluralism which seeks to provide a theological basis for this tolerance.

Being an outgrowth of liberal Protestantism, religious pluralism rejects orthodox interpretations of Christian scripture and dogma to make salvation attainable via routes other than Christianity.

It is sceptical towards rational arguments in favour of the superiority of Christian beliefs. It appeals to the modem moral principles of tolerance and rejection of prejudice.

Because of its emphasis on the elements common to personal religious faith, ritual and theological doctrine are considered to be of secondary importance or a personal matter.

The liberal separation of religion from social order is founded on the assumption that this separation is consistent with the tenets of all religions and sects, whereas it is in direct conflict with the very nature of the worldview of Islam.

In the first place, Islam has never been structured upon some kind of church-state relation like that of medieval Christianity. Secondly, Islam is not a culture that evolves and develops in the way Christianity does.

Multiculturalism, as understood and propagated by its proponents in this country is not based on diversity, but rather it strives to debunk Islam as a socio-political order.

The ideological components of Malaysian multiculturalism can be summarised as a cultural relativism which finds the prominence of Islam in this country intolerable.

It rests on the attitude that religion should not be allowed to “interfere” in our social and political life. Hence, it is important that every Malaysian, especially the Muslims, be made to accept “the fact” that Malaysia is a “secular country”.

The Malaysian multiculturalism’s hostility towards Islam and its repudiation of an identifiable Malaysian culture based upon Islam is augmented by a radically new definition of community, one that deviates from the traditional, religious emphasis on family, neighbourhood, house of worship and school, towards an emphasis on race, gender, occupation and sexual preference.

Can multiculturalism be a viable principle for our national unity?

Ideological multiculturalists are radical-left inhabitants of a political dreamland. These ideological divisions within our society threaten to render the nation into hostile factions.

The multiculturalists assert that Malaysia is an idea rather than a nation possessing a distinctive but encompassing identity. Hence, after almost 50 years of independence we still hear people talking about the search for a “Malaysian identity”.

It means Malaysia, as far as they are concerned, has no identity, and if we are to have one, Islam should not be part of that identity.

Current manifestations of multiculturalism extend far beyond the kind of pluralism that seeks a richer common culture to multicultural particularism which denies that a common culture is possible or desirable.

In an attempt to validate the multiculturalists’ emphasis on particularism and its concomitant subversion of cultural commonality, knowledge and facts in their discourse are consistently subordinated to the so-called “critical thinking approach.”

The dismal truth is that critical thinking in practice means subjective questioning and unsubstantiated, unreasoned, personal opinion.

Contrary to the assertions of proponents of multiculturalism that limitless pluralism enriches our understanding, the de-emphasising of specific factual knowledge in their discourse resulted in what it inevitably must have – a plague of ignorance.

Multiculturalism’s subordination of facts and knowledge to unguided “critical thinking” demonstrates its intellectual bankruptcy, since any critical opinion worthy of consideration must evolve out of knowledge and be grounded in objective facts.

Malaysia is not a no man’s land, and everybody knows that, and the fact that Islam is the religion of the Federation is also common knowledge.

Further contemplation would be enough for one to realise another fact: namely, that Islamic ethical and socio-political order is ultimately the expression of certain ideas about life and existence as a whole.

To Muslims, those ideas are the integrating principles that place all systems of meaning and standards of life and values in coherent order.

To those who live on the assumption that Malaysia is a secular country, it is the secular worldview that is supposed to be the prism through which we understand who we are and how to go about living our lives.

Of course they can believe in whatever they want to believe. But we would like to ask a very simple question: Who says the secular worldview is our common worldview?

That is surely not acceptable to Muslims, who are aware that secularism is antithetical not only to Islam but to all religious worldviews.

Leaving the ignorant and confused Muslims aside, there is no way to make conscious Muslims accept a secular interpretation of life and existence as espoused by Western culture and civilisation.

The followers of other religions should recognise the fact that their religions have many things in common with Islam, particularly when it comes to ethics and morality.

It is through Malaysia, as an Islamic state, that other religions would thrive, and that we have better chance of fostering national unity based on a common religious worldview.

A secular Malaysia would be an enemy not only to Islam but a common enemy to all religions.

We must realise the fact that secularisation can be considered a natural phenomenon only in the case of the West, considering what they have experienced in their history.

To apply their solution to our problem is to admit that we are now experiencing the same problem they used to have; which is historically baseless and logically absurd.

* Edited and up-dated 9:30 am