Even God is not neutral

By MT Webmaster Last updated Jul 9, 2014

So, Affandi, it is not whether you want to read Malaysia Today. It is whether I want you in Malaysia Today. It is about what I want and not what you want. And if you thought this is about you then you are more stupid than I thought. What a waste. Your place in UTM should have been given to someone more deserving, like a Chinese or Indian.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

This blog belongs to RPK, he does it as he likes, but he forgot that as a blogger he has to stay neutral. If he cannot stay neutral then do not blogged at all. He has feelings after all he is half bumi and half Mad Salleh. His Bumi status is still stronger then his Manchester spirit. Readers are now finding RPK true self that is why his number of hits have dwindle.

Affandi Abdullah · Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM)

********************************************

That was a comment by a reader who goes by the name Affandi Abdullah which was posted in my article ‘And my response’.

I checked and Affandi’s Facebook account was created on 16th April 2014 and thus far he has only one posting, the comment above. I take it this account was created just over two months ago specifically to post comments in Malaysia Today.

What is interesting is that Affandi is an ex-student of Victoria Institution (VI), where I schooled as well, and Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM). He must be pretty young because in our time, 50 years ago, VI had quite high standards and people like Affandi would not have been able to get in.

In fact, in our days we had very high standards for form 5 or MCE level. I can confidently say that our form 5 or MCE standards then far exceed even the university level today. And trust me, I have personally met many PhD students here in the UK (from Malaysia, that is) and I can testify that they do not even come close to the level of our form 5 or MCE of 50 years ago.

Yes, that is how pathetic it is today and I really do not know what is going on. It is very convenient, of course, to blame the government (or Umno). But then even Chinese students from Chinese schools are no better. Do you know I have met Malaysian Chinese here in the UK who speak ‘okay’ Bahasa Malaysia but ‘bazaar’ English?

Anyway, looking at what Affandi posted, 50 years ago he would probably have not survived his MCE/GCE. That is, in the first place, whether he could have gotten through his LCE because even LCE then was pretty high standards. And let us not even dream of passing our form 6, a prerequisite for entry into university. (Do you know that form 6 was tougher than university?)

Anyway, let us not bother about what Affandi said regarding my “Bumi status is still stronger then (I assume he means ‘than’) my Manchester spirit” because I really do not know what that means. I mean how can a status be stronger than a spirit? Hence this is an illogical statement that no VI boy of the 1960s would make (or even someone who is supposed to have gone to university).

What I would like to address, though, is the issue of ‘Bumi status’. Does Affandi really think he could have got into university if not for the fact that UTM is a government-run university plus the fact that Affandi is ‘Bumi’? Is Affandi suggesting that he got into university because he was a top scholar and has nothing to do with the fact that he has brown skin?

Affandi and millions like him were given the opportunity of a tertiary education because of Article 153 in the Federal Constitution of Malaysia plus because of the New Economic Policy. Without that, and if based just on merits, the door would not have opened for Affandi and he would probably have to compete with Indonesian labourers for the job of a bricklayer.

Now, there is nothing wrong in allowing the less privileged to receive a good education. Personally, I consider the right to a good education as part of your civil liberties. To deny someone an education is a violation of that person’s civil liberties. However, the help should go only as far as opening the doors to you. Thereafter you need to make something of your life. It should not be a ‘from the cradle to the grave’ policy, like what most Malays think it should be.

Affandi says as a Blogger I should remain neutral and that if I cannot be neutral I should not be Blogging. What does this mean? What does neutral mean? Even God is not neutral. According to Judeo-Christianity-Islamic belief, if you are neutral and do not take a position you go to hell. Hence God wants you on his side and not to be neutral (agnostic). So is Affandi saying he is neutral and does not take any side when it comes to God?

Theists believe that God exists. Atheists believe that God does not exist. What is Affandi’s position? Is he neutral? Is he going to say he neither supports those who believe in God nor those who do not believe in God? Is he saying he has no position at all in the debate about the existence of God? (Hence is Affandi fasting today?)

What about the debate on whether Bumis should be allowed into university based on merits and not based on the colour of their skin or their birthright? Is Affandi neutral regarding this debate as well? How, then, did Affandi get into university? Is it because he was a top student or because of his birth and the colour of his skin? Can a person who benefited from his birth claim to be neutral in this debate?

Affandi said, “Readers are now finding RPK true self that is why his number of hits have dwindle.” However, Affandi did not mention any statistics. Malaysia Today is going to be 10 years old in about a month’s time (13th August 2014 to be exact). Can Affandi give us the annual figures from August 2004 to now? Did university not teach him this?

When Malaysia Today started back in 2004 there was only Jeff Ooi’s blog for us to ‘fight’. Malaysiakini may have already existed then but it is a news portal rather than a Blog. Today, there are thousands of Blogs and scores of news portals so invariably because of the stronger competition the readership would be spread out. This is what the free market is all about.

In a free market (or non-monopoly market) everyone gets a market share, the big operators as well as the small. And, the more players, the more the market would be split.

Back when Malaysia Today started in 2004 there were less than one million Internet users and only one or two Bloggers to compete with. So Malaysia Today could easily get 50% of the market. Today there are more than 15 million Internet users and thousands of Blogs to choose from.

For someone like Affandi who has been to university I would have thought he would understand matters such as market share, market growth, market positioning, and whatnot.

There is a very good book regarding positioning, which I would recommend people like Affandi buy so that they can better understand the subject. Positioning is about choosing your market niche in a crowded market.

For example, we have the pro-government Blogs. And then we have the pro-opposition Blogs. Ten years ago when we first started we did not need to worry about market share. Now market share is very crucial when you are in a crowded field of, say, 10,000.

So, do we want Malaysia Today to be just another of the 10,000 Blogs saying exactly the same thing as what 10,000 other Blogs are also saying? Or do we want Malaysia Today to be different by saying things that others are not saying?

That is what the positioning game is all about, something only students of positioning would understand and which students who got into university because of the colour of their skin would not comprehend.

Basically, it is just like KLCC. Thousands of people visit that shopping complex every day but how many of those thousands actually buy anything? You see them walking around with no shopping bags in their hand. It is mainly people who go there to see — or to see other people.

Can the shopkeepers in KLCC get rich just because there is a huge crowd but no one is buying?

Then we have Cheshire Oaks, one hour from Manchester and about 3-4 hours from London. It is pretty crowded although you might say it is not as crowded as KLCC. But everyone who takes the trouble to go all the way to Cheshire Oaks buys something. No one walks around empty-handed. Everyone has a shopping bag in his or her hand.

So, are we playing the numbers game here or what? What’s the use of having crowds when less than 10% actually shop? Is it not better to have just 50% (or even less) of that crowd but every single person is shopping like crazy?

Yes, back in the days when Malaysia Today first started we had a huge crowd, mainly because there was no one else. Now, due to the extremely strong competition from thousands (even though the Internet users have increased from less than one million to more than 15 million), we need to decide what market we want and work on that.

It is like the ceramah in Malaysia. Government-organised ceramah can’t even attract 100 people. Opposition ceramah attract tens of thousands of people. But when the votes are counted the opposition candidate loses.

Okay, you may say the opposition lost due to fraud and whatnot. But by how many votes? Was it 1,000, or even 10,000? We are talking about 30,000 or 50,000 ‘supporters’ during the opposition ceramah and only 100 for the government ceramah. Judging by the crowd and in spite of the cheating (and you can cheat only up to a certain extent) surely the government candidate should not only lose but lose his/her deposit as well?

So you see, Affandi, numbers do not impress me one bit. What concerns me is quality. No doubt Malaysia Today could normally get 500,000 unique visitors in the good old days, which can go up to 1 million during elections, while now it is only 300,000 with about 700,000 or so during elections. However, in the past (say 2007-2008), these readers were die-hard or hardcore opposition supporters. And many of them came to Malaysia Today because I cursed and condemned the Malays (which is why most of our readers were non-Malays with very few Malays).

Today, we get a different quality of readers and over the last one year I have been slowly weeding out the riff-raff by not approving their comments and even barring them from commenting. I know that this will drive them away but that is exactly what I want to do (to send them away).

I want our readers to reduce to, say, just 250,000. So I plan to lose another 50,000 or so. But I want these 250,000 to be thinking Malaysians of ALL races/religions. In the past, those who visit Malaysia Today were people who hate the government, Umno, the Malays, Islam, and whatnot.

I want all these people out. I want Malaysia Today’s readers to be those who are not happy with the government but feel the opposition is not doing a great job either.

In short, I no longer want fanatics. I want people from the third force because the future of Malaysia has to be in the hands of the third force and not in the hands of the fanatics from both sides of the political divide.

What we need in Malaysia are more Gandhis and less Nehrus and Ali Jinnahs, if you know what I mean. Then we would not need to see one million people massacred in race/religious strife like what happened during the Partition of India.

Raja Petra Kamarudin RPK