Torture of Heretics: The Malaysian Dilemma
Our initial choices and associations as a race, however innocent and noble, may have import and unforeseen repercussions on others, particularly those who rank streets apart from us in sophistication.
Raggie Jessy
Living is making choices. And that may just about be the most powerful statement to define your very being.
Do you take Sally to the spring dance? Or, will you choose to read science in Year 10? From the moment you existed, you engaged in a succession of choices that led you to your shoes, one way or the other. Regardless if you’ve rung the bell or landed yourself in the nick, those choices tucked in precedents to your future, and may well have affected those around you.
In fact, your choices impinge upon everyone, including those you never knew existed. Talk to a physicist, and he’ll charm the socks off you with chaos theories and laws of thermodynamics. To him, the universe is constantly attaining a most probable state, one that is ever more random. And the spontaneity with which events unfold tucks in precedents to your future.
And then, there’s cause and effect.
Causality on an encyclopaedic scale is more random that you’d think. Every choice you make, consciously or subconsciously, affects another, who in turn, makes choices of his/her own. Will Sally accept your invitation to the spring dance? Will she buy you a gift? These choices bear upon you and those around you, sparking off a chain reaction of sorts. Hence the succession of events that sprouts up inordinate possibilities, all random.
It’s really beyond your control, in a manner of speaking. As long as you persist in a world where pigs walk and the hawk flies, you’re good. You’ll know that the fat has hit the fire when pigs actually begin to fly alongside the hawk. Until then, your actions have as much of a repercussion on a collective, as the collective has on you.
So there you have it; you’ve just engaged with politics.
That’s right. Make choices, and you’re political. Now that’s one aphorism to your state of being; the other, is that you’re endemically political by design. Going by these dialectics, politics is hard wired to your brain and genetically coded in every cell of your body. In essence, it is a science of nature as much as it is a science of physics. That is to say, politics is a little more than just a social science.
And as long as causality remains the operative word, there are bound to be loose ends to germinate antagonism and pessimism. When that happens, you’re impelled to take a stand on issues with import repercussions to you. That is to say, you rise to the bait and begin politicizing, making new choices to negotiate new circumstances.
Now, that is as far as that goes. We’ve just tinkered around with a left-field perspective to politics, one that holds a lot more water than most outmoded schools of thought shoved down our throats since Plato. I’m as political as you are, even if you sat there placidly, reading this.
So, forget the usual innuendo and jargon that concerns with ‘blood sucking parasites’ or ‘poly-ticks’. While many a philosopher has frantically engaged with political constitutions, most are trussed up with old-school doctrines and archaic philosophies. They’re seemingly out of sync with communal paradigms, shackled by antiquated wisdoms.
But we’re not here to dabble on physics or constitutions to politics. No. We’re really here to talk about choices. And as a matter of fact, I’ve grown tired of the usual quacks or flairs in expressions; there’s just too much of the same stock going around. Perhaps, we could do with a short tale, one capable of hitting the nail right on the head.
1. The Messiah
What you’re about to read is a work of fiction. But bear with me on this:
In the year 2050, humans launched a capsule bearing an assortment of artefacts that included a child’s toy, acclaimed novels and a couple of voice recordings. One particular recording greeted the prospective finder with the following narration:
“Heartfelt greetings to you, my dear friend. We, humans from the planet Earth, extend to you our hand in friendship, with the hope that one day we may come together and cooperate towards our collective proliferation as an interstellar race. We’re optimistic that you will keep our transponders functional, so that the day may come, when we are able to seek you out, wherever you may be.”
In the year 2120, humans perfected warp technology and engaged in interstellar travel. They were able to commute back and forth distances that spanned light years within days, and began journeys that charted the cosmos at unprecedented gaits. It wasn’t long before they discovered a planet within the habitable belt of a star some 21,000 light years from earth, where the capsule had somehow touched down. The year was 2450, 400 years since the launch of ‘The Messiah’.
In a twist of irony, inhabitants of this alien world communicated with the human travellers in English, which was as much Shakespearian as it was, crisp. What was even more ironical was their culture, which stood reminiscent to that of 21st century earth. However, as soon as the travellers were identified as humans, the aliens grew hostile.
As the story goes, The Messiah got entangled in a spatial anomaly of sorts, propelling it 21,000 light years into the cosmos some years following its launch. Its finders were somewhat primitive at the time of its discovery, and were taken with the notion of supreme beings watching over them. And for a time, the capsule was perceived as a gift from these ‘gods’ towards the progression and proliferation of their race. Through want of enterprise and faith in these newfound gods, they deciphered the ‘coded scriptures’ (novels), abstracting the essence and assimilating it with their culture.
But these ‘scriptures’ were really romantically themed novels, which included formidable titles such as ‘Romeo and Juliet, ‘My Fair Lady, and ‘King Lear’. Over the span of generations, these aliens began to regard romance as a rite of passage towards augmenting their consciousness. Love and romance, in principle, became expedient for their progression as a race, in a theological sense.
Pablo, a timeserving anarchist from the alien world, stood dead against The Messiah. He sought to turn his people against the established regime, which took to the scriptures in reverence. Pablo importuned his people to reject the scriptures, which he claimed had put a bridle on their progression, plunging their world into regression. To Pablo, the way forward would be to thrash out honest disputes on adversarial platforms.
In essence, Pablo sought for power, while the scriptures were in his way.
And Pablo did make strides. Ravages of a great war fought over the sanctity of The Messiah wrecked havoc on the alien world. Over time, the planet became less hospitable, with radiation levels soaring to unprecedented levels, triggering destitution and engendering pathological circumstances. Learned scholars began advocating antithetical theologies, and began clumping into non-conformist groups. Pablo, leader to these left-wing clusters, summoned his kind to ditch the ‘gods’, who he was convinced were harbingers of doom. The arrival of The Messiah had brought destruction to his world. And over time, he amassed a sizeable legion in his favour.
The humans were despised and the travellers stood trial for crimes against Pablo’s people. It was decided that the humans would be punished by the execution of one traveller, a necessary evil in chastening their ‘cosmic exploits’. You may conceive their ratiocination to be somewhat queer. But remember; Pablo had convinced a sizeable faction to his people, that the ‘gods’ were in fact, the demons.
The remaining travellers returned to earth with a ghastly adaptation to their ordeal. In the weeks that followed, a human offensive was launched against the distant world, thwarting ambitions towards the proliferation of an interstellar race, a credo indoctrinated by proponents to The Messiah. Put simply, the aliens proposed, while the humans disposed. And the humans reacted, disposing of a culture solely based on the actions of Pablo, a single, sentient life form.
It goes to show, that our initial choices and associations as a race, however innocent and noble, may have import and unforeseen repercussions on others, particularly those who rank streets apart from us in sophistication. And how we react to manifestations of these choices over time will determine how civilized we really are.
Withal, the above is nothing more than a work of fiction, a figment of my imagination. And it was consequential to a choice of random invocations.
2. The Merdeka Gift
What you’re about to read is not a work of fiction:
In the year 1957, Tunku proclaimed Merdeka, ushering in Malay special rights and privileges via Article 153 of the Federal Constitution. It was a question of choice; back then, the Federal Constitution was the arc of a covenant acquiesced to and borne by all races on a platform of mutual tolerance, cultural diversity and harmony. And for a time, there was peace.
Kit Siang seemed to detest Article 153 from day one, and began soliciting support from the Chinese to work against its tenets some years after Merdeka. He incited resentment among the Chinese, relentless with his attacks on UMNO, the use of Bahasa Malaysia in literary works, and what he termed as ‘the Islamization of education in Malaysia’. Kit Siang got the Chinese estranged from UMNO and MCA, with honest disputes being contended on adversarial platforms. To Kit Siang, a social contract on the pretext of nation building couldn’t be tolerated at the expense of a Chinese progression. Or so it seemed.
As the story goes, UMNO agreed to grant the Chinese and Indians citizenship in a manner of reciprocation, following their accession to Malay special rights and privileges. And for a time, UMNO was perceived as a ‘savior’ by the Chinese and Indians. In essence, the Malay based party had granted them a ‘gift’ towards their proliferation in the land of the Malays.
But Kit Siang’s provocations taught the community to settle disputes on adversarial platforms, which they came to regard as a rite towards their progression. There was never a middle line. Being contentious, rather than diplomatic, was expedient to the proliferation of the Chinese. Well, at least that was the tone with which they plugged in to the nation. And the Chinese were soon to question Malay special rights, with Tunku (and consequentially, UMNO) quickly losing his appeal as their saviour.
Kit Siang had make strides. Bloody clashes erupted on 13 May, 1969, wrecking havoc in various parts of Selangor. Over time, Malaysia tended towards belligerence, with adversarial disputes soaring to unprecedented highs, triggering racial tensions and engendering religious schisms. Learned scholars began advocating antithetical theologies, and clumped into non-conformist groups. Kit Siang, leader to these left-wing clusters, convinced his henchmen that their saviour was really a harbinger of doom. And over time, he amassed a sizeable legion to his favour.
In the year 1998, Mahathir politically castrated Anwar Ibrahim and threw him into the dungeons. In the years that followed, DAP perfected its communal overtones, engaging in politics of pretence. They established a blanket coalition with PKR and PAS, and were able to reciprocate issues as swiftly as you could say peek-a-boo. They began journeys that charted their political exploits at unprecedented gaits. It wasn’t long before they rediscovered Anwar Ibrahim, who was their long awaited Messiah towards political redemption. In 2004, they were astonished to find quite a representation from the Chinese community, who seemed eager to rid themselves of UMNO’s shadow and the social contract.
In a twist of irony, Kit Siang’s advocates began comprising moderate Malays, who seemed to accommodate a future devoid of the NEP and Malay special rights. They resonated with the fallacy of togetherness brought about by an Anwar-Kit Siang marriage of convenience.
Ravages of two political tsunami’s wrecked havoc in the country years later, with the Chinese completely estranged from the Malays. Over time, levels of dissent soared to unprecedented highs. But following Kajang, learned scholars began seeing through Khalid’s lenses and advocated antithetical dogmas that sought to chastise both Anwar and Kit Siang. They clumped into anti-Anwar and anti-DAP groups as Khalid stealthily amassed a sizeable legion against Anwar’s favour from Selangor.
Anwar and Kit Siang were despised, and gradually lost a sizeable faction to their apologists. And almost with a knee-jerk response, BN decided that the time was ripe to politically dispose of Pakatan advocates, reverting to its preponderant persona by charging non-conformists with sedition.
And while some were truly seditious, the whole lot of them were truly victims of a political circumstance, a sting of choices gone awry.
BN’s reaction was solely hinged on the spate of untenable contingencies that pervaded Pakatan. In the process, the UMNO led coalition thwarted ambitions towards the proliferation of a multi-racial platform modelled against mutual tolerance and harmony.
These ambitions were thwarted, because our choices and associations as a group (or race) back in 1957, however innocent or noble, had import and unforeseen repercussions on the people, particularly those who ranked streets apart from us in sophistication.
You see, pre-independence Chinese generally constituted such segments; though industrious, they were largely uneducated and politically naive. They barely considered themselves as subjects to the local Monarchs, nor were they taken to be subjects by the Rulers.
And if you really look right down to it, UMNO has reacted to communal instigations by one man, Lim Kit Siang, some 57 years later. They failed to anticipate consequences to their innocent choice of associations. That is to say, they failed to anticipate how Article 153 of the Federal Constitution would be manipulated to serve the interests of timeserving politicians.
That’s right; while Anwar and Kit Siang charade as political messiahs and hoodwink a people, it is the government of the day that has failed to grasp the essence to the real dilemma plaguing our nation.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first choice made, the first reason denied, the first speech censured, the first thought forbidden… chains us all irrevocably. Where we go from hence, is any fool’s tale of the cosmos”.
