A Pharaoh, A Pendatang and A Prostitute

Which is more painful, being called a Pendatang, a Prostitute or the Great Pharaoh?  Or which hurts the most, being called ‘celaka’ or ‘racist’?   What if people build a dummy of you and gag its mouth with kangkong?  Would that hurt more than a satire of you on youtube?  What about making fun of other people’s religion and beliefs?  How does that hurt the believers?   Or condemning own country and ridiculed the King?

How do we know which word hurts the most?  Or which word should hurt and which should not?  Who should determine whether the word should hurt or not? 

Well, in our country, I guess that power lies with DAP.  

DAP has been pushing hard for Sedition Act to be abolished in the name of freedom of speech but DAP is using the same Act against the former PM … in the name of hypocrisy. 

DAP has been calling UMNO ‘racist’ for so long but it all just faded away like the dust in the wind. 

And Tun M didn’t react when being called a Pharaoh.  He didn’t jump when accused of being ultra-Malay.  Tun M did not defend himself nor did he attack the accuser. 

He didn’t have to, as the truth is evident in all around us. 

I guess you can very much call the Tun anything you like and you can be sure that there will be no report filed against you because he really believes in freedom of speech and expression.  You cannot do the same to the Lims or the Singhs of DAP, though for you will surely be taken to court. 

The only reason for politicians to lose their poise when being called names and being accused of something is because the words are all true and they are afraid that the people will see the truth. 

For example, it’s true that the Chinese are the descendants of the ‘pendatangs’ and it hurts them so bad just to hear the word that the Chinese politicians must react to it.  They would not be so hurt if it was not true. 

For a party so fiercely fighting for freedom of speech and expression, DAP should not be overly sensitive over name-calling and wild accusations whether they are true or not.  In fact, politicians do not have the right to be sensitive at all.  Leaders must always be opened to criticisms and harsh opinions of others. 

Leaders, who are not able to tolerate criticism and opinions, are Dictators. 

Just recently, we were stunned by Jamila or her pen-name, Melati, a writer of ‘First Class Prostitute’, for her decision to join DAP.  Jamila is being harshly criticized by the Malay groups and is told to be better off selling her body rather than her soul to DAP.  Of course, Jamila didn’t take the criticism well, like all DAP leaders and members.  

Roketkini reviewed Jamila’s book as causing goosebumps for its ‘graphical-actions’ which deemed to be inconsistent with the Islamic image of the burqa-wearing writer (http://www.roketkini.com/2014/09/22/pelacur-kelas-pertama-buku-bertinta-air-mata/).  If Roketkini really means what I think it means then I am having goosebumps too.  I heard that the book has to go through a series of ‘filtration’ just to get on the shelf. 

I mean, this is Malaysia and this is a devout Muslim lady we are talking about, as judged from her clothing.  I know so many less devout Muslim ladies who dare not discuss intimate scenes, (if this is what Roketkini means) openly but if Jamila actually write about it so very comfortably and perhaps, proudly, it is something very inappropriate, even to me. 

Why would any devout Muslim girl choose to write about sexual abuse to the details?   You do know that writing is a lot about imagination, don’t you?  

Jamila must have taken her writing as a proof of open-mindedness, thus served as an effort in defying the conservative thinking of Muslim women in burqas.  The book must have been some sort of an ‘achievement’ for her and for all the confused moderate Muslims in the country.  I am sure they will be even more confused now, with her, in the group.    

For a writer who boldly went against her extremist image and eastern values, Jamila should not be as sensitive when being referred to, or described with the same ‘scenarios’ as in her book - especially when she chose to be in the political limelight, fighting for freedom of speech and expression and the abolishment of Sedition Act.

Her reaction over the criticism proved that she is just as hypocritical as all the DAP leaders.  She is not as open-minded or as sportive as the ‘Ubah’ generation claimed to be.  She is just as sensitive as any UMNO ‘bigots, extremists and racists’. 

She is obviously not ready for total freedom of speech and expression, nor is she ready for the abolishment of Sedition Act. 

And so, she filed a report against the portal that criticized her, with DAP standing right beside her.    

So what does this mean?  It means that should DAP ruled Malaysia, freedom of speech and expression will only be applied on them and their supporters.  Sedition Act will be partly abolished, meaning, it can be used against the people who are against DAP but never the other way around.