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.
