Malaysia Chronicle

Wan lacks imagination and is bereft of ideas to motivate Malaysians. He acted irresponsibly when he insulted the Malays with his allegation that they were weak and insecure. As a deputy unity minister, he is supposed to bring all the communities together. He should not promote scaremongering or fan anti-racial sentiments.

Wan said, “Why do you think the Malay votes came to us when we left Harapan? It’s because of the assurance that we are no longer kowtowing to Harapan’s brand of liberal politics.”

What does he mean by Pakatan Harapan’s “brand of liberal politics”?

In an interview with The Edge Weekly in February, Wan was asked, “What sort of confidence-building measures are you looking at, since inter-communal relations are getting frail?”

His response was, “…At our ministry, that is what we anchor our programmes on; the Rukun Negara, especially the preamble: how to create a liberal society. Liberal, not as understood by many Muslims, but the tradition of democracy and respect for human rights. These values are also in Islam.”

Isn’t this in line with what Harapan politicians preach? Democracy and respect for human rights, which Wan admits gels with Islamic teachings.

So, why was it okay on Feb 13, 2022, and yet, by April 6, 2022, Wan was in a ludicrous farcical fit of outrage and told The Vibes that Harapan’s branding was unsustainable and rejected by the Malays?

Oh yes, I forgot! GE15 is around the corner and support for Wan’s party, Bersatu, is in the pits and in order to deflect from his party’s decline in popularity, attacked Harapan. Did Wan have to drag us back to the Middle Ages, where power is concentrated in the hands of a few people with his idea of a Malay protector?

So, who will protect the Malays? Bersatu? Umno? PAS? Pejuang?

What about Malay women?

Where were Malay politicians like Wan, when single mothers and abandoned wives sought the help of the syariah courts to do justice for them?

For decades, these women tried to get their former husbands to provide alimony and pay for child maintenance. Some women were forced into prostitution to provide for their children. Does he know these women exist?

Last week, the Perlis Islamic Religious authority announced that married men who wished to remarry without the consent of their first wife could do so in Perlis. Did the Malay protector speak out in defence of the Malay woman? Is Wan one of those who would like to see syariah laws standardised throughout Malaysia?

Is Wan’s ‘Malay protection’ reserved only for Malay men?

Where were the Malay politicians and protectors when women, not just Malay women, demanded that underage girls are not forced into marriages? A daughter is not a commodity with which a bartering exchange can be made. Fathers who cannot feed their large families sell their young daughters to escape the poverty trap.

What was Wan’s contribution towards ending child marriages? What did he do to question the quality of our education, where fathers are prepared to treat their daughters like they were mere slabs of meat in the market?

It is an open secret that amongst all the races, drug usage amongst the Malays is the highest in the country. Could Wan make public his plans to reduce the dependency of the Malays on drugs?

Many Malay children drop out of school. Their parents do not believe that schooling is of any use. What happened to the Malay protector? Did he criticise the UiTM lecturer who humiliated the student who could not afford a laptop? Did he speak out in defence of the B40 group who deserve aid more so than the overindulged Sapura Energy?

Treacherous act

A protector is someone or something that protects people or things from being harmed or damaged. What does Wan mean by the Malay protector? Does he consider himself a protector?

Why should any Malaysian trust a politician who was involved in the Sheraton Move and who became a member of the cabinet through the backdoor?

Within weeks of Muhyiddin Yassin’s treacherous act, Wan was fast-tracked to become a senator in order to qualify as a member of Muhyiddin’s cabinet.

It is blindingly obvious that a backstabber cannot be called a protector. Wan and the other Sheraton traitors snuffed out the aspirations of millions of Malaysians who wanted change and a better Malaysia. More importantly, Muhyiddin, who wanted to “save” Malaysia, ended up destroying democracy in Malaysia.

The New Economic Policy (NEP) of Abdul Razak Hussein, which was designed to help the Malays, failed to help all those in need. Today, Wan’s idea of a protector for the Malays is doomed to fail.

This is how Wan’s “Malay protection” works. Using the contemptible backdrop of race, religion, and royalty, protection means micro-managing our lives, especially Malay lives. In other words, ensnaring them.

If the Malay protector cannot even speak out in defence of people like single mothers to students, or find solutions for dropouts and drug addicts, of what use is he?

Malays should reject this excessive control over their lives. Without this false protection, their self-esteem and self-confidence will increase. They will emerge from their ‘tempurung’ (coconut shell) and realise that the world can be their oyster.

Malays do not need protection. They only need to be liberated, in mind, body and soul.


Wan Fayhsal says against Malay feudal mindset but it’s a fact

Bersatu Youth chief Wan Ahmad Fayhsal Wan Ahmad Kamal has clarified that he is not in favour of a feudal mentality among Malays.

This follows pushback against his comments that Malays reject Pakatan Harapan’s ‘liberalism’ because they need a protector to fulfil a neo-feudal and tribal mentality.

“I too disagree with this mentality. I was only depicting what is implicit based on the findings of Malay and bumiputera history, communal knowledge, and culture,” he tweeted yesterday.

Wan Fayhsal said such implicit knowledge of the “collective unconscious” (sic) of the Malays in regard to identity politics can be gleaned from books by academics such as Chandra Muzaffar, Thock Ker Pong, Mazli Bidu, Jamaie Hamil, and Firdaus Zainal.

He said this in response to Galen Centre For Health and Social Policy CEO Azrul Mohd Khalib, who said the National Unity deputy minister’s remarks on Malays needing a protector were the views of those who want to keep the Malays from developing and moving past feudal structures.

Wan Fayhsal made the remarks while explaining why Malays do not support Harapan.

He said Bersatu managed to gain Malay support after leaving Harapan because voters embraced Bersatu for rejecting liberalism.

He added that Malays were not prepared for a full-blown liberal democracy. MKINI




Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.