Why we do the things we do
May 8, 2008
By Helen Ang
_________________________
I shall attempt to honestly reply banjaran’s question: “Did theSun step on your toes Helen?”
Yes.
In fact, I’ve already written a 1,100-word reply earlier to her (or him). I wrote all of it in one sitting, very spontaneously, and hit the ‘Submit’ key on the very first draft. It appears as a comment – with some typing errors – in ‘Where does the buck stop with MSM?’
I’d titled it ‘Why we single out MSM for boycott’. But in truth, it could just as easily be ‘Reason I’m doing all of this’.
Why theSun gets my goat is encapsulated in this sentence: “If you cannot do what is right, at least refrain from doing what is wrong.”
theSun’s MCA article* is a ‘wrongness’ because it’s crap. It was ‘wrong’ of the paper to palm it off on readers. I’ve used the words within quotation marks because mine is a nuanced sentiment.
In my first ‘Sun-stroke’, I’d tackled the paper’s election editorial. theSun said it had every right to slant its writing in support of whichever side it pleases.
So in theSun’s lights, there’d be nothing wrong with publishing the MCA say. It’s an opinion. Everybody’s entitled to one. Bully for you if you disagree.
Why did I find the MCA ‘analysis’ so offensive?
Here’s an analogy. Haris has got legal expertise. Perhaps you don’t. Neither do I. However, if we asked Haris to explain a point of law, we trust that he gives us an honest explanation.
I don’t know Econs. The MCA article talks economics and that’s a specialised subject. The author is supposedly an expert. But she was bullshitting. That’s dishonest.
Haris would never write shit (to further an agenda) about the law just because he knows his stuff, we don’t, and he can pull wool over our eyes if he cares to. The replies he’s made to readers’ queries have been conscientiously forthright.
And I can further lend this insight to his character. I’d once asked him a question he preferred not to answer. It was a matter of confidentiality and this was how Haris responded: “I’m not sure.” Respect.
To return to my point: “If you cannot do what is right, at least refrain from doing what is wrong.”
theSun, more than any other Malaysian paper, self-promotes its “good journalism”. It self-promotes its ‘quality’ opinion pieces. And it published that MCA piece. Less critical readers might have thought “Wahlau, so many impressive words and flowery sentences; this must be a helluva an excellent article”.
I’d asked a few of my smarter-than-me friends and they all said it’s the most incoherent piece of garbage. They even advised me not to waste my time tackling it – pointless to try and make sense out of nonsense.
I wish I could lay my finger precisely on why the article is flawed and tell you. But what can Helen, who’s not trained in Econs, do about debunking this op-ed by that writer backed by credentials and think tank? theSun with its dogged marketing might have left an impression that what it prints most certainly has to be a piece of learned opinion.
My predicament is a microcosm of our – we, the Ordinary Joe’s – sheer inability to right all the deliberate wrongs pervading this perverse country.
It’s the frustration we feel when ‘poor’ and powerless people are continually taken for a ride. How Haris felt over Kamariah Ali’s plight. What RPK felt about folks getting away with murder. When some people can do whatever they goddamn want and we can’t do a goddamned thing about it.
But sometimes the world is funny: Kongres Permuafakatan Melayu is 200 Malay NGOs; Haris Ibrahim is one man. And he says to the Kongres: “I’m gonna take you on, chimps”.
There is a distinction between ‘self-righteous’ and doing the right thing, however impossible.
I’m going to conclude with a Quranic saying. Haris quoted it; I read and I remembered. “Follow those who do not ask from you any wage.”
We do not get any wage for all that we do here, and I’m not asking you to follow ‘us’ either. I’m just urging that we all follow our conscience because we know in our hearts what is right. It’s just that the right thing is often more difficult to do. Some people at least try. Some don’t. Others aid and abet the wrongness.
Ultimately, we live by our deeds.
* Sun-stroke: Help! MCA think tank a tipple
http://harismibrahim.wordpress.com/2008/05/07/sun-stroke-help-mca-think-tank-a-tipple
May 8, 2008 at 2:57 pm
We Praise Right & Hate Wrong！
============================
With heart & Soul with Fairness and Equalities to ALL
We think and care not to say something Wrong
as it will mean we will be unfair to somebody else!
We praise Professionals as they are the one trained to see Right or Wrong
to preach and to tell when something could be or goes wrong!
But if Professional are hiding from their social responsibilities to do so or even to move away from what they should or even to distort
They are surely the one to be condemned.
A lot of Professions are related to logic which not only a Profession can possess
But those who care and do the necessary research or alert can be aware!
When Professional are repeatedly subjected to queries if they had done correctly,
The Professional Body should check and come up with comments and not let it be handing in the air!
Will Professional care to speak on the matter?
One thing I am sure, the Ethics of many Professional in Malaysia had gone as their Governing Bodies are shy to say something is wrong with members of their Professionals!
So even “non-professional” has to talk about Professional!!
Don’t complain even if we were joking about Professionals!!
May 8, 2008 at 3:24 pm
If you think that you can do right, do that.
If you think that you can do wrong, well… do that too.
After all, if you don’t do anything, it’s wrong.
Dear Helen,
Why are you so obsessive about “If you cannot do what is right, at least refrain from doing what is wrong” ??
It’s YOUR life, Helen.
Unless you live _for_ thesun, nothing from _thesun_, _themoon_ or even _thestar_ can influence you a bit.
If it’s our country you worry about, worry no more. Let me assure you, Ms. Helen Ang, you are not alone.
But you need to wake up, Helen. Stop wasting your time with _thesun_. You need to go forward with your life.
That is all I have to say.
May 8, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Very well said… I read this quote somewhere and have always been an inspiration to me, “Do what you can, with what you have, where you are”. God bless and keep writing.
May 8, 2008 at 5:24 pm
I am probably going to get flamed for this response.
Alternative media (AM) harps on its right to express itself. Even if some of its article are crap. The same courtesy should be extended to MSM too, don’t you think?
So the crux of the matter is whether the average reader is able to think for himself when he/she reads an article, regardless whether it is from MSM or AM. Being crap is not the reason for boycott.
What if the MSM is unethical, like the under-reporting of the number of demonstrators in the Bersih demonstration last year?
Well, the silver bullet that is going to slay the MSM monstrosity is not a boycott. It is truth. AM effectively shut out the MSM in PRU12 by revealing things covered up by the MSM. Once MSM lost its credibility, few believed what was written, even if they did buy it. Many flocked to AM for the trusth.
BN understands this - hence the sudden surge in the number of bloggers from the BN camp. To fortify their propaganda machinery in the MSM.
I have seen articles being referenced via emails by the ordinary blokes and gals, the readers of AM. On coverups, blunders, stupidity of the power-that-be. These spread further as we kopi-tiam talked over with friends, folks and kins.
So AM, do not think your voice is weak in comparison to MSM. In my opinion, the MSM are really, really frightfully afraid of the AM, especially the frequently visited ones. Like the People’s Parliament.
May 8, 2008 at 9:58 pm
When something Principled wrong, it does not matter how many times it is repeated when it needs to be repeated!
Just to warn it is wrong and Do Not Repeat Again and should repeat until the wrong is corrected!
Like the amendments of Housing Acts!
How come more amendments to get more bias and the betray of Purchasers’ rights of getting Certification of Completion and Strata Title in time but leading to longer involvement of Developer with loose controls!
Building Common Property Maintenance & Management Act(2006)) to confuse more on Housing Developer Act and Strata Title Act where purchasers are forced to pay management fee even they do not have the voting Rights! The auditing and monitor of the MC (after Strata Title issued) or Joint Management Body (before ST issued) are not well specified but they are encouraged to set up by-law. How many use the loopholes to pass by-law to include even cutting water supply to force paying of Management Fee but monitoring of Management is not a condition! Cutting of water supply is contradicting with the Rights of Support in Strata Title Act!
And it is promoted by NGO like fire in the wild!
The BCPMMA was proposed by a “famous” lawyer in Conveyancing with the knowledge that Singapore had combined all Housing Acts into one in 2004 but he deliberately made up this “Monster” Act with more confusion and bullies on purchasers and even Ministers to have last saying than court on the Act!
Should we say and repeatedly say to warn People that the Act is Bias？
And,
CALL ONTO PROFESSIONALS - BE ETHICAL!!
CALL ONTO PROFESSIONAL BODIES - DO MONITOR AND CALL FOR RESPONSIBILITY!
CALL FOR LEGISLATION TO SET UP LAW THAT PROFESSIONAL TO BE RESPECTED BUT ALSO TO BE PENALIZED WHEN THEY FLIP-FLOPPED on the Trueness of what they proposed or acted!!
Life to be go on. But with Ethic, especially when Professionalism involved!
Why do We have to Do the Things that Professional Bodies DO NOT DO??
May 8, 2008 at 11:51 pm
I think Headache has a point.
There is a lot of crap and semi truth on the blogs too and alternative media. And even RPK is not above it. But that does not mean we ‘boycott’ RPK? There are other things in life and readers of this blog are essentially convinced that MSM is not telling the truth.
This is where we have to be aware of the Alternative media and blogs. At this point we have a common goal in trying to get BN and MSM to change or be changed. But when that goal is achieved, we will have so much crap in our midst- who do we believe then?
Lets try and tackle such ‘future’ issues. I think we will have a credibility gap in the future.
We have to respect freedom of speech even when it is bullshit. This is where we are walking on thin ice. Saying one thing and not quite practising it.Least we do not become what we set out to change.
May 9, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Hi Helen,
You are so damned right. What most MSMs publish are craps and twisted tales. We have to be discerning in what we read and not let a great vocabulary hide the spin behind the opinion.
Most malaysians turned to the blogs to get away from the mangy mongerals in MSMs, running at the beck of their masters. The AM has reported fairly and are better believed that whats reported in the MSMs.
However, how much you point at bullshit, the small brains will inevitabliy step on them.To quote from a friend, bullhit has taken people to the top, but it has not kept them there. So forget the bullshitters and carry on with your life; which includes your contributions to Peoples Parliament.
May 9, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Avtaran,
Apart from agreeing with Headache, what exactly are you saying?
Headache’s input had a point of contention, a ‘middle section’ analysis and a plausible conclusion.
You’re not a newbie to commenting in blogs, therefore, quite well-versed between knowing the truth and recognising BS. I’m curious..
And I’m also curious on another issue..
How often does the head honcho of an MSM write in the business section of their publication?
WCW did one on 7th May ‘08 entitled ‘Mideast investors still keen on Malaysia’ which, at first glance, looks like another ‘thumbnail’ analysis for the benefit for the business community and/or potential investors.
Until you realise two pertinent factors -
a) Abu Dhabi investors coming into Iskandar Malaysia (formerly known as IDR, the purported brainchild of AAB despite Johore having a similar masterplan under TDM) and,
b) AAB’s statement at the Malaysian Press Institute Awards Night on 2nd May ‘08. Amongst other things, he also said -
“..So members of the press should be specialists, like in the issue of fuel price increase. Otherwise, the report might not be right…..
When writing or reporting, you can get carried away when writing news or commentaries….
When you become influential, it is very important to be responsible, understand and realise that your role comes with responsibilities.”
So is WCW giving AAB a ‘leg up’ on business reports in the Star to help attract more FDIs? Or the timing of WCW’s business commentary on I.M. just purely coincidental to the request from AAB for journalists to be ’specialists’ in their reports?
May 10, 2008 at 9:58 am
The truth is the word ‘media’ is misleading, there is nothing ‘medium’ or neutral about it. Media is bias one way or another. It has power. Why else would the authorities want to control it? Hence self-checking is highly important.
You correctly point out the garbage often published in our MSM and give more credence to those that they should not. They are in it to sell advertisement, not the truth. Rupert Morduch became one of the richest man in the world understanding this. And he is a talented and smart man.
Our media people are less smart and able and hence what they do is correspondingly much worst…
May 11, 2008 at 6:25 pm
To Helen of Ang, the online orifice of linguistic elixirs, whose use of words intoxicates my thoughts with as much effect as her namesake from Troy does with her beauty. Though thou may not have set sailed a thousand ships, nonetheless, thy expressions have shown me another 360 degrees of possibilities.
My lady,
RE: But sometimes the world is funny: Kongres Permuafakatan Melayu is 200 Malay NGOs; Haris Ibrahim is one man. And he says to the Kongres: “I’m gonna take you on, chimps”.
Helen, by the line above I assume you appraise positively of Haris’s May 5th post titled “An open invitation to the chimps of Malay sovereignty”. As a sign of respect to you, and in some ways inspired by some of the things you wrote in this article, I beg to differ.
To me, the wording of his open invite was more an indication of his capacity for name- calling than anything else. It reminded me of a more sophisticated version of Bung Mohktar (esp when Bung recently called someone ‘big monkey!’) but with bucket loads of self- righteousness thrown into the mix. And due to its wording, the invite defeats its very purpose.
Permit me to explain by way of example and analogy. And to minimize any possibility for misunderstanding, please read it till the end.
As you mentioned, if you were to direct a legal query at Haris, though you know he can bamboozle you on legal issues, nonetheless, you are confident that he wont. Of course, he might give you a wrong answer, but you will consider it is an honest mistake rather than thinking that he had intentions of duping you.
In other words, the whole exercise of asking his opinion starts and hinges on you having faith in Haris’s integrity—you trust his integrity enough. If you think there is a possibility he would lie, then you wouldn’t be bothered to ask Haris in the first place. It would be pointless.
By the same token, it will be pointless for the Malay NGO’s to respond to Haris’s invite.
By the choice of words that he uses’s in the posting (and also in his reply to my comment) , it is obvious that Haris doesn’t trust them. Please note, that I am not referring that he doesn’t trust their position (which is ok and goes without saying), but rather their integrity. At first he calls them Umno ‘frontman’ which he later clarified (in his reply to me in comment no 24) meant they were, ‘like mercenaries, who will lend their skills for a price’. And he levies them of being mercenaries, WITHOUT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE or even citing, a token reason.( in fact, he even ask me, whether I’m a mercenary)
As such I think it would be pointless for them to respond.
After all, if we have concluded before hand and without an iota of proof that they are hired hand, then regardless of the validity of what they say, we will think that it comes from the mouths of mercenaries, and hence, to be given short shrift. As you and I know, mercenaries are by definition, not to be trusted.
Additionally, alleging people of being mercenaries is a very serious accusation. And if a person does it without any evidence, then that person either doesn’t have a sense of justice and fairness, or has a very incoherent one. And if a person is that unfair, that in all likelihood, he wouldn’t be able to evaluate fairly the veracity of any argument. It will meaningless to respond to such a person. Since in his response to Professor Emiritus Ismail, Haris has shown that he is such a person,( or he becomes such a person when dealing with Professor Emiritus Ismail and co) it will be pointless for the former to respond to the latter.
Or at least, not worth the effort.
Thus Helen, to recap, in my opinion, by its infantile choice of language, Haris’s invite defeats its own purpose.
Cheers and salam.
PS- to know where I am coming from it would good to reread the post “A Open Invitation to the Chimps of Malay Sovereignty”, complete with my comments and rejoinders with Haris
PSS- A minimal amount of trust is necessary ingredient to make any potential endeavor worthwhile pursuing. Though its presence does not guarantee a successful outcome, but without it, the endeavor wouldn’t even have taken place. Actually, in the economics discipline, there is a parallel lesson to this issue. This same phenomena of ‘trust’, as cited by Nobel Prize winner, Armtya Sen is probably what Adam Smith was talking about when the latter mentions that for the smooth functioning of the market mechanism there must exist beforehand “established rules of behaviour”.
Armtya Sen gives a simple example in his book “Freedom as development”. In the book he mentions, if you don’t trust somebody (ie- if you’d think he is going to renege on his promises), regardless of however watertight you can make a legal agreement for a potential business, nonetheless, the majority of the times, you wouldn’t enter into such an agreement with him.And this was part of the reasons why the former Soviet states had such a torturous time in their transition from a command economy to a market economy.
May 11, 2008 at 11:09 pm
To Mat Rempit Hubris, Carthage
My dear Sir (or Madam),
I agree with Haris on most things, disagree with him on a few things and thoroughly concur with him that you write very well. In fact, you write so well as to traumatize me with your mockery.
Okay lah, I readily admit I do not possess your eloquence and I’ve used strong words like ‘crap’, ‘bullshitting’, ‘shit’, ‘garbage’, ‘helluva’, ‘goddamn’ and ‘ goddamned’.
So even if race did not bar me from Gapena, it’s quite obvious from my language and simple vocabulary that I’m no intellectual to qualify for membership. And by extension, as only to be expected, the inadequate Ms Ang has never before heard of Tun Ismail Hussein until you brought him up.
What to do? If I had been Melayu, then maybe the gomen would have given me a scholarship so that I could be more educated … like you. But then again, from my own admission that I’m incapable of grasping Econs, aiyoh, cannot even qualify asking MCA for assistance (urm, though the truth of the matter is that if MCA were to come near me, I’d whip out my crucifix and garlic to keep them well away).
Therefore the utmost that I can do to vent my frustration is scream ‘bully’ at theSun and at that think tank CEO who uses impressive words and flowery sentences which are beyond my own limited capacity.
By the way to digress briefly, a commentator noted that the CEO called herself a “thoroughbred”. I Googled and found that it’s true! She did, here in the MCA website http://www.mca.org.my/ENGLISH/COMMENTARIES/Pages/G1andG2Socio-CulturalFluidity.aspx
‘Thoroughbred’ – with which Soong describes herself – is rendered as “vocal, articulate, influential, often Christians, and are likely to be from a professional class”. Alas, I’m none of these. I do have a vocational skill though, which is a small consolation, I’d suppose.
And you know what? You, Sir or Madam, reason so well and argue so well that frankly, you scare me more than Special Branch! And furthermore, you’ve managed to embarrass me into apologizing on ‘chimp’ – which I do, unreservedly now.
Yes, I have faith in Haris’ integrity as you’ve pointed out. And I would point out to you that Haris has been principled. Back in November 2007 on the eve of the movement’s rally, Haris took the unpopular stand that the Hindraf approach was communal based and they could have framed their appeal for support as to encompass a common struggle.
If I read Haris correctly now – sorry, I’ve not been following this particular issue – he’s saying that the Malay rights business is communal too and retrogressive.
I would like to extend some faith in your integrity as well, judging from your well-reasoned argument, I’m certain you possess. Really, I mean this … am not sniding you at all.
So apart from knocking us down a peg and two for using the ‘C’ word, just help to shed some light if you will, and enlighten us. Even if we don’t reckon Umno to be worth listening to, Malay intellectuals ought to be given a hearing. I’m all ears.
And since Haris indulges me with giving the space, let me briefly add on as to ‘why we do the things we do’.
I’m sad that Supremacism has killed the fragile quality of ‘Hope’ in the non-thoroughbred non-Malays. The B- and C-grade student nobody gives much thought to, unlike the straight ‘A’s boy or girl deprived of a seat in medical college.
These are the students who are not vocal, who are inarticulate, whose parents are un-influential and who are unlikely to ever make it to the professional classes. I’m very sad that this country deprives these young people of a fair shake in life.
They might grow up and vent using words like ‘crap’ and ‘bullshit’ and ‘goddamn’ like me, and be some more of a plague to refined people like you.
But I’m bloody weary of writing and do think I deserve a rest. Please feel free to tell me to go hibernate – it’s what I personally want to do anyways. I am so very mentally fatigued; surely you can sense it, and not up to deflecting your scorn.
Salam and god bless.
May 12, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Helen,
Hi. Am sorry for late response and for not being able to give a fuller reply….Am really running around here there to the extant i’ve lost my bearings. But i hope to do so as soon as i can.
Cheers.
MR Hubris, Carthage
May 14, 2008 at 6:37 pm
My lady Helen,
Though I may disagree with some of the positions and conclusions that this blog takes, nonetheless, I have always been comforted by its idealism and humility. To me, these two ingredients will provide a natural check and balance to the limitations of each other. Though idealism is the fuel that makes us continuously strive for individual and collective improvement, nonetheless, idealism, by its very nature, has a tendency to develop excess, and turn into self- righteousness. To me, this is why humility is such an important component of the People’s Parliament; it will serve if you will, as this blog’s ‘internal moral auditor’ that keeps the excesses of its idealism in check.
But post March 8th, I sensed a change. Yes, the idealism still exist. Indeed, some may even say that it has been invigorated by the election results. But I sense a change in its tone— though the humility is still there, yet its pulse, is no longer as consistently felt.
Thus, when I detected in the ‘chimp’ posting that the humility was not only gone, but replaced by its opposite— arrogance—, I felt compelled to comment.
Salam
PS—-I get the impression that you think that I am a member of Gapena or have insight to the 200 NGO’s. I am not a member of Gapena and I did not participate in the gathering at JB. So I cant say with conviction what they were all about. As you know, context is everything, and if we are not privileged to it, we will definitely engage in misrepresentations. (for instance, since I wasn’t at the forum firsthand, I will not be able to sift thru the emotional and the hyperbole to get at the sober and the rational. Perhaps if some of them were emotional, it is because they had in mind the alieness of certain groups, like the one dubbed g1 by Fui K.Soong. Neither would I be able to distinguish between posturing and rhetoric to substantive and legitimate demands) Since, I do not know enough of the context; i do not want to comment and increase any possibility for misrepresentation.
But I do know that Pak Mail (Tan Sri Prof Emiritus Ismail) has a very unorthodox way of looking at what a Malay is—unorthodox that is for those who are unfamiliar with the subject. Within the broad and fluid framework of Malay identity that he describes in a 1988 speech have gave in front of the Sultan of Kedah, I wouldn’t be surprise, if even you Helen, can fall under its ambit….and ‘hentah-hentah layak masuk Gapena’. Please note that I am not saying that he provides a definition of what is a Malay in that speech. Rather he merely provides a peek into what the many outreaches of academic endeavor ( like sociology, linguistics, history, archeology, etc- etc) has to reveal about Malay’s, ‘Malayness’ and the vexing problems in trying to define them. Later in 1990, on the occasion of his retirement as a Professor,I think that speech was used as a template for Pak Mail’s ‘sharahan perdana’.
And the first thing that strikes the mind from even a cursory glance at those two speech’s, is that the definition of ‘Malay’ as provided by our constitution doesn’t even begin to capture its diversity and inclusiveness. There are muslim malays, budhist malays, hindu malays, Christian malays and even malays who are animists. For instance the first Prime Minister of the Philipines, Apolinatio Mabini (1864- 1903) considered himself a Malay nationalist and in 1898 was already advocating a ‘Federation Malaya’. This aspiration of Apolinatio was well known, and General Arthur McArthur, former military Governor of the Philipines was probably referring to it when he said ‘His (Mabini’s) idea was a dream of a Malay confederacy.” To me, by the way Mabini expresses his aspirations, the fact that he was not a muslim, doesn’t even remotely crosses his mind as a possible disqualification of him being a Malay.
Roughly thirty years later, on 12th Febuary 1932, the same pan- Malay aspiration theme was repeated in a speech by an extremely precocious young student of the College of Law, Universiti Filipina, Wenceslao Q.Vinzons. In fact he already used the word ‘Malaysia’ in that speech….which is a good 30years before it was chosen to be our country’s name. He later became the governor of Camarines Norte. According to Wikipedia, he was also to become the youngest signer of its 1935 Constitution.
Of course, in his speech, Pak Mail also makes fleeting references that familiar Malay words such as ‘jalan’, mata, duri, pejam, nyiur dan pandan is used in some of the languages of the Polynesian Islands. Of course, one of the foremost experts on Malay history, Leonard Andaya, a Hawaian, considers himself a Malay. And the capital of Madagascar, Antananarivo, was a slight corruption of the malay ‘Tanah ribu’. He also mentions that within academia there are such points of references like (I will retain the Malay translation for fear that something may be lost if I were to translate into English) “ Dunia Melayu Inti, Dunia Melayu Berbahasa Melayu, Dunia Rumpun Melayu dan Dunia Melayu Polinesia—-yang tiap satunya walaupun saling bertindih., namun melambangkan alamnya tersendiri”. Within such a diverse constellation, will also be included Formosan Malay’s, Sri Lankan Malay,s, ect- etc.
Anyway, apart from revealing that academia’s understanding of Malay’s is very different to the common layman’s, these lectures also, to a lesser degree, reveals abit about Pak Mail, the man and the scholar. Though his 1990 lecture was merely 40 pages long, nonetheless his selected bibiliography cites almost 50 sources—including Spanish, English, Philipines, Indonesian, Malaysian’s and of course Dutch. In other words it reveals a man who has integrity—who meticulously compiles evidence to support what he has to say—and I might add ,with more far more rigour than I have seen on any blog. In fact, in a way he encapsulates what serious scholarship is all about—it is about having the integrity to support your position with evidence and sources. And the quality of your sources will in many ways influence your professional reputation.
Thus, if you have an opportunity to hear what pak mail has to say firsthand, try to listen without to many preconceived idea’s…even if he talks about Ketuanan Melayu. If you find his explanation on such a familiar subject as Melayu, surprising, then you might find his explanation on Ketuanan Melayu or Kedaulatan Melayu even more so. But do try to avoid coming with all guns blazing…Pak Mail maybe a scholar but he is not a saint, and if you approach him in a rude manner, he may in his response reflect the spirit of how he was approached, rather than anything else.