Hornbill Unleashed

October 17, 2010

Empowering Sarawakians through History, Part 3.

By Bunga Pakma

In the twilight days of 1941 Sarawak was a mess. Politics “happened” in a very small circle of very strange white people and what they got up to boggles the mind. If presented as fiction, readers would reject it as unbelievable. Once again, I point you to Bob Reece’s The Name of Brooke. Reece unravels the sordid tale with nigh miraculous clarity.

Vyner and his Constitution

Vyner had nothing on his mind but ensuring the comfort of his own ass and keeping his nephew Anthony, the heir-presumptive, as impotent as possible on the chance that the Raj should descend to him.

To compass both ends, Vyner promulgated a Constitution for Sarawak that would change the form of government from an absolute to a limited monarchy.  The preamble of the constitution stated nine “Cardinal Principles” which rang with lofty ideals. Needless to say, the system of government specified in the body of the text contained next to no democracy. Henceforth the Rajah would have to consult with his “nobles” in the Supreme Council and the Council Negri, most of whose members were appointed. A step forward, true. England had made it 750 years before with the Magna Carta.

The constitution came with a price-tag of $2,000,000. Vyner negotiated a secret agreement with the Committee of Administration to ensure that whatever happened he and his family (a very strange bunch) continued to live in the manner to which they had become accustomed.

Welcome to the Greater East-Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere

Then the Japanese invaded and rendered the white people’s bickering and intrigue irrelevant. This is known as a “metasolution,” as when you win the game by overthrowing the chessboard. The people of Sarawak had passed under the rule of another élite. The Japanese had an army, and were thus the biggest and baddest master the country had known.

Political Consciousness

In the first two parts of this series, we have focussed on the politics of the élites. I propose leaving the Japanese aside and examining the first stirrings of political consciousness among ordinary Sarawakians.

Of course Sarawakians had always been conscious of politics. All races were aware of their rights. The Ibans of the Skrang and Lundu had been strong enough to do deals with Brunei on the footing of equals. The arrival of the Brooke Raj upset the Sarawak balance of power. Many Dayaks welcomed Brooke’s protection. Others resented his encroachment. This resentment was the motive behind the Chinese Insurrection of 1857 and the numerous “rebellions” that Charles (James’s awesome and ruthless war-leader-in-chief) put down in the 1860s and 70s.

It became clear to every Sarawakian that no small polity (tribal or not) could resist the Brookes’ superior organization. It is my sense, for what it’s worth, that most Sarawakians resigned themselves to accept the Raj and get on with their lives. If the world has seen anything even vaguely approximating a benevolent autocracy, this was it, and in such a case it was a relief to follow the path of least resistance. Ruling one’s self is hard.

Rubber was booming in the 1920s. In that decade of prosperity—as Reece observes—education expanded. New schools, Malay, Chinese and Iban, were founded, and the old Kuching schools increased their enrollment. It is just marvellous how education—any education at all—will (so to speak) poison peoples’ minds.

A Digression on Education in Sarawak

It would be absurd to say that Sarawakians did not prize education. Before the whites got in the way, the literate Malays studied Islam and Islamic jurisprudence and the literate Chinese possessed a venerable classical syllabus. The Dayaks had no script of their own, but no one can deny they too treasured and passed on an important body of knowledge. When they got the chance, the Dayaks leaped to acquire literacy.

One of the first missionaries, Rev. William Gomes opened a school seven days after his arrival in Lundu in 1853. Eighteen students immediately registered for classes. His son Edwin tells two further stories.

In 1861 the famous Saribas warrior Buda walked unannounced into the Banting mission-school. The young students, Balau Ibans, crowded into the corner, whispering “munsoh!” Buda took off his parang-ilang, laid it aside, and asked the teacher, Rev. Mesney, whether he could join the class and learn to read and write. Buda’s lessons started that day.  Later on Gomes comments:

    A party of Saribas Dyaks going on a gutta-hunting expedition asked for a copy of the first Dyak reading-book, because one of them could read, and thought he would teach the others in the evenings when they were not at work. And this is indeed what did happen, and when the party returned most of them were able to read. The Saribas women are  just as keen as the men, and many of them have been taught to read by some Dyak friend.

Grass-roots Politics

With the idea of education firmly in place, 1930 was the perfect time for the Crash and Great Depression to be felt in Sarawak. Nobody was going to starve or freeze to death, but people had tasted prosperity, their expectations had been raised and they looked around for ways to re-gain their well-being. The government had cut back on employment and offered few jobs to the educated. Sarawakians saw it was a matter of help yourself because nobody else will.

Rakawi Yusoff founded Kuching’s first Malay newspaper, Fajar Sarawak, and wrote a history and Sarawak’s first novel. Others in Rakawi’s circle later founded the Persatuan Melayu Sarawak, which aimed to promote Malay unity, business and culture. In 1939 a number of Iban small-holders in Paku and Rimbas banded together to form the Dayaks Co-operative Society, the first Dayak registered company.

Events in the outside world also brought Sarawakians to be more aware of their potentials. Sarawakians followed Gandhi’s movement in India, and developments in the big plantation-countries of Malaya and the Dutch East-Indies. Chinese Sarawakians looked with pride on the rise of the Kuomintang on the mainland, and reacted with horror and concern to Japan’s brutal imperialism. When Japan annexed Manchuria Chinese Sarawakians organized a boycott against Japanese goods, and in 1937 they established the Sarawak branch of the China Distress Relief Fund.

The Grass Grows from the Ground Up

I doubt that by 1941 the Brits had anything left to teach Sarawakians about the nature of imperialism, colonialism and nationalism.

The Japanese Occupation (which Prof. Reece has also treated in his Masa Jepun) developed these political lessons. Strangely enough, the experience of being occupied taught many Sarawakians their own strength, and how confidently they could rely on their own powers. They had to learn to survive in a modern régime of unprecedented resources for control. They learned to lie and to “manage” those in authority. In memoir after memoir from the time people describe how at last they were doing things and taking responsibilities they had never been allowed to do or take before.

When the Australians landed and the Japanese had surrendered, Sarawak was a wreck physically, but political awareness, political aspirations and political skills were already in place, ready to manifest themselves. The people of Sarawak had built the foundations of their own future themselves, from the ground up.

12 Comments »

  1. Abang,

    Appreciate the well-researched reply. Here’s something to ponder over:

    (1)Notwithstanding the historical root: you didn’t try to explain why enlightened Singaporean would choose to have a “China Town” in the midst of their metropolis, if not for the reasons that I had suggested.

    (2)A derogatory term in its historical context, doesn’t have to stay that way. Language evolve with time. If a derogatory term is held to a sacrosanct status – that it cannot be spoken or written – it would retain its original derogatory meaning. But think of the impact to social consciousness if 5th Avenue were to launch “Chinaman” casual wear, and made a hugh commercial success.

    (3)We have derogatory term for every race, sub-race and tribes known to man, as you have illustrated. It is like oxygen. It is there and part of Oxford Dictionary and Wikipedia. The difference is some of the race would rise above it, while some – by being ultra-sensitive to it, would perpetuate its original definition. If I am Chinese, to anyone who would ask if I’m a “Chinaman”, I would say, “yes – and there are 600 million of us proud Chinaman in the world”. Note the difference when Colin Powell was asked if he was black where he was reputed to have protested,”I am not that black”. If I were to be asked if I’m a descendant of a headhunter, I would say,”yes – hold to your head, when you are around me”.

    (4) On Ting Pek King being characterized as a “Chinaman” by Hakim Joe, any reader would immediately recognize that to mean that Mr Ting Pek King had been a quintessential “Chinaman”, for he had rise to become very successful in business, without having to attend college first. So, from my point of view – that’s hardly derogatory, regardless of the historical roots of the term.

    (5) I don’t quite understand the link between historical racial slurs about the olden days Chinese immigrants with “sinophobia”. The phrase “Yellow Peril” as coined by American hawks to describe the threat of Communist China, as compare to Communist Russia, may be described as Sinophobic, but that would be different than a racial slur. Then again, it doesn’t matter to me if some people would be “headhunterphobic around me”, i just have to smile and be nice.

    Comment by Meramat Tajak — October 22, 2010 @ 7:12 AM | Reply

    • SINOPHOBIA

      Meaning of words can evolved but why continue to promote words with negative racial connotations?

      The use of words like “Chinaman” is part of the anti-Chinese feelings (sinophobia)that is still being fostered in Malaya Sarawak and Sabah. This serves to perpetuate the racial stereotyping. For this reason I do not accept the continued use of this word.

      Arguments can be made for and against for any subject but it is unnecessary to put a racial slur on the people you are referring to. If the same people who like to use such words argue for other races they must also call the other races by negative names so their argument would be more balanced.

      Obviously this debate can continue for a while. So I will reserve my comments and let others have a say.

      Comment by Abang — October 22, 2010 @ 7:28 AM | Reply

  2. And this is the very reason why I am publishing my book on Iban history. It is all documented at my blog, http://ourbookproject.blogspot.com

    Comment by Vernon Kedit — October 17, 2010 @ 11:13 PM | Reply

  3. Bunga Pakma,

    Appreciate the story telling aspects of this Sarawak history. I suppose, at some point – later, you will share with readers the empowering aspects of this series ?

    Thus far, he political history suggest Sarawak people would not be able to hold themselves together and would require external forces stronger than themselves – to keep the peace(Brunei Sultanate, Brooke, British Colonial Government, Malaya neo-colonialist) at the expense of their right to true self-rule.

    I look forward to reading the next installment in this series.

    Comment by Meramat Tajak — October 17, 2010 @ 5:16 PM | Reply

  4. To All Dayak Leaders In PBB, PRS, SUPP and SPDP. Dayaks are no longer your political pawns whom you can squeeze and intimidate to vote for Bn in return for developments.

    By Christina S. Suntai, Change We Must

    My brother Numpang anak Suntai and his wife, Helen Unchat, together with 11 tribal leaders and villagers from 11 longhouses are now camping in Ulu Sebangan as we speak. Today I want to refer to their make shift camp as “Langkau Ngintu Menoa.”

    They are leading the villagers to form a blockade to stop bulldozers used by illegal loggers, Quality Concrete Holdings, whose Executive Chairman is Tiang Ming Sing, from further penetration into their native customary lands, which include rice fields, pepper vines, fruit trees, rubber plantations and communal forest at Ulu Sebangan.

    The illegal loggers, Quality Concrete Holdings, whose Executive Director is Tiang Ching Kok and major shareholder is Rodiah Binti Mahmud, sister of CM Taib Mahmud remain relentless in their efforts to grab the valuable trees. They are bulldozing their way to get to the trees and destroy everything in their path! Every tree they killed for the timber, 28 other little trees will die with it. So far the loggers continue to steal the valuable trees when no one is around to stop them. Therefore the villagers decided to set camp in the jungle to guard the forest, to ensure that the valuable trees will not be stolen by Quality Concrete Holdings.

    Note: Selabu is about 2 hours by boat from Sebangan Bazaar. Sebangan Bazaar is about 3 hours drive to Kuching.
    [goole_sebangan_300]

    Sebangan from Google Maps. Click to enlarge.

    The NCR land and forest in Ulu Sebangan is their life and they are prepared to defend it against known enemies and trespassers who are cronies of the present government of Sarawak. They are prepared to stay for the duration to defend their native land from being destroyed and ancient trees from being bulldozed. They are prepared to go to jail if the State Government of Sarawak under the current Barisan Nasional Administration supported the illegal loggers and arrest them.

    This area of the jungle holds many burial grounds and old longhouse sites. This is the first place where the Sebuyau Ibans settled after their migration from Bukit Balau area more than a hundred years ago. Descandants of Sendi, please note this is the place where “Buah Jupong” is located.
    [communal_forest_300]

    Communal Forest. Click To Enlarge.

    This the area where Sendi paddled to Saribas to look for Guang, a man she was destined to marry as was told by Kumang in her dreams. They are there not only to protect the trees but also to protect the spirits of our great great fathers, “nyaga Petara Aki, Petara Ini” and the spirit of Sendi.

    The Sebuyau Ibans are the legal owner of these lands and forests as substantiated by Department of Land and Survey since 1956. There were many news article written about their heartbreaking efforts to protect their land and forests from further destruction. The Sarawak Barisan Nasional Government of Malaysia is not doing anything to stop the illegal activities. This is a very sad day for Sarawak natives when illegal loggers have more rights and are sanctioned and protected by the current Barisan Nasional Administration in Sarawak, Malaysia. The natives who own the land and forest are watching helplessly while their property is being grabbed and destroyed.

    READ MORE HERE.

    Comment by Irene Kana — October 17, 2010 @ 3:29 PM | Reply

    • WE ARE WITH YOU!

      [The People defend customary rights to land situated between Sungai Sebangan and Sungai Sebuyau]

      Brothers & Sisters of the forest we are with you! Take heart! We hear you and fully support you!

      We salute you for your courage in standing up to resist the vicious rape and plunder of your forest land now being threatened by the enemies of the people.

      You are the brave ones who dare to face the bulldozers and the FRU guns!

      If all Dayaks have woken up like you to fight against the tricks and lies of those political parties in power they will surely be swept from power forever.

      The Dayaks who have not decided must stand up and make a definite decision to break the chains of those who oppress us! Sooner or later they will come for your land or what’s left of it. First it was the Penans now the Dayaks. This rampant plunder must be stopped!

      People of Sarawak come to the aid of our fellow men and women and children who are making a stand in Ulu Sebangan in their hour of need.

      Publicise this new anti-logging struggle! Do whatever you can- spread the news in every town of village by mouth, text messages, emails, posters. If you can go and stand with them. Every little action counts.

      Comment by Abang — October 17, 2010 @ 7:54 PM | Reply

  5. I agree with Bunga Pakma that Sarawakians have had their exposure to political awakenings, beginning with the Bau massacres and the Brookes’ war parties up the Rejang and Saribas in the 19th century, right up to the communist movement during and after the war that involved many different ethnic groups, Malay, Chinese and Dayak. Sarawakians also had a culture of democratic government and self-determination among Iban, Bidayuh and Penan communities, centuries before Voltaire. This culture has been suppressed by Rahman Yakub, Taib Mahmud and their servants (as well as their partners in UMNO) for 40 years. Bunga Pakma’s educational and funny history is a welcome contribution to our eventual hope of restoring this democratic culture.

    Comment by landowner — October 17, 2010 @ 11:56 AM | Reply

    • LET’S TALK

      Countrymen/women let’s talk about our hidden history.

      We have had our exposure but our collective consciousness has been suppressed by official prohibition and threats to freedom of expression and liberty under their many repressive laws such as the ISA.

      We should not fear to mention or discuss all aspects of and to examine this history so we can work out the direction we have to take as people and nation inclusive of every Sarawakian.

      Comment by Abang — October 17, 2010 @ 12:22 PM | Reply

  6. OUR HISTORY-A FAIR VIEW

    PB your installation and style of writing leaves me thirsty for the next engrossing snippets of our history!

    We are lucky to have such an erudite writer who has grasped and presents the facts so concisely (with some humour). At the same time he takes a positive, fair and democratic picture of the people of Sarawak without any overbearing attitudes.

    I say “snippets” because there is clearly a vast amount of research in his writing for the little details to come out in your narrative. There are so many facts and details mentioned which most of us will be absolutely ignorant of. So if you possess the knowledge it would be great to write a definitive version of our history (with full research foot notes and bibliographies).

    Here I wish to raise an issue on the use of words.

    There is a tendency for some writers still to take a divisive and racist colonial view. For example, in some Sarawak websites there are a few who still refer to the Chinese with the derogatory Englishman’s term “Chinaman”. This unfortunately includes some Chinese themselves (Forgive them for they know not what they are saying).

    A person who uses this term in a socio-political context must be expressing his/her contempt for all Chinese people. This is very wrong. For any race there are the “good” and “bad”. For example any Chinese who sells out his country (Sarawak) to foreign interests or betrays the interests of the people (such as the SUPP leadership) must be seen by many – especially the Chinese themselves as “the bad guys”. (Consider the plight of the Chinese PKR MP in Malaya who betrayed her party and electorate by selling out to UMNO BN. She and her family daily faces boycott and snubs from the Chinese. Even hawkers refused to sell them food. Also Chinese Corporations from China involved in dam buildings must be seen in a poor light as in Sarawak dam building have serious and negative socio-economic consequences for the people. This is particularly ironic considering that the Chinese people (China) fought for a century to free themselves from foreign domination and exploitation).

    The Sarawak Chinese as whole made positive contributions to development of our country. Their history is inextricably linked with ours and goes back centuries. Not a few of us have Chinese blood in our veins. Yet we still consider them as a people apart. So we need to think deeper when using words.

    Nor should the Sarawak Chinese think negatively of all Malays or Dayaks. There is always the shades of the “Good, Bad & Ugly”. Most of us agree who are the “Bad & Ugly” in Sarawak politics.

    For all of us who are critical of our present colonial status and desire change, we must speak with fairness and a desire for unity. If we take a “I’m better than you” attitude, then we will not succeed in uniting and changing our situation as a single people. All people born and bred in Sarawak or who choose to stand with us must be regarded as “True Sarawakians”.

    enuff said..

    Comment by Abang — October 17, 2010 @ 8:50 AM | Reply

    • Well said, Abang. Language is important, and the words we choose tell the world the wealth or poverty of our imagination. Bunga Pakma’s words are a local treasure.

      Comment by Pak Bui — October 17, 2010 @ 11:58 AM | Reply

    • Abang

      (cutnpaste from my reply to you in DayakBaru)

      I think you miss the positive impact to the use of label, such as “Chinaman” in public discourse, even across race.

      Have you ever thought what goes through the minds of a Singapore Chinese when he decide to go for a chow in their favourite stall in “China Town” – in Singapore ?

      It is a reference to a relic of the past, that would be recalled with fond memories and revisited every now and then, but certainly – I doubt if the ultra-urban Singapore city-slickers wants to call the whole of their city – “China Town”. They want it to be viewed as a cosmopolitant city which engender a modern worldview comparable to the likes of the urban mindset of New York, London, Paris, Hongkong and Tokyo city slickers.

      In short, “China Town” would be the magnetic term, to be used by the Singapore Chinese themselves to discard their older cultural values, while they seek to embrace a transformation into an outwardly modern cultural values.

      The parallel can be similarly argued for Chinaman.

      I had often heard young Chinese American refer to some older generation Chinese as Chinaman, without any malice.

      It is a colloquial term perhaps, to denote someone who would work very hard; typically very frugal – and would absolutely immerse himself entirely in Chinese ways, oblivious to any other non-Chinese environment. A “Chinaman” shopkeeper would perhaps still practise caveat emptor, with every one of his customer, as both his Buddhist and his Confucious moral values would require the individual to be responsible for his own “awareness” to avoid being ripped off. There would not be any “consumer rights” consciousness in the minds of these guys. But make no mistake, a Chinaman can be an astute businessman, who would also “take no prisoners” against blockers in their way. Yes, a true-blue Chinaman businessperson, would not hesitate to grease a deal with under or over table money; for corruption is not an immoral imperative in his world view. Like him, hate him – he won’t care, would he ?

      As in “China Town”, “Chinaman” can be used by the Chinese folks themselves, to extricate themselves from a part of their past cultural values, to transform themselves into an image that they want to cultivate.

      So, in your critique of Hakim Joe use of the term “Chinaman”; notice that it is used to described a well-known character, and in some ways, I believe readers would agree with Joe that people like Mr Ting Pek King can be described as a consumate “Chinaman”. It clearly does not intend to intimate that all Chinese are “Chinaman”. Quite the opposite.

      How about othe races ? I can’t begin to list them all. Redneck: to denote a white bigot. A lakia – somebody said in this blog, it means a Dayak with ikan pusu mind. Maybe now, we (Dayak Iban) can refer to our relics as Iban Lakia, to denote those stucked in the past, and have never learned to be free and be confident.

      Using “racial” label that are already part of the everyday language, in a way – that it does not intend to abuse the whole race, is natural.Using it responsibly as a literary vehicle, to transform the race mindset – to also effectively relegate the label to a few remaining minority within the race, is perfectly alright – even smart.

      To be sure, I don’t disagree with the rest of your assertion. But by way of a parting remark: do realise that as both Chinese and non-Chinese start to use the term “Chinaman”, it would serve to rid us all of the negative aspects of the term, so that even true-blue Chinaman would be inspired to reform themselves

      Comment by MERAMAT TAJAK — October 20, 2010 @ 5:11 PM | Reply

      • IS SINOPHOBIA- “ANTI-CHINESE SENTIMENT” ACCEPTABLE?
        PERPETUATING RACIST CONCEPTS & STEREO TYPES.

        Thank you for you kind remarks.

        We can agree to disagree and continue to debate without fear or malice. On the base line we should approach the subject with a fair and open mind and the belief that we are all against racism anywhere in the world or universe.

        We should make an effort to promote racial harmony by setting an example as writers in opposing negative racial myths and stereotyping.

        This topic of “Chinaman” is dealt with in Wikipedia under the title “SINOPHOBIA” – The article sets out the history of the anti-Chinese/Asian tendencies around the world. It is suggested all interested readers check it out and similar websites on this topic and give it some thought…

        Wiki Definition: Sinophobia (from Ancient Greek Sinae “the Chinese” + Ancient Greek φόβος -phobos, “fear”) or anti-Chinese sentiment is the fear of or dislike of China, its people, or its culture. It often targets Chinese minorities living outside of China and is complicated by the dilemma of immigration, development of national identity in neighbouring countries, disparity of wealth, fall of the past central tribute system and majority-minority relations

        In the Wiki List of Ethnic Slurs it is defined as:
        “Chinaman (Worldwide English) Chinese person, used in the gold rush and railway-construction eras in western North America, when discrimination against Chinese was common.”

        Even as a native of Sarawak I can see that the term “Chinaman” has long been understood as a term of abuse or expression of contempt. It is malicious racial stereotyping and therefore unacceptable. It just does not sound right.

        “China Town” has a different and neutral connotation to “Chinaman”. Mind you the latter term is unfortunately quite widely used from Russia to USA and the Pacific etc. It is one of the leftover historic racist expressions which other people use to put down the Chinese as a race and has its origins in the fear of the Huns and Mongol invasions of Europe- the “Yellow Peril”. Today many countries who consider themselves “modern and enlightened” still harbour strong racist tendencies. In Malaya this is rabidly fermented by UMNO/PERKASA under the Mahathir and now Najib government. This is similar to the Nazi racial supremacist ideology in Hitler’s Germany. UMNO used the race issue to engineer the May 13 massacre.

        The term “Chinaman” and also “Yellow Peril” were promoted in the 19th & 20th Century by the British & US colonials who used it as an derogatory word as part of their campaigns to stir up white resentment against Chinese migrants in the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and their colonies (because they feared Chinese economic competition- what’s new?). Sinophobic policies (such as the Chinese Exclusion Act, the Chinese Immigration Act of 1923, anti-Chinese zoning laws and restrictive covenants, the policies of Richard Seddon (NZ), and the White Australia policy) and pronouncements on the “yellow peril” were in evidence as late as the mid-20th century in those countries.

        Australia was particular racist and notorious for its “White Australia” policies. It deported thousands of Pacific island workers in the 1900s. Australia NZ & Canada also put a heavy “poll tax” (entry fee) on Chinese migrants and subjected them to deportation. If you applied this sort of discriminatory logic, all white people should return to their original homelands. Now the New Zealand government (2002) has apologised to the Chinese for their bad treatment of the Chinese not long ago. The US, Australia, Canada, Indonesia and Malaya have yet to do something. For the record large numbers of Chinese helped to construct the famous Canadian Pacific Railway. The Chinese first arrived in North America in 1788. That did not make them anyone special but were treated by the white people as badly as the local peoples.

        Many Asian countries have been no different from the western countries in this respect. Indonesia is one of the worst offenders. During the Indonesian killings of 1965–66, in which more than 500,000 people died, ethnic Chinese were killed and their properties looted and burned as a result of anti-Chinese racism on the excuse that Dipa “Amat” Aidit had brought the PKI closer to China. This racist pogrom was repeated in recent years in different parts of Indonesia. In the Philippines, dozens of Chinese are kidnapped every year and may be killed regardless of ransom—a problem the ethnic Filipino police are often indifferent to. Refer to the recent & now infamous incident where Hong Kong tourists were murdered by the Filipino gunman. The authorities took a very laxed approach to the whole matter. We know in Malaysia the police regularly ignore distress calls for help from non-Malays and shut an eye if a Malay did sometime wrong particularly if you happened to be a PM or CM.

        Sinophobia is also codified in some Southeast Asian countries. The anti-Chinese legislation was in the Indonesian constitution until 1998. The Malayan Constitution started as a “democratic” document has been so amended that it now promotes Malay supremacy. We have experienced the implementation and consequences of UMNO’s racist policies.

        The question is: Do we have to perpetuate the bad deeds of the western nations?

        In reference to “Chinese businessman”- The way it was put – it means that every Chinese businessman without exception is a “Chinaman” who is a smooth talking wheeler dealer.

        But that does not get away from the fact that “Chinaman” refers to the Chinese in general. What is the difference between “Chinaman” and “Chinese”? One is abusive and the other is neutral. So to abuse one is to abuse all.

        I would find it very acceptable to call Ting Pek King a “consummate” wheeler dealer without moral principles (a genuine Buddhist would not plunder his fellow man- this world is full of fake Buddhists) who had the opportunity to bribed and cajoled his way to becoming a billionaire. And a mate of Mahathir. One could call him a “big time-thief” – a member of UMNO PBB BN crime syndicate (this is the reality).

        But there is no need to abuse him by his race. After all we don’t abuse Mahathir or Taib on basis of their race but on basis of their staggering corruption and ability to “legally” plunder the land. They have been abused with many names but not according to their race.

        How come we don’t call Mahathir a “Malay thief” or Taib a “Melanau thief”? We just call them thieves?

        So why for example use the term “Chinaman thief” or even “Chinese thief” to describe someone when a thief is a thief regardless of his race.

        This is significant because “Chinaman” is being used in a selective and discriminative way – that is, it is used to single out a person by race.

        This also answers the suggestion that everyone including the Chinese use “Chinaman” as a common term and therefore neutralise the derogatory meaning. To be fair to all races we should also start saying “Nigger thief”, “Malay thief” “Melanau thief”-

        Further if we go along with M. Tajak’s logic and other similar arguments we should start calling black people “Ape/Monkey” “Sambo” “Kaffir” and “Nigger” or Native Americans “Redskins” or “Injuns” or Australian Aborigine “Abos” and Filipino as “Asian Nigger” (used in USA) Southern White US American “Redneck” (this apparently is very offensive) and please wait for the reaction. They won’t take it as kindly and possible king hit you on the head immediately!

        The US Civil Rights movement of the 60s was to oppose and succeeded in changing many of the white people’s discriminatory practices against the black people. The movement won equal treatment for non-white people at least on the legal level. Partly because of their objections the word “Negro” (considered derogatory) it was replaced by the word “black”. “Negro” was arguably a neutral word in that it describes a black African. But in the US context it is offensive to the black people and most white people now respect their wish not to be addressed as such.

        If readers can make this comparison with use of the word “Chinaman” they should understand that it is used in a derogatory context and offensive to the Chinese.

        Postscript:

        To expand on the genralisation that Chinese businee=ssman have Buddhist principles etc see below is a summary from Religious Tolerance.org web page on the Buddhist “Three Trainings or Practices”:

        These three consist of:

        1. Sila: Virtue, good conduct, morality. This is based on two fundamental principles:
        -The principle of equality: that all living entities are equal.
        -The principle of reciprocity: This is the “Golden Rule” in Christianity — to do onto others as you would wish them to do onto you. It is found in all major religions.

        2. Samadhi: Concentration, meditation, mental development. Developing one’s mind is the path to wisdom which in turn leads to personal freedom. Mental development also strengthens and controls our mind; this helps us maintain good conduct.

        3. Prajna: Discernment, insight, wisdom, enlightenment. This is the real heart of Buddhism. Wisdom will emerge if your mind is pure and calm.”

        Let us take Principle No.1 and apply the test to Mr. Ting Pek King.

        “Virtue, good conduct, morality. This is based on two fundamental principles:
        -The principle of equality: that all living entities are equal.
        -The principle of reciprocity: This is the “Golden Rule” in Christianity — to do onto others as you would wish them to do onto you. It is found in all major religions”.

        Ting PK gets a BIG MINUS ZERO. He definitely fails to pass as a “Buddhist” altho I don’t know what his professed religion is. Could be “GREED IS GOOD”?

        For interest- Readers can read up in Movement for Change Sarawak (20/10/10)- Joseph Tawie’s article on Ting’s company’s involvement in a sickening scam to charge $22K per tree for cutting down 300 trees on Tun Jugah Rd in Kuching,

        Comment by Abang — October 21, 2010 @ 2:07 PM | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog at WordPress.com.