AUG 15 — August must be banner month for Ibrahim Ali. After taking some time off following his near-disappearing act at the July 9 Bersih rally, our fiery defender of Malay rights has re-emerged. This time he makes some unusual claims about Perkasa being the defender of Islam, burns some copies of The Star, burns some rubber snakes representing the Indian community and threatens Anwar, Ambiga and Team Najib itself for not paying reverent homage to Perkasa concerns.
Basically, everyone from the MIC to PAS to Bersih to Barisan Nasional itself comes in for a roasting by Ali and Perkasa. However, it’s getting unclear whether the group’s actions and statements, which are meant to be political, have not in fact taken the route to destination Mental.
Take the burning of The Star for its promotion of non-halal food in a Ramadan supplement. Slap the newspaper editor’s wrists — sure. Extract a sincere apology — absolutely. Demand to see a few heads rolling — unnecessary though helpful and fun. But brand the newspaper anti-Islam and anti-Malay? Is this not to confuse incompetence and stupidity with hatred and malice? And, conversely, could we not characterise Perkasa’s actions as hatred manifesting itself via stupidity?
The offence occurred in a section called “Ramadan Delights”, a segment meant to appeal to The Star’s Muslim readers (so of course paper is anti-Malay/Islam, right? The paper MUST hate the religion so much since it devotes an entire section to recommend popular break-fast outlets for Muslims, no?). The fact that one writer ate far too many pork chops than he should have and that the editor needs a new set of glasses is no indication that the newspaper hates Malays and Islam. Again, insensitivity borne of blindness is no proof of contempt.
On the other hand, what COULD BE proof of prejudice and venom (and not entirely mild psychosis) would be to burn toy animals — in this case, snakes — which purportedly represent an entire community — in this case, Indians. I wonder why Perkasa members don’t see the absurdity of them subjecting the country’s entire Indian race to symbolic abuse simply because an MIC division leader is disgusted with the party-hopping antics of Ali himself. Is this not idiotic? So if I’m insulted by ONE Japanese guy I’m then justified to demean the ENTIRE Japanese nation by getting a group of friends to throw bucket-loads of rotten sushi against a wall?
In light of this, Ali’s publicly branding of Bersih as an “emotionally unstable” organisation and declared his own members as “peace warriors” sounds like an inverted bad joke — like the sausage calling the rooster dead meat.
The public should thus take Ali’s calls for punishment against Ambiga, Anwar, Bersih and the DAP’s “Christian conspiracy” as seriously as they should take his proclamation that Perkasa is “losing faith” with the federal government should our gentle peace warrior’s demands not be met. Because whatever Ali’s grand concerns are, it cannot be fundamental change he cares about since he’s implied that he still HAS faith in Barisan — which is another way of saying that he approves of the status quo after all (then again if he’s really serious he’s always welcomed to smash and burn the heads off a few more synthetic serpents...)
In March 2003 US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, when giving a press conference on the conflict in Iraq, talked about what he called “known knowns”, “known unknowns” and “unknown unknowns”. The first term refers to variables and factors the US is fully aware of (e.g. the key military targets, number of soldiers on both sides, etc); “known unknowns” refer to issues which are significant yet for which not much information was available (e.g. the location of Saddam Hussein’s hideouts); “unknown unknowns” are those entities which the US doesn’t know they don’t know i.e. elements which cannot be planned for and which may come as a complete surprise.
What Rumsfeld forgot to include was the critical fourth term: the UNKNOWN KNOWNS. These are things which have been repressed, ignored and generally disavowed from consciousness because to know or be reminded of them would invite severe trauma. Like a highly insecure person who refuses to talk about his insecurities or a person who’s always angry but never more so when her peers imply she’s an angry person, a group (or even society) with “unknown knowns” will always be lying to themselves because they have a physical stake in disbelieving and thus denying what’s inside them.
In the case of the United States and its “War on Terror”, the Abu Ghraib scandal (in which Iraqi prisoners were tortured in humiliating and shocking ways) exposed a dark flip-side to American talk of peace, universal values and human rights. In the case of Perkasa, two questions arise, one straight-forward and another somewhat less clear.
The first question: what are Perkasa members, not least Ali himself, repressing about themselves? This one is easy and here’s a list of what Perkasa doesn’t (but should) know that they know: that it’s a racist/supremacist group which gives Malays a bad name and which, more than any other group, is guilty of sedition. That the long-term effect of their posturing will lead to less respect, less resources and less influence for its members That, contra Ali’s frequent declarations, Perkasa is cowardly and that it should be blamed for continuing racial tensions in the country.
The second question is somewhat more disturbing: is Perkasa that very element that Malaysian society refuses to recognise in ourselves? What WITHIN Malaysian society has bred the likes of Ali and his “peace warriors” and what else is about to follow?
* Alwyn Lau reads The Malaysian Insider.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The Malaysian Insider does not endorse the view unless specified.
