Was there betrayal?  

There are now two versions of interpretive truth regarding some facts already made clear in the royal commission of inquiry (RCI) on immigrants in Sabah.

Of course, we will hear more, but as normal citizens we must process the ‘revealed truths’ as they appear but which have not been aggressively denied.

Even as a Malayan who has worked in public service but as one who qualifies under two forms or basis for Malaysian citizenship rights, I feel deeply betrayed; not by the fact that we must always remain a country which will recognise and grant citizenship to ‘migrants’ but that this particular agenda was done rather surreptitiously, and not as a form of common knowledge public policy.

The premise and circumstances were totally different; there can never be an equivalent in comparison. We must therefore find the new meaning of this kind of ‘merdeka’ which violates the original social contract.

\"\"

The premise and circumstances were totally different; there can never be an equivalent in comparison. We must therefore find the new meaning of this kind of ‘merdeka’ which violates the original social contract.

The Tunku’s framework and the actual granting of citizenship are fundamentally and radically different, and it is the very act of comparing the two which makes me feel most betrayed. Why?

The Tunku ( left ) was \’Bapa Merdeka\’, and no one, not one single person I am aware of, who knows him personally, would ever deny that this was also his vision of and for Malaya and then Malaysian life. He lived out this vision, till his last breath.

The Sabah case, as we are being made aware, is fundamentally different. When the same matters and related issues were brought up under the parliamentary select committee on integrity in 2006, the subject could not be dealt with in honesty and sincerity and the first chairperson resigned because “there was no serious or political willingness to address truth”.

There was no truth, and therefore could be no reconciliation. Reconciliation always requires dealing with truth matters.

The Sabah RCI therefore cannot be dealt with as we deal with our history books: by defining interpretive truth of matters or using a predefined framework without truth seeking, but one with qualified self-imposed privilege of truth stating under a presumed “listen, listen, listen” premise.

That premise is now dismissed categorically, not just in Malaysia, but really everywhere in the world. All globalised citizens want to only deal with the truth of matters; and then to be given the freedom to make choices about such truth matters. Compulsion belongs to the Berlin Wall era; the era of one way communication and the era of one sided listening.

I, too, feel betrayed!

Two-way communication

Communication is a very human phenomenon and rather sophisticated reality.  Only humans undertake communication of the shape and form we are now discussing.

I found this definition on the Internet: \’Communication’ is a word with a rich history. From the Latin   communicare, meaning to impart, share, or make common, it entered the English language in the 14th and 15th centuries. The key root is mun- (not uni-), related to such words as ‘munificent’, ‘community’, ‘meaning’, and Gemeinschaft .

To listen, I believe, is the most important effort in communication. It involves communion or the sharing of some things and non-things in common. It is the foundation for community; a common sharing and caring for one another and each other.

Without listening, there is no communication; and especially between any ‘higher and lower,’ or any ‘bigger and lesser.’ True communication brings both speaker and listener to the same frame of reference, especially in meaning and feelings of caring and sharing. It is never a heady exercise, but always a heart-based one.

\"\"

This is another example of a scathing review and feeling of deep betrayal by a Malaysian of Sarawakian descent.

Baru Bian (right) is head of  Sarawak PKR and Ba’Kelalan assemblyperson: “What is the most galling and bitter to me is that fact that while Dr Mahathir (Mohamad’s) henchmen were merrily handing out ICs and citizenships to Muslim illegal immigrants in Sabah, even to those who had not applied for it, thousands of our own people were being given the run-around when they applied for birth certificates and ICs. In fact, many of them are still stateless today.

“These people were born and bred on Sarawak soil but for various reasons, (such as long distances to the District Office), their parents failed to register their births. I have been trying for years to help them in their applications with limited success. There are copies of many application forms in my office which were rejected or given no response by the authorities. There are some who were given temporary ICs with expiry dates on them, which I cannot fathom.”

What about in peninsular Malaysia? Did any of this political runaround and abuse of authority happen in the states of Malaya where “project IC-type schemes” were effected?

Why else did Hindraf concerns arise and gain momentum especially for Tamils and Telugus who came as indentured labour more than 100 years ago into our rubber industry?  

I have previously stated a fact-based and verified truth about an Indonesian maid who worked with us for some years, but who received a genuine and pure IC through the process of the National Registration Department in less than five years. What is the truth?