I am no China Man Nor am I a True Citizen of my Country
Note
Due to some reasons i have emerged two articles of mine into One for easy reading.
I'm No ChinaMan!
I hate people referring me as 中国人(zhōng gúo rén) literally means China man. I checked the WikiDictionanry and found that in English, the word 'chinese' refer to people who are living in or coming from China. This include those chinese who not born in china yet CHINESE of origin!
Confusing you may think, but in the Chinese language, they don't call these chinese who born outside China and live outside China and have their own citizen of that particular country as 中国人(zhōng gúo rén) instead, they refer themselves as 华裔 (huá yì) which means, persons of Chinese ethnicity born outside China.
This is different from the word 华侨 (huá qiáo) which means, persons who live outside of China but have Chinese nationality, in other words, chinese immigrants.
In English, every chinese, overseas born, immigrats or those in China are called chineses. For them, there isn't much different, it's all the same. In Chinese Language,they makes whole lot of differences. I'm no 中国人(zhōng gúo rén) nor 华侨(huá qiáo) . I'm 华裔(huá yì), Malaysia's 华裔(huá yì).
In this country which it's national language is Malay followed by the importance of English language, Chinese language is in 3rd place. Many of the chinese here are Banana Men meaning, yellow skin on the outside but white skin on the inside. For Chinese long as you can speak chinese it is already enough, as my teacher once told me, our motto of having education is to communicate rather than to learn which was a shame to us as many researches revealed that Malaysian's don't read much compare to others developed countries like Japan. Yet this was also one of our pride as Malaysians as we can speak more than one language. Pros and cons...
Many chinese stopped their chinese education when they advanced to Secondary school which was a pity... and because of these reasons many Malaysia 华裔 tends to call themselves as 中国人.
I AM A MALAYSIAN'S 华裔 NOT A 中国人!
><><><><><>><>
Yet i'm no True Citizen of my country...
I hate to admit, but sometimes i feel as though i was on neither side, not a true malaysian nor a true chinese. In Malaysia, aboriginals have special protections from the Goverment while other races like chinese, indians, and other immigrated races have none. The protection was obvious ranging from educations to politics to religions.
In Education, others races strive real hard to get into local Universities while the abroginal just waits from the Gocernment to let them in.
I had a real good example to descride how it was, i had a friend, A who gets 9As in her exam while she had another abroginal, B friend who just 4As, my friend waited and waited anxiuosly for the goverment to reply her application yet there's no news about theapplication instead B immediately got the application.
I heard that local Universities have reserve at least 90% of the places for the abroginals while the rest was given for other races like Indian, Chinese, eurasians to fight amongst themselves. Because of this sole reasons other races tends send their children to go overseas and study which caused the money to flow out the country and who is to blame?
Even in the books we study in school they alternated the real events, especially History of Malaysia, Yap Ah Loy was the one who developed Kuala Lumpur making it as one of the portential cities to be the Capital of Malaysia as it is now. In recent History Books, i saw, his name was mentioned only once. And then it is no more to be seen else where.
Even in Religions.
Again i went to Wiki pedia and found out that though we have the right to practice our own Religion, yet there are lot of restrictions, example:
Churches are allowed in Malaysia though there are some restrictions on construction of new churches. No pre-existing churches have been closed down by the government and no standing congregations have been disbanded. However, it is hard to build new churches. For instance, it took more than ten years for the local authority in Shah Alam to allow a church to be built there.
In another topic found in WikiPedia about the Status of religious freedom in Malaysia
The status of religious freedom in Malaysia is a controversial issue. Islam is the official state religion and the Constitution of Malaysia provides for limited freedom of religion, notably placing control upon the 'propogation' of religion other than Islam to Muslims, a fundamental part of a number of other religions. However, questions including whether Malays can convert from Islam and whether Malaysia is an Islamic state or secular state remains unresolved.
______________
(Skip till the end of the post if you don't feel like reading it, bt please post comment after reading ...)
There'is a case about the Issues concern with Conversion into Islam also found in WikiPedia:
Long yet enough to descride the situaction here in Malaysia.
Conversion of minor by one parent
In the case of Chang Ah Mee v Jbt. Hal Ehwal Agama Islam (2003) heard in the Sabah High Court. The father converted to Islam and converted the child to Islam without consent or knowledge of the mother, Chang Ah Mee, on July 28, 1998. The mother gained custody of the child on Nov 13, 1998 and subsequently sued to declare the conversion void.
The court determined that as a state court, it had jurisdiction over all state matters even those concerning Islam. Further, based upon the Federal Constitution (article 12), The Guardianship of Infants Ordinance (Sabah) 1999, The Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act, 1976 and The Administration of Islamic Law Enactment 1992 (Sabah) determined the conversion of a two year old child to be void.
In 2003, this issue became prominent again in the case of Shamala Sathiyaseelan v Dr. Jeyaganesh C. Mogarajah.
In the first hearing before the High Court, Shamala Sathiyaseelan sought (1) to bring committal proceedings against the father of the infants for breach of the interim custody order of the High Court of April 17, 2003, and (2) to declare that she was not bound by any decisions, order or proceedings of the syariah court.
Earlier the High Court had granted custody to Shamala Sathiyaseelan with access for the father. He failed to return the children to her on May 25, 2003.
Shamala and Jeyaganesh were married under Hindu rites registered under the jurisdiction of the Law Reform Act. The husband converted to Islam on Nov 19, 2002. On Nov 25, 2002 he converted the children without the mother's knowledge or consent. They were still not divorced at the time.
Without knowledge of Shamala he then obtained a custody order in the syariah court on Jan. 30, 2003.
The High Court ruled that the custody order issued by the syariah court "did not change the interim civil court order". They ruled that the syariah court order "is not binding on the plaintiff wife who is non-Muslim". The interim custody order of the High Court and proceedings were binding on the now Muslim husband as matters arising out of the Hindu marriage registered under the Law Reform Act. As his Hindu wife did not file for divorce, she remains "his unconverted wife" under this law.
On April 13, 2004 Shamala once again went to the high court. This time to seek an order that the conversion of the infants was void. As in Chang Ah Mee, she cited the Federal Constitution (Article 12), the Guardianship of Infants Act 1961 and the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act, 1993.
The Guardianship of Infants Act for the Federal Territories differed from that of Sabah in one aspect as it used the term "parent or guardian" and not "both parents or a guardian" as in AMLE Sabah.
In this case the High Court ruled that only the consent of one parent is required in the conversion to Islam of a person below 18 in the Federal Territories.
Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution reads "For the purposes of cl. (3) the religion of a person under the age of eighteen years shall be decided by his parent or guardian."
The High Court interpreted the term parent to mean father. The equality of rights granted to both parents under the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1961 was held inapplicable on the Muslim father.
In its judgement the High Court held the fatwa or the Mufti of the Federal Territory as persuasive (legal term). The Mufti stated that the father had the right to unilaterally convert the infants to Islam. No Fiqh (Qu'ranic or Sunnah basis) was cited in his opinion.
Shamala once again went to the high court on July 20, 2004 to apply inter alia for custody, care and control of the infants. The court awarded it with access for the father. In its judgement, it stated that "the right of religious practice of the two infant children shall be exercised equally by both parents" based on the Guardianship of Infants Act 1961. This was in spite of the earlier ruling that this act does not apply to Jeyaganesh who was now a Muslim.
The court also held that the applicable law at the time of conversion was civil law. It even ruled that the infants were "still Hindus at the time of conversion" and that the father should have consulted the mother before converting the infants.
However the court explicitly cautioned the mother from "influencing the infants' religious belief by teaching them her articles of faith or by making them eat pork" or she would risk losing her children. The rationale given was that the court "cannot run away from the fact that the two infant children are now muallaf" (converts to Islam).
As the case has gained prominence various religious organizations, human rights organizations and women's issues organizations have registered watching briefs. En. Haris Bin Mohamed Ibrahim has registered a watching brief on behalf of the Women's Aid Organisation, (WAO), All Women's Action Society (AWAM), Women's Center for Change, Penang (WCC) and Sisters In Islam (SIS). A. Kanesalingam, held watching brief for the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism (MCCBCHS). Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Bar Council are also holding watching briefs for this case.
The various organizations holding watching brief in this case now call themselves loosely Article 11 after the article of the Federal Constitution guaranteeing freedom of religion.
_______________
Still we are lucky that' our Country isn't as aggresive as the Arabians. Or are we.....?
We have Malaysia's Citizenship yet, we are no real Malsysian. Yes, this dosen't only applies to us but other immigrant races all around the Earth.
Who are we?
Due to some reasons i have emerged two articles of mine into One for easy reading.
I'm No ChinaMan!
I hate people referring me as 中国人(zhōng gúo rén) literally means China man. I checked the WikiDictionanry and found that in English, the word 'chinese' refer to people who are living in or coming from China. This include those chinese who not born in china yet CHINESE of origin!
Confusing you may think, but in the Chinese language, they don't call these chinese who born outside China and live outside China and have their own citizen of that particular country as 中国人(zhōng gúo rén) instead, they refer themselves as 华裔 (huá yì) which means, persons of Chinese ethnicity born outside China.
This is different from the word 华侨 (huá qiáo) which means, persons who live outside of China but have Chinese nationality, in other words, chinese immigrants.
In English, every chinese, overseas born, immigrats or those in China are called chineses. For them, there isn't much different, it's all the same. In Chinese Language,they makes whole lot of differences. I'm no 中国人(zhōng gúo rén) nor 华侨(huá qiáo) . I'm 华裔(huá yì), Malaysia's 华裔(huá yì).
In this country which it's national language is Malay followed by the importance of English language, Chinese language is in 3rd place. Many of the chinese here are Banana Men meaning, yellow skin on the outside but white skin on the inside. For Chinese long as you can speak chinese it is already enough, as my teacher once told me, our motto of having education is to communicate rather than to learn which was a shame to us as many researches revealed that Malaysian's don't read much compare to others developed countries like Japan. Yet this was also one of our pride as Malaysians as we can speak more than one language. Pros and cons...
Many chinese stopped their chinese education when they advanced to Secondary school which was a pity... and because of these reasons many Malaysia 华裔 tends to call themselves as 中国人.
I AM A MALAYSIAN'S 华裔 NOT A 中国人!
><><><><><>><>
Yet i'm no True Citizen of my country...
I hate to admit, but sometimes i feel as though i was on neither side, not a true malaysian nor a true chinese. In Malaysia, aboriginals have special protections from the Goverment while other races like chinese, indians, and other immigrated races have none. The protection was obvious ranging from educations to politics to religions.
In Education, others races strive real hard to get into local Universities while the abroginal just waits from the Gocernment to let them in.
I had a real good example to descride how it was, i had a friend, A who gets 9As in her exam while she had another abroginal, B friend who just 4As, my friend waited and waited anxiuosly for the goverment to reply her application yet there's no news about theapplication instead B immediately got the application.
I heard that local Universities have reserve at least 90% of the places for the abroginals while the rest was given for other races like Indian, Chinese, eurasians to fight amongst themselves. Because of this sole reasons other races tends send their children to go overseas and study which caused the money to flow out the country and who is to blame?
Even in the books we study in school they alternated the real events, especially History of Malaysia, Yap Ah Loy was the one who developed Kuala Lumpur making it as one of the portential cities to be the Capital of Malaysia as it is now. In recent History Books, i saw, his name was mentioned only once. And then it is no more to be seen else where.
Even in Religions.
Again i went to Wiki pedia and found out that though we have the right to practice our own Religion, yet there are lot of restrictions, example:
Churches are allowed in Malaysia though there are some restrictions on construction of new churches. No pre-existing churches have been closed down by the government and no standing congregations have been disbanded. However, it is hard to build new churches. For instance, it took more than ten years for the local authority in Shah Alam to allow a church to be built there.
In another topic found in WikiPedia about the Status of religious freedom in Malaysia
The status of religious freedom in Malaysia is a controversial issue. Islam is the official state religion and the Constitution of Malaysia provides for limited freedom of religion, notably placing control upon the 'propogation' of religion other than Islam to Muslims, a fundamental part of a number of other religions. However, questions including whether Malays can convert from Islam and whether Malaysia is an Islamic state or secular state remains unresolved.
______________
(Skip till the end of the post if you don't feel like reading it, bt please post comment after reading ...)
There'is a case about the Issues concern with Conversion into Islam also found in WikiPedia:
Long yet enough to descride the situaction here in Malaysia.
Conversion of minor by one parent
In the case of Chang Ah Mee v Jbt. Hal Ehwal Agama Islam (2003) heard in the Sabah High Court. The father converted to Islam and converted the child to Islam without consent or knowledge of the mother, Chang Ah Mee, on July 28, 1998. The mother gained custody of the child on Nov 13, 1998 and subsequently sued to declare the conversion void.
The court determined that as a state court, it had jurisdiction over all state matters even those concerning Islam. Further, based upon the Federal Constitution (article 12), The Guardianship of Infants Ordinance (Sabah) 1999, The Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act, 1976 and The Administration of Islamic Law Enactment 1992 (Sabah) determined the conversion of a two year old child to be void.
In 2003, this issue became prominent again in the case of Shamala Sathiyaseelan v Dr. Jeyaganesh C. Mogarajah.
In the first hearing before the High Court, Shamala Sathiyaseelan sought (1) to bring committal proceedings against the father of the infants for breach of the interim custody order of the High Court of April 17, 2003, and (2) to declare that she was not bound by any decisions, order or proceedings of the syariah court.
Earlier the High Court had granted custody to Shamala Sathiyaseelan with access for the father. He failed to return the children to her on May 25, 2003.
Shamala and Jeyaganesh were married under Hindu rites registered under the jurisdiction of the Law Reform Act. The husband converted to Islam on Nov 19, 2002. On Nov 25, 2002 he converted the children without the mother's knowledge or consent. They were still not divorced at the time.
Without knowledge of Shamala he then obtained a custody order in the syariah court on Jan. 30, 2003.
The High Court ruled that the custody order issued by the syariah court "did not change the interim civil court order". They ruled that the syariah court order "is not binding on the plaintiff wife who is non-Muslim". The interim custody order of the High Court and proceedings were binding on the now Muslim husband as matters arising out of the Hindu marriage registered under the Law Reform Act. As his Hindu wife did not file for divorce, she remains "his unconverted wife" under this law.
On April 13, 2004 Shamala once again went to the high court. This time to seek an order that the conversion of the infants was void. As in Chang Ah Mee, she cited the Federal Constitution (Article 12), the Guardianship of Infants Act 1961 and the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act, 1993.
The Guardianship of Infants Act for the Federal Territories differed from that of Sabah in one aspect as it used the term "parent or guardian" and not "both parents or a guardian" as in AMLE Sabah.
In this case the High Court ruled that only the consent of one parent is required in the conversion to Islam of a person below 18 in the Federal Territories.
Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution reads "For the purposes of cl. (3) the religion of a person under the age of eighteen years shall be decided by his parent or guardian."
The High Court interpreted the term parent to mean father. The equality of rights granted to both parents under the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1961 was held inapplicable on the Muslim father.
In its judgement the High Court held the fatwa or the Mufti of the Federal Territory as persuasive (legal term). The Mufti stated that the father had the right to unilaterally convert the infants to Islam. No Fiqh (Qu'ranic or Sunnah basis) was cited in his opinion.
Shamala once again went to the high court on July 20, 2004 to apply inter alia for custody, care and control of the infants. The court awarded it with access for the father. In its judgement, it stated that "the right of religious practice of the two infant children shall be exercised equally by both parents" based on the Guardianship of Infants Act 1961. This was in spite of the earlier ruling that this act does not apply to Jeyaganesh who was now a Muslim.
The court also held that the applicable law at the time of conversion was civil law. It even ruled that the infants were "still Hindus at the time of conversion" and that the father should have consulted the mother before converting the infants.
However the court explicitly cautioned the mother from "influencing the infants' religious belief by teaching them her articles of faith or by making them eat pork" or she would risk losing her children. The rationale given was that the court "cannot run away from the fact that the two infant children are now muallaf" (converts to Islam).
As the case has gained prominence various religious organizations, human rights organizations and women's issues organizations have registered watching briefs. En. Haris Bin Mohamed Ibrahim has registered a watching brief on behalf of the Women's Aid Organisation, (WAO), All Women's Action Society (AWAM), Women's Center for Change, Penang (WCC) and Sisters In Islam (SIS). A. Kanesalingam, held watching brief for the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism (MCCBCHS). Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Bar Council are also holding watching briefs for this case.
The various organizations holding watching brief in this case now call themselves loosely Article 11 after the article of the Federal Constitution guaranteeing freedom of religion.
_______________
Still we are lucky that' our Country isn't as aggresive as the Arabians. Or are we.....?
We have Malaysia's Citizenship yet, we are no real Malsysian. Yes, this dosen't only applies to us but other immigrant races all around the Earth.
Who are we?
posted by Han Fei at 12:07 AM
Link To This Post
12 Comments:
*Applause...*A very interesting post...
I am who I am...I'm not a 中国人，nor am I a M'sian...
Hey,are you going to do politics in the future?Think about it.Haha...
Is that suppose to be a compliment?
~lol~
Yep, that's is what hapening here in Malaysia!
I hate it as though (not officially) we are the 2nd class citizens, and they say everyone is equal .....
This is similar to what we've done in M'sia Studies class...
The equality/inequality of the people in the country is the most often raised topic in our class.And after so many class,my conclusion is:Inequality is everywhere...Accept the fact,my dear...I think,only the aboriginals consider themselves as true Malaysians.Chinese and Indians do not really call themselves a real Malaysian.We just don't seems to fit in well in the society...Somehow,I think the non-aboriginals felt abit neglected by the government[or is it jealousy towards the aboriginals?],maybe because of the 'protection' thingy you mentioned...
If you can't get a job in the future,think about being a lecturer of M'sia Studies...You're definately better then my lecturer.
~lol~
your post is in the wrong post ....
you really think so?
I'm flattered....hehehehehe....it's just a thought that had been in my mind for years, suddenly feel like letting it out...that's all...
dunno wat to say.......
cause you don't'kesedaran politk' hahahaha........
just joking
Do u know tat if one married to a muslim-indian in india,one don't have to convert into muslim.But in M'sia one have to once one marry to a muslim.Isn't that unfair?So our government has misused their religion to rule this country.In the real muslim country,one are not force to convert.
Yalor...I've been wondering for so long how come our country practice such a weird law...Totally brainless...
Then in the M'sian Study Class,my lecturer explained:This is actually because they wanna expand the population of Malays...It's a kinda special case...Cos in our country,we have 2 other races...And they are afraid that if both the races combines,they weightage of the Malay population may drop,then they won't be the dominating races...
Walao,as if one convert into Malay,they'll be a true Malay...Actually some of them who convert into Malay doesn't practice Malay custom at all lor...
~Lol~
Convert into Islam equal to becoming a Malay ?
What a stupid thing this is?
ANd who wanna do so anyway?
At least i know i won't. If i don so, i think i 'll be risking losing my origin and my customs forener!
Such as names no longer is Teo, but XXX binti father's name, che....what 's so greta about that, plus activities is highly controlled by the syariah court.
Lol
Yeah...No holding hands in public...Haha~
Hmm...intersting....
Hope i can get the book....never heard of these books though....lol..
Post a Comment
<< Home