Mayor Sadiq Khan: A Londoner First


May 23, 2016

Mayor Sadiq Khan:  A Londoner First

by Farouk A. Peru

http://www.malaymailonline. com

Last week, Malaysia sank to an even lower level of political discourse than usual with two Penang Barisan Nasional reps vying for the top prize of most unintelligent comment.

One is the Penang Opposition leader herself, Jahara Hamid, who got jittery when she realised there was a Taoist shrine in a park. According to her, this shrine will confuse the Muslims. They would probably see this shrine, then inexplicably fall prostrate before it.

Another candidate for most unintelligent comment is Bertam assemblyman Shariful Azhar Othman. He needs eateries to have either “halal” or “non-halal” signs. Signs like “pork free” would confuse him ostensibly because he thinks pork would be freely distributed, perhaps?

While Malaysia languishes at the bottom of the political pit, history has been made. London has just elected her first Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan.

Not many Malaysians have heard of him before this but his is a success story. The son of humble Pakistani immigrants, one of eight children, his story is a climb to the heady heights of fame and fortune. He was already a financial success before involving himself in politics.

He was part of Gordon Brown’s exiting Labour Cabinet holding two ministerial posts before and now finds himself the mayor of London. You can read his entire life story all over the Internet.

Despite the worldwide positive reaction, Sadiq Khan’s victory is not so easily formulated. Muslims, especially among all other groups, were obviously quick to laud Khan’s victory as a new era for Islam. Personally I think they are being overly optimistic. It is not as simple as: “The world has now changed. Look, a Muslim is now the mayor of London.” This is what it looks like from the outside but the truth is far more complex.

For a start, let’s take note of the fact that Khan did not win by a landslide. He achieved 44 per cent of the vote while his nearest competitor, the Conservative candidate Zac Goldsmith, achieved 35 per cent. This is a not big margin at all.

It shows that Goldsmith had more than a third of voter support. Considering Goldsmith’s previous performance, this is a record when compared to Khan’s and the only reason Goldsmith would even get that many votes is that Khan belongs to a minority group.

What is perhaps even worse is that Goldsmith achieved this by using underhanded tactics in his campaign. He was actually chided by senior Conservatives for his tactics. One of his more blatantly racist claims actually suggested that allowing Khan victory would be surrendering London to terrorists!

London has not come a long way at all. It has made progress but not by far.That brings us to another important point which Malaysian Islamo fascists realised a few days after Khan’s victory. Sadiq Khan is a Pakistani Muslim but he is far from the conservative version of an Islamist.

He did not win the elections in order to turn London into a Muslim city! Rather, he is very friendly to all faiths. There is even a picture of him dressed in Hindu garb which, to my amusement, was circulated with much regret around the Malay-Muslim social media.

What took the biscuit, however, was the revelation that Khan supported same sex marriages some years back. This information completely removed him from being any semblance of a Muslim media darling!

We should really ask ourselves, why were we so elated in the first place when a Muslim was elected as the mayor of London? Would it make any difference who gets elected as long as the person was capable of doing his job?

 

Beneath Malaysia’s façade, lies a dangerous, widespread, and fundamental rot (photo from malaysia-chronicle.com). Read: http://www.christopherteh.com/blog/2015/03/closing-of-the-malaysian-mind/

Malay-Muslims should also ask themselves, would they find it acceptable if a member of the rakyat who was not a Malay was appointed the mayor of KL? It would not even be a Chinese or Indian if we were to look for a Sadiq Khan equivalent. Rather it would be a specific type of a minority. Perhaps a Sikh. Would it be acceptable if a Sikh was appointed the mayor of KL? If not, then we have no business applauding Khan’s victory

We should also ask ourselves why there was little news last year when another Muslim mayor albeit of only a borough, Tower Hamlets, Lutfur Rahman was sacked from office. Rahman was mayor for five years until it was found that he was guilty of election fraud in 2015. That did not make the headlines of Muslim news, I’m sure.

In order to make a better world, we need to beyond tribal kinship and focus on performance. Only then can the right people be chosen for the job and benefit us all.

6 thoughts on “Mayor Sadiq Khan: A Londoner First

  1. Why Muslims cheered? Because they have blind faith, their religion is all controlling movement whose members must conform to its will, and serve its hegemonistic agenda they are all required to want.

    In other words,they assumed and therefore thought Islam unplural and Muslim must serve them, their own above others I.e. discriminate against others for them.

  2. Quote:- “In order to make a better world, we need to beyond tribal kinship and focus on performance”

    Yes, and it cannot happen with a minority Muslim mayor or two now and then holding positions of municipal power over a predominantly Christian city, as remarkable as those achievements are.

    It must start and end within the Muslims communities all over the World. But then again, these Muslims may rightly ask, why only we need to change?

    “Tribal kinship” cannot be eradicated or even diluted with some well-meaning agrarian philosophical musings. Because at the root of tribal kinshipness is the underlying religious glue that holds it together. Even members of the same tribe would kill each other over doctrinal differences, what more someone from another tribe?

    Perhaps it’s just Darwinian natural selection at work — the strongest tribe should survive for the sake of universal human evolution?

  3. Mr. Peru has some interesting points. However, his criticism on Muslims’ tribal attitude is of superficial nature because his foundation of launching the criticism is based on an universal goodwill. The universal goodwill does not carry military force, cannot be worshiped, is not documented in black-and-white required for rallying masses, and cannot be enforced by laws. The universal goodwill is weak compared to Islamism, which has shown to marshal militia (in the form of terrorists by modern standard), can be co-opted with Islam to be worshiped, shared Quran as its constitution, and is enforceable with Sharia law uphold by centuries of scholarly works.

    Malaysia is not yet doomed like most 56 Muslim-majority nations because we have a constitution and a nation. The combination of the nationhood and the constitution has possessed military force, can be used in inculcating patriotism among children to the point of sacrificing their lives if situation warranted, is clearly documented in the Constitution for rallying masses, and is enforceable by judiciary and police.

    In short, rallying Malaysians around the Constitution in opposing Islamism is much more effective and pragmatic than rallying Malaysians around an universal goodwill or egalitarian emotion. For this reason alone, we need a growing conservative camp centered around the Constitution more than we need a camp of unorganized left-leaning universalists who center around essentially nothingness.

  4. “For this reason alone, we need a growing conservative camp centered around the Constitution more than we need a camp of unorganized left-leaning universalists who center around essentially nothingness”

    Really Shiou ? Have you read the Malaysian Constitution ? Better yet have you read the Constitution of the United States or the Declaration of Independence ?

    If you read the Malaysian Constitution you will discover that as far as Islam and Race (Malay) are concerned, provisions either directly or indirectly enable [does not carry military force, cannot be worshiped, is not documented in black-and-white required for rallying masses, and cannot be enforced by laws] that which you think Islam does extremely well.

    And if you understood the American Constitution, you would discover that those so called universal values that you mock as leftist and meaningless is the foundation of the American experience. Those values are despised by the Islamists and perhaps people like you.

    Of course you are known to preach about American Right Wing values but in the same breath go all limp on Harry’s Paradise which is anathema of said values, so maybe schizophrenia is not just a mental disease but a way of life.

    In short rallying Malaysians around the stupid American Left/Right dialectic would results in even more stupidity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s