Thanks for the highlight! This was a really interesting video.

I also like to clarify a thing you mention.

Chinese Malay

isn’t really used in Malaysia unless specifically referring to someone who was raised by a Malay speaking parent (often muslim and male) and Chinese speaking parent. Two different racialised groups.

This is because of the racialised definition of “Malay” that came after British colonization. I elaborated more about it here. You were right to call them Chinese Malay if the anti-colonial forces in the country won, which would have radically returned the term “Malay” back to it’s indigenous meaning or if they fit the description I laid out above.

However, nowadays, the government recognized term and how most people identify themselves as is “Chinese Malaysian”. Chinese Peranakans (sometimes just Peranakans only) could also be an alternative term for Chinese people that have inter-married with local peoples earlier in the colonization process, but that usually refer to those that typically have lost their ability to speak Chinese and have families in Peninsular Malaysia that date back atleast a few generations and practice “Peranakan” or “Baba-Nyonya” customs.

Not in any specific order, they all have their moments for me.

I have no skin in the game regarding this current debate so I’ll keep my own opinions to myself for now.

However, you mentioning Brazil’s multi-party system did pique my interest because something similar happens here.

It didn’t occur to me that for most USians having more than 2 relevant parties really is an abnormality.

Igauan Malam - Insomniacks right now but honourable mention to When The Moon Shines Red by Powerwolf, I listen to it regularly ever since I first found out about it a while back.

You are set on target, you can see the point when talking about the Quran, that then it’s ok to speak up, even if the country in which it happened, allows for the burning to happen. But then, when it comes to LGBT, the country’s law must be respected and you can’t talk about it.

No. I am historicizing both LGBT people and Islam. I am saying that queerphobia and Islamaphobia are not the same. They have interactions of course, like all social phenomena does, but they are qualitatively different and have different responses.

The nature of the countries in question also affect the situation at hand.

It is you who thinks that being Queer and being Muslim is like collecting trading cards or are just mere identities rather than historically situated phenomena. This is why I treat them differently - because they are.

How is Turkish citizens expressing discontent on another country’s policy in Turkey remotely the same as a British performer entering Malaysia for a concert then VIOLATING the social norms and practices?

It is insane that you are making a false equivalence between these two things.

Over here:

Certainly, there is a dialectic with the nationalism-internationalism question, but this is outside the scope of this response, which is long enough as it is.

I explicitly mention that not all issues are to be resolved internally - there are valid avenues for internationalism.

But it seems like there is no point in continuing this conversation because I realise now we operate in totally different frameworks.

yeah I see that lmao

You say that Malaysia and Singapore share similar cultures, and I agree.

You say that because of this similarity, Malaysia should share the same “progress” of Singapore.

I say that it can’t and it hasn’t because they are not the same. They have different material conditions.

But then you come back and say

I’m saying that is Singapore can do it, Malaysia should be able to do it within a comparable period of time.

I don’t know how to continue. It seems like we are talking past eachother.

If let’s say you were living in a country where Islam was a minority and burning the Quran was legal, wouldn’t you want to have a conversation started and hope that there was some progress for your situation as well? What would you think if others in that country were to say that Türkiye protesting on your behalf would be comparable to supporting jihadist and that should not be allowed?

The reaction against the unprovoked burning of the Quran is objectively correct because Islam is globally oppressed, through wars of destabilization and occupation in West Asia, through funding of Wahhabist and Salafist groups, through neocolonial control of the Persian Gulf states, through Orientalism and Racism. So when these oppressed countries reject this imposition of Western cultural values - it is only reactionary if you are on the side of the Imperialists.

The “conversation” that happens is just further policing of LGBT communities here in Malaysia - what “progress” is that?

When the government introduces guidelines for performers, which include not talking about sensitive topics as well as behaving appropriately, and it was violated by foreigners, shouldn’t the government act? What would it look like if they don’t act?

It would delegitimize their rule causing further destabilization, and wreck our economy. What use would that brief conversation on LGBT rights be for people in my country, geopolitically and materially? We don’t need the colonizers and the imperialists themselves protesting on “our behalf” because it causes more problems than solutions.

Certainly, there is a dialectic with the nationalism-internationalism question, but this is outside the scope of this response, which is long enough as it is.

Also, Singapore’s “progress” is encumbered with problems too. Pink Dot SG, the foremost NGO advocating for LGBT rights in Singapore, had large Amerikan corporate sponsors like Facebook, Google and Apple until the government stopped it. We must question why these NGOs can easily associate themselves with Western Capital without an ounce of reflection. There are no easy answers.

Culturally, Malaysia and Singapore are sister countries, in historical times, they were only recently separated (not even 100 years yet). Not comparable with Hong Kong because Malaysia and Singapore where not given to another country that had different cultural values. They both became independent on their own. If Singapore can talk and make progress for the LGBT community, so could Malaysia.

Singapore is different from Malaysia, precisely because they were controlled differently. Singapore was part of the Straits Settlements, same as Penang, Melaka and Dinding. The strait settlements were crown colonies, versus the indirect rule found in the Federated and Unfederated Malay States.

Are we to ignore that the original reason for Singapore’s expulsion was because of it’s Chinese-majority that would have counterracted the power given to the Malay sultans?

progress for the LGBT community

Again - that word is used. “Progress”? Gender and sexual diversity was more progressive in 1600s Southeast Asia than 1900s Europe. What is “progress”?

Singapore can afford to be much more generous in terms of civil rights because of it’s role as a tax haven for ASEAN economies. The material conditions could be anything but different.

Singapore can “progress” on civil rights while supporting imperialism in other SEA states. Until this contradiction is removed, LGBT people can’t “progress” nor can they achieve liberation.

Also you seem to think that I believe that it’s culturally impossible for Malays to accept LGBT people. That isn’t my point. My point is that for acceptance to occur it means 0 meddling from the Global North of Global South affairs.

Until the contradictions within Malaysian society is resolved and managed, LGBT acceptance will never be reality with Imperialism being the primary contradiction.

Malays live in Singapore, same race as the Malays that live in Malaysia different citizenship only.

I agree, up to a certain point, although I would avoid using the word “race” for it’s tainted colonial history. Malaysia-Singapore has never moved past their idiotic use of the word “race” precisely because they never fully decolonized.

Also this suggests that there aren’t Singaporeans with Malaysian citizenship - which isn’t the case. As we both probably know, Singaporean citizens are given til 22 to renounce any foreign citizenship.

I agree with this at face-value but it is one contradiction of many within a postcolonial or Third World country.

If we agree that the primary contradiction is imperialism, than all other contradictions are subsumed under it. They become secondary contradictions affected by the primary.

If we agree that it is Imperialism vs Decolonization, or in other words, the freedom to exploit versus the self-determination of the Third World, then all attempts at rejecting this imperialist-capitalist system is progressive in nature and anything but reactionary.

Reactionary has a very specific meaning in Marxism, and is not just when it goes against Western values. Is it reactionary for countries to assert their own self-determination which will objectively lead to the uplifting of the lives of the people?

Is the Taliban being reactionary when it was the US that maintained a multi-billion dollar heroin industry in Afghanistan?

Reaction is primarily done by the comprador classes within a (post)colonial society, as it is in their interest to maintain the current or past capitalist status quo. The national bourgeoisie may not necessarily have to be comprador - and that is the view I hold about my current government.

Singapore’s Mufti seems to be more understanding of the situation. Why can’t Malaysia try a more sensible approach?

Sensible to whom? Western observers? Or the people that live here?

Singapore and Malaysia has a shared history for millenia, and already got seperated due to colonization. I agree with that. However, because of that, the situation is a bit more complicated and the material conditions between the 2 countries can’t ever be more different.

It’s like arguing that Taiwan Province or Hong Kong has LGBT rights so why can’t mainland China have it.

The questions we must ask: is there majority will for further LGBT protection and “rights”? Is this event where a White Guy trashes the government and then subsequently leaves for his next tour beneficial for LGBT people on the ground? What are the local and international conditions in which this “outrage” took place?

Why should we be mad at a government in which we already knows is forced to do this, which everyone here knows is homophobic, when this was clearly initiated by those outside the country that can’t even respect our normal cultural practices, and then tries to shoehorn a politically sensitive issue like homosexuality?

Is this for the benefit of our people? Or is it a very self-evident case of liberal virtue signalling?

This then just places the members of these marginalized communities at even greater risk, but of course the West doesn’t care about this.

I personally believe that this is intentional - it was never ever about rights. Making lives worst in Third World countries allows continuous migrant flows into the metropole, in addition to the other effects of destabilization you mention.

I thought I replied to this but I didn’t

I only included LG in the title because the event only included them, although it was mb that I forgot to include the B.

Later on I did use LGBT but it was for convenience, in an ideal world there would have been alternative terminology for LGBT people.

Gender and sexual minority is one of them but I personally don’t like it.

And why I left out transgender people isn’t some transphobic plot - it’s because transgender people is treated differently in Islamic societies. They are their own special case and I don’t necessarily see why we should force the umbrella “LGBT” onto Third World constructs that don’t perfectly map onto it.

To those downvoting, take a look at this thread. Then come back here and tell me if you have objections to the analysis.

Thread is copy-pasted down below.

Let me teach you Marxist 101 wrt this whole Matty Healy thing. The force that drives social change is primarily the internal contradictions of a society, which of course reacts to external influences. The primary contradiction internationally is imperialism at the moment. (1/9)

In a postcolonial world, formerly colonised nations are in the process of healing from colonial trauma. A component of decolonisation is the reclamation of one’s own culture as this affirms and empowers the identity of the colonised. (2/9)

But the colonialists themselves were responsible for epistemicide and cultural genocide. They imposed their norms, including the gender binary which is rooted in capitalism, onto our ancestors who had their own differing attitudes toward gender and sexual diversity. (3/9)

Anti-queer attitudes (in the capitalist sense) among Malays is learned. The knowledge of their previous attitude is repressed. This is not to say that their attitudes were perfect but change happens and the Malays would’ve made their own progress on this issue. (4/9)

The West has a track record of continuing the White Man’s burden, screaming human rights as an excuse to criticise our practice and lecture us on what to do. They’ve also weaponised social issues to incite colour revolutions in parts of the Third World. (5/9)

Matty Healy’s act of “protest” against our government is one that will backfire against us. A white Brit kissing a man to challenge the authority of Malaysia is a microattack on our right to decide for ourselves the values we follow. (6/9)

He also presents the act of two men kissing as a Western imposition onto our people. This adds ammo for a people who are ignorant of their ancestors’ nuanced attitude towards this stuff to label the LGBT people as a threat to national sovereignty. (7/9)

This is why what he did was reactionary. It was a reaction and it will incite reactions that inhibit the progress of our revolutionary efforts. It sabotages our attempt to improve the conditions of gender and sexual diverse people in Malaysia. (8/9)

The government will point to this and can use it as an excuse to enact further restrictions on the practice of the local LGBT community. We will have to face the reaction of the government which they see as necessary to maintain the status quo. So, fuck Matty Healy. (9/9)

That post on [email protected] got me fked up because one of the comments there was like “authoritarian communism” is an oxymoron actually 🤓 and another was like “Marxism is not materialism” and it had double digit upvotes.

Like jesus WHAT THE FUXK are you on about. Read Marx and Engels. Read Lenin.

It’s like arguing with toddlers.

Just wanted to say that both yours and @[email protected] replies in this thread was/is pretty much a reflection of the ongoing arguments I have had with myself about religion throughout the years.

It feels refreshing seeing it typed out and I am glad you both took it with the seriousness it deserved.

And of Islam, I also am very weary and hesitant mentioning it in western spaces. It faces a predicament where it either gets fetishized and patronized, or caricatured into Eurocentric “just as bad as Christianity” thought-terminating idioms. (In left-wing discourse of course, we all know of the right-wing propaganda.)

Denying the nuance it deserves for a “civilization“ spanning across Afro-Eurasia. Especially when we consider the role of European colonization in manipulating, and exterminating indigenous religions and cultural practices, which includes Islam.

Not saying that this happens here though, but just something I have observed generally in online Marxist spaces.

Everytime this religion vs Marxism debate flares up I am reminded of when a local comrade was deriding what they saw as online Western (muslim) Marxists fetishizing Islam, when it has always been an organized reactionary force in our own country, except maybe before colonization and some small currents during and after colonization. So for any Marxist here, saying Islam and Communism is compatible is like saying Capitalism does not contain contradictions.

Regardless, I do agree that we should be unapologetic about what Marxism says about religion. We should be clear about our stance, appreciate nuance where it matters and remember that on the other side of the screen is another person. Calling religion a “dumb opinion” like in the original comment in this thread is unproductive, when we consider that for many, religion-culture-identity-philosophy is the same thing, and merely calling it an “opinion” is insulting.