AN online petition has been initiated against Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture Tiong King Sing (picture) demanding him to step down, and alternatively for the Prime Minister to sack him and that it takes effect soon.

The petition came about because Tiong had questioned the need for enforcement on signboards which displayed Chinese characters in the capital, a point which had raised the ire of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

Dr Mahathir, in questioning the presence of such signboards, had sarcastically wondered aloud as to whether he was in Malaysia or China.

Apart from the signboard issue, the petition listed Tiong’s other “sins” which merited the demand, among others, included his 2023 insistence on downplaying the arrival of tourists from China, especially at a time when there was a resurgence of Covid 19 cases and other parts of the world had barred them.

The petition reminded potential signatories that Tiong once caused a stir at KLIA when he played “hero” for tourists from China who were being detained by immigration officers.

Another point of contention raised by the petition was Tiong’s statement that recognising Bak Kut Teh (pork rib in broth) as a national dish had nothing to do with race and religion when it had everything to do with them given that Islam is the religion of the Federation and Malay is the primary race.

There were eight other points of contention all centring on Tiong’s leanings towards China/Chinese interests and trivialising issues that pricked on the sensitivities of Malay Muslims.

Of all that, one which probably is the most disturbing that was listed in the petition is Tiong’s announcement that China had chosen Malaysia to celebrate its Chinese New Year celebrations, the first outside of the country.

It caused quite a stir that some Malay movements expressed their displeasure on China wanting to hold their Chinese New Year celebration in Malaysia, a foreign country.

One pointed out that in Malaysia, there were several national-level celebrations in terms of festivals or significant events and they were rotated from one state to another.

“It would make sense if China, in celebrating their New Year, were to rotate, let’s say, one year in Shanghai, then Beijing and so forth.

“Malaysia isn’t part of China, and where is the logic? Is Malaysia now considered part of China?”

It had been pointed out that Tiong had been bending backwards to please tourists from China and trying to make them feel at home hence his defence of signboards in Chinese.

It prompted Mustapha Kamil, a former top editor with an English publication, to succinctly sum it up on his social media account:

“These tourists from China, if they want everything to be as they are in China, very simple. Just stay put in China.”

One couldn’t have put it any better, but it is doubtful that it would register with the likes of Tiong because it is not about “selling” Malaysia to tourists but rather about bringing China into Malaysia.

With China being offered to hold their New Year celebration in Malaysia, it should complete the process of bringing China into Malaysia, and it is not far from what Dr Mahathir had shared that some people were describing Malaysia as Little China.

It is a very disturbing development.

Indeed, Malaysia wants tourists and investment from China, but not at the expense of its identity being taken over by China with “assistance” from the likes of Tiong.

While there are Malaysians of Chinese origins, they are expected to be Malaysianised in which the need to accept that the national language is Malay and that Islam is the religion of the Federation.

If Malaysia have to dilute its national identity and pride simply because it wants tourists and investors from China, it has become no better than the time when Malacca had to pay tribute to China in the form of bunga emas (golden flower) for protection against Siamese attacks.

The Malacca deal with China was much better, it at least got protection from Siamese invasions while Malacca remained Malaccan.

In the present context, the door is being opened wide for China’s culture and language to supplant or trivialise national identity strictly and all for monetary gains from tourists and investors from China.

While this is developing, another domestic issue that caused a bad aftertaste is the discharge not amounting to acquittal (DNAA) of former Prime Minister Najib Razak (and former treasury chief Mohd Irwan Siregar) for their involvement in the 1MDB scandal.

The DNAA came about because the prosecution failed to provide the accused with specific documents despite the case having been delayed over six years.

The documents that were not provided and are still classified under the Officials Secrets Act (OSA) were from several Ministries, and according to a legal eagle, the declassification could have been done by the Ministers concerned.

All these only add to the suspicions that there was a conscious and intended ploy to get the DNAA into effect by intentionally not declassifying the documents and making them available to the defence.

In a simple parlay, the Government could have ensured the documents were made available so that Najib (and Irwan) could be tried and made to answer for the crimes they had been accused of committing.

Instead, as in the case of the DNAA granted to Umno president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, now Deputy Prime Minister, it was not the courts that decided on it, but they had to agree to it as per the request of the AG.

With the AG being viewed as a tool of the Government, suspicions that the DNAA was by choice and not by chance are subscribed to by many, hence the backlash following Najib’s.

The next question is why would the Government be so keen to see Najib freed or at least partially? The answer lies in the political equation and survival.

In the case of Zahid’s DNAA it was necessary for ascension. While Najib’s DNAA is necessary for longevity.

They have discovered that DNAA is a new type of DNA.