Towards a United Malaysia

THE POLITICS OF RACE
Malik Imtiaz Sarwar & Michelle Gunaselan

It is not insignificant that in almost any discussion about public life in Malaysia, be it the state of the civil service, the education system or economic development, to name a few areas, the matter of race will invariably feature. Race, its implications and its consequences permeate through our lives, and shape them, in a way that is unparalleled anywhere else in the world.
To some, this may be a matter of pride or satisfaction for reflecting the so-called success of a race-relations model aimed at addressing iniquities between the various ethnic communities. Others ask how else are we to govern ourselves in a way that ensures that the interests of the various ethnicities are sufficiently protected. And yet to others, the current floundering state of Malaysia is proof enough of the damage that an undue emphasis on race in public policy has wrought.
Whatever the case, this is an issue of critical relevance to us, so much so that some would argue that race relations policy in this country, such as it is, puts our continued sustainability in doubt. This is a viewpoint that is not devoid of basis. The influence of race-based decision-making, either directly or indirectly, is so far reaching that in some quarters meritocracy has for some time been viewed negatively and rejected as a basis for action. This has had an impact not just on our identity and cohesiveness as a society. On a more practical level, though race does not define merit one way or the other, we no longer have the best and brightest Malaysians where the nation needs them the most. As a consequence, the proverbial system has become so inherently incapable that it undermines our continued ability to compete in an increasingly challenging world even as it has led to a fracturing of Malaysian society.
That political orientation has taken on the character it has underscores the conclusion that it is vital for us to urgently scrutinize race-relations and look for alternative solutions to concerns that have shaped the way things are. It is no coincidence that the battle lines between the Pakatan Rakyat and the Barisan Nasional have been drawn along the issue of pluralism. The former's increasingly popular reformist advocating of a fairer and more accountable system for all Malaysians, or ketuanan rakyat, echoes calls by civil society for aBangsa Malaysia driven rejection of race politics in aid of greater democratization. This stands in stark contrast to the conservative re-articulating of a questionable race dynamic,ketuanan Melayu, that the latter has clung to since independence. More than anything, this face-off, coming as it does on a rising tide of civic empowerment, points to Malaysians being ready and eager for a constructive reappraisal of the
matter.
Proponents of race-based politics argue a continued need for racially delineated political power sharing on two main grounds rooted in history. Firstly, pointing to the Merdeka negotiations, they argue that historical antecedents entrenched an understanding that the nation would be governed through a race-based power sharing formula in which the Malay ethnic community was to take a dominant political role reflective of the privileged indigenous position it enjoyed in greater society. This, they develop, was a pre-condition to the success of the Merdeka effort.
Secondly, against the backdrop of the race riots of May 1969, they contend that any other approach would necessarily result in the marginalizing of the Malays, not just economically but also culturally, especially in the matter of religion. This, they assert, would have the invariable consequence of civil unrest and, were such unrest serious enough, political instability.
These arguments are however inherently flawed. It is a matter of historical fact that some ten years prior to Malayan independence, efforts had already been undertaken by PUTERA-AMCJA, a civil society coalition, on a pan-Malayan, non-race specific basis. These efforts, perhaps most famously represented by the massive hartal, or boycott, of 1947, were stamped out by a Britain as yet unprepared to relinquish control. In any event, in as much as there may have been an understanding between the political parties that comprised the then Alliance Party as to power sharing, this was strictly a matter of political cooperation that was necessarily subject to the needs of the nation. How these needs were to be addressed was defined by the very Federal Constitution that the Alliance Party assisted in establishing, a reading of which reveals the fallacy in the argument of proponents.
The Constitution does not provide for any power sharing formula, race-based or otherwise. Neither does it stipulate that only a person of the Malay ethnicity is qualified to be a leader of government. This would run counter to the constitutionally enshrined and unequivocal guarantee to all citizens against discrimination on grounds of religion, race and descent.
Though the Constitution does provide for special measures to be taken in aid of the wellbeing of the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak, it does not permit the creation of a two-tier system in which Malays across the board are to benefit purely by reason of their ethnicity. Rather, the founders set out the framework for a temporary system of quotas aimed at protecting members of these communities, perceived as being vulnerable in 1957 and 1963 respectively, that was to be kept reasonable by a needs basis application and by balancing measures against the legitimate interests of the other ethnic communities. In short, the Constitution provided for a finely balanced transitional scheme of affirmative action that would not be undermining of the national interest.
In implementation however, a different picture has emerged. The New Economic Policy and its successor policies appear to have been utilized for political reasons to create within the Malay community an expectation to an entitlement of benefit based on privilege and, inconsistently, a belief that the Malay community is weak and in need of protection. Though this has allowed for the enrichment of an elite community that includes Malays, a fact that has incomprehensibly been relied upon to prove the success of policies that have left a vast majority of the Malay community behind, it has had adverse impact.
In an attempt to assuage the expectation, preferential and disproportionate intakes of Malays into public educational institutions and the civil service was allowed for. This has resulted in a vastly reduced representation, in some areas almost negligible, of non-Malays and a polarizing of the education system and the civil service along communal lines. This has more recently been recognized as being both divisive and destructive as the foundations of the wider system have been immeasurably damaged and made vulnerable to exploitation and opportunism across the board.
This state of affairs has been compounded by a parallel requirement of increased, some would say exclusive, Malay participation in matters of entrepreneurship and industry. Weaknesses in implementation, including an approach that did not appear to prioritize merit nor involve close supervision, have not only resulted in only a marginal strengthening of coherent Malay involvement in areas concerned but, more worryingly, have resulted in a lowering of the quality of deliverables even as costs have significantly risen.
The nurturing of the belief has resulted in an undermining of the Malay community itself through an erosion of confidence and self-esteem, a process aided by the way in which the need for affirmative action has been dealt with. This has been compounded by the very real economic and social difficulties that many Malays in the heartland continue to face despite the rhetoric about Malay privilege and special status. As a consequence, the community has been unfairly disadvantaged and exposed to influences that are not necessarily in the interests of the community itself and the nation as a whole. These have hampered human and social development efforts.
In some ways it could be said that the merging of both expectation and belief have led to the emergence of a dubious value system that lends itself to wants and practices that will continue to retard the progress of this country if permitted to perpetuate. This is underscored by the increased prevalence of corruption in the public sector. That this occurs in a civil service dominated by Muslims in a society in which much has been made of the role of Islam in public life is significant.
This is not to say that the other ethnic communities have had no role in the way things evolved. Sadly, racial divide has been met equally with racialist reaction with the consequence that many have been disenfranchised, disengaged or even wholly insulated from wider society. Some have also been quick to exploit opportunities in the name of adaptation, often at the expense of others.
Though history cannot be undone, it is nonetheless of value to ask whether things could have been done differently. It is evident that they could have been if political interests had not been prioritized the way they were. A needs and merit based application of affirmative action implemented in tandem with broader, non-exclusive poverty reduction efforts would have allowed for the protection and promotion of all vulnerable communities. This would have given the government a free hand to forge a Malaysian identity that afforded space for all ethnicities, cultures and faiths even as it built a system of administration the integrity and competence of which were not open to challenge. The path to a united and strong Malaysia would not have been complicated had it not been obscured by self-interest and an unduly narrow vision of the future.
Is it too late to approach things differently now?
Prior to March 8th this year, this seemed a remote possibility. The politics of race seemed to have been too entrenched and 'Bangsa Malaysia' was a cry in the wilderness. However, political cooperation amongst opposition political parties established on a pluralist foundation, prompted in part by a championing of non-raced-based and thematic politics by an unflagging civil society, inspired a historical shift of voting trends that made change that much more viable. Calls from within the Barisan echoing these sentiments are equally encouraging.
The election of Anwar Ibrahim in Permatang Pauh on a pluralist platform, an election that some have referred to as a referendum of sorts, goes a long way to reinforce the view that the events of March 8th were not an aberration and a great number of Malaysians are keen to reclaim democracy as Malaysians. To them, race is no longer a pivotal consideration in their quest for what they believe to be right. Fairness is.
Article source: http://www.projectmalaysia.org/2008/09/the-politics-of-race/all/1