To be launched in August 2008, our much-awaited news site promises to provide insightful analysis into the news in and outside of Malaysia. Featuring seasoned journalists and well-known columnists, The Nut Graph will connect the dots for readers to make sense of politics and pop culture.

IT is sad that Jules Ong has not really understood my position on justice and equality in Malaysia. For almost 40 years now, I have argued in my writings and speeches that the nation’s historical background is an essential prerequisite for understanding justice and equality in contemporary Malaysia.

If Malaysians of Chinese and Indian origin appreciate and empathise with the indisputable fact that Malaysia emerged from a Malay polity, their legitimate quest for justice and equality would be founded upon premises that are quite different from what has informed their struggle all these decades. They would not regard the primacy accorded to the Malay language as the sole national and official language as an act of injustice. This was the attitude adopted by a number of non-Malay political parties in the late fifties and sixties. Neither would non-Malays and non-Muslims raise the alarm when Islam assumes a more significant role in the life of the nation especially since the religion was the basis of state and administration in the pre-colonial period. They would understand why our constitutional monarchs are Malays. Given the nation’s history, they would be able to appreciate why the helm and core of the national political leadership is Malay. They would not view attempts to raise the economic wellbeing of the Malays as antithetical to the principle of equality.

That the history and identity of the land impinges upon the present is something that I learnt as an undergraduate at the University of Singapore in the late sixties. It was an outstanding Indian Malaysian academic, Professor K.J. Ratnam, who pointed out to my political science class that as a result of the massive accommodation of Chinese and Indian immigrants in the fifties, the Malays were relegated from a “nation” to a “community”.

A Chinese Malaysian scholar of equal repute, Professor Wang Gungwu, reminded us students during a talk at the university shortly after the May 13 incident that the Malaysian Constitution is rooted in a Malay polity.

Even as a final year student, I began to articulate the position that for harmonious ethnic relations in Malaysia, its non-Malay citizens will have to develop some empathy for the nation’s historical roots. In a number of articles and books I have written since then, I have adhered faithfully to this view. Let me draw Ong’s attention to two such pieces produced at two different times – a 1974 article entitled “Trends in Ethnic Relations” in Trends in Malaysia 11 (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies) and a 2002 essay called “Accommodation and Acceptance of Non-Muslim Communities” in my book, Rights, Religion and Reform (London: RoutledgeCurzon).

By pleading for a better understanding of the foundation of the Malaysian nation, my commitment to justice and equality for all Malaysians, regardless of ethnic origin, has not diminished one iota. I see the conferment of citizenship upon the newer communities starting from 1948 as a process of accommodation which has witnessed the steady evolution of a Malay polity into a multi-ethnic Malaysian nation. The rights, responsibilities and roles of the non-Malays should be strengthened in accordance with the principle of citizenship as the nation evolves but it is a process that will take time. It is important that as this transformation occurs, the Malays and the other indigenous communities feel secure and comfortable.

The NEP
I have often argued that the two objectives of the NEP [New Economic Policy] and the goals of the Rukunegara of 1970 are testimony to this evolutionary process. The first goal of the NEP, for instance, takes the provisions of Article 153 in the Malaysian Constitution of 1957 further by postulating a policy objective that seeks to eradicate poverty irrespective of ethnicity. It is a pity that in the actual implementation of this objective, the Barisan Nasional (BN) government has failed segments of all communities resulting in a multi-ethnic underclass.

Similarly, the second prong of the NEP – restructuring society so that the identification of ethnicity with economic function would be reduced – has also not been achieved. Indeed, in the course of implementing the NEP, the public sector has become largely Malay. This is why in the last few years, I have suggested that the public sector should become multi-ethnic in accordance with the NEP’s second prong. At the same time, I have proposed that Chinese businesses make a more concerted effort to increase substantially Malay and Indian participation in the Small and Medium Enterprises sector.

Is this balanced, evolutionary approach to equality and justice part of Ong’s conception of nation-building? Or, is Ong’s idea of equality more akin to what was contained in Lee Kuan Yew’s “Malaysian Malaysia” which remains part of the thinking of a huge portion of the non-Malay communities though the term itself is no longer part of the DAP’s political lexicon? With no empathy for the country’s historical background, the advocates of a “Malaysian Malaysia” pursued with aggressive zeal a notion of equality that alienated a lot of Malays. As a case in point, in the early years, they argued for a policy that would place Chinese and Tamil on the same status level as Malay as official languages, denying in the process the special role that Malay had played all along as the lingua franca of the land.

Though it is no longer possible to espouse such policies because of the Constitutional Amendments of 1971, it is doubtful if the present generation of non-Malays are any more sensitive to the Malay position than their forefathers. Ong offers cross-ethnic voting and multi-ethnic campaigning in the 2008 elections as evidence that “many of us have transcended the racial allegiance that the BN expects us to hang on to”. Cross-ethnic voting has taken place since the 1955 Federal Council Election. In that election, there were only two Chinese majority constituencies out of 52 seats (the rest were Malay majority) and yet there were 17 non-Malay candidates from the Alliance. It is because Malays voted in big numbers for MCA and MIC candidates from the Umno-led Alliance that even leading Malay figures like Datuk Onn Jaafar, the first Umno president, lost to non-Malay contestants.

Within the Alliance and now the BN, cross-ethnic voting has been the norm in every general election with Malays supporting non-Malay candidates and non-Malays endorsing Malay candidates. The main reason for this is the inter-ethnic tie-up within the coalition. In 2008, some Malays and many non-Malays perceived the same tie-up among PAS, PKR and the DAP. Even multi-ethnic campaigning and multi-ethnic electoral clichés are not new. Apart from the BN throughout its history, the four opposition parties in the 1999 elections also adopted multi-ethnic postures in their campaigns.

Cross-ethnic voting and multi-ethnic campaigning notwithstanding, the fact remains that ethnic concerns are at the core of the Malaysian body politic. It is a truism to say that so much of our politics, the economy and culture revolve around ethnicity. For more than two years before the 2008 elections, ethnic issues linked to religion ranging from the religious status of deceased persons to the import of the Bible and the use of the word “Allah” by non-Muslims raised the ethnic temperature to such a level that many of us feared for the worst. And yet Ong tells us that ethnic concerns were not important in the elections. How is it possible for ethnicity to impact upon the atmosphere right up to the eve of the elections and then evaporate into thin air?

Don’t get me wrong. This does not mean that non-ethnic issues did not play a major role in the elections. I have acknowledged this in my article entitled, “The Polls – and the BN Debacle”. Unfortunately, the Star newspaper – which Ong refers to in her Open Letter to me – left out that paragraph. The complete version is on the JUST website at www.just-international.org.

In any case, what has been happening immediately after the elections confirms the significance of the ethnic dimension in our national life. DAP and PKR leaders who announced, on assuming office, that they would set aside the NEP have been forced to backpedal partly because of protests from segments of the Malay community. Whether one likes it or not, these are the realities of Malaysian politics.

What is more important, however, in the context of my response to Ong is the manner in which historical realities have hit both the DAP and PKR so soon after the electoral verdict. In Perak, in spite of the DAP’s commanding position among the three parties that constitute the state government – it has 18 seats as against seven for PKR and six for PAS – it had to accept a Malay-Muslim mentri besar from PAS. That the mentri besar has to be a Malay and a Muslim is spelt out in the Perak State Constitution. This is a provision that exists in the constitution of the majority of the other states in the Malaysian Federation. In Selangor, the Sultan, it is reported, has rejected the idea of appointing a non-Muslim deputy mentri besar, partly because there are certain duties of state pertaining to Islam which a non-Muslim would not be able to perform.

These features of various state governments should be seen in the light of the nation’s historical background. They are historical facts that cannot be changed through the ballot box. Non-Malays have to learn to accept them and work with them. They should realise that they are part and parcel of our nation’s evolution.

And evolve we will. Even as it is, there are some hopeful signs on the horizon. In the 1969 general election – the one election that shares so many characteristics with the 2008 contest – when the ruling Alliance lost Penang; was in a precarious position in Perak; was deadlocked with the opposition in Selangor; and failed to regain control of Kelantan, there was a great deal of tension which eventually led to an ethnic riot, the infamous May 13 incident. This time, however, faced with far greater electoral losses – apart from Kelantan, defeats in Kedah, Penang, Perak, Selangor, and the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, and compounded by the end of its two-third majority in Parliament – the BN has accepted its severe setback in good grace. Constitutional procedures and democratic rules have been adhered to. This is due in part to Prime Minister [Datuk Seri] Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s statesmanship, the Opposition’s sense of restraint and the Malaysian police’s professionalism.

But there is perhaps an even more important factor. The Malay community, as a whole, was able to accept the erosion of the BN’s political power partly because the community is economically and socially so much stronger than it was in 1969. More specifically, it has an entrenched and expanding middle class and is also well represented in the upper echelons of society. Unlike 1969, political power is no longer the community’s only source of power. Because of a strong middle class in particular, it feels more secure and confident.

Needless to say, the rapid economic transformation of the Malay community and the consolidation of its middle class, are due in no small measure to the much maligned NEP.

This is something worth thinking about.

Dr Chandra Muzaffar

An Open Letter to Chandra Muzaffar

“Takkan Melayu hilang di dunia” (Never shall the Malays cease to be): Hang Tuah’s legendary call to arms rings a note of defiance laced with anxiety and speaks volumes about the perennial angst of a people whose place and standing in the world were never something to be taken for granted. Read in its proper context, the full meaning of the statement becomes clear: here was the call for unity by a fabled hero that came at a time of flux and change, when the shifting fortunes of Malacca were tilting on the side of impending defeat at the hands of the Portuguese.

Yet sadly, as is always the case, the story of Tuah has been misread and mis-appropriated for other ends that have more to do with politics and less to do with history. Beloved by the right-wing conservatives among us, the dissected figure of Tuah has been robbed of his pacifist, mystical and philosophical leanings, leaving us with only the static figure of a cardboard two-dimensional ethno-nationalist, who surprisingly resembles many of the Mat Rempit-wannabe types who make up the rank and file of Umno Youth today.

We forget that at the end of the Hikayat Hang Tuah epic, Tuah himself abandons his keris and turns his back on his king, renouncing the world and turning his attention to the salvation of his soul instead. Yet this sorrowful figure has been cut-and-pasted today to suit the ethno-nationalist agenda of the race-warriors and demagogues.

Today, that fear of permanent loss and historical erasure has gripped the hearts and minds of many a right-wing Malay communalist in the wake of the 12th general election and the dismal (and deserved) failure of Umno in particular. That Kelantan could have fallen to PAS was a somewhat different matter, for the conventional wisdom that takes the place of reason in this country of ours assumes that even if Kelantan was to fall under the heels of the Mullahs, they would still be Malay Mullahs, and that the sacred soil of Tanah Melayu (Malay Land) would still be in Malay hands.

Rather, the fear we see today has been directed towards the loss of the more plural and cosmopolitan states of the West coast, where the DAP has made great (and deserved) strides in Penang, Perak and Selangor. Already the pathetic spectacle of ethno-communal fear and loathing has been played out in the public domain: Demonstrations in Penang were organised with the calculated intention of scaring the Malays into thinking that their land was up for grabs and that the vainglorious notion of Ketuanan Melayu (Malay Supremacy) was being eclipsed. The vernacular Malay press, in particular, has gone into overdrive, harping on about every perceived slight and injury to Malay pride, their editorials littered with the recognised markers of discontent: “Biadab, kurang sopan” (impudent, rude) are the accusations that have been levelled in no uncertain terms.

The latest attempt to shore up the fictional notion of Malay unity has come in the form of the creation of the Barisan Bertindak Perpaduan Melayu (Malay Unity Action Front or BBPM), cobbled together by five-and-twenty Malay-Muslim non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and lobby groups, to call for the unity of the Malay-Muslims and the defence of the status and place of Islam in the country. Already feelers have been sent out to court the doubtful hearts in PAS, on the basis that Malay-Muslim unity has to come first and foremost. All the buttons on the register have been pressed hard: Malay Unity, Islamic Unity, Communal interest, et al.

Communalism, still
That such an organisation could have been formed so soon after the election results of March 2008 speaks volumes about the extent to which racial anxieties still prevail in the midst of our plural social landscape. But honestly, are we surprised by this, and should we be surprised at all?

After all, in the run-up to the 12th general election, it was plain to see that ethnic and communal mobilisation was still a major factor in the campaign. The disastrous showing of the MIC, in particular, was a direct result of the actions of the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf), an organisation that rightfully pointed out the MIC’s failings to defend the community and to stand up to the right-wing ethno-supremacists of Umno. The MCA’s and Gerakan’s poor performance was likewise a result of the widespread perception among Malaysians of Chinese background that neither party would ever be able to put a stop to the repugnant racist histrionics of the keris-waving hotheads in Umno. The overwhelming shift in votes then was as much a vote for real, substantial (and we hope permanent) change as it was a vote of disgust against the emasculated and voiceless leaders of the MIC, MCA and Gerakan. But if this was the case, then we are also sadly back to where we started and have not really transcended the economy of race and ethnic-based politics.

And let us not forget that at the height of the election campaign, another coalition of 88 Malay-Muslim NGOs also put forth their demands to all the parties, calling upon them to recognise their own set of equally exclusive needs which happened to include the rejection of secularism and pluralism, an end to the process of inter-religious dialogue, persecution of those labelled as ‘liberal, secular’ Muslim intellectuals and the recognition of Malaysia as an Islamic state.

The Malay-Muslim Unitarians of the BBMP are likewise driven by the same exclusive, parochial and short-sighted interest to protect, promote and elevate their own communal interests solely. This is an organisation that foregrounds only the needs and aspirations of its own community, and by virtue of taking such an exclusive posture, can only be labelled as being Malay, and not Malaysian. Indeed, one could argue that the BBMP in its form and intent is no different from any other right-wing racially exclusive group, and that it cares more for its own community than it does for the wider community of Malaysia, which is made up by the rest of us.

The flawed premise upon which the BBMP rests, and which will ultimately lead to its own internal contradiction, however, is this: Like so many right-wing communitarian organisations, its politics is one that is narrow, simplistic and historically inaccurate.

Not Malay, but rather Malays
The flaw of race-based politics in Malaysia goes all the way back to the era of the colonial census, where the fictional notion of homogenous racial groups was first concocted to serve the interests of a skewered, unjust and oppressive colonial plural economy. The segmentation and separation of Malaysia’s plural society along racialised lines was a direct consequence of racialised colonial capitalism at work, but this grand enterprise of divide-and-rule was aided and abetted by both the bayonet and the census.

It was the colonial census that began to narrow down the scope of the native communities of Asia to the point where ultimately all that remained of this multi-hued landscape was a tripartite division of Malays, Chinese and Indians. Gone were the lost tribes of Malaya: the myriad of cultural, ethnic, linguistic and religious sub-groupings that resisted such casual and arbitrary compartmentalisation. But when were these communities – the Malays, Chinese and Indians – ever homogenous and uniform? If the ‘loss of Malay-ness’ is the thing that spooks so many today, we need to ask: Was there ever such a thing as a unitary Malay?

Here we need to revisit our history and look at the etymological root-meanings of the words we use in politics today. Hang Tuah’s call “Takkan Melayu hilang di dunia” was made at a time when the very notion of what was ‘Melayu’ was problematic and constantly being problematised by the Malays themselves, who realised and accepted that there was not a singular Malay race but rather a plethora of diverse Malay communities. At that time, even the notion of ‘Tanah Melayu’ was an alien concept, for the kingdom of Malayur (or Malaiyur) was not even on the Malay Peninsula but rather on the southern tip of Sumatra, next to Pelembang. Why, even the sentence “Takkan Melayu hilang di dunia” reads as a curious amalgam of Malay, Sanskrit and Persian words that betrays the globally-connected and cosmopolitan character of the community that gave birth to this hybrid lingua franca we now call the Malay language (which by the way, should really be referred to as the Malaysian language).

The calls for Malay unity today should therefore be deconstructed and critically analysed with this grand historical landscape in close view, and with us reminding ourselves again and again that the notion of a unitary Malay race (like the notion of a unitary Chinese or Indian race) is fundamentally a colonial fiction that dates back to the age of the Empire and imperialism’s mode of race politics.

Some of the right-wing ethno-nationalists among us may not be too comfortable with the idea that the cherished comfort zones they have grown accustomed to are on the verge of shrinking; but it is crucial for us – Malaysians one and all – to remind ourselves that this is our common homeland and the home to all our cultures that have mixed and mingled for so long. Indeed it is precisely that long process of historical overlapping, inter-penetration and cultural osmosis that accounts for us being that ever-so-varied community that can make the boast “Malaysia, truly Asia”. Having witnessed the long-awaited rupture where ethnic and racial loyalties were finally by-passed on that fateful election night, let us at least keep the euphoria for a while longer. We owe this to ourselves as well as our hybrid ancestors who made the leap beyond racial loyalties, and we can do it again.

The Malays will never cease to be, as long as we understand that the Malays are in fact a community of communities, and that one can be both Malay and the Other, as long as we all remain – first and foremost – Malaysians, to whom this country belongs.

Dr. Farish A. Noor is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University of Singapore; and one of the founders of the www.othermalaysia.org research site.

I remember the first time I saw you speaking. I was in sixth form and you were speaking in a public forum at the Komtar Dome in Penang. I was in awe of your intellectual courage. You spoke the language of justice and equality in an environment where equality seemed a dirty word.

Fast forward two decades later, reading your analysis of BN [Barisan Nasional]‘s dismal showing at the polls (“The Polls – and the BN debacle”, The Star, March 17, 2008), I must say, I was disappointed.

You seemed to have regressed. And your words belie a lack of understanding and sympathy for fellow Malaysians who long to be counted as equal citizens of this country.

PKR de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. Photo by Jacqueline Ann Surin.

Although your choice of platform dents your integrity, I am all too willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. After all, I too, do not trust Anwar Ibrahim entirely, just as I distrust any DAP, PKR, PAS or BN leader. I would rather invest my time, not in bolstering support for any political party or leader, but in strengthening the democratic structures of this country – the media, the judicial system, the electoral process, the right to information. For only these structures can guarantee a nation free from the corruption of power and the tyrannies of all too powerful governments.

Back to your article in The Star, I thought your analysis of the Opposition’s sterling performance was myopic. You suggest that the Opposition managed to attract votes because they harnessed ethnic discontentment “to the hilt” – from the Hindraf debacle and the Malay response towards it, to the keris waving incident and the non-Malay reaction against it.

You seem to see everything through a racial lens. And instead of moving beyond it, you are imprisoned by it. Your analysis of why non-Malays voted heavily for the Opposition is that it was a vote of protest and racial dissatisfaction. But I think you fail to realise that many of us voted for a new politics, one that is non-racial, non-discriminatory and inclusive.

Referring to Anwar as being a successful personality in harnessing this racial dissatisfaction, you said: “…whenever a prominent Malay leader articulates non-Malay grievances, the Chinese and Indian anti-establishment vote shoots up significantly. It is as if they are encouraged, even emboldened, by the stance of the Malay leader.”

I am one of the many, many who voted for the Opposition and I did so NOT because I am encouraged, or even emboldened by a Malay leader. To suggest that is offensive, and it shows your ignorance of and condescension towards non-Malay voters.

I voted the Opposition because I am sick of the BN’s racialised politics and corruption. I want a party that reflects my vision of a Malaysia for all Malaysians. Not one that tells me that I need an MCA or an MIC to fight for my rights. As a citizen of this country, why aren’t my rights already protected? Why do I need a party to fight for my rights based on my ethnicity?

I also do not agree with you assessment that racial discontentment is the reason why voters deserted the BN. Many international media portrayed the elections like this: “Malaysians go to the polls amidst racial tension.” That was misleading. This elections was not about inter-racial discontentment.

Malaysian Malays, Chinese and Indians are NOT fighting among themselves nor do they hate each other. What we did was to throw out the old order that divides us and continually tells us that some of us are above others, and others should just be thankful for being allowed to exist on this land.

That is why we saw so many first time voters, and witnessed non-Malays voting heavily against the BN, by voting not just for the DAP but for PAS and PKR, too.

In Titiwangsa, a mixed constituency where Dr Lo’ Lo’ [Mohd Ghazali] of PAS was contesting, I saw many lower income Chinese in their 40s and 50s wearing PAS caps and campaigning for the party. In many constituencies where PKR was contesting, I saw Indian youths carrying PKR flags, zig zagging on their motorbikes. In Lembah Pantai, when Raja Petra [Kamarudin] with Anwar Ibrahim declared that Indians and Chinese would be defended with Malay bodies, the largely Malay audience erupted into cheers. All this clearly shows that many, many of us have transcended the racial allegiance that the BN expects us to hang on to.

I believe we are seeing the dawn of a new nationalism. Malaysians are asking – what does it mean to be a Malaysian. In fact, we are not only asking, we are answering it with our votes. It’s a search for a new Identity. We want a Malaysia where all Malaysians are equal.

I think the role of public intellectuals like you should be to articulate that hunger and move the nation away from the harmful ideology and practices that may have served us before, but which no longer do today.

In doing so, we need to be aware of our language. Quit drawing on the same old racialised language because it won’t work anymore. And listen to the youths of today. It is their vision that will make the country from now on.

Jules Ong,
Kuala Lumpur.

Seeking Justice and Equality: Chandra Muzaffar replies