Revisiting Malaysia’s Social Contract

The contractual glue that keeps Malaysia’s races together seems to be running out

It was the turn of Malaysia’s Bar Council this time to host a public forum over the weekend in Kuala Lumpur on the country’s Social contract, the arrangement between Malays and non-Malays at the country’s birth to share its wealth.

In the end, no surprises were in store. The four panelists were evenly split, two calling it a piece of fiction, two disagreeing in polite terms. This is an endless debate and we can be sure the Bar Council Forum won’t be the end of the matter. Every school child in Malaysia has been well fed in the early years of independence with tons of material on the Social contract. It’s the younger generation that seems perplexed. Hence, the issue is revisited at regular intervals and the debate continues.

The contract, a simple unwritten arrangement fostered between Malays and non-Malays by the founding fathers, brought about a rare unity among the multiracial peoples of British Malaya and expedited the advent of independence on 31 Aug 1957. The Social contract also paved the way for the inclusion of Singapore, Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei in an enlarged Federation within just six years of the midnight air ringing with shouts of “merdeka” – “freedom” – in Stadium Merdeka in Kuala Lumpur. Brunei stayed out over oil revenues and Singapore, as we will see later, was soon booted out. The Social contract remained intact.

At independence the Malaysian economy was held almost 29 percent by the Chinese; less than 2 percent by the Malays, who were largely outside the money economy; less than 1 percent by the Indians and about 69 percent held mostly by the British and other foreigners. (Malaysia introduced the 20 year 1070-90 New Economic Policy in late 1969. The NEP pledged to eliminate the identification of race with economic function and place of residence; eradicate poverty irrespective of race, color and creed; and ensure that the Malays and other indigenous races own, control and manage at least 30 percent of the nation’s corporate economy by 1990.

But deviations soon set in and there was rampant nepotism, cronyism and corruption to sabotage the NEP and send the economy into a tailspin by the early 1980s. The NEP had to be scaled back to bring the economy out of a recession in the mid-1980s.)

The thrust of the contract was simple: since the Chinese of the towns in particular had considerable economic power in comparison with the largely rural-dwelling Malays who saw themselves as the indigenous people of the country, it was felt that it was only right that the Malays held the reins of political power firmly in their hands in a quid pro quo. This power they would then share with the non-Malays and thereby underwrite the continued economic success of the country. Malay hopes, unlike the disastrous route taken by economic nationalists in so much of Africa, Myanmar and Fiji, hinged on the economy going right. Had the Malays been overwhelmingly in the majority, it is unlikely there would have been a social contract of any sort. The non-Malay numbers almost matched the Malay, even after being bolstered for nearly 150 years by immigrants from the Malay Archipelago. Had overwhelmingly Chinese Singapore been included with Malaya, the Malays would have been in a distinct minority in their “own land”.

There were shades of New Zealand, Australia, Mauritius and the Americas here, all lands where the original inhabitants were reduced to an insignificant minority caught in a vicious cycle of alcohol and drug abuse, poverty, ignorance and disease in vice-ridden shantytowns or in god-forsaken reservations apportioned the most inhospitable and difficult terrains.

The founding fathers, perhaps in a stroke of genius, saw no reason for a time-frame-bound social contract, nor did they see any reason for preserving the arrangement in print for posterity. The social contract, it was foreseen, would serve the nation well and melt away when its time came.

As the nation ends its celebration of its 50th anniversary of independence, an important watershed when we look back at this moment in history in the years ahead, the thinking among many Malaysians is that the social contract has entered the history books as a minor footnote. They point out that not only have Malay numbers increased significantly but the community itself has considerable leverage in the economy of the nation within and without the context of an expanding economic pie.

The levers of the economy at the policy level are almost totally in Malay hands, albeit because of their sheer numbers, although the community continues to be edged out at the retail level. The market is a different ball game altogether.

Not so, scream a vociferous minority, who not only see the social contract as far from having outlived its purpose but insist that it also includes other aspects like the granting of citizenship status to hundreds of thousands of stateless and immigrant non-Malays and their descendents; the position of the Malay rulers, the position of Islam as "the religion of the Federation" according to Article 3 of the Federal Constitution; the position of Bahasa Melayu as the basis of Bahasa Malaysia, the national language, and the sole medium of instruction in education; and the special privileges of the Malays, and by extension, other indigenous peoples of the Federation in the peninsula and Borneo.

This revisionist approach among a diehard Malay nationalist core hasn’t gone down well with the Indians and Chinese in particular and they have made no bones about it in the vernacular media and other channels. Malay moderates feel it’s high time to take the debate behind closed doors, not so much to re-negotiate the social contract, “but to remind community leaders about the history of the past so that they can re-assure themselves and their people once again and renew their faith in the nation and a common destiny, sharing and caring alike”.

(Article 3 of the Federal Constitution states that "Islam is the religion of the Federation but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation." Wanita Umno called in November 2007 at the Umno Assembly for the insertion of the word "official" before the word "religion" to prevent any "misunderstanding".)

Essentially, the various issues being bandied about outside the social contract are either well covered in the Federal Constitution or backed by social convention. Hence, the question of including these in an unwritten political arrangement like the Social contract should not arise at all. Generally, non-Malays are even more for the Malay rulers and see the institution as an important bulwark against mob rule and rabble-rousers. Meanwhile, the Federal Constitution remains secular, despite Islam being recognized by the otherwise color-blind document as the official religion. There’s a fine distinction between official and national and the fact remains that Malaysia does not have a national religion and the Federal Constitution guarantees complete freedom of worship.

Again, the country is definitely multiracial, multi-religious, multilingual and multicultural, as anyone with eyes can see, and nobody can take that away – “Malaysia Truly Asia” runs the official tourism theme proudly all over the globe -- despite conflicting claims that it is an Islamic state one day, Muslim the next day, run according to Islamic principles the third day while admittedly not a theocratic state, a bizarre contradiction in terms.

These shifting mindsets even among the religious moderates can best be seen as their coming to terms slowly and painfully with secular Malaysia and preaching a brave, new way to combat the dangerous mix of politics with religion. Religion is religion, and politics is politics, and never the twain shall meet in Malaysia. We need not go so far as to echo DAP MP Karpal Singh’s infamous outburst not so long ago that, “Malaysia will only be an Islamic state over my dead body”. Karpal was quickly hailed as “the tiger – shouldn’t it be lion – of Jelutong.”

The current debate over the social contract is not the first time that attempts have been made to revise history for reasons of political expediency.

Nearly 40 years ago, after the searing Sino-Malay race riots May 1969 in Kuala Lumpur, many historians attributed the bloodshed to the “breakdown” of the social contract when non-Malay political parties made substantial gains in the May 1969 General Elections. The island of Penang, the Pearl of the Orient, had fallen to the newly-formed Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia, which was in fact mostly composed of ousted rebel leaders from the Malaysian Chinese Association, a key member of the ruling Alliance Party.

The DAP (Democratic Action Party), the Malaysian chapter of Singapore’s ruling PAP, had almost half the seats in the Selangor State Assembly, while the PPP (People’s Progressive Party) made similar gains in its Perak heartland. The MCA saw no further purpose in being part of the Federal Government and pulled out while still remaining as a member of the Alliance. The MIC (Malaysian Indian Congress), the other key member of the Alliance, stayed put in the Federal Government and in the states and at the local levels even as quite a number of panicky families sold their properties for a mere song and packed their bags for India. Elsewhere, long queues of would-be migrants formed for weeks outside the Australian, New Zealand, and Canadian High Commissions in particular and the US Embassy.

The MCA pullout from the federal government was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. Race riots erupted first in the Chinatown area of Chow Kit which had a Malay hinterland and soon spread all over the capital city. The incomplete polling was abandoned, Parliament was disbanded, democracy suspended, a state of emergency declared by the caretaker government and Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman, seen as too pro-Chinese, was ousted and placed virtually under house arrest for a while. It was like a coup d’ etat. There were isolated incidents everywhere. The police were hopelessly outnumbered and overwhelmed and the Malay Regiment was brought in while the multiracial Federation Army and the famed Sarawak Rangers of elite Iban and other Dayak troops were both confined to their barracks. The Malay Regiment were mindless robots who contributed to the carnage as well in perceived defense of race, religion and country. They were eventually ordered, albeit reluctantly and gently, to return to their barracks but not until the blood-letting had dragged on for some ten days or more of unspeakable tales of horror.

In hindsight, the apologists and conspiracy theorists rationalize that the Malay Regiment ran amok in revenge for the killings over two weeks by the Communist Party of Malaya’s Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army which virtually had a free run of the country while awaiting the return of British troops in strength following the Japanese surrender after the 2nd World War. The Japanese looked on. The MPAJA’s victims were mostly Malays seen as Japanese collaborators. There were feeble attempts in official circles to blame the communists for May 13 but these were quickly denounced and roundly condemned by the man in the street. At the height of the Vietnam War, the communists were the eternal bogeyman in Southeast Asia and everywhere in the Free World.

The Malay Regiment, disgraced in the eyes of the non-Malay population, was replaced by the Federation Army and the Sarawak Regiment and calm quickly returned to the burnt-out streets of Kuala Lumpur. There had been a heavy price to pay in innocent lives, all because extreme-right Malays in Umno, the lead player in the Alliance, had been rattled by the electoral setbacks suffered by the MCA and feared the unraveling of the Social contract. Apparently, the rightwing game plan was to intimidate the political opposition, punish the voters and force the MCA back into the Government. The fact that the political opposition had never been party to the Social contract was lost on the rightwing instigators of the May 13 bloodbath.

Even so, the Gerakan and the PPP were virtually blackmailed, with the promise of democracy being restored, to become members of an enlarged Alliance which was renamed Barisan Nasional. The Social contract was back on track. The Alliance, symbolized by a sailing boat, had sunk. The BN chose the scales of justice as the new symbol.

Hardly five years before May 13, Singapore had queried the social contract as a member of the Federation and was quickly ushered out. It's important that Malaysian history books explore the expulsion of Singapore from the Federation. However, this tragedy along with the Japanese occupation is simply glossed over. The key lies in former Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew's "infamous" outburst: "If these people (Kuala Lumpur) think they can squat on Singapore and get away with it, they are sadly mistaken." Apparently, Lee was alarmed that Kuala Lumpur had rapidly changed track after Malaysia with the extreme right wing in Umno calling the shots.

A serious deviation of the social contract was the misinterpretation by the right wingers that it was a carte blanche for Ketuanan Melayu --Malays first -- Malay political dominance and supremacy. This was anathema to Lee. Many saw Ketuanan Melayu as nothing less than an unabashed amalgamation of the Nazism of Hitler's Germany and the Apartheid of South Africa's white supremacists with the caste system of the Brahmins of India. Surely, such a system could not be good for anyone, even including the great majority of the Malays themselves.

Sabah and Sarawak, the Borneo states, remained in the Federation after some initial demands for a review by Sabah. Kadazandusun leader, Donald Stephens (later Mohd Fuad Abdullah), was eventually packed off into exile as the High Commissioner to Australia, before making a stunning political comeback in 1976 and dying mysteriously in an air crash shortly after with almost his entire State Cabinet.

Is the social contract still relevant in this day and age? Every two people have three opinions.

A simple reading of history and the demographics shows that the Malay factor will henceforth continue to be an important aspect of the nation’s politics unlike in the early days when the community genuinely feared being swamped by the immigrants from India and China and their descendents. No longer can a non-Malay be the Prime Minister of Malaysia, for example, unless with the consent of the governed, predominantly Malay and other indigenous peoples.

Malays have also entered the money economy in a big way as a community and made considerable gains as well in this field. As the Malays prosper and emerge more educated and universal in outlook, having a stranglehold on politics will be less and less the community’s main pre-occupation and obsession. Herein lie the seeds of destruction of the social contract despite having served the nation well. It is unlikely too that the Chinese parties in government will ever contemplate leaving the ruling coalition and should they do so, as was the case with MCA in the aftermath of the 1969 polls, they would not be wooed back. The Chinese in the political opposition, too long in the wilderness, are waiting in the wings for a historical opportunity to taste the spoils of office.

Written by Joe Fernandez

Najib’s Batu Caves visit may spell the end for Samy Vellu

The most notable absentee when Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak made his symbolic pitch to the Indian community at Batu Caves on Sunday, Aug 11 was MIC president Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu.

It was the first time since last year's general elections that Samy Vellu was missing at a hugely symbolic Indian event graced by the prime minister.

His absence appears to indicate a distancing in ties between the Najib administration and the traditional MIC leadership dominated by Samy Vellu.

Several days before Sunday's event, word was already out that the MIC president would not be attending the event.

While his detractors said he was not invited, his supporters said he was busy because the Batu Caves event clashed with the Perak MIC convention.

But critics point out that the Perak MIC meeting was a small affair compared to the hugely significant Batu Caves meet that was attended by the prime minister, and could have been easily postponed.

“The new Najib administration is keeping some distance from him,” said a political analyst of Indian affairs, who declined to be named because of the sensitivities involved.

“Najib wants to show that he cares for the Indians but does not want to be dragged down by Samy Vellu’s unpopularity among grassroots Indians,” the analyst said, adding that the Indian leaders attending the function with Najib were “mostly not MIC-type people.”

“His absence was very noticeable but not regretted,” he said.

Except for deputy Federal Territories minister Datuk M. Saravanan, most of the top MIC leaders were with Samy Vellu in Perak.

Samy Vellu has long sought to control the Indian community by dominating the management of the caves complex.

He has always given the opening speech on the first day of the Thaipusam celebration, the only event in the country that brings together nearly a million Hindu annually.

The one time Hindus rejected his presence was in the aftermath of Hindraf’s 2007 protest when hundreds of thousands devotees kept away in a show of defiance and rejection of Samy Vellu.

Current chairman Nadarajah was seen as his man in the management committee but in recent months he is “striking out” on his own.

Sunday’s event was organised independent of the MIC and Samy Vellu, sources said.

Nearly 6,000 Indians and others welcomed Najib to Batu Caves, a hugely symbolic gesture that received front page coverage in all three Tamil dailies, including Samy Vellu’s Tamil Nesan daily.

All the newspapers played up a photograph of Najib with a huge neck-to-toe garland of white flowers with red stripes, with Nadarajah dominating the prime spot beside the prime minister instead of Samy Vellu.

Najib also offered aid for promising Indian entrepreneurs, cash for Tamil schools and support for Hindu temples.

The more neutral Malaysian Nanban daily printed their story under a huge banner heading that said, People Overwhelm Prime Minister along with numerous photographs of the event.

This is the first time in memory Samy Vellu was glaringly missing from the big stage and that is something the community will notice quickly.





By Baradan Kuppusamy

Uthayakumar finds a new office, still looking for his way

A controversial man and his new vision is taking shape at No. 6 Jalan Abdullah — the ground floor of an ordinary looking five-storey office block off Jalan Bangsar.

One thing however is striking — the bright orange/saffron colour that is newly being applied outside and inside the office when The Malaysian Insider team visited on Wednesday.

The bold Hindraf colour stands out in the pastel surrounding announcing the arrival of lawyer Uthayakumar Ponnusamy, recently released from ISA detention and still undecided what he wants to be — activist lawyer or pioneering politician.

“I am unhappy with both terms,” he says as supporters paint the wall and bring in old files, photographs, banners and plaques, all memorabilia from nearly 20 years of activism, since his return from London as a lawyer in 1990.

“The word politician gives me the creeps because politicians make promises that they seldom keep. I am also abandoning my law practice because law does not give justice to the people... not in this country,” he said.

“Besides Umno has no respect for the law,” he said taking a dig at his favourite adversary. “People here can’t get justice through the law and the courts are unreliable.”

No. 6 is where the Hindraf founder is setting up shop and hoping to recapture the magic of the Makkal Sakthi movement that he had sparked with his Nov 5, 2007 mass protest here.

Everywhere on the floor of his new office are the clutter of his past — books, file, banners, photographs — that tell the story of his life and the choices he had made.

As a student in London in the mid-1980s he was a leading light in the MIC Club of London.

He was also a pro-Barisan Nasional (BN) and pro-Anwar Ibrahim student although he now tries to skirt around that period.

On his return in 1990 he started a successful law practice but soon was caught up in the political maelstrom that followed the sacking of the former deputy prime minister.

In fact he was in Anwar’s house that day — Sept 20, 1998 — when balaclava-clad policemen stormed the house and took him away.

He was a Keadilan member but soon fell out with Anwar because he blamed him for not doing enough for the Indians.

After that Uthayakumar ventured into his own, forming the Party Reformasi Insan Malaysia or PRIM, which with a dozen loyalists, was a complete non-starter.

He again moved on to forming the Police Watch NGO to fight police brutality and death in custody in which many of those affected were poor Indians.

Here he had greater success and managed to make his mark as a grassroots Indian leader. He also brought international condemnation onto the government and managed to force changes.

Then came the Nov 25 protest that made world headlines and turned him into a hero to some and a enemy to others.

After over 500 days in detention, Uthayakumar was released last month and is now trying to find his bearings in a cluttered and changed political landscape.

The other Hindraf leaders held with him have also all been released and are not keen to associate with Uthayakumar and his schemes anymore.

Some of his core lieutenants who kept the flame alive when the leaders were in Kamunting have also parted ways. The so called co-coordinators have all split.

National co-coordinator R.S. Thanenthiran has formed his own Makkal Sakthi Party of Malaysia, strangely in quick time and ironically without the involvement of any of the core Hindraf leaders.

Uthayakumar’s only consolation is that his brother Waythamoorthy is making final preparations to return from self-imposed exile in London and to an uncertain fate.

"We will work together... he is the brains. I often defer to him," Uthayakumar said.

After his release last month Uthayakumar held a series of meetings with key supporters and the one topic that dominated the discussions was, what next?

They had a choice — a grassroots-based NGO or a full fledged political party to gather all the loose strands and unite them under one umbrella.

“The debate was fierce and is still raging,” said Uthayakumar, declining to elaborate on the final choice.

“A decision has already been made and a formal announcement will be made at the Hokkien Hall in Klang on July 19,” he said, refusing to divulge what shape his new movement would take. “It will be a unique movement with a vision and a total plan of action."

Sources close to him however said he is expected to announce the setting up of a new political party, a field already crowded with numerous old, new and expired political parties.

It would be a multi-racial party, his aides said, but concentrating on alleviating the critical problems faced by the Indian community.

Uthayakumar refused to confirm or deny this.

“We will be a third and an independent force and will not join either Pakatan or Barisan,” he said.

Uthayakumar also visited key areas in the country where Hindraf had previously enjoyed significant support like in Batu Caves, Kulim in Kedah and Georgetown in Penang.

“The crowd was smaller but the people still came and thanked me profusely for fighting for their rights,” he said. “Some want to fall on my legs but I did not allow it.”

The smaller crowd is not significant, he said, adding the March 8 tsunami is over and unlikely to return any time soon. “It took 50 years of discrimination to build up the Nov 25 type of anger.”

“The point is we have to tackle the issues that confront our community — poverty, lack of skills, ill treatment and so forth,” he said. “Although the tsunami gave Pakatan big victory, but despite that the Indian woes remain.”

“This is what the third force will tackle… force Pakatan and Barisan to tackle our woes in return for our votes,” he said.

His plans seems to be to undercut the Pakatan Rakyat allies — PKR and DAP and other newer rivals like the Makkal Sakthi Party — and corner the Indian vote.

After that to use his influence as a bargaining chip with PR to get the best for the community.

He has written off the MIC, Gerakan and PPP as rivals for the Indian vote.

"They are well past their shelf lives."

If this is his dream vision, then he has his work cut out for him — as a start-up new party he has to slogged it out and build a network, gather members, form branches and divisions.

Relying just on the emotional support he now enjoys from some sections of the community could be short-lived as other competitors, some credible like Datuk T. Murugiah, are entering the field and making waves among the Indian grassroots.

Besides, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and his deputy Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin are not idle. They are giving priority to minorities' concerns and are quietly winning over the hearts and minds of the Indians.

Uthayakumar's other choice is to join either the DAP or the PKR and try to work with them to get the results he desires.

His answer to this is an emphatic No! “I will not join them… they have betrayed the Indians,” he said.

The reaction on the other side is equally firm.

“We don’t want him… he is a wild fellow impossible to tame,” said a top DAP leader.

Baradan Kuppusamy

Hisham: Kayveas rightful PPP president

;">

Datuk M. Kayveas has been declared the rightful PPP president, ending months of leadership tussle between him and Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk T. Murugiah.

Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein, who announced this today, said the Registrar of Societies (ROS) made the decision based on the elections of PPP’s 2005-2010 supreme council members on Oct 2, 2005.

“Investigations also showed that the sacking of Datuk T. Murugiah from the party is made based on PPP constitution,” he told a post-cabinet news conference here today.

In line with this, Hishammuddin said, Murugiah’s “appointment” as PPP president at an extraordinary general meeting on May 24 was not valid as it did not comply with the requirements under the PPP constitution.

“The matter has been investigated from various aspects, including obtaining the views of the Home Ministry’s legal advisors,” he said.

He said investigations showed that Murugiah had no locus standi to act as party president, use party platform or carry out any activity related to the party.

Hishammuddin said PPP had been advised to take legal action if Murugiah continued to use the party’s name.

He said that he had met both leaders and felt that they would be able to accept ROS’ decision.

On Murugiah’s position as a senator, Hishammuddin said the matter was up to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak to decide.

Bernama

Khir Toyo enters MIC fray, attacks Samy Vellu

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 12 – Former Selangor Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Mohd Khir Toyo has waded into the battle raging in the MIC between the Samy Vellu-Subramaniam factions by accusing the MIC president of giving the green light to demolish the Padang Jawa Sri Maha Mariammam temple that had sparked widespread anger and led to the 2007 Hindraf protests.

In an exclusive interview with the Makkal Osai Tamil daily that is the mouthpiece of former deputy president Datuk S. Subramaniam, Khir, now opposition leader in Selangor, said Samy Vellu telephoned him “one night about 11pm” during the crisis and told him to pull down the temple.

“He (Samy Vellu) said Hindraf people were gathering at the temple and turning it into a protest,” Khir told the newspaper. “He said to pull down the temple to stop them and not to give them room.

“Because the leader of the community is asking, I instructed the state secretary to give the necessary instruction,” Khir said in the interview.

The demolition took place a few days before Deepavali in 2007 and angered the Indian community.

The razing of the temple is a key reason why Indian voters rebelled and voted the opposition in the March 8, 2008 tsunami that brought the Pakatan Rakyat into power in five states.

The MIC was accused of doing nothing to stop this and other demolitions, and paid a heavy price in the polls, losing most of the seats it contested, including in Sungei Siput where Samy Vellu was defeated.

The Padang Jawa demolition was the climax of several years of unremitting temple demolition by local authorities in Perak, Johor, Negri Sembilan and Selangor, all on the grounds that these temples were illegal structures.

Khir also said he will “take action” if Vel Paari, the son of Samy Vellu, continues to claim or write that it was Khir who had demolished the temple.

“I did not do it… it was Samy Vellu who wanted it,” Khir Toyo told the newspaper.

Khir’s rebuttal is part of a war of words between Vel Paari and supporters of Subramaniam, with each faction using the Tamil newspaper under their control to throw accusations at each other to influence the 1,400 delegates to the Sept 12 MIC elections.

On Aug 6 Paari had written in the family-owned Tamil Nesan daily that Indians were angry with Samy Vellu over the demolition of the temple. He said his father was not involved and the people should be angry with Khir as it was he who was responsible for the demolition.

The MIC election is seen as a do-or-die battle by many and is generating unusual heat compared to previous elections.

This is because two camps — that of Samy Vellu and Subramaniam — are going head-on by fielding their respective candidates for all the posts up for grabs.

“With Samy Vellu departing there is unusual urgency and heat in this election because the party is at a crossroads. The veteran leader is departing and two rival teams are fighting to fill the vacuum," a former MIC vice-president said.

“That’s why it is a do-or-die battle with the winner taking all and the loser disappearing from the scene,” the MIC leader said.

Samy Vellu, who was elected unopposed in March for an 11th term as president, has indicated he would quit about a year after the Sept 12 election, if at all.

Subramaniam is fighting the final battle of his career as deputy president in a three way fight between him, incumbent Datuk G. Palanivel and former Samy Vellu-blue-eyed boy Datuk S. Sothinathan.

;">

By Baradan Kuppusamy

Najib makes pitch in symbolic heart of Indian Malaysia

Datuk Seri Najib Razak today became the first prime minister to make an official visit to Batu Caves since his father Tun Abdul Razak did in 1970. Though their visits to the site best known for its Hindu cave temples and the spectacular Thaipusam festival were separated by nearly forty years, the circumstances that surrounded their visits are in some ways, remarkably similar.

Both men made their visits during their first year in office. Forty years ago, the country was wracked by racial bickering. Today, the nation is still struggling to make peace with its multi-ethnic makeup.

Back in 1970, Umno and its Alliance partners MCA and MIC were stunned by the electoral setbacks in 1969. Today, Umno and its Barisan Nasional (BN) partners are grappling with electoral setbacks in last year’s general elections which saw the ruling coalition lose five states to the opposition.

The major difference betwen the two elections was, in 1969, it was largely the non-Malays who had voted for the opposition. Last year, not only the non-Malays abandoned the BN in droves but a significant percentage of Malay voters did so as well.

The approaches taken by the two men however, appear to diverge significantly.

The elder Razak ushered in an era of what many see as strongly pro-Malay measures such as the New Economic Policy (NEP), measures that had perhaps unintended negative repercussions on race relations and Malaysian unity.

Four decades on, his son comes into office pushing a reform message of “1Malaysia” which aims to bond Malaysians as “one people, one nation, one dream”.

He also took several steps to open the economy and lifted selected quotas in the financial sector and capital markets as well as in the services industry. In addition, Najib also promised a review of the controversial Internal Security Act (ISA).

While some will dismiss Najib’s Batu Caves speech as mere rhetoric, he appeared heartfelt as he hammered home his message on unity to the thousands of mostly Indians who attended the 1Malaysia Carnival organised by the Sri Mahamariamman Temple Devasthanam and Malaysian Hindu Council.

The overcast sky and soaring limestone cliffs also made a dramatic backdrop to Najib’s booming oratory.

"If we are as one people, if we are as one nation, if we are as one dream, we will be a stronger Malaysia. We must look forward to a bigger, and better future, predicated on a united Malaysia. It is imperative to make it (mutual respect among the races), a part of the psyche and way of life.

“That is why 1Malaysia is about changing mindsets from mere tolerance to one of total acceptance of a plural society. The plural society is a political reality that is an asset and not a liability. A strength and not a weakness.

“I believe Malaysia can be a gateway to the world. We have all the major civilizations. We are a gateway to China, India, the Malay world, the Middle East. We must convert this asset to a strategic advantage,” Najib said.

To sweeten his message to the Indian community, whose deep rooted feelings of being marginalised gave rise to the Hindraf movement, the prime minister announced that he will respond to the Batu Caves temple committee chairman Datuk R Nadarajah’s request for help to further develop Batu Caves into an even bigger tourism attraction and that the government will allocated additional funds to that purpose.

He also announced a few other financial allocations, such as for the Divine Life Society Orphanage and RM15 million in micro credit to help Indian entrepreneurs.

He also pointed out that in the recent Amanah Saham 1Malaysia unit trust scheme by Permodalan Nasional Berhad, the Indian quota was 15 per cent despite making up only 8 per cent of the total population.

He however, did not touch on Nadarajah’s other two requests — that Thaipusam, currently a state holiday, be made into a national holiday on account of the estimated 1.3 million pilgrims who make the journey to Batu Caves each Thaipusam, and for a cable car system to be built for the disabled to reach the highest cave temple.

“This is proof that we don’t talk rhetoric and slogans, “ said Najib. “Not in words but proof in deeds to help Indians and all races so we can proposer together. In 1Malaysia, it is not a zero sum game,” said Najib.

“If we help the Indians, it does not mean we deprive the Malays or Chinese. I believe God has given Malaysia bountiful wealth. I believe each Malaysian has a place under the Malaysian sun.”

Recent surveys show that Najib’s attempts to win over the Indian community and their votes are bearing fruit.

A Merdeka Center poll conducted in June has 74 per cent of Indians expressing satisfaction with Najib.

But at the same time, his message may be compromised by the fiery tone emanating from Umno controlled newspapers — Utusan and Berita Harian — who have written articles that appear to go against 1Malaysia and urged Malays to rise up against alleged threats to their community.

The non-Malay sense of being second class citizens was also build up over decades and will not be overcome easily.

But for now, with his greetings of “Vanakam” and farewells of “Nandry”, and numerous 1Malaysia speeches, Najib seems determined to try.

The Malaysian Insider

Is 'Vanakkam' and 'Nandri' enough?

News headlines and opinion pieces in the past few weeks have been rather telling as we hurtle to another anniversary of Merdeka.

Politicians and even journalists are trading barbs, calling one another racists - which is really the flip side of Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak's 1 Malaysia slogan.

But the prime minister has remained above the fray. In fact, he spent part of the weekend visiting Batu Caves, the first sitting prime minister to do so. Indian Malaysians were happy as he gave out some goodies and said he would mull other requests.

Yes, Najib has flipped chapatis in a Sikh gurdwara, sipped some coffee in Brickfields or rather Little India and has now toured Batu Caves, complete with a giant garland that could make it to the Malaysian Book of Records.

His visits to these places dominated by the Indians have been rich with symbolism.

But has anything really changed since the last general election?

Yes. And no.

The five Hindraf leaders are free, some setting up political parties and continuing to harangue governments of the day on multifarious issues with the latest being the KampungBuah Pala issue.

So be it Barisan or Pakatan, they will bite and try to get what they want in return for their support.

But other things have not changed. Malaysians still don't feel equal in this nation that will soon be 52. Both the coalitions pay lip-service to mutual respect for one another, each vociferous about their communal rights and wrongs of the other party.

As for the Indian Malaysians, getting 15 per cent of this or that (although double their percentage in population terms) might seem good but there lies the death of meritocracy, there lies the crutch that will hobble and cripple them as equal members of the Malaysian nation.

Would it be so easy to appease every Malaysian with a visit, a smile, a “Vanakkam”, a “Nandri” and let bygones be bygones? A hello, a thank you and walk away after that and tick the boxes that say 1 Malaysia. People First. Performance Now.

Should we let the inequality, racism and divisiveness continue bubbling to keep Malaysians separate and easier to manage?

Have we seen anything that has said People First since April 3, 2009?

1 Malaysia Unit Trusts? Isn't that our money that they allow us to invest in the unit trust at a time when there is a wide range of trusts and REITS?

Have we seen anything that has said Performance Now since April 3,

2009? Has the economy improved or have we decided to debate about beer sales and the infallibility of one's coalitions vis-a-vis the rival's?

Have we seen anything 1 Malaysia? Is “Vanakkam” and “Nandri” enough?

The Malaysian Insider

Ku Li: BN power-sharing model broken, needs new one

The ruling Barisan Nasional’s racial power-sharing model is broken with the races now polarised, veteran Umno politician Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah charged today, adding it needs to begin anew with “our common humanity”.

The Gua Musang MP also said race was just a constructed category and called for new ways of mediating conflicts among the races in the country, despite the recent shrill cries of Malay supremacy among his fellow Umno colleagues and Umno-held media.

“The racial power-sharing model now practised by Barisan is broken. It takes more honesty than we are used to in public life to observe that this is not a temporary but a terminal crisis. An old order is ending,” Tengku Razaleigh told the Kelab Umno Australia at the Melbourne University.

He noted the major races remained polarised despite the country’s economic growth and progress towards multiracial politics although the government and opposition are still largely mobilised along racial lines.

“It is not yet time to herald a new dawn. Instead, we are in a transition full of perils and possibilities,” the Kelantan prince said in a copy of the speech sent to The Malaysian Insider.

He told his audience Barisan Nasional was put together to ensure that every community had a place at the table but it was not a permanent solution and the coalition has to wake up to the fact that it no longer worked.

“It was designed as an interim work-around, an early stage on the way to ‘a more perfect union’ and not as the desired end-state. Over the years, however, we have put up barricades around our system as if it were a fore-ordained and permanent ideal.

“In doing so, we have turned a half-way house into our destination, as if we must forever remain a racially divided and racially governed society,” said the politician popularly known as Ku Li.

He said the ideal should be a free and united society in which individuals can express their ethnic and religious identities without being imprisoned in them, adding “We must aim for a society in which public reasoning and not backroom dealing determines our collective decisions.”

Tengku Razaleigh, who lost out again for a shot at the Umno presidency last year, said the power-sharing model in Malaysia was an elite style of government justified by the virtue and competence of natural leaders of the communities.

“It does not work when political parties are led by the ignorant and the corrupt who have no standing in the communities they claim to represent,” he said bluntly, saying the country now has top-down rule and power had become increasingly unaccountable with Umno beholden to the executive.

“Our decades under highly-centralised government undermined our power-sharing formula, just as it undermined key institutions such as the judiciary, the police and the rule of law.

“Our major institutions have survived in appearance while their substance has eroded. Seen in this light, the election results of March 8, which saw the Barisan Nasional handed its worst defeat since 1969, was just the beginning of the collapse of a structure which has long been hollowed out,” Ku Li said.

He told the Kelab Umno Australia that they are generation of transition and would play a key role in determining the country’s outcome.

“We need a new beginning to racial relations in Malaysia, and you must pioneer that beginning. We need to re-design race relations in Malaysia, and you must be the architects and builders of that design,” he told his audience.

He advised them to take advantage of the perspective of distance in overseas education to reformulate questions and come out with answers for the nation.

“Begin with our common humanity. Respect for our common humanity must override all lesser affiliations, including race,” he said, noting one of Islam’s most powerful contributions to human civilisation has been its insistence on the equality of all human beings.

“Islam tolerates no notions of racial superiority or inferiority. All human beings are equal before God. That same principle of equality is absolutely fundamental to democracy, and democracy is a foundational principle of our Constitution.

The veteran politician said democracy is part of the nation’s make-up and although the citizens can gravitate to racial groupings, it should not overshadow the allegiance to the constitution and the claims of equal dignity.

“Political parties based on race or religion must never be allowed to do or say anything contrary to justice and equality,” he added.

Bucking the trend in his party that espouses Malay supremacy, Tengku Razaleigh said Malaysians must anchor themselves in the constitution and restore its primacy as it establishes the equality of citizenship.

“It gives us the framework of law and order within which we become a nation. It establishes the primacy of the rule of law, the sovereignty of Parliament, the independence of the judiciary and civil service and of our law enforcement agencies. These are the institutions which guarantee the freedom and sovereignty of the people,” he added.

Ku Li has challenged the young generation, which he calls the “generation of transition”, to move beyond making race their sole identity.

Speaking on race, he noted that while it united people in a common feeling, it can also divide and said that Malaysians are not just diverse in race but diverse in different ways, including location, class, social status, occupation, language and politics.

“We would be terribly impoverished as persons if our identity was given ahead of time and once and for all, merely by our membership of a fixed racial category. I would be a very dull person if you could tell who I was simply by looking up my race,” he said, adding it was not the most importance category in the world.

He pointed out that race would retard growth as individuals and hence as a society, apart from turning people into stereotypes and maintain a view of the world bordering on racist.

“I want to urge you, as the makers of the new social landscape we need in Malaysia, to reject taking race to be a unique and fixed categorisation, to reject race as a central category of social and political life,” Tengku Razaleigh said, reiterating it was just an identity and a constructed category.

He railed against the politics of race saying it will always divide, “and the ultimate solution to intra-racial problems it leads us to is, in the end, violence.”

“It is easy to identify the practitioners of this kind of racial politics. They will rely on veiled threats of communal violence even as they take part in democratic politics,” he added.

The Umno veteran also called for new ways of mediating conflicting claims between the races, new ways of bringing people to the table, of including everyone in the decision-making process.

“These new ways must be based on more open conceptions of who we are. Malaysia’s major races have lived together not just for decades but for centuries. Their cultures have interacted for millennia. In that time there has been mutual influence, mixture and cross-pollination at a depth and on a scale that our politics, popular culture and educational curriculum have largely pretended does not exist.

“It is time to embrace this real diversity in our political and personal lives. Our racial identities are not silos in a cornfield, forever separate, encased in steel, but trees in our rainforest: standing distinct but inexplicable without each other and constantly co-evolving,” he said.

Tengku Razaleigh pointed out that he was not recommending anything novel to the audience as it was cardinal principles in the constitution and the faiths, including Islam.

“Let us have the sense of perspective to see our ethnic identities against these cornerstone principles of religion and ethics, and let us now educate our young, apprentice our youth, and conduct ourselves according to these principles.

“And then let us have a new beginning for Malaysia,” he said when ending his speech.

UMNO Breathes Its Own Exhaust

Members of the Youth Wing of the United Malay National Organisation, who have been long considered brash and rash and extreme in their views and actions, surpassed themselves on the afternoon of 26 February when a group of about 20 of them invaded the Parliament in Kuala Lumpur intending to prevent the wheelchair bound member of parliament, Karpal Singh, 69, from entering the House of Representatives to take part in the day's proceedings and to force a retraction of his earlier utterances.

When debating a motion on the king's speeches, Karpal brought up the issue of being sent two live bullets by post. He claimed the bullets were sent by the UMNO Youth and labeled them celaka. Celaka translates as 'accursed' or 'damned.' They also wanted to confront Karpal over his alleged insult of the Perak Sultan and the Malays by stating that the Sultan of Perak could be sued in the political controversy that is raging in Perak.

Karpal also rounded off his earlier speech in Parliament by declaring 'Singh is King' presumably influenced by the title of a Bollywood flick currently being screened in Malaysia. This statement further enraged the UMNO youths, as it was construed as a further insult on the sultans.

As the UMNO Youth blocked Karpal's path and created a fracas, it is alleged that the security guards and police personnel stood by and watched, not bothering to come to the aid of the veteran disabled MP.

Karpal Singh has said he has not done anything wrong. As a lawyer, he said, he was merely stating the law when he said the sultan could be sued in court. Many senior lawyers as well as the Malaysian Bar Council have concurred that the Malay rulers are subject to civil and criminal prosecution based on the Malaysian Constitution.

Prior to this confrontation, noisy demonstrations were held by the same group outside Karpal's law firm in Kuala Lumpur. Demonstrations were also planned in Penang outside his home under the leadership of Mohamad Khir Toyo, who is seeking to be elected head of the Youth Wing in the coming party elections. The planned demonstration was stopped by the police after Karpal complained they were not doing anything to protect him.

Mahathir Mohamad, when he was Prime Minister was instrumental in clipping the powers and removing the immunity of the Malay rulers between 1983 and 1993 and making them liable to prosecution. Mahathir, when putting forward his case to the people of Malaysia on the need for such a drastic course of action against the rulers, singled out the allegedly extravagant lifestyles of royalty. The rulers of the states of Perak and Johor were singled out for mention.

UMNO including the Youth Wing were staunchly behind Mahathir and there was no talk of insulting the rulers, sedition or treason.

When the withdrawal of immunity of the Sultans and curtailing their powers was discussed and passed by both the Houses of the Parliament, it is significant to note that the Democratic Action Party, of which Karpal Singh, is the national chairman, voted against the act. It was passed with the overwhelming support of UMNO and other components of the Barisan Nasional, the ruling national ethnic coalition

What did Karpal mean by his statement "Singh is king?" Most certainly not an obsession with Bollywood. A closer look at the culture and religion of the Sikhs will provide interesting answers. Most male Sikhs are called "singh," which means "lion," the king of the jungle. Quite often princes and maharajas in India use the title of Singh to denote their royal and warring abilities. In this context, the term "king" was not a reference to the rulers at all.

More than 100 police reports alleging treason and sedition have been made against Karpal. That these reports will not stand up in a court of law is obvious. Karpal should however bear in mind that he would have caused less controversy had he used more diplomatic language, particularly in parliament.

A good grasp of cultures of the various ethnic groups as well as Malaysian history should be made essential knowledge for ALL politicians and aspiring politicians. Most Malaysians, including the Malays, are aware that the ruling Malay party is not truly concerned about the rulers, and their complaints against Karpal and the opposition grate like a broken record being played too many times, especially when not a squeak was heard from these very Malay leaders in1983 and 1993. It only shows their lack of respect and understanding of the laws of the country, parliamentary procedures, and cultures of the various communities.

The fact that the prime minister and the deputy prime minister have not commented on the invasion of the sanctity of the parliament and the intimidation of a wheelchair-bound opposition leader speaks volumes on the conduct of politics and governance in Malaysia.

The Malaysian Insider