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.

I had no problems when you criticised [Parti Keadilan Rakyat de facto leader Datuk Seri] Anwar Ibrahim although it was clear you took advantage of the platform readily offered to you by the pro-BN media. You are entitled to your opinions and I believe you had your reasons to warn us against Anwar.

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

PETALING JAYA: If you think your “work” as a voter is done after you cast your ballot on March 8, and the rest is up to the political parties, think again. The process of shaping a political culture that is more democratic and more in tune with the different voices on the ground has just begun. This is true not only for the political parties but also for the electorate and civil society groups, said the speakers of a post-election analysis dialogue.

There is a need, they pointed out, for a new language to define the new political landscape that the nation has ventured into – the just concluded 12th general election which saw the Barisan Nasional (BN)’s longstanding two-thirds majority in Parliament reduced to a simple majority for the first time in decades, hence demonstrating that Malaysians are capable of changing the balance of power through the ballot box.

Voters need to continue to push for a more pluralist and accountable government, be it at the state or federal level, no matter which party is in power, said the speakers at the dialogue organised by the Centre for Public Policy Studies (CPPS) at Sunway University College on March 15. The CPPS is part of the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute, an independent and non-partisan think tank.

As the nation grapples with the transition of having five non-BN state governments, the people need to recognise, accept and respect certain existing institutions, some of the speakers said. These include the Federal Constitution’s provision for the special position of the Malays, the role of affirmative action in helping those who are genuinely in need regardless of race, and the election as a democratic process that should not be thrown out by those calling for the resignation of BN chairman and Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

One of the speakers at the dialogue, political analyst Khoo Kay Peng, said those who called for Abdullah’s resignation just because the BN had failed to retain two-thirds of the parliamentary seats, were ignoring the fact that the BN still won, albeit with a simple majority, through a democratic electoral process.

In the election, Abdullah retained his Kepala Batas seat in Penang with a majority of 11,246 votes, and the BN won 140 of the 222 parliamentary seats.

Khoo said it would be up to Umno to decide at its general assembly later in the year if Abdullah should remain the party president. He added that any change in the nation’s leadership should be done through a democratic process.

The president of Umno has traditionally been the head of the BN, which has been the ruling coalition since independence in 1957. But tradition aside, according to the constitution, it is really the Agong and the Members of Parliament who decide who should be the prime minister. Article 43 states that the prime minister, appointed by the Agong, has to be a Dewan Rakyat member and has to, according to the Agong’s judgment, command the confidence of the majority of the members of that House.

Umno Youth executive council member Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir is among those who have called for Abdullah’s resignation in light of the BN’s performance in the election. According to the New Straits Times (NST), Mukhriz had in a letter dated March 12 asked Abdullah “to do what is appropriate”. “I appeal to you to take responsibility for the defeat. Only by your resigning as prime minister and Umno president can the recovery of Umno, BN and the nation be accomplished successfully,” he wrote, echoing his father’s (Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad) statement on March 9, the NST reported.

New language
The reminder that the democratic process of an election should not be discarded just like that, points to the need for a new language and way of thinking among Malaysians – both politicians and the people alike.

One clear example that illustrates the need for a new language is the blanket assumption that the BN is the ruling government and non-BN parties like Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), the DAP and PAS are the opposition. This is no longer so in four more states other than the long-time PAS-ruled Kelantan. In Kedah, Penang, Perak and Selangor, the BN is now the opposition. So when we say the opposition these days, it could mean the BN, PAS or PKR-DAP-PAS, depending on which state we are referring to.

Historian and political scientist Dr. Farish A. Noor said the shaping of a new language would be crucial to the evolution of a more pluralist political culture in Malaysia. He said this would entail thinking beyond the traditional sacred cows or taboos. For example, would Umno, which claims to defend the interests of the Malays and bumiputeras, be open to the possibility of having a Kadazan or Iban as the president? Would PAS, which claims to have transcended race politics, accept a non-Malay Muslim as its leader?

“Malaysians have for a long time allowed the powers that be to dictate the terms of our political culture. The time has come for us to imagine what had previously been unimaginable, to think of new political possibilities,” said Farish, a senior fellow at the Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University.

The speakers pointed out that this political change would not be a smooth process. Indeed, the problems have already emerged less than a week after the polls in both non-BN and BN ruled states.

For example, the new Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng reportedly said the DAP-PKR coalition would run the state government free of the New Economic Policy (NEP), which he said bred cronyism, corruption and systemic inefficiency. The comment has raised concern among some Malays, which prompted the DAP to clarify that Lim was misinterpreted. In a March 15 Bernama report, Lim said no one would be neglected or marginalised, and the state government would share the state’s wealth with all the people of Penang.

In Perlis, the ruler Tuanku Syed Sirajuddin Putra Jamalullail named Bintong assemblyman Datuk Dr Md Isa Sabu as the new chief minister, instead of Perlis BN chief Datuk Seri Shahidan Kassim, who had received a letter of appointment for the post from Abdullah while in Trengganu, the new chief minister has yet to be appointed.

In Perak, PKR, DAP and PAS argued over the candidates for the chief minister’s post and 10 executive councillors before coming to an agreement.

Human rights lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar said that given the prevailing thinking and practices that Malaysia has had for a long time, such as the role of the NEP to eradicate poverty in particular among the Malays, politicians should articulate their positions carefully to avoid any miscommunication or misunderstanding. He said there was fear among some Malays that their interests would now be ignored by the non-BN state governments.

Malik noted that there were existing institutions that should be accepted as long as they were still in place. “The constitution recognises the special position of the Malays,” he said. These constitutional provisions, he added, should be accepted as long as they remained the current provisions.

CPPS chairman Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam said the problem with the NEP was its selective implementation. “Who can quarrel with poverty eradication for all races?” Ramon, who helped draft the NEP, asked. He said it was the NEP’s implementation, which has been used to benefit an elite group and neglected many who are genuinely in need that has made the NEP a problem.

“Some form of affirmative action that cuts across the races needs to be there to help those who really cannot compete on their own,” said Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria, executive director of Yayasan Strategik Sosial, an MIC-linked think tank.

Check and balance
The speakers at the dialogue pointed out that voters and civil society groups now have to play an active role in keeping all the different state and federal governments on their toes. Malik said it was incumbent on voters and civil society groups to continue to push for and support pluralist positions. He said they should not allow any party to raise racial tension, which can be used as an excuse to declare a state of emergency. Politicians and the people, he added, would need to be more conscientious in framing a new language that promotes a more pluralist culture.

“There’s a lot of work to be done,” Malik said. “Revolutionaries make terrible administrators,” he said of the new non-BN state governments, adding that they should be reminded of their promises and goals should they stray off course. “I see the BN as a counterbalancing force against the PKR-DAP-PAS government if [the latter] forgets what it promised to do.”

Said Jayasooria: “Politicians are politicians, no matter what camp they are in. If there are insufficient checks and balances, the best of intentions can go wrong. Voters need to be vigilant that their vote for change is not hijacked by any party.”

CMs, DPMs and PMs: Time to go beyond the old taboos

The speakers at the CPPS dialogue: [L-R] Denison Jayasooria, Zainon Ahmad, Khoo Kay Peng, Ramon Navaratnam, Malik Imtiaz Sarwar and Farish Noor. Photos by Cindy Tham.

PETALING JAYA: If you think your “work” as a voter is done after you cast your ballot on March 8, and the rest is up to the political parties, think again. The process of shaping a political culture that is more democratic and more in tune with the different voices on the ground has just begun. This is true not only for the political parties but also for the electorate and civil society groups, said the speakers of a post-election analysis dialogue.

There is a need, they pointed out, for a new language to define the new political landscape that the nation has ventured into – the just concluded 12th general election which saw the Barisan Nasional (BN)’s longstanding two-thirds majority in Parliament reduced to a simple majority for the first time in decades, hence demonstrating that Malaysians are capable of changing the balance of power through the ballot box.

Voters need to continue to push for a more pluralist and accountable government, be it at the state or federal level, no matter which party is in power, said the speakers at the dialogue organised by the Centre for Public Policy Studies (CPPS) at Sunway University College on March 15. The CPPS is part of the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute, an independent and non-partisan think tank.

As the nation grapples with the transition of having five non-BN state governments, the people need to recognise, accept and respect certain existing institutions, some of the speakers said. These include the Federal Constitution’s provision for the special position of the Malays, the role of affirmative action in helping those who are genuinely in need regardless of race, and the election as a democratic process that should not be thrown out by those calling for the resignation of BN chairman and Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Political analyst Khoo Kay Peng said it was up to the Umno general assembly, to be held later this year, to decide if Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi should remain the party president.

One of the speakers at the dialogue, political analyst Khoo Kay Peng, said those who called for Abdullah’s resignation just because the BN had failed to retain two-thirds of the parliamentary seats, were ignoring the fact that the BN still won, albeit with a simple majority, through a democratic electoral process.

In the election, Abdullah retained his Kepala Batas seat in Penang with a majority of 11,246 votes, and the BN won 140 of the 222 parliamentary seats.

Khoo said it would be up to Umno to decide at its general assembly later in the year if Abdullah should remain the party president. He added that any change in the nation’s leadership should be done through a democratic process.

The president of Umno has traditionally been the head of the BN, which has been the ruling coalition since independence in 1957. But tradition aside, according to the constitution, it is really the Agong and the Members of Parliament who decide who should be the prime minister. Article 43 states that the prime minister, appointed by the Agong, has to be a Dewan Rakyat member and has to, according to the Agong’s judgment, command the confidence of the majority of the members of that House.

Umno Youth executive council member Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir is among those who have called for Abdullah’s resignation in light of the BN’s performance in the election. According to the New Straits Times (NST), Mukhriz had in a letter dated March 12 asked Abdullah “to do what is appropriate”. “I appeal to you to take responsibility for the defeat. Only by your resigning as prime minister and Umno president can the recovery of Umno, BN and the nation be accomplished successfully,” he wrote, echoing his father’s (Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad) statement on March 9, the NST reported.

New language
The reminder that the democratic process of an election should not be discarded just like that, points to the need for a new language and way of thinking among Malaysians – both politicians and the people alike.

One clear example that illustrates the need for a new language is the blanket assumption that the BN is the ruling government and non-BN parties like Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), the DAP and PAS are the opposition. This is no longer so in four more states other than the long-time PAS-ruled Kelantan. In Kedah, Penang, Perak and Selangor, the BN is now the opposition. So when we say the opposition these days, it could mean the BN, PAS or PKR-DAP-PAS, depending on which state we are referring to.

Historian and political scientist Dr. Farish A. Noor said the shaping of a new language would be crucial to the evolution of a more pluralist political culture in Malaysia. He said this would entail thinking beyond the traditional sacred cows or taboos. For example, would Umno, which claims to defend the interests of the Malays and bumiputeras, be open to the possibility of having a Kadazan or Iban as the president? Would PAS, which claims to have transcended race politics, accept a non-Malay Muslim as its leader?

“Malaysians have for a long time allowed the powers that be to dictate the terms of our political culture. The time has come for us to imagine what had previously been unimaginable, to think of new political possibilities,” said Farish, a senior fellow at the Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University.

The speakers pointed out that this political change would not be a smooth process. Indeed, the problems have already emerged less than a week after the polls in both non-BN and BN ruled states.

For example, the new Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng reportedly said the DAP-PKR coalition would run the state government free of the New Economic Policy (NEP), which he said bred cronyism, corruption and systemic inefficiency. The comment has raised concern among some Malays, which prompted the DAP to clarify that Lim was misinterpreted. In a March 15 Bernama report, Lim said no one would be neglected or marginalised, and the state government would share the state’s wealth with all the people of Penang.

In Perlis, the ruler Tuanku Syed Sirajuddin Putra Jamalullail named Bintong assemblyman Datuk Dr Md Isa Sabu as the new chief minister, instead of Perlis BN chief Datuk Seri Shahidan Kassim, who had received a letter of appointment for the post from Abdullah while in Trengganu, the new chief minister has yet to be appointed.

In Perak, PKR, DAP and PAS argued over the candidates for the chief minister’s post and 10 executive councillors before coming to an agreement.

Human rights lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar said that given the prevailing thinking and practices that Malaysia has had for a long time, such as the role of the NEP to eradicate poverty in particular among the Malays, politicians should articulate their positions carefully to avoid any miscommunication or misunderstanding. He said there was fear among some Malays that their interests would now be ignored by the non-BN state governments.

Human rights lawyer Malik Imtiaz Ghulam Sarwar said politicians should articulate their positions carefully to avoid any miscommunication or misunderstanding in the new political landscape.

Malik noted that there were existing institutions that should be accepted as long as they were still in place. “The constitution recognises the special position of the Malays,” he said. These constitutional provisions, he added, should be accepted as long as they remained the current provisions.

CPPS chairman Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam said the problem with the NEP was its selective implementation. “Who can quarrel with poverty eradication for all races?” Ramon, who helped draft the NEP, asked. He said it was the NEP’s implementation, which has been used to benefit an elite group and neglected many who are genuinely in need that has made the NEP a problem.

“Some form of affirmative action that cuts across the races needs to be there to help those who really cannot compete on their own,” said Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria, executive director of Yayasan Strategik Sosial, an MIC-linked think tank.

Check and balance
The speakers at the dialogue pointed out that voters and civil society groups now have to play an active role in keeping all the different state and federal governments on their toes. Malik said it was incumbent on voters and civil society groups to continue to push for and support pluralist positions. He said they should not allow any party to raise racial tension, which can be used as an excuse to declare a state of emergency. Politicians and the people, he added, would need to be more conscientious in framing a new language that promotes a more pluralist culture.

“There’s a lot of work to be done,” Malik said. “Revolutionaries make terrible administrators,” he said of the new non-BN state governments, adding that they should be reminded of their promises and goals should they stray off course. “I see the BN as a counterbalancing force against the PKR-DAP-PAS government if [the latter] forgets what it promised to do.”

Said Jayasooria: “Politicians are politicians, no matter what camp they are in. If there are insufficient checks and balances, the best of intentions can go wrong. Voters need to be vigilant that their vote for change is not hijacked by any party.”

CMs, DPMs and PMs: Time to go beyond the old taboos

By Child Care Worker

Almost everyone I know is happy with the election results, and so am I. I am so proud to be Malaysian, I burst at the seams! I am, however, devastated by [former Women, Family and Community Development Minister Datuk Seri] Shahrizat Abdul Jalil’s loss.

Over and over again, I hear that Shahrizat did not deserve to, and should not have lost her seat. I’ve heard comments such as: “Isn’t it too bad she was up against Anwar’s daughter? The rakyat did not vote against her personally but against the establishment – she was just collateral damage!”

No insult to Anwar’s daughter, because I don’t know her and have no idea what she’s capable of achieving, but honestly, did the rakyat vote for the best candidate in Lembah Pantai to serve the people?

My opinion? No!

The wave of sentiment against the BN [Barisan Nasional] is understandable and I am so proud of Malaysians that they stood up against injustice, and called for change. But, in doing so, in punishing and making examples of BN candidates, they also voted out a very effective, compassionate and intelligent leader who was making positive change and aiding those who had fallen through the cracks through ignorance, arrogance, incompetent systems and procedures. I am talking about the children many may not know about – the children that Shahrizat fought for, that many may not know exist.

I speak from experience, having worked with her on different projects for marginalised children – stateless children, the urban poor, street children.

Before anyone jumps down my throat, let me tell you that I do not work for government – I work for an NGO [non-governmental organisation] and have been for the last 22 years of my life. I have many complaints against the Welfare Department and the system and how we treat our children, but I must stand up and defend, as I do many times, those who have been wronged.

Three-term MP for Lembah Pantai, Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil, lost the seat to Nurul Izzah Anwar in the March 8 polls. Photo by Jacqueline Ann Surin.

Shahrizat was wronged! In the years that I have worked with her, the ministry, under her care, had an open door policy, where you could literally walk in through her doors any time of the day and speak to someone who would make sure that what you had to say would get back to her. Sure, it would take a while, but it would get to her and she would act.

She fought for the rights of all children, under the CRC [Convention on the Rights of the Child], to be respected and honoured. I sat in on one of those meetings where she argued with a representative from the Immigration Department, for an hour and a half, reasoning with him that it was our duty to protect all children, not just Malaysian children in this country.

I walked in with documented cases of children who were hurt, violated, abused. They were almost all stateless children and had no rights under the current system. Within a week of filing a complaint and submitting my documents, there was a program with JKM [Jabatan Kebajikan Masyarakat or Welfare Department] and JPN [Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara or National Registration Department] officers coming to register the children I had.

Sharizat did it. Nobody else cared enough.

She fought for the Anti-Trafficking Bill of 2007, that was comprehensive and protected all children, regardless whether they were refugees or stateless. How it was to be implemented was, however, not up to her because that fell under the Home Ministry. But she was one of the driving forces who pushed it through.

The Child Protection Policy that has been tabled in Parliament was also her initiative. She involved more NGOs and people on the ground, including children and youth, in her decision-making and actually listened to what everyone had to say while setting up projects and programs for children.

She implemented more “grassroots-up” and not “top-down” policies and implementation systems. Now, if only more BN politicians had done that and been less arrogant, things might have been better.

People may be quick to blame Shahrizat for all that goes wrong with children, but she can only help children within the existing guidelines and rules, as horrible as they are, and she would be the first to acknowledge and apologise for them, and actually do something about it!

No, she could not prosecute a case of child abuse or murder – that’s up to the police and public prosecutors. No, she could not decide where a child goes during a custody battle – that’s up to the courts. No, she could not find a missing child once they went missing. Her hands were tied by the laws and her officers had to enforce them according to their interpretation.

My point is, it was not the minister’s fault – she really tried but it’s the system that fails us. What Shahrizat did was to identify the loopholes, fill in the gaps and make amendments to the law. That was what she did, that was what she was trying to do and more could have been done, had she not lost in the March 8 elections.

She had three important areas under her – women’s issues, family development and welfare – which includes children, the old, the sick, the mentally- and physically-challenged, the poor, the rich, the abused, the violated. It was a formidable task to juggle all these departments and meet the needs of all and still be gracious and compassionate and effective.

I can only pray that the new minister, whomever, she or he is, is half as good and sensitive as Shahrizat – ask us, who worked with her on children’s issues, what she has done. To me and the children I know, Shahrizat kept her promises and she delivered to the best of her abilities and that is good enough because that’s what effective leaders do.

Smart, compassionate, astute, willing and able, Shahrizat was one of the better ministers and politicians the rakyat let go. I am sure Shahrizat will be fine in whichever sector she chooses after this, but the children I serve and the people I know who work with her, are bereaved at our loss.

Indeed, Malaysians lost a great champion of children’s rights to collateral damage.

[Note: In a highly unexpected turn of events, Shahrizat lost the Lembah Pantai parliamentary seat to Nurul Izzah Anwar by 2,895 votes in a three-cornered fight that involved independent candidate N. Periasamy.]

Almost everyone I know is happy with the election results, and so am I. I am so proud to be Malaysian, I burst at the seams! I am, however, devastated by [former Women, Family and Community Development Minister Datuk Seri] Shahrizat Abdul Jalil’s loss.

Over and over again, I hear that Shahrizat did not deserve to, and should not have lost her seat. I’ve heard comments such as: “Isn’t it too bad she was up against Anwar’s daughter? The rakyat did not vote against her personally but against the establishment – she was just collateral damage!”

No insult to Anwar’s daughter, because I don’t know her and have no idea what she’s capable of achieving, but honestly, did the rakyat vote for the best candidate in Lembah Pantai to serve the people?

My opinion? No!

The wave of sentiment against the BN [Barisan Nasional] is understandable and I am so proud of Malaysians that they stood up against injustice, and called for change. But, in doing so, in punishing and making examples of BN candidates, they also voted out a very effective, compassionate and intelligent leader who was making positive change and aiding those who had fallen through the cracks through ignorance, arrogance, incompetent systems and procedures. I am talking about the children many may not know about – the children that Shahrizat fought for, that many may not know exist.

I speak from experience, having worked with her on different projects for marginalised children – stateless children, the urban poor, street children.

Before anyone jumps down my throat, let me tell you that I do not work for government – I work for an NGO [non-governmental organisation] and have been for the last 22 years of my life. I have many complaints against the Welfare Department and the system and how we treat our children, but I must stand up and defend, as I do many times, those who have been wronged.

Shahrizat was wronged! In the years that I have worked with her, the ministry, under her care, had an open door policy, where you could literally walk in through her doors any time of the day and speak to someone who would make sure that what you had to say would get back to her. Sure, it would take a while, but it would get to her and she would act.

She fought for the rights of all children, under the CRC [Convention on the Rights of the Child], to be respected and honoured. I sat in on one of those meetings where she argued with a representative from the Immigration Department, for an hour and a half, reasoning with him that it was our duty to protect all children, not just Malaysian children in this country.

I walked in with documented cases of children who were hurt, violated, abused. They were almost all stateless children and had no rights under the current system. Within a week of filing a complaint and submitting my documents, there was a program with JKM [Jabatan Kebajikan Masyarakat or Welfare Department] and JPN [Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara or National Registration Department] officers coming to register the children I had.

Sharizat did it. Nobody else cared enough.

She fought for the Anti-Trafficking Bill of 2007, that was comprehensive and protected all children, regardless whether they were refugees or stateless. How it was to be implemented was, however, not up to her because that fell under the Home Ministry. But she was one of the driving forces who pushed it through.

The Child Protection Policy that has been tabled in Parliament was also her initiative. She involved more NGOs and people on the ground, including children and youth, in her decision-making and actually listened to what everyone had to say while setting up projects and programs for children.

She implemented more “grassroots-up” and not “top-down” policies and implementation systems. Now, if only more BN politicians had done that and been less arrogant, things might have been better.

People may be quick to blame Shahrizat for all that goes wrong with children, but she can only help children within the existing guidelines and rules, as horrible as they are, and she would be the first to acknowledge and apologise for them, and actually do something about it!

No, she could not prosecute a case of child abuse or murder – that’s up to the police and public prosecutors. No, she could not decide where a child goes during a custody battle – that’s up to the courts. No, she could not find a missing child once they went missing. Her hands were tied by the laws and her officers had to enforce them according to their interpretation.

My point is, it was not the minister’s fault – she really tried but it’s the system that fails us. What Shahrizat did was to identify the loopholes, fill in the gaps and make amendments to the law. That was what she did, that was what she was trying to do and more could have been done, had she not lost in the March 8 elections.

She had three important areas under her – women’s issues, family development and welfare – which includes children, the old, the sick, the mentally- and physically-challenged, the poor, the rich, the abused, the violated. It was a formidable task to juggle all these departments and meet the needs of all and still be gracious and compassionate and effective.

I can only pray that the new minister, whomever, she or he is, is half as good and sensitive as Shahrizat – ask us, who worked with her on children’s issues, what she has done. To me and the children I know, Shahrizat kept her promises and she delivered to the best of her abilities and that is good enough because that’s what effective leaders do.

Smart, compassionate, astute, willing and able, Shahrizat was one of the better ministers and politicians the rakyat let go. I am sure Shahrizat will be fine in whichever sector she chooses after this, but the children I serve and the people I know who work with her, are bereaved at our loss.

Indeed, Malaysians lost a great champion of children’s rights to collateral damage.

[Note: In a highly unexpected turn of events, Shahrizat lost the Lembah Pantai parliamentary seat to Nurul Izzah Anwar by 2,895 votes in a three-cornered fight that involved independent candidate N. Periasamy.]

WHEN the opportunity presented itself for Malaysia to choose a Malaysian woman of South Asian origin to be made the country’s first astronaut, those responsible for the final decision stepped back before the seemingly-insurmountable wall of taboos and inherited petty wisdom. No, they opined, we should choose a Malaysian Male Muslim Malay instead, as this would reflect the demographic realities of the country. But by doing so, they not only reflected the demographic realities of the day, but also confirmed the hegemony of that reality and thus rendered it absolute and unquestionable.

Now think of the possible alternatives had the Malaysian-Indian woman be chosen instead: For a start it would point to the demographic realities many of us would have wanted to see; and it would have been such a powerful symbolic message sent to Malaysia and the world. Had the other candidate been chosen, we could have proudly proclaimed that this was a country where racial and ethnic divisions had been transcended, and where gender equality was within reach. It would also have been such an enormous boost to the pride and sense of self-worth of so many other marginalised minority groupings in the country, to see themselves mirrored in the national narrative and to be made to feel that they truly belonged to a Malaysia that was indeed a country for all races. But no: Sadly, once again, the powers that be did the familiar cop-out and conceded to their own misguided belief in the old taboos.

The debate over who should be made chief minister of Perak, which has been going on for a week now, points to the same sort of intellectual and psycho-social impasse that has kept Malaysia paralysed for so long. Despite winning the biggest number of state assembly seats in the state, the DAP was not allowed to nominate one of its own to the post. The grounds for this realpolitik consideration happens to be a legal provision in the Perak constitution that apparently precludes the possibility of a non-Malay and non-Muslim from assuming the post of chief minister, even if her/his party won all the seats in the state assembly.

That such a provision emerged in a specific historical context that was determined even before the struggle for independence got off the ground is known to historians and laymen alike. But the question is this: Are we forever to remain beholden to history and trapped by the circumstances of the past? Or are we finally going to admit to ourselves that this nation-state of ours – Malaysia – is an invented construct and as such is also open to deconstruction, revision, adaptation and subsequently evolution? Are we now ready to evolve a new Malaysian politics that will finally reflect the plural and multicultural reality of Malaysian society today?

The debate over who should be the Perak chief minister appeared archaic and totally out of touch with the realities of our time. Coming immediately after an election that demonstrated the possible emergence of a pan-Malaysian cross-racial electorate, the fact that the post of chief minister for Perak was determined not by merit, experience or acumen, but rather by the racial background of the potential candidate, was surreal to say the least.

But as the dust settles and as the country slowly regains its momentum in the wake of the results of the 12th general election, let us take this opportunity to stir up some other sleeping sacred cows and rattle some other popular taboos.

To begin with, let us ask the singular question that nobody seems to have raised thus far: If, as our politicians would lead us to believe, this is indeed a country for all Malaysians, then should it not be the case that Malaysian citizenship and the commitment to the ideal of a plural Malaysian Malaysia be the guiding principle and criteria for all appointments to high office? Should that premise be accepted, would it not be conceivable that one day this country may have as its prime minister or deputy prime minister a Malaysian of non-Malay, non-Muslim and non-Male background? In other words, can we even begin to imagine the day when we may have a prime minister who happens to be of Indian-Hindu background and a woman to boot? And if such a situation is deemed unthinkable by some at the moment, we need to ask: Why? What is holding us back from entertaining such contingencies and variables? Surely what matters most in the selection of any leader or administrator is the competence and sincerity of the individual concerned; and it’s not as if it is the colour of the person’s skin that is doing the governing! (We hope not at least.)

The following imponderable questions can be addressed to all the parties in the country today as well.

Umno considers itself the party that defends the interests of the Malays and bumiputeras, though as we all know, both of these ethnic-racial categories are artificial and were invented as part of the colonial census. Be that as it may, Umno still presents itself as the party of the Malays and bumiputeras, and so let us ask this question aloud: Can the Umno leadership and membership consider the possibility that one day the president of Umno may be of Kadazan, Bajau, Iban, Penan or Peranakan background? Could a Catholic Kadazan ever dream of rising to such a post, and if not, what does this say about the institutional and structural limitations of Umno itself that does not and will not open up such opportunity structures?

PAS on the other hand claims to have transcended the culture and praxis of race politics, and the elevation of its Chinese-Muslim leader (Datuk) Anuar Tan Abdullah in Kota Bharu is a case in point. Yet PAS still has a woefully small number of non-Malay Muslims in its ranks and it remains to be seen if the party can and will make that great leap to non-racialised politics by courting the support of non-Malay Muslims across the country. Now the leaders and members of PAS may wish to consider this imponderable question as well: Can and will a non-Malay Muslim ever become the president of PAS, chief minister of Kelantan or even assume the highest post of Murshid’ul Am (Spiritual Leader) of the party and its followers?

Both the DAP and Gerakan on the other hand are ideologically-defined parties that have foregrounded their ideologies in the course of their struggles. But with the demise of Ahmad Noor, it has become an imperative for the DAP in particular to expand the racial spectrum of its leadership and membership. Already efforts are being made to undermine the hard work that the DAP has put into winning back Penang and those crucial state assembly seats in Perak and Selangor. Barbed comments about the DAP being a Chinese-dominated party may upset the sensibilities of DAP stalwarts who have laboured for so long to fulfil their leftist ambitions, but the fact remains that this perception of the DAP as a Chinese party is real for many and resonates with others too. In the same way that PAS places Islam at the forefront of its struggle, so should the DAP keep its Democratic-Socialist course, but surely the time has come when we can and should imagine the possibility of the DAP being led by a leader who may be of Malay or Indian background?

In the wake of the election, many of us have celebrated what may well be the first signs of a nascent Malaysian nation where citizenship counts the most in defining ones identity. A rupture has been opened up at last in the collective mindset that determines the conduct of our politics, and perhaps for the first time since 1957, we are in a position to collectively redefine the terms of Malaysian politics.

We need a new Malaysian politics that would breathe new life and faith in the political system, and where all of us – mainly on the basis of our universal citizenship – can claim to be stakeholders in the nation-building process. But for this to be the case we have to be brave enough to think out of the box and to imagine what was once deemed unimaginable. Our sacrosanct taboos and sacred rites have held us back too long, and kept us in a state of limbo where political superstitions ruled the day. For so long, we assumed that Malaysians would not vote for change; that the Malays would never support the DAP; that non-Muslims would never vote for PAS. But these certainties have been shattered and we now see that we are a mature, adult nation after all.

So perhaps all we need to do is push the envelope a little further, set our targets a little higher, wish and work a little harder; and our dreams for a truly democratic Malaysia that is the nation for one and all may eventually come true. We failed to send a Malaysian-Indian woman to space, but that doesn’t mean we can’t send her to the Prime Minister’s Office in Putrajaya!

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.