|
| <<
< |
1
2
3
4
5
6
| >
>>
|
| 0 Comments / Subscribe To Comments |
| Published: Aug.10.2006 @ 5:08 pm
|
Open letter of sympathy to Dr M
Martin Jalleh
Aug 10, 06 4:46pm
Dear Tun Dr Mahathir,
Like many Malaysians, I was very disturbed when I heard that someone had pepper-sprayed you. It made me think of the hundreds or thousands of Malaysians sprayed on with mace from the water cannons of the Royal Malaysian Police during your premiership and even till this day.
I was moved to tears when you said: ‘I felt my eyes stinging. I could not see clearly and had to remove my glasses.’ But this could be a blessing in disguise. You will now be able to empathise with those, who, like you, want to speak the truth but have to suffer a similar or more cruel consequence.
You were so right when you declared, ‘This is not the Malaysian way’. But you may not be accurate when you said: ‘We are a non-violent people.’ Remember how a former top cop had opened wide the door to violence with his near-lethal assault on the former deputy prime minister in the sanctuary of Bukit Aman?
Stories abound and some even suggest that the spray-incident was self-inflicted. I hope you will understand where these people are coming from. They are only seriously considering all possibilities just like you did, when you said the black eye injury suffered by Anwar Ibrahim was self-inflicted.
I was quite relieved when I read that the pepper spray was not intended for you. The incident was said to have been linked to rivalry between two groups of your supporters over who should chauffeur you to your hotel! I am sure you are quite used to this very useful ‘I-use-you-you-use- me’ culture.
And within hours of the attack you bounced back peppering the government with your snide remarks and sarcastic swipes. The powers-that-be found what you had served them, too pepper-hot to swallow. Soon after that, the information minister went into a delirium and a verbal diarrhea about controlling the Internet.
It was the best ever ‘wayang kulit’ in Kelantan - a recalcitrant retired PM speaking to political dinosaurs and moonstruck mullahs of a party badly mauled in the last elections and who, as Tengku Razaleigh has so rightly put it, are only preoccupied with their party’s survival than running Kelantan.
Never mind even if some have called your meeting at the hotel a political hotchpotch of has-beens, hoppers, and hypocrites. The fact that you had addressed a full-house in Kelantan who were all ears, was undoubtedly a miracle - one as great as the cow jumping over the moon.
Never mind if you have not kept your initial promise of not interfering in the government. (Not many of us expected you to, anyway). Your resolve to dig until (you) find the source of the worms and to persistently pepper the government with questions, has won the praise of some of the people.
In the midst of your new role to de-worm the government and to keep on churning out questions - whatever the answers - perhaps you could also find the time to attend to the increasing number of questions posed to you and which have wiggled their way out since your retirement?
Ani Arope, ex-chief of Tenaga, felt enlightened enough to blame you for the one-sided contracts awarded to the independent power producers (IPPs), with Tenaga being arm-twisted to accept onerous terms. Anwar Ibrahim has revealed that you were one of the key players in foreign exchange (forex) speculations resulting in losses of up to RM30 billion.
Tajuddin Ramli has alleged that you and Daim Zainuddin had directed him to sell back to the government MAS shares (resulting in a profit of RM1.8 billion) to help recover from the foreign exchange losses. As Proton’s advisor, I hope you have a copy of the PricewaterhouseCooper report on the mismanagement of Proton Holdings (1996-2005), which The Edge has called ‘Proton's Can of Worms’.
Your legacy is beginning to show, Tun - worms, warts and all. The chickens have come home to roost, but you refuse to allow anyone to ruffle your feathers. In spite of the increasingly evident flaws and failures of your 22-year-old government, you deem yourself worthy enough to label the present three-year-old government half-past-six. Alas, this contradiction is more stinging than a pepper spray.
You have complained that you have been deprived of the right to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association with others. You are scandalised by the muzzled press. But all these are a great part of your legacy Tun, and of which you are now a privileged beneficiary.
You were so right in saying that Pak Lah should not hide behind the OSA. You should know - 22 years of such a practice is more than enough. You need not worry at all about the possibility of being detained under the ISA. It is meant only for those bold enough to suffer for what they believe in.
I cannot help but wonder dear Tun, what would you do if the roles were reversed, ie, if you were the new PM and Pak Lah the former PM. Would you probably sack him from Umno or pronounce him a homosexual and drag him to court to make him irrelevant, or offer him a lucrative job overseas, say, in the UN?
When Pak Lah began as PM he had asked the nation to tell him the truth. Three years later the nation is asking him to tell the truth. When you retired you promised not to interfere. Now you insist that Pak Lah should resign. And both of you are slugging it out for the love of the nation!
Can there be a more exciting and entertaining moment than this? The citizens of Bolehland should just sit back and relax and watch the drama that continues in true Umno fashion - a script filled with tall tales, telling characters, threats, taunts and (political) thrills and spills and even tears. Please pass the salt and pepper!
Do you have a viewpoint you want to share? Speak up! Send your 'Letters to the Editor' to editor@malaysiakini.com. Your letter may be published in Malaysiakini, and do let us know if you wish to remain anonymous. |
|
| 0 Comments / Subscribe To Comments |
| Published: Aug.09.2006 @ 12:59 pm
|
The Star Online > Nation
Wednesday August 9, 2006
By LOH FOON FONG
KUALA LUMPUR: The Malaysian flag, which was first raised on Sept 16, 1963, originated from the flag of the Federation of Malaya.
The original flag – with 11 red and white stripes and a yellow 11-point star beside a crescent moon against a dark blue backdrop – was hoisted at midnight on Aug 30, 1957 as the Union Jack, used under British rule, was lowered to signify the independence of the nation.
The Council of Rulers adopted the design with some changes for the expanded federation when Malaysia was formed.
The new flag had an additional three stripes and, likewise, the star was given 14 points – to reflect 14 states in the then Malaysia, which included Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore.
Even after Singapore broke away from the federation in 1965, the design did not change, the number of stripes and star points remained.
Today, the stripes and 14-point star represent the 13 states and the Federal Territory.
In 2001, when Malaysians were invited to name the flag, then Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad picked Jalur Gemilang – or Stripes of Glory – to project the country's onward drive for continuous growth and success.
Countries the world over hold a certain reverence for their national flag and this is just as true for Malaysia.
History has it that the earliest use of a flag can be traced to 1122BC, when Emperor Chou in China used a white banner to represent his kingdom.
This was stated in the book by Abdul Razak Ismail, Bendera, Banner, Lambang, Lagu Kebangsaan dan Lagu Kebesaran Negeri-Negeri di Malaysia, published by the Information Department.
The word “flag” is believed to have originated from either an Old Saxon word flaken or German word fleogan, which means “to be raised in the air”. Today, the flag is a symbol of sovereignty of a territory.
During the National Day celebrations, everyone is encouraged to fly the Jalur Gemilang at their homes, office buildings, shops and corporate premises.
If the flag is fixed at home, it is to be raised pointing towards the road.
If the flag is put in a group of flags with state and private company flags, the Malaysian flag must be raised in between two flags and its pole placed higher than the rest.
© 1995-2005 Star Publications (Malaysia) Bhd (Co No 10894-D) |
|
| 0 Comments / Subscribe To Comments |
| Published: Aug.08.2006 @ 2:53 pm
|
| |  |
Behind the news in Malaysia
By Anil Netto
PENANG - Visitors to Malaysia would be bewildered by the wide variety of newspapers, TV channels and radio stations that cater to most of the country's several language groups. But as reality sinks in, it would become apparent that despite the deceptively wide range, mainstream media is becoming consolidated in the hands of a small number of privately owned conglomerates with close links to the political establishment.
Amidst this small number, one media giant looms large over the others, quietly gobbling up television and radio stations as it tries to maximize its advertising revenue and overwhelm the competition. Media Prima, the new kid on the block, rose like a
phoenix out of the rubble of the 1997 Asian financial crisis, created by a de-merger exercise involving Malaysian Resources Corporation Berhad (MRCB), owner of the politically well-connected TV3 private television station and the New Straits Times Press (NSTP) group, in 2003.
The main aim of the exercise was to restructure the debts of the heavily leveraged TV3 and MRCB and, as part of this, Media Prima acquired a 100% stake in TV3 and a 43% stake in NSTP and assumed the listed status of TV3 on the Malaysian stock exchange. In January of last year, the group launched a second television channel under the brand of 8TV, offering a mix of Chinese and English-language programs. This year, Media Prima has been busy again. In June, the company announced that it had acquired a 98% stake in Ch-9 Media Sdn Bhd, which operated the now-defunct free-to-air television station, Channel 9. The station is expected to be relaunched next year.
Then, last month, the firm revealed that it had entered into a "collaboration and assistance" agreement with the owners of the popular private television station NTV7 and the radio station WowFM. If the deal with NTV7 goes through, the Media Prima stable of firms could control some 85% of discounted advertising revenue from the country's free-to-air television stations. And it would command 46% of all television (including pay television) viewership, leaving its closest rival pay-television satellite operator, Astro, trailing at around 20-30% of viewership.
Apart from this, Media Prima has interests in other media-related firms, including content creator Grand Brilliance Sdn Bhd, event management firm Tiga Events Sdn Bhd, and outdoor advertising firm, Right Channel Sdn Bhd. That's not all: it recently acquired a 75% interest in Max Airplay Sdn Bhd, the operator of FlyFM, a radio station for the Kuala Lumpur International Airport. "Media Prima will become the dominant media company in Malaysia providing a comprehensive range of services to its customers pursuant to the proposed acquisitions," said the firm in a presentation to investors.
But not everyone is happy with such sweeping acquisitions. "This is outrageous, immoral and wrong," a reader wrote to the independent news-portal Malaysiakini. "In developed countries, anti-trust laws will make sure this sort of thing does not happen. The people need to watch the news on different, independent channels and then make up their own minds."
Certainly, the acquisitions will further narrow the diversity of news and views currently available on Malaysian television stations - not that it was all that broad to begin with. The standard bearer in the Media Prima group of companies is TV3, by far the country's most popular television channel. Just before Abdullah Badawi took over as prime minister in November 2003, his press secretary of more than 10 years, Kamarulzaman Zainal, was appointed to the TV3 board of directors on October 15. He was also appointed director of TV3's news and current affairs division.
If the past is any guide, the range of views on offer among the various private television stations is unlikely to be wide, more so, if these stations come under the same conglomerate. It is not entirely clear who exactly owns Media Prima. Earlier this year, Business Times carried a report stating that a private investment company and the state pension fund manager, the Employees Provident Fund, were among the shareholders. "Little is known about the private company, Gabungan Kesturi Sdn Bhd. Sources said it is owned by Amanah Raya for and on behalf of Bumiputera (indigenous) investors,'' the Business Times report said, adding that the firm had acquired about 15.7% interest in Media Prima.
Media Prima not only dominates the television sector, it also has sizeable interests in the print media. The conglomerate has the largest combined circulation of newspapers, amounting to about 50% of Malay and English newspapers, and controls two of the top three best-selling newspapers in Malaysia, the Malay language Berita Harian and the fast-rising Harian Metro. These two newspapers are read by close to three million Malaysians out of a population of 26 million.
The third top newspaper, Utusan Malaysia, is owned by the Utusan Melayu Group and is also believed to have close links to the dominant United Malays National Organization (UMNO). Media Prima's dominance in the media sector rivals that of Huaren Management, the investment arm of the second-largest component party in the ruling coalition, the Malaysian Chinese Association. Huaren owns the top-selling English daily, The Star; Chinese-language newspapers Nanyang Siang Pau and China Press; and the radio station STAR Rfm.
The big difference is that unlike its rivals, such as Utusan Melayu group, the Sin Chew group and Huaren, Media Prima is the only one, apart from Astro and the two government-owned television stations, with interests in television. ''It appears to be a two-pronged strategy,'' says media analyst Mustafa Kamal Anuar. "One is to corner the advertising market and another is to manage news output. This would mean a narrowing of diversity in terms of programs and of access to various shades of opinion. It does not bode well for media freedom and freedom of expression in the country."
(Inter Press Service) |
|
|
| 0 Comments / Subscribe To Comments |
| Published: Aug.08.2006 @ 2:49 pm
|
| | |
UMNO and the price of success
By Ooi Kee Beng
Few political parties have succeeded in their original intentions as much as Malaysia's United Malays National Organization (UMNO). Since its founding in 1946, it has overwhelmed its opponents to such an extent that its main challenge today is to keep itself sound without external orientation.
UMNO started out as a major reaction among Malays against the British initiative to create a single polity throughout the peninsula - inhabitants independent of ethnic background, and in accordance with the jus soli principle, would enjoy equal citizenship rights. This hasty move proved overly insensitive to the feelings of
Malays, and was perceived by them as the decisive step in the usurpation of Malay sovereignty.
Under the leadership of Datuk Onn Jaafar of Johor, Malays managed to reject what they saw as a major threat to their natural rights. When Onn Jaafar later changed his mind and proclaimed a vision of a polity that was not race-based, meaning in effect that UMNO was to represent all races, he was allowed to resign.
The lesson was not lost on his successor, Tunku Abdul Rahman, who realized that the very rationale for UMNO's existence - the proclaiming of the notion of special Malay rights - could not be openly abandoned if its leader was to survive. Since this ambition necessarily involved independence from the colonial masters, the goal of national freedom became the party's expressed goal.
With this aim clearly identified, it then became possible for UMNO leadership to work out strategies for wresting control over British Malaya from the British. The armed struggle between the British and the Malayan communists that started in 1948 was partly inspired by world events such as the success of Mao Zedong in China, by the rise of nationalism throughout the world and by the success of the British in curbing communist-inspired union activities in Singapore and Malaya. This made it all the more necessary for the British to deal with nationalist parties such as UMNO and to encourage the founding of others such as the Malayan Chinese Association. The weakened British Empire had recently lost its Indian dominion and was in no position to oppose Malayan independence for too long. The concern for the colonialists - given the stark danger posed by global communism - was to cut losses and to make certain colonies that were about to be lost would remain allies and profitable. This played into the hands of UMNO and its allies, whose leaders possessed sufficient knowledge about the limitations of the British at that time to enable them to develop strategies for a peaceful handover of power.
With the forming of the Alliance in 1955 - whereby each of the three main races within the British Malay territories was represented by its own party, and whereby these parties would later jointly govern the new nation - a compromise was forged that promised sufficient security for the British to grant independence.
And so this came about on August 31, 1957.
Between then and 1969, the Alliance government survived many trials, including the formation of Malaysia, the confrontation with Indonesia (or Konfrontasi, a small undeclared war between 1962 and 1966, in which Indonesian president Sukarno tried to destroy the newly created nation of Malaysia), and the separation of Singapore.
However, it did not survive the reforms effected after the race riots of May 1969. By 1974, UMNO had persuaded the opposition Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS) and the Gerakan (Rakyat Malaysia
Party or PGRM) to participate in a larger coalition called the National Front (Barisan Nasional). With that, Malaysian governance entered a new phase. The neat Alliance solution may have worked well in achieving independence, but the realities of the country's post-colonial socioeconomics soon demanded another form of power-sharing for stability to be at all possible.
UMNO rose to that challenge, and with the introduction of the wide-ranging New Economic Policy to fight poverty and to end the association of race with economic function, and with the sewing together of a new system of inter-party cooperation, it restructured Malaysian politics forever. In the process, it gained further hegemonic power.
Since then, with some exceptions, political confrontations have largely been within the Malay community. A major split occurred within UMNO in 1987, but the party nevertheless continued to rule. Another challenge to the secular UMNO was the transition it was called upon to make to contain the growing "Muslimness" of the Malays. This it also managed to do, and strategies it adopted included the recruitment into its ranks of vocal Muslim leaders such as Anwar Ibrahim.
The next big challenge it faced was the groundswell of discontent that followed the sacking of deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim (over allegations of sexual impropriety) in September 1998, the forming of the reformasi movement and the founding of the Keadilan party. This peaked with the success of the Islamist party, Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS), in the 1999 elections when PAS took two states and strongly challenged the government's control over the other northern states.
But again, UMNO rose to the occasion, and under a new leader - Abdullah Badawi - and with the Muslim slogan Islam Hadhari, it decisively repulsed the PAS challenge in the 2004 general elections.
The question that now needs to be asked is how UMNO's ability to remain in power has affected its very nature. Apparently, major side effects of UMNO's success include the absence of healthy pressure from outside the party, the rise of intra-party corruption and the lack of control over wealth distribution.
The new challenge now lies within the triumphant UMNO itself. It lacks crucial external help in self-orientation. Indeed, if non-Malay Malaysians were to look the political truth in the eye, they could be excused for wondering whether their best bet for gaining greater political influence is to seek membership in UMNO. UMNO, in turn, would need to negotiate its own transition from being the champion of Malay rights to being the guarantor of Malaysian rights. Open membership would prod other race-based parties to follow suit and allow all Malaysians, independent on ethnic affiliation, to be members as well. That would indeed bring about an even greater change in Malaysian governance.
Ooi Kee Beng is a Fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. This is a personal comment. |
|
|
| 0 Comments / Subscribe To Comments |
| Published: Aug.08.2006 @ 2:45 pm
|
The many faces of Islam in Malaysia
By Yukiko Ohashi
When it comes to Islamic revivalism in Malaysia, talk tends to focus on the epic struggle between the opposition Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS) and the governing United Malays National Organization (UMNO). This obsession must stop. Rather, questions must be asked about whether the number and character of the country's Islamic movements might increase or "mutate" further.
The continued emergence of these groups up to the present suggests attempts to give Islam greater social and political coherence within the confined democratic space provided in Malaysia.
Even Jemaah Islamiya Malaysia (JIM), a relative latecomer that believes in advancing its Islamic cause slowly, with roots that trace back to the establishment of the Islamic Representative Council (IRC) in the United Kingdom in 1974, is no exception.
According to academic accounts, there are at least seven forms of Islamic revivalism to have emerged in Malaysia over the past 40 years. These groups are the ABIM, al-Maunah, Kumpulan Mujahideen Malaysia (KMM), Darul Ahkam, JIM, Jamaah Tabligh and PAS. Jamaat Tabligh and PAS were actually established in 1952 and 1955 respectively, while Darul Arqam was created in 1968, ABIM in 1971 and JIM in 1991.
This is not unlike the situation in other countries throughout the Muslim world, where increasingly Islam has manifested itself in various organizational and political forms.
Within Malaysia, again like most Muslim societies, these groups range from the piestic/peaceful types to politically ambitious ones.
Al-Maunah and KMM are not impervious to the use of violence to challenge the secular existence of the state head-on; the former even staged two arms heists in 1999 to further its goals.
Two other groups not discussed in the official discourse are the Sufi sect of Nashabandi, which includes members of the Perak royalty, and Malaysia's Muslim Shi'ites, who, though their numbers are too small to warrant action from the state just yet, have been treated with suspicion.
Despite the existence of these groups, scholars who often speak about the specter of Islamic revivalism in Malaysia typically focus on the struggle between PAS and UMNO, which heads the ruling National Front (Barisan Nasional or BN). This is understandable given the high stakes in this contest, but must stop if the country is to address the nature of its Islamic movements.
Where they all stand
Said Muhammad Shukri Salleh, a professor in Islamic studies at the Malaysian Science University (USM): "Only PAS, ABIM and JIM are registered with the Malaysian Registrar of Societies. PAS is registered as a political party, ABIM as a youth movement and JIM as an Islamic NGO [non-governmental organization]. Darul Arqam and Jamaat Tabligh, on the other hand, operate as unregistered dakwah [missionary] movements."
In the eyes of the Malaysian government, which has historically brooked no nonsense from militant Muslim groups, Darul Akham, al-Maunah and KMM have since been contained.
In other words, militant Islamic movements have been rolled back. Key members of KMM, one of which is the son of Nik Aziz, currently the chief minister of Kelantan, are still being detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA), which allows for detention without trial, for having received armed training in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
But rolling back one tide does not imply that the larger wave of Islamic revivalism has crested. In fact, dissatisfied with the limited options at hand, but driven by the need to do more in the name of God", extremist Muslims in Malaysia have been known to join Jemaah Islamiya (JI), whose base is in Indonesia.
Obviously, this has puzzled authorities. Why would fervent Muslims in Malaysia seek out their kind in Indonesia? More important, unhappy with the status quo, they have sought to create what is mythically known as "Islam Nusantara", a kind of Islam that spans from southern Thailand to Mindanao in the Philippines.
The inclination of some Malaysians to JI, small as the number may be, also challenges a theory hitherto peddled by Dr Chandra Muzaffar, president of Just World Trust (JUST) since the 1980s, that the Islamic movement in the country is primarily driven by the search for a greater identity beyond the racial category provided by being a mere Malay in Malaysia.
Hybridized Islam
Being confronted with the problem of divergent Islamic movements led Farish Noor, a leading Malaysian commentator on Islam currently based in Germany, to aver the existence of a hybridized (Malaysian) Islam.
Indeed, he has urged scholars and the relevant authorities dealing with the specter of Islamic revivalism in Malaysia to understand the social and political circumstances that have led to the continued differentiation and division of Islamic movements.
If they could be properly profiled, goes Noor's implicit logic, then the issue of whether groups can become violent or not can be faced head-on. The public would also have a better understanding of which groups to join, or shun.
In light of events after September 11, 2001, this advice is timely, as the full dynamics of Islamic revivalism have to be understood beyond the militant type, or beyond genre only.
Although the sample of Islamic groups in Malaysia has been small, ranging from seven to nine at this stage, their very hybrid nature provides a microcosm that showcases Islam's fluid nature.
Islam's very elusiveness, however, can lead to the tendency of some to want to establish one version only, often a punitive and patriarchal type. It is here that UMNO and PAS have been caught in a logjam, with neither side willing to relinquish its positions to the other.
It is also here, at the inter-party level, that Islam has been used as a strategic tool, to which Muslims are increasingly aware. UMNO has glibly allowed PAS to stick to its manifesto of creating an Islamic state, knowing such a position will drive moderate and non-Muslims into its fold; a ploy that worked in the last election.
Yet, by using Islam in an electoral contest to gain strategic advantage, UMNO has also undermined the belief of some earnest Muslims.
Muslims not confident with the Islamic credentials of these two parties have sought to "assert their own Islam".
Some have therefore sought to compensate any perceived inadequacy in Malaysia, by joining groups such as JI and Jamaah Tabligh; the latter is strictly non-political, and seeks to live according to the habits and practices of the Prophet Mohammed, sometimes by spending 40 days and nights in the mosque.
Those who join JI, however, are religious firebrands who, having seen through the hybrid nature of Islam in Malaysia, now seek an even purer version of Islam that translates into crude militarism.
The case in Malaysia therefore offers a glimpse of the opportunities with which Muslims - seeking Islamic reaffirmation in the temporal realm - enter, and exit, different Islamic groups.
Of particular note are Malaysians such as key JI lieutenant Dr Azhari, who is now on the run from authorities, to answer to a seemingly higher calling by rejecting the Islamic options in Malaysia, to pursue a path of pure violence. Obviously, such members do not represent anyone other than themselves, therein the danger is one they pose to all |
|
|
| 0 Comments / Subscribe To Comments |
| Published: Aug.08.2006 @ 2:43 pm
|
| | |
The search for a Malaysian race
By Ioannis Gatsiounis
KUALA LUMPUR - From one vantage point, Malaysia is a shining example of racial and religious harmony in the post-colonial age. It has met the basic needs of its majority Muslim-Malays and its substantial Indian and Chinese minorities, not to mention myriad native peoples in the country's eastern regions, to the extent that there has been no major racial incident in Malaysia since the May 1969 riots, in which hundreds of Malays and Chinese were killed.
Seen another way, however, the social construct of race pervades the national consciousness at almost every turn. All political parties, for instance, are race-based and have been known to use race to advance their own interests. Many schools are segregated; most Malay students choose to attend national or, increasingly, Islamic schools. Some 90% of Chinese primary and secondary students attend private, Chinese-run schools, according to Michael Yeoh, chief executive of the Asian Strategy & Leadership Institute. Pent- up mistrust, resentment and condescension are a part of daily life here.
In the end, however, acceptance has always prevailed; an acknowledgement by most Malaysians that while the racial situation is far from perfect, there is much to be grateful for. Theirs is a stable, fast-developing country. All Malaysia can take a little pride in that.
Unfortunately, this "success" has not been matched by a collective and concerted effort to improve the "harmony" here - not in the government, not among the rakyat (citizens); in large part, the government censures and the public dutifully avoids substantive exploration of the matter.
"There has been a self-satisfaction with the current situation and laziness to deal with certain problems and conflicts," said Sumit Mandal, a historian with Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
The authoritarian government, while flexible in its effort to accommodate, hasn't strayed much from its original post-riot social contract, the New Economic Policy (NEP), an affirmative-action program intended to help the Malays and other Bumiputeras (sons of the soil) catch up economically with the capitalist-oriented Chinese. The policy and its offshoots have played a crucial role in sustaining harmony in Malaysia. But they have been equally controversial and, say some analysts, a source of increased resentment.
This can be better understood by considering what the NEP collectively stood for during its implementation in 1971: a compromise. It was widely thought that Malay economic progress would be matched by political gains for the Chinese and other minorities. But it hasn't worked out that way. Many minorities claim their political influence has waned, and thus too has optimism about the future of their communities: their outlook is built now less on hope and more on predictability.
"From a [non-Malay] perspective, there has developed a weary acceptance of the way things are," said Ibrahim Suffian of the Merdeka Center for Opinion Research.
Malay economic advance has been matched not by an increase in power-sharing but by a consolidation of Malay political power. The United Malays National Organization (UMNO) heads a multi-racial coalition known as the National Front (Barisan National or BN), but the leading Chinese party's role has weakened in recent years. Samy Vellu, head of the Malaysian Indian Congress, Malaysia's largest Indian party, is widely thought to be a token of UMNO - and "more threatened by smart Indians than inclined to help them", as one young Indian businessman put it.
Meanwhile, the Malay population, currently at 58%, is growing, while the populations of Chinese (27%), Indians (8%) and other minorities are shrinking proportionately. Previous hopes of gaining equal citizenship have become a distant dream for many.
Potential unrest, however, has been tempered in no small part by the economic prospects available to Malaysians of all ethnicities - despite occasional grumblings of "institutionalized inequality".
Gross domestic product looks primed to exceed 7% for 2004.
Average household income is $9,000, higher than any country in the region save Singapore. Unemployment is at 3.5%. Poverty has been reduced from 49% at the NEP's outset to 7% today. The country is the world's largest producer of palm oil, pepper and rubber, and is a destination for people from across the continent.
Thus, most Malaysians count themselves lucky, and those who don't are often reminded they should. In The Chinese Dilemma, a provocatively eloquent book that challenges conventional Chinese and other minorities' perceptions of themselves as second-class citizens here, Malaysian businessman Ye Lin-Sheng writes, "If the Malays had come to occupy India and China in a similar manner, how do you imagine the Indians and Chinese would feel? How would they have responded to these intruders? What would they have done? ... I also look at the lot of Chinese and Indian migrants to other countries and that of those who had stayed home. This is enough to make me feel thankful that I am [in Malaysia] and not there."
But this logic may be finding fewer takers. Disgruntled Malaysians with the means have been known to relocate overseas. Even the government lately has expressed concern about its "best and brightest" not returning after being educated abroad, in what has been tagged the "brain drain". It is estimated that 30,000 Malaysian graduates work overseas. Many of them are Chinese.
Khoo Kay Peng of the Sedar Institute, an independent think-tank, links this trend to the government's race-based policies. "If you don't create equal opportunity through a meritocracy, in the private sectors, high-quality people will continue to move away."
Government leaders know the race-based policies are beginning to pose problems. So perhaps the question that now needs asking is how long will the Malays need assistance? The NEP was designed to run 20 years, but it has been extended to the present in various incarnations.
Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi warned at last year's UMNO annual assembly that Malays need to abandon their "crutches" or risk ending up in wheelchairs. But Abdullah was met with strong resistance within UMNO. (See Abdullah stirs a hornets' nest , October 2, 04).
Abdullah has set up a National Unity Council to better unite the races, but few are holding their breath. He has shown a pension in his first 15 months in office of announcing grand programs, such as the Royal Police Commission, National Integrity Plan, and "Islam Hadari" (civilizational Islam), but none have begun to show substantial results, or necessarily appear determined to do so. The National Unity Advisory Panel, according to a member, has had one meeting since its inception in October and is in the process of trying to schedule a second.
"I don't see any headway in the government's strategy," said social scientist Dr Norani Othman, despite much talk among a band of younger overseas-educated members of the United Malays National Organization, who have witnessed more egalitarian means of managing multi-racial societies. "There continues to be a lack of critical thinking, of examining how this problem has arisen in the first place."
Some problems can be linked to tactics used by former premier Mahathir Mohamad. He may have coined the term "Bangsa Malaysia" (Malaysian race) in 1991, but by most accounts he did more to emphasize differences than de-emphasize them during his 22-year reign. He tended to point the finger at the plight of ethnic groups in other nations when the going got rough at home, sometimes in the form of bigoted tirades. And it was under Mahathir that UMNO and the opposition Islamic party, Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS), began their feud to out-Islamize each other and win over the Malay heartland.
The battle exacerbated an Islamic revival already underway and that has continued to the present. Non-Muslim as well as Muslim analysts say that these two developments, feeding off each other, have impeded ethnic relations in Malaysia. "There needs to be greater questioning of traditional teachings [of Islam] that do not support equality, inter-faith, and inter-ethnic relations," said Othman.
Abdullah, softer in style than Mahathir and with Islamic credentials to boot, has introduced Islam Hadari to encourage Malaysians to see and live beyond atavistic dimensions. Indirectly it is an acknowledgement that all is not as progressive as it might seem in this "model Islamic democracy" - and that seems like a fine start. But Malaysians have grown cynical of government programs and sloganeering, and many question the motivation and substance of Islam Hadari. (Publication of a book detailing Abdullah's vision of Islam Hadari has been indefinitely postponed.) Even, however, if Islam Hadari proves successful, it alone cannot solve Malaysia's inter-ethnic tensions - because Islam is hardly the only force at work in Malaysia's complex social fabric.
In The Chinese Dilemma Le suggests that the Chinese could help improve matters by taking a closer look at themselves: "Malay success is always ascribed to the privileges and special support they get under affirmative action, but non-Malay achievement is invariably put down to innate ability and hard work ... have the Chinese forgotten all those licenses, concessions and contracts that they have won through patronage, connections and bribery?" Le encourages them to "try looking at themselves through Malay eyes", but concludes that the possibility of this has been "undercut by more recently acquired feelings of inferiority. Much cultural baggage, then, stands in the way of a change of Malaysian Chinese attitudes toward Malays."
Of course, a less fragmented Malaysia will depend on all communities taking a closer look at themselves and their own legacies of racism, as well as taking greater steps to better understand the grievances of each other's communities. (Indians, for instance, among Malaysia's poorest communities, don't qualify for Bumiputera perks, yet few outside their own can be found championing their cause.)
But these steps are unlikely to happen if the trend in schooling continues and if Malaysians don't learn, first and foremost, to talk through their differences. As it stands, when race is brought up outside one's own community, many Malaysians are astonishingly awkward in expressing themselves. Many would rather not. And the state-regulated media all but avoids meaningful discussion on the topic.
"The [government and media] should create a sense that people should talk about their differences," said Patricia Martinez, head of Intercultural Studies at the Asia-Europe Institute at the University of Malaya. Instead, there's been a "sheer infantilizing of all of us to the point that we're unable to articulate ourselves on an issue that has become central to defining ourselves as Malaysians."
Martinez, however, cautions against placing all the blame with the government and media. While draconian legislation such as the Internal Security and Sedition acts have been designed to curb freedom of expression, and the mainstream media have with rare exception dutifully toed the line, self-censorship often is a greater problem. "We self-sensor ourselves more than government sensors us. There's a reluctance [among Malaysians] to be offensive," Martinez said.
That tendency has both helped and hampered community relations. But there's a growing sense that a fully-realized "Bangsa Malaysia" will require greater expression between communities and that anything less will hold the country back.
Movement toward a Malaysian race
Taking the leap, said Mandal, are a handful of film directors, website writers and editors, non-governmental organizations, playwrights and visual artists.
One is Yasmin Ahmad, whose film Sepet, a teenage romance centering on a Chinese boy and Malay girl, will open next month. Without harping on differences, it subtly examines some of the realities and myths about ethnic groups here. And while the film's conclusions about inter-ethnic relations are far from rosy, Mandal said it also manages to emphasize what many of these artists are highlighting: trans-ethnic solidarities. "There's far more boundary crossing going on [in Malaysia] than some would like to believe," he said, adding that transethnic solidarities are among the least researched features of Malaysian society.
This is unfortunate, though unlikely to change as long as the government maintains its race-based initiatives, which non-Bumiputeras equate with inequality. They tend to confirm suspicions, emphasize differences, perpetuate resentments - potentially obscuring positive changes on the ground. For those thinking along racial lines, perception is everything.
That being said, outright scrapping, as opposed to a gradually repealing, of the ethnocentric policies is an unrealistic option, and those who have been calling for this tend to think in terms of the aspirations of their own community rather than the whole of Malaysia. Such thinking is potentially as invidious and insensitive as its advocates claim the current economic arrangement is. It's worth noting too that Malays have joined the chorus calling for an end to race-based government subsistence.
But assuming the government adopts a system of greater equality, one based less on race than actual need, gulfs between communities will still persist. This is in no small part because race has been so politicized here; it has become a highly manipulative social construct by which Malaysians consequently and centrally identify themselves (even if, as Mandal rightfully points out, identity here extends beyond these boundaries).
This has piqued some interest for a multi-racial party, though a successful one has yet to emerge. UMNO, it seems, is not capable of evolving in this manner, as its past makes it irretrievably suspect in many eyes. PAS is suspect too, due to its clearly Islamic agenda.
However, other less typecast parties are tinkering with the idea of evolution.
"What we see is that religious issues divide, even among Muslims themselves," said Syed Hussein Ali of the opposition Malaysian People's Party. "So we are, though not cutting ourselves off from those issues, slowly disengaging ourselves from them." Ali added: "We don't want to be drawn into issues of religion and race anymore."
The party was founded by Mahathir's former deputy Anwar Ibrahim, who was acquitted in September after spending six years in jail on what was widely thought to be a Mahathir-led witch hunt against the charismatic Anwar. And while the party is seen as a Malay party, its bread-and-butter issue has been social justice.
The party, though, was weakened by March's parliamentary elections, when Abdullah's promise for reform propelled UMNO to an overwhelming victory. Yet Abdullah has shown few signs of fulfilling his promises, leaving the country without a clear sense of direction, and raising doubts about his commitment to reform.
This has opened the door slightly for Anwar. And though he hasn't declared his allegiances with a particular party, his recent actions suggest he may well pursue a polyethnic platform. (See Anwar the Malaysian chameleon , November 25, 04).
The point is, politicians on both sides of the divide intuit that change will be necessary,although to what extent remains unclear. Beyond economic and infrastructural considerations, however, Malaysia has in many respects been coasting. This has led to some anxiety and restlessness over the future. Which raises the persistent big question: will Malaysia explode along racial lines?
The government's fear of this brought about the NEP in the first place and has guided policy ever since. To its credit, it has been dexterous and somewhat flexible. So have Malaysians. They have shown a remarkable ability to tolerate each other, not to overstep certain boundaries that may fuel tensions. It's also worth noting that the UMNO-led BN gets much of its support from minorities; when in 1999 elections the opposition scored upset victories over UMNO, it was mostly on the backs of disgruntled Malays. This suggests that intra-ethnic fissures might be greater than inter-ethnic ones.
But the true test may be how Malaysians of all backgrounds are made to feel in their country.
Ioannis Gatsiounis, a New York native, has worked as a freelance foreign correspondent and previously co-hosted a weekly political/cultural radio call-in show in the US. He has been living in Malaysia since late 2002. |
|
|
| 0 Comments / Subscribe To Comments |
| Published: Aug.08.2006 @ 2:42 pm
|
| | |
A new Malaysian storyline
By Ooi Kee Beng
The general assembly of Malaysia's ruling party, the United Malays National Organization (UMNO), attracts the attention of everyone interested in the past, present and future of the country's politics.
However, Malay culture as such is highly political, and this means that the speeches of Malay politicians and the choices of discourse they make are also rhetorical to a large extent. This makes it difficult for analysts to distinguish the static from the message. What is the cake and what is the icing?
For example, during the 2004 general assembly, the first over which Abdullah Badawi resided as party president, his coinage of the phrase "Towering Malay" (a skilled, successful and devout as well as secular and open-minded Muslim) gained the attention of the mass media. At the 2005 meeting, it was the turn of his deputy premier, Najib Tun Abdul Razak, to play the political word game. His term "Glokal Malay" (Malay with a global mind) captured the imagination of the official media, if not that of the people. Malays form slightly more than 50% of Malaysia's 23 million people. Ethnic Chinese are the next largest racial group with 22% while Indians form another 7% of the population
Last year, UMNO Youth, which has a self-adopted mission to amplify the basic goals of the party, chose to focus on "The Malay Agenda". This term has the advantage of suggesting continuity and unfinished status with regard to what UMNO sees as the desires of the Malay community. At that meeting, rising star Khairy Jamaluddin was booed, which must have been rather disturbing for a young man with high ambitions.
This year, the youth wing decided to call for a "revival of the NEP", the New Economic Policy implemented in 1970 to help the Malay community gain a higher level of participation in the modern economy. Officially, the NEP ended in 1990, replaced in name, if not in essence, by the National Development Program. One could argue that it somewhat changed in essence the following year when then prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamed announced his view of Malaysia's future - Vision 2020. The focus on quantitative goals was replaced by a concern for qualitative status.
This year, the leaders of UMNO Youth - including Education Minister Hishammuddin Tun Hussein, son of former premier Hussein Onn, one of his deputies, Mukhriz, son of former premier Mahathir, and Jamaluddin, the son-in-law of the current premier - all pushed for a return to the NEP. Since the NEP was never dismantled, this left many confused. What they could have meant, given the fact that the beginnings of meritocracy are being implemented in the educational system, is a return to intake quotas at the tertiary level, and of course to a concentration on quantitative goals, such as the 30% equity ownership by Malays. This time, no one booed Khairy - he has obviously become an accomplished UMNO politician and might even be ready to go for the UMNO Youth leadership at the party elections in two years.
The 2005 meeting occurred in the shadow of the battle over Approved Permits (APs) for the import of luxury foreign cars, which was ignited by the battle of words between Mahathir, who is now an unpaid adviser to the national car Proton, and his erstwhile supporter, the Minister of International Trade and Industry Rafidah Aziz. This quarrel was partly egged on by Badawi's decision to force the release of the list of AP receivers. Since this was a sudden reversal of his earlier stand not to bow to public pressure, the timing of his change of mind was naturally seen by many to be politically motivated.
This impression of Badawi's increasing pro-activeness was strengthened by the strange absence of Mahathir from the assembly. In the midst of all this, China decided to unpeg its currency. As countless experts had suggested over the past year, the Malaysian ringgit was bound to follow suit. This indeed happened. However, the speed with which this was done added to the impression that Badawi was indeed a man who was now fast gaining real control over the party and the government. That will remain one of the lasting impressions from the 2005 meeting. However, this may only be a supplementary saga to what is more possibly the main story.
While Badawi promised more meritocracy, UMNO Youth appealed for more affirmative action. This "good cop, bad cop" scenario led very quickly to reactions from Chinese leaders from within the ruling coalition to call for a more efficient NEP, and for failures to be identified and rectified.
No doubt, these reactions should be understood in light of the party elections that the Chinese-supported parties within the coalition Barisan Nasional (National Front) are having this month. Nevertheless, this entreaty for a systematic and monitored implementation of the NEP is given further credence by the fatigue Malaysians currently feel about dubious practices by people in positions of power. Money politics, gambling debts, corporate corruption and haughty behavior by politicians add up to a widespread longing for clean government.
Badawi also drew attention to the harsh pressure exerted by the global economy, which was limiting Malaysia's economic policies. This, together with the initiatives that have been taken immediately after the general assembly by his regime to energize the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and to further Asian regionalism, may be the cue for how the future of Malaysian politics is to unfold. This is captured in the new phrase New National Agenda (NNA) - a tentative compromise between the ideals of the Malay Agenda and the reality of the global pressure that Malaysia must deal with. Hopefully, Malaysia is realizing that it must abandon its long-held fixation with inter-ethnic relations, and instead adapt to the reality of external forces.
Ooi Kee Beng is a Fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. This is a personal comment. |
|
|
| 0 Comments / Subscribe To Comments |
| Published: Aug.08.2006 @ 2:40 pm
|
| | |
A Malaysian debate with merit
By Anil Netto
PENANG, Malaysia - The debate over Malaysia's affirmative action policies has been swirling in recent weeks after revelations that a coterie of well-connected ethnic Malays has reaped huge profits from import permits awarded to them.
The revelations have fueled a persistent debate over whether ethnic-based affirmative action policies are still helpful as Malaysia's open economy grapples with the challenges posed by globalization.
Last month, the debate spilt into the open when some delegates at the general assembly of the ruling United Malays National Organization (UMNO) criticized the award of lucrative permits to import foreign cars into Malaysia to a chosen few. Critics outside UMNO said the scandal showed how ethnic-based affirmative action policies could be abused to enrich a select group of well-connected individuals.
Affirmative action policies in favor of the indigenous bumiputera (sons of the soil) groups were part of Malaysia's New Economic Policy (NEP), a 20-year blueprint to reduce poverty and to restructure society to end the identification of occupations with ethnicity.
The policy espoused ethnic-based quotas for university admissions, licenses, scholarships and civil service recruitment to promote bumiputera participation in the economy.
On the NEP's expiry in 1990, these policies continued under a National Development Policy. But the share of bumiputera corporate equity appears to have stagnated at about 20% since then - though some dispute the figures - well short of the NEP's 30% target.
Leaders of UMNO's youth wing called for a revival of the NEP, hoping that it would jumpstart the quest to reach the equity target. "The NEP definition itself should be reapplied as part of the national development policy, so that Malays will be empowered and not sidelined from now till the year 2020," said UMNO Youth chief Hishammuddin Hussein.
He said the NEP's "growth by distribution" strategy should be pursued to ensure the bumiputeras finally achieve the 30% target.
But such calls set off concern among UMNO's ruling coalition partners and opposition parties, who feared it could mark a return to the abuses of implementation.
Some Malaysians believe the time has come for meritocracy to create entrepreneurs and professionals who can face up to the demands of the global economy. They feel that ethnic-based affirmative action policies have spawned cronyism and corruption and created a dependency syndrome. Handing out of licenses and contracts to well-connected individuals and firms has promoted a culture of patronage, they argue.
"We are dealing with a party, UMNO, that tells the Malays that if you don't support UMNO your future will be jeopardized," said former deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim.
Anwar, who has now allied himself with opposition parties, argued that the time had come to end the "corrupt bumiputra policy". Instead, he called for a "new compact" among the various ethnic groups which would include forgoing the bumiputra policy while at the same time approaching ethnic Chinese firms to increase their bumiputera staffing.
He was quick to add that he was not calling for the abolition of the "special position" of the bumiputeras in the federal constitution. The Sedition Act makes it an offence to question this provision.
Some Malaysians favor affirmative action policies based on need rather than ethnicity in a social democracy that would provide assistance to those who most need it.
Still others argue that neither affirmative action nor meritocracy as currently understood are sufficient. Meritocracy, they argue, would merely provide more opportunities for another class of individuals - who happened to be born into well-placed middle class families - to prosper, leaving the vast majority trailing behind.
"I am worried that we will be trapped into a more sophisticated version of the quota system and fail to look at the issue of how our children are learning to become laborers in this globalized system of production," observed Azly Rahman, a columnist for independent news portal Malaysiakini, in a recent commentary.
"We are using the wrong assessment strategies to create another colonial-styled pluralistic education system that favors the children of the economically-privileged in this nation that is increasingly cybernated and bio-technologized."
Malays are the largest of the various indigenous bumiputera groups in Malaysia. The bumiputeras make up over 60% of the country's 26 million population, Chinese account for a quarter and Indians about 7%, the remainder being foreigners.
After independence in 1957, Malaysia practiced a laissez-faire approach to its post-colonial economy that did little to tackle inter-ethnic income disparities and corporate dominance. Ethnic Chinese and foreign interests controlled commerce, many Malays worked as fishermen and farmers, while large numbers of Indians toiled in plantations.
These imbalances persisted until 1969, when bloody politically inspired ethnic riots between indigenous Malays and the immigrant Chinese community broke out, marking a watershed in Malaysian history.
Few dispute that the NEP, introduced after the bloodshed, has been a qualified success. Poverty levels have clearly improved, even though critics point out that the official poverty line is unrealistic and the drop may not have been as spectacular as touted. The participation of bumiputeras in the professions and other occupations has soared as well.
Before the NEP, almost every sizeable Malaysian company was under ethnic Chinese control. Now many of the country's top corporate personalities include bumiputeras, and bumiputeras as a whole own about 20% of corporate equity (compared with 2.3% in 1970).
But relative poverty and intra-ethnic poverty have widened as benefits fell disproportionately in favor of the elite of all ethnic groups. The corporate class, meanwhile, has prospered on the back of cheap and imported labor. Malaysia still does not have a minimum wage and unskilled operators, many of them Malay, earn about 500 ringgit a month (US$131) - about the same level as the official poverty line.
Critics also question the obsession with corporate equity as a measurement of income, arguing that it only measures the way income is distributed among the middle and upper-middle class groups. The vast majority of Malaysians on the other hand are not in a position to afford shares; at most, they may only be able to take up small stakes in state-run unit trust funds.
Not all bumiputera groups feel they have benefited equally. Many bumiputeras, in eastern Sarawak, for instance, are still struggling to have their native customary rights and land ownership recognized by the state. Ethnic Malays in the northern state of Kedah and in the east coast states of Kelantan and Terengganu on the peninsula are generally much poorer than their urban counterparts around Kuala Lumpur.
Within urban settings, too, a sizeable underclass of all ethnic groups lives in squatter settlements or cramped low-cost flats - a world away from the glitz and city lights. Thus, the intra-ethnic divides have grown and many analysts are concerned that a continuation of ethnic-based affirmative action policies could perpetuate or even widen these gaps.
Some observers feel that past policies have undermined the ability of many bumiputeras to compete in the global market place. "Do we know, for instance, the percentage of Malay entrepreneurs who were knocked out by the 1997 financial crisis and were unable to rise again because their weak foundation was built through the original NEP approach?" asked political commentator Rustam Sani, author of a new book Whither Malay Nationalism?.
"I am not convinced that reverting to the NEP will resolve the deeper structural challenges confronting the economy and society."
(Inter Press Service) |
|
|
| 0 Comments / Subscribe To Comments |
| Published: Aug.08.2006 @ 2:39 pm
|
| | |
COMMENTARY
For Malaysians, a day for speaking out
By Ioannis Gatsiounis
Malaysian Independence Day on August 31 has officially been used by the government to instill gratitude and for reflection. Additionally, though, it has been employed to reassert power over the rakyat (people); for weeks leading up to and on the big day, politicians and the state-run media remind Malaysians that they live in a free, prosperous and harmonious society.
And so, for many Malaysians, who celebrated the 48th Merdeka (freedom or independence) Day this past week, the event has long been void of real meaning. Articulation of the fact, however, has usually been restrained and nebulous, and in the end the idea of Merdeka as a glorious day in a great nation has triumphed.
But skepticism may be challenging obedience as the national virtue, if the exchange of ideas taking place via the country's
handful of independent news outlets is any indication. At the very least Malaysians appear to be getting more exasperated with their country's shortcomings, at the same time becoming more pointed and articulate in their criticism of them.
Perhaps that is to be expected. A number of recent developments have provided Malaysians with no shortage of targets at which to take aim.
Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi's anti-graft drive continues to inch along at a snail's pace; he has fried a few big fish but has not dissuaded the culture that feeds the practice. Several of Malaysia's most renowned university professors have resigned or been dismissed in controversy. Meanwhile, multinationals continue to bypass Malaysia for developing countries with ostensibly better talent pools and cheaper labor costs. And national carmaker Proton has hit the red, its future uncertain, having seen its domestic market share drop to 44% in 2004 from 60% in 2000.
This is not to mention developments in the issue that has most obsessed Malaysia for the past 36 years: race. While the Indians and Chinese, Malaysia's two largest minority groups, have grudgingly accepted the long-standing affirmative action program designed to economically uplift the majority Muslim Malays, they have always held out hope that the plan would eventually be scrapped. Those hopes were dashed in July, when the ruling United Malays National Organization's (UMNO) youth wing leader called for a revival of the plan. At the same assembly meeting, he brandished a traditional Malay dagger while his supporters chanted, "Long live Malays".
One letter writer attributed the sour mood this Merdeka Day to a "failure to thrive. The things that are wrong with Malaysia could be destroying the very few things that are right with it."
Over the years the government has managed to delay tending to many of Malaysia's problems - including racial tensions, an inclination toward mediocrity, creeping Islamic fundamentalism and a moribund education system - by adroitly drawing attention away from them.
One way has been to reiterate key numbers. Some are impressive. Poverty has shrunk to about 10% from 49% in 1970. Household income is second highest in Southeast Asia. Unemployment hovers about 4%.
Another way has been through infrastructural development; indeed on the surface Malaysia has begun to resemble a developed country, with "smart" cities, modern edifices, sky trains and a world-class highway system.
A third way has been to whip up anti-Western sentiment. The invasion of Iraq and the occupation of Palestine have been invaluable in this sense.
The government bought further time when Badawi took over the premiership from the long-ruling autocrat Mahathir Mohamed. But after nearly two years at the helm, Badawi hasn't delivered on many of his promises, while the old guard remains ostensibly as sated as it was under Mahathir.
But the cracks have gotten harder to ignore. The glorious numbers, the inexorable construction and manufacture of external bad guys haven't bought Malaysia the stature it yearns.
The alternative media, blogs and message boards have become an outlet for lamenting the fact. But it was arguably more vitriolic this Merdeka season than past ones.
One has to wonder whether that's a portent. If the government can't instill gratitude during that nation's independence day, what can it expect for the rest of the year? |
|
|
| 0 Comments / Subscribe To Comments |
| Published: Aug.08.2006 @ 2:37 pm
|
| | | |
Islam becomes hot topic in Malaysia
By Baradan Kuppusamy
KUALA LUMPUR - Islam tops Malaysia's long list of "sensitive subjects" that are forbidden from being raised in public. However, it was as if nothing else could be discussed over the past two weeks.
Two dissimilar events coming one after the other in late December have put religion on notice. One was passage of an Islamic family law, opposed by feminists and moderate Muslims. The other was the forced burial, according to Muslim rites, of a Hindu soldier by Islamic authorities who insisted he had converted to Islam.
Both issues have questioned the role of an increasingly puritanical Islam in a multi-ethnic society that prides itself on tolerance and an easygoing, modern way of life.
Under Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi's more liberal and less authoritarian administration, long-suppressed frustrations are rising to the surface and there are growing calls for fairness and justice.
On one side, the debate is between Islamic fundamentalists who dominate the burgeoning Islamic Affairs Department that administers Sharia (Islamic) law and mostly Western-educated Muslim feminists who say the department, in its overzealous interpretation of the Koran, has gone overboard in making new laws that discriminate against women and children.
Since the 1980s, they say, women's position vis-a-vis Muslim men has gradually eroded. The latest is a new Islamic family law that makes divorce and polygamy easy and allows husbands to lay claim to a wife's property, even to the extent of freezing bank accounts of former spouses and their children.
"Nowhere is there, in the Islamic world, a law that discriminates so thoroughly against women," said Zainah Anwar, executive director of Sisters in Islam, a feminist movement that is spearheading a national campaign to repeal the new law.
The campaign has won widespread support within the government, in academia and among the general public.
Likewise the forced burial of M Moorthy, a Hindu soldier claimed by the Islamic authorities to have converted to Islam, has sparked a storm among non-Muslims and moderate Muslims alike. They are demanding that the government amend the constitution to make civil law supreme over Sharia law especially in matters where non-Muslims are involved.
Islam, once a taboo subject, is now openly debated by mainstream media, on television and over the Internet.
Newspapers that are linked to government and normally would not have touched the subject now freely publish strongly worded letters and commentaries by their own writers and outside experts, many of whom are Muslims. Letters from the public are published.
Internet chat rooms are racier and less inhibited in their comments. A coalition of human-rights non-governmental organizations, including Muslim feminist groups, has also launched a month-long candlelight vigil outside the High Court to protest a Muslim judge's ruling last month that the civil court has no jurisdiction over Islamic matters.
Relying on an ex parte Sharia court order, Islamic religious authorities last week gave Moorthy a Muslim burial over the protests of his Hindu family. Anger boiled over when Judge Raus Sharif washed his hands of the case, saying the civil court had no jurisdiction.
"They have been telling lies. Nothing but lies," said Kaliammal Sinnasamy, Moorthy's wife. "I was shocked when they told me that they would take the body when he died."
The court refused to intervene or hear evidence from the family that Moorthy could not have converted, saying it had no jurisdiction over matters under the purview of the Sharia court. Three days later, the same court gave similar arguments while rejecting an application by two formerly Muslim women for a declaration that they had left Islam.
"We cannot allow a small group [of Muslim administrators] who are extreme in their views to dominate the nation's social and religious life," said Wong Kim Kong, a spokesman for the Malaysian Consultative Council for Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism (MCCBCHS). "If no action is taken by the government then it might sow disharmony."
The council launched a campaign to amend the constitution to allow civil-law supremacy over Sharia in cases involving non-Muslims, ie conversion, child custody, disposal of property and other family or personal matters.
The main opposition Democratic Action Party has called for a major review of Article 121(1A), which states that the civil courts have no jurisdiction in respect of "any matter" within the jurisdiction of the Sharia courts.
The clause was inserted into the constitution by former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad in 1988 after he had jailed more than 100 parliamentarians and democracy activists and closed down three newspapers, including the influential mass-circulated Star daily.
Mahathir's government had given a truncated parliament a day's notice of the constitutional change, which was carried with overwhelming support by government backbenchers.
In the case of the Islamic family law, a little more time was given but arms were twisted to ensure its passage in parliament last month, only to face an avalanche of protest from civil-society groups and Muslim feminists.
The law affects only Muslims, who make up about 60% of the population of 26 million people. Restrictions against Malaysian Muslim men taking four wives under Islamic law have been eased and they no longer have to prove financial capacity or the ability to treat all wives fairly.
Women's groups are planning petitions, letter-writing campaigns and other strategies to put pressure on the government not to gazette the bill into law.
Judging from the numerous letters in mainstream newspapers and in Internet chat rooms, most Malaysians are outraged and feel that injustice has been done to minorities and moderate Muslims alike.
"This entire episode has painted a negative image of Islam not just to Malaysians of other faiths, but to the rest of the world," said Ezam Mohamad, a senior leader of the National Justice Party.
"More must be done to enhance mutual trust and harmony among the different communities, and the manner in which the present authorities are doing it represents a step backwards in interracial and interreligious relations."
Abdullah's brand of tolerant Islam, or Islam Hadhari, is taking a beating as people question the wide gulf between his moderate leanings and the fanaticism of the Islamic authorities, which gained strength under Mahathir's 22-year rule.
Abdullah, who is equally respected by Muslims and non-Muslims, has the difficult and unenviable task of reining in the runaway horses or see his popularity rating plunge.
If he fails to contain excesses, his grand vision of all the races living together happily under a caring and tolerant multiculturalism stands to be stillborn.
Experts say success for Abdullah lies in tackling and resolving the racial and discriminatory policies that form the bedrock of Malaysia's so-called "happy" society.
"Unless the deep-seated issues of racism and religious freedom are openly discussed and resolved, Malaysians would continue to live in fear and suspicious of one another," said S Arulchelvam, secretary general of the Socialist Party of Malaysia. "Malaysian unity is a farce unless these issues are met head-on and adequately resolved.
"All discriminatory policies based on race and religion must be outlawed. It is impossible to build unity based merely on slogans and propaganda."
(Inter Press Service) |
|
|
|
|
