From malaysianunplug.blogspot.my:~~~
Wednesday, 30 March 2016
MALAYSIA-THE STATE OF THE NATION IN 2015: A VIEW FROM A SINGAPOREAN DIPLOMAT
CLICK HERE: From The Straits Times (Singapore)
Essay by
BILAHARI KAUSIKAN.
Former Permanent Secretary for Foreign Affairs
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Singapore
(Currentlty Ambassador-at-Large)
6 OCTOBER, 2015
Malaysia is undergoing a systemic change that has profound consequences for Singapore.
Essay by
BILAHARI KAUSIKAN.
Former Permanent Secretary for Foreign Affairs
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Singapore
(Currentlty Ambassador-at-Large)
6 OCTOBER, 2015
Malaysia is undergoing a systemic change that has profound consequences for Singapore.
What
do most Singaporeans make of recent events in Malaysia? Bersih. Pesaka.
1MDB. A Deputy Prime Minister sacked. Protests and counter-protests.
Are
we so inured to commotions across the Causeway that they seem no more
than the faint tolling of distant bells, evoking only bemusement and
schadenfreude? Our system works, so shrug and tend our own garden.
If
this is the attitude, it is mistaken. We are indeed different. But I
believe Malaysia may be on the cusp of a systemic change that could have
profound implications for us.
Since
1957, first Malaya then Malaysia, was premised on a political and
social compact that had Malay dominance as its cardinal principle. So
long as this was not challenged, other races could have their own space.
In political terms, this compact was reflected in a system structured
around an alliance of race-based political parties with the dominant
Malay party – United Malays National Organisation or UMNO – at its
centre.
The
Chinese were represented by the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA),
later joined by Gerakan; the Indians by the Malaysian Indian Congress
(MIC). Two opposition parties, the Democratic Action Party (DAP) and
Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS), were in principle multiracial, but in
practice largely Chinese and Malay and in any case were peripheral.
It
was our refusal to accept the system’s cardinal principle that led to
Separation from Malaysia in 1965. But it was a system that had its own
coherence and until relatively recently, it did not serve Malaysia
badly. And despite the complexities of bilateral relations and
occasional periods of tension, over the last 50 years, it was a system
we learnt to work with, while going our own way.
Pressure Point–Religion
That
familiar system is now under immense stress. It is not certain that it
can hold together.The pressure point is religion. Arab influences from
the Middle East have for several decades steadily eroded the Malay
variant of Islam in which adat or traditional practices coexisted with
the Quran in a syncretic, tolerant synthesis, replacing it with a more
austere and exclusive interpretation of Islam. This is one aspect of a
broader process of globalisation which is a sociocultural and not just
an economic phenomenon. It has changed the texture of Malaysian society,
I think irreversibly.
It
is impossible for any country to insulate itself from globalisation.
Religion in Singapore is not immune from globalisation’s consequences,
and not just in our Muslim community. Evangelical Christianity is one
example. But Singapore is organised on the principle of multiracial
meritocracy. So long as this is accepted by all races and religions as
the foundation of our identity, the most corrosive political effects are
mitigated. In the Singapore system, God – every God – and Caesar are
separate and so all Gods must perforce co-exist, with the state playing
the role of neutral arbiter.
Not
so in Malaysia. The cardinal principle of Malay dominance is enshrined
in the Constitution, which also places Islam as the first component in
the definition of a Malay. This makes the mixture of religion and
politics well-nigh inevitable. Umno politicians have been unable to
resist the temptation to use religion for electoral advantage. They are
responding to the logic of the system as it has evolved.
In
2001, former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad made a fundamental
political error when he tried to undercut PAS by declaring that Malaysia
was already an Islamic state. A constitutional controversy ensued. But
the most damaging consequences were political not legal. Tun Dr
Mahathir’s incautious declaration gave a sharper political focus to the
changes in the interpretation of Islam that were under way and catalysed
a competitive dynamic in which those inclined to religious moderation
were inevitably outbid and overwhelmed.
The
result has been an increasingly pronounced emphasis on religion in
UMNO’s political identity and a significant and continuing narrowing of
the political and social space for non-Muslims.
Surveys
show that Malaysian Malays privilege Islamic credentials over other
qualities they look for in their leaders. A Merdeka Centre survey this
year revealed that 60 per cent of Malaysian Malays polled identified
themselves as Muslims first rather than Malaysians or even Malays.
Demography accentuates the political impact of these attitudes. In 1957
the Chinese constituted 45 per cent of Malaya (West Malaysia). In 2010,
they constituted only 24.6 per cent of Malaysia including East Malaysia.
Malay fertility rates are significantly higher than both Chinese and
Indians.
In
the 2013 Malaysian General Election, the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN)
coalition got only 13 per cent of the Chinese vote. Two days after the
election, Utusan Malaysia, an UMNO mouthpiece, pointedly asked “Apa Lagi
Cina Mau?” (What more do the Chinese want?)
The
question was provocatively phrased, but not entirely unreasonable.
Prime Minister Najib Razak tried hard to win back Chinese votes but got
almost nothing for his efforts. MCA won only seven seats. Gerakan was
wiped out. The DAP won 38 seats, the largest number in the opposition
coalition.
A new system in the making?
The
Chinese parties in BN had clearly lost the trust of Chinese voters. Can
MCA win back Chinese votes? Doubtful. MCA is obviously powerless to
stem the narrowing political and social space for non-Muslims; the
fecklessness of its leaders exposed by constant scandals and internal
bickering.
In
2013, BN lost the popular vote but retained its parliamentary majority
because of the 47 seats it won in East Malaysia. Native East Malaysians
are not ethnically Malay but are classified as bumiputera. Some in UMNO
began to question whether it was really necessary to work with the
Chinese at all. The declining numbers of Chinese in the Malaysian
population will sooner or later make them electorally irrelevant to Umno
and BN had already retained power without their votes.
Nor
can the opposition coalition of the DAP, PAS and Anwar Ibrahim’s Parti
Keadilan Rakyat – Pakatan Rakyat (PR) – form a new multiracial system.
PR was always a motley crew. Although its component parties are in
theory multiracial, they have nothing in common except the ambition to
displace BN. Only Anwar’s charismatic personality and political skills
held them uneasily together.
Anwar
is now in jail and PR has fallen apart. PAS has left. Without Anwar,
Keadilan’s future is bleak. The DAP is subject to the demo- graphic
constraints of a falling Chinese population and is unlikely to make
substantial electoral advances beyond its present strength, although it
will probably retain what it now holds. PR’s successor – Pakatan Harapan
– a coalition of the DAP, Keadilan and a minor breakaway faction from
PAS, is a forlorn hope (pun intended).
PAS
has purged its moderate leadership and is now led by the ulama. UMNO is
increasingly relying on religion to legitimise itself. UMNO and PAS may
eventually form some sort of de facto if not de jure alliance that
could be the core of a new ruling system. There may be token ornaments
of other races, but the Malaysian system will then comprise an
overwhelmingly dominant Malay government with a DAP-led Chinese
opposition. This will be potentially explosive.
I
do not know if such a system will really replace the current system,
but it certainly seems possible, even probable. It will not happen
overnight. But the controversy over 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB)
could well hasten its emergence. The recent demonstrations seem to
foreshadow such a development.
Struggle for Power in UMNO
The
anti-government Bersih demonstrations held in late August this year
(2015) were, despite a sprinkling of other races, predominantly Chinese
affairs. PAS, which had joined previous Bersih demonstrations, stayed
away. The organisers claimed the demonstrations were apolitical, but the
DAP with Keadilan clearly played significant roles.
Last
month, a pro-government counter-demonstration was organised by Pesaka –
a right-wing Malay group ostensibly devoted to silat, the Malay martial
art. The demonstration was almost entirely Malay, positioned as
defending Malay rights and marked by fierce racial rhetoric. Before the
demonstration, posters were displayed, captioned “Cina turun Bersih,
sedialah bermandi darah” (Chinese who attend Bersih, be ready to be
bathed in blood) which depicted a Bersih supporter being slashed with a
parang. A flier with a similar slogan was found at DAP headquarters.
UMNO
denied organising the demonstration. Dato’Seri Najib did not attend but
said he had no objections to Umno members doing so. The President of
Pesaka is an UMNO leader. Another UMNO politician, who was one of the
driving forces of the Pesaka demonstration, proudly admitted he was
racist because it was under the Constitution.
Thankfully,
violence at these demonstrations was avoided by the strong police
presence. But the demonstrations certainly raised the temperature of an
already racially fraught atmosphere.
Although
the authorities denied it, the affray that broke out in July at Low Yat
Plaza, a mainly Chinese shopping area in Kuala Lumpur, after a Malay
youth was accused of stealing a mobile phone, was certainly racial. It
exposed the tinderbox Malaysia had become.
Shortly
after news broke about US$700 million (S$1 billion) believed to be from
1MBD being traced to what was alleged to be Mr Najib’s personal
account, a Putrajaya spokesman said: “The Prime Minister has not taken
any funds for personal use.”
UMNO
has always operated through a system of patronage. If this is what the
spokesman was hinting at, then Dr Mahathir’s accusations against Mr
Najib ring hollow. Did he not preside over the same system and for far
longer than any other Malaysian prime minister?
This
system also means that Mr. Najib is in no imminent danger of being
forced from office so long as he holds the majority of UMNO divisions
and retains Malay support. Frustration may account for Dr Mahathir’s
attendance at the Bersih demonstration which I do not think has raised
the good doctor’s standing with the Malay ground.
The
1MDB scandal is less about corruption than about a struggle for power
within UMNO. Dr Mahathir seems to have expected to exercise remote
control even though he was no longer prime minister. Among his
grievances with his successors were their warming of ties with
Singapore, Mr Najib’s decision to settle the railway land issue,
cooperation on Iskandar Malaysia (IM) and the refusal of both Tun
Abdullah Badawi and Mr Najib to proceed with his pet white elephant: the
“crooked bridge”. Dr Mahathir wants to replace Mr Najib with someone
more pliable.
The
intra-UMNO power struggle is not over. Mr Najib retains his office but
has been politically damaged. Dr Mahathir’s reputation may have been
dented, but he still has a following within UMNO and the Malay public.
Mr.
Najib cannot allow himself to be outflanked on the right. Two days
after the September demonstration, he attended a Pesaka gathering. He
praised Pesaka members as being “willing to die” for the government and
said “Malay people can also show that we are still able to rise when our
dignity is challenged, when our leaders are insulted, criticised,
shamed”, adding, “We respect other races. But don’t forget: Malays also
have their feelings. Malays also have their limits.”
What next?
A
former minister, Tan Sri Zainuddin Maidin, has said that “if Najib
succeeds in uniting UMNO and PAS, then I am confident the Malays will
forgive his grave mistakes”, adding that “after fulfilling this large
and sincere task” he should step down and hand power to former deputy
prime minister Muhyiddin Yassin.
I
do not know if Mr. Najib feels he has committed “grave mistakes”. But
he certainly will not hand over power to a man he unceremoniously
sacked. Still, Mr Zainuddin is probably not wrong about anyone who
brings UMNO and PAS together becoming a Malay hero. It may not be Mr.
Najib, but the trajectory of political developments in Malaysia already
seems to point in that direction.
Malaysia
and Singapore are each other’s second-largest trading partner. Malaysia
is Singapore’s sixth-largest investment destination and we are the top
investor in IM. Every day tens of thousands of Malaysians commute across
the Causeway to work in Singapore. It is in our interest to see
Malaysia stable with a healthy economy.
Mr.
Najib understands that Malaysia and Singapore need each other. So far
and unusually we have not figured very much in the controversies. Dr
Mahathir did trot out his tired line about Singapore Malays being
marginalised. But it did not catch fire. Did the government dampen the
spark? No way of knowing for sure but if it did, it is one more black
mark against Mr Najib in the old man’s book.
We,
of course, have no choice but to work with whatever system or leader
emerges in Malaysia. But some systems will be easier to work with than
others. And the current heightened state of racial tensions suggests
that we should not assume that the transition from one system to another
will necessarily be peaceful.
It
is my impression that many young Malaysian Chinese have forgotten the
lessons of May 13, 1969. They naively believe that the system built
around the principle of Malay dominance can be changed. That may be why
they abandoned MCA for the DAP. They are delusional. Malay dominance
will be defended by any means.
Any
new system will still be built around this principle, and if it has
some form of UMNO-PAS collaboration at its centre, enforcement of this
principle will be even more rigorous with even less space for
non-Muslims.
The
respected Malay poet and writer Pak Samad recently warned “the way race
issues are played up… it is not impossible that things will peak into a
state of emergency”.
Pak
Samad is a member of the DAP and he was appealing to the government to
take a more equitable attitude towards all races. But his views and
those of some idealistic young urban Malays are exceptional and, during
an intra-UMNO power struggle when the banner of Malay dominance is
raised particularly high, utterly irrelevant.
Singaporeans should also note that no country’s domestic politics exists in a geopolitical vacuum.
Chinese Ambassador’s Remarks
In
the midst of these unfolding developments, China’s Ambassador to
Malaysia made his way to Kuala Lumpur’s Chinatown. Close to where only a
few days previously the police had to use water cannons to disperse a
potentially violent anti-Chinese Pesaka-led demonstration, the
ambassador read out a statement that among other things pronounced the
Chinese government’s opposition to terrorism, any form of racial
discrimination and extremism, adding for good measure that it would be a
shame if the peace of Petaling Street was disrupted by the
ill-intentioned and that Beijing would not stand idly by if anything
threatened the interests of its citizens and Malaysia-China relations.
Under
other circumstances these sentiments would perhaps have passed notice.
But the timing and context laid the Ambassador’s words and actions open
to disquieting interpretations.
Was
it just bad judgment? What was he trying to do? If the ambassador was
trying to help the Malaysian Chinese, then he failed miserably. He
probably made things worse for them by confirming the worst suspicions
of the Malay right wing.
But
were the interests of Malaysian Chinese even a consideration? Was the
intention to highlight a rising China’s clout? The Chinese Foreign
Ministry spokesman defended the ambassador’s visit to Petaling Street as
“normal” and emphasised China’s adherence to the principle of
non-interference. But this was of course what she would have said
irrespective of China’s intentions.
More
telling perhaps was the apparent confusion over whether or not the
Chinese ambassador should be summoned to explain himself. This should
have been obvious. A retired Malaysian diplomat who used to deal with
China pointed out the dangerous precedent that would be set if no action
was taken. But different Malaysian ministers contradicted each other,
with a clearly frustrated Foreign Minister Anifah Aman finally telling
them all to leave it to Wisma Putra.
Was
this the consequence of China’s influence? Possibly. In the end, some
sort of meeting with Wisma Putra seems to have occurred. Deputy Prime
Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi subsequently announced that the Malaysian
Cabinet decided to “call in” the Chinese ambassador (he was careful to
make clear the ambassador was not being “summoned”).
Lesson for Singapore
We cannot solve other people’s problems. Malaysians must work out their own destiny and we will have to live with their choices.
Are
we completely immune to contagion from Malaysia? After 50 years, does
our collective Singapore identity now trump racial identities? Maybe
under some circumstances. Optimistically, perhaps even most
circumstances. But under all circumstances?
I
doubt it. Let us wish Malaysia well and hope that the worst does not
occur.But it would be prudent to take no chances and prepare ourselves
as if it might. The first step is for all Singaporeans to understand
what is happening in our neighbourhood and realistically appreciate our
own circumstances.
Deterrence
and diplomacy are necessary to reduce the temptation that some in
Malaysia may have to externalise their problems and minimise the
bilateral friction that will sometimes be unavoidable. Strong deterrence
and agile diplomacy must be underpinned by national cohesion which in
turn rests on a foundation of common understandings.
Of
late it seems to have become fashionable for some sections of our
intelligentsia to downplay or even dismiss our vulnerabilities. Some
political parties tried variants of this line during our recent General
Election. Are they blind and deaf to what is happening around us? Is
their desire for notoriety or political advantage so overwhelming as to
make them indifferent to the consequences?
Malaysia
is not the only concern. The haze is a daily reminder that all is not
well down south too. This is not the most salubrious of neighbourhoods.
- BILAHARI KAUSIKAN.
No comments:
Post a Comment