|
|||||||||||||||
|
COVER STORY
A perspective on national unity Memorandum presented by Aliran to the Parliamentary Select Committee on National Unity
by Aliran
Even so, we’re uncertain how the views of a socially conscious, proudly dissenting, reform-oriented NGO – sometimes castigated for being ‘anti-government’ by Barisan Nasional politicians – will be received by a Select Committee coming from a Parliament that is over 90 per cent Barisan Nasional. But we are here nonetheless because we have things to say which others may not raise. And, with due respect to other representations to this Select Committee, we mean to offer ‘contrarian’ views that we believe should inform a critical and balanced approach to the subject of ‘national unity’. No fixed meaning Let’s begin by admitting the obvious. ‘National unity’ defies simple and stable definition. Discursively, ‘national unity’ has no fixed meaning that all Malaysians can accept without debate or disagreement. That is true no matter how gravely we speak of the tasks of nation building, no matter how frequently we talk of stability, harmony and goodwill. As an ideal the desirability of ‘national unity’ seems incontestable for a nation that is so often described as being deeply divided along ethnic lines. Yet, we are more likely to be able to capture the reality of ‘national unity’ by remembering the signs of its absence – that is, serious strife, violent conflicts, persistent crises and relentless turmoil. Why do we say all this at the outset? It is not because we are complacent about the state of our society. We aren’t. But we know that ‘national unity’, as a goal, is elusive and easily subjected to manipulation. We know that ‘national unity’, regarded to be under threat, is readily used to justify unconscionable practices by those in power. End schizophrenia and hypocrisy! We’re regularly reminded that ‘national unity’ is critical. Some people think that that will bring foreign tourists and global investors to us. We’d like to think that ‘national unity’ is more than that. ‘National unity’ should allow us to live in peace among ourselves, permit us to prosper and enable us to leave something valuable to future generations. Yet, we find that we are almost schizophrenic over ‘national unity’. Or, rather, our politicians – with few and notable exceptions – are schizophrenic in this regard. On the one hand, they love to pose as our natural custodians of ‘national unity’. They pat themselves on the back whenever they find it useful to proclaim that we are harmonious and stable. On the other hand, it is second habit with them to threaten us when they find it profitable to warn that ours is a fragile unity that can be shattered at a moment’s notice. Hence, the same politicians see no problem in congratulating themselves on how well they foster muhibbah while they keep harking to ‘May 13’ or show during election campaigns horrifying films of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Rwanda, Afghanistan under the Taliban, ‘September 11’, and so on. Actually, ordinary Malaysians aren’t stupid. They realise that those who most loudly shout ‘national unity’ are often those who undermine it most callously. Hence, to the distinguished members of this Select Committee our first point about ‘national unity’ is this: Tell the politicians, not least those of the Barisan Nasional, to finish with this kind of hypocrisy. Tell them honestly and bluntly to stop mixing self-praise with ill-disguised threats. A national unity of substance Our second point is: ‘National unity’, like other objectives and policies that impact upon social life, begins as an empty vessel that needs filling. Just what do we fill it with? We in Aliran propose that ‘national unity’ be invested with the following substance and meanings:
Here, we give one example directly while we will indirectly refer to the others later. Celebration of diversity Partly by accident and partly by achievement, we’ve kept our cultural diversity intact. Today no one wants to talk of assimilation. We’re aware of the range of our cultural heritage. However, we can’t simply resign ourselves to living with our differences. Truly, we must celebrate our cultural diversity. Only then can we set aside the old and silly lament that we are not ‘homogenous’ – as if only cultural drabness can save us. Only thus will we stop believing that Malaysians have no common and binding values. Only a proactive celebration of our diversity can prevent our ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic variations from becoming unbridgeable schisms to be preyed upon by unscrupulous politicians. Across the world, we in fact market our cultures and heritage as ‘tourism products’. Should we then leave it only to the foreign tourist to find our diversity quaint? Across the globe, the government has promoted the Multimedia Super Corridor, among other things, by highlighting our many cultures, traditions and languages as assets and not liabilities. If something so coldly ‘hi-tech’ as the MSC could showcase our diversity, should we boast of it only to lure the global investor? In these times Our third point is: we can’t discuss and live ‘national unity’ without reference to our times and the so-called fault lines of society with which we contend. We are past the time of the ideological struggles of Cold World vintage. We are no longer tied to the ethnic conflicts that plagued our immediate post-Merdeka era. We are not submerged in the regional confrontations of post-colonial Southeast Asia. If anything, we’ve been living in times of rapid development, late industrialisation and intensifying integration with the global economy. For us, this experience has been generally happier than for many others. But maybe our relative fortune has blinded us to an important lesson from history. That lesson is, societies that experience processes of far-reaching socio-economic transformation are not free of their accompanying social conflicts and tensions. We are no exception but most of our so-called leaders are enthralled by visions that don’t accommodate new sources of social pressures, tensions and conflicts. Rapid and extensive capitalist transformation – even while it benefits some people immensely – invariably dislocates, disrupts, denies, dispossesses and disillusions many other people and many communities. Over the past two decades, many of our communities have been dispossessed of land, resources and customary rights. They have suffered ecological collapse and environmental degradation. In whose name? In the name of development, poor and meek communities have been uprooted and displaced. In the name of foreign investment, the erosion, denial and repression of the rights of labour to organise and unionise has been sanctioned. At the altar of privatisation, public services and common goods have been sacrificed to shareholder interests and portfolio capital. Don’t these ‘by products’ of development create inequalities, injustices and discontents? Don’t they mark new social fault lines that too many of our so-called leaders can’t see because, and let’s not mince words, they’re fixated on the kinds of ethnic politics upon which they cut their teeth? The new inequalities that breed new insecurities are not simply ‘inter-ethnic’ ones as most of our politicians and ‘opinion leaders’ have it. Instead, we see inter-regional inequities – between our more highly developed states and less developed ones. We see intra-ethnic inequalities – between the rent-seekers and the ‘AP recipients’ and others, as the current intra-UMNO controversies suggest. We have seen over and over again federal-state inequalities caused by federal policies that discriminate against ‘opposition states’. Solving inequalities Our fourth point is thus a fundamental question: How do we solve these kinds of inequalities and injustices before they threaten ‘national unity’? Our politicians should answer that question with serious action. They should improve our federal system of government so that we don’t have an all-powerful centre that can penalise with impunity ‘peripheral states’ with financial deprivation, bureaucratic harassment, legal strictures and outright repression. Our politicians should cease to use the poverty of specific social groups as ammunition for ethnic championing. They should act to construct social safety nets, strengthen systems of public services and maintain welfare institutions. They should pay special attention to special needs and devise means-testing methods to match genuine need with demonstrated capability. Do out politicians honestly want ‘national unity’? If so, they should do all these in healthcare, employment, social security, land distribution, housing delivery, education at all levels, and so on. Otherwise, all their talk of ‘national unity’ is nothing but an enormous lie when placed alongside the discontents caused by deprivation, marginalisation and discrimination. For many years, our society has been trapped in a ‘clash of ethnicities’ paradigm. Ironically, because of that, we’ve developed a keen sensitivity to ethnic concerns that helps us to pre-empt misunderstandings and conflicts. For ordinary Malaysians, though, the pressing truth is: Solve the mundane problems of everyday life – the biggest part of life itself – through creative, decent and caring measures. And then most of the dreaded ‘sensitive issues’ will themselves be solved. For that to happen, at least three things are needed: one, a professional and competent bureaucracy that doesn’t hide behind the insincerity of ‘political masters’; two, a community of politicians who don’t take refuge in bureaucratic ineptitude or discrimination; and three, transparency in decision-making and fairness in policy implementation. Democracy against injustice Our final point is one about democracy and justice: Very simply, nothing is more subversive of ‘national unity’ than persistent injustice or anti-democratic rule. The ISA, OSA, SA, UUCA – all these must go. Nothing provokes more popular fury than a rule by law that represses and suppresses. No one here needs to be told in what esteem our administration of justice is held. A brief mention of two issues will indicate how urgently our administration of justice must adapt to changing times and conditions if it is to play a functional role in maintaining ‘national unity’. One issue concerns a trend of diverging jurisdictions. While there is no overt clash as such, already the legal community, NGOs and concerned individuals are unsettled by disputes and disputants making claims and counter-claims regarding the proper jurisdiction of civil law and syariah law. The second issue concerns the incarceration of alleged Muslim militants and extremists under the ISA. Everyone is aware of the terrible global situation in which Islam, Muslims, Muslim movements and Muslim nations find themselves. Abroad, our leaders urge others – and quite correctly so – to tackle the roots of Muslim disaffection and not resort to force. At home the same leaders, it would seem, refuse to tackle the roots of domestic Islamist discontent except by repression. Is there an ethical way to promote ‘national unity’ by throwing stones while we live in glass houses? Some people will respond to our views by saying we have nothing practical to offer. If there are practical matters on which our views are sought, we will be happy to offer them. For now, we believe that ‘contrarian views’ and unconventional perspective are much needed for a fresh framing of the issue of ‘national unity’. Please support our work by buying a copy of our print publication, Aliran Monthly, from your nearest news-stand. Better still take out a subscription now. If you prefer to read our web-based edition, please support our work and make a donation.
Now tell us what you think in fewer than 250 words. Your comments may be published in the Letters section of our print magazine, Aliran Monthly. | |||||||||||||||
Rapid and extensive capitalist transformation – even while it benefits some people immensely – invariably dislocates, disrupts, denies, dispossesses and disillusions many other people and many communities.
