How can one rightfully claim 'Ketuanan Melayu'?

How can one rightfully claim ‘Ketuanan Melayu’?
An opinion on Ibnu Hakeem’s, “Melayu mesti kusai Gerakan dan DAP.”

The volatility of politics in Malaysia is well known due to the nature of our multiracial society. Our progress over the years, have certainly been tremendous. Yet the biggest flaw of the political institutions of our country is their failing to acknowledge and/or adequately address the silently growing rumblings of inter-ethnic tensions. Whilst many politicians often flirt with this issue, it is more often dismissed before any formal deliberation even shapes, on the grounds of sensitivity. The struggle to openly discuss inter-ethnic tensions and inequality has now lead to our inability to unite Malaysians as a single entity, thereby strengthening calls for new political thought and approaches that potentially offers a quick solution to these problems. But for a unique Malaysia, no simple pragmatic traditional approaches seem plausible. Instead what we need is bold ‘out-of-the-box’ ideas, lateral thinking from various perspectives and collectively derive a formula that will be irresistible to all.

Ibnu Hakeem’s piece certainly fit the criteria save one – it does not appeal to the non-Malays. Hakeem’s primary argument in this piece revolves around how Malays can claim ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ by gaining absolute political dominance by diluting the non-Malay political representation and wresting economic dominance away from the Chinese. His arguments on Malay supremacy are contentiously justified, but the failure to address how the political and economic interest of the non-Malays will be safeguarded, reek a raw audacity of racism from the author; and similarly from some of the discussion comments posted in response to his piece.

(N.B However, I am quick to add a word of caution, that I am naïve to Hakeem’s previous works and writings. Therefore it would be hugely unfair to sum up or form any judgement on his political ideas and thoughts purely based on this one article. Therefore I remind readers that my essay is strictly restricted and limited to drawing on opinions and criticism which is solely based on the article quoted above which may (or may not) represent a chunk of a larger picture.)

The idea presented by the author, of a multiracial political party (e.g. participation of Malays in predominantly non-Malay parties) is what ideals of our country such as Dato’ Onn Jaafar often preached. Nevertheless, the reasoning behind the author's argument is fundamentally wrong - to dilute any form non-Malays political representation to allow the majority Malays to gain absolute political power.

It is easy to understand from the Malay perspective, their ideas on 'Ketuanan Melayu'. As 'sons-of-the-soil' (bumiputera) and the ethnic majority, surely one would expect them to resist any attempt of marginalization on their own land in terms of ruling authority and socio-economical demographics. Hakeem implies that the future of Malaysia lies in the ability of the Malays to secure economical power ahead of the Chinese, and if otherwise mounting racial tensions arising from inequality would render the country defenceless against external powers.

The Jakarta riot in May 1998 may not provide the perfect analogy, but suggests that even in recent times; we can often underestimate the danger from silently accumulating racial tensions. But surely first we must acknowledge that the greatest threat to our resilience against foreign powers does not come externally, but from within our fundamentally flawed policies.

The author claims that the Chinese have deservedly staked a greater claim in economic power due to their own diligence and hardworking efforts. Official government statistics have demonstrated that the national equity holdings of the Chinese population have remained fairly stable and constant in proportion to their population relative to the total population of Malaysia; whilst the national equity holdings of the Malay population have constantly and significantly increased although still below the predicted targets and proportionally to their population relative to the total population.

(N.B The Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute (ASLI) released a report in October 2006 claiming that the national equity holdings of the Malay population was actually significantly higher that the official statistics, but with pressures from various parties, the research has subsequently been withdrawn with the reason provided that the researcher had erred in his methods.)

Bear in mind this is the an end product of (or rather despite) the NEP (National Economic Plan, also known as DEB – ‘dasar ekonomi baru’) which has lead birth to positive discriminatory policies against the non-Malays in effort to boost and encourage the Malay populations’ participation in various projects, contracts, business, scholarships, government and corporate positions, etc. with a higher chance of success via eliminating competition from non-Malays. This in return had undesired reciprocal effects which lead to the stiff competition amongst the non-Malays for a much severely limited economic niche and consequently has lead to markedly increased standards in performance of non-Malays relative to the Malays who in Hakeem’s own words are described as ‘lebih relaks’ (more relaxed).

Hakeem’s proposition of Malays gaining economic power by diluting the non-Malay political representation and creating a competitive environment for the Malays for the benefits of the Malays shows little tolerance and sensitivity towards the various ethnic minority groups in Malaysia. To wrest economic power by political dominance is unnecessary and will only be perceive by non-Malays as a threat to extinguish their representation and rights. He has failed to represent in any way the interest of any non-Malay groups and failed to address any of the issues and problems that non-Malays face in the current system. Surely we must acknowledge the non-Malays contribution to the development, progress and identity of the Malaysia that exists today.

But does Malaysia have space for non-Malays within ‘Ketuanan Melayu’? The answer for this vital question still remains elusive.

The Malays must surely understand that the Chinese and Indians are no longer coolies who send their earnings back to China or India. For most (in not all) of the present generation of non-Malays, everything they possess lies in Malaysia; family, friends, wealth and most importantly loyalty towards country. Hakeem’s radical political thoughts may be an echo of a significant proportion of Malays who have collectively failed to understand is that the non-Malays have no such ill intentions of sidelining the Malays in terms of ruling and economic power and in all honesty, are simply looking to achieve simple rights which have been both explicitly and implicitly denied to them; a violation of an individual's rights as citizens that has been denied simply due to ethnicity.

The alliance between UMNO-MCA-MIC to form ‘Parti Perikatan’ paved the way for our independence from the British. It served as a testament to prove that the Malays and the non-Malays could work together to disprove the theory that the British had held against granting us our independence. Dato’ Onn Jaafar had previously sought to incorporate non-Malays into UMNO which even preceded any effort towards gaining independence. He truly was a great visionary whose extraordinary ideas were beyond the grasp and understanding of his peers in his days. Eventually it was the alliance of UMNO-MCA-MIC that won us our independence despite its numerous inadequacies and shortcomings. Although the alliance has grown in numbers and strength through the decades, ultimately it has failed in integrating the Malays and non-Malays. As much as I refuse to even contemplate that perhaps our independence was premature and that the British were right in their concerns on our efforts to integrate, it is impossible to ignore the gap that exists between the various ethnic groups in Malaysia.

The positive discrimination policies in favour of the Malays are the price the non-Malays paid to be a part of Malaysia; a symbiotic relationship which allowed the Malays and non-Malays to unite comfortably in the 1950’s. This symbiotic relationship is less clear now to the present generation where the effects of the memoirs of our forefathers from the struggling days of independence are gradually fading. Perhaps we are forgetting that the positive discrimination policies were set in place to prevent racial tensions by preserving Malay rights. But have the tides turned, and are these policies the root of the racial tensions between the Malays and the non-Malays? This paradox is a classic case of ‘cause or effect?’ argument which is tied to the racial politics that has become the backbone of various parties in Malaysia. But is anyone willing to open Pandora’s Box to find out?

The solution lies in, as suggested by the author, a multiracial political party, not however to dilute the political representation of non-Malays, but to truly generate a brand of Malaysians indistinguishable by ethnicity.

Our 50 year history has demonstrated that positive discrimination policies based on ethnicity have failed to correct racial inequalities. Whilst these policies help the Malays secure, in short term greater economic power, in the long term it will ultimately only succeed in increasing the social divide between the Malays who can access and take advantage of these policies and those who are unable to, whilst the middle class will ultimately linger in complacency accepting whatever that comes their way. Improving access to these policies will help ease these inequalities amongst the Malays, but will leave the non-Malays in an even smaller niche to operate within, and as discussed earlier will generate a more competitive environment relative to the Malays and eventually lead to the very disparity between the ethnic groups that we had hoped to abolish.

Therefore it surprises me that these methods are still advocated and in line with the racial politics played by various parties to garner votes from their ill advised audience. The only way forward is to gradually drop these policies and allow these inequalities to balance out naturally. It is vital to clarify at this point that this should be not perceived as an attempt to question the treatment that the Malays receive as ‘bumiputera’, but a genuine attempt to correct the consequences of failed policies that have created racial tensions without much success at reducing inequalities.

Although these policies were meant to protect ‘Ketuanan Melayu’, it subconsciously has instilled a feeling or even a fear amongst some Malays that they are unable to compete on equal terms with non-Malays. Withdrawing these policies abruptly is not an option, as it will leave the Malays sharply exposed to the harsh reality of disparity in standards and competition that comes on a level playing field. The protection the Malays have received over the years through these policies will leave them ill prepared for any such rash move and will have devastating consequences similar to what was experienced on May 13, 1969, as Hakeem rightly observed.

However, gradually weaning the level of protection they receive through these policies will slowly but surely enable the Malays to achieve higher standards via working against greater competition and adversity. As the momentum gains, this will remove all barriers including racial ones and create a level platform on which Malays can compete with non-Malays, and I believe successfully too. It repercussions will be great in generating a wave of confidence amongst Malays in their own abilities to engage the non-Malays successfully. As for the non-Malays, they will surely embrace a non-discrimination policy that they have so dearly longed for. However, there is no doubt that this process will be painfully and treacherously long.

Surely then, no one can deny the Malays rightful claim of ‘Ketuanan Melayu’; and it is acceptable to the non-Malays too.