CPI will be running a series of articles on the Theme -- Social Contract and National Unity, covering a wide spectrum of views to encourage Malaysians to think and share their views in an open and rational discourse. There have been certain quarters declaring that discussions on certain socalled "sensitive" issues affecting Malaysians should be conducted within "closed doors" only, whatever that means or implies. If a forum on conversion of Malaysians of one faith into another organised by the Bar Council could not be trusted to discuss issues of concern to Malaysians that affect their daily life, with certain parties gate-crashing the forum to bring it to an abrupt end, then we must pose this question -- ON AN ISSUE WHICH INVOLVES MANY LEGAL POINTS, IF THE BAR COUNCIL AND THE "VICTIMS" INVOLVED WERE NOT THE RIGHT AND PROPER ORGANISERS, SPEAKERS AND PARTICIPANTS, WHO WOULD THEN QUALIFY?
Do we leave national issues to be debated by the hawkers, taxi-drivers and medicine pedlars on the roadside or sidewalks on the one extreme, and just the politicians, partisan most times in segregated Government and Opposition party chambers and hotel suites, on the other extreme?
CPI welcomes rational discourse from all segments of society equipped with the medium/language to put their views and concerns as responsible Malaysians. I believe our country has reached a stage of development where the majority of her populace can appreciate opposing views well articulated, and capable of rebutting in a rational and civil manner without going after each other's jugular! After all, I believe Malaysians in general -- except for a minute lunatic fringe which exists in all countries worldwide -- are all concerned and care for the wellbeing of this country. To promote civil society through discourse and sharing, there is one starting premise all Malaysians must respect and accept -- that one Malaysian is as loyal and patriotic to NegaraKu as his/her neighbour/s, contrasting political viewpoints and affiliations notwithstanding.
Today the series on the Social Contract and National Unity flags off with three articles, one from former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad sourced from his blog, chedet.com; second from a Commentary by Azri Mohd Amin, published by theSun Online; and last but not least, from an undergraduate, John Lee Ming Keong (aged 19), and a YouthSpeak Coordinator at cpiasia.net.
CPI welcomes well articulated articles and feedback on this topic as the Themed Features will be a continually running series. ~~ YL Chong, Editor, CPI
Artcile #1:
RACIALISM
http://test.chedet.com/che_det/2008/09/racialism.html#more
By Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad
Posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at September 16, 2008 6:02 PM
1. When the Barisan Nasional did very badly in the last general election many observers inside and outside the country claimed that the Malaysian people of all races have rejected race-based politics.
2. The remarkable increase in the opposition Members of Parliament is said to be due to their representing the alternative to the race-based politics of the BN. How they can ignore the entirely Malay PAS and the overwhelmingly Chinese DAP I do not know. These are race based parties.
3. If indeed the people as a whole reject race-based parties as represented by the component parties of the BN, then they would reject PAS and DAP. And we should see an improvement in race relations.
4. But is there any improvement in race relations?
5. I may be wrong and certainly the leader of the Government will say I am wrong, but what I see today is more extreme racialism raising its ugly head.
6. The latest is the case of Dato Ahmad Ismail.
7. The furore caused by him, a minor figure in UMNO, is out of proportion to the issue itself. But because of poor handling by the UMNO big guns it has become an issue that can split asunder the BN itself.
8. Now we have the MCA and Gerakan threatening to leave the BN.
9. We can appreciate the need of the Chinese parties to regain support of the Chinese by showing their strong stand against UMNO. But the only result of this would be the antagonism of the Malays against the Chinese. If this goes on, if the Gerakan and MCA leaves BN because of what Ahmad Ismail said, then who gains? Obviously the opposition Pakatan would gain. The choice for Gerakan and MCA is either to join the opposition or to degenerate into insignificant parties which can never aspire to win enough seats to form a Government. The end result will be victory for the opposition.
10. Do we really think the opposition with parties like PAS, an entirely Malay party with its Islamic State vision and DAP with its predominantly Chinese base and secular politics can form a good Government? The Pakatan is not a properly constructed coalition like the BN. It is just a collection of disparate parties which come together in order to win elections by not contesting against each other.
11. I know that PAS and the DAP are not happy with Johnny-come-lately Keadilan and its leader Anwar Ibrahim. They don't want to be subservient to Keadilan or to have Anwar as their Prime Minister. They don't want Keadilan playing the role of UMNO in the Pakatan.
12. The result will be chaos for this country. There would be racial tension which may turn ugly.
13. What I notice is the unwillingness of the disenchanted Chinese parties in the BN to name the real culprit. Privately the Chinese, like the Malays would condemn the leadership of Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. But no one would openly say so. Instead as we can see UMNO is made the scapegoat.
14. Making UMNO the scapegoat is not going to improve race relations or improve the quality of the BN Government. Unless and until Dato Seri Abdullah is removed nothing that the Chinese parties and UMNO can do will help improve race relations or resuscitate the BN or improve the Government of the country.
15. I had said that instead of Dato Seri Najib apologising, UMNO should discipline Ahmad. His apology and its rejection by Gerakan simply angered the Malays. At the same time I don't think support for Gerakan and MCA would increase.
16. The BN leader should have called the parties concerned and persuade them not to use the race card. But the leader was too scared to face Ahmad Ismail one-to-one. Instead he resorted to the Internal Security Act (ISA) to prove that he is impartial. Now not only the Malays but the Chinese too will become more angry.
17. In my last article I have tried to reduce the anti-BN feeling. To me it is still a great coalition, still the best instituton in the multi-racial Malaysian politics.
18. The problem is incompetent leadership. You don't sink the ship because the captain is not handling it properly. You remove the captain.
19. I know the Chinese papers are calling me racist. I can deny it but they would not accept my denial. But good race relations in Malaysia is a must. Fighting between UMNO, MCA and Gerakan will only result in racial animosity and split BN. No one in the BN will gain.
20. UMNO, MCA and Gerakan leaders should try to heal the rift and help revive the BN.
21. However I must admit that this will be quite impossible if Abdullah still leads the BN and the Government. It is time that UMNO, MCA and Gerakan join together and force the resignation of Abdullah. Then and then only would we be able to revive the BN and perhaps restructure it. If not race relations will go from bad to worse and the whole country will suffer.
___________________________________
Article #2
Inter-racial dialogue and freedom of speech
http://sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=25735
by Azri Mohd Amin
Published by sun2surf.com
in EXTRA! :: Comment & Analysis
THERE have recently been innumerable public statements that we should stop discussing various subjects deemed inappropriate and dangerous.
Free speech cannot be legislated or regulated by such terminology as "responsible", "non-divisive" or "sensitive". The public relations effect of government officers attempting to forbid discussion of certain topics is dangerous and counter-productive because it only encourages people to rebel against control. Police especially should never be put in the position of enforcing notions of divisiveness or non-divisiveness without proper, detailed rules with review by competent authorities.
As Thomas Jefferson put it, government has no authority over the thoughts of the citizenry. It is only when such thoughts are expressed in actions deleterious to the public good – either by direct physical confrontation or "inciting" words which may probably result in such action – that government can take action. And to guarantee that this fundamental principle of free speech is secured, we must promote an effective and respectful network of communications among the major races and religions in this nation.
The definition of sedition has little meaning in a society in which so many thoughts and sayings are pronounced seditious by officials who may feel threatened by such talk; the word becomes political-speak for "you are dangerous to us and our established order". ISA detentions can be particularly destructive of public trust by the very virtue of this component.
Inter-faith dialogue in the service of "common cause" is always welcome to Muslims so long as it does not intrude upon matters of faith or rituals. This is because the differences between Islam and other religions, as for example glossed over by the principles of secularised Islam, are difficult to reconcile, but by discussion understanding evolves and respect for the beliefs of others grows.
Inter-racial dialogue, on the other hand, comes much closer to fulfilling the Qur’anic verse which explains creation of the different races and ethnic groups as a means of interest to each other and learning from one another, rather than confrontation. Malaysia must prove Samuel Huntington wrong in his thesis of "civilisational clash".
Nowadays, individual identity relates primarily to culture, whereas religious belief constantly crosses cultural lines. Therefore, dialogue among the cultures in Malaysia should be organised and promoted according to ethnicity rather than religiosity. We should have no shame in relating to others from the viewpoint of our culture, whereas inter-faith dialogue is much more difficult and must be approached more delicately and with both faith in your beliefs and openness to respect the faith of others.
The rules of courtesy should regulate our inter-ethnic relations precisely because almost no one can agree about the various priorities followed in the name of religion. If government does not wish to follow a policy of "forced assimilation", it must promote inter-racial dialogue at every opportunity, to avoid degeneration into religious conflict. It must also have a similar strategy on religious issues to encourage an understanding of this component of the different cultures. We do not interfere with each other’s religion, and we follow our Qur’anic admonition to approach each other with sincere interest, which especially implies full personal security. There is no other way to achieve civilised life.
The author is a Kuala Lumpur-based lawyer and the vice-president of Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia (Abim). The views expressed are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the institution to which he is affiliated. Comment: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Updated: 11:16PM Tue, 16 Sep 2008
__________________________________
Something Has Changed in Malaysian Politics
http://www.infernalramblings.com/articles/Malaysian_Politics/774/
Written by John Lee Ming Keong
Sept 16, 2008.
Immediately after the political tsunami of March 8, a number of Malaysians rejoiced at what they thought was a clear rejection of racial politics by the silent majority of the electorate. Others however feared that this was no systematic realignment in political attitudes towards race, but rather a simple rejection of government incompetence and corruption. Apparently believing this to be so, the ruling party has chosen to blast its racist rhetoric from the rooftops as a last-gasp attempt to reclaim its power; to denigrate and deny the basic rights of Malaysians who happen to be of a different race than them. But the events of the past two weeks, however, have proven beyond all doubt that something fundamental has changed in the political world — that racialism can no longer be the order of the day.
Before March 8, comments like Ahmad Ismail's were so common as to be unremarkable. The whole country was shocked in 2006 when the UMNO AGM was beamed live into their homes, revealing threats of violence from various leaders if they did not have their way. The infamous brandishing of the keris, the blatant disregard for the citizenship of non-Malays — all were on full display. And this was just the continuation of a fine tradition: this is how UMNO, especially its Youth Wing, has always conducted itself.
So when Ahmad Ismail told the audience at his ceramah in Permatang Pauh that the Chinese and other non-Malay communities in this country were little more than squatting foreigners, he was not expecting much, if any backlash. Maybe the DAP would kick up a little fuss, and maybe even some of the other opposition parties would follow suit. But at the worst, some Barisan Nasional component parties like MCA and Gerakan might merajuk sikit and take offense; Ahmad would just say he'd been quoted out of context, or was misunderstood, and they would let it slip by.
As we all know, that is exactly what did not happen: not only did the federal opposition Pakatan Rakyat lambast Ahmad's rhetoric, but MCA and Gerakan turned up the heat on Ahmad too. They did not just issue a statement and then maintain a stoic silence; their state divisions severed ties with UMNO Penang. In essence, Ahmad's comments — which previously were the norm for any UMNO leader — caused Barisan to completely collapse in Penang.
The whirlwind Ahmad stirred up had such an immense backlash that the Deputy Prime Minister himself was forced to give an unreserved apology on Ahmad's behalf, and state unqualifiedly that all Malaysians have a place in this country, as equal partners and stakeholders in its future. This is all the more ironic, considering that Najib Tun Razak has never apologised for threatening to bathe a keris in Chinese blood and supporting similar sentiments at the height of racial tension in the 1980s. A reversal of this nature has never, ever happened before in Malaysian politics.
And now, UMNO itself has been forced to act for once: it has suspended Ahmad's party membership for three years. While this is definitely little more than a slap on the wrist for someone who has destroyed the coalition in Penang, the fact that UMNO has taken any action at all is something; the last time a similar flap occurred, over very similar remarks made at the 2006 AGM, they simply declared that the leaders' rhetoric had been misunderstood and pronounced the whole matter resolved. For the first time, UMNO has actually had to disavow racism and actually punish party leaders who preach the ridiculous belief that some Malaysians have less of a right to be here than others.
This alone is proof enough that something very fundamental has changed in Malaysian politics. UMNO has been forced to alter tack, to shift its course. This could not, would not, should not have happened before March 8.
As tempting as it may be to attribute this shift to the wisdom of UMNO and Barisan, this also would not have happened if not for Pakatan. It is purely because of Pakatan's strength that MCA and Gerakan reacted the way they did; it is purely because Pakatan's agenda of multiracialism and a nation belonging to all resonated with the public so strongly that UMNO has had to reverse direction. Without a viable challenger to its own agenda, the UMNO/Barisan political farce would never have ended.
The ruling party still has a long way to go to heal its internal fractures and present a viable alternative to Pakatan's ketuanan rakyat. The Prime Minister's attempt to reshape ketuanan Melayu into a belief empowering the Malays to fend for themselves and to stand tall on their own, without falling into the trap of belittling or discriminating against other Malaysians, is admirable and commendable. But until Abdullah Badawi can silence the numerous UMNO men like Ahmad who persist in pushing the despicable notion that some Malaysians are innately superior and more entitled than others, until he can get Barisan united behind an ideology that puts Malaysians and Malaysia first, his party will not stand a chance against Pakatan in a fair and free election.
The simple fact is, something changed after March 8. I do not know what exactly that is; I cannot presume to know why things are different now. But the unmistakable reality is that one party's philosophy has been rendered obsolete, and another's has surged to the forefront of Malaysian politics. A strong blow may still set multiracial Malaysian politics back for decades. But in spite of this, it is inescapable: the people of Malaysia believe in a Malaysia where everyone belongs, and everyone has a place; a Malaysia where nobody is a pendatang or a penumpang, but everyone works together, bergotong-royong, to forge a better future for all of us in the only country we can call home.
