MUMBAI, India: Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim said Friday he would have enough support to topple Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's government by September.
Anwar told reporters that his People's Justice Party needed just 30 members to gain a simple majority in parliament. His party controls 82 seats in the legislature.
"By our calculation, we should move before Sept. 16," he said during his visit to Mumbai, India's financial and entertainment capital, for a lecture series on "Human Rights Awareness."
The date is significant as his country celebrates Sept. 16 as "Malaysia Day" — commemorating the establishment of the Malaysian federation in 1963 by joining the provinces of Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak.
Although Anwar has made such claims several times in the past, Friday was the first time he has given a specific timeframe to try to pull down the government.
He was ousted from government in 1998 by then-Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad in a power struggle amid accusations of corruption and sodomy. Anwar denied the charges, which he said were trumped up.
The sodomy charge was later overturned, but he served prison time after being convicted of corruption.
The corruption charge prevented him from holding public office until April 14, 2008, which meant he could not contest the March 8 general elections.
A record 82 opposition members from a three-party alliance led by Anwar were elected to the 222-member lower house in the elections. This shook the ruling National Front's grip on governance for the first time in 40 years.
Anwar said last month that it won't be long before he is elected a lawmaker in a by-election.
"We have enough numbers now. But we want the transition to be peaceful and democratic," he said Friday.
He has said any government he forms will change Malaysia's system of promoting majority ethnic Malays — Anwar himself is Malay — in government contracts, jobs and education over ethnic Chinese and Indian Malaysians.
"Many ruling party members of parliament know that the time for racial politics is over," said Anwar, adding that he was confident that governing party members would defect to his side.
RMS Titanic: They all said she was unsinkable. But when she sank, it was unthinkable*.
Anyway, what do you do when your ship is sinking? You jump ship. No two ways about it and we seamen have no qualms about this especially if it is for the common good. So likewise if any particular 'unsinkable' SOS (Ship of Shame) is set to founder, then why not indeed. A sea captain would encourage his men to abandon ship, even to clamber aboard the enemy's if it is a matter of personal survival and after taking everyones' interests at heart. This is also the most practical thing to do and he doesn't really need to go down with his ship ... thats simply passé these days.
Morality? Integrity?
Dammit sirs, don't patronise me.
(Read Once the defections start, there's no stopping in today's theSun, here)
*This reminds me of the joke about the doctor who had his stethoscope on a young girl's chest when he said,"Big breaths, now".
The second of the Essay Series on the Featured Theme focuses on the thoughts of one of CPI's directors, Dr Azly Rahman, whose writings as a columnist under "Illuminations" have been well read and discussed via Malaysia Today and malaysiakini.com. The second article is a rare opportunity to read an English translation of from a vernacular press article in Chinese; and finally, a piece by political commentator Khoo Kay Peng. ~~ YL Chong, Editor, CPI
This sounds like a good idea; but after 51 years of independence?
We should have had this act to prevent the emergence of race-based parties and to ensure that all citizens be given equal opportunity and the rights and privileges accorded to them as a result of surrendering their natural rights to the state.
After 51 years of the institutionalisation of ethnocentrism and many times outright racism in terms of allocation of resources, open-secret indoctrinations, and the exploitation of racial and religious issues for political gain, we are now proposing an act to improve race-relations?
I am now puzzled – by the inherent contradictions we are confronting and will continue to confront vis-à-vis this proposed act.
Questions abound
Since the government had asked citizens like me to make suggestions and seek clarification concerning this proposed act, I have the following questions:
How will we judge the existing race-based parties that live and breathe on racial sentimentality to the point of being seditious in their pursuit of hegemony?
How will this act be used against governmental institutions such as the Biro Tata Negara whose livelihood has historically been based upon making sure that the damaging ideology of Malay (Pseudo) supremacy will forever prevail?
How will this act be used against public-funded educational institutions that promote "Ketuanan Melayu" which is clearly antithetical to our will to teach multi-racial understanding?
How many members of Parliament will be arrested under the Race Relations Act based on the nature of speeches they had given?
How many teachers and public servants will be investigated for using their position to deny their students and clients respectively the rights to be treated equally before the Constitution - rights accorded regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, color, creed, and religious orientation?
How many years of the possibility of multicultural education and intercultural understanding have we lost as a consequence of not having a Race Relations Act way back on Sept 16, 1963 during the formation of Malaysia?
How many racist policymakers in governmental and non-governmental sectors have we produced as a result of no Race Relations Act?
How many racist youth party leaders have we given birth to and how many can we afford to see "cloned" and "artificially inseminated" as a result of the absence of any act that erases racism and curbs arrogance and greed?
How will this proposed act, if passed, abolish the Internal Security Act that has been used to crush amongst others, those who oppose race-based policies and fight for racial and social justice?
How will this act allow for the passage of a new brand of politics – one that sees a truly multiracial party ruling the country and implementing policies based on the philosophy of equality, equal opportunity, excellence and empathy?
We are proposing this act at a time when we arrest our citizens for no good reason and no trial, using the instrument of oppression no longer suitable for an ultra and hyper-modern society such as ours.
We are proposing this out of desperation and out of sync with the mass sentiment of the day; at a time when the Berlin Wall of our Balkanized race relations is crumbling by the day, each brick in the wall ripped off by the power of the digital tsunami.
We are hearing this proposal coming from a race-based coalition government that wants to ensure that the divide and conquer and sub-divide and sub-conquer policies of British colonialism prevail in the filter-funneled minds of our little brown brothers and sisters.
The need to go deeper
Perhaps what we need is not another act to add to the ambivalence of acts such as The University and University Colleges and the Internal Security Acts but to go deeper into our public institutions and ask why we have not progressed much in race relations after all these decades.
We should investigate further how the New Economic Policy itself as a grand Stalinist-inspired programme of national development has contributed not only to the deterioration of race relations but has cemented racism in newer forms – both subtle and open.
We should investigate how the topic race relations has been taught in our community centers, schools, universities, and other public institutions to see what goes into the mind of our citizens by way of schooling, indoctrination, training, and education – to see what went wrong and what is still not right.
We should examine governmental policies and see if we indeed uncover practices that promote equality, equal opportunity, and empathy in place; policies that ought to have improved race relations, inclusionary, and integrate rather than disintegrate the different races.
This will be a mind-boggling noble proposal for us to contribute ideas. Do we need a new act? Or will a new government with a brand new ideology suffice?
But as peace and justice-loving Malaysians, let us offer constructive ideas to this proposed act.
Let us propose that only a truly multiracial party that has the will, motivation, intelligence and the set of acquired skills should be given the mandate to implement a Race Relations Act. Any communal-based party is too much a contradiction to put their act together on this one.
*****************************************
Article #2
Race Relations Cannot Be Legislated Written by LIM SUE GOAN, Sin Chew Daily
Posted by St Low, malaysia-today.net Tuesday, 23 September 2008 16:44
Other than Umno's power transition plan and Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's plan to topple the govenrment, another current hot topic would be to amend or repeal the Internal Security Act (ISA), as well as to draw up a Race Relations Act.
The 8 March general elections brought a heavy blow to the turliong party and one of the positive changes is that many politicians and political parties have suddenly become more conscious. They are beginning to firmly opposed undemocratic laws, unlike the Bar Council which has been opposing the ISA alone for over 20 years.
ISA has been in existence since the British colonial era but some politicians only found recently that the act is undemocratic and it violates human rights. Meanwhile, there are still some who do not think there are any problem with the act but only the implementation method should be questioned.
"Fair attitude is much better than a Race Relations Act."
Even more ironically, the government suddenly discovered that there's something amiss with our race relations after 51 years of independence. They are trying to draw up an act to stipulate what should not be said. Would race relations improve just by drawing up a new law?
In fact, the people's thinking and values are more important than an act. Even if an undemocratic act exists, people with modern thinking would not simply use or abuse the act.
Therefore, political leaders and officials at all levels should understand what is meant by universal values, particularly human rights, democracy and the concept of fairness. They must know that all detainees have the right to defence in court and no violence should be involved in any police investigation.
As long as government policy makers and administrators have the idea of fairness, naturally they will be fairer in setting up policies. This can avoid racial suspicion. Fair attitude is much better than a Race Relations Act.
Similarly, if politicians are open-minded and bear in mind that their responsibility is to act fairly, there would be no racial element in their words and deeds. No dispute would be triggered off then.
The Constitution of Malaysia has been amended for several times but most importantly, those who implement the laws should be open-minded in order to correctly and effectively enforce the law.
Inapropriate acts should be amended or repealed while outdated thinking must be corrected. It would be easier to amend inapropriate acts but it is difficult to correct human thought.
(By LIM SUE GOAN/ Translated by SOONG PHUI JEE/ Sin Chew Daily)
**********************************
Article #3
UMNO-PAS Dialogue for National Unity?
By Khoo Kay Peng
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Non-Muslims should not fear the Umno-PAS muzakarah (dialogue) because the talks will help to lead to national unity and stability, Umno supreme council member Mohd Shafie Apdal said.
Shafie said sensitive issues on religion and race should be resolved, or the people would continue to face conflicts, which in turn would cause security problems.
"If the talks can be seen as an avenue to seek solutions, I don't see why they cannot continue.
"As a minister in charge of unity, I welcome (such talks)," he added.
If he is speaking in his capacity as a minister, Shafie Apdal should be immediately sacked for making this statement.
In Malaysiakini.com, PAS Shah Alam MP Khalid Samad Khalid (right) claimed that the meeting was coloured with a racial agenda - to halt the predominantly Chinese DAP from making inroads into the Selangor government.
He said Umno wanted to work with PAS to stop DAP from securing positions in the state’s executive council.
Khir Toyo's allegations were stunning and revealed to us the hidden face of ugly communalism which will stunt instead of enhance national unity. He said:
As long as Anwar is important in Pakatan Rakyat the muzakarah will not succeed. Anwar does not want to see Malays unite and that is why he formed Pakatan that thrives on the ideals of equality to the extent of elevating other religions on the same par as the primary religion in this country, Islam," he added.
Khir said this was proven by the fact that Anwar was being supported by 'extremist' Chinese and Indians via opposition party DAP and the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf).
In the last general election, DAP secured nearly 65-70 percent of support from Chinese Malaysians. DAP got the support not because it projected an extremist image or promoted an extreme communal agenda. Khir has branded these Chinese Malaysians as extremists. His call is just a mirror image of himself. Nearly 65 percent of Indian votes went to the opposition.
It was on the contrary. As an election observer in Penang, I was quite impressed with the party's diversion from Chinese centric issues to champion nearly Malaysian causes such as good governance, accountability and transparency.
Barisan Nasional was rejected precisely for its role in promoting and practicing racist policies.
With such an ill intent revealed, Shafie Apdal must be mad to suggest that the dialogue is seeking to promote national unity. National unity based on the acceptance of racial dominance is not the right approach for Malaysians. How can the non-Malays be not worried when most of them are being termed as extremists?
As such, all Malaysians who are against racism must reject any dialogue which seeks to promote narrow communal interest.
The political maneuvers between PR and BN are still very active despite the result of recent election. The hot topic is on the BN members of parliament jumping ship to PR. The hottest state under speculation is Sabah, maybe due to its past records on changing alliances. Actually BN has a firm grip of that state winning almost 100% but then why this fragile loyalty. In fact most of key leaders from Sabah have started speaking their mind reminding their needs and expectations such as:
a) preservation of village reserves and Native Customary Right land. b) abolishment of refugee settlements and establishments of a Royal Commission of Inquiry to investigate alleged issuance of identity cards to illegal immigrants. c) development of basic infrastructures such as roads, electricity and treated water supply, especially in rural areas. d) better representation of Sabah leaders at the federal level. e) fairer returns for Sabah from the federal agencies in government linked companies. f) abolishing the cooking oil subsidy scheme, which burdens oil palm planters. g) abolishment of State Federal Development Department, set up to monitor disbursement of federal funds when Sabah was under the opposition PBS Government h) priority to local Sabahans for top government positions instead of officers from Peninsular Malaysia. i) more systematic development of schools, sufficient primary and secondary teachers especially in rural areas. j) a solution to high cost of freight charges for goods imported into Sabah from Port Klang.
Most of the request above look reasonable and implementable but then action to address the issues must be slow resulting in all main stream and alternative medias covering it and Sabah MPs raising the same issues in parliament.
Although to get all the Sabah MPs changing alliances is almost impossible but if majority of them choose to change camp it will start the ball rolling for other MPs to follow suit. Pak Lah has no choice but to take early effective action to avoid the storm and move the ship to safe quadrant. Failing which the ship will enter the “calm area??? which is the eye of the storm before all hell break loose.
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
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.
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.
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.
We should have had this act to prevent the emergence of race-based parties and to ensure that all citizens be given equal opportunity and the rights and privileges accorded to them as a result of surrendering their natural rights to the state.