Keeping The Balance Pays Off

Keeping the balance pays off By Prof. Dr. Shamsul Amri Baharuddin Published in The Star (FOCUS: Thoughts for the 21st Century) 7th May 2000 (p.20). Both in the popular and academic idiom, Malaysia has been called “plural society”. It simply means Malaysia is a society where different ethnic group lives side by side in their separate enclaves and are involved in different economic activities but rarely interact except, literally, at the market place. Malaysia is instead a multi-ethnic society. It is one in which the different ethnic groups not only interact at the marketplace but in almost all avenues of social life. Malaysia’s multi-ethnic society therefore is characterized by an ever-present and ever-evolving pluralism, indeed positive and creative one. That pluralism is framed within a set of social structures that have evolved and instituted within the context of our social and natural history. For instance, there exist a range of social divisions within Malaysian society; ethnic, sub-ethnic, regional class, linguistic, gender, demographic and so on. Each has a positive and negative potential to contribute towards the maintenance of the country’s social stability. There is an obvious presence and co-existence of different societal forms - from the hunter-gatherer type found around the orang asli group to the post-modern corporate high society in urban Kuala Lumpur – indeed by an astonishing range by any standard. Such social structures are bound to create contradiction and tensions. It is no surprise that some describe the social condition in Malaysia as being in the “state of stable tension”. Perhaps it is useful to recount and reflect not only how we began as a plural society and evolve into a multi-ethnic society but also how a set of enduring values and strengths have come to underpin this successful transition. The plural society is the result of colonial construction, especially after the British imported indentured labor, since late 19th century, from south China and South India. That the major ethnic groups – Malay, Chinese and Indian – were able to survive within their own social and cultural spheres was the result of the British divide-andrule policy, which included administrative, educational, land and labor policies that ensured the ethnically-divisive pattern survived, thus safeguarding British economic and political interests. The British rule was not unchallenged. There were the nationalist, the trade unionist, and renegade colonial officers.

It, however, managed to keep a relatively peaceful and stable society through the implementation of coercion rules, discouraging the formation of across ethnic groups alliances, such as the multi-ethnic and multi-class trade unions, and pursuing a highly ethicized educational policy in the form of vernacular primary school system. It is within this important historical-conceptual development that we have to contextualise the bitter experience of the Second World War and the Japanese Occupation, an experience that forced the locals to rethink about the past and the future. For instance the indigenous and the immigrant population came to realise that the orang puteh (literally white man) was not invincible. The popular image was that the British army in armoured cars was humbled by the Japanese army on bicycles. Also, the pro-indigenous nationalist policy of the Japanese allowed some Malays, in a limited way, a taste of power and to have its own little political space. Many of the local Chinese were instead massacred by the Japanese who had just won the war in Manchuria. It was no surprise than that the British won the Chinese over to provide a strong anti-Japanese movement. The downside of the Japanese occupation on inter-ethnic relationship, especially of the Sino-Malay, was that it transformed the nature of the relationship from that of a “peaceful difference” to an “armed confrontation”. The latter erupted immediately after the Japanese surrendered to the British. Soon after the British imposed military rule in Malaya and it lasted until 1960, first as the British Military Administration and later the emergency 1948 – 1960. It was in the first 15 years (1945 – 1960) after the war that the plural society invented by the British was slowly reshaped, gradually moving towards multi-ethnic formation. This time for a different reason – largely economic but not entirely. The efforts at the Nation-Making in Malaysia began in earnest through an endless series of bargaining between the different ethnic groups in Malaysia. In 1948, the federation of Malaya Agreement was instituted which became the future basis of Malaysia’s enduring political framework, that is, federalism. The 3 central key features of the reinvention of Malaysia’s plural society and its subsequent transformation into a multi-ethnic nation-state were ethnic bargaining, development planning, and security. The introduction of modern electoral politics, where ethnic based parties were allowed to be formed and to contest in open, democratic elections but as coalition partners, was the central pillar of the “ethnic bargaining” process. The subsequent successfully drawing-up of the Constitution of post-colonial Malaysia was indeed the most significant outcome of the bargain.

Indeed; the Malaysian Constitution, with all his imperfections, has been perceived popularly by many as the “social-contract” that binds all the social groups. In the economic sphere, the British launched the first five-year plan, the Draft Development 1950-1955, not only as an effort to organize and control public spending and resource allocation but also as a platform where an economic bargain between the ethnic communities could be struck in the most amicable way. To ensure economic stability, security became critical. The emergency in the 1948 – 1960 set the standards. Many rules and regulations were introduced. The introduction of the identity card, the Internal Security Act and other rules were originally meant to safeguard national security. But it is also obvious to everyone that the meaning of national security could be redefined by the powers-that-be. Nonetheless, these three key elements – ethnic bargaining, development planning and security – became the enduring values and strengths as well as basis of the framework for multi-ethnic Malaysia. The stiffest test to this framework happened during the May 1969 riots in Kuala Lumpur. The contents of the three key elements were reconstituted once again. For instance the National Consultative Council with multi-ethnic representation was immediately formed after the riot. The Rukunegara, an official ideology of national unity, was also created as a guide for all Malaysians. The Pro-Malay affirmative action policy called the New Economic Policy (1971-1990) was introduced to bridge the economic gap between the bumiputera and the nonbumi-bumiputera. The NEP has largely been a success even though not everyone was pleased, especially when Malaysia was hit by the economic crisis in the mid 1980s, which led to the reorientation of the economy from that of agriculture dependent to industrialization-driven. This work well for Malaysian for nearly a decade when it experienced an annual 8+% growth rate, This occurred within the framework of the new National Development Plan (NDP), introduced in 1991, that replaced the NEP. Prior to the NDP’s introduction, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, launched in 1991, arguably, the most innovative ever strategy towards fostering national unity. It was “Vision 2020”, in which he stated that the creation of a “united Malaysian nation”, or Bangsa Malaysia, is a pre-requisite to Malaysia’s ambition of becoming a developed, industrial nation by 2020. When the world financial crisis struck Malaysia in July 1997, the Government formed a National Economic Action Council consisting of representatives from the public

and private sector as well as the different ethnic communities. The bargaining, as a form of regrouping, took place almost immediately. It is quite clear from the above that Malaysians, especially those in the Government, have consistently resorted to ethnic bargaining, development planning and the application of “appropriate” security measures both in times of crisis and peace. This has allowed Social contradictions, both open and latent, engendered by ethnic and other sources of differences to be resolved as amicably as possible. But this does not stop Malaysians and foreigners alike to adopt either an “alarmist” perspective or a “consensus” approach in the way the view Malaysian Multi-ethnic Society. For the alarmist, Malaysia is always viewed as facing an impending breakdown of inter-ethnic relations. But those adopting the consensus approach, believe in a “moving social equilibrium”, concept, namely, that if any social, particularly ethnic, disequilibrium were to happen in Malaysia, it will be followed immediately by a new equilibrium. Unlike the experience in Sri Lanka, the former Yugoslavia and Kosovo, ethnicity or ethnic difference is not anti-thetical to nation-formation and national consensus as the Malaysian case has amply demonstrated. Irrespective of which side of the fence one belongs, one has to agree that the unusually fast tempo of open political activism in recent months has had a tremendous “conscientisation” effect on Malaysian psyche. Malaysians are now confident that they can demand change without risking ethnic strife. They also know that enough pressure can make the Government compromise. Malaysians are now using the electoral process to bargain peacefully. It is obvious that the strength of Malaysian Multi-ethnic society lies its creative ability to survive a “negotiated existence”, transforming in a conscious manner a contradiction to consensus through a peaceful and a civilised effort conducted at all levels of society. Perhaps that is why some have come to describe Malaysia as “bolehland”, in this context defined in a non-pejorative manner.