The issue of Local Government Election is often dealt lightly in the eyes of many young voters. Possible answer for that repercussion is that the Gen-X and Gen-Y Malaysian has never heard about Local Government Election. This is because all local government elections had been entirely abolished since July 1972.  The democratic rights to chose and elect your local authority of the three tier government structure in Malaysia has been denied for nearly forty years. Talk about “Rakyat Didahulukan”, the basic grass roots level of democratic process is denied. Paraphrasing the words of our Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak – fearing that the “over-focus” on the political process will hamper the aim to improve services to the people; it is a debatable statement and should not be seen as a valid and justifiable excuse.

In connection to that, there is a possibility that his statement on 9^th of March 2010 may influence the EC’s announcement today, but that is only an assumption. Bearing in mind, although he (Chairman Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof)  is appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, it has been argued that under Article 40 of the Constitution, the King cannot act on his own discretion unless explicitly stated; in all other cases, he must acquiesce to the advice of the Prime Minister, and as such the appointments to the Commission are made with the advice of the Prime Minister. Is his job at stake? Or is he merely deciding on this matter in accordance to the Local Government Act 1976 – that’s another assumption.

The Penang and Selangor Government can only push the matter this far and further demand for this Local Government Act 1976 to be amended is pointless and a waste of time. Datuk Kalakau Untol made it very clear in his speech at Stadium Melawati, Shah Alam during Pakatan Rakyat Selangor’s March 8 Anniversary. He said that there’s a lot of limitation for the opposition to make Malaysia a better nation. The only way is through the Federal Government. The real authority is in the hands of the citizens in the next election and not in the hands of Tan Sri Abdul Aziz.

This is not the first time such request was made. The world thought after the fall of the iron curtain, Malaysia would be more forgiving. Now that Malaysia’s diplomatic relationship with Russia (military weapons and Space deals) and China (contributing $39.06 billion in trade) is  encouraging and growing,  we would believe that Malaysia had forgiven the communist.

The local media, upon receiving the news of Chin Peng’s request, produced a bias opinion of the matter. It is more likely an opinion by the ruling political party and never the opinion of the masses. The issue is not about the communist, or the idea of communism anymore. It had become a personal issue against Chin Peng and nothing else. The decision to disallow Chin Peng return to Malaysia was portrayed as a victorious triumph.

Paid his dues. Don't you think it's time to forgive?

In my opinion the ability to forgive Chin Peng’s wrong doing is the most victorious and bravest act.

P.S: the news the other day interviewed a Malaysian soldier who lost his leg while fighting against the communist during the emergency period. With tears and sad music in the background of the interview, he insisted on not letting Chin Peng come back for he had done too many things that angered him and the nation.

If I were there, I would like to ask him… “You’re about 70years old right? Don’t tell me you want to take this anger of yours to your grave?? Let it go… die in peace tok.”

The significance of a Local Government Election is clear as it is a system which accommodates and totally reliable to the local residents. Gerry Stoker states that ‘The Local Government and democracy is especially attractive because it involves a decentralization of power and the opportunity to use local knowledge to meet local needs. (Prachett & Wilson 1996:188) It is logically better and effective in determining the needs of the people as well as a very assuring thing by the local towards the elected councilor. In addition to that, as Colin Rallings,Michael Temple & Michael Thrasher  state in their essay “Participation in Local Elections” state that ‘Without voters who could identify and recognize the community of interest in the new administrative boundaries the idea of local democracy would be a sham.’ (Prachett & Wilson 1996:62)

By having a Local Election, transparency is assured. In contrast with a appointed local councilor, the appointed may be deem to so many negative speculations. Opposition party and also the people cannot help but be skeptical in the appointed councilor. Therefore, Local Election promises openness and diminishes corruptions.  Gerry Stoker on the openness of Local Governance: The crucial value of good governance is that the system is open, has low barriers to the expression of dissent and limits the disadvantages of the poorly organized and resourced. (Prachett & Wilson 1996:195)

Last but not least, a local election gives the local voters an upper and important hand in ensuring the urban development and maintenance without any heavy responsibility or repercussion. Even if there’s any, the local voters can change the councilor in the next local election. As how Anne Phillips also stated; The great advantage of representative democracy is that elections put the voters on a potential footing, for they make no excessive demands on the citizens’ energy time. (Prachett & Wilson 1996:28)

Democracy and Electoral System is Malaysia’s Administration Foundation.

On February 1952, the first election was held in Kuala Lumpur which marked the first step towards Malaysia’s independence and Nation-building process. That important and historical event confirms Malaysia’s establishment on a firm foundation of a democratic process since from the very beginning. It comes to prove that Democracy and the electoral process are inseparatable element in Malaysia. In support of this, Anne Philips suggests that: I have suggested that the case for local democracy depends heavily on its role in extending and enhancing democracy, and that this is the cornerstone on which to erect arguments for local democracy. (Prachett & Wilson 1996:27)

Therefore in all areas of political authoritization which bears a certain degree of responsibility and power towards the masses should be elected by the people and not appointed. It should at least start at the lowest of the three tier government structure which is seen as the foundation of the Nation.

Bibliography

Pratchett, L. (ed) & Wilson, D. (ed). 1996. Local Democracy and Local Government. Hong Kong. Macmillan Press Ltd.

Reading through some of the works Farish A. Noor and Zawiah Yahya had revealed to most of us the importance of knowing the deeds of the subalterns. Malaysian had got enough stories of the bureaucrats and the bourgeois or even stories of the dominant race. It is not implying the suggestion that the current facts in the mainstream history are false or not important; but an urge and a plea to expand and include other historical facts without political biasness.

So, do we have a “Soe Hok Gie” in Malaysia? We do. People like Lim Kean Chye, Yahya Nassim, Hashim Said, Zainuddin Andika and Majid Salleh are the “Soe Hok Gie” of Malaysia. They fought against giants like how Gie fought against Sukarno. Talk about fighting the giants, the name of Abdullah C.D and Chin Peng must be mention as well.

Without a constant revisioning on the history of Malaysia, our nation will be a pretty unimaginative place.

Nationalism has always been regarded as a solid foundation and a concrete representation. But in truth, it is the most fluid idea. Now, the concept of imagined communities will coincide with this argument as it matches the idea that a nation (which made up of many people) is bind together on the basis of imagination.

He then claims that Nationalism is basically a way of thinking and looking at the world. I personally find this connection to be very informative and refreshing as well. If I may use an analogy, how we view and feel about other nations around us depends mostly upon the lens we use to see things, and that lens is the nationalistic value we subscribed upon. Nationalism is indeed a tool which harbors ethnocentricism.

Borrowing some of the points from his famous book “The Imagined Communities” with some of his personal observation on Asia, this is what he finds about the uniqueness of Asia Nationalism:

1. Creole Nationalism

-          Champions the concept egalitarian administration. It demands equality and rejects monarchy, feudalism, dictatorship and etc…

2. Linguistic Nationalism

-          A nationalism based on Culture and identity. It stresses the need to restore national culture through the development of local culture. Focus on common values for national unity.

3. Official Nationalism

-          A strategy to maintain authority and power over a nation.

-          Officialized or nationalized something to maintain power.

4. Anti-Colonial Nationalism

-          Boast about ancient empires. If don’t have, create one.

-          Always use anti-colonial heroes to boost nationalistic feelings.

5. Long Distance Nationalism

-          Now with advance communication Technology, nationalism can be practice even though one is not in the country.

Prof. Dr. Benedict Anderson did not clarify whether the Asia’s nationalism he describes above are in its chronological order (as in did every Asian Nation went through all these Nationalism before it becomes what it is today). However, one thing can be said for sure is that Malaysia does have some of the characteristic mention above  through out its 52 years of existence.

Therefore, the representation of the middle class must be considered as it holds a better and a more realistic view on Malaysian society. Unlike the representation of the bureaucrats’ defined society which often represses the ugliness of the society, a representation by the middle class would allow observers to have a refreshing and an alternative opinion about Malaysia which then may counter the beliefs of a perfect Malaysian society.

The documentation of Malaysian society had consistently been written about ever since literary art exist in Malaysia. Most writers emerge from the middle class level. This somehow may support the idea that their views and understanding of Malaysian society are first hand encountered experience; hence a more reliable source of social reality. The authors view and definition of Malaysian society should be viewed as a genuine social reality because authors tend to describe vividly the society they are in and discard censorship while depicting the society they see. The term for this is the Author-defined Social reality, by Raihanah Mydin, derives from Prof Datuk Dr Shamsul Amri Baharuddin’s term The Everyday-defined social reality. Author-defined Social reality is used to refer to Malaysian writers’ point of view of a society. In Raihanah’s (2003:69) argument:

“The point of contention then is Malaysian writers too should be able to contribute significantly to the debate and formation of identity in their capacity as writers… by harnessing the real with the fantastic, the physical with the metaphysical, the personal with the social.”

It is important to take into an account that Malaysian writers’ opinions and narration of the Nation in their literary works should be recognised as it does influence the construction of Malaysian identity, if not, an important opinion of what an ideal identity fits the nation.

Reference:

1. Raihanah Mohd Mydin(ed) & Shahizah Ismail Hamdan(ed). 2003. Linking literary identities : Malaysian society, culture and the other. Malaysia : Universiti Putra Malaysia Press.

How strange is the lot of us mortals! Each of us is here for a brief sojourn; for what purpose he knows not, though he sometimes thinks he senses it. But without deeper reflection one knows from daily life that one exists for other people — first of all for those upon whose smiles and well-being our own happiness is wholly dependent, and then for the many, unknown to us, to whose destinies we are bound by the ties of sympathy. A hundred times every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life are based on the labors of other men, living and dead, and that I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as I have received and am still receiving…

“I have never looked upon ease and happiness as ends in themselves — this critical basis I call the ideal of a pigsty. The ideals that have lighted my way, and time after time have given me new courage to face life cheerfully, have been Kindness, Beauty, and Truth. Without the sense of kinship with men of like mind, without the occupation with the objective world, the eternally unattainable in the field of art and scientific endeavors, life would have seemed empty to me. The trite objects of human efforts — possessions, outward success, luxury — have always seemed to me contemptible.

“My passionate sense of social justice and social responsibility has always contrasted oddly with my pronounced lack of need for direct contact with other human beings and human communities. I am truly a ‘lone traveler’ and have never belonged to my country, my home, my friends, or even my immediate family, with my whole heart; in the face of all these ties, I have never lost a sense of distance and a need for solitude…”

“My political ideal is democracy. Let every man be respected as an individual and no man idolized. It is an irony of fate that I myself have been the recipient of excessive admiration and reverence from my fellow-beings, through no fault, and no merit, of my own. The cause of this may well be the desire, unattainable for many, to understand the few ideas to which I have with my feeble powers attained through ceaseless struggle. I am quite aware that for any organization to reach its goals, one man must do the thinking and directing and generally bear the responsibility. But the led must not be coerced, they must be able to choose their leader. In my opinion, an autocratic system of coercion soon degenerates; force attracts men of low morality… The really valuable thing in the pageant of human life seems to me not the political state, but the creative, sentient individual, the personality; it alone creates the noble and the sublime, while the herd as such remains dull in thought and dull in feeling.

“This topic brings me to that worst outcrop of herd life, the military system, which I abhor… This plague-spot of civilization ought to be abolished with all possible speed. Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism — how passionately I hate them!

“The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the experience of mystery — even if mixed with fear — that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds: it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity. In this sense, and only this sense, I am a deeply religious man… I am satisfied with the mystery of life’s eternity and with a knowledge, a sense, of the marvelous structure of existence — as well as the humble attempt to understand even a tiny portion of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.”

No matter how romantic the idea was portrayed about the creation and development of this nation, the secular aspect of basic human ethics and integrity was not the emphasis of this nation’s economic, social and political growth.

Islam in Malaysia will claim that they are the moderator of such ethics and integrity of its citizens but bear in mind that Malaysia nationalistic framework and foundation was not religiously inspired but more towards secular inspiration.

The strive towards the utopian concept of Malaysia nation did not went out on the right foot as the nation’s economic, social and political growth are so driven by unethical means of living. The pursuit of happiness is every citizen’s right in Malaysia. But sadly, the idea of happiness in Malaysia is equated with cash.

Mahatma Gandhi, the father of the Indian nation famously stated the “Seven Blunders of the World”. For the purpose of this article in regard to Malaysia, it is fitting to relate his thoughts with Malaysia:

“Seven Blunders of the Malaysia”

1. Wealth without work

2. Pleasure without conscience

3. Knowledge without character

4. Commerce without morality

5. Science without humanity

6. Worship without sacrifice

7. Politics without principle

-Mahatma Gandhi

It is therefore important to address the blunders above. It has now become an unattachable habits of Malaysians which will lead to cultural and nationalistic norm. If this happens, it will spell doom to our nation.

Malaysia will therefore need economic, social and political deconstruction. A new national foundation of this nation will need to be laid down which stands upon the basic principles of positive ethics and integrity. The question now is how to deconstruct this nation? World history had taught us that a constant and persevering revolutionary consciousness is the first step towards the event of deconstructing a nation. World history also taught us that such deconstruction of  a nation comes from the working class people, for they possess the power and the strength to influence and change the face of the nation. World history had also taught us that such revolutionary act is a difficult task; it takes time, strength and sometimes blood. Deconstruction must come first before the act of imagining a new Malaysia.

As for a Malaysia, multiculturalism is still in its abstract form but policies formed through out the process of Malaysia Nation-building shows that Malaysia do prioritized the importance of racial equality as the foundation of the nation’s political, social and economy stability. Although it seems to be Malaysia’s utmost priority in Nation-building, it does not mean it is perfect and no need of improvement.

There is no precise date as to when Malaysia officially adopted the practice of multiculturalism but it is harmless to say that it was practiced ever since the beginning of Malaya’s independence process.

However, Malaysia’s Multiculturalism comes under heavy criticism when the government introduced the 1971 National Culture Policy. To some, such suggestion indicates force assimilation (Kua, 1985:100). Authorizing a certain culture to have a dominant role in nation-building and in the construction of national identity eradicates equality of cultural manifestation ad contribution into the nation by the minorities.

What the Malaysian government fails to see here is the fact that multiculturalism is the repercussion of globalization. Multiculturalism is a global movement. It is therefore an avoidable wave of change and influence in the socio-structure of the nation. Applying multiculturalism practices into the government policies and administration is inevitable and neglected. A study by Bhikhu Parekh affirms that Multiculturalism has emerged as a distinct cultural movement (Maiz& Requejo, 2005:16). So, to structuralize a policy such as the National Cultural Policy 1971 is not an action which the current globalization period would agree with. It will therefore create discomfort and restlessness among the minorities of the nation.

References:

Willet, C. (ed). 1998. Theorizing Multiculturalism. United Kingdom: Blackwell Publisher.

 Kua Kia soong (ed). 1985. National Culture and Democracy. Petaling Jaya: Kersani Penerbit – Penerbit sdn. bhd.

Maiz, R. & Raquejo, F. (ed). 2005. Democracy, Nationalism & Multiculturalism. Great Britain: Taylor & Francis.

Published in The Star (FOCUS:  Thoughts for the 21^st 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-and-rule 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 non-bumi-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.