The four faces of 1Malaysia

(Mooncake image by Mingwei / Dreamstime)

DEPENDING on how you look at it, this article on national independence is either two weeks too late or 50 weeks too early.

The two weeks after Malaysia Day on 16 Sept 2009, coupled with the Hari Raya mood, seemed peaceful and even boring by Malaysian standards. That is, except for Selangor religious exco and PAS commissioner Datuk Dr Hasan Ali‘s unusual attack on the state’s Select Committee on Competency, Accountability and Transparency, and PAS Youth chief Nasrudin Hassan’s standard attack on concerts.

While most Malaysians are either calendar-, crisis- or event-driven, I ask your permission to indulge in some reflections on our nationhood. Amid Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s plan to build “1Malaysia hostels” to promote national unity, I feel compelled to point out we cannot have “unity” because Malaysia consists of not two, or three, but four classes. And these four classes will not go away unless the current political order — which is a combination of ethnocracy and a one-party state — goes away.

So, unless the Barisan Nasional (BN) is willing to reform its political base, there will be 4Malaysias out there no matter how many 1Malaysia hostels, F1 teams, songs, dances, lanterns or mooncakes we construct.

Unlike the rigid ancient Hindu four-caste system, our four-class system is a flexible one. It fluctuates between two tracks with two different hierarchies.

The ethnoreligious hierarchy

The first track is on Malay- or Islam-related issues, where the hierarchy is

1. BN-aligned Malay-Muslim Malaysians;

2. Pakatan Rakyat (PR)-aligned Malay-Muslim Malaysians;

3. BN-aligned non-Malay, non-Muslim Malaysians;

4. PR-aligned non-Malay, non-Muslim Malaysians.

That is the “ethnocracy” side of Umno-BN’s dominance which dictates identity politics.  In practice, it is often conveniently collapsed into the dichotomy of bumiputera/Malay/Muslim Malaysians and the “nons”, by both proponents and opponents.

The simplified dichotomy explains why many Umno and PAS leaders like to talk about Malay/Muslim unity, why the keris needs to be raised from time to time, and a cow head needed to be stomped on. It is why public forums on the constitution needed to be threatened with violence, and why churches needed to be surrounded or trespassed to stop or investigate alleged mass apostasy plots.

To this end, a Malay Malaysian leader needs to be labelled a traitor of the race or religion for advocating race-blind public policy, or for giving land to the non-Malay Malaysian poor, or for safeguarding the right of religious minorities to have their own places of worship.

The non-ethnoreligious hierarchy

The obsession with the ethnoreligious divide results in many Malaysians forgetting that Malay-Muslim Malaysians are often discriminated against, too. That is the “one-party” side of Umno/BN’s dominance. In situations where ethnoreligious issues are not evoked, the second 4Malaysia hierarchy kicks in:

1. BN-aligned Malay-Muslim Malaysians;

2. BN-aligned non-Malay, non-Muslim Malaysians;

3. PR-aligned Malay-Muslim Malaysians;

4. PR-aligned non-Malay, non-Muslim Malaysians.

To be more specific, the BN-aligned Malay-Muslim Malaysians are not equal among themselves. After all, siding with the right faction is what will give an individual a larger share of economic perks. Such inequality is, of course, also found in other BN component parties. This explains why Umno, MCA, MIC and other BN component parties need to have periodic civil wars to determine who shall get the lion’s share within the one-party regime.

The greater evil

Neither of these hierarchies is right, but where do we go from here to attain an egalitarian nationhood? How do we prioritise which hierarchy to abolish first?

Both hierarchies contain discrimination on ethnoreligious and partisan bases, just in different orders. The question we really need to ask is, which is the greater evil — ethnoreligious discrimination or partisan discrimination?

For many Malaysians, especially the “liberal-minded” and the non-Malay non-Muslims, the BN’s biggest sin is the communal divides it creates. But let’s just say the one-party state manages to be inclusive. By this logic, those citizens who join the opposition should not complain about being discriminated against.

In fact, the entire idea of Najib’s 1Malaysia aims to persuade the third- and fourth-class citizens that their grievances are being addressed so that they continue supporting BN rule. Behind this logic is a simple worldview — singularity is good and, by derivation, political competition is inherently bad. Or rather, political competition is bad if and when a “good” singularity is achieved.

The origin of Umno’s racism

For me, Umno is not a truly racist party. Datuk Seri Hishamuddin Hussein, Khairy Jamaluddin, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yasin or even Datuk Ahmad Ismail — these are not real racists. I am sure that they have good non-Malay, non-Muslim Malaysian friends. But like most other politicians, they are purely opportunists.

They advocate for exclusive rights for Malay and Muslim Malaysians because that is the only way to justify Umno’s claim to monopolise political representation of Malay Malaysians. And their exclusive claim as Malay-Muslim champions is driven by none other than the perks — legal and illegal — provided by the one-party state.

In other words, as long as opposition members can be discriminated against, it pays for these Umno leaders to glorify political unity and construct political monopoly. And often, it is convenient and even effective to use slogans like Malay or Muslim unity. This means some ethnoreligious boundaries, and by derivation, ethnoreligious discrimination needs to exist to perpetuate such one-party dominance.

And thus, there cannot be a truly egalitarian “1Malaysia” unless it is accompanied by full democratisation.

Democracy and ∞Malaysia

So what will happen if Malaysians fight for interparty equality to ensure no citizen is discriminated against because of peaceful political beliefs? Would it mean that we will start seeing ethnoreligious equality?

No. Most democracies, from the US to India, debate over equality all the time. There will never be a consensus. This is a cruel reality that Malaysians against racism should now learn to avoid disappointment after democratisation. Some ethnoreligious discriminations are here to stay even under the PR. 

Societies take time to become more equal. Social equality therefore can and should wait. But democracy — or political equality in this sense — must not.

One might ask: what good is democracy if I will still be treated like some second-class citizen? The answer: in a democracy, you can complain about being treated as a second-class citizen. You can also hope that your complaint can influence the minds of enough citizens to warrant a change. No one — not the government or non-governmental organisations or angry individuals — can threaten violence to make you shut up.

With democracy, we will be further from 1Malaysia because everyone might have a different voice. It will be an Infinite Malaysia, or ∞Malaysia. Isn’t that better than the 4Malaysias we have now?

---

A political scientist by training and a journalism lecturer by trade, Wong Chin Huat believes that like economic monopoly, political authoritarianism is a social ill. It should be checked by altering the payoffs to the actors.