Saving Federalism in Malaysia
Malaysia had to begin life as a federation because, like all federations, its diversity of polity, culture, history, ethnicity and economy was simply too deep for a centrally controlled regime to be practicable.
That was why the Malayan Union of 1946, hopefully constructed by a colonial power recovering from a devastating world war and that badly needed to simplify its control apparatus, could never succeed. Indirect and de facto colonialism was acceptable, but centralised and direct colonialism was too much for the Malay community to accept.
And yet, as became clear in the aftermath of the 2008 general elections, the country nevertheless had in reality become centrally controlled by a coalition centred around UMNO (United Malays National Organisation), the party formed in 1946 by Onn Ja’afar to fight the Malayan Union.
The 2008 election results can thus be read as a strong negative reaction by the newly liberated electorate to this sustained political denial of the country’s historical diversity.
Centralism, as one can imagine, is anathema to a society that is so intrinsically diverse that the hybridism of its culture and history is what so many of its members are proud of. Malaysianness, to make any sense, is necessarily about cultural hybridism. Thus, Prime Minister Najib Razak’s slogan, One Malaysia, borders on being an oxymoron. Malaysia, by its very nature, is manifold in cultural character, and is all the better for it.
What is also becoming clear globally is that the federal format for organising a modern state is a healthy compromise for counterbalancing the excesses of the nation-state format that seems to be the default model of thought is subject to.
For most societies, and certainly for those in culturally diverse regions like Southeast Asia, the nation-state uniform is too narrow and stiff to wear for too long. It is artificial in essential ways, and is constraining both inwardly and outwardly.
Adjustments to this uptight uniform simply had to be made. The rise of regionalism in recent times – in Europe, in Southeast Asia, and elsewhere – is a tailor’s adjustment to a suit made too tight. What we see happening in Europe are the effects of a regional organisation losing its strength because it had begun moving towards forming a super state instead of just remaining a loose uniform for national identities to feel comfortable in.
ASEAN does not run that risk because the region is obviously too diverse for anyone to seriously think of it in super-state terms. It was formed to lower barriers between newly- formed nation states because these barriers had immediately proved to have been built higher than was good for anyone.
For peaceful relations to develop between these new political entities, a process of friendly dialogue and of limited integration between different actors had to be initiated. This began in 1967, and the organization has in that sense had respectable success over the last 45 years.
Malaysia has also had respectable success over the last 55 years, but within it, the process of friendly dialogue and of limited integration between different actors has been a difficult one to sustain.
On the one hand, the country was created in a federal format as a necessary expression of the political and ethnic diversity of its people. It would have been foolish to integrate the country too quickly, and certainly not in one fell swoop as the colonialists tried to do in 1946.
On the other hand, a new country always risks disintegration if diversity was allowed to rule the day. And so, government by political coalitions became the new order. Onn Ja’afar’s attempt in 1951 to make UMNO represent all ethnicities failed for going too far too fast. His compromise was seen by his followers as a sell-out.
And so, what we ended up with was the Alliance Model. This coalition of communal parties would maintain “the process of friendly dialogue and of limited integration between different actors” and allow centralisation to take place through consociationalism.
This model – especially after becoming the Barisan Nasional (BN) in 1974 – certainly had respectable success. But its path was a difficult one. UMNO’s dominance in this model was a given thing acceptable to the supporters of its allies if it stayed moderate, and if it maintained the goal of creating Malaysianness, as opposed to defending and prioritising Malayness. This is key.
That was exactly why Mahathir Mohamed’s Vision 2020 and Bangsa Malaysia were highly successful slogans. In fact, they were coined exactly to conjure a future that was not ethnocentric and a culturally open Malaysia that was economically integrated with the region and the world.
Significantly, racial tensions dropped radically throughout the 1990s in Malaysia, as compared to the period before, and the period after. The Reformasi Movement that began in 1998, as many have noticed, did not turn racial in any essential manner.
It was as if Malaysia had turned a corner, and Abdullah Badawi’s electoral triumph in 2004 was not based on ethnic issues, but on the promise of reform of governance. Things actually looked very good; and believe it or not, Barisan Nasional styled itself the champion of reform.
But since then, the key lessons learned were forgotten. The undermining of major institutions during the Mahathir period was not reversed, and worst of all, UMNO leaders acted with public impunity; Islamist bureaucrats became openly arrogant; governance deteriorated further; and UMNO’s allies lost their voice. The coalition existed only in name.
The federation seemed to exist only in name, at least until March 8, 2008. The four years since the political equation changed so radically has seen a reawakening to Malaysia’s true nature. It is a diverse place; that is why it is a special place; and that it is why it is – and always has been – a federation.
Diversity is not disunity. Denial of diversity is what leads to disunity.
The appearance of Pakatan Rakyat (Pakatan) at this time is thus of historical significance, created by the limitations of the BN model over time. Malaysian society’s search for a proper expression of itself has at this moment led it to consider Pakatan as a necessary option.
Ooi Kee Beng is the Deputy Director of Singapore’s Instituteof Southeast Asian Studies. His major books include The Reluctant Politician: Tun Dr Ismail and His Time; Lost in Transition: Malaysia under Abdullah Badawi; In Lieu of Ideology: An Intellectual Biography of Goh Keng Swee; and The Right to Differ: A Biographical Sketch of Lim Kit Siang.
Malaysia is wrongly constituted and will not be able to sustain itself much longer. Imagine that if the promoter of Malaysia had accepted Onn Ja’afar’s attempt of a multiracial, ethnic party in 1951 and this notion supported by the British, perhaps we would have made much success in all fields.
The issue of who is Malay, a Bumiputra, Muslim culture or a Muslim is confused. While an Indian Muslim can be the Prime Minister of Malaysia a Chinese or Indian non-Muslim cannot. These are just the tip of the iceberg. The point made here is that at birth Malaysia was wrongly conceived. While an Arab can be a Bumiputra in Perak, he can’t in Johor. The question is you may want to ask is why after nearly 6 decades this is happening. My answer is simply this with some basic background first.
Today, the majority of the Malay community has not accepted On Ja’afar’s suggestion of 1951 but has become unhappy with the state of affairs in the country. Within the Bumiputra class there are new categories [this is common in many countries with affirmative programs]. In short some Bumiputra have become more Bumiputras than others. The latter we shall call BUMI +.
BUMI+ could not become rich and famous without his collective-so families in Malaysia have ruled Malaysia for 50 odd years and their siblings were members of large corporations or with the military to maintain control. I think many years ago DR. Lim Mah Huei wrote an article dealing with nepotism and how families controlled Malaysia. Since then a few other families have been welcomed into the club. It would be pertinent to note that BUMI + has many non-Bumiputras working for them [which mutually benefitted both parties]. Recent Forbes list show 27 Chinese are the richest men in Malaysia out of 40. That is more than half which shows that UMNO is being carried by MCA and MIC [the latter has become insignificant]. All coalition parties to stay in power and “make money” support UMNO and their policies of racial discrimination and continued corruption. Recent resignations of a Minister and the Chairwoman of the Securities Commission don’t count because elections are forthcoming and the public outcry is of anger with the government.
Without losing the point, “the Bumiputra class war has begun”. Muslim Malays are angry with the government. Thousands are unemployed or struggling to make ends meet when they witness blatant fraud and corruption rampant in Malaysia. This is why we have thousands supporting Anwar Ibrahim and happy to see PAS come to power. A non-Muslim would prefer PAS to an UMNO led government because they are unable to comprehend the hypocrisy or the deceit. In my view, although there are many “right thinking Muslims” who want fairness on merit as well as procedurally, there are many who want change because corruption is suffocating Malaysia and Malaysians.
Quality comment or not?
19 
0
Mr. Ooi, you are sitting there while we are sitting in. Often things are simpler than they seem. Practically anybody from the street can become a politician and often they do. The way the average Malaysians see it, politics is about making money. It’s about how much allocations and how to spend those allocations and make money in the process. Thereafter, the politicians who are in control get those “learned” advisers and aides to justify with economic and social development theories.
Many Malaysians live in fear of the authorities knowing that their limited resources cannot fight a powerful entity. Moreover they see government as controlling all the leading institutions. They can make life very difficult for you. Political awareness is very poor among the hoards. They see it as “if politicians don’t make money for themselves, then they are stupid”. In fact it is wholly expected an accepted.
We see the coalition mainly as a “divide and rule and divide and spend” concept. Each chief in the coalition has their areas to rule and allocations to spend. That’s why the races feel betrayed because while making themselves comfortable, they have not look into the “racial” interests of the community. Themes like Vision 2020 and Bangsa Malaysia there thought off by “theme thinkers” perhaps while sitting “on the throne” – so to speak –one inspirational morning. They look good but have no essence. Vision 2020 is a genius of a concoction mainly to buy time and justify keeping the same government while Bangsa Malaysia was shot down by the very members of the government themselves.
Distrust in reforms after Pakatan comes in, and if they do, is that they would take some time before the dust settles with “who gets what”. Only fools will leave caution to the wind. For starters, PAS is an Islamic party and PKR is seen as renegades from BN while the DAP has been there all along. Many are likely to be impatient and internal squabbles would thrive at least for a while thereby screwing up things for us too.
Quality comment or not?
1 
1
ISN’T MALAYSIA DE FACTO COLONIALISM?
The term “de facto” colonialism used in the article is very accurate!
But let us have a frank and honest discussion. We should not confine our discussion within our intellectual comfort zone by omitting a whole chunk of historical facts in skipping one important historical detail.
“Malaysia 1963 exists” because of the British sponsored Malayan annexation of Sabah and Sarawak as new colonies.
The majority of Scholars tend to limit their learned discussions on Malaysia to the events surrounding the Malayan Federation 1957 but confusingly use the term “Malaysia” which only existed from 1963 in their discussions.
This is grave intellectual dishonesty. Unless we are ignorant of the facts let us re-visit history.
The term “Malaysia” was a British neo-colonial concept which was intended to create “de facto” colonialism. This was just a re-branding of the 1942 Malayan Union plan by the British Foreign Office to consolidate the administration of the Borneo/Kalimantan colonies by merging them with Malaya and Singapore under their grand Malaysia Plan.
When the proposal was announced by the Malayan Prime Minister (self-proclaimed “Bapa Malaysia”) at the beginnnithis “plan” was immediately condemned and opposed by the North Borneon/Kalimantan independence movement as a neo-colonial scheme to prolonged colonial rule. The term used in the article “de facto” colonialism is very accurate!
The local opposition led to the outbreak of the anti-Malaysia Uprising in Brunei on December 8 1962 and opened up the people’s guerrilla national liberation war in Sarawak against the British imposition of Malaysia and for North Kalimantan independence till 1990.
The real issue of “central control” was what led to the break up of Malaysia with Singapore leaving in 1965. It is now claimed by many Sabahans and Sarawakians that the Malaysia Agreement was nullified by this breakup.
The original concept of Malaysia was already defective because Brunei chose not to become part of the scheme when the Brunei Sultan saw through the Malayan intention to control all the proposed partners of “federation” and also Brunei petroleum resources.
The Malayan UMNO colonial regime’s avaricious intention to grab more North Kalimantan territory was seen in the 1990 when UMNO plotted to bribe A.M. Azahari leader of the anti-Malaysia Brunei Uprising to agree to take Brunei into Malaysia. (Such and attempt would have necessitate ovethrowing the incumbent Brunei government). This UMNO attempt was exposed by the man himself in a video recording. http://youtu.be/Rh6_69gIIIo.
Surely this discussion must take into account an important point being the independence aspirations of Sabah and Sarawak which is now one of the main topics in many websites on these colonies?
However, most of us are comfortable with the colonial mentality of prolonging the idea of Malaysia being a legitimate neo-colonial creation.
This is prolonging the 49 years of Malayan colonization and looting of Sabah and Sarawak to develop Malaya and enrich UMNO BN power elites and their local puppets in Sabah and Sarawak.
The popular slogan going around is “No Sabah No Sarawak mana ada Malaysia?”
Very true.
Quality comment or not?
1 
0