Finding Equilibrium

Finding Equilibrium

Zaid Ibrahim’s impassioned call for a rejection of race politics last Friday at the LawAsia conference is one that deserves its place in history. His plea for the restoration of democracy and the Rule of Law has reverberated throughout the nation.

This is not surprising. Zaid’s message is rooted in an obviously deep and heartfelt commitment to the nation and the interests of all its citizens. Where the Malays are concerned, he is strident in his rejection of policies that have left the community struggling against a siege mentality that robs it of its ability to meet the challenges of a globalizing world. As he observes, the “Malays are now a clear majority in numbers. The fear of their being out numbered is baseless; they are not under siege. The institutions of government are such that the Malays are effectively represented, and the there is no way the interest of the Malays can be taken away other than through their own weakness and folly.”

Equally forceful in his defence of non-Malay interest, Zaid laments attempts by politicians to do away with a social contract that guarantees “equality and the promise of the Rule of Law” in favour of one that promotes a supremacist ideology that ultimately serves only the interests of an elite. This, he opines, has left the nation deeply divided and cut off from the democracy and Rule of Law so vital for the sustainable and inclusive development that all Malaysians need, irrespective of race and religion.

Put another way, Zaid has given voice to what it is most Malaysians think: that we need to be united to face the future. The founders of this nation understood we could, appreciating that there was no reason for fear and that we had every reason for mutual respect and dignity. Fear mongering has however kept us apart and from seeing the threats that confront us, and what we need to do to counter them.

Zaid’s message is persuasive for its simplicity and self-evident truth. He must be credited for having been able to say what had to be said, as it needed to be said.

If there is any doubt as to the legitimacy of the viewpoint expressed, then we need only consider the reactions from senior UMNO members entrenched in the leadership structure of the party. These reactions not only make it evident that Zaid hit the nail on the head, they also show why it is UMNO and the Barisan Nasional need to seriously reconsider how to make themselves relevant. Two responses are illustrative.

Perlis UMNO liaison chief and former Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Shahidan Kassim had this to say, according to media reports, “Zaid should repent. Otherwise he should get out of the ‘rumpun Melayu’. Paraphrased by BERNAMA, his explanation for this was that “if Zaid continued to question the Malay supremacy concept, then he should no longer be a Malay as a Malay should be defending the Malays and not running them down.”

But, is that not what Zaid was doing? Apparently not, for the New Straits Times reported Home Minister, Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar, who is incidentally an UMNO supreme council member, as saying that Zaid was “a traitor to his own race and should apologise for his remarks.”

Both responses are so self-defeating that they boggle the mind. They typify the might is right attitude that Zaid speaks out against. Being senior UMNO members, both individuals must be open to the possibilities. As Zaid put it, if “affirmative action is truly benchmarked on the equitable sharing of wealth that is sustainable, then we must confront the truth and change our political paradigm; 40 years of discrimination and subsidy have not brought us closer.”

Zaid was not alone in expressing concerns about the way things are. At the same conference, His Royal Highness Raja Nazrin Shah, the Raja Muda of Perak, called for a rejection of discriminatory policies. The Raja Muda observed that the “consequence of not empowering citizens or, worse, disempowering them, is to create a deep sense of alienation and hostility. Indeed, it is very often an overwhelming sense of alienation and powerlessness that causes the rash acts of violence that fracture societies. It gives these citizens every reason to seek to divide society in order to redress their dissatisfactions. This is bad and insensitive politics. On another level, we cannot morally turn our backs on the fundamental responsibility of ensuring that all stakeholders in our society, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant, have a place under the sun.”

The ideal could not be better articulated. Malaysians, all of us, want our place in the sun. We do not wish to live in fear, looking over our shoulders all the time. There is more than enough for us all to share in. We have been blessed with a nation so abundant with resources and so rich with potential that generation upon generation will be able to live in peace and prosperity. The only catch, if it can be called that, is that we need to be left alone to find our equilibrium. Only then can we get on with the task of doing it right.

(Malay Mail; 4th November 2008)

MIS

No Discrimination Please, We’re Malaysians

Equality? What’s that?

Perhaps it has been the years of abuse that has been permitted under the guise of the NEP or the devastating continued and divisive emphasis on race and ethnicity by our leaders and politicians. Whatever the cause, most Malaysians have become cynical about Unity and Equality.

The former has become nothing more than a political catchword heard more often as General Elections draw near. The latter is a word that even politicians fear to use, possibly fearing that they might be called upon to justify what they have said. I would think that any attempt to articulate Equality against the backdrop of contemporary Malaysia is akin to taking a stroll in a minefield.

Think about it. When did you last hear a politician say the word Equal when talking about Malaysians. I do not think I have ever heard it being said. I hear, all the time, “We are all Malaysians” or “This is for the good of all Malaysia”, or words to that effect. But never “We are all equal” or anything like that.

But why should that be the case? The law does not support discrimination.


What Is The Law?

The Constitution is built on a foundation of non-discrimination. Each citizen is guaranteed basic rights, including the right to equality (Article 8). This particular right is structured around two central pillars: the right to equality before the law and the right to the equal protection of the law. It is put this way in the Constitution:

“8. Equality.


(1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.


(2) Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.”


The provision means what it says. There shall be no discrimination on the ground only of religion or race or gender (amongst other things). That means every one of us is entitled to say that we want our place in the sun, to quote the Raja Muda of Perak. We have an equal right to define ourselves by our own religions, race, and gender. We are all guaranteed an equal right to avail ourselves of the law, the principles of which are equally applicable to all of us. After all, we are all guaranteed an equal right to participate in representative government through the right to vote.


What About The Special Status Of Malays/Natives Of Sabah & Sarawak?

My first posting on this blog explained the impact of Article 153 of the Constitution, the provision providing for special status for the natives of Sabah and Sarawak and the Malays ("A Matter Of Protection, Not Privilege"). It bears repeating: the provision allows for limited preferential treatment for the purpose of protection. The provision does not bestow privileges on the communities identified nor does it create a privileged class.


What About Islam?

What about Islam then, some might ask. The Constitution does not in any way provide that Islam is to be preferred to other religions. To the contrary, the Constitution declares that all religions may be practiced in peace and harmony (Article 3(1)).

Similarly, the Constitution does not provide that Islamic law is to be applied in preference to civil law. Instead, the Constitution envisages that in matters of public and private law, secular law is to be applied. Islamic law is to be applied only in respect of matters of Islamic personal law and to persons professing the religion of Islam. As to what that personal law is, it is for the relevant legislative body to enact law to provide for it.

The question then is whether the existence of an Islamic law system for the application of muslim personal law discriminatory i.e. in violation of Article 8? The answer is no as Muslims are legitimately treated as a class or category distinct from others. This is contemplated by the Constitution which envisages the application of Islamic personal law to Muslims. Constitutional theory permits what is referred to as ‘rational classification’ where it is necessary to view individuals as belonging to a class. This permits a difference of treatment between members of that class and non-members. In this case the distinctive feature of members of the class in issue is the professing of the religion of Islam.

It follows that Islamic personal law cannot be applied to non-Muslims. Civil law applies. Further, all members of the non-muslim class are to be treated equally and have equal protection before the law in so far as personal law considerations are concerned. Subjecting non-Muslims to Islamic personal law would be in violation of Article 8. It would be discriminatory.

In all other aspects save for where Article 153 is applicable, all Malaysians are to be treated equally.


Where Does That Leave Us?

With the right to insist on equality of treatment. Such insistence is in no way a challenge to the special status of the Malays as contemplated under the Constitution. Equality of treatment can co-exist with measures aimed at providing protection to the Malays. Equality cannot however co-exist with a 'privilege' system. In the same way, Unity cannot co-exist with a 'privilege mindset'. Continuing to delude ourselves will only be to the detriment of the nation. All of us will be affected, Malay and non-Malay.

Isn’t it time for us to start insisting that our politicians start using the E word?

MIS