The greatest legacy the leader of a nation could bequeath would be freedom from an oppressive government.  This realization comes to me when I compare Malaysia’s experience during the 1997 economic crisis to America’s current struggle with its massive debt mess.

            The differences in reactions and consequences are attributable to one salient factor:  Unlike Malaysians, Americans do not fear and are not dependent upon their government.  Americans have a healthy skepticism towards their leaders and government, an attribute generally lacking among Malaysians.

            With Malaysia in 1997 there was a general crisis of confidence, with widespread gloom and doom permeating the skyscrapers in Kuala Lumpur as well as the suraus in Ulu Kelantan, and from the Prime Minister to the village penghulu.  It also precipitated a deep and ugly split in the leadership that resulted in riots and ugly street demonstrations.  The ringgit – the very symbol of our sovereignty – was devalued.

            Like Malaysia then, America is today plagued with a mountain of debt on a scale a universe beyond what Malaysia suffered.  The American dollar is also being debased, not by the government however as with Malaysia, but by the more powerful force of the marketplace.

            The American tribulation is even greater, as the leadership – in particular President Bush – is viewed as ineffective and irrelevant.  America is additionally burdened with an expensive and bloody war.  Yet for all that, there are no riots or widespread doom and gloom.  When Americans are disenchanted with their president or government, they throng the voting booths in record numbers to vote for a change.

Our Inherent Freedom

In Islam, a ruler is denied “the right to take away from his subjects certain rights which inhere in his or her person as a human being.”  Meaning, freedom from oppression is not a gift bestowed by the ruler upon the ruled, rather the natural state.  Or to put it in the language of the Quran, the will of Allah!  Citizens would consent to giving away those rights to the ruler only upon a demonstrated need for the greater good.

            Many a leader, evil and benevolent, have used this rationale to take away these precious rights away from citizens.  Even otherwise civilized societies are not immune to this seduction, as evidenced by the easy passage of the Patriots Act in America.  Citizens have only themselves to blame if they were to grease the path towards their own enslavement.

            Government oppresses less through sheer size and more through exercising unchecked powers.  Scandinavian countries have large governments, yet their people are not oppressed or threatened.  These governments get voted in repeatedly.

            They use their might not to oppress citizens but to emancipate them.  The police force is used (rightly) for discouraging and apprehending criminals, not for spying on innocent citizens or harassing political dissenters.  Public funds are used to build daycare centers and affordable housing, not detention camps and police barracks.

            The Indian government is also large, though in terms of absolute budget size it is smaller than most of the Scandinavian countries.  Yet the Indian government remains oppressive and intrusive in the lives of its citizens, caricatured by the ubiquitous “Permit Rajs.”

            By modern standards, Stalin and Mao Zeedung had access to more limited resources and far primitive instruments of controls, yet they were able to maintain a tight grip on their people, even long after those leaders were dead.

            A repressive government led by well-intentioned and capable leaders can achieve wonders in improving the lives of their citizens, as seen with Singapore.  Even when the leaders were less well intentioned and less capable, they could still do remarkable things, as with Indonesia’s Suharto.

            Nonetheless oppression is still oppression no matter how seemingly sophisticated the guises and excuses.  Singapore effectively controls its citizens through inane and intrusive rules as well as punitive laws like its libel statutes.  South Korea’s General Park justified his on the pretext of economic efficiency and national security.  It worked only temporarily in South Korea; it will be the same with Singapore.  Sooner or later citizens’ yearning for freedom will emerge.  Once the flame of freedom is lighted, it can be doused only temporarily.

Let Your People Be!

In America, when someone says, “I am from the government, and I am here to help you!” it would be treated as a line from an unoriginal comedian.  In Malaysia, it would be taken as a solemn promise, even though it is rarely fulfilled.  This reflects the control the government exerts over Malaysians, or more charitably, the citizens’ faith (misplaced) in their government.

            In America, Ronald Reagan became the most popular modern president by promising to “take the government off citizens’ backs!”  In Malaysia, whenever citizens’ groups meet over a problem, their resolutions would inevitably begin with, “The government must do this and that!”  That reflects an ingrained dependency syndrome.

            It was not always so.  There was a time when citizens especially Malays would never trust the government.  It was easy then as it was a colonial one, manned by people of a different race and skin color.

            Rulers exert their grip on citizens primarily through fear a la Saddam and Stalin, or rewards a la Singapore.  Both are effective; the second however is more enduring as citizens could delude themselves into believing that they are doing the state’s bidding on their own volition.

            Thus through a carefully crafted system of rewards, Singapore quickly reduced its birth rate.  It was so successful that the government is now desperate to reverse course!  Singapore’s positive reinforcements prove more effective than China’s odious and punitive laws.

            There is a third route, cara halus (subtle way), unique to Malay culture where rulers exerts a emotional hold on their subjects through a collective sense of terhutang budi (debt of gratitude).  It is predicated upon the cultural belief encapsulated in the saying, Hutang budi di bawa mati (we bring our debt of gratitude to our grave).  Malays would willingly put themselves (and their children) into endless servitude to the sultan in return for some perceived favors, sought or unsought.  Such controls, reinforced by cultural norms, are even more powerful.

            UMNO leaders play on these collective cultural guilt trips when they continually harp on their pivotal role in Merdeka and Ketuanan Melayu.  “Be grateful!”  “Kacang lupakan kulit” (Pea forgetting its pod); “Melayu Mudah Lupa!” (Malays forget easily!); these are the phrases bandied about to emotionally enslave Malays.  This communal guilt trip is just as enslaving as Stalin’s harsh police state.

            For added insurance, the UMNO government also uses fear through such oppressive laws as the ISA, as well as rewards of massive patronages via the New Economic Policy.  Hence the strong grip the UMNO government has on Malays especially.

            As long as citizens are not liberated and emancipated, they will never realize their full potential.  Their creativity will forever be stifled; their talent stunted.  The best that they could achieve would be total obedience, otherwise known as servitude.

            More dangerously, such citizens would go berserk once that control is suddenly gone or destroyed.  Long reduced to human robots, they are unable to think or act independently.  Today’s Iraq is a tragic reminder of this reality.  This fate awaits all closed societies.

            If that were to happen to Malaysia, it would be the greatest tragedy, for both ruler and ruled.

Farish A Noor

(From www.othermalaysia.org.  With permission)

April 10, 2008)

 
As the dust settles in the wake of the recent elections in Malaysia, many political observers are questioning whether the coalition of opposition parties, who are ever so close to gaining an upper hand in the Parliament, are actually about to come to power for the first time.  In the midst of this intense speculation, some cynical voices are raising doubts about whether the opposition coalition can actually get together as a cohesive political alliance and present themselves as a viable alternative to the now increasingly decrepit and redundant National Front (BN) coalition.

            The reason for this apparent uncertainty lies in the composition of the opposition front at the moment.  Dominated for the first time by the People’s Justice Party (PKR), the two other major component parties happen to be the secular-democratic Democratic Action Party (DAP) and the Islamist party (PAS).  Now that this opposition coalition seems poised to take over the country, the question is being asked:  Can the Islamists of PAS work with their secular-leftist comrades of the DAP and abandon their long-cherished goal of creating an Islamic state in Malaysia?

            One is struck by such a question as it is loaded from the outset.  It presupposes a certain fixity of discourse and modality on the part of Islamist parties like PAS which apparently (or so it seems to be suggested) is not present in other parties; but why should we assume such a thing?

            For a start, a quick look at the track record of all Islamist parties worldwide will show that they have all evolved and adapted to the needs and interests of politics, just like any other party.  While it is true that religious-based parties (be they Islamist, Christian or Hindu) have as their fundamental ideology an interpretation of their respective religions seen through the lens of politics, it is precisely this marriage of power and faith that leads to the adaptation of religion for political ends.  (Of course this is also the reason why religious conservatives and purists do not relish the politicization of religion, as it leads to the instrumental use of faith for political goals – but that is another story altogether.)

            Looking at the rise and fall of religious-based parties worldwide, we can see how many of them have indeed compromised for the sake of politics.  The Hindu right-wing BJP party of India, for instance, clamored for a Hindu state and foregrounded the exclusive demands of Hindus primarily as long as it was out of power.  But during its brief spell in government, even the BJP was forced in the end to adapt to the realities of multi-religious India and made enormous concessions to win over the support of Indian Muslims and Christians.

            Likewise, many Islamist parties and movements in the Arab world have also made the same sort of important and symbolic concessions to non-Muslims in their bid for power.  Even movements like Hamas and Hizbullah have opened the channels of dialogue with Christians and other faith communities, cognizant of the fact that there can be no real and sustainable path to power without pragmatic compromise and adaptation.

            Admittedly Malaysia’s Islamist party PAS has made some electoral blunders in the past.  But PAS also has a progressive past it can and should be proud of, as when the party was led by its most progressive leader Dr. Burhanuddin al-Helmy in the 1960s.  PAS was then widely seen as a left-leaning Islamist party due to its strong anti-colonial stand, its support of the trade union movement, and its willingness to support the Malayan Communist party in its struggle against British colonialism.  If PAS could have been so forward thinking earlier, then what is stopping it from being progressive today?

            The fact remains that the ruling National Front coalition (BN) in Malaysia today is on its last legs, and fifty years of race-based communalist and divisive politics has finally taken its toll on the country.  Malaysia and Malaysians have voted for change and it looks as if the time for that change is drawing closer.  Judging by PAS’s pragmatic record and successes in the past, the Islamist party may yet surprise the skeptics by adapting its Islamist politics to suit the needs and aspirations of the younger generation of Malaysian voters who voted for the party – not because they want to see an Islamic state in Malaysia, rather to signal the coming of a new Malaysian politics at last.  PAS should heed these signs and prepare itself for the new era of Malaysian politics to come.  After all, it survived five decades of repression by the colonial government and then the Malaysian government, so why couldn’t it adapt yet again?

Dr. Farish A. Noor is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University of Singapore; and one of the founders of the www.othermalaysia.org research site.