Thrust Forward Our Best Arguments, Not Our Kerises!
M. Bakri Musa
Suflan Shamsuddin Reset: Rethinking The Malaysian Political Paradigm
ZI Publications
Petaling Jaya, Selangor, 2008
216 pages Index
RM35.00
From UMNO Youth leader Hishamuddin Hussein wildly jabbing his keris into the air, to the malicious distribution of Pakatan Rakyat’s purported “Babi Cabinet” list in the recent Parmatang Pauh by-election, there is no question as to the coarsening of political discourse in Malaysia. That alone would not be enough for Malaysians to be worried.
We are also becoming dangerously polarized racially. Sadly, our leaders are blissfully ignoring this dangerous development; they continue egging on their supporters. Prime Minister Abdullah, as head of UMNO, has yet to admonish Hishammudin for his ugly race-taunting antics. In not so doing, Abdullah is implicitly encouraging others to do likewise. Witness his own son-in-law Khairy Jamaludin’s “monkey see, monkey do” clowning, and the latest brouhaha over that hitherto unknown character in Penang, Ahmad Ismail.
Race politics is threatening to do to Malaysia what ethno-nationalism is doing elsewhere. There are just too many examples of once peaceful societies now wrecked by sectarian violence. I have a tough time telling apart a Singhalese from a Tamil, yet that does not stop them from slaughtering each other in nearby Sri Lanka.
This deepening polarization in our country has many thinking Malaysians worried. One of them is Suflan Shamsuddin. In his book, Reset: Rethinking The Malaysian Political Paradigm, Suflan puts forth his analysis of our current dilemma, and advances his own unique solutions.
Suflan blames our present system of race-based political parties. If he has his way, he would “reset” the current political structure so that only racially “inclusive” parties that consciously broaden their appeal to all communities, could partake in elections. “Non-inclusive” parties that purposely cater to a narrow racial base could only do so if they were to come together under an “inclusive” coalition.
Suflan’s rationale is clear. Our political parties would then have to broaden their appeal and not, as at present, cater to their most chauvinistic followers. Under Suflan’s plan, race-inclusive parties like UMNO, MCA and MIC that come together under an “inclusive coalition” (Barisan Nasional) would be allowed to contest elections, but not “race inclusive” parties like PAS. Unless of course if it were to do so under an inclusive coalition, which it did in the last election under the Pakatan Rakyat banner.
To Suflan, only the Democratic Action Party (DAP) and Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), the only two “inclusive” parties, would be allowed to contest under their own banner.
This is the weakness of Suflan’s argument. While PKR is genuinely multiracial in its ideals and membership, DAP is not. While DAP’s constitution may explicitly state that it is non-racial, nonetheless in reality Malays are as rare in that party as a meat dish in a vegetarian restaurant. Gerakan still has its inclusive ideals, and in the beginning it had truly multiracial membership and leadership, but today that party is exclusively Chinese, and fighting hard to displace MCA.
You cannot rely only on a party’s professed ideals on whether it is inclusive or not. After all, North Korea calls itself the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. They fool only themselves.
In truth, today’s realities demand that political parties broaden their appeal unless they are satisfied with their perpetual fringe opposition status. Even the conservative folks in PAS recognize this, however clumsily. In the last election it fielded its token non-Muslim candidate, and a woman at that! The remarkable success of the opposition parties in the last election with their coalescing under the Pakatan Rakyat banner is another proof of this.
Surely the test on whether a party is racially inclusive or exclusive lies not with its constitution or the avowed declarations of its leaders, rather on how it is being perceived by voters. Barring particular parties ahead of time is not the answer. Let voters decide. They have a good track record, having buried such entities as Parti Negara and the Socialist Front.
PKR’s spectacular success indicates that Malaysians are now warming up to the idea of non race-based parties without there being any need for legislation.
I do not the blame the system entirely for our present predicament. Instead, I blame our leaders in particular Prime Minister Abdullah. It is his willful neglect that permitted our racial sore to reopen, spewing out its putrid poison.
In the past, leaders like Tunku Abdul Rahman and Tun Razak managed to rein in, and in many instances disassociate themselves from the excesses of their chauvinistic followers. The greatest threat to a plural society is a weak and ineffective leadership. Unfortunately that is what we have in Abdullah.
I would do considerable injustice to Sufral’s thoughtful book if I were to end my review here. After all, his proposal constitutes less than a quarter of the book. The rest deals with his analysis of the current malaise and schism in our political system.
Re-Examining The Social Contract
A good portion of this book is Sufral’s nuanced discussion of the path the nation has taken to be where we are today. His arguments are rational, and put forth in a cool and deliberate manner. There is no grandstanding, no diatribes, and no name calling or demonizing any party or personality.
Whether discussing Ketuanan Melayu, the New Economic Policy, the social contract our earlier leaders struck, or the special place of Islam and Malay rulers in our constitution, Sufril presents the various viewpoints. He is not advocating any particular position, rather for us to understand and appreciate the different perspectives.
Sufril is a corporate attorney with a multinational firm, and is based in London. The forte of such lawyers is to bring parties together and close the deal. That requires trust and respect for the other side, frank discussions of potential pitfalls so as to avoid them, and focusing on the mutual benefits. This book reflects Sufril’s professional style.
For a contrast in style and personality, consider trial lawyers, in particular criminal trial lawyers a la Kirpal Singh. They are used to courtroom histrionics in order to sway judges and juries. Their forte is to demolish the credibility of the other side. Malaysian politics would do well with more of Sufrals and fewer of Kirpals.
Therein lies the problem. Unlike the past when politics would attract the talented among Malaysians, today they are being enticed by the more lucrative private sector or choose to pit their talent against the global best in multinational corporations.
In Reset, Sufral has started an important dialogue, one all Malaysians – leaders as well as followers – must be fully engaged in. We would also do well to follow his style in being cool, rationale, and hearing as well as respecting all sides. In short, instead of thrusting our kerises forward, we should thrust our best arguments.
Suflan Shamsuddin’s (Author’s) Response:
Dear Bakri:
Many thanks for reviewing my book. I just have one or two comments.
In it you say, “To Suflan, only the Democratic Action Party (DAP) and Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), the only two race inclusive parties, would be allowed to contest under their own banner. This is the weakness of his argument. While PKR is genuinely multiracial in its ideals and membership, DAP is not. While DAP’s constitution may explicitly state that it is non-racial, in reality Malays are as rare in that party as a meat dish in a vegetarian restaurant. Gerakan still has its inclusive ideals, at least in the beginning; today it is exclusively Chinese and fighting to displace MCA in the Barisan coalition. PKR is genuinely multiracial in its ideals and membership, DAP is not. While DAP’s constitution may explicitly state that it is non-racial, in reality Malays are as rare in that party as a meat dish in a vegetarian restaurant. Gerakan still has its inclusive ideals, at least in the beginning; today it is exclusively Chinese and fighting to displace MCA in the Barisan coalition.”
I would like to point out that under my proposal (p 159), DAP will NOT be able to compete, unless it has the necessary number of Bumiputra members to demonstrate that it is truly inclusive. It is precisely because I agree with your observations about it “being a meat dish in a vegetarian restaurant,” that I have formulated a requirement for proof of multi communal representation to be a key criterion for a party to be permitted to contest in an election. So it is wrong for you to suggest that I would let DAP contest, WITHOUT having sufficient Malays membership. This is after all the crux of the analysis for why there is a disequilibrium for which prerogatives and patronage become justified (in the eyes of BN to deal with what they perceive as clear and present danger), and at the heart of the proposal in Chapter 11. I make it clear that inclusiveness must be demonstrated both in form AND in substance. I make the same point with respect to Gerakan on page 158.
There are also other differences of opinions that you suggest we have, including the blame on Pak Lah for the predicament that we are in, and the importance of intra-racial conflicts.
Although I would agree that Pak Lah has been ineffective in containment, I make the case that no other leader is likely to have done any better, unless they are willing to reset the political framework. On the latter point, I do not dispute the dangers of intra-racial conflict. But given the cleavages as they necessarily exist, I would place priority on ensuring that our political framework manages the inter-racial framework expeditiously, but in a way that drives centrist policy development, as I believe my inclusive model would do.
Again, many thanks for your frank and honest review. I accept that we have differences in opinions, but I think that a misreading of the book’s proposal might unduly cause confusion which could be avoided.
I look forward in meeting you one day. DSAI is expected to launch the book before the end of this month. It would be great if you were in Malaysia for the launch!
Best Regards
Suflan Shamsuddin
M. Bakri Musa replies:
Dear Suflan:
Your point of clarification is correct.
My argument however is this. We cannot set ahead of time conditions or criteria that would certify a party is racially inclusive and thus could partake in elections. Rather, the test should be only this: if the party, its leadership and policies transcend race, meaning they appeal to and are acceptable to all races, then that party is racially inclusive. This could only be demonstrated at general election times. Those parties that appeal to a narrow racial or other base (for example religion) would be “exclusive” and will never go beyond their minority status and thus doomed to perpetual opposition status. There is no need for special laws.
I could easily form a seemingly “racially inclusive party” by going through the kampongs, rubber estates, city slums, and longhouses and offering those poor folks a few ringgit to be “life time” members of my party, and presto, by membership my party would be certified racially inclusive and could thus partake in elections!
During the last Permatang Pauh by-election, the UMNO candidate received fewer votes then the number of UMNO members!
Stated differently, voters, not bureaucrats from the Election Commission or elsewhere, will decide at elections whether a party is racially inclusive or exclusive. That is the only valid criterion. Any other way and it would open up the process to abuse or corruption.
Cheers dan Selamat Berpuasa,
Bakri