All theories of and about democracy have assumed, that leaders of such a model of governance, were always, “of the people, by the people and for the people.”
In almost every democratic system of today, such leadership is defined mostly by representative strength, and not enough by participative strength.
The Athenian city-state, probably the most original form of democracy, applied a participative form of democracy, which allowed the peoples’ voices to be heard in a representative form because of the size of the then city-state; and the limitation of popular education to the ordinary masses.
Now, as I reflect on our own Malaysian form of democracy, modeled after the Westminster model, I believe our democracy is currently not anymore representative of all the peoples of the nation-state we call Malaysia. The original Alliance model of representation was relevant for the state and peoples of the unborn nation state.
Today, Malaysia, as one nation state of the United Nations is a composite of more than 100 different ethnic groups of peoples, and yet we are only currently governed by a national front made up of only a select group of race-based parties.
I believe that this concept of race itself is a flawed concept. Consequently our race-based representation idea is equally flawed. We are in fact all mostly of the Dravidian race (the brown race), or the Mongolian race (yellow race); with a small minority from the Aryan race (white race) via inter-marriage etc.
What may be a more accurate way of understanding ourselves is via the concept of ethnicity, and not race per se. The root word “ethne” defines people groups of similar language, culture and belief systems. Wikipedia defines an ethnic group or ethnicity as a population of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry.
Ethnicity is also defined from the recognition by others as a distinct group and by common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioural or biological traits.
Who are Malaysian Indians?
Consequently, as I have always argued, there are no Indians from the so-called “Indian race” in Malaysia, at least as far as I know. The only “Indians” I know are the American Indians, or what is colloquially called the “Red Indians.”
The American Indian race spreads all the way from Canada in the north to the South Americas i.e. throughout the Continent of the Americas.
What we call the “Malaysian Indians” are various ethnic groups from the nation of India who migrated to Malaya under the colonial rule and were allowed citizenship under the original Social Contract of 1957.
Therefore, the then “self organizing system articulated that these were “Malayan Indians” and who would be formed as such under an “Indian party” called the Malayan Indian Congress.
If one goes into history one would recognize that this model was merely an extension of the Indian Congress Party.
Likewise, with the Chinese and Malay parties too, they were organizations of political expediency and convenience.
They all lacked a clear ideological struggle which united them but were in fact made up of people of different ethnicities and language groups with only one common purpose: to be united for independence from the British Colonialists.
Or, was it really for freedom and self governance through self-expression?
What Bangsa Malaysia?
What therefore after achieving “merdeka;” whether Merdeka meant independence or freedom? What then? For the Umno, it was always a struggle to choose between traditional Malay nationalism and multi-ethnic nationalism.
Merdeka and independence from Britain under the auspices of the Federal Constitution was Bapak Malaya’s dream fulfilled of a multi-racial union called Federation of Malaya.
But, today, the same ideological position is being translated at the Umno General Assembly with the phrase “Ketuanan Melayu” as opposed to “Bangsa Malaysia.”
And, it was after all (former) Prime Minister Mahathir and the late Tan Sri Noordin Sopiee who first coined and sanctified the term Bangsa Malaysia as part and parcel of Vision 2020 towards a new Malaysia which is civilized and developed by our own definitions.
Nonetheless, the phrase Bangsa Malaysia is still only good rhetoric for even Umno, but not yet a policy agenda of any value for even Barisan Nasional.
It is only good political rhetoric when it comes to talking about Barisan Nasional as a total group; for how can one talk about Ketuanan Melayu within the BN’s multi-ethnic context?
For every other Barisan Nasional component member too, maybe with the exception of Gerakan, their frame of reference is still one based entirely on a mistaken notion of ethnicity, defined as race.
Within this functionalist structure, why should anyone really worry or talk about Bangsa Malaysia or a Malaysian nationality?
Such talk pulls the carpet underneath each of their underlying frameworks. Every party and our entire model are therefore “race-based” and non-representative of the real ethnic groups found within the nation.
For a simple example, who really represents the broad category of Peninsular based “Orang Asli” groups; given that our courts are now beginning to recognize their legitimate and legal right as “orang asal” of Peninsular Malaysia?
Similar arguments can be made for the umpteen ethnic groups of Sabah and Sarawak.
A misguided democracy
Based on this line of thinking, I would argue that we are “a flawed and currently misguided democracy.”
Real and full independence means we need no move outside the frame of having “guides” from one ethnicity or another!
We need to become a composite whole. That probably is the brilliance of the other federated nation called America.
Our Federal Constitution was modeled after theirs in written form as well. They appear to have transcended their ethnicity and are now American nationals; all of them regardless of ethnicity or religious conviction.
The same can be true in Malaysia after 50 years. By now, all our nation-state peoples (the ethnic-based ones) are educated (or are being mainstreamed into this notion of development) and learned enough to determine and define their own futures.
We simply need to give them enough space and voice and allow for the due processes of a real democracy. Whether through the independent judicial system or a representative legislative system or even an affirmative action system, please give voice to all the people groups so that they are adequately represented and their voices heard.
We can then become a more well representative and participative democracy and not be using the concept of our notion of democracy rather frivolously.
Embedded in the concept of democracy, via that simplest definition, “of the people, by the people and for the people,” are implicit concepts and parameters like participative and representative governance, transparency and openness, responsibility and accountability and a clear separation of powers translated into checks and balances of powers under the legislative, executive and judicial institutions of governance.
Rather unfortunately, in Malaysia today, we are currently only fulfilling the Soekarno’s “Guided Democracy model,” which even the Indonesians have well abandoned.
Frankly, even the Singaporeans are consciously moving away from such a model in a structured and orderly way.
Good and fair political representation is critical for good governance. Such a model of good representative governance may be reflected conceptually by three overlapping circles of the civil society, public services and the private industry, but with an even larger circle covering all three circles.
More and more questions
To the degree that the public, private and civil society representatives are distinct and different, these are the organized and representative groups.
But, what if they are others who are not organized and therefore “unrepresented” as per the above structure? Are they not truly marginalized? Now, what if they are without voice? Conceptually, is this not possible?
Currently our model of representative governance assumes that this is not possible, by the sheer false assumption that the MIC speaks for all the “Malaysian Indians of the different ethnic origins, whether Tamil, Telugu, Malayalee, Ceylonese, Punjabi, Bengali, Sindhi, etc, etc.
Nothing can be further from the truth.
Likewise the fact Umno does not represent the Orang Asli in Peninsular or truly the Bumiputera of Sabah and Sarawak; it is a fact that many Malaysian Indians are likewise not represented by the MIC.
Now, all such consideration is based mainly on the ethnic dimension. Let us take the socio-economic dimension for a difference.
Is all and every poor Indian in Malaysia fully represented by the MIC? Does the MIC represent the rich and poor in the same way? Again the answer is a definite no.
There are many, many disparate poor Indians who may have been historically represented by the MIC, in the days of the plantations, and when they were organized but whose woes and concerns are today no more the representative concern of the MIC.
The large majority of them have fallen in the cracks as a result of unplanned plantation-urban migration. Kampung Medan was an excellent example of this.
MIC (the formal institution) may even have not known of the existence of Kampung Medan before the ethnic problems originated.
For that matter, even the Selangor state government, I understand, knew very little and cared very little about the problem until much later.
Therefore, it is not just a theoretically possibility but even a practical plausibility that there may be many segments of the Malaysian communities of different ethnic foundations who are either not very well represented or do not adequately participate in the governance of this nation.
If this is true for MIC, can we not say that the same is true of all other current political and race-based parties?
For example, do we earnestly believe that the 3,000 Umno delegates who attend their general assembly represent all the 15 million or so ethnic Malays in Malaysia, or even the non-PAS Malay community?
Or, let me ask the question in yet a different way? Could we not assume that Hindraf arose because the cause and concerns of the Hindu Tamils in poor urban settings were not already adequately represented by the MIC?
Who are the real losers?
My sincere concern therefore is that the government is deluding herself when it says that Hindraf did not use the right and correct channels.
I think they did in many and varied ways, but truth be told, I believe no one was really listening.
And their latest of such a memorandum was presented in August 2007 at Putrajaya with about 1,000 supporters and sympathisers present.
The PM’s Office representative even received the memorandum. This was even reported in Malaysiakini and carried on You Tube. My sincere question to the government and especially Prime Minister Pak Lah is, “why did someone not call in the leaders (the same ones as now arrested under ISA) and ask them about their real grievances?”
For that matter, I would be even curious to know if in fact they used any “such language about ethnic cleansing” in that memorandum. If they did, then there is sufficient evidence to prosecute them under the seditious utterance law.
Why was this not done at that time and why were there only sought after the situation was out of control? Even that too, it would appear, was an effort to victimize and muzzle their voices than to deal with the real issues.
Now the government actually believes that they been actually silenced via the ISA!
Shame on you, government of Malaysia as you are simply no different than those who you accuse!
For, as I wrote in an earlier column, force will meet force and we the ordinary people actually lose!
The police caused the traffic jams to prove their point and the ordinary people lost. But, who are the real losers from this abuse of authority and power of governance?
It is we who trusted the government of the day and a Prime Minister who promised never to use the ISA.
It is a shame for the IGP to now suggest that these Malaysians have terrorist links without any proof. This is the IGP whose credibility is itself under doubt from within his own ranks.
After all, was it not some of the Hindraf leaders who actually anticipated that the country might be headed towards an acrimonious state if such issues are not well handled?
Really, does the IGP really feel that we are better off with the five leaders out of the way?
Shame on you Malaysia
Frankly, force will meet with more force and that has never been our way except with the militant communists; but they were an ideological group committed to the communist ideal, not democracy.
Hindraf is not an ideological group committed to any political platform, as best as I know. So, to link them to the LTTE is very unfortunate and disingenuous.
They are merely giving voice to the “unheard and unrepresented portion of poorer Tamils of the Hindu origin who feel their rights to have been forsaken.”
All we had to do was to enquire and listen and then explain why if this was true or not true? Any logical and rational person would and could understand this, as they did not go the British parliament to make their first protest but their last; Putrajaya was their first choice!
Do we blame them if we are hard of hearing or do not know how to listen? Why then suddenly listen to another group of more representative Tamil Indians; even if, with the presence of the MIC head?
And, are you really hearing a different story? Why could not this have been the first step after they handed their memorandum? Instead, to my mind and heart the government is less than credible and behaves exactly like the government of the United States, whom we accuse of all kinds of evil.
We make up a lie, and then believe it, and act by it. We explain away our own carelessness of poor governance and blame the problem on the other groups by vilifying them, with no recourse for them to defend themselves.
Shame on you government of Malaysia; you are as guilty in the eyes of God as exactly as you accuse the Hindraf leaders. May the Lord God judge you appropriately on this action which you do unjustly and without the due process of natural justice.
You did not even bother to read their memorandum and now you accuse them of “becoming a danger to the Malaysian society and public interest.”
And you abuse the ISA meant for communists. Just tell me why? May we all continue to pray and ask for God’s Mercy on Malaysia!
