By OOI KEE BENG. Introduction

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "By OOI KEE BENG. Introduction"

Della Mathews
5 years ago
Views:

1 Nation Building, Unity and the Malaysian Dream: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow Organised by IDEAS, IIM and IKLIN (Wednesday, September 16, 2015 from 8:30 AM to 5:30 PM (MYT), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia) By OOI KEE BENG Introduction Let me use the words found in the title of this conference to elaborate on some ideas that I think are worth considering where national unity is concerned. Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow tells us that we are talking about something that not only stretches over time but that perhaps is never-ending. That something is three things, according to the title of the conference: Nation building, Unity and the Malaysian Dream. Let me discuss what I think are the most important points to consider in such a context, and then use the rest of the time I have left to consider the Malaysian case the Malaysian Dream, and necessarily, the historical context. The Building and Rebuilding of Nations and States First, we must differentiate between Nation and State, and consider how the building of one is different from the other; and in the building of state or of nation, whether or not, and to what extent, Unity is the required item. When we talk of the Nation-state, we seek to identity a nation upon which a state is built, or which expresses itself as a state. In many European countries in modern times, there was no Nation building process they had to go through. This was because the reality of Nation was already there. And so, the Italian people already existed as an identity before the state of Italy came into being in 1861; as did the Germans when Germany was founded in Thus, Nation building the forming of an ethnic community is a dynamic and defining process that seems to be much more organic than it is bureaucratic/legalistic or political. Germans may speak the same language but have different religions, for example; and until today, they belong in different countries still.

2 A Nation tends to have had a common political past, or at least a common history in some sense, but as time passes, the fate of Nation and of States do move along different paths. There is then the idea at some point in history, of the dispersed Nation seeking a State that unites all its members and gives it greater prominence, glory, pride of place, security, cultural renaissance, and what have you; What gets forgotten is that there is another process that alternates with the Nation-state ideal over time; and that is the dynamics of the State-nation. States seek unity of purpose in its peoples through the creating of a Nation of some kind a people with common fate, schooling and location. Over time, therefore, Nation-states and state-nations understood in this technical sense, are in a dialectical relationship; now with state having prominence, and later with nation having prominence. At each point then, the idea of Unity, of socio-political and socio-economic functioning, differs. Unity for the state is necessarily different from Unity for the nation. The Nation can differ in how it understands itself, through religion, nation or historical events. States, or polities, take different forms as well as tribal system, as feudal system, as empire, as colonizer, as modern nation-state. Both can come and go, and both evolve. Nations do get absorbed or get eradicated. States too. Nations migrate as a whole or simply expand outwardly; and states also swell in size or contract. All this explains the diversity that is the Human Condition today. Now, when we focus on a small segment of humanity and political geography, it is wise that we remember this great diversification in (1) identity development and manipulation and (2) political organization and coercion. The Malaysian Condition What we call Malaysia today is interesting in many ways; and I think what we may be referring to when we say The Malaysian Dream is the hand of cards that history has dealt us, and the challenge of making most of that strange fate. The Big Question to ask where Malaysia is concerned is, are we at a Nation-building stage in history, or are we at a State-building stage in history? And how are the two to be balanced. This is very important because it decides what we are to mean by Unity, and a host of related concepts. The rationale informing policies are decided by this difference. If there is any considered ideological battle going on in Malaysia, it is this one.

3 Also, as a curiosa, why do we not use the term Country-building, something that sounds much more neutral? We are a post-colonial state, and like most post-colonial states, we are a mess where notions of nations and notions of states are concerned. Having been run by the pragmatic-minded and consensus-seeking British, Malaysia started out in 1957, 1963 and 1965, not as an either-this-or-that, but as a both-this-and-that. I mention all these three dates just to remind us that our hand of cards changed several times. Let me take Singapore as a contrasting example at this point. On leaving the federation in 1965, Singapore leaders were clear that they were building a state, not a nation. They decided that they were in the State-building stage. The Nation Singaporeans would follow in time; but first, the State must be built. The process of Economic growth, which depends very much on how the rest of the world does business, would decide how the institutions of the state would emerge, no doubt by interacting with local conditions. The sense that many feel today when visiting Singapore is that it is extremely efficient and yet, it lacks spontaneity. That is because the Singapore project has largely been a State-building enterprise. What is being contested since the 2011 elections there is whether more Nation-building should be attempted. This translates into notions of what The Heartland feels, longing for alternative values to monetarism; calls for less globalization and immigration, etc. Tellingly, why we have such a hard time in Malaysia mainstreaming East Malaysian influences is that the Federation of Malaya, the major partner in the new Federation of Malaysia formed in 1963, considered itself to be a Nation-building project, not a State-building one. How the different bits of Southeast Asia, which were under British rule, have developed is of great interest here, too. Brunei retains its old state structure of being an Absolute Monarchy, while Singapore developed a mentality of being city-state, nation-state and global-city. To me, these two depict the range of post-colonial economic development in the region. While Brunei continues in its extractive industry condition, Singapore functions within the global economy that the British Empire brought to the region. Sarawak and Sabah lie closer to the Brunei model in being un-industrialized and being reliant on extractive industries and on tourism. Peninsula Malaysia s economy has been a mix of both extractive and industrial. In the present context, Myanmar and Malaysia to my mind are closer together in that they both

4 struggle with broad ethnic diversity they had both for too long sought Nation-building when Statebuilding may have been the wise undertaking. The Messy Making of Malaysia All for One and One for None Southeast Asia is a small place, and despite its population, it has in modern times been largely a buffer zone or transitional space for bigger actors and deeper dynamics in world history. Malaysia, in this context, is very much the result of colonial retreat. Consider the following historical conditions: 1. British defeat at the hands of the Japanese The Rise of USA and the Overshadowing of Britain from The Sumatran Social Revolution of The Cold War from The Independence of India and Pakistan in The Rise of Mao Zedong in 1949 In Malaysia, in reflection of this, we have had: 1. The Malayan Union Founding of UMNO Federation of Malaya Founding of MCA The Emergency Emergence of the Alliance Federal Elections Reid Commission The Federal Constitution accepted in August 1957 (The mix of State-Nation and Nation-State approaches are evident there; 10. Merdeka Federation of Malaysia Separation of Singapore Rioting in KL in Early 1970s Major Amendments to the Constitution, NEP, Barisan Nasional. I shall stop the list there.

5 National Unity must consider what Unit, what Country, is being imagined and how that Unit came into being. Overnight, in 1957, again in 1963, and then 1965, not only did we have diverse populations merged into one Political Unit, we also had many diverse Economics, diverse Histories and diverse identities placed under one National Unit, one political entity. This must create profound problems, and these are worsened by the fact that we have not given the matter the right consideration. Instead, moral, ethnic, religious, ideological and conceptual contestations all emerged immediately, and without us always having a sound understanding of the global strategic and global historical reasons through which they have arisen. In many ways, we began fighting shadows. History tells us that Leaders do not seek unity all the time. They also seek divisiveness. In fact, they attain sufficient unity through strategic disunity, and propagate exclusiveness through a process of excluding others. Politics means Political Parties, which leads us to consider whether we mean Party Unity or National Unity when we discuss such matters; whether we mean support of the Party Agenda or the National Agenda. They are not identical, but often function as if they are. Aside from investigating the concepts of Nation and State, I would also suggest that we also investigate what Party means in our part of the world, and in our history. We should also admit that we have unique cultural understandings of leadership; and this affects what we mean by Unity. I have written about what I call The Unity Fetish, by which I wish to problematize all these key concepts in political science which we mistakenly take to be neutral terms easily imported and exported over cultural and historical divides, and across continents and oceans. The Situation Today What we see today is a dividing line between Malay ethnocentrism and Good governance, reflecting exactly what I am saying are we a Nation-state, meaning a Malay nation seeking a state to express itself; or are we a State-nation? If the former, we struggle with prescribing Malayness/Bumiputeraness and Muslimness (and this today includes proscribing Shias, etc) on one hand, and prescribing non-malayness on the other. Policies and resources are fought over within this logic. Unity in this way of thinking is thus assumed to naturally come from the activating of primordial sentiments the ethnie; and the accompanying sense of pride and privilege. One is to an extent reminded of the activating of Class loyalty under Communism, as a deliverance from a false

6 consciousness. If the latter, if we are in the thinking mode of the State-nation, then the issue is quite different. We would then first seek to build a state around strong institutions exercising predictable legal and bureaucratic procedures; with one-tiered citizenship and the condition of living under these conditions creates common experiences and references, and over time an organic unity and sense of commonality come into being. Unity in the latter case is thus the medium- and long-term result of living as a participant among many participants maneuvering realities in a diverse society and diversity is the given human condition, as I have tried to show. It is thus the result of living together under sufficiently predictable social conditions and political conditions that are not conceptually divisive. In any case, one must ask if what is seek, if what is needed, is merely sufficient unity and not total unity. Unity, pushed too far, tends simply to mean Conformity, Obedience, Loyalty, Silence, etc and furthermore involves a process of inclusiveness and exclusiveness within the national population. These take the form of religious differences, ethnic differences, racial differences, geographic differences, class differences, gender differences, political party-affiliation differences, legal standing, and cultural differences. The answer we should be answering at this conference, and at any other conference on Malaysia is: What is causing Disunity? My answer is that when we get the State-building - Nation-building balance wrong, then we generate more disunity than unity. The trouble is that these two dynamics shift over time, and it is for the insightful leader to realize when one has tipped over to the other. We can seek Unity, meaning a buy-in from a majority of citizens, through the State through legaltechnical equality and predictability and competence or we can seek Unity through appeals to primordial sentiments, i.e. through the Nation. But it is about getting the balance right, not once, but continually. That is not easy. Finally, I would like to leave you with the question why we seem to assume that when we do not have Unity, we have Disunity and chaos. That is an unrealistically and pessimistic view of society and of humans ability to get along with each other outside of political agendas.

7 Shared realities are what we seek, not Unity. And today, shared realities are not always geographically defined. Thank you for your attention.

Learning to talk through our differences

Learning to talk through our differences Posted on Aug 5, 2014 12:28 AMUpdated: Aug 5, 2014 11:52 AM By Chan Heng Chee -- ST ILLUSTRATION: MANNY FRANCISCO With National Day around the corner, it is a good