Growing up together

By Tun Hanif Omar

GROWING up, I saw the Japanese invasion looked upon differently by the Malays, Chinese and Indians. Many radical Malays welcomed it as a deliverance from British subjugation but many Chinese saw it as an extension of Japan’s war on their Motherland. Many Indians saw in the Japanese support for India’s independence from Britain a possibility of cooperation. Thus the three major races saw the same phenomenon of the Japanese invasion in three different perspectives. On the Japanese surrender, the Chinese-dominated Malayan Peoples’ Anti-Japanese Army exacted vengeance on so-called Japanese collaborators. Many of those they killed were Malays.

Sir David Watherston, a former Chief Secretary to the government, described the period as one of “acute tension … between Malays and Chinese, culminating in massacres in a few instances”.

When the overseas Chinese leader Tan Kah Kee in 1946 demanded that the British hand over Malaya to China as the Chinese had already outnumbered the Malays, it shook up the Malays.

Two years later, the Chinese-dominated Communist Party of Malaya launched its insurrection to seize power. In the words of the same Sir Richard Watherston, “ … If the communists had been successful, the Malays would have found themselves under the control of an alien regime. No doubt some quislings would have emerged, but … the Malays would have lost the power to decide the future of their own country.”

This was not lost upon most Malays, which goes to explain why Chin Peng failed to get Malay support.

The Malays demanded for independence almost as a price for supporting the British in the war against the CPM. The British were fi rm that the three races should work together before full independence could be given. It was against this backdrop that our journey towards Merdeka and a shared destiny begun when Umno, the MCA, and the MIC formed the Alliance party and decided on mutually agreed goals as refl ected in the Federal Constitution. This was the social contract or compact of 1957 and marks the beginning of the nature of our fellow-travelling.

This social contract mirrors the fears, hopes and aspirations of the indigenous Malays and orang asli on the one hand and those of the immigrant communities on the other. The indigenous wanted their special position as the original masters of the land to be refl ected in special rights. Thus, even without the NEP and the NDP, Art. 153 allows the Yang diPertuan Agong to reserve scholarships, civil service jobs, business permits or licences for Malays and bumiputras, provided nothing already in the hands of the other communities can be taken away. This is the origin of the percentage reserved for bumiputras from an expanding cake. The immigrants wanted their special interests such as citizenship, freedom of worship, the right to learn their mother tongues, and ownership of what they already have, etc. to be safeguarded.

Interestingly, in a letter to Tunku Abdul Rahman in 1975, the MCA leader Tun Tan Siew Sin wrote that during the negotiations on the shape of the Constitution he was a lone voice and did not hold much hope that all the MCA demands would be met but he was surprised at the magnanimity of Tunku and his Umno colleagues who, despite being under pressure from their own party, gave him more than he had ever dared to hope for. He thanked Tunku and said he would always support Tunku and his colleagues for this. This presaged the give and take spirit that is the driving force behind the cohesion of the Barisan Nasional.

Fifty years and three days have passed since Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra read out the proclamation of Independence. It gives us an idea of what was our founding fathers’ vision of the country they wanted to create.

The Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It will have safeguards for the rights and prerogatives of the rulers and the fundamental rights and liberties of the people. It will provide for the orderly advancement of the country as a constitutional monarchy based on parliamentary democracy.

It will be an independent state founded upon the principles of liberty and justice and ever seeking the welfare and happiness of its people and the maintenance of a just peace among all nations.

That’s our legacy.

We can agree that for the past 50 years we have remained very independent but, as for the supremacy of the Federal Constitution, in spite of being enshrined as Art. 4 of the Constitution, some ignoramuses have challenged it, espousing that Parliament is supreme or that God’s law is supreme. The one has failed to understand that Parliament is a creature of the Constitution and therefore subservient to it, and the second has failed to see that the Constitution is a solemn compact inter-races and that even the Prophet Muhammad had honoured his compacts.

This confusion has arisen because we do not teach the history of our constitutional development and arrangements to our people. On Merdeka day 50 years ago the Straits Times published a parting advice from Mr H.G. Hammett, Malacca’s Resident Commissioner, that, “to every politician especially, I commend the study of Malayan history, if only to remind him that what had happened before can happen again.” He recalled that an English judge once said that every candidate for parliament should fi rst deposit with the returning offi cer a certifi cate that he had passed an exam in history. (Straits Times Aug 31, 1957)

So we need to entrench this fact of the supremacy of the Constitution in the minds of everyone, particularly the judges who have to decide on constitutional issues, and members of Parliament who will continue to be passing laws and be tempted to continue to amend the Constitution. Many amendments have been made, too many to mention, and some have diminished the power of the rulers and the judiciary – the two moderating infl uences on parliamentary oppression. And there is disquiet in some quarters that a radical lobby in Parliament is cavalier about the importance of fundamental rights. This makes it even more important that our judges are held to their solemn oath to defend the spirit and letter of the Constitution. Our compact, enhanced in 1963 with the inclusion of some of the 20-point safeguards for Sabah and Sarawak, is the basis on which we have agreed we can live and work together to make Malaysia a prosperous and happy nation in which we can all have an equitable share.

Our parliamentary democracy started on a strong footing because the British had prepared our leaders. We had had state legislative councils since before the turn of the 19th century and the Federated Malay States Federal Legislative Assembly came into being in 1896. Apart from these continuing except for the war and occupation years, Tunku Abdul Rahman and his colleagues had further training from 1954 when we achieved self-government and Tunku became the chief minister. So, when Merdeka came with its Parliament, our leaders and offi cials were conversant with the workings and demands of parliamentary democracy. Thus you find that that generation of government leaders appreciated the role of a loyal though hardhitting Opposition in Parliament. Tunku nurtured this by being cordial to opposition leaders. Our fundamental rights and liberties mirror those found in the European and English bills of rights, including the grounds on which they can be restricted. However, we should hew closer to their respect for the rule of law by allowing judicial review in all cases to avoid oppression and to be in consonance with the declaration that we are founded on the principles of justice and liberty.

When we look at our original Constitution and the major national institutions – the Yang diPertuan Agong and the Conference of Rulers, Parliament, the judiciary, the Attorney-General’s chambers, the police, etc., many people today have the perception that members of Parliament should be allowed more leeway to vote according to their conscience but I think a coalition government like the Barisan Nasional cannot work unless each component can deliver the support that is expected of it by the coalition.

Many people also have the perception that the judiciary, the AG’s chambers and the police have seen better days in several respects. This is a great pity as our institutions are supposed to improve with time in tandem with developments in the advanced, progressive democracies.

We must always benchmark ourselves against the best countries, their achievements and their best practices. After all we have only about 12 years to reach a developed nation status. We have to make haste to put our acts together.

At the time of Independence the police were responsible for all anti-corruption work. In 1967 we created a new important institution, the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) solely devoted to that function, so important was the fight against corruption. The agency started off very well but had failed us increasingly these past fifteen years. There seems to be a slight awakening with the new director-general but we cannot afford for our institutions to be predicated on personalities:
the system itself must be good, transparent and accountable.

Under present circumstances and with all that have been happening, we need an independent judicial commission, we need an independent police commission on misconduct and corruption so that the people’s confidence in the police can be returned. And we could be better off if the Attorney-General is made accountable in some way. We also need the ACA to be independent of direct or indirect political control. I think once these institutions are set right and function as they should, the other institutions will improve or will be more easily made to improve. The government then would be in a better position to ensure the welfare and happiness of the people.

The feeling today is that the government has failed to deliver effectively on a very important promise of transparency, accountability and anticorruption, and our justice system suffers as a result.

Our multi-cultural milieu makes us a more diffi cult nation to build and unite than many others but for 50 years our leaders and institutions have been able to keep us together in relative comfort, progress and happiness. This is not a paradox of what I have said earlier about our institutional shortcomings. It is merely an acknowledgement of a fact: we have indeed progressed much in the last 50 years in so many fi elds but the important point is that we would be doing better if we can get rid of some major impediments.

Some people say that the government’s affirmative action is a drag and should be done away with. I say that for equity, the affirmative action is still necessary but it should be on a need basis, not a racial basis. That way we would probably be looking more in the direction of the orang asli and the hinterland of Sabah and Sarawak natives and the poor among the Malays, Chinese and Indians, and others. The disadvantaged should be given a leg-up, otherwise the rich and privileged will sweep them aside.

In late 1970 or early 1971, Tun Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Home Affairs, asked for a Special Branch (SB) paper on affirmative action. SB was conditioned by our long battle for hearts and minds in the fi ght against the communists. SB opted for affirmative action based on needs and not on race. To allay Malay concerns SB argued that since most of the poor were Malays, more Malays than anybody else would benefi t but they would be the more deprived Malays. By not making it racial it would prevent the CPM from
exploiting the issue.

Any government except for an out-and-out capitalist government will want to see an equitable distribution of wealth. Our government’s many trust organisations and companies should be an instrument for this. They should always be wellmanaged by the best people and examplary in transparency and accountability so as to assist in giving the have-nots a fair deal and a chance in life. That should be one of their trust objects, i.e. to redistribute wealth and opportunities equitably.

If a regional development approach is the best approach, so be it but we have to beware that development does not overwhelmingly benefit only the same groups again and again and any benefit to target groups is only minimal and transient. There is a perception that when it comes to government expenditure, we do not get our money’s worth.

When the Barisan Nasional pro-development election manifesto for Kelantan did not cut ice with the population, I asked my former Kelantan schoolmates why they did not vote for the BN. Didn’t they want development? Of course they wanted development, they said, if they could benefit from it but, who had benefi tted so far, they asked? So, that’s a point to consider.

This is where a strong civil society can help to dissuade any hanky-panky in development and public projects. By demanding publicity and accountability, fair play and environmental protection, they can make this country attractive to investors, particularly those with a strong CSR culture. Increasingly investors of this kind are becoming the dominant players.

Our civil society has steadily grown. Lately they seem to be more tolerated. This, I think must be due to our prime minister’s relatively tolerant and inclusive attitude. They are playing a great role in helping to check and expose government excesses, lack of transparency and accountability. This is crucial for the development of a good and responsible society. Checking on big government and protecting the interests of the little man, is part and parcel of the rule of law as much as judicial review.

After 50 years of independence the various races, particularly in the peninsula, have not moved closer to each other. It is imperative that we remove all the impediments to having our children in one school system. One system should be devised that can meet with the reasonable expectations of every parent and pupil.

Certain students may have special needs over and above the common system curriculum but they can be met by extra classes. Our children must grow up together, play together, study together. Teachers should be judged by their ability to treat their wards equally and to make each one feel welcomed and wanted. They should not impose their political or religious inclinations on their students.

If we put the children together from an early age, they will develop a feeling of comradeship cutting across racial and religious barriers. It would be second nature for them later on in life to mix and work with, and employ their friends irrespective of race and creed, guided only by their ability and character. This early exposure to each other and to each other’s culture will remove the prevailing prejudices.

We were close to achieving a one school system in the mid 1960’s. Two developments derailed it: the change to the Malay medium from the English medium in all secondary schools post 1969, and the 1969 racial incident which led to racial polarisation by itself and by certain government policies thereafter. The rise of China as an economic power with opportunities for those who can speak Mandarin, and the lack of Mandarin language competencies in national-type schools have contributed to the estrangement of Chinese students from national schools.

The formation of the Barisan National in 1973 with the PMIP in a pivotal role also led to greater Islamisation across the public board including schools. The injudicious and insensitive action of certain bigots among the teachers in imposing their religious preferences on the schools and their students has also exacerbated the problem.

Living together in a multiracial country and forging ahead together call for a lot of mutual understanding and appreciation for diversity and a determined effort to go the last mile to make them work. It would be easier if the leaders of all hues would make a public effort to go the last mile.

Our patriotic songs speak of “satu bahasa, satu bangsa”. Some people want to see satu bangsa but many bahasa. Others, including me, feel that all of us must be fluent in bahasa even if we are fluent in seven or eight other languages; then only can we get closer to one bangsa.

One bangsa – Bangsa Malaysia – should be our goal. We are citizens of one nation so, why can’t we all be Bangsa Malaysia? What does it take for us to move in that direction? We will only know if we poll each other’s views and see how we can come to terms.

There is still a lot of unnecessary emotion here but that is the reality.