I refer to A Kathiresan’s piece “Malaysian agenda vs Malay agenda: The battle begins”.
Two things I am uncomfortable with in Kathiresan’s essay.
There is a tendency to show one side in a favourable light, whatever might be the facts on the ground.
Two, a clever and unchallenged stand that there is such a thing as the “Malaysian agenda”.
The writer emphatically suggests that there is a Malay agenda that is exclusively Malay and Islamic in content, and that is “warlike”, thus ugly. Then, there is a “Malaysian agenda” that is inclusive and just, thus noble.
The “Malaysian agenda” that is put forward in the essay is one that calls for equality, meritocracy, free of racial and religious undertones, inclusive, “in the interest of the whole nation”, and “without sacrificing the interests of the majority Malays”.
All the right sounds easily recognised by the international community.
But a critical examination will find that this “Malaysian agenda” is actually the “non-Malay agenda”, as the contents are all that the non-Malays want.
Claims that it is “in the interest of the whole nation”, and “without sacrificing the interests of the majority Malays” are unconvincing, as this agenda rejects the special position of the Malays, and other things Malays consider their essential interests, such as the New Economic Policy (NEP).
How would such rejection make the agenda a “Malaysian agenda”, bearing in mind that “Malaysians” include Malays?
It cannot be inclusive and Malaysian if it cannot embrace Malay interests.
Further, “equality”, and “meritocracy” put the Malays and other natives generally at a clear disadvantage.
Thus, “equality”, and “meritocracy” do not equate with justice for the Malays and natives, if justice is a “Malaysian” consideration too.
In Singapore “equality” has been officially described as an ideal, not reality.
What we have on the ground really are a “Malay agenda” and a “non Malay agenda”, the latter cleverly portrayed as the “Malaysian agenda”.
Let us examine the “Malay agenda” by taking an example. The NEP is an iconic “Malay agenda”. It has been described and explained in official statements as an economic masterplan to help speed up the economic upliftment of the Malays, and this is done with “an expanding cake”, so as not to take away what non-Malays already own.
The NEP has two stated aims: to restructure society so as to eradicate identification of race with economic functions; and to eradicate poverty among all races.
It is thus never exclusively about Malay interests as non-Malay interests are taken into consideration.
Is there injustice there by the yardstick of the “Malaysian agenda”? Non-Malays, although not all of them, continue to prosper and reap rewards too from the NEP.
What has driven the so-called “Malay agenda” and NEP is in fact the spirit that runs throughout the Malaysian Constitution.
The Constitution refers to “the special position of the Malays and other natives” and “the legitimate interests of the other communities”. It is a statement that is inclusive that marks out the Malaysian identity and national interests.
But people see only the greatness of Westminsterism, and Western democracies and liberalism, and refuse to know or understand our own Constitution and native history, and the wisdom of our own national policies.
Many people in Malaysia indulge heavily in politics, and also completely refuse to understand local native history and civilisation. They bring a cultural trait of making demands, something alien to the native Nusantara culture. As such, our post-Merdeka history has been marked by political and cultural demands from the non-Malays, despite the Constitution having provided for the interests of all.
It began with the demand by MCA to increase the number of seats for MCA for the 1959 elections, which peeved Tunku Abdul Rahman.
Politics based on demands snuff out any affection for integration. Thus, we find ourselves in a state of anti-integration, and hence, a divided Malaysia.
Anti-integration starts with a refusal to recognise that we live in a Malay land, and need to live by its expectations.
Instead, many insist on “multiracialism”, which is just euphemism for anti-integration.
Faced with demands, Malays become more vociferous (an act completely un-Malay), and are called racist.
This response is described as “Malay agenda”, whereas if one understands the Malays, their culture is one that has a place for others.
The non-Malay agenda sounds noble because it enumerates principles like equality and the lot. But are those principles truly held aloft, or do they mask racial calculations?
After all, a very senior Singapore Chinese leader once proclaimed that anybody, whatever his ethnicity, has the right to be the prime minister of Malaysia.
Later, in independent Singapore, he said Chinese Singaporeans are not ready to accept a non-Chinese prime minister.
The Malay agenda lays down rights and dues based on historical facts and contemporary realities.
The only principle of the Malays is “patut”, or what is proper.
The “Malaysian agenda” in the Constitution is all that is “patut”, if properly understood. But some bright young ones like to think they are smarter than the Federal Constitution.
Arof Ishak is an FMT reader.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.