10.16.09
For ordinary Men and Women
I wrote a review recently in the Sun on Liew Chin Tong’s book… Here it is!
For ordinary men and women
Tricia Yeoh
SPEAKING for the Reformasi Generation by Liew Chin Tong (Bukit Bendera MP) compiles the author’s writings between 2003 and 2009. It traces the thoughts and struggles of a Malaysian’s political awakening birthed out of the Reformasi movement of 1998. His views, sometimes frustrated but mostly rational, epitomise those of his comrades, making this book an important read since many who were bitten by the “reformasi” bug in their youth are today significant public figures.
This sentiment is captured perfectly by Liew in his personal recount of his participation in the protest against Anwar’s arrest. He states that the “cramped pilgrimage for justice” is “the deepest common bond among the leaders of Pakatan Rakyat”.
However, far from romanticising a singular event, Liew demonstrates incredible grasp of political realities. His passion for political governance is shown through prolific writings from party politics to administrative reform. In my conversations with Liew I have found a rare combination of idealism and pragmatism.
With pride, he says that “Malaysia has been in search of an alternative to Barisan Nasional, and Pakatan Rakyat is an idea whose time has come”… and is “likely to survive for a long time”.
This prediction is an optimistic one – rightly so, written by a Pakatan member – but nevertheless warrants attention. It is a stark reminder amid arising doubts that Pakatan needs to prove itself as a “viable alternative” by succeeding in its state governments.
According to Liew, though, co-operation among the three parties has improved tremendously. The “day-to-day working relationship” forces each member party to think along national lines instead. “The cultural breakthrough that sees PAS accepted by non-Malays and DAP by the Malays is gaining momentum,” recently culminating in the first Malay DAP (Democratic Action Party, of which the author is a member) branch formed.
One respects Liew’s boldness in being one of the few Chinese to study PAS (Parti Islam Se-Malaysia) with great interest. An entire section is dedicated to PAS – not only in a rigorously analytical manner, but in a genuine attempt at understanding their religious philosophies. His inclinations towards the Erdogan faction are clear, while his respect for PAS is evident in a column dedicated to the late president of PAS, “In Memory of Fadzil Noor”, whom he attributes as providing the reformasi movement “one of its most important organisational supports in the early days”.
The relationship among the three Pakatan parties is key, and this book underscores the importance of forming common objectives subsequently informed to the public. The Pakatan convention in December may be an appropriate avenue for this.
Lest he is accused of mere “politicking”, Liew presents clear government reform measures. He repeats the mantra of “a better Parliament”, through increased budgetary Parliament allocation to improve its facilities, and live telecast of its debates. The reader finds it shocking that these fundamental needs are not provided for.
Liew also raises important reforms on public transport and for Kuala Lumpur to have an elected government.
Liew succeeds in planting a question in the reader’s mind: “How much longer can we be complacent about Malaysia’s dire situation?” And indeed, he has taken up the responsibility of being an elected representative, the less-trodden path of his peers. Through his writings, a strong sense of idealism seeps through, although he admits that “politics is about perception”.
And perception seems to be the name of the game these days. Most prominent, however, is Liew’s opinion of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak. His Achilles heel lies in his very heritage, which is “(his) political blue blood and … inability to comprehend the common man’s life and needs”. This observation is visibly contrasted against his own raison d’etre where “reformasi was not just about Anwar; it was very much about us.”
Perhaps then, this is what the reformasi generation has sought to represent. The needs and dreams of the everyday Malaysian. It is my hope that Pakatan Rakyat can encapsulate exactly this: the lives of “ordinary men and women”, as Liew so accurately writes.
Tricia Yeoh serves as research officer in the Selangor State Government. The views expressed here are her own.
09.16.09
Happy Malaysia Day! (“Looking beyond race” in theSun)
My comment for theSun in commemoration of Malaysia Day was published today, which can be found here.
In the article, I make a reference to 1Malaysia. It was meant to be sarcastic in nature, but unfortunately that little quip was edited out… so it looks and sounds as if I am praising it.
Some other subtle hints I make were also edited, so I think it’s best to publish the article in its original form here. Happy Malaysia Day, everyone!
* Malaysia Day is going to be busy. Just got back from this morning’s Fast4Peace event, a grassroots effort to fast for the nation on Malaysia Day. Was a little late as I only decided to go after I got up for the usual sahur for the month. In the morning our Selangor State Government will be celebrating Hari Malaysia with Menteri Besar and some guests from the East (Malaysia). In the evening, there is the launch of Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia, at BlogHouse. What are you doing today to remember you are Malaysian?
Looking Beyond Race: Ethnic Minorities in Malaysia
Tricia Yeoh
Any right-thinking Malaysian should be increasingly disturbed by recent incidents that are rocking the multiethnic boat. These separate events coalesce in our minds into one thing: the nation is riddled with racialist individuals. Whilst Malaysia battles with numerous other problems, ethnic relations is considered the primary wild animal to tame, and rightly so, since without equality of opportunity what pride can one take in one’s birth country?
The feeling of helplessness and disquiet is of course not new. Yes, recently a cow head was stomped and spat on to protest the building of a temple in a Muslim-majority area (cows are sacred to the Hindus). Yes, certain newspapers allow opinion pieces that read, “nothing can stand in the way of ensuring only Malay and Muslim rights are defended”. While one does not want to dilute the severity and gravity of these, Malaysians should not be particularly shocked.
Official policy in Malaysia already sets the fertile ground upon which ethnocentrism can grow and flourish. This has been debated at length, and many view the country’s socio-economic policies as being unable to contribute constructively towards building a united nation. The unfettered overzealousness in ensuring the advancement of a particular ethnic group turned sour over the years, never mind that the Constitution actually emphasises the well-being of all ethnic groups equally. Our race-based political structure does not help either, and has in fact proven instrumental in promoting division.
The nation stands confused and bewildered in the wake of irrational attitudes towards race, a tragedy indeed as we celebrate 46 years of Malaysia’s formation on the 16th September 2009. Our frail attempts at national unity seem to have all but shattered. What has become of mutual respect, understanding and compassion towards the other, all of which form fundamental elements of every religion? What should we make of sloganeering 1Malaysia when with one hand we cradle the platitudes of various motherhood statements, and with the other we fan the flames of racist sentiment?
Without wanting to place labels once again on ethnic groups, since I would rather all consider ourselves Malaysian first, it seems necessary to highlight the ethos of ethnic minorities: How should we react amidst such crazed antics? There are multiple ways in which ethnic minorities in Malaysia could respond to the strange direction the country seems to be taking of late.
The first and most natural reaction against an onslaught – real or imagined – is to retreat into respective ethnic bases, stick our heads into our own little communities, never to return to interethnic life. Unfortunately, this happens more often than not. Ethnic minorities around the world have a general tendency to close in on themselves, creating sub-cultures that overemphasise their own value-systems – like the early Turkish settlers in Germany, for example. Similarly, the danger for the Chinese, Indians and other “immigrant races” in Malaysia is to huddle in their own little club-houses, speak their own languages, build their own schools and produce and read their own newspapers. It is difficult to lobby for equality when participation of these communities in public life lies only within its fringes at best. It is difficult to counter the exclusivist positions when we entrench ourselves in precisely those categories of “immigrant” in which others seek to confine us.
Again, one understands this instinctive reaction, especially given their justified grounds: they feel excluded from mainstream of socio-economic life and hence create smaller worlds they can fully belong to and claim as their own territory. However, harsh as it may sound, this sort of thinking impedes the development of a united Malaysia. It is perfectly acceptable for multiple language to flourish as mediums of education and commerce, and the diversity of literature, resources, and culture should be encouraged. But the promulgation of isolated societies, members of which never see the light of any other community’s day, is unhealthy at best.
The second possible option is to react violently, akin to the ancient law of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. This is obviously immature and mutually destructive. A cow’s head may have been used to upset Hindus, but no one has the right to retaliate by desecrating a pig’s head to insult Muslims – far from it! Without necessarily resorting to physical acts of ridiculous rudeness, however, we have developed subtler ways to point fingers at the other. For example, should a Chinese-language publication spout biased remarks, its justification for doing so would be, “The other side did it first!” This may be so, but where does it end? No one should disgrace themselves by descending to whatever vile levels they think others have sunk. If, by contrast, we were to take the opposite tack of responding to provocation with calm and deliberate reason, would we not at least take a step closer – however small that step might be – towards admitting that we each have the right to be different?
The third and wisest option is the only one available in paving the way forward. The same trend has been developing in recent years in different shapes under different banners: “Anak Bangsa Malaysia”, “Malaysian Malaysia”, and yes even “1Malaysia” (hypocritical as the implementation is under the current government). As long as we continue to consider ourselves separate and divergent, leaders will continue to treat us as such. Whilst cultural diversity should be supported, one’s identity should be primarily identified based on one’s citizenship, that is, in being Malaysian. Ethnic minorities, while being critical of biased affirmative action policies should rise up against their natural tendencies and be counted for their ability to be colour-blind.
This means more than just fuzzy ‘we are all the same’ feel-good pats on the back. It also means the willingness to support institutions of government; for Chinese, Indians and others to work in the civil service; to reform educational institutions with the view of eventually sending all our children to national schools in which children interact with all races; for vernacular newspapers to shed their mindsets of defending only their own communities. Most importantly, we must all step out of our comfort zones and make genuine friends from other communities. We must honestly desire to help those communities that are poverty-stricken, whether they are Malay, Kadazandusun, Indian, Orang Asli, Penan, or Chinese. And we must be able to speak honestly and openly about each other’s religion and cultures.
The danger of bigotry is that it often prompts an equally ugly reaction from the other side. Malaysians of all communities should not stoop to such levels, but instead rise up above the ‘tit for tat’ attitude that, if nothing else, is reminiscent of the insane zero-sum logic that has brought more harm than good to the world.
Furthermore, race is not as defining a factor as socio-economic status, income levels, and other demographics. Let us not fall under the sway of the ‘illusion of singular identity’, espoused by Amartya Sen in one of his books. Malaysians must be responsible for thinking and behaving as Malaysians, for the sake of a truly flourishing united nation.
Tricia Yeoh serves as Research Officer at the Selangor State Government.
05.07.09
Reforming Institutions and Separation of Powers
I was invited to speak at the Perdana Leadership Foundation’s Discourse Series. The title of the day was “The Role of the Judiciary, Executive, Legislative and Constitutional Monarchy in the Governing of Malaysia”.
Some people thought I was too oppositionist in bringing up Perak, but come on – there is NO way I could have addressed the audience on this subject without analysing the Perak fiasco. Seriously. And what has happened today has made me all the more adamant that the institutions must be strengthened and complete revamping and reform must take place before the same orchestrated madness of today is replicated elsewhere, or worse – at national level should it come to that stage.
Once the Executive takes into its own hands what it must at all costs achieve, and makes use of all other arms to fulfill its needs, thus spells the death of democracy.
The text of my speech is here. (I shall upload all my speeches of the last few months too – haven’t had time la, have been so busy with Selangor work).
“Restoring Institutional Strength and Separation of Powers”
Wednesday, 6th May 2009, Perdana Leadership Foundation 9th Discourse Series, Putrajaya
Tricia Yeoh
Salam sejahtera and good morning. I have been asked to share my thoughts with you on the role of the judiciary, executive, legislature and the constitutional monarchy in the governing of Malaysia. My co-panelists, both trained in the law, would no doubt present a complete and thorough legal framework, so I thought that I’d try to capture the sentiments being more urgently and widely expressed by many Malaysians. The viewpoint which you will be sharing with for the next few moments will be that of a person working in government presently, exposed to its systems and cultures, a keen political observer, and a young Malaysian serious about reflecting upon the country’s problems and trying to resolve them through key public policy reforms.
One cannot reflect upon the role of these institutions – the judiciary, executive, legislative and the monarchy – without first examining the political structure that was intended for the governing of Malaysia. Our country was one of those Commonwealth countries that was expected to and for a while held out the promise of blossoming into a mature democracy. For this reason, it is worth considering the challenges encountered by these institutions; how their roles have been shaped; or where they have not been reflected in their practice; and how they can be improved, in the process of truly gaining a full-fledged democracy in the medium to long run. The Reid Commission Report clearly demonstrated the difficulty of achieving a fine balance of interests between the different sizable racial communities that had to be accounted for within a constitutional government akin to the British Westminster model. But did our past leaders envisage the fruition of a democracy in our country?
Tunku Abdul Rahman on 16th September 1963, the day Malaysia was formed, said, “Let us always remember that the Malayan Union was formed after many difficulties during a long period of national Emergency, yet its multi-racial society emerged, endured and survived as a successful and progressive nation, a true democracy and an example to the world of harmony and tolerance.” Malaysia’s formation was complicated by a host of factors: citizenship, cultural heritage, the Emergency, ethnicity, religion and so on. Despite this, and at the end of it all, our achievement should have been a true and healthy democracy; one where we are debating about the finer points of the rule of law and separation of powers, and not whether it exists or not. The rule of law simply means that no one is above the law. Not you. Or the police. Or the judges. Or even the Prime Minister. And in some cases even royalty. Everyone of us are supposed to be equal before the law.
11.19.08
What is a Nation?
Today’s column at the Nut Graph:
By Tricia Yeoh
MY recent trip to the US was to primarily observe their historic presidential election, but it triggered a deeper question about what a nation really is. A Polish immigrant to the States shared an intriguing anecdote with me, saying, “America is the only country where you can convert a new migrant into a full patriot within five years.”
Is there some secret ingredient that gives such deep meaning to the concept of citizenship in some countries, while in others migrant communities exist for hundreds of years but are still rejected? Both America and Malaysia are multiracial countries — what makes national identity so strong in one yet so weak in the other?
Malaysia is a multiplicity of factors, and to comprehend it one must be a careful purveyor of religion, ethnicity, culture, language, history and economics. The same goes in analysing any reactions, verbal or otherwise, to events taking place away from our shores.
African American voters rejoice at the result of the
US presidential election (Pic by Tricia Yeoh)
For example, there has been a flurry of responses to Barack Obama’s victory as the first African American president-elect of the US. While some lamented the impossibility of Malaysia ever selecting a racial minority as prime minister, others were criticised for getting carried away by American fervour.
In addition, Dr Chandra Muzaffar said it was precisely because Obama had assimilated into American society that he could succeed, not because he genuinely represented the typical African American citizen. He said a Malaysian equivalent would be one who assimilates into Malay culture, implying that only this would make such an individual suited for the top position in the country.
Former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad then said that anyone who is “bangsa Malaysia” could be prime minister — what characterises bangsa Malaysia was not elaborated upon.
Other recent events include attacks against Datuk Zaid Ibrahim’s comments about the need to discard ketuanan Melayu (Malay supremacy), and the appointment of a non-Malay to head the Selangor State Development Corporation (PKNS). Both issues dealt with ethnicity.
In sum, these reactions belie a nation that does not quite understand what it means to be a nation.
Read more here.
10.30.08
The White House Race
My latest article in The Nut Graph, comparing the issue of race in the US and Malaysia. Incidentally, it is estimated that 3-5% of people may fall prey to the Bradley Effect – mentioned below here.
By Tricia Yeoh
ONE question hovering over the minds of Americans as they enter the final leg of the 2008 presidential election campaign is whether race will influence voters. If it does not, then the battle between Senators Barack Obama and John McCain should be purely about their policy stands, experiences, and abilities. It should have nothing to do with the fact that one man is black and the other, white. If this is the case, the US would have successfully displayed leadership in its championing of equal civil rights.
But how realistic is this? If racism fundamentally still exists, then what is the use of the constitution (in the US or Malaysia) in legislating morality, really? This is, of course, if we consider racism a serious moral issue.
Read more here.
10.24.08
The Social-Contract/Constitution Equivalency
By Tricia Yeoh
LAST week, the Conference of Rulers issued a much-publicised statement. The statement reiterated the special position of the Malay rulers, Islam, the Malay language, and the genuine interests of other communities as enshrined in the Federal Constitution. The rulers reminded Malaysians that it is not proper to dispute the provisions of the Federal Constitution.
Many have pondered the significance of the statement’s issuance, since it comes immediately following a series of incidents that increasingly tug at Malaysia’s inter-ethnic fabric.
There was the decision by the Home Ministry to declare Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) an illegal organisation.
And then there is the continuing showdown between Seputeh Member of Parliament Teresa Kok and Malay-language daily Utusan Malaysia. Both parties are at psychological war with the other, although Kok was never proven guilty over the so-called azan debacle, which started the face-off.
Most recently, the daily published a fictional story about the murder of a Chinese woman politician, a character which many believe alludes to Kok (even though its author has denied any correlation).
Multiple interpretations
The rulers’ statement, just as the constitution on which it is based, is likely to be interpreted differently by various quarters. Barisan Nasional leaders welcomed the assurance that all communities in Malaysia are treated fairly.
However, due to the timing of the statement, it could also be interpreted as a convenient legitimisation of the more racist factions within Umno. It could lead to an even more aggressive defence of the ketuanan Melayu (Malay supremacy) discourse.
Read more here.
Show me the Money
By Tricia Yeoh
IN opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s 13 Oct 2008 speech in Parliament, he called for a fresh budget, considering the ongoing global financial crisis. He said it was impossible for Members of Parliament (MPs) to debate an outdated budget. Furthermore, he said the budget was tabled under the former finance minister.
The coming weeks will see Parliament scrutinising a thick document on national revenues and expenditures, before it is due to be passed in December 2008 as the Supply Act. Opposition parliamentarians are bound to question the government, in critical analysis of this important document that outlines the nation’s money matters.
That parliamentarians are given the opportunity to debate the Supply Bill before it is passed is indeed an element of the democratic process. However, is the debate itself enough to qualify as being reflective of a well-governed country?
Read more here.
Dumbing Down of Politics
By Tricia Yeoh
IN legal terms, the “reasonable person” standard is often used in arguing out cases. It is not always easy to define what this means. But it is generally accepted that the reasonable person is one who is well informed, capable, aware of the law, and fair-minded. Thus “reasonable politics” would be one that similarly lives up to each of these ideals.
It is safe to say that if Malaysia had ever practised reasonable politics, we have certainly long abandoned it.
In the last week, things have been quieter on the political front, presumably due to the Hari Raya Aidilfitri celebrations across the country. But nay, never a dull day in hyperactive and hypersensitive Malaysia: at an open house hosted by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, a group of 200 Hindraf activists handed over flowers and a Hari Raya greeting card appealing for the abolishment of the Internal Security Act (ISA) and the release of the Hindraf five (the Hindu Rights Action Force leaders imprisoned under the Act that allows for indefinite detention without trial).
Read more here.
10.07.08
Identity Crisis of Race & Religion
Last week’s entry in the Nut Graph is here:
By Tricia Yeoh
INCIDENTS belying the fragile state of integration in Malaysia have dominated the news in recent years. A pattern has emerged strongly: we are trapped in a vicious cycle — one that, unless broken, will repeat itself for time immemorial.
Of the significant incidences that have taken place over the last two years, an observer would document these: strong reaction to Article 11 (the group promoting religious freedoms); outcry over the bumiputera corporate equity report by the Centre for Public Policy Studies; demonstration against the Bar Council’s religious conversion forum; more recently, the Ahmad Ismail debacle; ISA arrests of journalist Tan Hoon Cheng, Seputeh Member of Parliament Teresa Kok (both have been released) and Malaysia Today editor Raja Petra Kamarudin; outcry over the azan and Jawi signboards; police report against Kok for insulting an egg; and Molotov cocktails thrown into the home of Kok’s family and the former residence of Bar Council president Ambiga Sreenevasan.
Click here to read more.
09.24.08
Race Relations Act
Further thoughts on the Race Relations Act proposed by the home ministry in Malaysia recently, published in The Nut Graph.
24 Sep 08 : 9.00AMBy Tricia Yeoh
AHMAD Ismail is now a familiar name: his remarks about the Chinese in Malaysia resulted in his three-year suspension from Umno politics. The arrest and subsequent release within 24 hours of Sin Chew Daily journalist Tan Hoon Cheng under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for accurately reporting Ahmad’s statement also sparked a nationwide outcry. It is within this context that a proposal was made by MCA Youth Chief Liow Tiong Lai for a Race Relations Act “to govern racial relations, encourage greater unity and avoid discrimination among races in the country.”
This proposal seems to have taken on a life of its own, leading to the cabinet’s approval to formulate the Act, as announced by home minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar. He said the home ministry and the ministry for unity, culture, arts and heritage will be working together to gather information to draft the Act.
The proposed Race Relations Act has elicited a range of responses, mainly positive, from those in government. Unity minister Datuk Seri Mohd Shafie Apdal said fundamentals of the Act were aimed at ensuring peace and harmony among the different races — the end goal of which is difficult to dispute.
To read more, click here.
