M. Bakri Musa
Book Review: Nik Nazmi Ahmad: Moving Forward. Malays for the 21st
Century.
Marshall Cavendish, Rawang, Selangor, paper back, 136 pages.
ISBN: 9789833845408 2010. RM 24.90
One of the least heralded consequences to the 2008 political 'tsunami' was
the elections of many new faces. They are mostly young, highly educated,
and driven by the old idealism of public service. They also have
something else in common; they are all Pakatan candidates. That says
something of the coalition, its leadership and mission.
One of them is Nik Nazmi Ahmad, a King's College honors law
graduate who readily won Selangor's Seri Setia state constituency. He
has now penned this book, his first, Moving Forward. Malays for the 21st
Century. It is a slim volume but he covers the major issues confronting
Malays specifically and Malaysians generally, the title notwithstanding.
The subtitle may be a yawner to some, tempting them to pass
over the book. Yes, the perennial "Malay problem!" A hundred years
hence they would still be discussing it, and with the same list of usual
culprits to blame: colonialists, immigrants, our culture, and yes, our
genes too!
In the 19th Century there was Munshi Abdullah who blamed our
culture, specifically our kerajaan (governance) and by implication, our
sultans. For daring to suggest that we emulate some of the ways of the
English, he was dismissed as a brown Mat Salleh (Englishman). Later
there was the scholar Zaaba, pursuing the same theme. They have not
"deconstructed" him, probably because they have yet to read his
voluminous commentaries.
More recently there was the poet Usman Awang waxing lyrical of
our noble ways and values. He lamented that if only we were a wee bit
kurang ajar (crude)! Many heeded him and ended more than just a bit
kurang ajar; but they remained backward nonetheless. It was a poor
bargain.
Nik Nazmi is a refreshing departure. He has some profound
observations and perspectives that belie his chronological and political
youth. "[T]he future of the Malays," he writes, "cannot be separated
from Malaysians in general." That seems obvious, but it is equally
obvious that this evident truth escapes our leaders; hence their
obsession with such extraneous issues as Ketuanan Melayu. Nik also
challenges the prevailing zero-sum mentality of our leaders, and implicit
with our race-based political parties.
Many rate politicians by their soaring rhetoric and oratorical
flourishes; I base mine on their ideas and powers of persuasion. Nik
Nazmi is a promising politician.
At the risk of discomfiting him, I am tempted to compare Nik's
book to one written nearly 40 years ago by another not-so-young
politician. It is not so much a comparison as a contrast. Where
Mahathir's The Malay Dilemma is shrill and emotional, Nik's Moving
Forward is cerebral and rational. While Mahathir irritates, Nik Azmi
persuades; while Mahathir excoriates, Nik conciliates. Nik beckons us to
share his dream of <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Malaysia.
Apart from the expected territories like NEP and race-based
politics, Nik Nazmi covers education, Islam, and family life, and their
impact on Malays and non-Malays.
On NEP, Nik Nazmi hews closely to his party's position, and
that held by many Malaysians, especially young Malay professionals who
are rightly fed up with the gross leakages and obscene abuses that have
had such a corrosive effect on our character. These young Malays are
disgusted that their genuine achievements are constantly being questioned
and tarred by the stigma of special privileges. I am Malay too, but I am
neither young nor live in Malaysia, so I am sparred of that terrible
burden.
Nik (and Pakatan) would replace NEP with a race-blind,
need-based policy. I appreciate this sense of social justice but we must
remind ourselves that good intentions alone do not make for effective
policies. There are realities to consider.
If it were a choice between eliminating NEP and rioting on the
streets, most would make a rational choice: Keep the damn thing! The
increasing shrill debates on the issue are a hint of things to come. I
am especially nervous when calls for eliminating NEP come from
non-Malays, and wrapped in barely concealed sense of racial or cultural
superiority. The political reality is that the constitutional provisions
for NEP can only be amended with the consent of the super-majority, and
that means with most Malays agreeing to it.
The good news, as demonstrated by Nik Nazmi, is that more and
more Malays are calling for exactly that.
More problematic is that a need-based policy would necessarily
entail a massive bureaucracy, with resources diverted to administration.
I see this in America. As Nik noted, the Nobel Laureate in Economics
Amartya Sen also voiced similar reservations.
A major and valid criticism of the NEP is that, among others,
it creates a class of favored Malays, the UMNO Putras. We would be naïve
to think that if we were to extend the policy to other races that we would
not end up with an even bloated class of economic parasites, with MCA
Putras and MIC Putras joining in. Avarice and corruption are not vices
peculiar only to Malays.
Those reasons notwithstanding, my reservation has more to do
with modern economic insight. While we are aware of the dangers of
inequities within a society (vertical inequities), often in a plural
society the greater threat is what Oxford economist Frances Stewart
refers to as inter-group or horizontal inequities.
Tun Razak grasped this intuitively with his NEP, and at a time
long before the concept was even on the consciousness of academic
economists. Give him credit for that. Stewart's observation is being
validated all too frequently, the latest and most brutal being Sri Lanka.
It is also too close geographically and in many other ways to Malaysia.
A more fruitful approach would be first to plug NEP's
egregious leakages and flagrant abuses. This is easily achievable and
salable as well. In my book The Malay Dilemma Revisited I enumerated the
many ways this could be done, one being the "one bite at the apple" rule.
Anyone who has benefited from special privileges would be banned
subsequently from enjoying any of its other provisions. That prohibition
would extend to his immediate family.
Then we could exclude those demonstrably affluent groups,
beginning with our sultans and members of the royalty, followed by
ministers and top civil servants. There is no need for income
verification or any administrative structure for we are eliminating a
whole class of people, not individuals.
The objective is not to corral as many Malays as possible but
to have a critical mass of Malays not dependent on the NEP. Over time,
their sense of pride would percolate down such that becoming dependent on
special privileges would be viewed disdainfully.
On schools, Nik Nazmi favors a "Unified Stream" with
vernacular languages included with the mandatory Malay and English. That
is definitely an improvement. To achieve that, he suggests giving
incentives to these schools. I agree. Those incentives must be
sufficiently generous and be contingent upon demonstrated results, as for
example, those schools having an integrated student body.
Even with a unified stream a large swath of Malays would be
left out as they have already opted out of national schools for religious
ones. It is here where Malay minds are being wasted. What goes on in
these schools are nothing more than indoctrination masquerading as
education. Any education reform must address this glaring issue. One
immediate improvement would be to make Islamic Studies only one subject
and not the consuming curriculum. These schools must produce their share
of future Malay scientists and entrepreneurs.
The prevailing paranoia and Stewart's thesis notwithstanding,
the greater threat facing Malaysia today is not inter-communal rather
intra-communal – specifically intra-Malay – conflict. The many cleavages
are fast coalescing into a major fault line. We are hopelessly divided on
the interpretations of Islam, along political lines and socio-economic
class, and by geographic zones. Even on the simple matter of learning
English, we are irreconcilably divided between those who consider that as
an invaluable asset versus those who deem it an act of national betrayal.
These divisions are aggravated as there is no moderate center to act as a
buffer.
Schisms among Malays are what Donald Horowitz refers to as
"indivisible conflicts." They are over core values, in contrast to the
more readily solvable "divisible conflicts" between Malays and
non-Malays, which are essentially over the distribution of government
bounties. You could negotiate the second, but not the first.
It is a truism that once we are aware of a danger, we reduce
its risks. Malaysians are only too aware of inter-racial riots; this
awareness reduces the risk. In contrast, intra-Malay conflict is made
that much more probable precisely because we are not even aware of its
possibility. Malay leaders, young and old, novice and veteran, wise and
not so wise egg on their followers towards even more dangerous and
acrimonious confrontations, blissfully unaware of the mortal dangers.
History reminds us that civil wars are often the most vicious
of conflicts. They are also the most difficult to end, the animosities
persisting long after. Both bear reminding.
Nik Nazmi's otherwise thoughtful book skips one major issue:
the sultans. This is surprising as they play such a central role in our
lives and culture. How could we urge ordinary Malays to forsake their
special privilege-crutches when our sultans squat at the apex of this
huge heap, supported by their golden crutches? To Malays specifically,
the sultans –as individuals and as an institution –remind us that we are
still steep in our feudal ways. And feudalism is the antithesis of
modernism.
Perhaps this omission is prudent seeing how easily opposition
parties' politicians get entangled with the sultans these days!
I am glad that Nik Nazmi has found time to reflect, write and
share with us his thoughts on these major issues. Writing differs from
other forms of communications, especially the one most favored by
politicians: speeches. When you write you are alone, there are no
adoring crowds egging you on. Thus what you write reflects more
accurately your inner feelings and convictions. I wish other politicians
would emulate Nik's fine example. That is the best way for us to size up
our leaders, and for them to communicate with us.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail has been sent via JARING webmail at http://www.jaring.my
No comments:
Post a Comment