The ‘separate but equal’ fallacy
THE anti-Icerd (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination) rally on Saturday was, depending on differing points of view, either a resoundintg endorsement of a vibrant and developing Malaysian democracy or a worrying sign of extremist voices drowning out rational dialogue.
As the wise say, the truth frequently lies somewhere in between.
No doubt, it was a liberal outlet for Malay voices to be heard; but there are comparisons to be drawn with the right-wing demonstrations of Charlottesville in Trumpian America, of a majority seeking domination. The profile of the rally goers, their knowledge (or lack thereof) of issues should be examined and the current political administration needs to be proactive in this matter.
While the attendees seemed to be from a broad spectrum of Malay society, the frantic nature of demands for the continuation of preferential policies would suggest that many of these people come from among the Bottom 40 groups of society.
That must be the main conclusion we can draw when confronted with the nature of the demands. And if that is so, something has gone radically wrong with the ethnicised affirmative action policies of the past administration instituted over a period of six decades. Or did those policies benefit the few while keeping the masses at bay so that when there is a need for a demonstration of strength as we saw on Saturday, emotive arguments of race and religion would be enough to bring them out in busloads to the country’s capital?
The brute strength was interesting for this very reason. If they were indeed the B40, the numbers on display may suggest the failure of six decades of affirmative policies rather more than it does the performance of a sixmonth-old administration. Poverty and deprivation serve some causes well, it would seem. More worryingly, this demonstration may lead to a backtracking of policies to address the problems of the B40 as a group that is not defined by ethnicity alone.
Another demonstrable presence was of political elites of the previous administration, especially drawn from among those who have lost much ground politically as well as in terms of their reputations. Some were being investigated for the allegations of embezzlement and fraud that have damaged the nation deeply. Others had loud opinions and brash opinions about what constituted the nation of Malaysia; notions drawn from a pre-Independence period of supposed homogeneity.
This rally certainly put such ambitious politicians in a good light. Videos and media pictures had them up on platforms gesticulating and exhorting the rally goers on, creating strong man heroes that they wanted to be. It was a perfect public relations coup for ignominy. And one that may serve some well as they are called upon to answer allegations that have brought international disrepute to the nation.
Naturally, as a party that has always campaigned on the platform of race, their vision for Malaysia is one where ethnicity is the supreme marker of identity. This platform has been supported by political, economic, social and educational structures that have hot-housed the racial integrity of Malaysians based on mutual respect. In doing so, the nation has suffered from the lack of a unified/ collective identity.
The “separate but equal” discourse served the colonial masters and it has served political parties premised on race. But it has not served the cause of Malaysia. More is the pity if the current administration continues this divisive discourse rather than systematically confronting this demon that has destroyed other nations in the past.
The lack of understanding of what constitutes Icerd may be viewed through some interviews conducted by intrepid journalists who stopped rally goers to ask them and to probe their reasons for attending the rally. One such interviewee appeared to know nothing about Icerd, until an apparent guardian of her group, a burly individual wearing an anti-Icerd T-shirt came up to her and started prompting her to repeat his words in answer to the journalist’s questions. Even then, her response demonstrated that an understanding of the UN document was couched in such emotive hot button issues of race, royalty and religion that no rational dialogue was possible.
The fact that she had to parrot an “authority” makes us wonder about our blind, sycophantic tendencies and/or gullibility in accepting and parroting everything handed to us by an opportunist authority. Perhaps our Education Ministry and institutions have a part to play here. Weighing arguments and seeking to understand issues need to be emphasised. We also need a basic understanding of what it means to be a member nation of the United Nations as well as understanding of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
At the end of the day, how did the rally depict itself? It showed rather large numbers of frightened people who had turned out to demand that preferential treatments for themselves continue. They were either unaware or unconcerned that some of the leaders of this rally were being investigated for allegations that may have rendered their living conditions more desperate.
But more crucial than the irony of the situation was that the demands of the majority were fuelled by self-interest rather than what their nation or their fellow-men, of all ethnicities and all ilk, needed. How did we arrive at this point in our growth as a nation? The finger must point directly at the establishment of structures that have continued to divide the nation under the “separate but equal” fallacy. DR M. VARGHESE Petaling Jaya