COMMENT | Lim Kit Siang recently asked Malaysians to ask themselves one question – “who is the 'Other' in the Malaysian context?” His answer to this question, his point of self-reflection if you will, was this:

"Is the 'Other' the Chinese and Indians to a Malay Malaysian, the Malays and Indians to a Chinese Malaysian, and the Malays and Chinese to an Indian Malaysian?"

As someone who has spent a decade attempting to figure out what it means to be “Malaysian”, I have to say this is the kind of propaganda I have been opposing all this time. Come one, in this context, like it is in many places of the world, the "other" is what the state defines.

What binds us as a society, the rules of engagement if you will, are the policies, rules and ideas that we subscribe to as a collective, even though we may subscribe to individual or community ideas of culture that include religion.

Hence, it is not a question of how individual ethnic groups view each other but how the state views diverse communities and how those communities interact with the state. Hence, if we subscribe to policies based on a value system we all share (regardless of ethnicity) and this is reflected in the governance of the state, it does not matter how each community views one another.

Now, when politicians ask us to ask ourselves questions, this really means that they do not have constructive answers for questions already known. I am not saying that Kit Siang is doing this, but generally, when you have to ask people who vote for you why race relations in this country are the way they are, then you, as a political operative, are part of the problem. 

And it is a pity because, for decades, Kit Siang was part of the solution. I was disappointed when I read his piece because it presents false equivalencies at every turn. Take this passage for instance:

"Not only the various races feel threatened, Islam feels threatened and the non-Islamic religions feel threatened."

Really? Does Islam feel threatened in this country? How? Have there been unilateral conversions that have ended up with kidnappings? Have there been religious figures who have disappeared? Have public and private spaces been intruded on by non-Islamic religions? Have non-Islamic religions banned certain words for Muslims?

Here’s the thing. Someone like me (and I am sure there are many people out there who feel the same way), I do not like the idea of vernacular schools. Never have. But over the years, the way racialism and religion have entered our public schools, folks have no choice but to send their kids to schools where faith and race may not intrude in a way in which we have ample examples.

Even the old maverick said that there was too much religion in schools. He did not do anything about it, of course, but then again neither did anyone who claimed that they wanted to save Malaysia.

And then there is this: "Every community is made to believe that its culture and ethnicity is facing an existential threat. But who is creating all these threats to all racial groups in the country?”

Who is creating all these threats? Well, the same people who for decades promulgated such racial and religious policies and the same people who claimed to be against such policies but folded when they sat on the political hot seat. Of course, we voted in successive BN regimes so yes, we also share the blame.

Absurd claim

I’ll give you an example of how disingenuous this kind of propaganda is. Here is Liew Chin Tong, describing the rise of Bangsa Malaysia, in the early days of Pakatan Harapan rule:

“There is a need to define what the 'New Malaysia' stands for. For me, it should at the least mean we see ourselves first and foremost as Malaysian citizens. For instance, I may be Chinese culturally but politically I participate in public life as a Malaysian, not as a Chinese.”

Political life in the Malaysian context is defined by constitutional provisions that are manipulated by Malay power structures to maintain racial and religious hegemony at the expense of the minorities. To claim that one participates in political life as a Malaysian is absurd when the majority ethnic group in this country participates in politics as Malays.

Never mind the lunacy of such a claim when the DAP made it very clear that the reason why they joined forces with Bersatu’s Dr Mahathir Mohamad was because they needed the “Malay” vote to save Malaysia.

The point is that “political life” was defined along racial lines, political strategies were endorsed along racial lines and the outcome of the 2018 election was because the majority Malay community was politically fractured. There is a reason why Liew talks about the majority of Malaysians that were happy with the results. The reality is that a majority of Malays did not vote for the Harapan coalition.

This is why when Malays hear all this talk about “Bangsa Malaysia” they either think it is horse manure because the actions of its promulgators are completely at odds with their rhetoric or so narcotised are they by indoctrination programmes that they view it as an existential threat to their identity.

Of course, this is why the establishment fears the youth vote because young people have too many problems of their own attempting to survive in a society and economy which was created to benefit a specific class of people while they are living under a shadow of religion.

In a recent piece, Kit Siang said, “One, however, must be realistic in that we must work with like-minded political leaders from other political parties who believe in the 'Malaysian Dream' for Malaysia to be a world-class great nation as the DAP cannot on its own form a federal government in Malaysia.”

I do not think anyone from other political parties believes in the "Malaysian Dream" as the way the DAP has defined it. Perhaps the problem is that even the DAP does not believe in the Malaysian Dream.