COMMENT | Jamari Mohtar and Jason Loh Seong Wei’s article "Malay leadership as opposed to Malay supremacy" is troubling for a variety of reasons, the most important of which is that it is a clear articulation of mainstream Malaysian politics. This is what mainstream political parties have been pushing for decades. The propaganda of Malay leadership, as opposed to ketuanan Melayu (Malay supremacy), was trumpeted by Khairy Jamaluddin as kepimpinan Melayu (Malay leadership), instead of the former, some years back. The basis of this frankly racist restatement of mainstream politics is that non-Malay Malaysians should understand the real politics at play and accept their place in this country as servitors to Malay hegemony.

Being second class citizens is not all bad after all. Readers, I don’t like the term “apartheid” state when describing the policies of the state because it is not an accurate reflection of how real-world apartheid states work, the best example being South Africa. The non-Malays have, after all, adapted to ketuanan Melayu, which is used against us at every opportunity, and thrived.

The education system discriminates against us? No problem. An ecosystem of private education and vernacular school education took root. Institutionalised racism in the public sector? No problem. The private sector offers better opportunity and autonomy within a capitalistic framework. Our religions are not the concern of the state, which allows us freedoms which the state religion often attempts to control, but overall we are in a better position, having more choices than the majority polity.

Proponents of mainstream Malaysian politics always use vague terms like what the authors of the article did when describing historical phenomena without context. For instance, what does “the reality and legacy (warisan sejarah) of the Malay-Muslim character of our beloved nation must be recognised and upheld” mean? What does the “Malay/Muslim” character mean when it comes to diversity within the Malay polity and the post-colonial history of this country?

First off, we were a progressive secular democracy before the ethno-nationalists - not the ultra-nationalists - used race and religion to turn this country into a so-called “moderate” Islamic state. Those nascent values of secularism and egalitarianism, which meant something to nation-building, were ditched by the ethno-nationalists to create political and religious hegemony.

It is mendacious when the authors wrote – “kepimpinan Melayu as we proposed above is also reassuring to the Malays for its symbolic connotation of Malaysia as the ancestral home of the Malays in the same manner that China and India are the ancestral homes of the Chinese and Indians respectively wherever they are.”

Look, for the majority of Indians and Chinese, we do not have an ancestral home. This country is it. It’s like saying that Malays of Javanese descent can go back to Indonesia. When politicians or propagandists talk about reassuring Malays, what they are really talking about is brainwashing the Malays.

How can you say that the above does not mean that the non-Malays should not be discriminated against when the sentiment means that the non-Malays do not truly belong to this country and theoretically have a "home" to return to? How can everyone be equal in the eyes of the law when the majority is defined in the Constitution and preferential policies are based on race and not class?

The authors claim that kepimpinan Melayu will abolish the siege mentality of the various communities, but the reality is that there has never wholly been kepimpinan Melayu. Failed Malay policies were not only the result of Malay stewardship but also the enabling of non-Malay political power structures. This idea that a New Malaysia could be created by replacing the former kleptocrat with one of the chief architects of the old order is ludicrous.

Indeed, the post-colonial history of this country is about kepimpinan Melayu. However you term the Islamisation process over the years and the social engineering, the agenda has always been to secure and maintain political power through majoritarian racial policies, instead of consensus-building between the various races.

What do you think the “don’t spook the Malays“ narrative means when it is made more odious by the fact that it comes from a so-called multi-racial party? When the authors said, "it is no small feat for the Chinese-dominated DAP" to have played a role in bringing down the Umno regime, they did it by convincing the base that Mahathir and his race-based party were needed to achieve this feat.

Even the DAP acknowledged "Malay leadership" hoodwinking the base like Jamari and Jason Loh's article attempts to do, that race-based leadership does not equal racial supremacy, ignoring the constitutional provisions and policies which enable such race mongering.

The authors claim that race and religion-based parties have a place in the political landscape because “they ensure that the country’s path in nation-building does not stray too far from the broad confines or boundaries that are defined by the essentials or fundamentals of the constitution”.

What these race and religion-based parties have done over the years is chip away at the secular foundations of this country. By their very definition, race and religion-based parties are anathemas to the Constitution, which is broadly progressive, secular and democratic.

Indeed, just take a look at the Rukun Negara to understand why race and religion-based parties are anathemas to every point in the Rukun Negara. The authors used this as a ludicrous example to make the case for the race and religion-based parties: "What the vast majority cannot accept is the legalisation of the lifestyle as well as of same-sex marriage – which are not only against the basic tenets of religion and morality but inimical to society.”

Really? So countries that have legalised same-sex marriages, which includes India and Taiwan, have somehow morally transgressed against the basic tenets of religion? And countries, where the LGBTQ community is persecuted, are shining examples of morality and societal cohesiveness?

It is also indicative of how political parties use this issue to stir up their bases. Religious people will vote for the most corrupt leaders if it means upholding their beliefs that the LGBTQ community is going against God. This is inimical to society, if you ask me. The authors want people to accept that kepimpinan Melayu is the only avenue of political expression in this country. Maybe they are right. After all, one could make a counter-argument, but it is not like there is going to be any change, right?

The authors said: "Defence of race and religion should be what it is: A shield. To block or thwart attempts at undermining the sanctity and integrity of the Constitution and not subject non-Malays as second-class citizens."