By Chandra Muzaffar
Ethnic
stereotypes are a bane upon any society.
Most
of the time they are based upon simplistic generalisations that do not reflect
actual realities. They exacerbate ethnic relations in multi-ethnic societies.
Worse, they impede the growth of understanding and empathy among individuals
from different communities that have had minimum social interaction over a long
period of time.
Recent
remarks by former Prime Minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad that “ the Chinese
are a wealthy lot” and that they
“control all the towns in the country” would be examples of such stereotyping.
According to the Department of Statistics, 70% of Chinese Malaysians in 2016
belonged to the working –class. In fact, even at the time of Merdeka, the
majority of Chinese, as the well-known economist, the late James Puthucheary
pointed out were employees not employers of capital. If some Chinese from
working-class backgrounds have become rich over the years it is because of opportunities
and mobility afforded by the prevailing socio-economic system, apart from their
own hard work, perseverance and frugality.
As
for towns, while it is true that many present-day towns were pioneered by Chinese,
their current management and control are in the hands of largely Malay
bureaucrats. Local government bureaucracy in turn is linked to a mainly Malay
political order.
This
leads us to yet another stereotype which needs to be scrutinised. There are many non-Malays who argue that
Malays exercise total monopoly over political power. This is not true if one
appreciates the nature and evolution of political power in Malaysia.
Monarchical power which has been exclusively Malay for centuries was preserved
by British colonial rule and shared with the people through democratic
procedures and practices embodied in the Merdeka Constitution of 1957. It was
the Malay Rulers and the UMNO elite who decided to confer political rights upon
the domiciled non-Malay populace through extraordinarily accommodative citizenship
provisions in the Constitution which had no precedent or parallel anywhere in
the world. Of course, a number of
factors contributed to this momentous decision, including colonial interests.
But what is critically important is that the decision transformed the entire
political landscape forever: from a people associated with a land, the Malays
became a community among communities. If this process of accommodation and
acceptance is understood, no thinking Chinese or Indian Malaysian would talk of
the monopolisation of political power by the Malays. There would be a more
empathetic attitude towards the Malay position.
It would improve inter-ethnic relations in the country and contribute
towards national integration.
To
explain the question of ‘political power’ in more concrete terms, it is often
forgotten that the UMNO led Alliance coalition from the first Federal
legislative election itself in 1955 set a trend that has remained through 14
general elections. In that election 17 Chinese and Indian candidates from the
MCA and MIC were fielded though there was a Chinese majority in only two out of
the 52 constituencies. All the MCA and MIC contestants won, most of them
needless to say, with Malay votes. This phenomenon of cross ethnic voting is
not confined to the Alliance or its successor, the Barisan Nasional. Other parties have also demonstrated their
capacity to elicit support transcending ethnic boundaries. And yet the myth
about Malay monopolisation of political power persists.
There
are other ethnic stereotypes that are equally pernicious even if their
political impact is not as serious as the two we have just examined. Segments of different Malaysian communities
believe that greed is a Chinese trait; that Indians are untrustworthy; or that
Malays are lazy. These are stereotypes that are easily demolished. That many
Chinese have displayed tremendous generosity is an irrefutable fact; that there
are trustworthy Indians is so many sectors of society is an unchallengeable
truth ; that industrious and diligent Malays are found in all walks of life is
obvious to any casual observer of Malaysian society.
The
stereotype about Malay laziness is perhaps the only instance of a stereotype
subscribed to by certain leaders of the targeted people themselves. It is a
stereotype that two-time Prime Minister Dr Mahathir has clung on to stubbornly for
decades ---- in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and in spite of
the wide range of persuasive arguments marshalled in Syed Hussein Alatas’ much
lauded classic, The Myth of the Lazy
Native published in 1977. It is a pity that Mahathir does not seem to
understand that this myth is rooted in the ideology of colonial capitalism and
has been exploited by both the colonialists and by purveyors of communal
politics to denigrate native peoples.
The
persistence of stereotypes of this sort underscores the importance of
emphasising public education on the impediments that obstruct integration in
societies like ours. It is revealing that there has not been a single
discussion on The Myth over any
Malaysian television channel. It is not just the media that should be harnessed
for this purpose. The school and the university should also play their role.
The family is even more crucial since so many of our values and attitudes are
formed through intimate interaction within the confines of the home. Religious and cultural organisations are equally
decisive in this mammoth task of raising social awareness on how destructive
stereotypes are.
Dr
Chandra Muzaffar has been writing on Ethnic Relations since the early
seventies.
Kuala
Lumpur.
