THE last week has been a time of reflection for me about the
significance of May 13, 1969, to the future of Malaysia as a nation.
The
date has been variously described as “the darkest chapter in the
country’s 54 years of independence”, as a “traumatic event” and as a
“dark blot in the nation’s history”. Indeed it was all of these.
For
a few days in 1969 our primordial instinct of distrust of “the other”
held sway; subconscious prejudices, angers and jealousies found
expression; desire for vengeance took hold; organised violence was used
by a small section of the population to express dissatisfaction with the
social order. Mob rule replaced the rule of law.
Fortunately, we have made many strides since then.
The
identification of race with social and economic function has been
almost obliterated. The vibrant economy has united our disparate racial
groups. By encouraging entrepreneurship and allowing the minority
communities to provide leadership in the economic arena, twin objectives
have been achieved: the economy has developed fabulously and every
community has acquired a stake in the country.
For many decades
till the 1990s we were regarded by many Asian and African societies as
an exemplar of how a deeply divided, plural society can survive and
thrive politically, economically and socially.
Not all is well, however. Since the nineties racial and religious polarisation has reached alarming levels.
We
have become a “nation of strangers”. It is time, therefore, for
building ethnic bridges and dismantling walls; for healing and
reconciliation; and for developing a vision of unity.
I couldn’t say it better than Datuk Azlina Aziz (wife of Datuk Seri Nazir Razak).
“It
is time for engagement, for listening, for cutting the invisible barbed
wires that separate ‘them’ and ‘us’ and extending a hand over the
divide to those who may disagree with your views but have as much of a
stake and future in the country as you do”.
As we approach 55
years of political freedom what can we do to restore moderation, to
recapture the spirit of 1957 and to reintroduce our winning formula for
living together?
We need to improve knowledge of the Constitution’s glittering generalities, especially its provisions on inter-ethnic relations.
The
lack of familiarity with the basic charter’s provisions is glaring even
within the top echelons of the civil service, the police,
parliamentarians and politicians.
If we read about the making of
the Constitution, we will see that by far and large the forefathers of
our Constitution were animated by a remarkable vision and optimism of a
shared destiny among the various peoples of the peninsula. “Out of Many,
One” was perhaps their creed.
Their life was enlightened by a
spirit of accommodation, compassion and tolerance. They abjured
ideological purity of the political, economic and religious type.
They walked the middle path of moderation. They gave to every community a stake in the nation.
No
group received an absolute monopoly of power or wealth. Every community
received something to relish and cherish. Pluralism was accepted as a
way of life and the unity that was sought was a unity in diversity.
The
Constitution, even in its “ethnic provisions”, sought to avoid extreme
measures and provided for a balance between the interests of the
“bumiputra” and “non-bumiputra” communities.
Regrettably, a wide
gap has developed between theory and practice. In both the public and
private sectors, ethnicity reigns supreme. The absence of a Civil Rights
Act or a Race Relations Act prevents sanctions against ethnic
considerations that transgress constitutional provisions.
Both
sides of the divide are to blame for ignoring the painstaking
compromises and the gilt-edged provisions of the Constitution. Lack of
legal literacy about the Consti-tution contributes to the eclipsing of
the basic law.
Instead of constitutional moderation, the
demagogues, the racists and extremists of all communities preach their
own sectarian interpretation of our “document of destiny” and fan fears
and suspicions.
Extremism has become mainstream and moderation is
seen as capitulation to other races and religions and as a betrayal of
one’s own community.
Our secondary schools and universities must
have a familiarisation course on the basic features of the Constitution
and the reasons for the many delicate compromises contained therein.
Knowledge of the Constitution is a prerequisite to good citizenship.
Such
knowledge will also help to moderate extremism and to give appreciation
of one of the world’s most unique and hitherto successful experiments
in peaceful co-existence in a nation of dazzling diversity.
At
another level, the education system needs to bring kids together, not to
separate them on grounds of race, religion or language. If young people
do not learn together, how will they live together?
In schools,
colleges and universities, inter-faith studies should be encouraged as a
step towards understanding, tolerance and unity. Most prejudices are
born out of ignorance.
With greater knowledge and understanding we learn that it is not differences that cause disunity.
It is intolerance of differences that leads to disunity and violence.
As
a nation we are farther apart today than we were 54 years ago.
Knowledge of the Constitution’s delicate provisions dealing with
inter-ethnic relations can help provide some understanding of the give
and take that lay at the basis of our supreme law.
If we have to
go forward as a united nation, we need to go back to the spirit of
moderation, accommodation and compassion that animated the body politic
in 1957.
> Shad Saleem Faruqi is Emeritus Professor of Law
at UiTM. His book ‘The Bedrock of Our Nation: Our Constitution’ was
launched by zubedy ideahouse earlier this month.
No comments:
Post a Comment