A new rainbow nation

MAY 13 — Can early ethnic inequality lead to institutionalised injustice later, and eventually result in an overall unbalance for a melting pot country?

When foreigners look at the United States, they see a kaleidoscope of American colours (black, white, yellow, brown), ethnicities (Italians, Indians, Chinese, Arabs) and religions (Christians, Muslims, Jews). 

They should also see an end result of the cross fertilisation: black president, woman on the Supreme Court, state governor of Indian origin, and so on.

Yes, we have pre-printed forms that ask us to tick if we are Black, Caucasian, Asian and so on. The record-keeping purpose of the forms is just that, and not a basis for preferred housing, loans, education, and so on. 

We have social safety nets and failsafe mechanisms, statutes and courts that prevent favouring ethnicities, and the end result is a merit-based system.

(Today, in the US, there is well-known and documented favouritism for severely under-represented ethnicities, like the small number of American Indians (original sons of the soil in US) for, say, college admission and financial aid. At one level, it may be seen as a policy of equalising opportunities, and there has not been any push-back against such “uplifting” incentives.)

Ethnic scapegoating

In recent history, there are examples of checks and balances for ending state-based racism, as well as leaders who practise ethnic scapegoating. In both cases, the spark is a charismatic leader “righting a wrong” or “wronging a right.”

Nelson Mandela led South Africa out of the abyss of institutionalised race-based discrimination. Now, South Africa is the “S” in BRICS, a player on the global stage.

Robert Mugabe, president of Zimbabwe, has led the former breadbasket of Africa into the abyss with the “white” scorched-earth policy. The country is now a (basket) case study for inflation, capital flight, brain drain, and at the bottom of many of the world indexes.

Idi Amin, former president of Uganda, took a robust country made rich by the vast trading of Indian businesses, and, in the name of promoting indigenous ethnicity, undermined it economically by expelling all Indians from the country.

Thus, what was once an adversity of weakness became strength in diversity in places like the UNITED States of America, South Africa, and elsewhere.

United States of Malaysia

As a Malaysian outsider, many of us see what the government wants us to view and believe: a multi-religious, multicultural and multiethnic society, an ideal role model for other tribal-based and caste-based Muslim countries. 

This diversity not only resulted in many holidays and festivals, but an exemplary model for consideration for a God-fearing/respecting country with “democratic” principles!

Put differently, it is viewed as the United States of Malaysia! Thus, Malaysia becomes the poster child, in theory, of an ideal emerging market on the cusp of development.

Yet, all is not what it seems. One of the burning issues of the recent closely contested GE13 and post-election comments is not the blizzard of economic statistics offered by the incumbent party for re-election and two-thirds majority control, but race-based favouritism towards the “sons of the soil.”

Today, the question on the table: is Malaysia in the same place where America was 50 years ago with respect to overt/covert racism? If one were to ask the question of the ethnic Chinese and Indians residing in Malaysia, many in the country for generations, they may answer in the affirmative. 

The irony is ethnic Malaysians are the majority population! Surely, the fathers of the policy must have had in mind a sunset provision for such favouritism.

(By the way: what is an ethnic Malaysian, and their history?)

Now, what if the same question is asked of the favoured Malaysians?  In the post-election period, if one were to undertake a “back of the envelope polling,” Twitter and Facebook, it would seem many of the favoured locals are not comfortable with the “subsidies” and preferred status?

The immediate question becomes, why would one not want the government (of 56 years) to continue policies that have resulted in favouritism to majority of the population? What do these “sacrificing” people see that their elected officials continue to miss or ignore?

They are not comfortable with the resentment from their Chinese and Indian colleagues and friends, especially around election time as “racism” becomes divisive. They have also realised it as a slippery slope to complacency at the expense of merit-based development for the good of the country as a whole.

As a result, some of the Malaysians have migrated to Australia, Europe and elsewhere, because they can see the “living and breathing” glass ceiling getting lower or have encountered issues related to education, crime, corruption, etc. 

But the government, being selectively intelligent, has implicitly recognised the impact of this on development and diversification of the country and established Talent Corporation. However, the “financial bounty” offered to return to Malaysia is upsetting to those (favoured) who could not or would not emigrate!

Thus, a disconnect exists between the will of the people (today) — who want to remove the barriers to equality and indicators of deprivation — and the policies of (yesterday’s) government.

The US has proved separate cannot be equal.

Eradicate racism

To eradicate physical, mental and emotional links to racism will not happen overnight, but NOW is the ripe and right time for “healing and feeling.”

First, there should be a countrywide referendum to officially remove such laws from the books. Those that are adversely “impacted” will be “compensated” one time based upon a formula and the matter is then closed.

Second, remove the ethnicity tick boxes from the applications, as it represents the legacy of discrimination. There are other ways to collect such data for meaningful purposes.

In conclusion, national unity is the overriding objective, and the prism of racism will reflect the light of a rainbow nation: Malaysia (no need to put the number 1).

* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.