Multiethnic competition for the Malay agenda, anyone?

The real problem with communalism is not particularism in its demands (“We have different needs”) but rather protectionism in its supply (“Only our own people can fulfil our special need”).

The demand side

Many people have the misperception that we have got to have universal needs if we are not racist or communalist (or, as I prefer, ethnic-centrist). In other words, having different needs is inherently wrong.

Of course, the “uniformist” self-righteousness is often selectively expressed. We slam people for having choices when we won’t need or enjoy them.

For example, people often complain about the existence of different schools using different languages as medium of instruction. But they rarely complain against some airlines offering them a whole range of culturally-/religiously-informed meal options, from halal and kosher to Hindu vegetarian and Jain vegetarian.

The supply side

Particular needs may constitute only the demand side of ethnic-centrism. For ethnic-centrism to be complete and resulting in segregation requires protectionism on the supply side.

By protectionism, I refer not to claims like “Malays need the protection of Umno/Perkasa/Isma”, but instead realities like “Umno/Perkasa/Isma enjoys the protection of Malays”.

Protection from what? From competition. Like Proton enjoys the involuntary protection of Malaysians from competition of foreign cars.

To appreciate this view, we need to recognise the presence of “altruism” in racism/communalism/ethno-centrism.

While many “racists/communalists/ethno-centrists” are self-interested opportunists who speak with forked tongues, real “racists/communalists/ethno-centrists” are actually altruistic. They suppress or discriminate against “others” because they love or want to protect their “own people”.

The problem with the racists/communalists/ethno-centrists’ altruism is that it has a much narrower scope and its application is extremely exclusivist: to be kind to our own people, we must be cruel to others.

In other words, such altruism is driven by a zero-sum game mentality. They see the world in the lens of nasty, do-or-die competition between groups, rather than cooperation and competition between individuals.

Such view can be driven by bitter experiences: “If you have been bullied by the first 10 Chinese you encountered, you will probably believe the eleventh Chinese must be a bully too”.

But it can also come from ideologies, which may simply be intellectualisation of selected experiences: you produce a theory of “Chinese bullies” after being bullied by 10 Chinese.

But some forms of ideological framework may also inform the analysis: if a Chinese is bullied by 10 other Chinese, how likely would he be to make a claim that “all Chinese are bullies” which would include himself in the category of the accused?

He would more likely look for some other characteristics (class, generation, sexual orientation, height, weight, left-handedness, etc) in his 10 bullies that can separate himself (the victim) from them (the victimisers).

And he would likely look for other victims with similar characteristics to form a solidarity network to protect themselves from the victimisers.

So, while we may not be conscious about it, racism/communalism/ethnic-centrism is not only “altruistic” but also “rational” in helping us to survive in tough and harsh environments.

It is very likely programmed into our DNA.

Imagine our ancestors who lived in tribes, which were collections of clans, which were in turn collections of related families. Often, rival tribes were cruel to each other.

They waged wars, and the winners often slaughtered, tortured, raped and enslaved the losers – the atrocities committed by the Isis militants were once the norms in most human societies.

Protectionism, group membership and ethnic boundary

Why is it important to recognise the “altruistic” and “rational” natures of racism/communalism/ethnic-centrism?

Because we cannot eliminate it by moralising. But we can eliminate it by eliminating the needs for such altruism or rationale.

We won’t need tribalism to survive or thrive if our daily interaction is more defined by cooperation or our competition is individualistic rather than group-based.

The latter requires equality of individuals at least in opportunity and before law – which is why state impartiality is a norm for modern states. (And the discussions below will make the case why empowerment for the weaker members of society to ensure their minimum competence for compete is also a must.)

But individualistic competition in a market of all can be bad for the less competitive players, who stand a better chance in smaller, segmented captive markets: the essence of protectionism.

This builds the incentives to create, maintain or revive the exclusivist solidarity networks based on lineage, religion, language, home-town, alma mater, or other group memberships – “guanxi”, if you like.

Should such protectionism be outlawed, like the often-made calls to ban mono-ethnic or mono-religious parties?

No. All groups smaller than the nation-state (which imposes involuntary membership on all citizens) are bound to be exclusive in one way or another. Hence, banning some groups but not others would be simply arbitrary and unjust while banning all societial groups would result in totalitarianism.

What needs to be done on protectionism is to make it voluntary. For example, I am a Teochew, but no one should force me to have Teochew porridge every day, or worse, consume only Teochew porridge prepared by Teochews.

This brings us to the question of choice in group membership. I should be free to choose whether to be identified as a Teochew or not. No other self-declared Teochew should be allowed to tell me that I must remain a Teochew, marry a fellow Teochew or consume minimum how many bowls of Teochew porridge in a week.

Some people like to complain about dietary, costume or behavioural restrictions, believing that they segregate and segment society. I respectfully disagree. For example, I did try kosher and Jain foods on flights – why should any other passenger think that is their business?

It is wrong only when these restrictions are legally imposed by the state to constitute an “ethnic boundary” to entrench protectionism – in other words, when you are forced to eat, wear, touch or do something or prohibited from eating, touching, touching or doing to others, so that you can be easily singled out by the communal champions and policed from patronising their rivals.

(People often ask why some religious champions harp on alcohols or dogs and not worse sins like corruption? The simple answer is such sins are so common that they fail to contribute to the ethnic boundary!)

The Malay agenda

Coming back to the Malay agenda, many Malaysians take an absolute stand against any special position or privileges and get frustrated if they are not abolished immediately. I would rather break the issue into the demand and supply sides.

In the long run, an inclusive state should of course practise impartiality and not confer privileges based on ethnicity or religion. In the short run, I believe the Malay-Muslims’ needs for affirmation should be dealt with more empathically and accepted when their needs are real.

What is most important now is to break the communalism on the supply side: the Malay agenda should be embraced as a national agenda, which means it should be open for scrutiny by all, implemented transparently and most of all, open for all suppliers.

In other words, empowering (perkasakan) the Malays should be an open field for competition, the jobs can be done by even non-Malays and need not be by Perkasa, Isma, Umno and the likes. All progressive Malaysians should work together to end their monopoly and their exploitation of the Malay voters as a captive market.

Empowering Malays (and for that matter, any groups) should become an issue of competence (how good are you?) rather than one of position (are you for or against?). Analogously, why can’t a non-Teochew prepare good Teochew porridge for me? – October 31, 2014.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.