By Mavis Puthucheary
October 01, 2010
Ethnic outbidding is a favourite pastime among Umno politicians and they have become very good at some “innovative” ideas. We have been treated to “Ketuanan Melayu” and the declaration that Malaysia is an Islamic state.
Now we are told that as the Malaysian Constitution does not state that the prime minister should be a Malay, there is a chance that of this happening if the opposition coalition captures power at the federal level in the next election.
What are we to make of this “warning”?
First of all, we must distinguish the legal or constitutional aspects from political realities. In all democratic constitutions the person who becomes the prime minister is either directly elected by the people (in a presidential system) or is the leader of the party that has won the majority of seats in the elected house of parliament.
The Malaysian Constitution does not deviate from this basic democratic principle.
In reality, because democracy practices majority rule, in a multi-ethnic society, the prime minister is from the majority ethnic group.
However, this may not always be the case. In political parties that ideologically based rather than ethnic based, there is a strong possibility that the leader of the party would be from a minority group so if that party wins the elections, he or she would become the prime minister. But whether or not a person from a minority group gets elected would depend on the procedures adopted in the party for selecting their leaders.
Thus in India, the Congress Party elected a person from a minority group to be their leader and now prime Minister. In Singapore however, the highly centralized cadre system of the People’s Action Party mitigated against a non-Chinese being selected as leader of the party and prime minister.
When Barrack Obama was elected president of the United States, a lively discussion ensued in the local press about the possibility of a person from a minority group becoming prime minister.
At that time Lee Kuan Yew, the former Prime Minister, revealed that this matter was broached 20 years ago when a person of the right calibre was found.
However, according to the report, Lee left his name out of the list because “he felt Singapore was not yet ready for an Indian prime minister” (Straits Times November 15, 2008).
So much for the party’s creed of multiculturalism and meritocracy.
In Malaysia because Umno is the largest party in the multi-national coalition that has been in power since Independence, the prime minister has been from this party, and because this party is largely Malay, the person has been a Malay and Muslim.
Indeed, the posts of prime minister and deputy prime minister have “traditionally” been filled by the president and deputy president of Umno. The MCA has made repeated requests for a second deputy posts to be created for their leader but this has been rejected. .
Second, is the possibility of a non-Malay prime minister more of a reality than before? I don’t think so. True we have a new coalition that is a real alternative to the BN. Even so this new coalition, Pakatan Rakyat (PR) can only capture power at the federal level, if it has the support of the ethnic majority – the Malays.
Indeed with nearly 70 percent of the parliamentary seats in peninsular Malaysia Malay-majority seats, the possibility of a non-Malay prime minister is extremely remote.
Then why is this matter raised at all especially as it has not come from the non-Malay leaders but initiated by Mahathir and taken up by factions within Umno?
In order to answer this question we need to understand a little about the leadership motivation and behaviour of Umnoleaders especially Mahathir. It should be pointed out that this is not the first time that this issue has been raised by Mahathir but in a different context and tone.
In 2000 Mahathir, as Prime Minister, opened the 47th Annual General Assembly of the MCA by announcing his “confidence that a non-Malay would one day become the prime minister” (New Straits Times June 18, 2000).
Initially the announcement was hailed by non-Malays and members of the international community as a sign that Malaysia was moving away from racial politics. The Economist proclaimed that the prime minister has a dream that the nation’s next leader might well come from the Chinese, Indian or other ethnic minority (June 30, 2000).
Soon it became clear that this was nothing but rhetoric used by him to please his audience.
Within days of this announcement, an article appeared in the press entitled “Non-Malay PM: more rhetorical than real” (New Straits Times June 27, 2000). In this article Abdullah Ahmad explained that Mahathir only stated what was constitutionally correct, nothing more. Why Mahathir chose to raise this matter at the MCA’s annual assembly was never made clear.
According to Abdullah Ahmad, Mahathir’s real concern was the loss of Malay support in the 1999 elections. In that same article Abdullah Ahmad explained that Mahathir was “dramatizing” the issue in order “to create a certain impact within Umno and warning the Bumiputera that unless they stop warring among themselves the possibility of a non-Muslim becoming Prime minister – no matter how remote – exists” We are even more confused.
Why would Mahathir choose to deliver a warning to Malays and other Bumiputera at a meeting of the MCA?
But the matter does not end here. In a recent speech Mahathir again is reported to have issued a warning to Malays that they risked losing political power if the PR captures Putra Jaya from the BN.
How is it possible for Malays to lose political power when it would be through the exercise of their power that a PR government would come into existence?
It seems that Mahathir has resorted to yet another one of his twists and turns to argue his case. He is, intentionally one suspects, linking Umno with the myth of Malay political superiority in order to convince the public that they should vote for Umno and the BN.
The issue of a non-Malay prime minister is a red herring to distract people from asking the real question: what is the source of Malay political supremacy and why does it reside only in Umno?
Instead of dealing with the real issues, these leaders create bogeyman which they frighten us with. In this case the argument they offer runs like this: Umno gained for the Malays a position of political supremacy which is now in danger of being diluted because the PR leadership, though Malay and Muslim, is not working in the interests of the Malays.
The issue of the non-Malay prime minister is brought up in order to discredit the PR leadership. These leaders, though Malay and Muslim are accused of being “not really independent and a tool of others”.
So also PAS leaders have been accused of not abiding by their Islamic principles.
It seems strange that Umno which had always taken a more moderate middle ground with regard to political Islam has shifted to a position which makes PAS seem more moderate than Umno.
In the past voters were told not to vote for PAS candidates because of their strong Islamic principles – it was claimed that once they took power they would integrate Islamic values into all aspects of Malaysian society. But now we are told not to vote for PAS candidates precisely because they have shifted their extreme position to one that is more accommodating.
All this would be laughable if it did not have potentially a sinister side to it. In claiming Malay political superiority, Umno leaders have conveniently forgotten that even when they have won their seats in Malay-majority constituencies they have done so by getting the support of the non-Malay vote especially in straight fights between Umno and PAS.
In the 1999 and in elections Khoo Boo Teik pointed out that Umno’s parliamentary representation was less than the combined number of seats held by its coalition partners.
“The mutual access that Umno and its non-Malay coalition partners enjoyed came to Umno’s rescue in the ethnically mixed constituencies, in a reversal of past trends when it was the non-Malay component parties that needed saving. Ironically that result merely restored Umno’s unquestioned dominance of the BN framework” (Democracy and Elections in Malaysia, 2005) ,
A similar result happened in the 2008 elections when Umno was rescued by it partners in Sabah and Sarawak. As Khoo points out, the results of the 1999 elections hold dire implications for Umno “relevance” to the Malay electorate.
The results of the 2008 elections have all but shattered the illusion of Umno as the institutional party of government. The only way it can regain its position in the political system is to take an extreme pro-Malay stance, instilling fears of losing their political power as a way to unite the Malays under their leadership.
It is in this light that one should view the possibility of some groups taking up the issue of a non-Malay prime minister to demand that the constitution be changed to ensure that the prime minister is both Malay and a Muslim.
The fact that such a requirement is contained in some state constitutions with regard to the Mentri Besar, makes such a demand not as far-fetched as it otherwise might be.
It must also be borne in mind that as the space for public participation increases it also allows for the growth of civil society organizations that are organized along ethno-religious lines.
In such a situation there is a real danger of ethnic outbidding reaching a level where any remark, however innocuous, is interpreted in racial terms.
It is important that the PR political leadership not fall into the trap where they find themselves having to “prove” they are more pro-Malay than Umno by supporting such a constitutional amendment.
* Mavis Puthhucheary is the co-editor of “Elections and Democracy in Malaysia” (UKM Press) and contributor to the volume “Sharing the Nation: Faith, Difference, Power and the State 50 Years After Merdeka” (SIRD). ”