If political developments in the country since the pivotal general elections of 2018 tell us anything, it may very well be that the common assumption about what the “new” Malaysia that will replace the old one may be faulty. - NSTP/OSMAN ADNAN
If political developments in the country since the pivotal general elections of 2018 tell us anything, it may very well be that the common assumption about what the “new” Malaysia that will replace the old one may be faulty. - NSTP/OSMAN ADNAN

IF political developments in the country since the pivotal general elections of 2018 tell us anything, it may very well be that the common assumption about what the "new" Malaysia that will replace the old one may be faulty.

I think many of us had assumed that the downfall of the Barisan Nasional (BN) led by Umno also buried the political philosophy underpinning its longevity; a philosophy of Malay-led nationalism. In its place, we will finally usher in "true" multi-racialism where every Malaysian, regardless of race or religion, will have his or her place under the sun, guided by meritocracy alone.

We thus bedecked our "new" prime minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, a reformist cloak, forgetting that the one leader who almost singlehandedly inspired, shaped and guided the "old" Malaysia is never likely to have renounced everything he once stood for.

And, of course, he did not. It was precisely the "heavy" baggage he carried with him that put Pakatan Harapan (PH) finally over the top, after successive failures of several Pakatan incarnations to catch fire.

PH as a coalition of multi-racial PKR and DAP allied with Umno "clone", Bersatu, was little more than a marriage of convenience to take on a formidable common enemy, BN. It succeeded in splitting the Malay/nationalist camp but still left Umno the single largest political force in the country.

This is naturally a recipe for the tensions and instability that have convulsed the national body politic ever since. It just seems that collectively, we learned nothing from Singapore's Separation 56 years ago. The Malay nationalists then were so adamantly against the idea of a "multi-racial" Malaysia that they were willing even to let Singapore go its own way.

Is the majority of Malaysians warming to this idea of multi-racial politics that has been around since the creation of this nation over half a century ago? On current evidence, it appears not. Will we ever? Hope springs eternal, of course. But what if we never will?

Perhaps it's time we contemplated what a new Malaysia really will entail? A truly "colour-blind" Malaysia where identity politics becomes history may be ideal but is it a realistic proposition?

As political philosopher Francis Fukuyama noted in his book, Identity: "The demand for recognition of one's identity is a concept that unifies much of world politics today. This demand cannot be transcended; therefore, we must begin to shape identity in a way that supports rather than undermines democracy."

How then do we embark on this path towards a sustainable new Malaysia? Firstly, we may need to acknowledge that a "two-coalition" political system with one coalition adhering to identity politics and the other to "multi-racialism" may be an inherently unstable, even dangerous system.

We have seen how destructively disruptive it can be in the two years that PH led the country when the racial bogey of Tamil terrorism was hoisted to try to tar some leaders in the government from the DAP or when an otherwise routine ratification of an international convention became hugely controversial. All this despite Dr. Mahathir at the helm and even having to personally and very publicly re-affirm his nationalist bona-fides.

Under such circumstances, it is not difficult to foresee a prime minister with "reformist" credentials becoming a lightning rod for "nationalist" political forces, with hoped-for reforms – however uncontroversial – always held hostage.

Rather, any evolving, alternating two political coalitions must both adhere to some broad political consensus that identity politics is here to stay. Surely, it cannot be "racist" and therefore somehow illegitimate to acknowledge "identity" concerns publicly.

Western democracies, including most especially the United States, do so all the time. It cannot be a sign of political immaturity, unless we say that a democracy like the US that is 200 years older than ours is immature.

Perhaps meaningful and much-needed reforms will only have a chance if two political coalitions with broadly similar national outlooks offer us thoughtful alternative reform agendas?


The writer views developments in the nation, region and wider world from his vantage point in Kuching, Sarawak.