Lets talk about 1Malaysia

Let's us talk about OneMalaysia. Without a comprehensive exposition of what it means, save for maybe its launching with much fanfare and its 'reduction' into a song by the heart-warming and assuring voice of singer Roy, it is up to us to translate it.

Then there is a possibility of 1001 interpretations. Certainly it is not this kind of let a thousand flowers bloom scenario that the PM wishes to see. Our personalised interpretations must be based on certain principles. Otherwise, that concept is not operational and therefore meaningless.

There must be a starting point though. The first must be a preparedness to disown all these combustible ethnic approach and ethnic centric way of looking at things. It all comes back to a question of balance. It's a balance between the valid emotional links of the Malays against the equally legitimate attachment of hopes by non Malays for a COMMON FUTURE. It's a balance grounded on awareness that we are all in this together or we are not in at all.

In order to make this awareness crystallise in the hearts and minds of the rakyat, the political and other leaders of the community must make this awareness into a mass awareness. The awareness of a common future grounded on sense of balance mustn't be allowed to become a luxury playable only among the exclusive players. It mustn't be the subject or object of conversations at dinner or cocktail parties, among the heterogeneous elite merrymaking at Bukit Tunku or at watering holes in Bangsar alone.

Otherwise as the young politician who spoke at The Bankers Club has rightly pointed out, there will be two understood meanings about what 1Malaysia is all about. One- that as understood by the cafe latte crowd and smoked salmon society, and two- that understood by the masses. The one misunderstood by the masses, is grounded on zero sum game mentality. It is one where one society is impoverished because the other gains. The irony is this 'misunderstanding' is allowed to grow unabated because leaders from BOTH DIVIDES allowed it to grow because they want to use it as political capital.

An approach to politics that preaches inclusivity and makes it a virtue to be practised by all is necessary. The affirmation of this approach does not entertain the shenanigans of any hawkish elements within all and any groups. The leadership of all groups must stay vigilant to overwhelm any attempts to undermining our common resolve to forge a common future. Not to just take note, but to overwhelm suggests a proactive stance. Anyone speaking or suggesting racial pogroms must be dealt with decisively. Community leaders must not countenance and sometimes even abet socially incendiary behaviour.

The Prime Minister must realise that the greatest threat to his vision of 1Malaysia comes from extremist elements within his own circle. That same qualification must be made of the leadership of opposition parties. They mustn't countenance or keep quiet over their own extremism.

The recent publication of the article by Mohd Nor Azam typifies the ambivalent behaviour of this leadership. Asking Malays to do more than just making reports and shouts means what? That we all take to streets, brandish our krises and kill any non Malay in sight? The opposition leadership are also guilty in the sense of not making awareness that a desirable common future demands an ability to balance things must be understood by many. Hence the bigoted opinion of one Noor Azam is met with pretentious horror-struck dismay while all the while they themselves have been feeding their mass followers, disinformation and outright duplicity.

The young politician who spoke at the Bankers Club worried that

Malaysia will never achieve its potential without all elements working in tandem; that we cannot be all we can be without all of us. The only future that we can have, the only future that will ensure that this ideal that is Malaysia survives, is one in which we value each and every one of us. It's a Malaysia where no group is left behind, where meritocracy is as important as social justice and compassion, where the poor and the rich are not identified by certain ethnic groups. It is a Malaysia where we if one of us falls, all of us picks him up. This is the only way we're going to make this ideal work.

It would be a grave mistake however if we assume that 1Malaysia will trickle down like the supply side economists expect. The PM mustn't behave like someone making an offer believing acceptance is competed once the letter is posted. The PM has only posted the letter of 1Malaysia when he launched it, had songs serenading it. It has not been accepted until the letter reaches its intended recipient- the rakyat.

Making acceptance a reality requires a particular brand of leadership. We require leaders who speak the language of moderation and reason to cut across ethnic boundaries. We require dynamic leaders serving as vehicles for the message to take hold. We want a leadership which speaks the language of moderation which can confront the many forces that pull our country in sometimes differing directions and hold them all together to produce Malaysia's 'Third Way', instead of one who stubbornly ignores realities that may contradict his ideology, singing away to his choir.

Our hopes of a common future rest more and more on the shoulders of the younger generation. By and large this generation wants a more progressive Malaysia, but it is still not completely disengaged from cultural and communal backgrounds or sensitivities, either. These ironies are visible in simple, everyday observations. The same voices who call for an end to racial profiling in the name of national unity aren't ready to let go of vernacular schools that teach students in their mother tongues instead of the national language.

Clearly this is not the voice of moderation and reason to exploit these paradoxes to create instability by engaging in an old exclusivist politics to gain mileage on the cheap. Instead, moderates need to argue that progress must happen within the hardened realities of today, and not through a juggernaut of change shoved down Malaysians' throats, workable or not. True and positive change cannot just serve the interests of some, it must work for all.

Why is it much simpler to score political points operating from a very partisan and 'clear 'side? For example, standing up against the establishment and shouting revolution or
"Reformasi" isn't the most difficult position to take in Malaysian politics. It is the voice of reason and moderation that have toughest, partly because if you don't play it right, you may end up pleasing nobody.

The answer to this paradox is what Milton Friedman wrote a long time ago and which I am now writing with some modifications:-

Bigoted views "require only emotion and self praise- easy to come by and satisfying as well. On the other hand to understand why reason and moderation can offer a way out " requires analysis and thought, subordinating the emotions to the rational faculty. The argument extolling racial supremacy for example is simple if false; it is an immediate emotional argument. The argument for reason and moderation is subtle and sophisticated; it is an indirect rational argument. And the emotional faculties are more highly developed in most men than the rational, paradoxically or especially even in those who regard themselves as intellectuals.

Because of that, as pointed out by the young politician who spoke at the Bankers Club,

our country demands for leaders to make that sacrifice; it is hungry for those who can step up to the plate and advocate change, whilst firmly placing it on a continuum of past Malaysian struggles – appreciating and internalising the contributions of our past leaders; from the fight for Independence by Tunku Abdul Rahman to Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's bold steps towards greater democratic space. Granted, these men, and the decisions they made weren't perfect, but today calls for leaders who understand that whilst change
is necessary, it does not entail a rupture from the past – ripping away at the social fabric, sensitivities, institutions and the recipe that has served us relatively well for 50-odd years.

Now, if we are intellectually honest, can we simply sweep such thinking under the carpet?