In need to find something?
Custom Search
Related Posts with Thumbnails

Sunday, April 19, 2009

One Malaysia revisited

Technorati tags: , , , ,

You might be wondering, why “revisited”? Well, it’s not because just about everyone else has talked about it, and Walski being the latecomer (so to speak) is revisiting the topic.

The truth is, Najib stole the “One Malaysia” idea (but not concept) from Walski.

Shocked? Well, okay, Walski doesn’t have actual proof that Najib was the who-dunnit. But over a year ago, as part of Nizam Bashir’s brilliant blog project, 50 Posts To Independence, Walski’s contribution was called… well, you guessed it, One Malaysia. Which also came with this logo.

Ironically, Nizam’s follow up project, 51 Ideas for a Better Malaysia, totally fizzled out after post #9 (number 9, number 9, number 9…), ominous, perhaps, of the fact that we wouldn’t be seeing any better a Malaysia any time soon.

And then, Najib comes into office, as Malaysia’s 6th Prime Minister, with his concept of One Malaysia. Fortunately, with a different logo.

But stolen or not, Walski doesn’t really care, because his is a concept meant for all Malaysians, regardless of whether you’re brown, off-white, pink, wear a tight-fitting turban, or think Britney Spears is God’s gift to music.

It’s essentially one nation, comprising of one people – Bangsa Malaysia – with one common set of laws – equality and justice for all. That’s Walski’s idea of One Malaysia.

In some respects, Walski reckons that it’s exactly this, too, that Najib’s concept entails. Provided, of course, everyone’s on the same page. Which, going by some of the frothing of the Malay-language press, and the prognosticative punditry of the rest of us, indicates that we’re not all on the same page.

Which is where the problem comes in…
(One unclear idea leads to many viewpoints, and more, in the full post)

For example, UMNO-controlled Utusan has, of late, been fanning the war drums of Malay anxiety, through its editorials and reporting (for example, this piece by Awang Selamat), almost like giving a big tight slap on the face of Najib’s One Malaysia. Deputy PM Muhyiddin, too, has been mouthing off stuff that’s contrary to the spirit of One Malaysia.

So, what gives?

All good ideas and concepts need a certain amount of clarity. Until that clarity is not established, the concept of Najib’s One Malaysia will be as fuzzy as the minds who think they know what it is.

And to a certain extent, Najib has explained, via a press conference held this past week (as reported by Bernama), although not as far as to indicate how government policy would be molded with respect to the concept. Well, not explicitly anyway.

But one thing has been clarified – One Malaysia is not the same as the DAP championed Malaysian Malaysia. Does that mean that there will not be equality for all Malaysians?

Not a good thing, if you ask Walski. But not surprising, either. There is this warped thinking that in the Malaysian context “equality” does not (and cannot) be equated to being “just”.

Implying that One Malaysia will look very different depending on what ethno-political basket case you happen to belong to.

One Malaysia for the Malays, One (different) Malaysia for the Muslims, One (again different) Malaysia for the nons… and on and on it goes.

To be fair, Walski thinks what Najib is trying to promote, idea-wise, is a good thing in the right direction. Whether or not he has the scrotal perseverance to do what’s right, and not what’s politically correct and expedient, remains to be seen. It’s clear that One Malaysia will face lots of resistance from Najib’s own party, which wants the status quo view of NEP to remain.

But here’s what Walski thinks: if the NEP’s aim is (in part) to eradicate poverty and uplift the standard of living for those in need of uplifting, why not remove altogether the ethnic connotation?

Walski’s reasoning goes something like this: restructure the NEP to help those in need of assistance, regardless of cultural and ethnic background. That way, IF the Malays are the majority of the poor (as the ultra Malay politicos & NGOs never fail to remind us), then aren’t they by default taken care of anyway? And at the same time doesn’t leave anyone else in the lurch?

Now, what’s so wrong about that?

Unless, of course, the ultra Malay politicos & NGOs choose to wallow in decrepitidity forever, since that’s their rallying call card. Walski, for one, wouldn’t. He’s got more pride and integrity than to want to claim, in perpetuity, that he belongs to a group of people so hopeless, and quite frankly, useless, that after 30+ years of affirmative action, they’re still in such a sorry state.

Any policy, after close to a third of a century, if it doesn’t achieve its objective, is a policy that’s way overdue for revocation, or at least a frank and thorough overhaul.

Think about it.

In any case, justice cannot ever be achieved without equality – that’s the law of nature, which by default, also means that its God’s law. Spin this however you think you can, but it will always come back to this one simple fact.

Equality is a prerequisite for justice.

And that, folks, is Walski’s One Malaysia. What the hell is yours?