COMMENT: Preserving a state of ‘stable tension’
Shamsul Baharuddin
February 26, 2006
New Straits Times

IT was some 36 years ago, on May 13, 1969, that open and bloody ethnic conflicts broke out in Kuala Lumpur and a few other locations outside the capital.

Although the conflict was successfully contained, its ripple effect was felt throughout the country. It was a severe test for ethnic relations in post-Merdeka Malaysia. It became a political and sociological watershed for Malaysia and Malaysians. Indeed, it was a traumatic event. Most importantly, it redefined the perceptions as well as the dynamics of ethnic relations in our country. Ordinary Malaysians were rudely awakened to the fact that the ethnic harmony they had thus far been enjoying since Merdeka could not be taken for granted anymore. The Government was quick to mobilise its power to find immediate remedies and long-term solutions, both economically and politically, to resolve the problem.

A state of national emergency was declared and democracy was suspended. A National Consultative Council was set up to seek solutions palatable to all ethnic groups, especially the Malays. The New Economic Policy (NEP) was introduced and implemented. Rukun Negara was created as an ideology to be embraced by Malaysians from all walks of life.

A department on national unity was established as a bureaucratic centre to keep watch, as it were, on the state of ethnic relations in the nation.

Malaysia has since been in a "state of stable tension". The negative and divisive ethnic fault lines became highlighted more so than ever before. 
To the prophets of doom, Malaysia was perceived as a society facing the imminent danger of breaking up even for the slightest of reasons. The more optimistic Malaysians believed that they had learnt the bitter lesson that others did not gain from their own ethnic conflicts. 

But they remained sociologically vigilant and chose consensus, rather than conflict, as the path for the future. They, nevertheless, realised that sweeping things under the carpet was not the solution.

They were acutely aware that contestation within the different ethnic groups would not disappear, and cannot be ignored. So, instead of choosing street violence as a means to settle their differences, they decided that the only rational and reasonable avenue available was in the realm of public discourse.

Whenever the authorities felt that the public discourses on ethnic differences were getting out of hand, they moved in swiftly to put the smoke out even before it broke into a fire.

As a result, all public discourses on ethnic differences among Malaysians ever since have became highly sensible, and have been handled with great sensitivity.

The discourses thus far have been healthy. The latest discourse on the state of ethnic relations, triggered by statements by Prof Khoo Kay Kim who is proclaimed as one of the architects of Rukun Negara, (New Sunday Times, Feb 19) and the subsequent feedback (NST, Feb 20, 21 & 22), all have been reasonable and healthy.

Khoo was concerned that ethnic unity in Malaysia was still in a fragile state. He suggested that one of the possible solutions would be to teach cultural history.

Some agreed, while others disagreed with him. The healthy debates and discourses on the subject matter will surely continue. We need to conduct such public discourses from time to time, to remind us that we are living in a "state of stable tension". We, therefore, have to work hard to make harmonious ethnic relations work and prevail, not only in the abstract theoretical realm but also in the practical life.

Like any other country that has embarked on modernisation projects, we have to remind ourselves of the fact that there are two major components, namely, economics and politics, in such undertakings. Seeking and maintaining a balance between these factors is imperative and poses the greatest challenge. To sustain and measure the success of the economic component is relatively easy.

Growth figures help us to ascertain where we are heading in our push for industrialisation. For example, the gross national product figures and the poverty line indicate wealth distribution, whether it is even or otherwise. The thriving shopping malls demonstrate a healthy growth of the nation’s middle-class and our love for a globalised consumerist lifestyle.

However, to achieve the political target of nation-building, by way of national integration to be implemented through various national policies (education, language, culture, etc), is not an easy task. In fact, the exercise of nation-building, on the whole, is a nebulous task. The measurement of its success is equally imprecise. There is no such thing as "national integration indicators" or a "unity index".

Of course, such instruments also do not exist anywhere in the world. Our former prime minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, had in 1991, in his famous "Vision 2020" statement, outlined the nine challenges in creating a united Malaysian nation, or Bangsa Malaysia. By implication, he had clearly put to us that we are still building the nation. He said we have to work hard to achieve it. He hoped it could be accomplished by 2020.

When proposing his Vision 2020, he must have realised that we are still saddled with a number of historical structural impediments in the nation-building process, be it in the educational, socio-cultural, and economical sectors, or in the modern electoral system that we practise.

Perhaps the only useful method of measuring our success in terms of nation-building, as complemented by our economic achievements, is to compare our overall performance with countries that are considered success stories.

That we have been perceived as a model of success by developing countries, sufficient for them to have confidence in Malaysia to play the leading role in various international organisations such as the Non-Aligned Movement, Organisation of the Islamic Conference and Asean, speaks volumes for our achievements.

Therefore, the state of ethnic relations in Malaysia cannot be evaluated solely based on the subjective personal evaluations by a few Malaysians, no matter how famous and serious they can be.

We appreciate their concerns. We value their reminders. But we have to reject their rather simplistic, behaviouristic and skin- deep comments.

They have to remember that "unity is not uniformity". Total unity and absolute integration are but utopias. We have to live with our differences. As Malaysians, we should be proud that we have done it.

However, we have to continue to work hard to maintain this ethnic harmony at any cost. To ignore it is to invite unfathomable difficulties and dire consequences, such as the May 13 episode.

Perhaps it is against such a background that the Government recently decided to introduce "Ethnic Relations" as a course subject for students at institutions of higher learning.

It may not create national integration and ethnic unity over- night but it is a beginning that we all need, a systematic conscientisation exercise of and about our cultural history that Khoo is so concerned about.

* Professor Datuk Shamsul Amri Baharuddin is the director of the Institute of the Malay World and Civilisation and Institute of Occidental Studies, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

Source: http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/nst/Sunday/Columns/20060226093933/Article/index_html