Saturday, September 6, 2014

The Illusion of Unity and The Reality of Cohesion: A Commentary on Contemporary Ethnic Relations in Malaysia


It has been more than four decades since the last major violent conflict in Malaysia, when over the same period, some 20 such conflicts have occurred in the U.S., the latest in Ferguson, Missouri, in mid-August this year.

During this interim, Malaysia has enjoyed increased quality of life and a huge overall reduction of poverty, from 50 percent to less than 2 percent.

The middle class has expanded and Malaysians have embraced consumerism as a way of life. Most significantly, they are all driven by the desire for social mobility—horizontal, vertical, and spatial.

In short, Malaysians from all classes work hard to maintain this peace and stability, so that they can carve out successful careers and enjoy a high quality of life motivated by social mobility. This collective drive has
produced social cohesion over the last 40 years, especially in the post-May 1969 period.

Education has been the key vehicle for social mobility and long-term social cohesion. Peace and stability is necessary to ensure the desired goals, hence social cohesion is necessary and violence has to be avoided at all cost.

Nonetheless, it is not surprising that the cry for ‘national unity’ continues to be heard loud and clear at all levels, from people at the grassroots to the elites of the upper echelons.

Mistaking cohesion for unity

Non-violent conflict still persists in Malaysia, due to the inherent contradictions that shape the social dynamics of Malaysian society. These non-violent, mostly verbal conflicts are generated by deep-seated grievances, prejudices, and stereotypes.

As a result, Malaysians have become very vocal critics of the governments, both at the negeri (provincial) as well as the federal level, ruled by the Barisan Nasional coalition or the opposition Pakatan Rakyat coalition. Both are proving to be similar in substance and style of governance, a bit like Coca-Cola and Pepsi: difficult to distinguish in a blind tasting.

One could argue that a national society remains a national hope. Indeed, some say it is ‘an illusion.’ It has been suggested that what Malaysians are experiencing is not national unity, but social cohesion. What is social cohesion in this country?

Social cohesion in Malaysia is about how the plural, fragmented, and diverse components of society, overwhelmed by opposites and contradictions, have been able, through a continuous process of bargaining and negotiation, consensus, and compromise at every level and section of the society, to rise above it all in a most mature manner, to embrace peace and reject any form of violence for long-term mutual survival.

Therefore, social cohesion is not unity. It is a path and a pre-condition to unity. It is what Malaysia has achieved in the last 40 years, a feat for which some countries have proclaimed Malaysia as a ‘model country.’

Divisions deep and shallow

The experience of social cohesion has not been smooth sailing. It has been saddled by at least, for want of a better term, nine major axes of contradictions. These are identified by research as articulated in the form of ‘talk conflict, walk cohesion.’ They are: ethnicity; economy; education; politics and governance; religion; social class; spatial (urban-rural); generational (young-old); and gender. They are not mutually exclusive—one source of conflict can generate and/or build upon another.

However, it is the ethnic contradiction that everyone in Malaysia sees immediately because everyone belongs to an ethnic group, and therefore the level of ethnic consciousness is quite high.

Furthermore, ethnic identifiers, such as religion, have been publicly contested. Economic and education issues have often been expressed in ethnic terms. Because the rural area is still identified with ethnic Malays, rural-urban contestations have been viewed as ethnic issues too.

Often Malaysians forget or ignore the class they belong to; perhaps because everyone, irrespective of class, enjoys government subsidies for many items.

To outsiders, especially to those who foresee doom, every issue in Malaysia has been treated or perceived an ethnic issue. To these prophets, ethnic riots are just around the corner.

This is certainly a superficial observation. Those who are willing to pause and dig deeper realize the levels of political literacy and maturity among Malaysians are high indeed. As someone observed, Malaysians prefer ‘tongue-wagging but not parang- (machete) wielding.’ Tongue-wagging will certainly continue: Malaysians are not afraid to express their criticisms to both the ruling federal government and the opposition coalition ruling three of the negeri (provincial) governments.

We have to separate criticism and hate statements, especially on the Internet. This has been explained by Abraham Foxman and Christopher Wolf in their recent book. They argued that the Internet has allowed both individually and collectively initiated hate statements to be made publicly without much legal control.

Talk conflict on the Internet, articulated in the form of racist or hate statements on ethnic relations in Malaysia, shall continue. It grabs the attention of many because of its apparent newsworthiness. But Malaysians also know that ethnic violence is not an option to resolve differences of contemporary domestic relations.

Shamsul A.B. is Distinguished Professor and Director at the Institute for Ethnic Studies, National University of Malaysia.


 

No comments:

Post a Comment