Friday, December 19, 2008

Malaysia Foreign Policy Contradiction between Mahathir Foreign Policy and Others Prime Minister

1.0 Introduction

Foreign Policy could be defined as the strategies that states are going to used as guidance to their action in the international arena, that comprise of its political, economic, military, and cultural policies reflected externally to the international arena through diplomatic and governmental machinery. Its main function is to defend and promoting the country's national security, economic and other vital national interests. Foreign policies formed are usually affected by individual decision makers, local political, economical and social factors. The foreign policy of a nation has never remain the same over a period of time in history. This is mainly due to the reason of the changing perception of individual policy makers with regard to geopolitical and economic components affecting foreign policy are continually changing.

The nature of Malaysia[1] foreign policy is determined by the various geographical, historical, social and political determinants, which the main national interest of Malaysia is security, economy, internal security and sovereignty. Malaysia foreign policy begins from the day we gain independence. During that time our late Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman[2], established close relationship with the west that have close ties with the commonwealth[3] countries and Britain[4]. Never fail to mention that Tunku Abdul Rahman policy was also anti-communist, where Malaysia during that time does not recognized the People Republic of China[5], and supported the South Vietnamese pro-democracy fraction during the Vietnam War[6]. Later, Malaysia foreign policy had change from pro-west foreign policy to non-alignment, neutralization and peaceful co-existence, after the Indonesia confrontation. Malaysia and other South East Asia countries in the region had set up ASEAN[7], mainly to ensure peace and security in the region and to promote the economic growth of its member countries. During the era of Mahathir premiership, Malaysia foreign policy had undergone a huge and dramatic change from the normal discourse of Malaysia Foreign Policy. Malaysia as an actor in the international arena had become more vocal in issues concerning third world nations. A number of policies were implemented for example Buy British Last Policy, Look East Policy, Third World Spokemanship in Non alignment Movement (NAM)[8], Regional Engagement in ASEAN, Islamic Posturing and Commercial and Development Policy. In this assignment we will discuss all these policy and study how does it departure from normal course of Malaysian Foreign Policy alignment.
2.0 Contradictions in Foreign Policy

During Malayan Independence from the British in the year of 1957, Malaya by that time had only one division of the Malay Royal Regiment, Malaya defence during that time of period does not posses any air force and navy which gave the reason why Tunku Abdul Rahman foreign policy have to be pro-west to secure Malaya national security from external threat during that time of period. Malaya had signed the Anglo-Malayan Defence Agreement of the year 1957 in which both nation agree to provide military assistant to assists each another when there is an arm conflict. This was stated in the Anglo-Malayan Defence Agreement 1957[9].

Beside from national security, Malaya economy at that time also link very closely with the British, the Malaya economy during that period of time was a primary commodity product country that export raw material for example tin and rubber which was mainly owned and control by foreign British investor. In which as recorded by Tilman in Malaysian Foreign Policy

“At present all the tin dredges, three-quarters of the large rubber estates, almost all the new oil palm estates. Possible two-thirds of Malaysian foreign trade, and much of the secondary industries are in overseas, mainly British, ownership and control.”

Not forget to mention Malaya internal security during that period of time was also facing the threat of communist insurgency under the Malayan Communist Party. Malaya depends on British, Australia and New Zealand troops in countering the communist insurgency. This factor had formulated the Tunku anti-communist policy. Malaysia foreign policy of pro-west and and anti communist started to change after the confrontation following with event such as the expelling of Singapore from Malaysia where British is not consulted. British could no longer support their military presence in Malaysia and started to withdraw at 1971. as noted by J. Saravanamuttu[10]. All these string of event had caused Malaysian not to depend heavily on the west on Malaysia national security, giving way to Malaysia non align, and neutrality policy. Malaysia before the Mahathir period, all foreign policy will have certain kind of influences from the bureaucracies concerning issue of internal social security, external threat, economic[11].

All this have changed during the Tun Dr Mahathir period, Mahathir idiosyncrasies [12]plays an important role in forming the foreign policy of Malaysia, and these policy had distinguish Dr. Mahathir’s Prime Ministership from previous administrations. First of all it’s the Buy British Last policy, which he implemented after two months coming into office, this policy seems a radical change of Malaysian foreign policy, even during the time of non-align, Malaysia depended heavily on the west. This could be explaining by a variety of factors. First, we have to examine and study about Mahathir idiosyncrasies which play the important role in directing Malaysian foreign policy. He had not being educated in British like his predecessors, and perceived Britain as a colonial power. He was also a man that posses Malay and Malaysian nationalism, which would like to reduce British enterprise in Malaysia, and scale back Malay-Chinese joint venture company, implementing the New Economic Policy(NEP)[13]. Beside that external event for example in June 1981, London Metal Exchange changes the rules that cause Malaysia effort to increase the price of tin in the world market to be in vain. Beside that the selling of Guthrie and Dunlop shares to the Multi-Purpose Holdings which was an investment firm of the Chinese based MCA party without the knowledge of the government directly opposing the plan of Mahathir to increase Malay equity under the NEP. This had prompt Mahathir to initiate Buy British Last Policy. Mahathir had never consulted the foreign affair bureaucracies on the Buy British Last Policy[14].

Beside from that Mahathir had proclaimed the Look East Policy at the late 1981[15], in which “east” in this term was referring to Hong Kong, South Korea and most importantly Japan. Mahathir idiosyncrasies that he admire the diligent, loyalty and perseverance of the Japanese people working ethics and their ability of transforming the Japanese agriculture into a modernised and industrialized state within one generation, had draw Mahathir interest in learning from the Japanese. Beside that Look East Policy could also overcome the Chinese economic hegemony by setting up Malay-Japanese privatized heavy industry. All these had fitted well in the development of the NEP, and again the Look East Policy was never discussed thoroughly in the cabinet or party[16]. Bureaucrat in Malaysia Foreign Affairs was now wholly manipulated by the premier himself[17]. from normal course of Malaysian Foreign Policy alignment.

3.0 Contradiction in Third World Spokemanship

During the time of the previous Prime Minister, third world spokemanship was never an policy which Malaysia will adopt, due to the reason that Malaysia both in economy and security was heavily depended on the western nation in which speaking on behalf of the third world where it may hurting the relationship with the west was never an option for MFA bureaucrats. Malaysia shift it’s policy from pro-west to non-align was mainly due to the reason that Malaysia can’t rely on British in Malaysia national security, as being explain above. Third world spokemanship was actually a very risky in the stand point view of formal MFA bureaucrats. First, the success of Malaysia initiative is low. Secondly, the return of such initiative is low. Third, Malaysia itself desired to be a rich nations club that it is so readily criticized. In which the bureaucrats think that the policy is much unfruitful to the nations[18]. After the cold war when the Soviet Union Communism was collapse, the world was no longer to be bipolar. The existence of the Non-alignment Movement was now seems unnecessary because there is no contrast great power to non alignment to. Mahathir had taken this situation of vacuum that exist in the Non-alignment Movement by taking control its leadership role in NAM steering it in the desired direction. Mahathir had used this opportunity to become spokesman for the third world nation lifting the image of Malaysia status among the developing countries as the “voices of the poor”, in which later had provided Malaysia entrepreneur the opportunity for investment. For example, in anti-Western States Iran Petronas had took up a 30 percent Iranian oil project, despite a US law that penalized foreign companies that did business with the Islamic republic[19].

4.0 Contradiction in Regional Engagement

Previous Prime Minister Bureaucracy main objective of engaging in regional engagement through ASEAN is to maintaining political independence and protecting territorial integrity by practicing neutrality in cold war issue and non-interference in respecting territorial integrity and political sovereignty of other nations. During the Kuala Lumpur Declaration, ASEAN was declared as the Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality in 1971, that gain guarantee from the three big powers of China, America and the Soviet Union, as noted by Tun Razak in his speech to the ASEAN ministers[20].
During the Mahathir period, ASEAN was still was one of the main vehicle to guarantee regional security in South East Asia, in which Malaysia contribute wholly in restoring peace and security in the issue of Kampuchea with the help of ASEAN, by setting up Coalition Government of Cambodia in Kuala Lumpur. During the period of Mahahir, Singapore by that time was having massive armament with its Allies of the United State and China on the other hand was having territorial dispute over the island of Spartly in which Malaysia fear that China will use military to claim the possession of it. In overcoming both of this threat Malaysia had joined the ARF to retain regional security in the case of threat from Singapore and contain Chinese government ambition to use force in the matter of Spartly Island. Mahathir policy in regional engagement started to deviate from normal alignment of security issue in which he started to think that regional engagement was actually beneficial for Malaysia economy where we need market for our production. Especially in the case of Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Myanmar, Mahathir knew that these nations was eager to enter the ASEAN region for various interest reasons[21]. Mahathir had used this opportunity pushing for their inclusion in ASEAN in the hope that Malaysia business could enter the market of these nations, in which the strategy works[22]. Mahathir sees these new market as the new market in which Malaysia could place investment in it, and Mahathir which these new market could be isolated from the west and he proposed a Japanese lead EAEG that will lower the protectionist barriers in the ASEAN region opposing the already established US-lead APEC. EAEG was met with protest from within and out of ASEAN. Mahathir idiosyncrasies play a major role in here where he saw APEC as a US dominate hegemony. Mahathir prefer EAEG in which he believe that Japanese will protect Malaysia interest which brought about by the Look east Policy. Mahathir proposal for EAEG was also due to the reason that he wants to reduce globalization effect of US-hegemony in APEC by using regionalism in EAEG that will better benefit the developing countries that needed to protect their product and infant industries.

5.0 Contradiction in Islamic Posturing

Malaysia had long established its relationship with the Islamic nations and began to perceive itself as an Islamic nation in the international arena. One of the objectives of MFA bureaucracy in 1970-1975 is to promote international Muslim causes by supporting it [23]for example on the issue of Palestinian. In the year 1971, Tun Abdul Razak had proclaimed Islamic solidarity in his speech in the Fifth Islamic Conference of Foreign Minister[24]. In the perspective of MFA bureaucrat the Muslim solidarity serve as a medium range interest rather than long term interest due geographical reason that distant Malaysia from the Middle Eastern Muslim hub. The benefit of such relationship was that Malaysia was able to invest and cooperate with the Arab world on a number of aspects in culture, science, technical and economy[25]. During the oil crisis in 1973, Malaysia is one of the countries that exempted from oil cutbacks[26].
During the period of Mahathir, the country was undergoing a series of modernization, where some of the peasant class conservative Malays Muslim that live in rural area will perceive Mahathir agenda as un-islamic. Mahathir regime was on the continous fire of Malaysia Islamic Party (PAS). MFP had provided Mahathir the mechanism it need in international arena to promote Islam solidarity internationally and used it as a weapon to counter PAS allegation at home[27]. Mahathir relationship with the contemporary Islamic issue was mere rhetoric that never transforms or in the some case limited action. Islamic country was never a priority in MFA[28]. After the September 11, during the period of anti-terrorism, Mahathir had link PAS with Taliban, and spread propaganda that Malaysia will resort to Taliban radicalism if PAS took power of the government. These allegations had caused others parties that alliances with it to fell apart due to pressure from members to dissociate with it, causing the biggest win to Mahathir regime.

6.0 Contradiction in Commercial and Developmental Diplomacy

During the period from Tunku Abdul Rahman to Tun Hussein Onn, Malaysia objective in development and trade didn’t change much that is promoting economic development that include industrialization, rural development, commercial development and the stabilization of primary commodity products. Malaysia foreign policy during that time supported the Laissez-faire kind of free trade which Malaysia had provided foreign direct investor a good investment environment and aligning itself towards the third world nations by joining G77[29] in the effort in stabilizing primary goods prices and opposing tariff grouping against the third world. Malaysia also supported the trade grouping and tries to expand their trade relationship by negotiating trade agreement with countries from all over the world[30]. During the year 1970, MFA in trade and development policy had deviate a little. Now their main policy had included in Economic Nationalism where it seek national control in resources and economy. This is where Petronas was established. This is mainly to increase the equity of Malay according to the NEP.

During Mahathir period, he had differentiated himself from the previous Prime Minister that he is using Malaysian diplomacy to open doors in foreign markets[31]. Beside from that he had expanded four others bureaucracies namely MITI, MIDA, Matrade and IDFR in MFA economic division. He also work very closely with the Minister of International and Trade Rafidah Aziz in which both of them have hands on approach of Malaysia foreign trade in identifying markets, conducting visits abroad. During his period of time, he had encouraged privatization and heavy industry policies that facilitate foreign investment in Malaysia. During his period of time Malaysia was starting to have direct investment mainly in the Third world and former communist states.

7.0 Conclusion

Malaysian Foreign Policy which changed from its normal alignment bureaucratic discourse during Mahathir period was a success or not is covered with much controversy. One of the most controversy policy of Mahathir is the Look East Policy that the MFA would never thought of such foreign policy will ever be formulated. The policy was come by the premier himself. Some scholars will say the policy was a failure, limited success or success greatly. For me personally, I think that the Look East Policy itself was a good policy what went wrong with the policy is the project under it, and one of them is our national car project Proton. In which I support whole heartedly that the project was a failure, where the company is losing money and until now there is limited technology transfer to Malaysia engineering. This is maybe the biggest failure of Mahathir idiosyncrasy. But undeniable under the Look East Policy Japanese entrepreneur had injected large amount of investment in Malaysia and during the 1997 and 1998 Asian Financial Crisis, Malaysia is one of the most important investment market for the Japanese that make us the recipient of the $2bilion Miyazawa initiative, that enable us not to kow-tow to the IMF, saving our economy from total destruction. For me, Malaysia have the human capabilities to develop this countries, the problem is that mostly the student from overseas want to work overseas due to the low salary in Malaysia. But this is the policy of the government to keep Malaysian salary to be low, in order to be competitive in luring foreign investor that will create more jobs. So is Malaysia foreign policy under the influence of Mahathir idiosyncrasy a success or failure? It depends on which perspective scholars are looking at it. But one thing for sure, Malaysia had modernised a lot under his rule.
Bibliography

Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Federation of Malaya on External defence and Mutual Assistance, signed at Kuala Lumpur, on 12 October, 1957. Kuala Lumpur: Government Printer 1957.

ASEAN secretariat web site. (n.d). Retrieved February 20, 2008,from http://www.aseansec.org/

CIA fact book. (n.d.). Retrieved February 20, 2008,from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html

Commonwealth Secretariat website. (n.d.). Retrieved February 20, 2008, from http://www.thecommonwealth.org/subhomepage/151236/

Wikipedia. (n.d). Retrieved February 20, 2008,from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War.

G77 web site. (n.d). Retrieved February 20, 2008, from http://www.g77.org/doc/.

J. Saravanamuttu. (1983). The Dilemma of Independence: Two Decades of Malaysia’s Foreign Policy, 1957-1977. Penang: Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia.

Karminder Dhillon Singh. (2005). Malaysian foreign policy in the Mahathir era, 1981-2003. Arbor : UMI. Pg 273.

Mohamad Yusof Ahmad. (1990) Continuity and Change in Malaysia’s Foreign Policy 1981-1986. (pg 351-352). Ann Arbor : UMI, 1990.

New Economy Policy web site. (n.d). Retrieved February 20, 2008, from http://www.epu.jpm.my/new%20folder/development%20policies/cont%20key%20policies/NEP.htm

Non alignment Movement web site. (n.d). Retrieved February 20, 2008, from http://www.nam.gov.za/background/background.htm.

Prime Minister of Malaysia website. (n.d.). Retrieved February 20, 2008, from http://www.primeministersofmalaysia.net/1.php
[1]CIA fact book. (n.d.). Retrieved February 20, 2008,from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html. Malaysia is located within the South East Asia region. It has a population of 24million. Malaysia have a very diverse culture from different ethnicity, with Malay 55%, Chinese 30 , Indian 10% and others 5%. It has a GDP of 5.7% growth rate during the year 2007. Mostly the citizen is Muslim. Malaysia practices parliamentary democracy system with a constitution monarchy.
[2] Prime Minister of Malaysia website. (n.d.). Retrieved February 20, 2008, from http://www.primeministersofmalaysia.net/1.php. Tunku Abdul Rahman is the first Prime Minister of Malaysia, that lead Malaya into independence on the 31 August 1957. He was also the second chairman of United Malay National Organization. Graduated from Cambridge University in Law He had proposed for the enlargement of the Malayan federation inclusive of Singapore, Sabah and Sawarak, in which on the 16 September 1963. Three of the State had joined into the Malayan federation which by then changed it’s name into Malaysia. The Tunku biggest achievement in international arena is the setting up of Organizations of the Islamic Conference (OIC) where he is the first Secretary General. Tunku was also famous for his pro-west and anti-communist policy.
[3] Commonwealth Secretariat website. (n.d.). Retrieved February 20, 2008, from http://www.thecommonwealth.org/subhomepage/151236/ . The Commonwealth is a voluntary association that consists 53 sovereign members states consulting and co-operating in the common interests of their peoples and in the promotion of international understanding and world peace. The Commonwealth does not posses any constitution or charter, but members are committed to themselves to the statements of beliefs set out by Heads of Government. The basis of these is the Declaration of Commonwealth Principles, agreed at Singapore in 1971, and reaffirmed in the Harare Declaration of 1991. The fundamental political values underpinning the Commonwealth include democracy and good governance, respect for human rights and gender equality, the rule of law, and sustainable economic and social development.
[4] Op.cit 1. Britain was the former colonial power over Malaya. It was located in the region of Europe. Once it is the most powerful country in the world that control a lot of colony located in every corner of the world.
[5]. Op.cit 1. China it’s a communist state, that currently consists of 1.3 billion people. It is one of the most populated countries in the whole world. China's economy now practiced a more market-oriented economy that has a rapidly growing private sector and is a major player in the global economy. China in 2007 stood as the second-largest economy in the world after the US. During 2006 annual inflows of foreign direct investment had rose to $63 billion.
[6] Wikipedia. (n.d). Retrieved February 20, 2008,from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War. Vietnam war was a war that was fought between the democratic Republic of Vietnam which form the Northern side of Vietnam that was supported by the Chinese and Soviet Union Communist and the Republic of Vietnam that form the Southern side of Vietnam that was supported by the Americans. The country was unified with the defeating of the South by the North.
[7] ASEAN secretariat web site. (n.d). Retrieved February 20, 2008,from http://www.aseansec.org/ The Association of Southeast Asian Nations or ASEAN was established on 8 August 1967 in Bangkok by the five original Member Countries, namely, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. Now it’s membership was inclusive of Brunei Darussalam, Lao PDR, Myanmar and Cambodia. it’s main objective is to promote economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region and promote regional peace and stability
[8] Non alignment Movement web site. (n.d). Retrieved February 20, 2008, from http://www.nam.gov.za/background/background.htm. The Non-Aligned Movement(NAM) is a Movement of 115 members representing the interests and priorities of developing countries. The Movement has its origin in the Asia-Africa Conference held in Bandung, Indonesia in 1955. During the time of establishment, NAM main objective is to stay neutral between the two superpower of that time that is the Soviet Union Communist and the Democratic American. After the demise of Socialism, NAM had transform it’s objective of political neutral to economy development of the third world nation.
[9] Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Federation of Malaya on External defence and Mutual Assistance, signed at Kuala Lumpur, on 12 October, 1957. Kuala Lumpur: Government Printer 1957. In the event of armed attack against any of the territories or forces of the Federation of Malaya or any of the territories or protectorates of the United Kingdom in the Far East or any of the forces of the United Kingdom within any of those territories or protectorates or within the Federation of Malaya, the government of the Federation of Malaya and the United Kingdom undertake to cooperate with each other and will take such action as each considers necessary for the purpose of meeting the situation effectively. see appendix 1. pg 171
[10] J. Saravanamuttu. (1983). The Dilemma of Independence: Two Decades of Malaysia’s Foreign Policy, 1957-1977. Penang: Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia. The deterioration of traditional ties exacerbated the general turmoil of foreign policy …… with the separation of Singapore from Malaysia of which British was given little notice. The a cut back in British economic assistance resulting in a Malaysian request for $630 million in defence aid being turned down……British withdrawal was to be effective by 1971 and completed by the mid-1970s
[11] Opcit 7. see appendix 2. explanatory chart od defence and security policy output by bureaucrates. Pg 54
[12] Karminder Dhillon Singh. (2005). Malaysian foreign policy in the Mahathir era, 1981-2003. Arbor : UMI. Pg 273. He[Mahathir] believes he had the answer to Malaysia’s development needs, that he was right, and that he was on the right side of history.
[13]New Economy Policy web site. (n.d). Retrieved February 20, 2008, from http://www.epu.jpm.my/new%20folder/development%20policies/cont%20key%20policies/NEP.htm The New Economy Policy was launch in the year 1971 in which a government respond to create harmony and unity in a nation with many ethnic and religious groups. Its main strategy is to reduce absolute poverty irrespective of race through raising income levels and increasing employment opportunities for all Malaysians and restructure society to correct economic imbalances so as to reduce and eventually eliminate the identification of race with economic function.
[14] Mohamad Yusof Ahmad. (1990) Continuity and Change in Malaysia’s Foreign Policy 1981-1986. (pg 351-352). Ann Arbor : UMI, 1990. Malaysian diplomat Mohamad Yosof revealed that BBL[Buy British Last] and the Commonwealth Policy were formulated without the consultation with MFA[Malaysia Foreign Affairs], and they ‘ran counter to the wisdom of MFA.’ Deputy premier Musa Hitam has said that BBL I was not debated in the Cabinet. Even though BBL II was announced by the then Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim as a cabinet decision, its origins lay in a Mahathir directives as well.
[15] Op.cit 12.
[16] Op.cit 12. As recorded in the book that there is no record of a cabinet or party level discussion prior to the announcement.
[17] Mohamad Yusof Ahmad ( as stated in Karminder Dhillon Singh, 2005, pg274-275) MFA came to known of the policy after it was made public by Mahathir and its role was reglected to findings ways to rationalizing and undertaking “damage control” measures in response to negative feedback from target audience. Also stated by Saravanamuttu that “[T]he Malaysian government, through its formal and informal machinery, mounted a concerted campaign to publicize and propagate the Look East Policy. The media lapped it up and the bureaucrates scrambled to discover and uncover all manner of ways to implement the Prime Minsiter’s edict. The public was bombarded with an unending barrage of propaganda about “the Japanese miracle” and the need to make the country to ‘Malaysia Inc’.”
[18] Op.cit 12. That some of the regime’s policies outlined in this section were irrational, wasteful , and futile was a view shared by many within the MFA.
[19] Op.cit12. with Malaysia obtaining the status of speaking up for the poor, Malaysia had obtained a lot of investment opportunity from lumber and construction to oil and gold exploration in impoverished countries of Europe, Africa, the America. Others example is a Malaysian firm was granted US$690 in government reconstruction and development plan in Nelson Mendela South Africa after helping him in his political campaign for president. YTL won a multi million dollar housing project, MRC obtained a bid to develop the Samrad Township, and UMNO related company Renong won a billion Ringgit deal to develop the Durban international harbour zone. Malaysian company won all these deals despite substantial lower bid from others international developers.
[20] Address by the prime Minister, Tun Abdul Razak at the Opening of the Eight ASEAN Ministerial Meeting, 13 May, 1975 Siaran Akhbar. Kuala Lumpur: Jabatan Penerangan. (as stated in J. Saravanamuttu. 1983. pg 96-97.). “The premise of the neutralization proposal is regional and national resilience. Southeast Asia must stand on its own feet. We-individual countries as well as the region as a whole- must be self-reliant if we wish to survive. If a country or a people values its way of life, it must be prepared to defend it against any form of external encroachment. If a people is not prepared to fight in the defence of its sovereignty and its values, it will not survive-indeed it does not deserve to survive. The best defence lies in the people themselves – in their commitment, their will and capacity. This is the premise of the neutrality system as it applies both to individual countries and to the region as a whole. It is not premised on vague hopes and euphoric dreams. It is premised on friendship and goodwill, on an open-minded readiness to co-operate, and patient and perseverance in working out detailed arrangements- and equally on national resilience, on our readiness to fight and defend our values and way of life….this is the meaning of and thrust of the neutrality system…. The key to our future security and stability lies not in outdated and irrelevant attitudes of the cold war , but in imaginative and constructive response to the new realities of today.”
[21] Op.cit 12. reason for Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar and Cambodia to join ASEAN is that they will gain international recognition to indirect access to EU and others western market.
[22] Opcit 12. MFP was able to open the door for Malasian entrepreneur in this bureaucratic red tape market. For example, Petronas, secure large scale contracts in these markets from petroleum exploration to distribution in Vietnam and retailing of petroleum product in Cambodia.
[23] Opcit 10. see ppendix 3. pg 127
[24] Prime Minister Address, Tun Adbul Razak, at the opening ceremony of the Fifth Islamic Conference of Foreign Minister, 21 June 1974, Kuala Lumpur. ( as stated in in J. Saravanamuttu. 1983. pg 124-125.)
[25] Opcit 10
[26] Opcit 10
[27] Opcit 12
[28] Opcit 12
[29] G77 web site. (n.d). Retrieved February 20, 2008, from http://www.g77.org/doc/.The Group of 77 (G-77) was established on 15 June 1964 by seventy-seven developing countries signatories of the “Joint Declaration of the Seventy-Seven Countries” issued at the end of the first session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in Geneva but the organization has since expanded to 130 member countries. it provides a forum for developing countries to promote their collective economic interests and enhance their joint negotiating capacity on major international economic issues within the United Nations system, and promote South-South cooperation for development
[30] Opcit 10. see appendix 4. pg 57
[31] Opcit 12. his policy in third world spokemanship, Islamic posturing, regional engagement, all pay off in form of reverse investment into their market and earning government contracts for their reconstruction and development projects.

Rampasan Kuasa di Thailand

1.0 Pengenalan rampasan kuasa tentera

Rampasan kuasa tentera atau dikenali sebagai military coup d’etate dalam bahasa Inggeris. Rampasan kuasa sebenarnya adalah tidak sah di sisi undang-undang perlembagaan terutama dalam negara yang mengamalkan sistem demokrasi. Rampasan kuasa merupakan sesuatu tindakan yang cepat dan kuat di mana ia dilaksanakan oleh sesuatu pihak yang berkuasa dalam rangka pentadbiran negara biasanya pihak tentera negara tersebut dan mampu menumbang sesebuah kerajaan dan menubuh sesebuah kerajaan yang baru dengan apa cara sekalipun. Rampasan kuasa biasanya adalah mengejutkan dan berlaku secara mendadak dengan perancangan konsipasi yang rapi dan sempurna. Seperti yang didefinisikan oleh O’Kane(1987)

“A coup is the execution of an illegal strategy for overthrowing a government. The essence of that strategy is a strike at the heart of the Administration by the threat or use of violence by a conspiratorial group from within the State Apparatus. A coup is judged sucessful by the installation in power of a government of the conspirators’ own choosing.”(pg22)

Rampasan kuasa tentera adalah berbeza dengan revolusi yang melibatkan orang yang lebih ramai dan makan masa yang lebih panjang sebagai contoh setahun atau lebih. Revolusi juga akan membawa perubahan yang besar dalam system pemerintahan sesebuah negara. Rampasan kuasa, biasanya hanya melibatkan pihak yang tertentu sahaja, seperti yang dinayatakan oleh O’Kane “Coup d’etate are then unlike other cases of political instability in that they can be bloodless and need not mass involvement.” Matlamat utama rampasan kuasa adalah menumbangkan kerajaan, dalam masa yang singkat sebagai contoh sehari atau dua hari, tanpa melibatkan perubahan dasar sistem politik negara yang besar, serta tanpa melibatkan peperangan jika boleh tanpa keganasan tanpa melibatkan kekorbanan orang. Rampasan kuasa atau coup d’etat telah didefinisikan oleh Ferguson(1987)

“A coup d’etat, then, is simply a means of seizing power quickly and effectively within an exsting framework so that, once established, one can either operate within that framework or start slowly to alter it.” (pg13)

Langkah-langkah untuk melaksanakan satu rampasan kuasa yang berjaya sebenarnya adalah lebih kurang sama. Pihak ramapasan kuasa biasanya akan menguasai semua telekomunikasi di negara ini adalah penting untuk menahan berita rampasan kuasa tersebar kepada pihak berkuasa yang lain yang akan mengahalang rampasan kuasa tersebut. Kemudian, pihak rampasan kuasa akan menguasai semua kawasan yang mempunyai kepentingan strategi pertahanan untuk mengahalang sebarang serangan balas daripada pihak yang bertentangan sebagai contoh ibu pejabat polis atau kem tentera. Seterusnya menahan semua orang-orang berkuasa dalam pentadibiran kerajaan termasuk ketua negara seperti yang dinayatakan oleh O’Kane(1987)

“The techniques emplyed would usually include similar features: the capturing of the telecommunication centre and other key points (such as police headquaters, military headquaters and the presidential palace) and the arrest of the most powerful state personnel, including of course the head of state himself”(pg22)

Kenapa di sebuah negara yang bersistem demokrasi di mana rakyat berpeluang memilih pemimpin mereka juga akan mengalami rampasan kuasa? Ini adalah disebabka bahawa, Demokrasi tidak semestinya betul, inilah masanya sistem Demokrasi tumbang, di mana orang yang mempunyai wang dan berkuasa dapat membeli undi. Selain daripada itu, pemimpin atau keajaan yang dipilih mungkin telah dimanipulasikan oleh kumpulan tekanan atau dikenali sebagai pressure group yang kuat seperti kesatuan kerja, persatuan pertanian, persatuan perniagaan dan lain-lain. Kumpulan ini akan memberi sokongan undi serta menyokong pilihan raya dari segi kewangan jika pemimpin tersebut memihak kepada mereka. Pihak yang ingin menjadi pemimpin negara akan menerima tawaran tersebut, dan ini telah menyebabkan pemimpin dimanipulasikan oleh kumpulan tekanan. Seperti yang dinayatakan oleh Ferguson “A coup offers much more certainty than a general election, especially in an unsophisticated country or one where election malpractice is widespread.”
2.0 Sejarah Ringkasan Rampasan Kuasa di Thailand

Sejarah Thailand moden boleh dimulakan pada tahun 1932. Pada tahun 1932, tentera Thailand telah berjaya merampas kuasa daripada raja Thailand pada masa itu iaitu raja Prajadhipok. Rampasan kuasa ini telah menukar sistem pemerintahan Thailand daripada sistem monarki yang berkuasa mutlak kepada sistem raja berperlembagaan. Semenjak daripada itu, Thailand sentiasa mengahadapi rampasan kuasa pemerintahan. Sebahagian besar daripada rampasan kuasa ini melibatkan pihak tentera, dan dalam setiap rampasan kuasa pemerintahan baru akan meminda perlembagaan Thailand. Kejadian rampasan kuasa melibatkan pihak yang banyak. Pada tahun 1932 hingga tahun 1957, kebanyakan rampasan kuasa adalah berlaku antara pihak tentera dengan keluarga diraja, atau antara pihak tentera dengan pihak tentera yang lain. Pada tahun 1973 hingga tahun 1976, berikutan dengan peningkatan taraf pendidikan dan kesedaran politik kelas menengah dan mahasiswa universiti. Kebanyakan demonstrasi untuk menumbangkan kerajaan adalah diatur daripada kelas berpendidikan dan profesional. Pada tahun 1976, Thailand telah kembali kepada pemerintahan tentera, selepas tentera mengguna keganasan dalam menentang aktiviti mahasiswa. Pada tahun 1981 hingga 2005, politik Thailand adalah dikelilingi dengan rampasan kuasa. Walaubagaimanapun, kebanyakan rampasan kuasa di Thailand melibatkan keganasan yang terhad. Di sini saya akan mengkaji sebab, kenapakah rampasan kuasa di Thailand tidak melibatkan sebarang keganasan yang mendadak?

2.1 Ketidakupayaan Pemerintahan Bureukrasi Berubah Polici Ikut Masa.

Sejak tahun 1932 hingga kini adalah tidak boleh dinafikan bahawa, Thailand telah berkembang pesat dalam aspek ekonomi dan sosial. Walaubagaimanapun, Thailand masih mengalami kejadian rampasan kuasa. Pada pendapat saya, sebab terjadi kejadian rampasan kuasa adalah disebabkan oleh pemusatan kuasa kerajaan yang melampau. Jika mengkaji sejarah rampasan kuasa yang terjadi di Thailand secara teliti, kita akan mendapati bahawa setiap kali rampasan kuasa yang berjaya akan diikuti dengan pemindaan perlembagaan negara Thai oleh pihak yang berkuasa. Kejadian seperti ini juga berlaku semasa 2006, selepas bekas perdana menteri Thailand Thaksin ditumbang daripada pemerintahan. Antara yang dipinda dalam perlembagaan telah menyebabkan pemusatan kuasa kepada mereka yang berkuasa. Pemusatan kuasa ini, telah menyebabkan pelbagai polisi negara tidak boleh berubah mengikut masa. Ini telah menyebabkan suatu masalah yang besar kepada perkembangan sosial dan ekonomi negara Thailand seperti yang Zimmerman

“It is a major concentration of this paper that the bureaucratic polity collapsed precisely because it could not cope with the rise in new economic and social pressure that is earlier development ‘successes’ created”

Politik telah memainkan peranan yang penting dalam menentukan perkembangan sosial dan ekonomi negara Thailand. Apabila kerajaan tidak boleh membuat perubahan polisi negara yang sesuai untuk perkembangan ekonomi dan sosial negara, ini akan menjejaskan kehidupan rakyat. Rakyat pada masa itu, akan marah kepada kerajaan. Jika rampasan kuasa terjadi, rakyat Thailand akan menyokongnya. Dalam kes 2006, semasa bekas perdana menteri Thailand Thaksin ditumbang oleh General Sonthi, Thaksin telah dituduh terlibat dalam sikap kronisme, rasuah dan mengurangkan kuasa parlimen dan kehakiman di mana peristiwa-peristiwa telah menyebabkan rakyat tidak puas hati dengan pemerintahan kerajaan Thaksin. Seperti yang dilaporkan oleh Beech

“The spokesman blamed the military's extreme measures on what he termed corrupt practices by Thaksin, alleging that the Prime Minister had hampered the workings of both parliament and the courts…. [ Thaksin’s popularity] began to wane early this year after the tax-free sale of his family's telecom firm, Shin Corp, for $1.9 billion, a transaction that was regarded by some as an abuse of power. He has also been criticized for filling many government positions with his supporters. The military, too, has been stacked with Thaksin appointees, including his family members, according to top defense analyst Panitan Wattanayagorn.”

Sokongan rakyat Thaksin di Thailand pada masa itu adalah semakin menurun, oleh itu semasa rampasan tentera berlaku, tiada rakyat yang menentangnya, sebaliknya rakyat menyokong rampasan kuasa tentera pada masa tersebut.

Ini adalah sebab utama kenapa kejadian keganasan jarang berlaku semasa rampasan kuasa di Thailand. Apabila, seseorang pemerintah, sudah tidak mendapat sokongan daripada rakyatnya, maka apabila terjadinya rampasan kuasa, rakyat tidak akan menentang kepada rampasan kuasa.

2.2 Perestuan daripada Raja Berperlembagaan

Dalam masyarakat negara Thailand, raja telah memainkan suatu aspek yang penting dalam kehidupan rakyat jelata. Bagi rakyat, raja merupakan insan yang berwibawa, di mana ia boleh dijadikan sebagai tumpuan kesetiaan. Bagi rakyat negara Thailand, kehidupan mereka, adalah sentiasa dalam keadaan ketidakstabilan, di mana banyak peristiwa negatif sosial sedang berlaku. Bagi mereka rampasan kuasa, adalah satu rancangan untuk menumbangkan sesuatu pemerintahan yang sebelumnya. Raja bagi rakyat jelata Thailand adalah bebas daripada sebarang pendirian politik, tanpa memihak kepada mana-mana pihak. Segala tindakan raja adalah bersikap adil dan saksama dan untuk kebaikan negara dan bangsa Thailand. Raja Thailand mempunyai pengaruh yang besar terhadap sesetangah kumpulan atau individu, di mana beliau akan mengguna pengaruhnya untuk kebaikan rakyatnya. Seperti yang dinyatakan oleh Zimmerman(1978)

“The King had potential behind the scenes to be an active political force when necessary. His most significant role could have been as mediator or bridge between contending groups of individuals who tended to seek his support as direct contacts with each another proved fruitless and too tense. In addition, the King could have used his influence with certain groups or individuals to encourage legislation he believed was necessary, as in support of rural development programmes or better land tenure terms for minority groups.” (pg 42)

Oleh itu, semasa rampasan kuasa, seperti yang disebut dalam bahagian pengenalan, pihak rampasan kuasa mesti akan menguasai ketua negara. Ini kerana, ketua negara merupakan lambang sesuatu negara yang berdaulat. Dalam kes Thailand, pihak rampasan kuasa akan menahan tempat kediaman ketua negara iaitu raja Thailand. Selepas itu, mereka mesti kena mendapat perestuan daripada raja Thailand dalam tindakan rampasan kuasa. Ini adalah penting, jika pihak rampasan kuasa tidak mempunyai perestuan daripada raja Thailand, maka perampasan ini adalah bertentangan dengan niat ketua negara dan dianggap sebagai tindakan yang tiada pendirian moral dan tidak sah sama sekali. Jika raja Thailand tidak merestu perampasan kuasa pada tahun 2006 daripada General Sonthi. negara-negara dunia akan masuk campur tangan dan mengkritik pihak rampasan sebagai tidak sah dan tidak demokratik. Pihak tertentu tempatan Thailand juga akan menyokong raja Thailand untuk menghentikan rampasan kuasa tentera, dan ini semua akan terjadinya keganasan antara pihak rampasan kuasa dengan pihak anti-rampasan kuasa.

Raja Thailand telah memainkan peranan yang penting dalam menghentikan crisis politik Thailand dan berkebolehan menghenti keganasan. Seperti pada tahun 1973, demonstrasi mahasiswa telah memyebabkan penentangan daripada pihak tentera dengan menggunakan keganasan, kejadian ini telah menyebabkan beberapa mahasiswa terkorban. Pada masa tersebut, Raja Bhumibol membuka pintu Istana Chitralada kepada mahasiswa yang sedang diserang oleh pihak tentera. Pada keesokan hari, beliau telah mengkritik pihak tentera ketidak mampuan untuk mengendali situasi tersebut dan juga mengkritik pihak mahasiswa juga. Tindakan beliau telah menghentikan sesuatu tragedi, dan memberi peluang alternatif kepada ahli-ahli politik untuk menyertai pihak yang lebih kepada rakyat. Seperti yang dinyatakn oleh Fry(1992). “His action has stopped the bloodshed and led waves of politicians and high-ranking officials to defect to the side of the people.” (pg3)

Oleh itu, ia boleh jelas dilihat. Dalam masyarakat Thailand, raja dan rakyatnya menjalin hubungan yang sangat rapat antara satu sama lain. Raja boleh dikatakan sebagai pelindung kepada rakyatnya. Jika terjadi satu rampasan kuasa, pihak perampas kuasa mesti mendapat perestuan daripada raja. Seperti pada tahun 2006, tentera perampasan telah memakai kain kuning yang melambangkan warna kerabat diraja untuk mendapat sokongan rakyat. Denagn sokongan raja, penentangan rakyat boleh dielakan.

2.3 Demokrasi Dalam Thailand

Sebenarnya pada pendapat saya, negara Thailand sehingga sekarang masih tidak boleh sesuai sendirinya dengan sistem Demokrasi yang diperkenalkan oleh negara-negara barat. Pada akhirnya, negara Thailand membuat Demokrasi dengan cara sendiri iaitu dengan rampasan kuasa. Negara Thailand mempunyai ciri-ciri tertentu yang bersesuaian dengan persekitarannya seperti ia mesti adalah bertujuan untuk memelihara kestabilan politik negara, mempromosi pembanguan negara, menggalakkan ekonomi terbuka, memelihara sistem raja berperlembagaan, menentang fahaman komunis, memelihara kedautalan negara, dan melindungi rakyat jelata. Seperti yang dinyatakan oleh Neher & Clark(1995)

“Thai-style democracy has featured elements that are viewed as compatible with the Thai environment: It must sustain stability, foster national development, promote an open economy, uphold the monarchy, oppose communism, protect the borders, and not oppress the people.”

Dengan konsep tersebut dalam minda rakyat Thailand, bagi mereka rampasan kuasa hanya sesuatu process Demokrasi untuk mengubah pemerintahan negara. Pilihan raya merupakan saraf tunjang dalam sesebuah negara mengamalkan sistem demokrasi. Dalam negara Thailand, sistem demokrasi mereka adalah tidak tentu dan boleh dimanipulasikan oleh pemerintah untuk mendapat kuasa pemerintahan secara sah dari segi undang-undang. Sistem demokrasi di Thailand boleh dikatakan masih tidak sempurna, pilihanraya Thailand masih tidak telus, dan aktiviti-aktiviti seperti membeli undi masih berleluasa untuk menarik undi. Ini telah menyebabkan suara rakyat jelata Thailand tidak boleh didengar oleh pihak berkuasa. Satu cara untuk membuat perubahan dan menyuarakan suara rakyat jelata adalah dengan rampasan kuasa. Seperti yang dinyatan oleh Neher & Clark(1995).

“Voting in Thailand has long been pervaded by vote-buying, by which candidates for parliament distribute money in return for votes. The September 1992 election featured 2,417 contenders from sixteen parties who contested 360 parliamentary seats. The wealthier parties, mostly promilitary, paid potential candidates to join and then provided candidates with funds to disseminate to voters. When candidates offered a household 100 baht ($4) per voter, a family could receive the equivalent of a week's wage.”

Oleh itu, bagi rakyat jelata Thailand pilihanraya sebenarnya adalah tidak telus dan tidak melambangkan suara benar rakyat, manalaka rampasan kuasa merupakan suatu perubahan pemerintahan dalam process demokrasi di negara Thailand. Tambahan pula, setiap kali perampasan kuasa, pemerintahan baru akan membawa kepada perubahan baru kepada negara yang akan membawa kepada perkembagan negara. Selain itu, perampasan kuasa tidak akan mengancam keselamatan dan kestabilan rakyat adalah diberi jaminan jika rakyat tidak menentang pihak rampasan kuasa. Oleh itu, bagi rakyat rampasan kuasa hanya sebahagian daripada process demokrasi di Thailand. Pemikiran ini telah menyebabkan kebanyakan perampasan kuasa di Thailand tidak melibatkan keganasan.

3.0 Kesimpulan

Kesimpulannya, seperti yang dinyatakan di atas kenapa rampasan kuasa di Thailand tidak melibatkan keganasan adalah disebabkan pertama, ketidakupayaan pemerintahan bureukrasi berubah polici ikut masa, di mana ini akan menghalang perkembangan ekonomi dan sosial masyarakat. Kedua, perestuan daripada raja berperlembagaan, di mana rampasan kuasa yang direstui oleh raja akan mengahalang penentangan daripada rakyat jelata. Ini terjadi kerana, dalam masyarakat Thailand, raja dan rakyat mempunyai hubungan yang erat antara satu sama lain. Ketiga, Demokrasi dalam Thailand, ini merupakan cara macam mana rakyat jelata melihat, pengamalan demokrasi di Thailand. Pada masa sekarang, pengamalan demokrasi adalah tidak sempurna. Ini telah menyebabkan kesaksamaan dalam keputusan pilihanraya, di amana pilihan raya tidak boleh melambang suara rakyat. rampasan kuasa yang berlaku dalam perspektif rakyat Thailand adalah satu proses demokrasi untuk perubahan. Oleh itu, ketiga-tiga faktor ini adalah faktor utama kenapa kebanyakan perampasan kuasa atau coup d’etate di Thailand adalah tidak melibatkan pengkorbanan nyawa rakyat atau keganasan yang berleluasa.
Bibliografi

Ferguson. S. (1987). Coup d’etat: A Practical Manual. Great Britain: Arms and Amour Press.

Fry. G. W. (1992). Saturday “Surprise,” the February 23, 1991 Coup in Thailand: The Role of the Military in Politics. Washington: The Pew Charitable Trusts.

Neher & Clark. (1995). Democratization in Thailand. Asian Affairs: An American Review

O’Kane R.H.T. (1987). The Likeihood of Coups. England: Avebury.


TIMES web site. (September, 2006). Beech. H. A Festive Coup in Thailand. Dikutip pada 26th March 2008, daripada http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1536944-2,00.html

Zimmerman. R.F (1978). Reflections on the Collapse of Democracy in Thailand. Singapore: The Institute of Southeast Asia Studies.

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

unequal society maybe the perfect society II

I write this posting because I felt that I really need to say something to this world about “inequality”, “equality” and also “happiness”

In my last post I have explain how “unequal” society may brings in happiness to the rural people.

I am conscious that the capitalism system is not the system that taught people about wealthy to become happy. what I am trying to mean is that capitalism philosophy had brought people to think like such. Why do people want free market? People want free market because they want to increase trade and bring in profit. Why do we need to bring in profit that is to gain wealth and be happy. the whole world now is in the stage of capitalism economy system. Liberalization and privatization, this was to increase trade and economy interest of the nation to gain wealth. Every body now preach in such a economy philosophy. That why I said that the system will taught people to be wealthy in order to be happy.

In here I have to argue that education was never being neutral, maybe this kind of neutrality may exists in the British where the education is the most advance in this world. But other nation like Malaysia, Japan (their history text book controversy) had very strong bias in their history text book. Hence education was never neutral.

Karl Marx say that “the state exists because there is class existed where there are people exploit and people being exploited” According to Karl Marx in order to be equal people should progressed to Communism with the abolishment of the state by creating a no class, no property society. why does Karl Marx want to do this? What wrong with capitalism and the state that he hate so much? The answer may lie in the exploitation of the proletariat worker by the bourgeoisie master, which he had seen in the time when he is in British. So he try like anyone else to create equality society that was no class, and property.

On the other hand

Rousseau maybe the forefather of the democracy value emphasis on equality and liberty. But the problem I lies here is that how does equality exists with liberty? This world most of the democracy nation is liberty in nature like British and the America, but why does they didn’t reached equality? UK, US and France had being preaching this value since long time ago, where they are still people living in poverty? People have gone so far in preaching the value of liberty and equality that they eventually force minority to get into the global system, as I explain in my last post. this had cause them to be unhappy because that is not they wanted.

Hence no matter how government try to make equality to exists, it will never exist. No matter in Marx way nor it Rousseau way.

Unequal it may seem, but this maybe the perfect society.

Friday, November 14, 2008

Unequal Society maybe the perfect society


It is always mentioned that this world should be made as equal as possible where every body have the rights to owned property and have obtained wealth. This is what capitalism thought, and this is what the world large capitalism state taught the world population, that everybody has to be wealthy, in order to be happy. this kind of capitalism thought is what modern education teach our future generation of human races. But the problem persists, why war still erupt in modern world? Why society and nations that preached capitalism so widely as United States and United Kingdom is still suffering from social vandalism and social disorder? Why are there still be unequal trade that eventually lead to poverty? And the main problem is why human race nowadays does not be more happy than before?

What does actually human being needs? Human being fundamental needs was shelter a place they call home, human needs food and also cloth. When human being had acquired this in abundance what does human being needs in the next stage of their history development? Human being needs “happiness”.

How could people define happiness? Everybody have their own definition of the word “happiness”. Because people have different needs that could make them to be happy. For example in the Tibet, after the Chinese occupation, China Han people bourgeois had started to move into Tibet to open up business, educate Tibetan people, rising the standard of living of the Tibetan people and others measure to civilised local people. But then why do Tibetan person still opposed to the Chinese Government rule? Mainly because this is not what the Tibetan people wanted to be happy. Tibetan people don’t need “rising standard of living”, they don’t need formal education system, they don’t need modernization. They don’t need all this to be happy. So no matter how well the Chinese government introduce their policy to the Tibetan people, no matter how good the policy is, the Tibetan will not say thank you, because this is not what they wanted to be happy.

When I visited Vietnam to the Hmong village, I saw how capitalism education had poisoned many of the minority race minds. With the introduction of money, the whole Hmong society had being corrupted. When I wanted to take a photo with little children in that village, that little girl turn away, and request me to pay if I wanted to take a photo with her. Before I go there, I had taken notice that the Hmong people primitive life had never taken money as a need. The primitive life of the Hmong people trade in barter system where they exchange with each another. Their life was much easily to be pleased and satisfied and they could become happy very easily. But since the Vietnam people started to introduce money, introduce education the whole society become corrupt and they no longer become happy.

The education now we are having is the capitalism education, which satisfied the needs of modern and more civilized people. But for minority people that have a different ideology and definition for the word “happy” they should be left alone as they were. Forcing minority the way of ours is by no means to create happiness for them, it is just a means to create happiness for ourselves.

But some people will think that will this resort to inequality people different human being, where they will be people to be exploited and others to exploit. Yes, undeniable this will be the fact. In here I will give an example.

For example a minority people like Hmong people, Tibetan people or Mongolian people. When in their primitive state, when civilized people engage them in trade for handicraft. Civilized people may use 10 dollar to buy primitive people handicraft and sell it to the market in 200 dollar. This is obvious that civilized people is exploiting the primitive ones causing them unequal. My argument is that the why do people mind whether it is unequal or not as long as both party is happy. For the primitive people 10 dollar maybe all that they wanted to be happy. Things got awry when capitalism come into play, with the introduction of money to the primitive people, teaching to them about how unbalance is their position and how supposing “unhappy” they should be. This will eventually cause hatred between the primitive minority and the civilized people. Destroying happiness for both primitive and civilized people.

I also learn this during the war between American Red Indian and the American Whites people. Their relationship was at first peace and good. The day of thanksgiving was to commemorate how the Red Indian had serve good food to the white people when they first came to America. Things got awry between both of the people because of American white people unable to accept the primitive ways of the Red Indian and force them to abandon their traditional way of life causing the Red Indian to be unhappy.

Unequal as may seems, but it may provide happiness for human

Monday, October 27, 2008

in the future essay

in the future of this few month i will be writing about my opinion about

Francis Fukuyama: The end of History

and also

Niccolo Machiavelli: The Prince

and also

more about this country Malaysia.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Why is Jean Jacques Rousseau’s[1] ‘social contracts’ important in terms of understanding democratic values?


1.0 Introduction

In understanding to what extent Rousseau social contracts had contributed to the understanding of democratic values, we must know what exactly democracy values mean. There are a few democracy values. First, liberty and Equality. Second, Citizen as Sovereign. Thirdly, Citizen Determine Government.

The main concept of the social contracts according to Rousseau, is that people was actually in the state of nature, in which the freedom they have was not the true freedom they wanted to be. In the state of nature, the strongest was the most dominant, and it will enslave the weaker person. In such a case, human being was in enslavement. People by then were not happy. A true freedom only exist in civil society, in which people was free to do anything, and own anything they had work on without being fear of being robbed by others people. This will be possible only, when a person was bided together in a convention[2], in which all members of the society had agreed upon, this was known as the social contracts. Only then people are truly free and happy.

2.0 Liberty and Equality


Rousseau had always noted the significantly on individual liberty. This was his main concept in the social contracts, in which later was also one of the important values in democracy system[3]. This was supported by Cohen(2001)

“Freedom, the French challenge us, is actually within, obtained from finding out true identity, not from having satisfied social conventions and stereotypes. It requires having the opportunity to live the kind of life we want to live”(pg95)

According to Rousseau[4] (as noted by Gourevitch 1997) “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.”(pg41). Rousseau, believe that man was actually free in nature, that he is the master of himself. Slavery was completely unacceptable in the social contracts because, the relationship between the master and slave never grant any form of happiness for the slave, even though the slave had given all his freedom to the master[5]. Hence for Rousseau, slavery was nothing but useless. As noted by Rousseau (as noted by Gourevitch 1997)

“Now, a man who becomes the slave of another does not give himself; he sells himself, at the least for his subsistence: but for what does a people sell itself? A king is so far from furnishing his subjects with their subsistence that he gets his own only from them; and, according to Rabelais, kings do not live on nothing. Do subjects then give their persons on condition that the king takes their goods also? I fail to see what they have left to preserve….the right of slavery is null and void, not only as being illegitimate, but also because it is absurd and meaningless.”(pg45-48)

Rousseau suggests that in order to provide real freedom to the people, a convention or constitution should be established. This had become one of the main core values of the democracy[6] that is protecting the rights of the people with the constitution. The social contract noted by Rosseau was the same function with the constitution we are having today in democracy system.

Rousseau idea of freedom distinct with the freedom that human being attained during the state of nature. By letting go the freedom in which human being attained in the state of nature, where people are greed and selfish. Human being will gained another form of freedom, that is the civil freedom and the rights of to attain property[7]. In which in was noted by Rousseau (as noted by Gourevitch 1997). “What man loses by the social contract is his natural liberty and an unlimited right to everything he tries to get and succeeds in getting; what he gains is civil liberty and the property of all he possesses.”(pg53-54). This was also worship by contemporary democracy of civil liberty. Rousseau, also pay emphasis on the moral liberty, which consists of two elements. First, it amounts to free will. in here, Rousseau is describing about the ability of human being to resists temptation and beckoning of desires. Second element is concern about the sources of laws which procure freedom. The law that “force us to be free” is law that was made by ourselves for our own that is liberty. This was noted by Knowles[8](2001)

“the second aspect of moral concerns the source of the laws which procure freedome. They cannot be the imposition of a wise and paternal authority. The laws which guide and coerce us along the paths of virtue, forcing us to be free, are laws of our own making.”(pg304)

So what is the true spirit of the social contracts or the contemporary constitution in democracy values? The social contracts main aim is to create a social bond that binds the individual of the society together that will create a force that will ensure the benefit of their own by the same time guaranteeing the particular individual interest. By doing this, only that individual rights and properties will be respected by others people, and remain free as before during the state of nature[9]. This was explain by Rousseau (as noted by Gourevitch 1997) “The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before.”(pg49-50).

Equality is another important value that Rousseau had introduced to the democratic system[10]. Without the existent of equality, liberty will never be able to stand. As stated by Rousseau (as noted by Gourevitch 1997)

“if one inquiries into precisely what the greatest good of all consists in, which ought to be the end of every system of legislation, one will find that it comes down to these two principal objects, freedom and equality. Freedom because any individual dependence is that much force taken away from the State; equality, because freedom cannot subsist without it.”(pg78)

Citizen has the equal rights whether in terms of political right and also economic rights. Citizen was all perceive as equal footing in the perception of law. Equality is one of the main principle of Rousseau principle[11]. As stated by Rousseau (as noted by Gourevitch 1997)

“Which prove that the equality of right and the notion of justice which it produces follows from each one’s preference for himself and hence from the nature of man….from whatever side one traces one’s way back to the principle, one always reaches the same conclusion: namely, that the social pact establishes among the Citizens an equality such that all commit themselves under the same conditions and must all enjoy the same rights.”(pg62-63)

3.0 Citizen as Sovereign

Another value of democracy is that citizen of the state was the main master of their own faith. Democracy system was to create a government by the people, and for the people.

By understanding one of the main concepts of Rousseau, man is born free and everywhere he is in chains. Under the social contracts, the rights and duties of the citizen was stated clearly and well defined, in which the convention was made by nobody but the citizen themselves[12]. This was noted by Rousseau (as noted by Gourevitch 1997) “The people, being subject to the laws, ought to be their author: the conditions of the society ought to be regulated solely by those who come together to form it.”(pg68) Since the citizen was only bind by the law that only made by them, the citizen was thus free. The combination of the citizen together will form a Republic or also known as body politics, in other words the Sovereign[13]. As noted by Rousseau (as noted by Gourevitch 1997)

“This public person, so formed by the union of all other persons formerly took the name of city, and now takes that of Republic or body politic; it is called by its members State when passive. Sovereign when active, and Power when compared with others like itself. Those who are associated in it take collectively the name of people, and severally are called citizens, as sharing in the sovereign power, and subjects, as being under the laws of the State.”(pg51)

According to Rousseau, Sovereign which was form by the people, and is representing the general will. Sovereign thus could not be transferred surrender the general will to another party or person[14]. This was stated by Rousseau (as noted by Gourevitch 1997).

“I say, then, that sovereignty, since it is nothing but the exercise of the general will, can never be alienated, and that the sovereign, which is nothing but a collective being, can only be represented by itself; power can well be transferred, but not will.”(pg57).

Beside from that, sovereign can only represent by the general will, and it does not only express the will of some part of it. Rousseau had given the example of declaration of war, and domestic administration. Both of this is not the expression of the sovereign, it is merely an act of particular group of people[15]. This was stated by Rousseau (as noted by Gourevitch 1997).

“This error comes from not having framed precise notions of sovereign authority, and form having taken what was mere emanations from this authority for parts of this authority itself. Thus, for example, the act of declaring war and that of making peace have been regarded as acts of sovereignty, which they are not; for neither of these acts is a law but only an application of the law, a particular act which decides a case, as will clearly be seen once the idea that attaches to the word law[16] has been fixed.”(pg58)

In Rousseau social contracts, people that are part of the sovereign make their decision according to votes. Member of the Sovereign will only votes based on the general interest or the general will, which will benefit the states as a whole. People that form the sovereign were expected to vote against their private interest. In a healthy state, votes will mostly be unanimous, because all people are voting according to the general interest. If a person that voted against the general will does not meant the person is going against the general will, that he was simple making a mistake[17]. As noted by Rousseau (as noted by Gourevitch 1997).

“Yet the question is raised how a man can be both free and forced to conform to wills which are not his own. How are the opponenets both free and subject to laws to which they have not consented? .... I answer that the question is badly framed. The citizen consents to all the laws, even to those that punish him when he dares to violate any one of them. The constant will of all the members of the State is the general will; it is through it that they are citizens and free. When a law is proposed in the people’s assembly, what they are being asked is not exactly whether they approve the proposal or reject it, but whether it does or does not conform to the general will, which is theirs; everyone states his opinion about this by casting his ballot, and the tally of the votes yields the declaration of the general will. therefore when the opinion contrary to my own prevails, it proves nothing more than that I made a mistake and that what I took to be the general will was not.” (pg124)

The matter on how the vote will be counted and perceived as majority was actually quite similar with today democracy system. In contemporary democracy particularly in Malaysia. Party that could become the government is the party that gain simple majority, in the general election. Beside that, in order to amend the constitution of Malaysia, it is a must to acquire a two third majority from the lower house parliament. This is only an example. Rousseau noted that there is a need to have something close to unanimity in order to pass in matter that was in great important. In matter of unimportant administrative, only a simple majority will be done for[18]. As noted by Rousseau (as noted by Gourevitch 1997).

“two general maxims can help to regulate these ratio: one, that the more important and serious the deliberations are, the more nearly unanimous should be the opinion that prevails; the other, that the more rapidly the business at hand has to be resolved, the narrower should be the prescribed difference in weighting opinions; in deliberations which have to be concluded straightaway a majority of one should suffice.”(pg125)

4.0 Citizen Determine Government

One of the important values in contemporary democracy is the rights to vote for the government. This was clearly stated in the social contracts. Citizen that acts as sovereign will choose their government in periodical assemblies in other words, that was similar to contemporary voting days. When the people gather together in an assembly, the government ceased to exist, because the citizens which form the sovereign no longer need a government to represent themselves. This was quite similar with today dissolve of parliament before the general election. During this period of time citizen of the state will assemble and discuss whether the previous government should continue[19]. As noted by Rousseau (as noted by Gourevitch 1997)

“The instant the people is legitimately assembled as a sovereign body, the jurisdiction of the government wholly lapses, the executive power is suspended, and the person of the meanest citizen is as sacred and inviolable as that of the first magistrate; for in the presence of the person represented, representatives no longer exist.”(pg112)

Sovereign could institute a government in which this is an act of law, but the appointment of magistrate in the government was not the power of the sovereign. The appointment of magistrate in the government was actually a particular act by the government. The sovereign change into the democracy, and temporarily act as the executive. In which people are now magistrate and they will name certain magistrate to be members of the government. As soon as the sovereign had set up a government, the sovereign ceased to become a government. And both the sovereign and executive had become two distinct political bodies[20]. As noted by Rousseau (as noted by Gourevitch 1997)

“Here again is revealed one of those astonishing properties of the body politic by which it reconciles apparently contradictory operations. For this reconciliation is accomplished by a sudden conversion of Sovereign into democracy; so that without any perceptible change, and simply by a new relation of all to all, the Citizens having become Magistrates pass from general to particular acts, and from the law to its execution.”(pg117-118)

It was important to note what a government is meant in Rousseau social contracts. According to Rousseau, a government is not part of the contracts, it is only a law or decree that the government must be instituted in order to execute the general will of the sovereign. It is not a ruler, but civil servant for the citizen[21]. As noted by Rousseau (as noted by Gourevitch 1997). “Thus those who hold that the act, by which a people puts itself under a prince, is not a contract, are certainly right. It is simply and solely a commission, an employment, in which the rulers, mere officials of the Sovereign.”(pg83).

Representation was bad according to Rousseau, it was seemingly as surrendering your civil rights of deciding on laws to another group of person that may in turn selfishly making the decision on your behalf wrongly for their own purpose. This was supported by Knowles[22](2001)

“Representation may often be necessary, but that necessity very quickly becomes occasion of collective bad faith. To make a judgement on the issue which I raised at the start of this discussion: I can think of plenty of reasons that may be offered for having free votes by representatives rather than referenda involving all voters. All of them are working against the core values of democracy.”(pg317)

4.1 The Separation of Power

Another value that was emphasis in the Rousseau social contracts is the notion of check and balance between the executive and legislative. This was important, in order to prevent misuse of power by the government that cause them to usurp the sovereign. Beside from that, in order to prevent the government from gaining an upper hand on the sovereign, a periodical assembly of the sovereign that form the legislative should be established in order to check the power of the executive[23]. As noted by Rousseau (as noted by Gourevitch 1997).

“We have seen that the legislative power belongs to the people, and can belong only to it. It is easy to see that, on the contrary, by the principles established above, the executive power cannot belong to the generality [of the people] in its Legislative or Sovereignty capacity; for this power consists solely in particular acts which are not within the province of law, now, consequently, within that of the Sovereign, since all of the Sovereign’s acts can only be laws.” (Pg82).

5.0 Conclusion

Jean Jacques Rousseau was noted as the father of modern democracy. In answering the question of “Why is Jean Jacques Rousseau’s ‘social contracts’ important in terms of understanding democratic values?”. It is important, because the Rousseau social contract introduce the distinct concept of what meant by ruled by the people. It introduce the core values of liberty and equality into the social contracts that later become rights of the people. People in the social contracts are free to own things, free to live, free to speak up. The social contract had free human being from enslaving themselves, bringing them more freedom. People in the democracy system are now master to nobody but themselves, enacting their own law that bind nobody but themselves. Choosing their own leader among their own, to rule themselves.

The most significant importance of the social contract is to introduce a political system rule by the people by the people.

Reference:

Cohen. M. (2001). Political Philosophy: From Plato to Mao. London: Pluto Press

Gourevitch. V. (1997). Rousseau The Social Contract and other later political writings: Of The Social Contracts OR the Principles of Political Rights. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Knowles. D(2001). Political Philosophy. London: Routledge

The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon website. (n.d.). Retrieved 20th Septermber 2008. from http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c290.htm.


.
Bibliography

Baechler. J. (1995). Democracy An analytical Survey. Le Kremlin-Bicetre: United nations Educational.

Constitution org website. (1994). Rolan. J. The Social Contract and Constitutional Republics. Retrieved 20th Septermber 2008. from http://www.constitution.org/soclcont.htm

Maskin. E & Partha Dasgupta. (1999). Democracy Value: Democracy and other goods. Ian. S & Casiano. H.C. (Eds). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Overseas Young Chinese Forum website. (2000). Bo Li. Equality and Democracy. . Retrieved 20th Septermber 2008. from http://www.oycf.org/perspectives/4_022900/equality_and_democracy.htm

Pearson. K.A. (1991). Nietzsche Contra Rousseau: A Study of Nietzsche’s moral and political thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Rousseau. J.J (1994). THE SOCIAL CONTRACT OR PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL RIGHT. (G.D.H Cole, Trans). Retrieved 20th Septermber 2008. from http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.htm (Original work published 1762).

Sparknotes website. (n.d.). Retrieved 20th Septermber 2008. from http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/socialcontract/section2.rhtml

The University of Adelaide website. (2005). The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Retrieved 20th Septermber 2008. from http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/r/rousseau/jean_jacques/r864s/

The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon website. (n.d.). Retrieved 20th Septermber 2008. from http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c290.htm.

Young. I.M. (1999). Democracy Value: State, civil society, and social justice. Ian. S & Casiano. H.C. (Eds). New York: Cambridge University Press.
[1] Gourevitch. V. (1997). Rousseau The Social Contract and other later political writings: Of The Social Contracts OR the Principles of Political Rights. New York: Cambridge University Press. Jean Jacques Rousseau was born in the 28th June 1712 in Geneva. He had never received any form of formal education. He never had a fixed job and travel all over Europe. He had several famous works, the first work is the First Discourse (Discours sur les sciences et les arts) that was published in January 1751 and won the prize from the Academy of Dijon. Second Discourse (Discours sur l’origine et les fondements de’inegalite parmi les homes) completed in May 1754. the Discourse is published in May 1755. in November the Political economy appears in volume v of Diderot and d’Alembert’s Encyclopedia. In 1762 15 May the Du contrat social and in 22 May 1762 Emile was published and both of the work was banned in both France and also Geneva. Rousseau even write the constitution for both Corsica and also Poland.
[2] The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon website. (n.d.). Retrieved 20th Septermber 2008. from http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c290.htm. convention was actually similar with constitution. Constitution was actually defined as The fundamental law of the state, that state the principle on how government is founded and regulating the divisions of power between the legislative, judicial and executive. The constitution also note the rights and duties of its citizen living within it.
[3] Cohen. M. (2001). Political Philosophy: From Plato to Mao. London: Pluto Press
[4] Gourevitch. V. (1997). Rousseau The Social Contract and other later political writings: Of The Social Contracts OR the Principles of Political Rights. New York: Cambridge University Press. pg 41.
[5] Ibid. pg45-48
[6] Ibid. according to Rousseau when all the magistrate is larger than its citizen. A successful democracy would need to be small, with simple and honest citizens who have little ambition or greed. Because it is so unstable, democracy is also very susceptible to civil strife.
[7] Ibid pg53-54
[8] Knowles. D(2001). Political Philosophy. London: Routledge.pg 304
[9] Gourevitch. V. (1997). Rousseau The Social Contract and other later political writings: Of The Social Contracts OR the Principles of Political Rights. New York: Cambridge University Press. pg49-50
[10] Ibid. pg 78
[11] Ibid. pg62-63
[12] Ibid. pg68
[13] Ibid. pg51
[14] Ibid. pg57
[15] Ibid. pg58
[16] Ibid. law in the social contract was actually en mass. That means, it was general in nature and never a particular person or action. The law could be used to give certain part of the society privileges but never in any particularity. It may set up several classes of citizens, and even lay down the qualifications for membership of these classes, but it cannot nominate such and such persons as belonging to them.
[17] Ibid. pg124
[18] Ibid. 125
[19] Ibid. 112
[20] Ibid. pg117-118
[21] Ibid. pg83
[22] Knowles. D(2001). Political Philosophy. London: Routledge. Pg 317
[23] Gourevitch. V. (1997). Rousseau The Social Contract and other later political writings: Of The Social Contracts OR the Principles of Political Rights. New York: Cambridge University Press. pg82

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Essay Reports on Professor Horowitz Seminar

Title: Managing Ethnic Conflict: A Comparative Perspective: Constitution on severely divided society

1.0 Summary

Conflict had always happened in places where there is domination of a single majority race and discrimination against the minorities. This kind of phenomena had happened, not only in the Asia, and the Middle Eastern countries, but even in developed and highly educated countries like in Ireland, in which the Unionist that mostly was protestant clash with the Nationalist which was Roman Catholic. The event had cause about 3,254 people lying died. In other cases like the Bosnia, ethnic conflict had even developed into a stage where ethnic cleaning was implementing by the Serbs majority towards the Croats and Bosnian minority. Others than this, the Cyprus Dispute was another case of ethnic dispute. Although these entire example had reached a stable political condition, but true conflict resolution had far from over. It was noticed that these entire example have one same common characteristic that is all these state have a heterogeneous community that is more than one type of people that practised different culture, religion and background living together in one geographical territory. This different races of people may have common needs for example the national economic pie, geographic area that was involved in religious holy site dispute causing tension and competition between ethnic community. Constitution was then drafted and implemented to set as a fundamental law and order to safeguard the interest of the minority people to prevent any kind of ethnic clashes beside that guarantee the need of the normal citizen.

Things was similar with that in Indonesia in which their community society was extremely diverse from the one extreme to another base on religious, geographical different. One thing the Indonesia had done practically quite well is that they had avoided making a whole new constitution, their action to Not To make a new constitution after all the political turmoil. This had prevented Indonesia geographical archipelago from separating. The consequence of making a new constitution after a political turmoil in a rush manner had caused things like what happened in Iraq to happened. It turn out that the new constitution turns out to gain majority support from both the Kurds and the Shia Muslim but the new constitution was overwhelmingly rejected by the Sunni Muslim. A unbalance constitution had formed, and this had caused a tension between the ethnic groups.

So now is the question of “what is the best practical formula to make a constitution for a severely divided heterogeneous society?”

The main function of a constitution is to guarantee the rights and freedom of each citizen in the nations. Mostly political party in the heterogeneous society is building on ethnicity line. This was to prevent domination by one race of ethnic. The question now is how? There are practically two options for this answer. First, forming a coalition that includes all political parties including the extremist left and right. Or, second, which forms a coalition in by the more secular kind of people excluding any form of extremist.

There are two types of theories that were used to manage the political matter in heterogeneous society. First, is the Consocational Democracy Theory. That is by forming a political party that include all the parties in a nations, and that party once they won the election will divide their parliamentary seat according to the proportion, this was called the Least Proportional Candidation. For example if A got 10% of the votes and B get 20% of the votes then according to Least Proportional Candidation, B will get twice more representative than A in the Cabinet. In the Consociational Democracy Theory major decision by the government is made by making consensus among the parties that formed alliances, beside that the minority people that join the party may also have veto power over the majority that have bigger party in the coalition. In these sense the rights of the weak and minority is guaranteed. No matter in whatever matters, including the budget was also divided according to proportional. Minority group autonomy was also guaranteed in religion and traditional custom matters. This theory mainly rejects majority democracy that is simple majority concept.

The second theory that was applicable in some heterogeneous society is the Centripetal Theory. The basic concept of this theory is to encourage compromise. This theory does not reject majority democracy which the Consociational Democracy Theory had done. According to this theory, politician tends to push politics to the centre. Politician in this had the ability to manipulate votes through electoral engineering. This theory had also rejected electoral proportionality, because it is believe that practicing it will create more divide among the society. In this theory candidates from one ideology or ethnic lines will tend to draw votes from citizen that ethnic origin that was totally different from the candidates.






A2 moderate politician will push politics to the middle and try to find consensus with the group B2 moderate. This action will cause A1 and A2 to split and B1 and B2 to split. What happen next is that A2 and B2 will then form an alliance and gone for the election. While on the other hand A1 and B1 in order to gain their support from their grassroots supporter will begin to be more extreme than before. For example below


2.0 Critics of Consociational Theory

Under the theory of Consociational Theory, it is believed that all people was brought under one roof, including the extremist, the main problem remain that the natural human behaviour of lust for power. The problem arouse when the largest party which representing the majority of the population in the society gain power and try to rule the state. In this case why does a large party will grant a small party representing a minority of the population veto power? Moreover the leaders are confident that they could control the security of the state without fearing the minority uprising.

3.0 Critics of the Centripetal Theory

In the Centripetal Theory state that it does not reject majority democracy in other words, if a party won a 51% of the votes, the party will get all their representative in the government. In other case, this will not guarantee the welfare and rights of the minority that gain lesser votes in the election.

4.0 Can both these theories could be adopted?

It’s a tough question because different states have their own demographics facing different kinds of problem. The main difficulty of drafting a constitution in a heterogeneous society is that the majority want to rule by the same time the minority want guarantee from the majority but sometimes things could be turn the other way round. What if the constitution is to protect the weak majority from the strong minority? For example in Malaysia Article 153 of the “Malay special Position” is to help the Malay in the field of economy and education.

In addition both of the theories could not be fully recognised as applicable because normally the people that draft the constitution for the nations are model bias. Lawyers especially are responsible of drafting the constitution, in which they will refer to others nation’s constitution as role models. The problem arouse when the policy maker refer to another state constitution that have a totally different social background in education level and society demographic status. For example, the constitution of American that mainly stated that every human being are equal in education and but in Malaysia that may not be totally true. Government Matriculation Programme are only opened for 10% non Bumiputra. Different states need different constitution to guarantee the basic rights of their citizen.

Beside that constitutional maker maybe historically bias. Constitutional maker maybe in close contact with their former colonial master, and refer their formal colonial master constitution.

My Point of View.

In this place I will like to voice out my opinion about Malaysia Constitution in a heterogeneous society like Malaysia. The most controversial about the Malaysia Constitution that concern about ethnicity, is no other than Article 153 regarding the Malay Special Position. The main reason of the establishment of such an article was mainly due to the backwardness of the Malay in economic and also education sector, this was reported in the Reid Report during the independence of Malaya as stated by Rahman in the Sunday Times[1](2008)

“Written records of the inter-party discussions of the Alliance leaders indicate that the Constitutional provisions on the 'special position' were understood more as a protective measure for the Malay community which was then socio-economically disadvantaged.”(pg 1)

The Article 153 was also intended to stay for a permanent period of time, if the Article was to be amended only when the Yang Dipertuan Agong thinks there is a necessary to review the article. When the Yang Depertuan Agong thinks does is time for the article to be reviewed? This was never known. Even if the article had the consent of the Yang Dipertuan Agong to be reviewed it could only be amended when there is a two third majority in the parliament and also have the consent in the Council of Rulers[2]. So it is very hard to amend the Article 153.

But in the context of Malaysia society, this kind of seemingly unbalance kind of constitution was practically balance. This article had save Malaysia from a lot of ethnic conflict. What could have happened if Malaysia doesn’t have the Article 153, and citizen of all race was seem equal?

To answer this question, we have to turn to Indonesia to make a comparison.


Percentage of national economy controlled by ethnic group

For my opinion, during the independence period of Malaya, the British had controlled much of our national economy. After the independence, the Chinese community had started to take over Malaysia economy and control much of the economy activity in Malaysia. Under the supervision of the government according to Article 153, the Malay which are the majority population in Malaysia are more economically weak in comparison to the Chinese Malaysia had gained economic benefit allocated by the government narrowing the distribution of wealth among the different ethnic groups under the New Economic Policy of 1970. The huge gap of distribution of wealth between the Chinese and Malay had caused the May 13 racial riots in 1969. If the government does not intervene, things like what have happened in Indonesia in the 1990 could happened, which 10% minority Chinese population taking control about 90% of Indonesia economy. The unbalance distribution of wealth among the rich Chinese and poor Indonesia is significant. This kind of situation had caused ethnic riots, and ethnic tension happened between the Chinese and the Malay people in Indonesia. So the provision of Article 153 was a must in order to secure Malaysia Malay community rights by the same time taking care of Malaysia minority interest.

Beside that, if we turn to China earlier this year in Tibet. Young Tibetan is starting to create unrest in the city, destroying shops which were owned by the majority Han people. The question is why? All these while, after the capture of Tibet by the Chinese, there is no strong unrest, why now there is? The reason lies again in economic factor. When China started to open up their door, tourism had started to flourish in Tibet, where most of the shops was owned by the majority Han people, in which mostly of the workers employed by the Han employer was Tibetan. This had created a situation which the Tibetan feel that the Han people had taken away their wealth of their homeland. Tibetan will think “this is Tibet, I am a Tibetan, I should be the boss. Why in my hometown I am still a worker and all my wealth is controlled by people from outside?” This situation had created an unequal distribution of wealth among the Han people employer and the Tibetan employee. This had to be mentioned that the Tibetan does not have any kind of constitution protection from the government. So the economy situation in Tibet is a totally open capitalist open market without government intervention, in which the strong Han people will outperform the Tibetan economically.

My second point of view is concerning about my question to the professor. My question is base on the election result that Malaysia have during the last election, it shows that the MCA which represent the Chinese, UMNO that represent the Malay and MIC that represent the Indian had lost terribly to the opposition. Is this proving that Malaysia society is now intellectually mature enough to vote beyond their own race? Or does it shows emotional votes by the citizen? The professor reply is that Malaysia today is now still voting within ethnic lines and the solution for Malaysia in ethnic conflict is not to votes beyond ethnic lines, but is to seek cooperation between different political parties that representing different ethnicity.

His answer, was quite a confuse to me. All these while from the year of Tun Hussein Onn until now politician is aiming that one day Malaysia society will be mature enough to votes beyond ethnic lines. This may solve the ethnicity problem that was haunting all Malaysian for the pass 51 years since 1957. Malaysia citizen dream of becoming a truly Malaysian is that there will be no Malay, Chinese or Indian but only Malaysian. But since the professor suggested that if voting beyond ethnic lines is no longer the solution for Malaysia ethnicity problem then what is the solution?

There is another which the Professor had mentioned that education level of the society may not mean that the society are more open to others ethnics understanding. He states that education level and the toleration of others races does not correlate with each another. In some of the society although their mass population is highly educated but their education had trained them to think narrowly in ethnic toleration, and emphasis more on self race supremacy or another example is the German race during the world war II Hitler period, Germans are so proud of themselves that they refer themselves has the great Aryan race and look down at others ethnic races. This is true, for example in Arab states, normally their education system train their future generation to hate Israel in school. As noted by Professor Dan Bar-Tal of Tel Aviv University(2004) “over the years, generations of Israeli Jews were taught a negative and often delegitimizing view of Arabs.”[3](pg1).

Turn the view back to Malaysia. Malaysia education system is quite distinct because they are two main educational system co-exist in Malaysia simultaneously. First, is the educational system designed by the Malaysia government which was used by the National school which main portion of the student is Malay, Chinese national school which main portion of the student is Chinese and Tamil National School which their main portion of the student is Indian. Second type of education in Malaysia is the, Chinese independent school system in which they does not follow the Malaysia education system, their certificate is also recognised by others states except the Malaysia government.

In different school, the future generation of the Malaysian society is very hard to mingle with each another. understanding among races truly was limited. The government that vision to create a truly Malaysian society want to combine all the three different types of national school under one national school that was named the “Vision School Project”. This project was facing huge, feedback from the Chinese community especially the Chinese educationalist, due to the fact that they distrust the government, their argument is that once they combined together, slowly Chinese education will be destroyed and assimilated to Malay, and the future Malaysia Chinese will be a truly “Malaysian” with the price of loosing their mother tough and culture values.

Different school will feed their young generation different knowledge. Ethnic based education will cause more or less bias among themselves ethnic group due to lack of ethnic understanding. From primary school 7 years old to 18 years old, one child may only exposed to only his or her own races of people, this inevitably had caused ethnic understanding to be extremely limited. If we turn to Singaporean, Thailand or Indonesia. What the government did is that they had destroy all the ethnic based schools and establish only one type of school that is the national school, learning one main national language. This had caused minority to loose their own ethnic identity by destroying their culture, language and education for the sake of nationalism.

In Malaysia on the other hand, Chinese population had made up about 30% of the population in the Malaysian society and Indian consists of 10% of the Malaysian population. Both of the figure is a large proportion, so Malaysia can’s do what Singaporean had done to nationalize all school. Nationalizing all school will create something like the “Weeding Operation” in 1987 that caused a lot of Chinese educationist to stand up and opposing the government creating ethnic tension. Hence education could be very bias, because education has the ability to shape the children thoughts. Intellectual or not does not contribute much to the level of toleration among ethnic groups in a heterogeneous society.

Maybe the professor understand this, the Chinese was never going to give up their culture and mandarin mother tough learning. This was same with the Indian that cause huge Indian uprising during the pass few months. Maybe assimilating Indian and Chinese culture to become a Malaysian was not a truly solution for Malaysia. Maybe the Chinese and Indian ethnic groups are Malaysian after all. What all this ethnic minority want is just freedom for religion expression and the rights to learn and practise their own mother tough language.

Conclusion

After the talk, and rethinking about what the professor telling us that, voting beyond ethnic lines in Malaysia does not really solve Malaysia ethnicity problem, cooperation among the ethnic political parties is the main strategy to sustain peace and security among ethnic groups in Malaysia. Three of the main ethnic groups in Malaysia that is the Malay, Chinese and Indian are very strong in their ethnic bonding. To force for an immature and unprepared society to accept the concept of voting beyond race is seemingly a disastrous decision, because Malaysia is still not ready and open enough for this.
[1] Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahman. (2008, July 6). Article 153 intended for long term. Retrieved 5th August 2008, from http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/index2.php?option=com_ content &do_pdf=1 &id=16956
[2] Ibid. 1
[3] Professor Dan Bar-Tal as noted in len traubman. (2004, February 6). Reports on Palestinian kids’ hatred grossly exaggerated. Retrieved 6th August 2008. from http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/21480/format/html/displaystory.html