Risk Professional: Malaysia's balancing act (part II)

On 13 May 1969, race riots started and lasted for several days.

There are credible conflicting stories as to what sparked off the riots: the conclusion from reading the stories is that there was no single incident and that there were multiple, uncoordinated, flashpoints where one or other group attacked their rivals following a period of intense racial provocation by politicians on all sides. The estimates of the number of dead vary wildly from just over 150 to more than 2,000. But the end result of the riots was that an estimated 6,000 were rendered homeless in Kuala Lumpur - 90% of them Chinese as mobs attacked them and burned their houses.

The author of a book published in 2007 claimed to have seen a documents that he says demonstrated that the riots were orchestrated by what he terms "the ascendent state capitalist class" within UMNO as part of a grand plot to remove the King's powers.After the riots, Mahathir was sacked from his party: the ruling UMNO party which has led a coalition government since independence, for writing an open letter to the then Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman saying, amongst other things, that the PM had favoured the ethnic Chinese.

Returning to his party in 1972, he returned to Parliament in 1974, came to lead UMNO and then Prime Minister in 1981.

Mahathir's approach was simple, at least in principle: promote the Malays to reduce inequality, increase domestically produced wealth and raise living standards across the whole nation.

It must be said that, mistakes notwithstanding, Mahathir achieved that. He presided over a period of peace and prosperity that lasted for more than 20 years. Those who criticise him and his methods only have to look at Laos or Cambodia to see what might otherwise have been.

There were problems: measures designed to spread wealth across Malay society in fact concentrated great wealth in the hands of a few and the trickle down effect was nowhere near what it should have been to meet the expressed ideals; corruption was rife; projects ran out of money and either stalled, were abandoned or bailed out by Petronas, the nation's oil company. There were measures of positive discrimination that caused great distortion in business development for example a requirement that corporations have a specified proportion of their equity held by Malays - and existing corporations were told that they must transfer such proportion to Malays. And other measures that caused racial friction: that new apartment blocks have a proportion set aside for Malay ownership was not one - that the Malays that bought them should get a discount (usually 7%) against the price paid by other races did - indeed, does - is deeply unpopular and widely seen as racist.

The policies were founded in good faith but not well thought through. There was no sunset provision, for example. Malays found that companies were required to employ Malay staff and some saw that as a sinecure as did the directors appointed as a result of the transfer of equity. Great resentment built up against those that were lazy and collected money for nothing.

But in truth, that is a minority: the majority of Malays who have been given opportunity to learn to run a business have done relatively well, particularly remembering that, until less than 30 years ago, few Malays had worked in executive positions in anything other than very small, generally family businesses where the total workforce may have been three or four people and generating little more than subsistence pay. Indeed, as one goes out into the countryside today, that remains the way that many Malays live.

Driving around Malaysia, one notices that the town centres are dominated by Chinese buildings: many going back to the 1920s. Outside the towns, the villages are dominated by Malays. The concentration of people in the towns means better access to education and a wider cross-section of society.

Thus, by reason of their closeness to the land, the Malays were relatively isolated, socially, developmentally and educationally.

The influence of Islam in Malaysia is fundamental to the character of the country. But it was only in the 1970s that Islam found its way into national politics. During the Mahathir years, there was what is alleged to be a major reduction of the independence of the judiciary, the balance of law swung in favour of the Malays - and Parliament took the first steps on a route that ultimately has led to a significant erosion of the separation of Church and State.

But, even all those complexities are as nothing compared to the next set of issues.When Malaya was formed, it did not include Singapore. It was formed as a Federation of Malay states all of which have their own king. Not all viewed themselves as Malay states: Negri Simbilan and Penang certainly did not.

The result of independence was a compromise under which the various states held a rotating position as national king. All new laws were subject to Royal Assent from the current incumbent. Singapore joined the federation in 1963 and Malaya became Malaysia with the inclusion of SI to signify the amalgamation. But two years later, opposed to strong pro-Malay policies, views were polarised by the competing "Malaysian Malaysia" and "Malaysia for the Malays" camps. Singapore left saying that the policies would undermine its character as a predominantly Chinese society that promoted equality.However, what holds back the Malays, or at least part of what holds them back, was demonstrated in a Singapore TV programme recently. A Malay panellist said that the Malays have to work twice as hard to prove themselves capable of doing a particular job; she followed that up with a statement that is interesting in its juxtaposition: if a Malay does work hard, and makes progress, then his peers criticise him and accuse him of being "un-Malay."

Malaysians, particularly politicians, often use the terms "tolerate" or "tolerant" when describing the relationships between the various religious groups in the country. But, for the majority or Malaysians, that term is incorrect: they are not merely tolerant - that would suggest some underlying resentment. They are welcoming and accepting of almost all religions. For the majority of Malaysians, regardless of religion, it is not religion that defines their country - but there are still elements of race that do cause friction.

There are those in government - and trying to be in government - who equate race and religion. When Mahathir declared Malaysia an Islamic State, it caused widespread offence amongst the roughly half of the population which is not Muslim. It also opened the door for greater involvement in law and policy making by Islamic groups.But it is at state level that the conflicts have been most prominent; and where the dual system of Islamic law and state / federal law have clashed, emboldened by greater power at a national level.

The national body that is most often noted as having Islamic influence is the body that approves, or rejects, applications to host foreign entertainers. The body, Central Committee For Filming and Performance by Foreign Artists, is made up of representatives of various other bodies, including the Arts, Culture and Heritage Ministry, the Foreign Ministry, Home Ministry, Housing and Local Government Ministry, Tourism Malaysia, the police, Customs, Immigration, the Islamic Religious Department, the Inland Revenue Board and the local authority for where the event will be held.

But that committee does not ban concerts as often as international media reports suggests: it does impose conditions that some feel unable to meet. Conditions are, generally, to do with dress (for both men and women the condition is to cover torso and upper legs) and general behaviour: requests to avoid obviously sexual gyrations, obscene or offensive language and (this one caused some trouble) excessive jumping about on stage.

In fact, the demands for banning of concerts is generally made, either before or after approval, by PAS.

And so, currently, PAS is demanding that a concert by Michael Learns To Rock, a soft-rock, AOR band, be banned because it is to be held in Ramadan and is, they say, disrespectful to Muslims. This overlooks the fact that it is to be held in a remote mountain casino resort and, therefore, in theory out of bounds to Muslims anyway.

To head off such criticism, the organisers of a concert by The Black Eyed Peas, to be held just outside Kuala Lumpur, in the state of Selangor, announced that the concert was open only to non-Muslims. They then said that the reason for the policy was that, because the event is to celebrate the 250th Anniversary of Dublin's famous Guinness brewery on the banks of the River Liffey and, because the Malaysian interpretation of Islamic law is that Muslims must not drink alcohol, the Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture had said that Muslims could not attend. Some go much further and say that any contact with alcohol, including its distribution, profits or otherwise is forbidden.

However, after the promoters expressed the policy on their website, the decision has been reversed.

This is now Malaysia's challenge. PAS makes frequent demands that impinge upon the rights of the non-Muslim population and also demand compliance with rules that are in many cases more stringent than those in some parts of the Middle East. Islamic Police are sent to raid clubs, pubs and even private premises to see if they can find offences against Islamic law. The international outcry against the decision, by state religious authorities, to cane a woman who drank beer in a club has drawn attention to the influence that a minority have, as they promote hard-line policies. That case, too, has resulted in a complex situation with the current Prime Minister, Najib, saying that the religious court should review her sentence, even if she refuses to appeal.

With several Sultans weighing into the argument recently, expressly stating that Malaysia is a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-religious society and that those who seek to impose their religious views, and objectives, on other faiths must stop it, the reality is that Malaysian society is not swinging towards radical Islam as the general tenor of the international coverage suggests.

In fact, there was a clear break-point at which there was a social swing towards Islam: Malaysians of all religions and races were horrified by the attacks on the USA on the 11 September 2001. As news began to circulate that the attacks were by an Islamic terrorist group, there was widespread condemnation - including from Muslims.

But the reaction of the USA was to put all Muslims in the same class as the terrorists: they began talking of "Islamic terrorism" and "Muslim Terrorists" as if the two words in each phrase were conjoined. Media coverage lambasted Muslims and Islam. Malaysian Muslims did what anyone else would do: they hunkered down, developed a bunker mentality.

Until September 2001, a very common form of dress for women in Malaysia, particularly in cities, was the cabaya. Originally an ethnic style of dress, it had become truly Malaysian with all races and religions wearing it with pride. For Muslim women, going without a headscarf was common. But as Islam and Muslims generally came under attack, a fully understandable reaction took place: women started to wear the much more Middle Eastern inspired Baju Kurong, a loose fitting all covering two-piece and a headscarf. But many did not like the requirement to make what they saw as an artificial statement and wore the headscarf with clothes chosen specifically to display their form, yet meeting the requirement to cover up.

In the meantime, an MP complained that the uniforms of stewardess on Malaysia Airlines were too sexy: he got remarkably short shrift both in parliament and out. And there was public criticism, from all quarters, when a senior police officer said that all policewomen, regardless of race, should wear a scarf on parade for the purposes of uniformity: that, too, was quickly shot down. Gradually, Mahathir's policy that Muslim women in government service and government-linked corporations must wear the scarf, called a tudong in Malaysia, has been disregarded and this is now widely seen as a matter of personal choice. And today, in the cities the position on dress is moving decisively back into the position before September 2001.

That doesn't suit PAS.... Next part