Race and the Class Perspective

Source Project Malaysia
By Dr. Kumar Devaraj

It is painfully obvious that although we have been independent for over 50 years Malaysians remain deeply divided along ethnic lines. But can all our troubles be ascribed to ethnicity and religion?

In actuality, if one looks objectively at the major ethnic and religious issues that we have had to grapple with as an emerging nation, it is clear that we have arrived at a reasonable degree of consensus about the majority of them. But socially we are even more divided than we were at Independence. Why is this so? The answer I believe lies in the very nature of the political process in Malaysia.

Two approaches to nationhood

In the first few years after the re-occupation of Malaya by the British after World war Two, there were two dramatically different approaches to building an independent Malayan nation. The stronger trend was that of the radical nationalists who had strong links to the left. They advocated the fair distribution of wealth and the uplifting of all the working peoples of the country irrespective of race. The political expression of this strong movement for an independent Malaya was the AMCJA-Putera coalition that produced the Peoples’ Constitution.

The radical nationalists were seriously considering the expropriation of all colonial investments so that the wealth of the country could be used for the development of its peoples and not be siphoned away to the imperial centre. The radical nationalists were also drawn to the non-aligned stance of Third World leaders such as Sukarno, Nehru and Nasser.

The British, who handled the independence of their colonies more cunningly than the Dutch and the French, managed to thwart the radical nationalist movement through repression, arrests, detentions without trial, criminalization of organizations of this group, banishment and executions, while at the same time encouraging the development of a more conservative and compliant Malayan leadership comprising the economic elites of the three main ethnic groups in Malaya then. Rigorous suppression of the left coupled with graduated devolution of power to the Malay aristocracy and the businessmen who together made up the Alliance Party managed to defeat the radical nationalist movement.

But this defeat (of the radical nationalists) also created the conditions that have resulted in the dysfunctional state that our country is in today. The AMCJA-Putera leadership talked of uplifting of the Malayan workers and farmers. They talked the language of class, not of race and were quite open to the culture and languages of the other races. They did not see cultural diversity as a problem as they believed that a workable compromise based on mutual respect would not be difficult to attain in a society where the economic boosting of all the poor was the major national goal.

The political language of the Alliance on the other hand was quite different. The political organization of society was along ethnic lines and not along class lines. Political activity became the bargaining between different ethnic groups for their share of the cake. The “solution” adopted in the course of racial politicking that has characterised Alliance politics is the system of racial quotas that remind every Malaysian from school going age onwards that they come from different ethnic groups. Race has become institutionalized and permeates almost every facet of our society.

The Escalation of Ethnic Politicking

The risk of outbreaks of inter-ethnic violence is becoming more serious with time, and this is linked to three inter-related developments.

1. The involvement of Barisan Nasional politicians in business.

In the first two decades after development, the UMNO ruling class played the role of a Social Democratic party - taxing the rich to provide subsidies for the poor, especially the Malay rural poor. However with the development of capitalism in Malaysia, UMNO under the Mahathir administration oversaw the deliberate creation of a Malay capitalist class that could rise to become the captains of industry. From the beginning, there has been a close symbiotic relationship between the UMNO political elite and certain conglomerations of local capital. This “corporatization” of UMNO, has led to 2 important consequences:

i. UMNO positions from that of Divisional Chairmanship upwards are strongly contested as they represent an important stepping-stone to economic opportunities.

ii. It is getting increasing difficult for UMNO leaders to use the language of welfare and socio-economic development in their political campaigns.

What then can these champions of their ethnic group beat their chests about if not real or imagined slights to the religion or to the concept of Malay political supremacy? If Hishamuddin brings up the issue of Malay poverty, there is a real danger that the rank and file will question his own wealth. Brandishing a keris and proclaiming “Ketuanan Melayu” is much safer politically.

2. Steadily increasing economic pressures on the poorer sectors of society.

The neo-liberal orientation of the government has led to rising costs of living – petrol, health care, transport, utilities, education, etc. Workers of all races are being pressured by low wages and rising costs of living. This is especially hard on the younger workers, especially those without academic or vocational training. The frustration arising from these economic pressures spawns phenomena such as Indian youth gangs and the relatively new phenomenon of the Mat Rempits.

However political discourse in the media ascribe the hardships of the poor of all groups to the avarice and unfairness of the other ethnic groups. Unfortunately, at present the left is not strong enough to bring the alternative (and correct) analysis to the people - that the economic hardships of workers of all races in Malaysia is due to the new neo-liberal economic environment demanded by the 500 biggest corporations in the world and enforced by financial institutions such as the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO.

3. Recessions

The working class suffers tremendously each time there is an economic downturn. Income drops, sometimes catastrophically, housing and car loans cannot be met, and even basic needs such as education have to be compromised. There is a real risk that the resulting tensions and frustrations can spark off inter-ethnic violence given the backdrop of chauvinism that has characterized Malaysian politics – politicians tussling to save their own set of crony capitalists might use the racial issues to win popular support of their target population. It is certainly not inconceivable that this type of ethnic brinkmanship might deteriorate into ethnic based violence.

The Way Forward

Historically the Malayan/Malaysian Left has put forward two contrasting approaches to the issue of language and culture. The first approach is one that takes the position that the Malay community should be accorded special privileges within the Malayan nation. This is reflected in the AMCJA-Putera Peoples’ Constitutional Proposal that was put forward in 1947 – about 8 years before the Malayan Constitution was drawn up. Among the 10 principles were:

There should be a new constitution for Malaya with special provisions for the development of Malays in politics and economy;

Malay traditions and Islam should be fully protected by Malays through a special council;
Bahasa Malaysia should be the National Language.
All main features of this compromise position have been incorporated in the Malayan Constitution that was drawn up in the mid 1950s. This is also the position that was adopted by the Socialist Front in the late 1950s and early 1960s.
The alternative approach is that which was put forward by the Malayan Labour Party in 1967 which argued that all ethnic groups should be treated equally in line with passages in Lenin’s writings such as “Whoever does not recognize and champion the equality of nations and languages , and does not fight against all national oppression or inequality is not a Marxist . . .” The Labour Party argued for the equality of all languages and the inclusion of Chinese and Tamil as official languages of Malaysia, alongside the Malay language.
This issue has not been settled conclusively yet. There are still some progressives who feel that the 1967 Labour Party position is the more principled position, and therefore the position that progressives should endorse. I would argue that -

1. The resolution of the inter-ethnic problems in Malaysia is dependent on the existence of vibrant multi-ethnic workers’ movement. Attempting to address the outstanding inter-ethnic issue outside the framework of such a movement will just provide convenient targets for chauvinist politicians who capitalize on inter-ethnic controversies in order to survive – the Article 11 experience is a good example of how a sincere attempt to discuss some of the difficult issues arising from our multi-religious society was misportrayed as an attempt to belittle and marginalise Islam. Only a mass movement based on the solidarity of the working class can move the inter-ethnic issue forward.

2. Our strategy should therefore focus on programmes that benefit the working peoples of all races - based on class and not on race. Mobilisation of the people should be on issues that affect members of the working class across ethnic lines.

3. We should be clear on this – we cannot combat racism by mobilizing along racial lines. We may be able to resist certain unfair policies, but we would also be deepening the racial divide, and would be getting trapped into the ethnic politicking that the BN thrives on. Only a peoples’ movement based on socialist principles of democracy and international solidarity of the working class can generate the social force that can contain and hopefully overwhelm ethnic chauvinism.

4. All our programmes and actions, including those we take in defence of the linguistic and cultural rights of ethnic groups, should contribute to the development of such a workers’ movement, or at least not be an obstacle to its development. This does not mean Socialists should avoid handling issues pertaining to the linguistic and cultural rights of particular ethnic groups. However, it does mean that we must make a conscious attempt to evaluate actions being planned against the standard of whether such a response aids us in building a multi-ethnic peoples’ movement or the contrary.

The Need To Act

The current tendency to play the racial card to maintain one’s political popularity is a dangerous form of brinkmanship that might lead to explosions of inter-ethnic strife. It can never lead to a harmonious or just nation. The left holds the key to the resolution of the impasse that our society is in at present as Internationalism and the solidarity of workers of different ethnic groups is an integral part of our praxis – the struggle for social justice by oppressed communities, genuine participatory democracy and the struggles against neo-liberal initiatives.