The mind war for Perak
By Sheridan Mahavera
IPOH, Feb 6 — Standing precariously on the rotting wooden floor of a kampung house, Datuk Seri Raja Ahmad Zainuddin Raja Omar stares out at what hours ago used to be the bedroom wall.
Now, the Kubu Gajah state assemblyman is staring down into the garden at the remains of that wall, which collapsed that morning. He belts out orders to a building contractor over what he wants to see done for the house owner before nightfall.
He gets assurances that something will be done so that the whole structure doesn’t collapse but what he tells owner Khalid Osman is not very heartening.
“I’m sorry but you’ll just have to find another place to stay. I can help stabilise it so it doesn’t fall apart anymore but the house has been thoroughly eaten by termites,” says Raja Ahmad Zainuddin.
The prognosis merely confirmed Khalid’s fears but for the 50-year-old, what really mattered was that his wakil rakyat took the time to come down and see what his problem is.
And in the next elections, Barisan Nasional is betting on this to be its main selling point, that BN politicians are better at resolving the everyday problems of Ali, Ah Chong and Aru than Pakatan Rakyat.
Of course bringing development and economic progress are still hallmarks of a BN administration and the Perak government under Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abd Kadir has excelled in this.
But many BN politicians, grassroots activists and supporters say that crowing about getting RM11 billion in investments is not enough to win over rural folk.
“ADUN (state assemblymen) BN tak turun padang (did not go down to the ground),” says one long-time Umno activist in Larut on why the BN lost in the March 2008 general election.
“They became aloof and took their support for granted. Many of them don’t even live in their own constituencies and only return once in a while,” says the Umno man, who declined to be identified in criticising his party bosses.
Behrang state assemblyman Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi echoed this, claiming that Pakatan had won on “protest votes” from people disillusioned by BN’s arrogance.
“That’s why Najib (BN chairman and Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak) said that in the next election, he wants candidates who are people-friendly and who actually stay in their constituencies,” says Jamaluddin, an ex-Pakatan assemblyman who jumped ship and is now a BN-friendly independent.
Raja Ahmad Zainuddin says that the main BN approach is not to have one-off, large-scale programmes but consistent little meetings with ordinary folk to listen to grouses and help where they can.”
He thinks the “protest votes” led to an unprecedented loss in support for seasoned Umno politicians like him in seats where they had previously scored huge majorities. Raja Ahmad Zainuddin, for instance, won the Kubu Gajah seat by only 66 votes, down from the over 7,000 votes he garnered when he won the Larut parliamentary seat in 2004.
“People just wanted to teach us a lesson. They didn’t really expect that it would lead the BN to lose Perak. They are not Pakatan supporters per se and I think next time around, they will come back to us.”
And he claims to have really taken the lesson to heart. The former Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board chairman now visits his constituency’s service centre everyday.
He makes it a point to know his constituents’ latest problems and pays regular visits to the poor, the infirm and to the old.
“Even if it’s only for five minutes I turun (come down) every day. I help out everyone, be it a BN supporter or Pakatan. And I help all races,” he says.
For the folks in kampungs that are cut-off from mainstream society, such regular meet-greet-and-listen contacts go a long way to making them feel valued.
And that was proven in 2008 because that was essentially Pakatan’s approach.
“Many of my neighbours voted for Pakatan last time because orang BN didn’t come down to see them. But now, we are seeing more Umno people here in the village, so maybe next time, things will be different,” says a village official in Selama.
“Teaching Malays how to think”
There was no laughing in the ceramah crowd in Taman Meru, Jelapang when PAS’ Dr Khairuddin Abdul Malik took the stand.
It wasn’t a side-splitting speech filled with folksy humour common in a PAS ceramah. Instead the Perak PAS deputy commissioner gave a slide presentation so caustic that he had to apologise several times if his points were harsh.
The theme of his talk centred on the view that the Perak Pakatan government under Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin was pro-Chinese at the expense of the Malays.
This perception is being spread by Umno in Perak’s Malay heartlands of Larut, Bagan Datok, Parit, Pengkalan Hulu and Kuala Kangsar. PAS grassroots activists are worried that it is steadily converting Malays who voted Pakatan in 2008 back to Umno and the BN.
“I want my government to give opportunities for Malays to do business,” says a stall owner in Bukit Gantang, when asked what he wanted from the state administration.
If left unchallenged, this perception could blunt attempts by Pakatan to boast of its achievements during its 10-month term to Malays. These initiatives could be re-spun to seem like they only benefited one community.
To counter this perception, Khairuddin explained how Pakatan’s programmes benefited proportionately more Malays compared to other groups because the aim was to help the poor regardless of race.
“In the Malay community, eight per cent of all Malays are poor while Indians are two per cent and the Chinese are 0.8 per cent. So when we do programmes for the poor, of course Malays would benefit the most.
“Umno says we only give land titles to Chinese villagers. In reality we have given more titles to Malay villages but Umno does not talk about this.”
He doesn’t just blast Umno and BN. The main aim is to erase the deeply-grafted assumption in the Malay mind that only Umno can truly represent and look after the community.
It is also to refute the allegation that PAS’s partner DAP was the “Communist, anti-Malay Chinese” while MCA represented the “good Chinese.”
“Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng gave twice the amount of funds that Umno gave for the development of Islam in Penang. He even formed a Syura Council to discuss Islamic issues. Ask yourselves, is this what a communist government would do?,” Khairuddin asked the crowd.
A former senior civil servant says the perception is entrenched in the Malay psyche largely because of 50 years of communal politics.
“Malays generally don’t think far enough when they look at policy. For example, when the government cuts subsidies for boarding schools. They don’t see that it affects mostly Malay students because they are the largest group in these schools.
“And when non-Malays get a few land titles, they over-react.”
The Pakatan strategy is not just about a regular ceramah circuit to keep the memory of them and their downfall alive among the rakyat.
A DAP official explained that the parties are increasing their new voter-registration drives in all constituencies by having mini-contests that reward agents who register the most.
The three parties are also intensifying recruitment drives where they want to increase members in every area by 30 per cent, says Khairuddin.
It is going to be a battle of values in the war for political control of Perak, opined a long-time Ipoh-based Parti Keadilan Rakyat activist.
Since Pakatan and BN have chalked up their own noteworthy accomplishments whether it is helping the poor, resolving land issues or bringing in development, choosing between BN and Pakatan is no longer a choice between who has the better track record and whose ideals are better.
For the first time in their lives, Perak folk will be able to truly compare between two different ways of governance and the values that underline their policies.
Whether it is Pakatan or the BN, the ceramah and the small group meeting are tools that Perak folk will see more often as both coalitions try to sell them their values.
First published Feb 6, 2010 The Malaysian Insider http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/52169-the-mind-war-for-perak-
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Pakatan could win Perak again, but…
This particular story seriously pushed the boundaries as to what a "hard" story should be. The assignment was: get 100 people from all over Perak to take a straw poll in three days. Tabulate the results and write about it. What is usually forgotten is the fact that you have to approach 200 people to get 100 of them to AGREE to have their views canvassed. The other hard part is convincing people you are not from the Government, the Special Branch and that they won't get ISA'd if they say something critical. The link http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/52155-pakatan-could-win-perak-again-but contains graphics of the full results.
By Sheridan Mahavera and Choo Choy May
IPOH, Feb 6 — Though it has been a year since the elected Perak government was brought down by defections, a Malaysian Insider straw poll showed that Perak folk “tak mudah lupa”.
Many still remember the previous Pakatan Rakyat government and the changes it brought to the state. But this is not an endorsement of the Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin’s eventful but short-lived 10-month administration.
The poll showed that just as Pakatan’s contributions were fondly remembered by some, others felt left out by those same programmes.
The poll, which surveyed 101 residents from districts in northern and southern Perak, indicated that although the men on the street may not keep abreast of the latest developments in local politics, they are pretty sure of their political allegiances.
In other words, if there were state polls tomorrow, more than two-thirds of respondents have already made up their minds which coalition they would choose.
In fact, going by the poll’s results, 42 out of 101 people would choose Pakatan while 34 would choose the BN.
In terms of popularity, Nizar is slightly better regarded than his rival Datuk Seri Zambry Abdul Kadir who is the present Mentri Besar. Forty-three respondents thought he would make a better chief executive while 32 thought Zambry was better.
On the surface, these numbers are a rough gauge of what Perak folk think of both administrations but beneath that lies something more fundamentally important — that Perak society is deeply fractured.
It is not just differences between the three dominant ethnic groups in terms of who they are more likely to vote. It is about how each community perceives the other and the values of each group.
One year on and still going strong
The 101 respondents were asked six questions to get a sense of what they thought of the current political climate.
The Malaysian Insider surveyed the opinions of 46 Malays, 35 Chinese and 20 Indians in rural areas in Larut, Bukit Gantang and Kuala Sepetang, the semi-rural towns of Teluk Intan and Kampar, and around Ipoh city.
They were aged between the early 20s to the late 70s and comprised, among others, farmers, fishermen, small businessmen, civil servants and professionals.
The most obvious trend that emerged and which has been hinted at before by politicians is the difference in support of Pakatan and BN among the communities.
Support for the BN was highest among the Malays with close to half (21) of those surveyed saying they would vote BN if an election was held tomorrow, versus 15 who would vote Pakatan.
Conversely, 20 of the 35 Chinese polled said they would choose Pakatan and of the remaining 15, only four would choose the BN.
Indian support is narrowly split with nine of those surveyed saying they would vote BN and seven for Pakatan.
This pattern is repeated in how favourably each group views the two coalitions. Nineteen Malays had positive feelings about the BN administration under Zambry compared to nine Indians and only nine Chinese.
Yet, among Malays, 26 of them did not think that their lives have generally improved under BN. The main reason given for this was because Zambry’s administration has only been in office for a year.
About a quarter of the Indians, Chinese and Malays interviewed say they saw no changes under either administrations because their terms were too short.
Pakatan’s contributions, however, were well remembered by all. In fact there were more people who remembered their initiatives (54) than there were those who thought that BN had changed things for the better (37).
Yet there is an unpleasant truth to this. Though 25 Malays say they remembered Pakatan’s contributions, about 10 of them felt that the programmes were unfair to the community.
“What about us Malays?”
“Yes, I remember what Pakatan did. They let the Chinese rule Perak,” remarked one Malay respondent from northern Perak. This sentiment was echoed in other interviews with many other Malay respondents.
The views ranged from grouses about how too many Chinese villages were getting freehold titles to how preferential treatment was given to Chinese businesses in the Kinta Valley.
The sentiment has its roots in the popular and not unfounded perception that the state was run by an unofficial triumvirate that included Nizar and executive council members Datuk Ngeh Koo Ham and Nga Kor Ming.
Other respondents based their belief that it was a pro-Chinese administration based on the fact that seven of the 10 state executive committee posts went to non-Malays.
Malays who say they would vote for Pakatan also admitted to subscribing to the notion though they claimed it did not affect their support for the coalition.
A veteran Pakatan activist says these perceptions persist because the coalition itself has failed to dispel them.
The reality is that under Pakatan, Malay villages also received offers for freehold titles while the community benefited much from grants given to Perak university students and aid for funeral expenses.
These benefits, however, were never highlighted by the Bahasa Malaysia media who instead kept playing up the issue of freehold titles for Chinese villages, says the activist who requested anonymity.
“There is a drop in Malay support for Pakatan ever since the March 2008 elections. I would not be surprised that support has eroded further.”
The finding suggests that Pakatan faces a greater challenge than just winning enough seats to form the government in the next state election, as the survey shows it still has support.
Yet this is not enough to endear it to a large section of Perak Malays. The community’s support is crucial if Pakatan truly wants to realise its “new” politics of transparency and meritocracy for all.
First published: FEb 6, 2010 The Malaysian Insider http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/52155-pakatan-could-win-perak-again-but
By Sheridan Mahavera and Choo Choy May
IPOH, Feb 6 — Though it has been a year since the elected Perak government was brought down by defections, a Malaysian Insider straw poll showed that Perak folk “tak mudah lupa”.
Many still remember the previous Pakatan Rakyat government and the changes it brought to the state. But this is not an endorsement of the Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin’s eventful but short-lived 10-month administration.
The poll showed that just as Pakatan’s contributions were fondly remembered by some, others felt left out by those same programmes.
The poll, which surveyed 101 residents from districts in northern and southern Perak, indicated that although the men on the street may not keep abreast of the latest developments in local politics, they are pretty sure of their political allegiances.
In other words, if there were state polls tomorrow, more than two-thirds of respondents have already made up their minds which coalition they would choose.
In fact, going by the poll’s results, 42 out of 101 people would choose Pakatan while 34 would choose the BN.
In terms of popularity, Nizar is slightly better regarded than his rival Datuk Seri Zambry Abdul Kadir who is the present Mentri Besar. Forty-three respondents thought he would make a better chief executive while 32 thought Zambry was better.
On the surface, these numbers are a rough gauge of what Perak folk think of both administrations but beneath that lies something more fundamentally important — that Perak society is deeply fractured.
It is not just differences between the three dominant ethnic groups in terms of who they are more likely to vote. It is about how each community perceives the other and the values of each group.
One year on and still going strong
The 101 respondents were asked six questions to get a sense of what they thought of the current political climate.
The Malaysian Insider surveyed the opinions of 46 Malays, 35 Chinese and 20 Indians in rural areas in Larut, Bukit Gantang and Kuala Sepetang, the semi-rural towns of Teluk Intan and Kampar, and around Ipoh city.
They were aged between the early 20s to the late 70s and comprised, among others, farmers, fishermen, small businessmen, civil servants and professionals.
The most obvious trend that emerged and which has been hinted at before by politicians is the difference in support of Pakatan and BN among the communities.
Support for the BN was highest among the Malays with close to half (21) of those surveyed saying they would vote BN if an election was held tomorrow, versus 15 who would vote Pakatan.
Conversely, 20 of the 35 Chinese polled said they would choose Pakatan and of the remaining 15, only four would choose the BN.
Indian support is narrowly split with nine of those surveyed saying they would vote BN and seven for Pakatan.
This pattern is repeated in how favourably each group views the two coalitions. Nineteen Malays had positive feelings about the BN administration under Zambry compared to nine Indians and only nine Chinese.
Yet, among Malays, 26 of them did not think that their lives have generally improved under BN. The main reason given for this was because Zambry’s administration has only been in office for a year.
About a quarter of the Indians, Chinese and Malays interviewed say they saw no changes under either administrations because their terms were too short.
Pakatan’s contributions, however, were well remembered by all. In fact there were more people who remembered their initiatives (54) than there were those who thought that BN had changed things for the better (37).
Yet there is an unpleasant truth to this. Though 25 Malays say they remembered Pakatan’s contributions, about 10 of them felt that the programmes were unfair to the community.
“What about us Malays?”
“Yes, I remember what Pakatan did. They let the Chinese rule Perak,” remarked one Malay respondent from northern Perak. This sentiment was echoed in other interviews with many other Malay respondents.
The views ranged from grouses about how too many Chinese villages were getting freehold titles to how preferential treatment was given to Chinese businesses in the Kinta Valley.
The sentiment has its roots in the popular and not unfounded perception that the state was run by an unofficial triumvirate that included Nizar and executive council members Datuk Ngeh Koo Ham and Nga Kor Ming.
Other respondents based their belief that it was a pro-Chinese administration based on the fact that seven of the 10 state executive committee posts went to non-Malays.
Malays who say they would vote for Pakatan also admitted to subscribing to the notion though they claimed it did not affect their support for the coalition.
A veteran Pakatan activist says these perceptions persist because the coalition itself has failed to dispel them.
The reality is that under Pakatan, Malay villages also received offers for freehold titles while the community benefited much from grants given to Perak university students and aid for funeral expenses.
These benefits, however, were never highlighted by the Bahasa Malaysia media who instead kept playing up the issue of freehold titles for Chinese villages, says the activist who requested anonymity.
“There is a drop in Malay support for Pakatan ever since the March 2008 elections. I would not be surprised that support has eroded further.”
The finding suggests that Pakatan faces a greater challenge than just winning enough seats to form the government in the next state election, as the survey shows it still has support.
Yet this is not enough to endear it to a large section of Perak Malays. The community’s support is crucial if Pakatan truly wants to realise its “new” politics of transparency and meritocracy for all.
First published: FEb 6, 2010 The Malaysian Insider http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/52155-pakatan-could-win-perak-again-but
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Divided People, Shared Destiny?
DEC 10 — With the impending completion and soon-to-be commissioned Bakun Dam, Malaysians will get a glimpse of yet another irony in the incongruent tapestry of their country.
A core component of Sarawak’s huge power corridor of more than 13 proposed hydro-electric dams in the state, Bakun reportedly aims to supply power to mega-industries like Rio Tinto’s aluminium smelter, and to the towns and industry of Sarawak and Peninsular Malaysia. All the former residents of the remote Bakun watershed in central Sarawak who were re-settled to make way for the huge dam will thus see Bakun’s power transported from the hydro-electric dam to other parts of the state and beyond the South China Sea — via massive overland and submarine cables.
A majority of Sarawak’s rural folk will thus see Bakun’s electricity pass them by. Many rural residents will continue to get their electricity from noisy personal generators that they have to feed with their own diesel.
It promises to be another flesh-and-blood example of the continuing tragedy of Sarawak — where the precious fruits of its resources are taken out for others to enjoy while the poor locals sit by and watch.
The story is also repeated in Sabah, where whole villages have to rely on Western NGOs to build simple freshwater supply systems while Putrajaya elites boast about how Malaysia sent a man into space.
These stories are strung together to form that collective lament that is heard every Aug 31 and Sept 16: why is it that after 46 years of Malaysia, Sabahans and Sarawakians feel no closer to Peninsular Malaysians?
Many young Sarawakians and Sabahans believe that their two homelands have given more in terms of petroleum revenues and votes for a peninsula-centric ruling coalition than they have received in terms of development.
Most importantly, many of them feel that because they are still not treated as equal siblings in the Malaysian family, the only recourse would be for Sabah and Sarawak to go their own way, apparently.
In other words, is the divide between the two regions in terms of infrastructure and culture so irreconcilable even after nearly five decades, that many feel Sabah, Sarawak and the peninsula might as well be foreign countries in the true sense of the word?
Divided by history and design
Talking about a “divide” between the three homelands is tricky. The individual histories of these regions, their multi-cultural populations and how their societies have evolved right up to 1963 makes it seem as if they were meant to be organically different from one another.
There is also the geographical distance. Universiti Malaysia Sarawak political scientist Dr Andrew Aeria points to the sea that literally separates the three areas as a factor that has widened the chasm between their peoples.
It was precisely because of these differences in terms of development between the peninsula and Sarawak and Sabah that the latter’s forefathers insisted on a set of conditions that would govern these two regions once they agreed to form Malaysia.
The 20-point agreement for Sabah and the 18-point for Sarawak allowed local leaders wide freedom to craft education, language and physical development policies that would suit the special needs of the two regions.
Some of its provisions included the freedom not to have Islam as the state religion, (point 1) the ability to manage immigration (point 6), control of revenues and where the monies are spent (point 11) and creating school systems (15) that would serve the needs of their various communities.
The agreements, says Dayak social activist Dr John Brian Anthony, would prevent both states from being colonised by peninsula-oriented Malay-Muslim interests.
Out of all the provisions, only the immigration control remains the fully functional provision, adds Anthony.
“Somehow, the federal government has ignored the agreement and even changed the ‘rules’ without the consent of Sarawak and Sabah,” he says.
Aeria however disagrees and points out that the watering down of the various provisions were accomplished through a series of bureaucratic changes and constitutional amendments agreed upon and supported by pliant state government regimes installed by Kuala Lumpur.
Sabah and Sarawak were gradually pulled into the sphere of influence emanating from Kuala Lumpur and they were made to adopt its bureaucratic system, like in education.
Most of the revenues from their natural resources were given over to the peninsula. For example, Sabah and Sarawak’s petroleum reserves are controlled by Petronas on account of the 1974 Petroleum Development Act, which handed over control of petroleum resources in the whole country to Petronas and which allocates five per cent of royalties to each oil-producing state (including Sabah and Sarawak).
Still, even though Sabah controls immigration, this has not prevented it from being flooded by illegals during the 1990s. The sudden increase of dubious citizens of Indonesian and Filippino origin has been a constant problem in Sabah society, which locals have blamed on the Barisan Nasional federal government.
But what has anguished Sabahans and Sarawakians the most is arguably the way the BN federal government has tried to insidiously change the ethnic character of both states.
In the words of Kota Kinabalu resident Dayang Yohana Awang Salleh, the federal government has “taken all our revenue but only given us racism and religious intolerance”.
Bringing closer but drifting
If the old divide was due to geography and historical circumstance, the modern rift ironically comes from how the peninsula-centric federal government has tried to bring the three regions together.
The freedom to fashion Sarawak and Sabah societies according to their needs was eroded so that they became less of the autonomous entities envisioned in the agreements to more of units within and dependent on a strong, centralised organisation headed from Kuala Lumpur.
As power receded from these states, the Federal BN began sowing the seeds of a Malay-Muslim national identity that grated with the inter-ethnic harmony in Sabah and Sarawak. “In their policies, the federal government has little appreciation of the sheer diversity of ethnicities, faiths, languages, lifestyles, dreams and hopes of Sabahans and Sarawakians,” says Aeria.
This re-engineering of their societies was felt most acutely in schools. Teachers from the peninsula, many claim, come to Sarawak and Sabah schools with high-minded ambitions to cajole, school and civilise the natives.
Dayang Yohana relates how almost overnight, the students in her secondary school had been segregated into Malay and non-Malay groups by their peninsula teachers.
“My friends used to mix freely and we didn’t even look at each other as Malay or non-Malay. But suddenly the Malay kids would be separated and put into special classes.
“They were told not to mix with the non-Malays and that they had to compete with them in the exams.
“It was distressing because these teachers were essentially telling us that it was wrong to mix with the non-Malay friends that we had grown up with,” she says.
Kuching-based photographer Norman Goh relates the same thing when speaking of his experiences as a former teacher.
“Teachers that I came into contact with from the peninsula would tell Sarawakian students and teachers that they should not mix with other races. We hate this attitude because in Sarawak we mix freely with each other.”This is not just about peninsula arrogance and the way they impose such racial attitudes upon Sabahans and Sarawakians.
Adam, a secondary school teacher in Sarawak, points to how their attitude towards ethnicity and religion colours everyday life and makes it hard for Sabahans and Sarawakians to live in the peninsula and vice versa.
“In Sarawak, you can be a non-Muslim and use terms like Alhamdulillah (praise Allah) and Allah and it’s not a problem. But I can never say these things in the peninsula,” says Adam, who declined to reveal his full identity for fear of repercussions in his job.
It also does not help that Merdeka on Aug 31 has long been given more importance than Sept 16, Malaysia Day.
“This speaks volumes about what the BN federal and state governments think of the position of Sabah and Sarawak in the federation. How else does one interpret this symbolism?” asks Aeria.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, however, recently announced that Sept 16 would be a national holiday starting from 2010 to commemorate Malaysia Day. Although belated, this announcement will undoubtedly be welcomed by Sabahans and Sarawakians.
Although a disconnect still exists, Unimas’ Aeria stresses that many Sabahans, Sarawakians and Peninsular Malaysians blend in seamlessly both ways.
Although the psychological disconnect can be disputed what is harder to ignore is the brick and mortar differences between the living standards between the peninsula and Sabah and Sarawak.
Adam cites how despite Sarawak’s natural riches, it still struggles to provide adequate health care even in highly urban Kuching.
While schools, houses, roads and towns have been built and standards of living have risen in Sabah and Sarawak says Aeria, poverty has also deepened and income inequality has increased.
“Given the resource-based structure of the economies of Sabah and Sarawak, job opportunities are severely limited and more and more natives are forced to work outside Sabah and Sarawak to earn decent incomes.
“In other words, the Barisan Nasional has delivered a very bitter-sweet form of development-deprivation in East Malaysia.”
A return to the past or leap to the future?
The majority of noise in cyberspace generated by critical Sabahans and Sarawakians is for a return to the 20- and 18-point agreements.
The full implementation of each of the points is seen as the ultimate salve for the wounds Sabahans and Sarawakians feel they have sustained over the 46 years of their association with Malaya.
The points are trumpeted as the solutions that will end the “orang Semenanjung, orang Sabah, orang Sarawak” syndrome and bring their peoples together.
Advocates for a return to the agreements claim that it would empower non-Muslim indigenous groups by getting rid of any official state religion and that natives get Bumiputera status recognition that is equal to that accorded the Malays in the peninsula.
The agreements would also stop peninsula policy-makers from coming in and disrupting the close ethnic concord between communities.
Malaysian Orang Asal Network president Adrian Lasimbang claims that peninsula-oriented federal government officers are often unaware that the many tribes of both states have Bumiputera status.
“Education and welfare aid is mainly in the hands of federal government agencies. But its officers often think that only Malays are Bumiputeras.
“We have many cases of non-Malay Bumiputeras being denied aid while new Bumiputeras get help,” Lasimbang says. He uses the term “new Bumiputera” to refer to the thousands of illegal immigrants who became citizens through dubious means in the 1990s.
The problem, he says, could have been easily overcome had the federal agencies been “Borneanised” with natives aware of Sabah’s and Sarawak’s diversity.
Anthony, who runs the well known dayakbaru.com website, claims that the erosion of the no-state-religion principle has prevented a Dayak from becoming either chief minister or Yang di-Pertua Negeri.
“When Tunku Abdul Rahman was campaigning in Sarawak to sell the Malaysia idea, he pledged that should the chief minister be Muslim, the Yang di-Pertua Negeri must be Dayak. I specifically remember this being broadcasted on the radio.”
“But ever since Islamisation crept into Sarawak, the powers-that-be insist that a Yang di-Pertua Negeri be a Muslim. This should not be.”
Building unity
Yet, despite the promise of autonomy and self-sustainability of the agreements, the question must be asked: can the people of the three regions be unified if the solution to their schism lies in implementing policies that would make life in Sabah, Sarawak and the peninsula so different from each other that they will really seem like foreign countries?
Unimas’ Aeria points to how this has occurred with immigration controls.
A foreigner under the “Malaysia, My Second Home” programme can get a 10-year residence visa in both Sabah and Sarawak. A Peninsular Malaysian, however, wanting to spend a lengthy sojourn in both states is only entitled to a three-month visit pass that must be constantly renewed by exiting and re-entering the states. As well, all Peninsular Malaysians who work in both states but who are not attached to the federal civil service are required to apply for a work visa, which must be renewed annually or every two years. All Peninsular Malaysians are required to leave the state upon retirement — the exception being only when a Peninsular Malaysian is granted PR status or is married to a local.
Sabahans and Sarawakians working and living in Peninsular Malaysia face no such hurdles.
“Immigration controls therefore no longer serve any meaningful purpose. They only reinforce the mental and psychological divides in our mind instead of building up a sense of oneness and emotional belonging. It is time we removed these barriers to unity.”
Aeria thus believes that talk of the 20-point and 18-point agreements is mere rhetoric and that the solution to Sabah and Sarawak’s woes lies in looking towards the future instead of to the past.
“What we do need today are more just and respectful policies and more development funds that deliberately aim at overturning the hitherto neglect of both Sabah and Sarawak in the national developmental agenda.
“Policies must recognise the unique religious, cultural and linguistic diversities of the peoples of Sabah and Sarawak as being as important as any other mainstream ethnic community in the country.
“Recognition of the main languages of Sabah (Kadazan-Dusun) and Sarawak (Iban) has to be officially institutionalised at all levels.”
For the youths interviewed for this article, the only lasting solution would be mutual separation although this is forbidden in the two agreements.
Marketing executive Mike Cheng points to how well Singapore has done when it left Malaysia in 1965.
“They broke away and made it big. Borneo is larger in size and we have more resources; so it is very possible that we could do just as well. Unless the federal government is sincere about doing justice to Sarawak and Sabah, we feel we would be better off on our own.”
Kuching-based Adam was ecstatic over the prospect.
“It would be the only way where we could finally control all our resources to use it for our people.
“Now we only get five per cent of the oil revenue; imagine what we could do with all of it. It’s not that I do not love Malaysia, but I feel that if we were on our own maybe the people of Sarawak can finally be the masters of their land.”
However, this option is extremely difficult. The 1963 Malaysia Act forbids secession.
A better bet to healing the rift would be for voters to enact political change on the ground, starting with their local leaders.
This is already happening as seen in the 2008 general election where support in middle-class, urban constituencies is shifting towards non-BN candidates and parties.
Aeria, however, feels that parties such as the DAP and Parti Keadilan Rakyat offer little substantial value for the electorate in terms of principles or policies.
“There is presently no opposition worth talking about to even begin contesting elections here.”
Not too long ago, people used the same line of argument when discussing opposition parties in Peninsular Malaysia, before March 2008.
In fact, much of the speculation in the run-up to that election predicted that BN would win handily in all states except Kelantan. No one, not even the Pakatan Rakyat parties themselves, expected them to keep Kelantan and take over four more states.
Though how the Pakatan administrations are currently faring is debatable, their victories have brought changes in attitude in how the BN relates to the aspirations of Malaysians.
It could be argued that the liberalisation of the economy by stripping away pro-Malay regulations and a review of the Internal Security Act could not have been done if the BN had not lost ground last year.
Though much of the rhetoric was inflammatory, the concerns highlighted by the banned Hindu Rights Action Front on behalf of the Indian community have made the Prime Minister himself pay serious attention to this ethnic group.
A loud and clear signal at the ballot box would jolt the local and federal BN that the populace rejects their current divide-and-deprive methods.
There is thus every possibility that Sabahans and Sarawakians will soon see the end of peninsula-style racism, the start of more funds to the states and more respect for indigenous rights.
But for that to happen, they have to believe that there is hope — not only for change through the ballot box but for a better shared destiny between east and west Malaysia. — aliran.com http://www.aliran.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1091:divided-people-shared-destiny&catid=90:2009-8&Itemid=45
A core component of Sarawak’s huge power corridor of more than 13 proposed hydro-electric dams in the state, Bakun reportedly aims to supply power to mega-industries like Rio Tinto’s aluminium smelter, and to the towns and industry of Sarawak and Peninsular Malaysia. All the former residents of the remote Bakun watershed in central Sarawak who were re-settled to make way for the huge dam will thus see Bakun’s power transported from the hydro-electric dam to other parts of the state and beyond the South China Sea — via massive overland and submarine cables.
A majority of Sarawak’s rural folk will thus see Bakun’s electricity pass them by. Many rural residents will continue to get their electricity from noisy personal generators that they have to feed with their own diesel.
It promises to be another flesh-and-blood example of the continuing tragedy of Sarawak — where the precious fruits of its resources are taken out for others to enjoy while the poor locals sit by and watch.
The story is also repeated in Sabah, where whole villages have to rely on Western NGOs to build simple freshwater supply systems while Putrajaya elites boast about how Malaysia sent a man into space.
These stories are strung together to form that collective lament that is heard every Aug 31 and Sept 16: why is it that after 46 years of Malaysia, Sabahans and Sarawakians feel no closer to Peninsular Malaysians?
Many young Sarawakians and Sabahans believe that their two homelands have given more in terms of petroleum revenues and votes for a peninsula-centric ruling coalition than they have received in terms of development.
Most importantly, many of them feel that because they are still not treated as equal siblings in the Malaysian family, the only recourse would be for Sabah and Sarawak to go their own way, apparently.
In other words, is the divide between the two regions in terms of infrastructure and culture so irreconcilable even after nearly five decades, that many feel Sabah, Sarawak and the peninsula might as well be foreign countries in the true sense of the word?
Divided by history and design
Talking about a “divide” between the three homelands is tricky. The individual histories of these regions, their multi-cultural populations and how their societies have evolved right up to 1963 makes it seem as if they were meant to be organically different from one another.
There is also the geographical distance. Universiti Malaysia Sarawak political scientist Dr Andrew Aeria points to the sea that literally separates the three areas as a factor that has widened the chasm between their peoples.
It was precisely because of these differences in terms of development between the peninsula and Sarawak and Sabah that the latter’s forefathers insisted on a set of conditions that would govern these two regions once they agreed to form Malaysia.
The 20-point agreement for Sabah and the 18-point for Sarawak allowed local leaders wide freedom to craft education, language and physical development policies that would suit the special needs of the two regions.
Some of its provisions included the freedom not to have Islam as the state religion, (point 1) the ability to manage immigration (point 6), control of revenues and where the monies are spent (point 11) and creating school systems (15) that would serve the needs of their various communities.
The agreements, says Dayak social activist Dr John Brian Anthony, would prevent both states from being colonised by peninsula-oriented Malay-Muslim interests.
Out of all the provisions, only the immigration control remains the fully functional provision, adds Anthony.
“Somehow, the federal government has ignored the agreement and even changed the ‘rules’ without the consent of Sarawak and Sabah,” he says.
Aeria however disagrees and points out that the watering down of the various provisions were accomplished through a series of bureaucratic changes and constitutional amendments agreed upon and supported by pliant state government regimes installed by Kuala Lumpur.
Sabah and Sarawak were gradually pulled into the sphere of influence emanating from Kuala Lumpur and they were made to adopt its bureaucratic system, like in education.
Most of the revenues from their natural resources were given over to the peninsula. For example, Sabah and Sarawak’s petroleum reserves are controlled by Petronas on account of the 1974 Petroleum Development Act, which handed over control of petroleum resources in the whole country to Petronas and which allocates five per cent of royalties to each oil-producing state (including Sabah and Sarawak).
Still, even though Sabah controls immigration, this has not prevented it from being flooded by illegals during the 1990s. The sudden increase of dubious citizens of Indonesian and Filippino origin has been a constant problem in Sabah society, which locals have blamed on the Barisan Nasional federal government.
But what has anguished Sabahans and Sarawakians the most is arguably the way the BN federal government has tried to insidiously change the ethnic character of both states.
In the words of Kota Kinabalu resident Dayang Yohana Awang Salleh, the federal government has “taken all our revenue but only given us racism and religious intolerance”.
Bringing closer but drifting
If the old divide was due to geography and historical circumstance, the modern rift ironically comes from how the peninsula-centric federal government has tried to bring the three regions together.
The freedom to fashion Sarawak and Sabah societies according to their needs was eroded so that they became less of the autonomous entities envisioned in the agreements to more of units within and dependent on a strong, centralised organisation headed from Kuala Lumpur.
As power receded from these states, the Federal BN began sowing the seeds of a Malay-Muslim national identity that grated with the inter-ethnic harmony in Sabah and Sarawak. “In their policies, the federal government has little appreciation of the sheer diversity of ethnicities, faiths, languages, lifestyles, dreams and hopes of Sabahans and Sarawakians,” says Aeria.
This re-engineering of their societies was felt most acutely in schools. Teachers from the peninsula, many claim, come to Sarawak and Sabah schools with high-minded ambitions to cajole, school and civilise the natives.
Dayang Yohana relates how almost overnight, the students in her secondary school had been segregated into Malay and non-Malay groups by their peninsula teachers.
“My friends used to mix freely and we didn’t even look at each other as Malay or non-Malay. But suddenly the Malay kids would be separated and put into special classes.
“They were told not to mix with the non-Malays and that they had to compete with them in the exams.
“It was distressing because these teachers were essentially telling us that it was wrong to mix with the non-Malay friends that we had grown up with,” she says.
Kuching-based photographer Norman Goh relates the same thing when speaking of his experiences as a former teacher.
“Teachers that I came into contact with from the peninsula would tell Sarawakian students and teachers that they should not mix with other races. We hate this attitude because in Sarawak we mix freely with each other.”This is not just about peninsula arrogance and the way they impose such racial attitudes upon Sabahans and Sarawakians.
Adam, a secondary school teacher in Sarawak, points to how their attitude towards ethnicity and religion colours everyday life and makes it hard for Sabahans and Sarawakians to live in the peninsula and vice versa.
“In Sarawak, you can be a non-Muslim and use terms like Alhamdulillah (praise Allah) and Allah and it’s not a problem. But I can never say these things in the peninsula,” says Adam, who declined to reveal his full identity for fear of repercussions in his job.
It also does not help that Merdeka on Aug 31 has long been given more importance than Sept 16, Malaysia Day.
“This speaks volumes about what the BN federal and state governments think of the position of Sabah and Sarawak in the federation. How else does one interpret this symbolism?” asks Aeria.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, however, recently announced that Sept 16 would be a national holiday starting from 2010 to commemorate Malaysia Day. Although belated, this announcement will undoubtedly be welcomed by Sabahans and Sarawakians.
Although a disconnect still exists, Unimas’ Aeria stresses that many Sabahans, Sarawakians and Peninsular Malaysians blend in seamlessly both ways.
Although the psychological disconnect can be disputed what is harder to ignore is the brick and mortar differences between the living standards between the peninsula and Sabah and Sarawak.
Adam cites how despite Sarawak’s natural riches, it still struggles to provide adequate health care even in highly urban Kuching.
While schools, houses, roads and towns have been built and standards of living have risen in Sabah and Sarawak says Aeria, poverty has also deepened and income inequality has increased.
“Given the resource-based structure of the economies of Sabah and Sarawak, job opportunities are severely limited and more and more natives are forced to work outside Sabah and Sarawak to earn decent incomes.
“In other words, the Barisan Nasional has delivered a very bitter-sweet form of development-deprivation in East Malaysia.”
A return to the past or leap to the future?
The majority of noise in cyberspace generated by critical Sabahans and Sarawakians is for a return to the 20- and 18-point agreements.
The full implementation of each of the points is seen as the ultimate salve for the wounds Sabahans and Sarawakians feel they have sustained over the 46 years of their association with Malaya.
The points are trumpeted as the solutions that will end the “orang Semenanjung, orang Sabah, orang Sarawak” syndrome and bring their peoples together.
Advocates for a return to the agreements claim that it would empower non-Muslim indigenous groups by getting rid of any official state religion and that natives get Bumiputera status recognition that is equal to that accorded the Malays in the peninsula.
The agreements would also stop peninsula policy-makers from coming in and disrupting the close ethnic concord between communities.
Malaysian Orang Asal Network president Adrian Lasimbang claims that peninsula-oriented federal government officers are often unaware that the many tribes of both states have Bumiputera status.
“Education and welfare aid is mainly in the hands of federal government agencies. But its officers often think that only Malays are Bumiputeras.
“We have many cases of non-Malay Bumiputeras being denied aid while new Bumiputeras get help,” Lasimbang says. He uses the term “new Bumiputera” to refer to the thousands of illegal immigrants who became citizens through dubious means in the 1990s.
The problem, he says, could have been easily overcome had the federal agencies been “Borneanised” with natives aware of Sabah’s and Sarawak’s diversity.
Anthony, who runs the well known dayakbaru.com website, claims that the erosion of the no-state-religion principle has prevented a Dayak from becoming either chief minister or Yang di-Pertua Negeri.
“When Tunku Abdul Rahman was campaigning in Sarawak to sell the Malaysia idea, he pledged that should the chief minister be Muslim, the Yang di-Pertua Negeri must be Dayak. I specifically remember this being broadcasted on the radio.”
“But ever since Islamisation crept into Sarawak, the powers-that-be insist that a Yang di-Pertua Negeri be a Muslim. This should not be.”
Building unity
Yet, despite the promise of autonomy and self-sustainability of the agreements, the question must be asked: can the people of the three regions be unified if the solution to their schism lies in implementing policies that would make life in Sabah, Sarawak and the peninsula so different from each other that they will really seem like foreign countries?
Unimas’ Aeria points to how this has occurred with immigration controls.
A foreigner under the “Malaysia, My Second Home” programme can get a 10-year residence visa in both Sabah and Sarawak. A Peninsular Malaysian, however, wanting to spend a lengthy sojourn in both states is only entitled to a three-month visit pass that must be constantly renewed by exiting and re-entering the states. As well, all Peninsular Malaysians who work in both states but who are not attached to the federal civil service are required to apply for a work visa, which must be renewed annually or every two years. All Peninsular Malaysians are required to leave the state upon retirement — the exception being only when a Peninsular Malaysian is granted PR status or is married to a local.
Sabahans and Sarawakians working and living in Peninsular Malaysia face no such hurdles.
“Immigration controls therefore no longer serve any meaningful purpose. They only reinforce the mental and psychological divides in our mind instead of building up a sense of oneness and emotional belonging. It is time we removed these barriers to unity.”
Aeria thus believes that talk of the 20-point and 18-point agreements is mere rhetoric and that the solution to Sabah and Sarawak’s woes lies in looking towards the future instead of to the past.
“What we do need today are more just and respectful policies and more development funds that deliberately aim at overturning the hitherto neglect of both Sabah and Sarawak in the national developmental agenda.
“Policies must recognise the unique religious, cultural and linguistic diversities of the peoples of Sabah and Sarawak as being as important as any other mainstream ethnic community in the country.
“Recognition of the main languages of Sabah (Kadazan-Dusun) and Sarawak (Iban) has to be officially institutionalised at all levels.”
For the youths interviewed for this article, the only lasting solution would be mutual separation although this is forbidden in the two agreements.
Marketing executive Mike Cheng points to how well Singapore has done when it left Malaysia in 1965.
“They broke away and made it big. Borneo is larger in size and we have more resources; so it is very possible that we could do just as well. Unless the federal government is sincere about doing justice to Sarawak and Sabah, we feel we would be better off on our own.”
Kuching-based Adam was ecstatic over the prospect.
“It would be the only way where we could finally control all our resources to use it for our people.
“Now we only get five per cent of the oil revenue; imagine what we could do with all of it. It’s not that I do not love Malaysia, but I feel that if we were on our own maybe the people of Sarawak can finally be the masters of their land.”
However, this option is extremely difficult. The 1963 Malaysia Act forbids secession.
A better bet to healing the rift would be for voters to enact political change on the ground, starting with their local leaders.
This is already happening as seen in the 2008 general election where support in middle-class, urban constituencies is shifting towards non-BN candidates and parties.
Aeria, however, feels that parties such as the DAP and Parti Keadilan Rakyat offer little substantial value for the electorate in terms of principles or policies.
“There is presently no opposition worth talking about to even begin contesting elections here.”
Not too long ago, people used the same line of argument when discussing opposition parties in Peninsular Malaysia, before March 2008.
In fact, much of the speculation in the run-up to that election predicted that BN would win handily in all states except Kelantan. No one, not even the Pakatan Rakyat parties themselves, expected them to keep Kelantan and take over four more states.
Though how the Pakatan administrations are currently faring is debatable, their victories have brought changes in attitude in how the BN relates to the aspirations of Malaysians.
It could be argued that the liberalisation of the economy by stripping away pro-Malay regulations and a review of the Internal Security Act could not have been done if the BN had not lost ground last year.
Though much of the rhetoric was inflammatory, the concerns highlighted by the banned Hindu Rights Action Front on behalf of the Indian community have made the Prime Minister himself pay serious attention to this ethnic group.
A loud and clear signal at the ballot box would jolt the local and federal BN that the populace rejects their current divide-and-deprive methods.
There is thus every possibility that Sabahans and Sarawakians will soon see the end of peninsula-style racism, the start of more funds to the states and more respect for indigenous rights.
But for that to happen, they have to believe that there is hope — not only for change through the ballot box but for a better shared destiny between east and west Malaysia. — aliran.com http://www.aliran.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1091:divided-people-shared-destiny&catid=90:2009-8&Itemid=45
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)