In this Episode 3 of the Wawancara Hari Kebangsaan 2005 series, Shin talks to Fathi Aris Omar, Ong Boon Keong, Rajan Rishyakaran, Zulhabri Supian, Tauke Fooji, Emmanuel Joseph, Sharizal Sharaani, Politics 101, Nurul Izzah and David Teoh on the issue of Racial Politics, Education and National Unity.

Shin : Many blame the racial politics and racist policies as main culprits for national disunity. However, even without these, the national schools do not necessarily become the premier choice. Does this mean national unity is difficult to achieve ?

Fathi : I would like to say this way, after paraphrasing the above sentence
of yours a bit, “many blame the racial politics and racist policies as main culprits for less and less democratic space and the seeds of our national problems now, one of them is national disunity.”

Shin : Hey, so funny lah you, we should bersyukur a bit so I thought it’s a good idea to save BN some face… :-)

Fathi : Racial integration or racial unity? I don’t understand this issue and I think that arguing along these words “racial unity” is limited. We are trapped into thinking along “old” pair of glasses. “Old” here means “the dominant, the obsolete, the 1970s, the dying” language of analysing our national politics.

The real issue is — to my understanding — communal politics (or, communalism), where people voice their concern and rally public issues (or see themselves vis a vis the others) through race-based languages.

When you vote your wakil rakyats from your own ethnicity; when you prefer (without rational calculation) sale representatives, bureaucrates, editors or managers from your own race; when you prefer to form a race-based political parties and student groups (though, later you merge or form alliances); when you feel more secure and comfortable with your own race regardless of issues and contexts.

Race is the paradigm of politics. Just like when religion (in this case, Islam) becomes the political paradigm. They are like scientism or positivism, that is, the cognitive process of narrowing the realities (or, ‘truth’ or ‘objectivities’) via a single or mono-perspective.

The paradigm (race, religion or scientific school of thought) defines everything and shapes your priorities, taste (likes and dislikes), social values (the good, the bad, the ugly and the wicked) and other preferences. It breeds discrimination, exclusivity and stupidity (too!). The paradigm is the sole, the main or the most dominant criterion on your minds to see the world

The word “race” (and the derivatives, “racial”, “racism”, “racist” or “racialist”) has been made a politics of identity, a category of perception. But it is limited, constrained, distorted form of analysing national issues.

I am not saying it is not real; it is. But it is also hallucionary — something which is fluid, unstable and unfinished, yet has been made otherwise and unchallengeable.

The very ideas of the politics of control and propaganda are to change this relation (something fluid, unstable and unfinished so that it is seen [cognitively], concrete, stable and ‘finished’). See Roland Barthes’s Mythologies (1973).

Race, however you define it, is always hegemonic. It is always a form of control. Do you like to submit to and submerge under a Chinese community’s control? I don’t like a Malay (or an Islamic) community’s control over me. I am always suspicious of the majority.

I prefer Christopher Hitchens’s comment: “Well, no, I don’t think that the solidarity of belonging is much of a prize. I appreciate that it can bestow some pride, and that it can lead to mutual aid and even brother- and sisterhood, but it has too many suffocating qualities, and many if not most of the benefits can be acquired in other ways.” (see his book, Letters to a Young Contrarian, 2001).

BK : Agree. Yes education wise the schools were segregated before Independence. After Independence UMNO try to unify all schools under national schools -but met resistance from Chinese, Tamil and English schools who see it as worse imposition than by Colonial government. The monolingual policy imposed on multi-lingual schools with their own history was a failed policy till now.

Politicians could do a better job if mono-lingual policy was not so stressed - and diversity respected. But national unity is not identical with language uniformisation : there could be more inter-schools program to bring the students together - which was agreed to by the Chinese and Tamil schools. But the government so far has not been happy to do it.

Rajan : Again, we should leave it to the people to find unity. Nothing the government can do would create a semblance of unity. Especially with disequality.

Habri : selagi mana politik dan kita individu bersikap komunal selagi itulah
hasrat perpaduan kaum sukar untuk dicapai !

Fooji : Of course, national unity is difficult to achieve. But we should know by now that the racial policies is not helping the effort towards unity at all.

Emmanuel : Yes and no. Racial politics should be partially responsible, but the sole blame is not its alone. The fact of the matter is, national unity is easy to achieve. Sun Tzu once said, to motivate the people, the people must have a common cause, a rallying factor. Here Malaysians are too busy fighting each other that they are not fighting other countries for economic opportunities.

Look at Japanese companies, Matsushita, Toyota, Honda….all these companies are relatively new to the world, post war. Compared to the likes of Standard Chartered, Barclays and Llyods. See how far they’ve come.Their people have a common goal - beat everyone else. Where else our people are busy attacking each other and protecting their own cake. I think we should start looking outward rather than inward - and national unity would be ours.

Sharizal : As in with anything, it is difficult to achieve. But we must stay focus on the real issue where it should be what EVERYBODY wants.

Poli : I won’t go as far as to say there isn’t national unity because there is, in many ways. What we have is distrust among the communities. It doesn’t really matter whether it’s the BN or opposition because behind closed doors there are still more than a handful of senior politicians who consciously or subconciously refer to another community in terms that are less than honourable.

In many ways opposition parties were forced to compete along racial lines because if they didn’t, they won’t win. And in politics, the bottom line is still about winning seats to get a platform in parliament. Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM) was often touted as a non race-based party. Very good on them, but when after so many elections and it still couldn’t get anyone elected on its ticket, what’s the use? The public will decide to look elsewhere. This is realpolitik.

Nurul Izzah : I think society reflects the way its leaders behave and the policies that are being practiced in our society have a bearing on how everything progresses. But at the same time, if policies are not based on clear and altruistic intentions and implemented with the will for a true change, it will remain an empty tool of propagandastic intent.

David : What do you mean even without these?

We start with the premise that racial-issues being politicised leads to division. Therefore national schools are not the schools of choice.

National unity can be achieved only when politicians understand what education means. Education is not about imparting knowledge. It is about imparting wisdom. Knowledge and academic results based education creates well qualified people who do stupid things.

Our schools teach tolerance. Wise people practice acceptance, not tolerance.