Making our journey as a nation less arduous

 

On a daily basis, the staff members of my radio station want to debate issues that really matter to the country on a rational, analytical and non-partisan basis. We want to bring representatives of both sides of the political divide to the table (or rather our studios) to see where their fault lines lie, and whether there is room for agreement or compromise. We want Malaysians to call in to our talk shows and put forth any question to their elected representatives and their opponents so that we can all benefit from their explanations. But we cannot do these things freely.

Malek Ali, founder of BFM 89.9 in fz.com

FIFTY-FIVE years since Merdeka. Forty-nine years since the formation of the Federation of Malaysia. "At the crossroads" aptly describes our country. And some decisions we make today as citizens will set the tone for our journey as a nation for years to come. Here are some of our choices:

 

Ethnic diversity: Strength or weakness?

 

Do we see our multi-ethnicity as an advantage or disadvantage? History is laden with examples of ethnic strife, so that seems to be the natural order of the human condition. But where ethnic diversity is accepted, enduring civilisations appear to emerge.

 

In our context, shall we use ethnicity to forever argue one's ethnic share of the Malaysian pie and play off one ethnic group against another for expedient political purposes? Or do we take advantage of our multi-ethnicity to become the trade fulcrum between the current and future economic giants of China, India and Indonesia, as we did 600 years ago, and expand our economic and human potential?

 

It boils down to choosing between leaders who see strength in our ethnic and cultural diversity versus those who view it as a zero-sum game.

 

Leadership: Populist or principled?

 

In the context of political leadership, it's easy to be a populist. Goodies for the public are easy to grant. And it is even easier to be a populist in the opposition as promises can be made without needing to be directly accountable for them, at least not for a while.

 

Principled leadership is a much rarer commodity. The principled leader accepts that an unpopular policy might hurt his chances at the polls, but he still goes through with it because it is the right thing to do.

 

I wish there were a leader that said to me: "I will have to reduce petrol subsidies and here's the three-year subsidy reduction plan. I will have to introduce the goods and services tax (GST) because we need to widen our tax base. But in return, I promise you the eradication of wastage and corruption and within five years we will have the first phase of the MRT system completed, start to give great education, provide decent public housing and come close to running a budget surplus.

 

Do we have a deal? I can't see any politician today who is brave enough to tell me what my options truly are.

 

Religion: Public or personal domain?

 

As citizens, we really need to address the elephant in the room by asking ourselves to what extent we want religion to play a part in our public lives. To me, religion is an intensely private matter and I resent the state playing the role of moral guardian and enforcer, especially when hypocrisy abounds. This could be a minority view, but regardless, let's put this discussion on the table.

 

Let's truly debate the issue of the constitutional circumscription of the powers of the state in matters of religion. Let's also discuss the areas where civil law and Islamic law collide and which should take precedence in such an event.

 

Do we want leaders who fudge the role of religion in Malaysia or do we want those who are brave enough to table it for rational debate?

 

Education: Status quo or purposeful strategy?

 

Because faith in our public education system has faltered, it is splintering. Urban high-income groups choose either expensive international schools or home-grown private schools. Parents who want their children well steeped in their non-Malay mother tongue choose public Chinese or Tamil schools.

 

Add to this mix the religious schools as well as those who drop out of the formal education system altogether by choosing home-schooling, and of course, our public national schools. Diversity in education is of itself not a bad thing, but not if schools are divided along religious, cultural, racial and socio-economic lines. Inevitably, cultural and social silos will emerge, making the goal of national cohesion even more difficult to attain.

 

The current approach, as evidenced by the recent National Education Blueprint, seems to say that the current education policy is more or less sound, but just needs to be executed better. I beg to differ.

 

A good education policy needs to have a clear strategic intent. Australia's education policy has it. Just this October, policymakers there unequivocally positioned the Australian education system for the Asian century. One manifestation of the policy is the requirement for every Australian child to learn at least one Asian language.

 

Do we want a leadership that is thinking about how to prepare our children for the Asian century and the globalised world? Or are we content with those who see education as yet another instrument of cultural rivalry?

 

Society: Freedom or fear?

 

I was a very happy Malaysian on the evening of Sept 15, 2011, when the prime minister announced the repeal of the Internal Security Act. But more than a year on, I am less sanguine. There are still many instruments of control that effectively stifle genuine discussion of issues that matter to the country.

 

A direct example: In writing this article, I wanted to raise the issue of the proper constitutional role of the monarchy. But the spectre of the Sedition Act hovers over me and I hesitate to write about it lest I have to entertain police officers from another state at my Bandar Utama office.

 

On a daily basis, the staff members of my radio station want to debate issues that really matter to the country on a rational, analytical and non-partisan basis. We want to bring representatives of both sides of the political divide to the table (or rather our studios) to see where their fault lines lie, and whether there is room for agreement or compromise. We want Malaysians to call in to our talk shows and put forth any question to their elected representatives and their opponents so that we can all benefit from their explanations.

 

But we cannot do these things freely. We are governed by a licensing regime that ultimately gives government-controlled institutions the power to revoke our broadcasting licence. The same applies to our newspaper brethren like The Edge, notwithstanding the recent changes to the Printing Presses and Publications Act.

 

Do we want a society that values and protects our freedom to debate and discuss issues of importance to us? Or one that would rather have us remain quiet and disengage ourselves from the national discourse?

 

At the crossroads, we now are. The path, we must now choose.

 

Malek Ali is the founder of BFM 89.9, the business station. This story first appeared in The Edge weekly edition of Dec 24-31, 2012.