How racial politics ruined the Rukun Negara’s noble aims

 

Let us return to 1970, when the Rukun Negara was proclaimed. In the period after May 13, 1969, the National Consultative Council formed a drafting committee. It consisted of about 70 members.

They represented a very diverse group of scholars, religious leaders and politicians. Among them were the late Ungku Abdul Aziz, Khoo Kay Kim and Syed Hussein Alatas, as well as James Ongkili, Muhammad Ghazali Shafie and Bishop Gregory Yong.

Incidentally, it was Syed Hussein who had suggested setting up the council. At the time, he was chairman of the opposition party Gerakan.

Given the composition of the drafting committee, we can deduce the deep commitment of the different Malaysian communities that were represented. The 70-odd members were devoted to healing a wounded nation and rebuilding a more cohesive and united Malaysia.

The initial idea behind the Rukun Negara was to highlight the shared principles and aspirations of the different communities in Malaysia. The original drafters never once mentioned race (kaum) or religion (agama).

Yet, the goal was for it to be a relevant document, acceptable across the political, economic, ethnic and religious divides. The wordings of the Rukun Negara clearly deliver a sense of belonging, social cohesion and justice. It was meant to address all Malaysians, because the goal was to unite the population.

At this juncture, it is worth taking note of the deliberations that led up to its final version. Syed Hussein’s handwritten notes are key to understanding the mood of the nation at the time. The intellectual debates that ensued during this period of drafting were part of the labour of love to which these 70-odd Malaysians were committed.

Three key principles

Syed Hussein’s notes reveal the following three phrases which were discussed:
“Not to question the loyalty of any citizen”
“Destructive elements are to be found in all communities”, and
“To have a high standard of public and individual morality”.

The first phrase implies that the different ethnic communities of Malaysian citizens must be accepted as loyal citizens and treated with dignity. The loyalty of citizens should never be doubted. In other words, it is un-Malaysian to declare a fellow citizen as “pendatang” on the grounds of his or her ethnicity.

The second phrase suggests that ethnic tensions in Malaysia are not caused by any one particular race or religious community. Social problems arise out of a combination of factors, and the blame cannot solely rest on any single agent.

Syed Hussein wanted to remove the element of bias in discourses of race, religion and ethnicity. Herein lies the concept of fairness and a deep understanding of human compassion that the Rukun Negara is supposed to embody.

The third phrase resonates till today among many concerned citizens. Syed Hussein hoped the Rukun Negara would be a daily reminder to all Malaysians that a united and progressive nation must consistently reject corruption, abuse of power, patronage and cronyism.

It is unfortunate that a reading of the Rukun Negara today does not conjure up these three important ideas for national unity. Instead, we focus on five generic principles that could apply to any country.

A year later, in 1971, Syed Hussein warned that “if the Rukun Negara is not comprehensively and forcefully explained to the public in an intelligent and rational manner, its influence will not be as great as hoped for” and it would end up being a “dead document”.

Attacks on the liberal and progressive

We are now in the year 2021. Last month, Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin launched the National Unity Action Plan 2021-2030. It seems Syed Hussein’s 1971 warning exposes a depressing reality.

We are still searching for a national identity. While I welcome Perikatan Nasional’s systematic attempt at national unity, the Rukun Negara today remains a conceptual and philosophical shadow of what it was.

Also, I remain somewhat pessimistic. Whatever unity blueprints that may be launched run the risk of remaining rhetorical documents. As long as race-based politics is used to condition voter behaviour, I will remain a cynic.

For example, the words liberal and progressive are clearly mentioned in the Rukun Negara, yet vicious and unkind attacks by certain political parties are hurled against citizens’ groups and reformists who use these terms.

Against fanatics and corruption

The tragedy for Malaysia today is this. After May 1969, the NCC committee members were genuinely committed to rebuilding our social cohesion. Then prime minister Tun Abdul Razak and later Tun Hussein Onn were not perfect but they were recognised for their strength of character and moral integrity. They stood up against ethnocentric nationalists and religious fanatics. Tun Hussein was also a stickler for the rule of law in Malaysia but he was not prime minister for long.

Since the 1980s, our nation has seen a steady regression in the exercise of the rule of law. There has been a debilitating rise in corruption, cronyism and religious extremism. It seems the government has (knowingly or unknowingly) sidelined the ideals of the Rukun Negara. It is sad that the document has been reduced to five sentences of general platitudes.

In conclusion, let me suggest this. It may be time for us as a nation to pay serious attention to the differences between national principles, national ideology and national philosophy.

If we revisit the era of the genesis of the Rukun Negara, Malaysians may begin to comprehend that the concepts of harmony, cohesion, a sense of belonging and patriotism need to be grounded in philosophy, and not just ideas and principles. - FMT

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.