The millennium question: What changes, Malaysia?
By Mohamed Aslam Haneef

When you arrive in the USA, the first thing that strikes you is the vastness of the country. That and also the fact that the average American's knowledge of events and people not only stop at the borders of the country, but are even very narrowly concentrated to American sports and entertainment. One look at their newspapers tells you all. You understand what Galbraith meant when he talked about the 'Affluent Society' and why consumption is such an important aspect of Economics.

Thus Malaysia is an insignificant entity in the US. Unlike in the UK, where at least one would not think that Malaysia was a small town. Two sources of information on Malaysia in the Washington DC have been available to me since the start of Ramadan. The first has been the Internet and the second, meetings with various American based scholars who have 'opinions' on the events in Malaysia.

Through the Internet, I had the opportunity to read Tan Sri Harun Hashim's benchmark column on Thursday, December 16. The article implies that Malaysia has over the years developed the characteristics of a neo-feudal society. In the political arena, there is too much concentration of power in the hands of one office, which not only decides on who becomes MB and Chief Minister, but also who are MP candidates and even the date of the election. To this we could add a whole list of items, which to many, would be termed 'authoritarian' if not a 'dictatorship'.

On the international front, Malaysia has been very critical about the authoritarian concentration of power in the hand of a few rich countries. As some observers in Washington DC confirm, Malaysia was seen as a 'champion of the South'. Malaysians should be proud of that. But are our own leaders also practicing double standards? Are we preaching what we ourselves do not practice? If this is not given due attention, I worry that Malaysia will deserve to be called feudal, albeit a more sophisticated one, where citizens are actually made to think that they have a say.

An American academic, who had spent 2 years in Malaysia recently, told me bluntly that his impression of contemporary Malaysia was that it was a feudal society, dominated by politicians. He was amazed that academic institutions, business entities and people as a whole seemed to almost worship politicians. News on TV was just a round up of the 'daily activities of politicians'. Despite all the junk that comes on American TV, the news items are relatively wide in scope. In the UK, reports on the TV are even less 'politician dominated'. In fact, for the months of October and November, the only news headline which focussed on the UK Prime Minister Tony Blair (which was extensively covered), was the news that his wife was expecting their fourth child!

Malaysians in the past have been very reluctant to criticize politicians. This is usually due to fear and complacency. Maybe Malaysians and Malaysia have been suffering from 'stability syndrome'. The issue is whether Malaysians will continue to feel afraid to voice their opinions in public and through proper channels. We still have a long way to go in this respect. As the 'first former Deputy Prime Minister' (fDPM1) under Mahathir, Musa Hitam said in Time magazine a few weeks ago, 'A high standard of living has been provided admirably by the government. But quality of life-like being able to say what you think is still way off'.

While voting is a means of saying what you think, to change from an overly 'top-down' system to a more balanced 'bottom-up' one requires Malaysian citizens to come out of their 'shells'. The post Merdeka generation, while learning from past mistakes, should no longer be haunted by the nightmares of the past, especially those that are perpetuated by politicians to keep themselves in power. While debates will still go on as to the conduct and implications of the elections, I think that Malaysian citizens especially the youth must develop an even more critical and analytical mind as well as insist to be more involved in discussions, debates and policy making.

Calls for change are already being made by quarters within the establishment. In this, the Malays are the targets. Already, we have seen two broad views being expressed within UMNO. One view accepts the reality that while the BN may have retained its two-thirds majority in Parliament, UMNO has lost badly. These quarters have been calling for 'reformation' or 'restructuring', while a slightly moderate version of this school calls for 'rejuvenation' or the need to 'reinvent' itself. One political commentator was recently quoted as saying that that there seems to be an 'UMNO-Malay gap', created ironically by economic affluence which has been perceived to be overly concentrated in the hands of a few privileged Malays. This view also asks UMNO leaders to acknowledge 'the mental development of the Malays', rather than accusing them of treason just because UMNO has lost. In other words, this view within the establishment is asking for greater decentralization, more debates and a willingness to admit one's mistakes and shortcomings.

However, we also have the second view resisting changes or at least the changes that are being called for by the first group. Instead of also looking inwards to shortcomings within, this group continues to blame foreign powers, the foreign press (but interestingly, not foreign business interests), the ungrateful Malays, the gullible Malay youth, the 'westernized educated liberals and professionals' (apparently led by fDPM3) and Islamic extremists. In short, everybody but themselves. Some articles that appeared in the NST also support this view saying that all is well and that there is no need for change. As stated by fDPM2, Ghafar Baba, there is no need for UMNO to change as the problem lies with the 'confused Malays'.

Looking at the events of the last 15 months, it does not seem possible to wish away, or even to suppress calls for change. Even the present DPM4 admitted that UMNO would have to 'listen' to what people are saying. Others have said that UMNO needs to get to the hearts of the youth, hopefully indicating a sincere willingness to listen. When the DPM4 (and future PM?) and many of the 'young' cabinet members are having views like this, this indicates that substantial changes have already taken place, although they may be 'invisible' to the common eye.