An idea is what you have; an ideology is something that has you. — Morris Berman, American historian
Ideology is defined as a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy. The citizenry, as the basis, must necessarily shape it the way it wants it to grow and develop, and to dictate and direct the ballot box ceteris paribus.
Ideologues must be invited to cooperate with the voting citizens to strengthen and sharpen the national ideology given the latitude and attitude of the outrageous fortunes of law and politics.
Malaysian ideology is sustained by a multiracial, multicultural and multireligious society enshrined into Article 153 Federal Constitution (FC)? Our heterogenous society was sauntering along peacefully until May 13, 1969 when Article 153 and democracy got muddled, muddied, mutilated and maimed.
Professor Jordan B. Peterson revealed in his ‘12 Rules for Life’ that thinking triggers the risk of being offensive. Government does not like thinking citizens for all the obvious and wrong reasons.
So, what then is the socio-economic and geopolitical ideology of Malaysia? Do we have a guidebook or a book of rules of sorts? It certainly not in the FC. Major tripwires can be expected when ideologues calibrate the compass of a nation fueled along ethnocratic and ethnocentric fault lines.
Putrajaya is so wrapped around the Palestinian conflict. Torron-Lee Dewar (Creativity is Everything) enquired ‘why one should strain so hard to please someone else’s society when you could create your own.’ We are far from perfect as a constitutional democracy, yet we dabble in other peoples’ affairs.
Malaysian ideologues in leadership roles and positions must produce a national ideology that transcends rage, race, religion, and region while not diminishing the powers of Malaysian royalty. Does the Rukun Negara deliver?
Article 153 FC mentions ‘special position’, not ‘special rights,’ for certain classes of citizens and subjects. Is that a problem for other classes when a constitutional guarantee ‘for the legitimate interests of other communities’ is granted? When was the last time someone took the government to task over this issue? The Rukun Negara has hardly been mentioned in any documented Malaysian court case.
Can Article 153 FC be a good starting point for a Malaysian ideology with the Rukun Negara emerging as a judicially recognised document although many misguided people think it should not become part of the Preamble to the FC? Some ultracrepidarians think the Preamble should not be cited and quoted as applicable law!
Malaysian ideology is invariably shaped and honed by our self-inflicted brand of law and politics fashioned outside democratic persuasions. Executive-appointed judges seem mortally fearful of developing a corpus of common law reflecting Malaysian values and beliefs. Article 162(6) FC seems to be anathema to our judges!
Law needs politics to become applicable and enforceable. Politics need law to authenticate its forays into experimentation. Admittedly, FOTCAR (Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion) has no teeth in Malaysia. The constitutional dentists stay busy with millions of anxiously waiting patients.
“An Act to provide for and to regulate the converging communications and multimedia industries, and for incidental matters”, claims the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, yet it allows ready access to porn sites. The irony is that women in Malaysia are asked to dress decently. Aren’t government leaders and parents worried about this gross anomaly in our law, practice and politics?
The ballot box remainsthe only remedy, at least so it seems. But what if future ideology reduces the ballot box to another parchment promise contained in the FC? The right to select and elect our leaders is not clearly enumerated and enunciated in the FC despite mention of the toothless Elections Commission.
Sociologists have warned that wherever an ideology claims supremacy, there it breeds terrorism. After all, no ideology has a monopoly over virtue; virtues are born of kind, not ideology. Malaysia has huge hurdles to overcome in tbhis context.
Malaysian ideology, in the realm of global alliances, must voice its opposition that dividing territories by colonial predators, persuasions and policies in the treaty-making processes must be outlawed. Asking schools to show solidarity to Palestine is an exercise in futility.
The British ideology engaged in dividing territories in the 1921 partition of Northern Ireland; in the 1947 partition of India and Palestine. All three land-dividing and apportioning exercises fueled ethnic cleansing. The pages of history point a daring finger at the British penchant for atrocities. Westmonster?
Westminster needed money to oil its war machine during WW1. The British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour coughed up the Balfour Declaration in a letter to Lord Rothschild (Member, House of Lords) — the Jewish family of financiers — promising Jews a homeland in Palestine in exchange for war finances. The rest is genocide.
The Palestinian paranoia is pure political pornography produced and perfected by western ideologues. Israel is privileging ethnic Jews and out-classing Palestinian Arabs. Some ideologies believe in disenfranchising minorities.
Isn’t Putrajaya imitating the Israeli Knesset in discriminatory practices?
Malaysia must participate in changing international perceptions. Malaysia must evidence its ideology as a solution-searching, not a soul-searching, modality in national and international affairs.
Political climate control is the new norm. We have weathered enough unnecessary storms. Protagonists are not antagonists. Let’s endure mature politics for the good of the real stakeholders — the public.
The views expressed here are those of the columnist and do not necessarily represent the views of New Sarawak Tribune.
