Let’s have federalism for the right reasons

Malaysia is a post-colonial state shaped by two main considerations: Cold War and communalism.

This explains both the partitions and brief reunification of Malaya and Singapore, the decolonisation without independence of Sabah and Sarawak, and why our federation is more centralised than many unitary states.

Celebration of our nation’s birth and existence without understanding its real history is superficial. Without an honest understanding of our past, we can never critically make sense of our presence and freely chart a better future.

Successor state of British Southeast Asia, not Malacca

To begin with, Malaysia is not the successor state of the Malacca Sultanate as the officialdom would like us to believe.

The Malacca Sultanate was a maritime power over the Malacca Strait. Even at its height, it never crossed the South China Sea, let alone reached Sulu Sea. Even whether its influence reached the southern shore of the Gulf of Siam to control Kelantan might be questionable.

To claim Malaysia as a successor of Malacca is really in that sense a rather west-coast-Malaya-centric world view.

Malaysia was intended to be the successor state of de facto “British Southeast Asia”, which was the combination of British Malaya and British Borneo, which was built on the ruins of four regional empires: Johor-Riau, Siam, Brunei and Sulu. And it eventually became the union of Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak.

The self-exclusion of Brunei and the eventual expulsion of Singapore were not part of the original design.

(Though geographically in Southeast Asia, Burma was historically part of British India and she gained independence as early as in 1948.)

Cold War and communalism

In designing the international boundary and political system of the post-colonial state(s), two overriding considerations for the British were Cold War and communalism.

Simply put, the British colonialists aimed for a viable state that was Anglophile and pro-West, on one hand, and ethnically inclusive enough to stay stable on the other.

These twin considerations were shared by the pragmatic Malay nationalists represented by Umno but the exact goals and priority were not the same.

The Umno elite aimed for Malay dominance, which was made synonymous with Umno dominance. And insofar that goal was not under threat, they were willing to be ethnically inclusive.

Neither were religious about the political system – whether it would be a unitary state (a highly centralised single country), a confederacy (a loose union of states with a weak central government) or in between a federation (“shared rule” under a national government and “self-rule” under the sub-national governments).

The British introduced a unitary state for Malaya in 1946, replaced it with a federation in 1948 and casually contemplated a confederation engulfing Malaya, Singapore, Brunei, Sarawak and North Borneo in 1955.

Federalism juncture 1: 1946-1957

The Malayan Union imposed on Malaya in 1946 was a highly centralised unitary state but extensive decentralisation was not why it was soon replaced by the Federation of Malaya in 1948.

The Malayan Union was opposed staunchly by the Malays – from sultans, aristocrats, bureaucrats to ordinary people – for two reasons.

First, the Malay states were downgraded from protectorates to part of a new and larger colony.

Second, the non-Malays could easily be enfranchised based on the principle of “jus soli” (citizenship by birth) and this reduced the Malays’ demographic dominance.

The second objection was basically a loud “No” to what I call “the 1946 Question”: “can citizens be different yet equal?” or bluntly, “can the ethnic minorities demand equal citizenship without (linguistic and religious) assimilation?”

While the Malay states represented by the palaces indeed wanted a less centralised polity, the anti-union movement also gave birth to a national institution for the Malays, Umno. 

The aristocrats and bureaucrats in the Umno leadership could see the advantage of a centralised state, both against the communist insurgency and the communal challenges posed by the ethnic minorities.

The final outcome, the 1948 federation, turned out to be less centralised that the party wanted but more centralised than what the palaces desired.

Hence, the most important change brought about by the 1948 federation was really the tightening of enfranchisement regime and the affirming of sovereignty of the Malay States, keeping Malaya closer to an ethnocracy.

In that sense, the choice of “Federation of Malaya” over “Malayan Union” was actually one of “a multiethnic unitary state” over “a (more) monoethnic federation”.

This suggests a mismatch between “goal” and “form” in institutional design – because federalism is meant to accommodate diversity, especially the population’s major fault-lines.

Eventually, Umno’s ethnocratic aspiration was, however, much diluted when the communist insurgency, which broke out in 1948, made clear that the political exclusion of ethnic Chinese would not be tenable.

Encouraged by the British, top Umno leaders from Datuk Onn Jaafar to Tunku Abdul Rahman agreed to inter-communal power-sharing insofar the Malay dominance was not threatened.

The federation at independence in 1957 was, therefore, rather inclusive, but the accommodation of communal differences was done through coalition politics in the Alliance, rather than federal-state mechanism.

Federalism juncture II: 1963-1965

The expansion of Malaya into Malaysia in 1963 and then the expulsion of Singapore from Malaysia in 1965, both of which happened in the federal framework, were also driven by both the communal and Cold War calculations.

To begin with, the first partition of Malaya and Singapore in 1946 was driven by the British’s communal calculation to retain a Malay majority in Malaya so that the Malayan Union might be easier accepted.

But when Singapore looked set to go independent soon after its 1959 election, the Cold War calculation drove both the British and the Singapore ruling elite to push for the island’s reunification with Malaya to avoid it falling into the hand of communists.

The communal fear of Chinese dominance in 1946, however, did not disappear. This led the Umno elite to demand the inclusion of British Borneo as the prize for Malaya to absorb Singapore, much like the sugar coat to a bitter pill.

Tunku saw the Borneo natives as “almost Malays” and thought that they would be Umno’s natural allies.

The communal consideration eventually led to the expulsion of Singapore when its elites tried to challenge Umno.

The ‘taming’ of Sabah and Sarawak

As Sarawak’s first chief minister Tan Sri Stephen Kalong Ningkan and his Sabah counterpart, (Tun Fuad) Donald Stephens – both Christian Bumiputera – turned out to be staunch defenders of state rights, Kuala Lumpur also soon decided that Sabah and Sarawak needed to be tamed through the introduction of communal politics a la Malaya.

Over the years, the multipolar societies with dozens of ethnic communities in the two states were transformed into a three-category scheme: Muslim Bumiputeras, non-Muslim Bumiputeras and Chinese.

Religious affiliation becomes an important factor in public office and social upward mobility in general.

Even chief ministership became a Muslim-only position, by practice, since 1970 in Sarawak and in 2003, in Sabah, after its earlier application from 1965 to 1985.  

The political power of Muslim Bumiputeras is greatly expanded with religious conversion through proselytism, marriage and inducements, over-representation through malapportionment and gerrymandering, and also, for Sabah, mass enfranchisement of Muslim foreigners.

These measures of socio-political engineering successfully transformed the rebellious Borneo states in earlier years into BN’s fixed deposits by 2008.

In exchange for their loyalty to Putrajaya, the ruling elite of Sabah and Sarawak are allowed to plunder their own states.

The price of BN’s successful regime maintenance is, however, the extreme marginalisation of Sabah and Sarawak, both remain among Malaysia’s poorest states despite their rich natural resources.

Should we be surprised if some of our Borneo brothers and sisters now shout “independence” after decades of electoral loyalty to Umno/Barisan Nasional landed them in marginalisation and their grievance always fell on deaf ears?

New reasons for federalism?

Our federalism has gone wrong because it was not meant to accommodate differences, to allow local initiatives and innovation, or to encourage healthy competition between the states.

Driven by the Cold War and communalism considerations, federalism has been moulded all these while to ensure Malaysia’s viability as a state that is controlled domestically by Umno and internationally by the West.

The Cold War ended in 1989. Isn’t it time for us to also put to the rest communalism and make federalism real?

That however requires more than an ousting of Umno – almost a reality in the last general election but now almost impossibility in the next one. It requires an effective answer to the 1946 Question so that the Malay-Muslims no longer fear diversity, pluralism, competition and hence, real federalism. – September 19, 2014.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.