Minority Malaysians Reject Ethno-Centric Majoritarian Politics
Vibhanshu Shekhar
In an unprecedented political upheaval, the coalition front of Barisan Nasional (BN),
which had been governing Malaysia since 1969, saw the biggest ever reduction in its
political representation in the parliamentary and provincial elections, held on 8 March
2008. The BN lost control over five provinces and could secure only a simple
majority by winning 139 out of 222 parliamentary seats. All three important ethnic
components of the BN – United Malay National Organisation (UMNO), Malaysian
Chinese Association (MCA) and Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) – saw many of
their top leaders being defeated. Large numbers of Malays and a majority of ethnic
Chinese and Indians voted for opposition groups comprising the ethnic Chinesedominated Democratic Action Party (DAP), the Islamic party of Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS) and the Anwar Ibrahim-led Parti Keadilaan Rakyat (PKR). The
PKR+DAP+PAS alliance gained 81 parliamentary seats, increasing their share from
20 seats in the 2004 elections.
What do these facts and figures portend for the nature and direction of Malaysian
bodypolitik? Do the election results signify any important shifts in the Islamic
discourse in the country? Do they reflect any change in the nature of majorityminority politics within the country either in terms of assertion and consolidation of
minority identities or in terms of rejection of the existing leaderships of the minority
communities? Does the election reflect overall rejection of the policies and politics of
the BN/United Malays Nasional Organisation by the Malaysians? These questions
need to be addressed in earnest.
First, the 2008 election signifies a growing shift in the political discourse, away from
the issues of political Islam towards civic electoral politics, reflecting on issues of
governance, corruption, and cronyism. The BN coalition, had captured roughly 90 per
cent of parliamentary seats in 2004 on the plank of development, no corruption, no
crime, whereas, the PAS, which stressed on greater application of Islamic laws was
completely routed. It is amply evident from the results of the three elections of 1999,
2004 and 2008 that the party, which raised the issues of corruption, cronyism and
crime, succeeded in securing large number of seats and whichever party raised issues
of Islam saw rejection by the common voters. The failure of the BN in ensuring clean
governance and its pursuit of Islamic politics during the last four years led to its loss
of a large number of seats, whereas the PAS’ emphasis on developmental issues paid
off handsomely for the party.
Second, the election results reflect consolidation of minority voices against the
UMNO-led coalition, in general and against the majoritarian politics of the UMNO, in
particular. Both ethnic Chinese and Indians not only did not vote for their
representative parties – MCA and MIC – but also voted for the PKR, which is being
seen as the only viable alternative against the ethno-centric, majority-centric and
UMNO-centric BN framework. The number of seats won by the MCA came down
from 31 in 2004 to 15 in 2008 and the number of seats won by the MIC fell from 9 in
2004 to 3 in 2008. In fact, ethnic Chinese and Indians preferred to vote for the DAP
and PKR. Similarly, the share of UMNO in the parliamentary seats came down from
109 in 2004 to 79 in 2008. By contrast, the DAP and PKR were able to win 28 and 31
seats respectively, which highlights huge gains compared to their dismal performance
in 2004 (DAP – 12, PKR – 1), when the BN had actually emerged as the champion of
good governance and development.
Third, Malaysian Indians have summarily rejected its elite-centric and inefficient
platform – MIC. The President of the MIC, Samy Velu lost the seat to his ethnic
Indian opponent, R Jayakumar, who was contesting for the PKR. Even in terms of
overall results, the MIC performed miserably as Indians rallied around non-Indian
representative parties, such as DAP and PKR.
The rejection of the MIC poses an important question before ethnic Indians. In what
direction will the politics of minority Indians move, given their dismal representation
within the BN, and the lack of any political front and leadership after the defeat of
Velu? How much bargaining power will the community have in the national politics
in the absence of any political front, dedicated to their cause? Are ethnic Indians
prepared and willing to participate in the Malaysian political process as individual
citizens?
The answer for the time being is, yes. Development, governance and equality are the
most important political issues for Indians than their Indianness. At the same time,
there is an attempt by ethnic Indian leaders, such as, D Jayakumar (PKR), P
Ramasamy (DAP), and M Manoharan (DAP) to develop a consolidated minority
platform either through the DAP or the PKR, which could represent their concerns. In
an attempt to represent minority voices, both the DAP and PKR have decided to have
two deputy Chief Ministers (one each from ethnic Chinese and Indian community) in
the provincial governments, such as in Penang. On the other hand, it remains to be
seen, how much representation the MIC, already rejected by the Indian community,
will have in the coalition BN government.
© Copyright 2008, Research paper by IPCS-SAEA Group.