Our institutions at 50 (per cent?)

0

SEPTEMBER 16 is the birthday of former Bank Negara Governor the late Tun Ismail Mohd Ali, former Chief Justice Tun Dzaiddin Abdullah, former Chief Secretary to the Government Tun Ahmad Sarji and former Chief Minister of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew. It is also the anniversary of the formation of a country they all served.

Some argue that since Malaysia Day celebrates the merging of all four equal partners that made up our nation, it is more inclusive than National Day, which celebrates the transferral of sovereignty of the Straits Settlements and the return of executive power to the Federated and Unfederated Malay States.

I celebrate both days, and thanks to Edward Soo, I joined the now famous Bangkung Row MalaysiaKU celebrations from 2010, when Ideas gathered family members of the founding fathers for a teatime chat: an event that Special Branch were keen to have the recording of. For the 50th anniversary celebration this year, Wan Saiful will be a panellist on Fifty Years of Democracy.

As we enjoy two federal holidays instead of one, it’s worth remembering that Malaysia Day was supposed to be Aug 31, 1963. However, neighbouring countries wanted the United Nations to check that the people of North Borneo and Sarawak really wanted to be part of the new country. The multi-national UN mission confirmed this, but the delay had been caused (and Indonesia attacked anyway).

Because of the originally intended date, it was deemed sufficient that Aug 31 commemorate both occasions. Unfortunately this was soon forgotten and the focus returned to Merdeka, leading to demands to specifically commemorate the formation of Malaysia. Rather than revive the previous attitude, Sept 16 was made a federal holiday from 2010.

That was a political move that produced equally political responses. In particular, some dissidents now promote the idea that some national institutions are illegitimate and should not be regarded as ‘Malaysian’ because of their ‘non-Malaysian’ and ‘undemocratic’ origins.

First, institutions routinely predate nations. Though Hawaii only became part of the USA in 1959, they still celebrate the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776. But, you may say, Hawaii joined an existing federation: it did not create a new one a la Malaysia. So the Kingdom of Great Britain provides a better example. In 1707, Scotland and England merged to become the new Kingdom of Great Britain, drawing from the institutions of the two original countries. Most importantly, Scottish MPs would from then on sit at in parliament at Westminster.

Malaysia necessarily drew from previously existing institutions, and with democratic approval too. It was agreed that Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore would send MPs to parliament in Kuala Lumpur. The Head of State would be provided by an institution that predated even the Federation of Malaya by centuries: imagine what might have happened every 50 years if the Brooke dynasty was still reigning (incidentally, the ashes of the last titular Rajah Muda will be buried in Kuching later this month). The constitution would be based on the Federation of Malaya’s. And so on.

The Sarawak Rangers established in 1862 became a vital part of the Malaysian army, and many soldiers subsequently awarded the Seri Pahlawan Gagah Perkasa were East Malaysians. And of course the 18- and 20-point agreements were supposed to guarantee autonomy. Unfortunately one-party dominance eroded all that, until the opening of democratic space and new political challenges brought these issues to the fore again.

But even on the peninsula, there are challenges towards our national symbols. I’m not keen on ostentatious flag-waving and pop-patriotic songs [I prefer the original Bendera Malaysia sung by the RTM Choir (www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajg9y8PZ4oo) to Jalur Gemilang], but the legitimacy of our flag is beyond doubt. The original design for the flag of the Federation of Malaya was chosen by open competition, chosen by the legitimate government and approved by the Conference of Rulers. The same design was re-approved by the four constituent parts of Malaysia. Later, the name ‘Jalur Gemilang’ was also chosen through competition.

The increasingly bold challenges to our institutions and symbols are the result of a leadership that talks about unity only in platitudes, instead of responding to long-held frustrations with substance based on history.

It is not sustainable. And so, this Sept 16, as secessionists and left-wingers once again unleash their propaganda on the illegitimacy of Malaysia, we should counter by promoting the essential concepts that inspired our country in the first place: democracy, rule of law, separation of powers, and perhaps most forgotten of all, decentralised federalism.

All the cultures and traditions that we Malaysians possess have pre-Malaysian origins, and thrive only because we choose to understand and practise them. The same can be said of our institutions.

Tunku Abidin Muhriz is president of Ideas.