Making our journey as a nation less arduous

On a daily basis, the staff members of my radio station want to debate issues that really matter to the country on a rational, analytical and non-partisan basis. We want to bring representatives of both sides of the political divide to the table (or rather our studios) to see where their fault lines lie, and whether there is room for agreement or compromise. We want Malaysians to call in to our talk shows and put forth any question to their elected representatives and their opponents so that we can all benefit from their explanations. But we cannot do these things freely.

Malek Ali, founder of BFM 89.9 in fz.com 

 

Do we see our multi-ethnicity as an advantage or disadvantage? History is laden with examples of ethnic strife, so that seems to be the natural order of the human condition. But where ethnic diversity is accepted, enduring civilisations appear to emerge.

 

In our context, shall we use ethnicity to forever argue one’s ethnic share of the Malaysian pie and play off one ethnic group against another for expedient political purposes? Or do we take advantage of our multi-ethnicity to become the trade fulcrum between the current and future economic giants of China, India and Indonesia, as we did 600 years ago, and expand our economic and human potential?

 

It boils down to choosing between leaders who see strength in our ethnic and cultural diversity versus those who view it as a zero-sum game.

 

 

In the context of political leadership, it’s easy to be a populist. Goodies for the public are easy to grant. And it is even easier to be a populist in the opposition as promises can be made without needing to be directly accountable for them, at least not for a while.

 

Principled leadership is a much rarer commodity. The principled leader accepts that an unpopular policy might hurt his chances at the polls, but he still goes through with it because it is the right thing to do.

 

I wish there were a leader that said to me: “I will have to reduce petrol subsidies and here’s the three-year subsidy reduction plan. I will have to introduce the goods and services tax (GST) because we need to widen our tax base. But in return, I promise you the eradication of wastage and corruption and within five years we will have the first phase of the MRT system completed, start to give great education, provide decent public housing and come close to running a budget surplus.

 

Do we have a deal? I can’t see any politician today who is brave enough to tell me what my options truly are.

 

 

As citizens, we really need to address the elephant in the room by asking ourselves to what extent we want religion to play a part in our public lives. To me, religion is an intensely private matter and I resent the state playing the role of moral guardian and enforcer, especially when hypocrisy abounds. This could be a minority view, but regardless, let’s put this discussion on the table.

 

Let’s truly debate the issue of the constitutional circumscription of the powers of the state in matters of religion. Let’s also discuss the areas where civil law and Islamic law collide and which should take precedence in such an event.

 

Do we want leaders who fudge the role of religion in Malaysia or do we want those who are brave enough to table it for rational debate?

 

Read more at: http://fz.com/content/making-our-journey-nation-less-arduous