by Terence A Anthony
For all our bluster about
Sarawakian autonomy, a core identity seems to be missing from the discussion.
For all movements to succeed; there needs to a list of rules that describe what
their image should be. It does not matter that the goal is achievable, what’s
important is whether the goal sounds nice and believable enough.
Let’s take for example the
American dream. Everyone seems to advocate for it. President Obama is a living
breathing example of it. He was the son of a Kenyan immigrant who made it to
the white house. His father left his mother behind. He was discriminated
because of the colour of his skin, doubted of his American-ness because of
where he lived and the nationality of his father and he came from a single
parent household. Those were perfect ingredients for a “rags to riches story”.
He climbed the ladder and managed to get into Harvard Law School where he
managed to become the editor of the Harvard Law Review.
It sounds nice, it sound
enticing. If the American dream was a product, Barrack’s story was a
testimonial given from heaven. However upon scrutiny the story isn’t so nice.
Research has shown that in America, the top 1% owns more than the rest of the
99% combined. This meant that the rich have been hoarding resources, rather
than sharing it with people. They have been through years of Reagan’s
destructive trickle-down economics. American politics has evolved from a
democracy to an oligarchy. Lobbies run rampant, making it harder for people to
vote in policies they want. Look at how pharmaceutical companies manage to lose
up regulations. Look at how a former lobbyist for cable companies can have a
huge say over net neutrality. Those are from the democracy that America promotes
overseas.
Of course, those are gripes from
a liberal perspective. The American dream however is wide enough to allow
people even from the conservative side of the political spectrum to embrace it.
That’s where they can argue that the American dream allows everyone to work for
their own success. They can start a business and climb to the top. An immigrant
from Ukraine can come over the United States and then start a multi-million
dollar start-up like whatsapp. The American dream from a conservative perspective
means the ability to embrace freedom however they want, away from the decisions
of others. It is a far away from the tyranny of government, just like how the
founding fathers who fought for their freedom against the British. It is about
honouring freedom because somebody in our past fought for it, that’s why I
should fight for it when the time comes.
So no matter where you lie in the
political spectrum, you have a say on what the future of America is. That’s
because they all share the same identity, the American dream.
So What about Sarawakian Identity?
Sarawak needs something similar.
It needs an idea wide enough to justify why they deserve to be treated
differently. They need an identity that is radically different from West
Malaysia to justify why do we need a greater degree of control.
That identity should also make
Sarawakians feel special, despite the difference of opinion of Sarawakians. It
is an identity that isn’t necessarily conservative or liberal. So where do we
start? Here’s my opinion but please, take it with a grain of salt. This is more
of a hypothetical exercise over an imposition on what people should strive for.
Since Sarawakians have been
fighting for autonomy, then the Sarawakian identity or the Sarawakian dream is
to have a degree of control over the political machineries above us. This means
Sarawakians should strive for political participation and everyone having a say
in their environment and government.
Let’s take for example our
Ministry for Local Authorities. Isn’t it weird that Sarawakians who argue for
greater control over our resources and control over education, immigration of
the like, has such a portfolio in our cabinet? While I’m pretty sure there’s a
case for why it is a good idea to have centralized control, but the idea sounds
a tad bit contradictory. We want to have some semblance of control, yet on the
most basic level of governance, we barely have any say. Sure, our control is
greater than some states in West Malaysia because we can elect someone to the
state legislative assembly and then that person can be appointed to the
cabinet. However, we still don’t have elections for mayors. The mayors are
still appointed by the ruling government. Just like how many are happy with the
state government but not happy with the federal government, there will be
people that are happy with the state government but are not happy with the
municipal government.
The solution to this can be two
fold. First, install back election for mayors and probably district attorneys.
Most countries have them anyway. This reminded me this huge irony that happened
recently. Many Muslims in Malaysia were happy that Sadiq Khan managed to be
voted in as the mayor of London, taking over from BREXIT advocate, Boris
Johnson. It was a watershed moment for Muslims over the world to see one of
them able to fight against xenophobic rhetoric. A man that shares the same
religion as them managed to lead one of the biggest financial hubs in the
world. Even I was happy for him. It also showed that if I were to migrate
there, I might have a chance, or my children may have the chance to hold
important positions in government there.
The irony is that in Malaysia, we
can’t even elect mayors. We are happy for mayors there but we can’t make any
reasonable impact here. Forget about public housing, we have no idea if we can
have a say on how many lanes will be opened up on the roads from Samarahan to
Kuching. We don’t have control over that.
So Sarawakians should advocate
back for the third vote, instead of just having a bicameral government.
The other is to encourage
participation. Make it a central part of the Sarawakian identity. In fact,
there should be a process where any citizen can walk into their city council
and lay out a proposal to the mayor’s office. If a mayor wishes to move a
certain huge market across the Sarawak River and far away from most of their
customers, they should be able to present their case to the mayor.
Now, I can’t promise a solution
on how exactly you get some semblance control over the municipal government.
One way could be to have petitions and have people vote in petitions. In order
to make it effective, we need to have a rotation over when people should serve
time voting on referendums or ballot proposals. Have something like jury duty
in the United States, where X number of people is called in and they must vote
on a certain number of referendums in those periods. Citizens who are not on
the list at that time period are allowed to vote.
Regardless, the underlying theme
here is control and participation. If fits the Sarawakian narrative over these
past few years. Again, take this with a grain of salt. Sure, there are edges
everywhere but this could be the first step in finding a common identity; an
identity that isn’t part of a race, ethnicity, region or even religion. It is
some form of civic nationalism.
No comments:
Post a Comment