Malaysia is like a secret, it’s whatever they say it is

Should anyone be surprised that Putrajaya has invoked the Official Secrets Act to block the disclosure of the Bukit Antarabangsa landslide report?

It seems that Ronnie Liu, Selangor state executive councillor is. “It is a mystery why this information is so secret,” he said.

Well, you know, it's not like the controversial Official Secrets Act hasn't been around long enough for politicians and legislators not to know about it. It's about, well, 37 years old.

After all, it was Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim's own political secretary Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad who told me how ridiculous the Act was: "It is so broad because everything is classified until it is deemed to not be a secret. This means that even the tissue paper from a government meeting can be considered classified until someone says it isn't."

I suppose the whole matter has to go to court or be resolved diplomatically before we can know if the MB really has the power to declassify a document from a federal agency. And even if he can't, the debate over what is a "national security" concern will surely be reignited by this debacle.

I'm not a legal expert but neither of these points really excuse the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) state government from committing this gaffe. Given their own claims of non-cooperation by the Barisan Nasional (BN) federal administration in terms of disbursement of funds and talks over the state's water assets, they should have known in advance that BN would use any leeway to scupper PR's plans.

But above and beyond that, any politician worth his election deposit should know that a contestation of what is "national security" or "secret" is about naming, and naming is about nothing other than power. The ones who have the power to name such matters in our country, is undoubtedly the head honchos of Umno.

The historicity of this idea is a long one. In classical European thought, essentialism is the preferred method of the natural sciences as it works upon the premise that things have inherent features which make them what they are and are independent of external circumstances. A duck is a duck whether it is on land or water or in the air because it has the characteristics of a duck — be it feathers, wings, webbed feet or at the DNA level.

But nominalism (nomen is the Latin for "name") argues that the world is variably and changing. What we call a duck depends upon the culture of the naming. Names are a convenient tool so others know what we are talking about. But who does the naming? As mentioned earlier, those in power — and this can be political or even social power.

The elite and/or bourgeois have often been able to decide what is "cultured" and "civilised" versus what is "barbaric" and well, "unacceptable." But for power to be exercised, the powerful must argue that there is some essence which transcends historical and cultural contexts, e.g., listening to classical music is good not because it is within the domain of the powerful, but because it is "better" than folk music.

Essentialism and nominalism are often linked to political styles. Authoritarianism is seen by liberal critics as resting upon propagating "essential truths" which are inescapable. Nominalism, however, tends to be associated with more liberal accounts. But then again, the "leaders of the free world" gave us the "truth" of terms like "terrorist," "collateral damage" and, most recently, "change."

In philosophy, it has been long accepted that one defines himself based on his difference to the "Other." In the the United States, the terrorist is always the Other. The Other is collateral damage while we are victims of terrorism. And change, other than the skin colour of the president, has really yet to materialise into something definably different from what past presidents have done — meaning to say, every president of the US has "changed" something or other in terms of policymaking. Barack Obama would have to change much more to justify his presidential campaign.

Similarly, national identity is based on the Other. We are Malaysian because we are not Indonesian, Thai, Singaporean or Filipino, although in many of these cases, the differences may be purely a matter of what passports we hold. Many observers and Malaysians/Singaporeans are cognizant of the fact that people living along the Straits of Malacca have far more in common than with those in Borneo — even if state policies of both countries have reduced the disconnect somewhat over the past 50 years.

Yet the way the two states have been carved out means that Malaysians and Singaporeans see each other "threats" to their own national projects. They are each other's bogeymen and constantly, the so-called "Malayans" on both sides of the Causeway are defining themselves against the other — although it is probably the case that Sabahans and Sarawakians have never been at all fussed about what Malayans have been agonising about.

This brings us to the latest incarnation of the Malaysian project. 1 Malaysia, so generously bestowed upon us by Datuk Seri Najib Razak, is yet another form of naming. We are Malaysia and we are united.

But what does "united" really mean here? Ideas of multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism may be concocted by the propagandists but the threat of homogenisation and naturalisation — such an elegantly conceived term, as if your differences make you artificial — remain as clear and present as they were in 1957.

Whatever becomes of 1 Malaysia, Najib has certainly rejuvenated the discourse of what it means to be Malaysian. The most visible incarnation has been all-round entertainer Pete Teo's 15Malaysia film project.

It immediately invokes the idea that in fact, Malaysia is not just multicultural but also multifocal and its 27 million citizens have a kaleidoscopic view of the country. It simultaneously complements and challenges Najib's vision of Malaysia in its display of the social fabric at work.

It was not the first and will definitely not be the last time 1 Malaysia created debate but what is interesting about Teo's project is that it was another "naming." And the invocation of all its meanings and subtexts were also an expression of power, in this case, a cultural one, facilitated and enhanced by mass media.

And, of course, there are PR's constant challenges to BN to live up to its slogan. In this attempt to co-opt power by turning 1 Malaysia back on its creator in an effort to then wrest it, there is a clear sense that having the power to name does not mean that it can be used willy nilly.

Mistakes can happen. Just as they happened when Khalid forgot about the art of keeping a secret.


comments

As far as I am concern, until all Malaysian are ranked according to their score for Uni. entrance, GLCs and civil service jobs are open to all Malaysian without preference for particular race, gov. scholarship based on merits for all Malaysian, open tender for all gov. projects for all Malaysian companies regardless of bumi or non-bumi, abolishion of discount for purchase of property for particular race, abolishion of gov. managed unit trust funds for particular race, abolishion of race quota for IPO shares, abolishion of race quota for employees of PLCs and abolishion of license for petty traders of particular race to build and operate stores i.e. eateries on gov. land, there is no 1Malaysia. What we have now is only apartheid. So stop wasting taxpayers' money on TV ads. You're not going to fool anyone.

PR should forward the motion to abolish ISA, OSA, Publishing Act, at every parliment meeting, everytime, until it is abolished !! and all PR state should pass the motion of support abolishing this act which only serve to protect the cronies, the corrupters, and UMNO putras !!