(Continuation from preceding post) –
“1 Malaysia” is different. It carries historical baggage. It has become confusing to a lot of people because the word “one” or “1” as in One (1) Malaysia means covering and integrating the whole, not just in terms of the interests of all communities but also integrating and synthesizing, as a whole in “one”, all political philosophies/ideologies beginning from Tunku’s time right through to Dr Mahathir’s time (‘Wawasan 2020’ or ‘Bangsa Malaysia’), passing through Pak Lah’s Islam Hadari to present Najib’s 1 Malaysia).

The PM made clear that “the 1 Malaysia concept was formulated to continue the pragmatic vision of previous Umno and government leaders who wanted to promote national unity” – hence that’s why he called it “Work in Progress”.

This “1 Malaysia” is a clever formulation in certain senses and not very practical in other senses. It is clever in that, firstly, it pays respects to continuity and the political platforms of predecessors – from Tunku to Pak Lah by saying that “1 Malaysia” embodies all these and their continuation as “work in progress”. It is also very deft and clever to indirectly hint and imply that the present PM is most competent to fix the nation’s problem by the corollary to “1 Malaysia” ie “People First Performance Now”.

This suggests that if 1 Malaysia were but a continuation of previous administration’s visions, then obviously previous administrations have, though with the right, and even same vision, not used the right methods and have not got the right results. The present administration is different mah – it has the right methods (ie the various workshops, KPIs for Ministers etc) and the right emphasis (ie People first and Performance now) to get the right results (unity of people, high income economy etc).

It is, however, not that “practical” because if one says that “1 Malaysia” is actually a continuation of pragmatic visions of previous Umno and government leaders who wanted to promote national unity, progress and so on (but perhaps did not quite achieve these because of not so right emphasis or methods of implementation), then “1 Malaysia” becomes immediately entangled with the inherent contradictions of preceding administrations’ policies. There are many contradictions, and I will just name one: how could one embrace/juggle the pursuit of excellence and meritocracy with strong and existing pervasive affirmative assistance to one segment of the population or TDM’s proclamation of Islamc State???

This makes “1 Malaysia” confusing because those esp Non malays who reject the NEP will say that its inclusive message rejects race based NEP’s implementation whilst those who have vested interest in existing race specific implementation of the NEP will equally argue that 1 Malaysia embraces it because it represents no break from policies of preceding UMNO leaders and governments, totally ignoring the contrary nuances!

In contrast PR’s “Ketuanan Rakyat” is different. It is not linked to any previous policies. There is no historical baggage, noting to compare. It sounds at least like a new Canvass to paint the nation’s vision – unlike “1 Malaysia”, a piece-meal patchwork on an existing painted canvass, touted as improving it!

Contrast between Ketuanan Melayu and Ketuanan Rakyat is indisputably easier and straightforward than (say) between Ketuanan Rakyat and 1 Malaysia.

dawsheng in #17 thinks Ketuanan Rakyat (as well as Ketuanan Melayu) contradicts “basics of our constitution monarchy” and is instead “basis of a republican nation”. I think PR ought to think twice about their slogan/// – dawsheng #17. dagan however in #20 thinks Ketuanan Rakyat is reconcilable with constitutional monarchy. He says, “in a true democracy…people would reign supreme; and the government of the day (whether umno or pakatan) would be the servant of the king and the nation (and her people). So wan azizah’s call for ketuanan rakyat is in fact right and proper.”
At the end of the day people are always creative and ingenious. They can always devise a plausible argument for and in support of whatever to suit their own favourite Causes and interests. Hence apologists for Ketuanan Rakyat and even Ketuanan Melayu can argue to reconcile their choice with our existing Constitutional Monarchy.

In case of Ketuanan Melayu : Rulers are by our Federal Constitution head of Islam – the religion being synonymous with cultural identity of Malays- and guardian of Malay Rights and Privileges, so if Islam is official religion, so Malay cultural identity is also the nation’s cultural identity. Since Malay privileges are constitutionally guaranteed and protected by Rulers and the tenure of Malay Privileges is up to Malay Rulers to decide, the sovereignty and paramount position of Rulers make them the fount and symbol of Malay political and cultural dominance, thereby reconciling Ketuanan Melayu with institution of Rulers/Constitutional Monarchy.

Equally in the diametrically opposite case of Ketuanan Rakyat, the apologists for it will argue:
• the People are sovereign;
• their sovereignty is represented by the traditional Rulers the institution of which is subsisting with the people’s consent;
• the Monarch, as head of the symbolic Government, oversees the work of the Government;
• the Government governs the People with their consent via representatives in Parliament.
By this loop of argument, sovereignty of people is reconcilable and consistent with sovereignty of Rulers and system of Constitutional Monarchy.
Colonial Master Britain that bequeathed our Constitution also shares same system of Constitutional Monarchy. No one can say that their political system is not based on sovereignty/supremacy of the people exercised via representatives in the House of Commons. Yet the Monarch/Queen is still sovereign there in calling and dissolving parliament, where all legislations, executive orders appointment of judges are made in the name of the Queen. It is not necessarily just a nominal position of rubber stamping though most time, especially peace time it is. In World War II supreme leader Churchill did regularly consult the then reigning monarch King George IV (not on daily conduct of the war) but certain critical important decisions related to it.