— Ronald Benjamin
The Malaysian Insider
Aug 20, 2011

AUG 20 — Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s speech that the Malay community has been split into three groups and that this could create a scenario for foreign intervention is another type of opinion that does not understand the nature of politics and what makes a nation vulnerable to foreign intervention.

This type of view has been used by authoritarian leaders around the world on the pretext of safeguarding national sovereignty but who contradict themselves by building political barriers for their own people with laws and economic systems that infringe on human dignity.

This in turn gives opportunities to foreign powers to manipulate shortcomings in these nations with larger agendas in mind.

The question is how could a nation call itself sovereign when it denies its own people the right to express themselves?

Don’t the privatisation policies embraced by Dr Mahathir for the benefit of the connected few at the expense of the majority go against the very grain of national sovereignty?

Where does the so-called ideology of neo-liberalism come from? Is it not the powers that Dr Mahathir is trying to protect the nation from?

Does not the Malaysian Gini co-efficient of 0.45 show equity issues from the time of Dr Mahathir? Is it not true that the common good of the majority is a better reflection of what constitutes national sovereignty? How could so-called ethnic unity be really achieved with such glaring discrepancy?

Do we find other developing nations using ethno-religious ideology as the means to achieving and clinging on to power? Why are many Islamic nations are not progressing? Is it due to authoritarian, rigid religious ideology that has impeded creativity and freedom?

Therefore it is vital to understand that substance related to national sovereignty is something beyond opposing policies of the West politically, but to look critically on the ideological make-up of our own nation and the equality aspect that defines the political economic and social scenario.

When we look at countries in the developed and developing world, we see homogeneous societies divided by opinions and class but we do not find foreign powers interfering with them because these societies have strong democratic systems that absorb and neutralise grievances.

Developing nations like Venezuela have shown how citizen participation in grassroots movement have neutralised imperialistic designs of foreign powers. Bringing in the foreign bogeyman would not solve the problems associated with unity.

Being honest and coming up with innovative ideas on the political, economic and social fronts that involve the participation of the common men and women in the country would be a better option. This is would enhance national sovereignty in the long run.