Oleh/By : DATO' SERI DR. MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD
Tempat/Venue : THE BERJAYA LANGKAWI BEACH & RESORT,
LANGKAWI, KEDAH
Tarikh/Date : 28/07/97
Tajuk/Title : THE 1997 LANGKAWI
INTERNATIONAL DIALOGUE
1. Firstly I would like to welcome everyone, and in
particular the many Heads of State and Heads of
Government, the distinguished representatives of
Governments and the leaders of the private sector to the
Third Langkawi International Dialogue (LID). If the
increased attendance and the stature of the participants
are anything to go by, the LID must be considered a
success. More than that the LID has helped to spur
similar dialogues on smart partnerships in other parts of
the world, including of course Southern Africa and the
Caribbeans. I must confess that I had not expected the
LID to catch on so fast and so widely.
2. On behalf of myself and of the Government of
Malaysia, I would like to express my thanks and
appreciation to the Heads of Government and Heads of
States and to the public and private sectors leaders from
many participating countries for their support. We are
happy to be able to welcome you to Langkawi and Malaysia
once again.
3. The LID, I think, has helped many of us to see
certain practices in a new light. The stress in the
dialogue is on smart partnerships. The presumption is, of
course, there are partnerships which may not be so smart
and which have to be smartened up, so to speak. But we
need to know how to smarten up the partnership.
4. Partnerships are a common feature of human society.
We accept partners in every field of activity; in
politics, in business, in games, in social activities, and
of course in life when we marry, set up home and raise
families. Generally partners benefit in ways which
individuals cannot. But the benefits are often not
equally shared, one partner benefiting more than the
other. The idea of smart parnertship is to maximise and
balance the benefits for both and for all, even if the
contribution towards the partnership may not be equal.
5. At the last LID, I spoke of the smart partnership
between the Malaysian Government and the Malaysian private
sector under the concept of Malaysian Inc. I lamented
then that we were missing a third partner, the workers'
union. I am glad to report that the unions have agreed to
come on board. I am sure that the resultant partnership
between the three parties will be even smarter, and will
certainly benefit the nation as well as the partners.
6. But this year I would like to talk about smart
partnership in politics. Smart partnership between the
public, the private and the union sectors is only possible
if each entity is coherent and effective. In a democracy
where governments have to be elected, it is not always
that the Government i.e. the public sector is effective
enough to be a contributing partner. And it won't be
effective if the elected Government itself is not an
example of smart partnership either within the Government
party or if there is a coalition Government as we have in
Malaysia, between the parties in the coalition.
7. A democratic Government is a partnership. Otherwise
it will be an autocratic Government or an anarchy. If the
responsibility for governing is to be democratic, then the
elected representatives, more so the Cabinet, must be a
form of partnership. There will have to be a leader to
set the direction. He can be the first among equals. He
must have sufficient authority. But he must never forget
that he is a partner. Alone he cannot accomplish much but
in partnership, in smart partnership, he will become very
effective and he will be a true leader.
8. We recognise this need for sharing in Malaysia where
sharing, fair and equitable sharing, is even more crucial
because ours is a multi-racial, multi-lingual, multi-
cultural and multi-religious nation. Fair and equitable,
it must be emphasised, is not about absolutely equal
sharing. Absolutely equal sharing is impractical, is
often unjust and negates human potential. Fair and
equitable sharing must relate to the situations, the
contributions and the roles played by the partners. The
idea that merit alone decides apportionment of the
benefits is contrary to fairness and equitibility. Other
factors must be taken into consideration.
9. Malaysia has been ruled by practically the same
political party since independence. This is not because
the people are given no choice. Indeed other parties have
been elected to form Governments in several states and
certainly many opposition members have won seats in
Parliament and have exercised their full rights as
Parliamentarians at every election. But it is the
people's choice, freely exercised, to re-elect the same
party to govern the country. Why should a multiracial
population elect the same party to govern at every
election? The answer lies in the smart partnership
between races and parties within the National Front, the
successor to the Alliance Party which won independence for
Malaysia.
10. There are in Malaysia three major racial groups - the
indigenous people, the Chinese and the Indians. Of the
indigenous peoples, the Malays make up the overwhelming
majority. In fact Malays make up about 54 percent of the
total population. Initially, the percentage was even
higher because under the pre-independent constitution the
majority of non-Malays were not citizens and were not
eligible to vote. But the Malays entered into a pact
with the Chinese and the Indians in order to open up
citizenship of the country. As a result the Malay
majority was reduced to just above 50 percent.
11. Having accepted more Chinese and Indians as citizens,
the Malays as represented by the United Malays National
Organisation (UMNO), formed a political alliance with the
biggest Chinese and Indian parties; the Malaysian Chinese
Association and the Malaysian Indian Congress.
12. Under colonial rule the races were kept separated so
that the rural areas were peopled almost exclusively by
Malays, the urban areas mainly by Chinese and the rubber
plantations by Indians. Thus when constituencies were
delineated, they tended to have predominance of one race
or the other. Because racial prejudices were strong,
candidates must come from the majority race in the
constituency. Thus in Malay majority constituencies the
contest would be exclusively between Malay candidates,
between Chinese candidates in Chinese constituencies.
Since there is no constituency with an Indian majority,
strictly speaking the Indians have no constituency in
which to contest. The result of having the contestants
from the majority ethnic group was to split up their votes
frequently almost equally between the two or more
candidates. In such a situation the votes from the
minority group would often be the deciding votes. And
indeed in many instances it is the ethnic minority which
determines the results.
13. The Alliance Party partnership took advantage of this
by ensuring the support of the minority group. Fielding a
Malay candidate in a Malay majority constituency, the
Alliance ensured Chinese and Indian support by undertaking
to give the UMNO Malay votes to the Chinese or Indian
candidates in the constituencies where the Malays make up
the minority group. It was a quid pro quo arrangement
which worked well. Only in the constituencies where the
minority race is too small to have an impact will the
majority race be able to determine the outcome of the
election. Otherwise the minorities would decide the
result.
14. As has been pointed out there is no constituency in
which the Indians make up more than 50 percent. But the
Alliance fielded Indian candidates in constituencies with
marginal Malay majority where Malay support was actually a
trade-off for Indian support for Malay candidates in Malay
constituencies.
15. Truly the partnership in the Alliance party was a
smart partnership in which the strengths and weaknesses of
the different ethnic groups were put to good use. As a
result, the minority Indians who make up only 10 percent
of Malaysia's population were guaranteed representation in
the state assemblies, the Parliament and the cabinet.
Later when the Alliance Party was enlarged in order to
give places for the smaller ethnic parties, the same
strategy was maintained. The National Front Party,
successor to the Alliance Party, actually has fourteen
parties, largely ethnic parties as member of the
coalition.
16. Here it must be stressed that this is not a post
election coalition put together because no party has
obtained a majority of the seats. The Alliance Party and
the National Front Party are pre-election coalitions,
functioning almost like a single party, with none of the
component parties contesting against each other in any
constituency.
17. To add to the sense of security among the members of
the coalition, the biggest member, the United Malays
National Organisation, actually avoid domination of the
coalition by never fielding enough candidates to form a
Government on its own.
18. Thus, although the majority of the consituencies at
any one time were Malay-dominated, the UMNO contested in
less than 50 percent of the total number of
constituencies. This assured the other component parties
of the National Front that even if the UMNO won all the
seats contested, it would still need the other parties to
form a Government. Today UMNO has expanded to Sabah and
the total number of seats allocated to the enlarged UMNO
is more than half. Still the other partners do not doubt
that UMNO would always work with them in a coalition
Government rather than try to form a 100 percent UMNO
Government when it wins a majority of seats.
19. In the Alliance Party and in the National Front, UMNO
has always been the dominant party. As the biggest party
in the coalition, its leadership has always been accepted.
This leadership role is real and meaningful. The leader of
the UMNO is accepted as the leader of the coalition and is
the sole candidate for the post of Prime Minister. This
is however a trade-off, for the UMNO undertaking never to
rule on its own, and to heed the views and the aspirations
of the other partners and the ethnic groups they
represent.
20. Membership of the National Front by such a large
number of parties is truly smart. A coalition of two
parties where neither is strong enough to form the
Government is unstable. The defection of either will
bring down the Government. The smaller party in fact
wields much more power than is justified by its size. This
is because it knows that its exit from the coalition would
bring down the Government. It is really a case of the
tail wagging the dog. In such a situation the will of the
majority party and its supporters would be frustrated.
21. In the National Front there are today fourteen
parties, with UMNO forming the core. The majority for the
coalition is large, exceeding two-thirds of the seats in
Parliament. Should any of the smaller parties decide to
leave the coalition, the Government would not be toppled.
This deters the minority parties from leaving the
coalition, since doing that would result in them becoming
the opposition.
22. Of course if all the minority parties decide to leave
the coalition together, the Government could fall. But the
problem of chosing a leader for these small parties to
work together would usually be very difficult. Leaving
the coalition may bring about the downfall of the dominant
party unless of course the dominant party decides to form
a coalition with the opposition. Alternatively, all the
minority parties can join the opposition in order to
deprive UMNO of the right to form a Government. But this
will mean accepting the opposition as the leader. Besides
the opposition in Malaysia is made up of several parties,
giving rise to the problem of choosing a leader from among
them. All in all, defection by any or all the minority
parties would result in no gain for the minority parties.
23. Of course if the dominant party decides to leave the
multi-party coalition it will not have sufficient seats to
form the Government. If it teams up with any of the
opposition it is likely to be held to ransom by its
partner on whom it must depend in order to stay in power.
Clearly even for the dominant party, defection from the
coalition is not attractive. It will lose its pre-eminent
position and will become a less effective senior partner
if it forms a new coalition with the opposition party or
parties.
24. Since a pre-election coalition functions more like a
single party than a coalition, why should not the parties
dissolve themselves and form a single party instead? If
they do this, the smaller parties could lose their
influence altogether. This is because in a single party
the voice of the majority would always prevail and the
minorities, divided as they are by ethnicity and other
factors, as are found in Malaysia, would be totally
ignored or become quite irrelevant.
25. In the National Front coalition the high council of
the Front gives equal representation to all parties, big
and small. Decisions are usually by consensus, thus
ensuring that the views of the smaller parties are heard
and taken into consideration. A coalition is therefore
much more democratic for the minorities than a single
party representing all the different interests and
minorities. In a single party it is possible for the
majority to be from one ethnic group and decisions may
represent the views of this majority group alone, ignoring
the interest of the minority groups. This will not be
healthy and will lead to minority groups leaving the
party. It is to ensure that everyone has a say in the
running of the group that a coalition of parties is
preferred over a single multi-ethnic party.
26. Still a coalition will only work if the smaller
parties are willing to consider the interest of the bigger
parties as much as the latter is required to be
considerate of the interest of the smaller parties.
27. Smart partnership is about sharing fairly and
equitably. Not all partnerships are smart. A partnership
of unequals in which decision is entirely based on
majorities is not a smart partnership. In such a
partnership the minority really has no say and may not
gain even a proportionate share of the returns, whatever
they may be.
28. The conflict between nations of today is due to
forced partnership between them which is not smart. The
big powers take almost everything for themselves and deny
the smaller nations a fair share of power, or
responsibility or returns in whatever form. The WTO is a
case in point. Whatever competitive advantage the
developing countries may have is considered as unfair and
illegitimate. Thus low labour costs, natural resources
and stable Governments are all considered as wrong or
improper or unacceptable. But the competitive advantage
of the powerful nations are all considered as legitimate,
fair and proper. It is regarded as fair and proper for
the powerful corporations and banks of the developed
nations to compete with the puny industries and banks of
the poor developing countries. The poor countries must
open up their markets to the rich because the rich are
prepared to open up their markets to the poor. That the
poor countries have no products to sell to the rich, nor
banks nor industries to take advantage of the markets of
the rich is considered as irrelevant. What is important
is that the rich are offering the same things that they
expect the poor to offer. And that of course is
interpreted by the rich and the powerful as being fair.
If the poor cannot avail themselves of the offer, that is
just too bad. It is the gesture that counts, not the
actual result.
29. By no stretch of the imagination can one consider
such a partnership between the rich and the poor as a
smart, mutually profitable partnership.
30. I am sorry to be so crude but when I explained to a
visiting group from a rich country why Malaysia cannot
open its financial market to them now, there was grudging
acknowledgement followed by a request to hurry up.
31. Smart partnerships between nations must take into
consideration the relative strength and weakness of the
partners. It actually pays to give a handicap to the
poorer partner, as for example through the Generalised
System of Preference (GSP), for by so doing you will be
hastening the process of their graduation to non-GSP
status. And of course when they graduate they would have
achieved a certain degree of development which will make
them a good market for the rich.
32. The coalition in the National Front represents a
smart partnership because consideration is given not
simply according to who is stronger or who is bigger. It
is based on fair sharing, so that even the small and the
weak will get something. Strictly speaking the Indians
who make up just about 10 percent of the total population
and dominate none of the constituencies should get no seat
at all. But they have always been allocated
constituencies and membership of the cabinet as well as at
lower level. So do the other small members in the 14 -
party coalition.
33. Smart partnership is for long term results.
Partnerships which are based on immediate sharing of the
spoils cannot be considered as smart. Such partnerships
are likely to result in dissatisfaction once the immediate
benefits wear off as they are bound to wear off.
34. It is part of human nature never to be permanently
satisfied. Gratefulness and a sense of obligation wears
off very fast. That is why the gains and success of trade
unions for example are never lasting. Almost as soon as
negotiation or strikes succeeded, there will be new
demands. Leaders of unions in particular have to
continuously present new demands or else they will lose
the support of their members. If no new demands are being
made, then the whole union will become quite irrelevant.
Certainly the leaders will find no justification for their
leadership. The relation between workers unions and the
employers is certainly not one of a smart partnership. It
is because of this that despite the tremendous success
achieved by trade unions in the West in terms of workers
rights and benefits there has never been any permanent
satisfaction on the part of workers and their unions.
Trade disputes have become a permanent feature in these
societies.
35. In fact despite the successes of the trade unions in
the west, the workforce has never been well-off. The
current high unemployment rate in the developed countries
can be attributed directly to the absence of smart
partnership between workers and employers. Even the
better wages and perks received by the workers as a result
of industrial action have become quite meaningless, simply
because much of the gain is eroded by higher living costs,
taxes and statutory contributions for the workers' own old
age and medical welfare. The higher costs due to higher
labour costs have rendered the products of the developed
countries uncompetitive. They now have to resort to
pressures against the poor countries in order to sustain
the high standards of living for their workers. And as we
have noted, this is not the smart thing for them to do.
36. Politics is an essential element in human society.
Politics really means conferring authority on someone or
some group to maintain law and order for the well-being of
society. Through the ages human society has tried to
develop a political system which would confer the power
without too much risk of abuse. But none of the systems
developed has resulted in a smart partnership between
those in authority and those who have to submit to
authority.
37. During the period of colonial rule there was no smart
partnership. Malaysians as a colonised people simply
accepted whatever was decided by those in authority.
Naively we believed that a democratic system would result
in a smart partnership between the people and those they
put in authority. But democracy does not deliver simply
because the system is capable of delivering. Within the
Government and between the Government and the people, the
sharing can be very unfair and far from being smart.
38. There is really no smart system of politics which is
so smart that it will deliver irrespective of who applies
the system. When I speak of smart partnership in
Malaysian politics I am not trying to imply that that is
the only way politics should be managed. Nor do I think
that our system is perfect and should therefore be used by
everyone. I am simply saying that our way of applying
democracy has resulted in a smart partnership and that in
turn has contributed to Malaysia's stability and whatever
economic growth it has achieved.
39. We in Malaysia are great believers in sharing
information and exchanging ideas. What we have devised
for ourselves is not all due to original thinking. Much
of it is due to observing what others do and adapting the
methods of others to our own needs and situation. For us
learning from others has worked. I do hope that there is
something in what we do here which may be of interest to
the participants at this dialogue. I am also looking
forward to hearing about what you have been doing in the
hope that we can learn from you and your experience.
40. A dialogue is not a soliloquy. It involves exchanges
of views, ideas and experience. The LID is not a talk
shop. It is a process in educating ourselves. We all
have responsibilities and we all want to discharge our
responsibilities well. This dialogue can help us in doing
what is expected of us.
41. I hope we will all follow up on this dialogue with
action and I hope we can help monitor each other's action.
Hopefully we, our countries and our peoples, will make
tangible gains from our sojourn in this resort islands of
many legends.
42. It is with pleasure that I declare open this Langkawi
International Dialogue 1997 and wish you a fruitful
dialogue.
|