THE issue of the ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, or ICERD, caused quite a commotion in Malaysia recently, stirring up Malay-Muslim nationalist and supremacist sentiments, and culminating in an anti-ICERD rally that took place in Kuala Lumpur last Saturday – where the police estimated a turnout of 55,000.
Disappointingly, Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad reiterated that the government will not ratify the treaty because “it does not allow the government to provide affirmative action based on race… and we will not amend our constitution”.
The government’s current stand on ICERD contradicts the position taken by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department P. Waytha Moorthy, who had declared that Pakatan Harapan would sign and ratify the remaining six core human rights international treaties by the first quarter of 2019 – including ICERD. This U-turn seems to suggest that the anti-ICERD protesters are in the right – but are they, really?
ICERD is not complicated, nor is it difficult to agree to – worldwide, only 14 nations have yet to sign the 53-year-old treaty. Malaysia is one of them, alongside Brunei, Myanmar, North Korea, and some small Pacific island countries. ICERD has 25 articles in its provisions, but the core principles and definitions are contained in the first seven articles (Part I).
The preamble of ICERD cites many principles originating from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; for example, “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”, as well as “all human beings are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection of the law against any discrimination”.
ICERD also states that “any doctrine of superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous, and that there is no justification for racial discrimination, in theory or in practice, anywhere”. These are very basic and fundamental principles of humanity.
Given a choice, no one would openly admit that they are “racist”. The common defence these people use are proclaiming that they have friends from other ethnicity, implying that “naturally” they do not discriminate or exclude others. By and large, the most contentious point when it comes to identifying a racist is the definition of “racial discrimination”.
But Article 1 of ICERD has a clearly elaborated definition. The anti-ICERD individuals either did not understand, and consequently misinterpreted, the treaty text, or had failed to read it and subsequently were misled and manipulated by others with a political agenda.
A third possibility is that they may truly believe that differential treatment based on race is fair and should be allowed in perpetuity. Some of them claim that defending the rights of one particular race is not discrimination, and that the special position of the Malay race, as stipulated in the federal constitution (e.g. Article 153), should be retained.
On the other hand, Article 5(vii) of ICERD is often cited by opponents to accuse ICERD of implicating religious equality, when the actual content is not to discuss the position of religion but against racial discrimination in practicing the freedom of religion.
Based on past actions, the opponents of ICERD have provoked fear in the public realm, reiterating exaggerating claims that the Malays’ special position and Bumiputera privileges would be eroded and, eventually, totally repealed, if the government were to sign and ratify ICERD.
In fact, Articles 1(4) and 2(2) of ICERD clearly state that affirmative action and protection for certain racial or ethnic groups shall NOT be deemed as racial discrimination. The caveat is that affirmative policies must have a deadline; in other words, they must be discontinued if the policy has already achieved its intended target.
Many ongoing Bumiputera policies do not even have measurable targets and deadlines; in theory, these would have to be remedied and amended in order to fulfill the principles and spirit of the ICERD. I believe this is fair and just, because if the government wants to have affirmative action, the prerequisite is to prove that a certain racial group is still lagging behind and still needs state assistance.
If the situation of a certain group has improved vastly to the point of achieving equal footing with other races, then it would be hard to see how such policies are not advocating racial discrimination, if the government still insists on and persists with a flawed policy framework that benefits only a particular race.
In fact, affirmative action as practiced in many countries is beneficial to minorities – our government’s response is that we have different national conditions. However, the government probably does not want to admit directly that the Bumiputera privilege policies are temporary affirmative measures.
The New Economic Policy launched in the 70s mentioned a target to achieve 30% Bumiputera equity in the stock market, but up until today, there have been no updates on the status of this target, and whether it has actually been met. The NEP officially ended in 1990, but its basic form and spirit still lives on in many of our current policies. The Pakatan Harapan government seems satisfied to follow the status quo.
I wonder – when the government announced that they were going to ratify the six treaties, were they really prepared to run a strong publicity campaign to convince the public of the good behind why they wanted to do it? Given the general lack of public’s basic awareness of human rights, and the fact that most are still living within environments where racism is rather prevalent, the government should have anticipated fast-spreading opposition to ICERD, and responded effectively to the mistruths spun out in public. In this way, they could have brought the unnecessary vitriol under control.
The federal government has the advantage of huge machineries and resources to run a convincing positive campaign for policies it favours, instead of taking a defensive position. From the start, the government could have been swift to spell out its intended reservations, such as a promise not to make any amendments to the federal constitution (as with the United States and Thailand). Yet, it failed to take these early precautions, and when it finally did, it was too little and too late.
On the issues of social justice and equality, a responsible government with a reform agenda and political will must do the right things as promised, and stand firm on acting in the best interests of the nation, even though it might not appear to be a well-received populist policy.
This must come hand-in-hand with ensuring proper strategic planning. In the face of doubts and challenges, the government’s stand and arguments have to be rationally sound, complete, and persuasive.
The more U-turns a government makes on policies, the more it will lose its credibility, in the eyes of both supporters and opponents.
The Original title is " ICERD U-turn, what is next?"
