Chandra Muzaffar's book, 'Global Ethic or Global Hegemony: Reflection on Religion, Human Dignity and Civilisational Interaction (London: Asian Academic Press, 2005), presents an excellent analysis of the root causes of problems in the current world disorder.
Muzaffar's premise for the whole book is quite simple – The Parliament of World Religions (yes, there is such a thing) adopted a declaration of a Global Ethic on Sept 4, 1993 at Grand Park, Chicago, Illinois.
Another book on the issue makes the following vague definition: "By global ethic we do not mean a global ideology or a single unified religion beyond all existing religions, and certainly not the domination of one religion over all others.
"By a global ethic we mean a fundamental consensus on binding values, irrevocable standards, and personal attitudes."
To clarify, what global ethic really means in this discussion is the moral behaviour by which all nations would obey the golden rule: "Do unto others as you'd want others do unto you," or "Don't do unto others what you don't want others to do unto you." The rule that does not apply here is – "those who have the gold makes the rule").
Islam-centric Muzaffar has long argued in previous books and papers that the root problem of the world today is the uncontrolled hunger for world dominance by the West (led by the world's last superpower, the United States of America) which imposes its will on the rest of the world by using its military, economic and technological powers to full advantage.
Muzaffar writes: "…we regard (America's) imperial ambition as a major cause of war and violence in today's world. Its massive military expenditure – US$ 400 billion a year – is a manifestation of its imperial power. So are the American military bases in no less than 60 countries" (pp 16).
This is what Muzaffar means by global hegemony, or global control.
"Hegemony – the very human desire to control and dominate – is indisputably one of the root causes for our failure to move forward a global ethic…. It is hegemony in the global politics which more than anything else subverts the emergence of a just, humane world…. Dominant power exercised by a few will always remain a major hurdle in the way of a global ethic committed to treating every human being with dignity" (pp 22).
Hungry for hegemony
But my purpose here is not to present an argument against Muzaffar; his analysis and rationale for global ethic are solid.
But with his proposed solution, which is for the world's nations to abide by the golden rule, he is standing on shaky ground because he is pursuing a solution to world problems with moral and religious idealism, something which is decidedly impossible to achieve, given the global political realities.
What I find really puzzling is that Muzaffar has failed to use the same model of ethic and hegemony as a basis for analysing our problems in Malaysia.
But his idea on the issue of ethic and hegemony immediately directed my attention to what is happening in the country, and I realised that a smaller version of the problem exists in Malaysia.
We can see that most of the problems in Malaysia are caused by the violation of the golden rule and by the hunger for national hegemony by Malays!
By blaming the United States for the world's (and Islam's) problems and ignoring that the Malays must be blamed for problems in Malaysia, Muzaffar must admit to being an intellectual hypocrite.
If we look at our biggest problems in the areas of politics, race, religion, economics, commerce and industry, education, and national integration, we would realise that these are very much linked to the battle for national hegemony and the lack of national ethic.
We are a people deeply divided politically due to the culture of cronyism and patronage politics, with top leaders seeking hegemony or power to control and dominate, and this unavoidably involves race and religions because these two highly emotive elements have their way of provoking people into supporting or opposing certain struggles.
Game of deception
Politics, besides being a game of numbers (the one with the highest votes gets power), it is also a game of deception, lies, half truths, threats, fear mongering, false hopes, and grand promises.
Aristotle said, "politics is a game of who gets what and how" in which the ends justify the means.
This violation of moral and ethics alone causes social disorder, which spills over into governance and economics in the forms of interracial suspicion and discrimination as well as inter-religious loathing.
Policies which promote discrimination were enacted to give the Malays higher privileges in business and education, causing resentment in other groups.
Certain Malaysians have to compete in business and seek education on an uneven playing field, dashing their hope for true national integration for a so-called Bangsa Malaysia.
The fight for national hegemony has showed up a prevailing breach in ethics.
Good manners, solemn ceremonies and fine languages are used, of course, giving a strong veneer of civility and elegance for public display, but the daggers are always in easy reach under the cloak.
As a result we have problems between sexes, political parties, races, religions, classes of society and sub-ethnic groups. All because of greed for superiority and control.
Malays-Chinese tango
The Malays fight to keep the national hegemony they believe was theirs in the first place, while the Chinese play out their natural skills at gaining national economic hegemony.
Both groups have long entered into a refined choreography of political and diplomatic game for mutual benefit with one group having the power to approve or reject, and the other the power to turn even rubbish into cash.
While the two elephants dance their half-a-century silat and kungfu, deftly scratching each other's backs, the other groups – the natives of Sabah and Sarawak – have tried to fit into the power plays and convince themselves and others of their politico-economic relevance.
Meanwhile the true natives of Malaya, the Negritos Orang Asli community have been living beyond the fringes of national life as the totally irrelevant and powerless national irritants or dependents.
Muzaffar writes that the US conquered Iraq under the guise of eradicating a dictator who had developed and hoarded weapons of mass destruction (WMD) but the real and ultimate motive was for the control of the country's oil, the second largest reserve in the world.
"Needless to say, control over the vital resources of the nation that one has conquered has always been the agenda of empires in history. The American Empire is no exception" (pp 16).
At our national scale of politics, the same thing is happening. Although Sabah is definitely not a territory conquered through an act of war, we are certainly subjugated, politically and economically, with our resources being taken away by those holding the national hegemony.
New breed of Malays
But today, Umno, which has for more than half a century held the political hegemony on behalf of the Malays, is in serious danger of losing it. This is happening because of the emergence of a new breed of young Malay bloods who have different ideas of what Malay politics should be. And they are in the game, prepared for self-sacrifice, to change the status quo.
The most serious cause of this revolution is the new Malays' aversion to the corruption that had brought the rot in Umno, which they see as acts for self-interest of the few. The consequences have been serious and worrying to the party stalwarts who are now so confused they even rely on the extremist rabble rousing acts of NGOs like Perkasa and Jati to revive the old Malay spirit.
But the strategy is not working. Perkasa, Jati and backhand players like Dr Mahathir Mohamad are not convincing the new Malays to abandon their silent revolution.
The Malays' biggest problem is their loss in the economic game despite them having showered themselves with all sorts of privileges such as scholarships, subsidies, loans, free shares, lands, education, and other preferential treatments in numerous areas.
The NEP, which was started in 1972 to solve the nation's interracial and socio-economic problems, had failed miserably. The decades of spoon-feeding had weakened the Malays into becoming incapable dependants, a people who, most likely, wouldn't survive if they were let loose into the merciless global jungle.
On the other hand, the Chinese have mastered all the tricks of the trades. Without them Malaysia's business sector would disappear overnight. The national power grids would stall and the fuels and lubricants of the engines of economy would instantly dry up. This, strangely, has twisted the shape of national hegemony into a new meaning.
Are Chinese the real masters?
Who really is holding real hegemony, or power, in Malaysia today? If the Chinese are paying more than 80% of our income tax, and are the real masters of commerce and industry – and science and technology as well – doesn't that put the Malays and the rest of Malaysians under their indirect de facto control, and that the Malays are in the seat power only as proxies or puppets of sort? And for how long?
Indeed, the current realities of national hegemony and national ethic should propel the new Malays and the natives of the Borneo states into changing the game plan. They should overhaul the old political and economic formats, and exert their will on the system to contribute through authentic meritocracy, and master the knowledge and skills in all the areas of endeavours.
This way hegemony is achieved by way of true abilities and not through some historical rights or flimsy 'social contracts.' Rights and social contracts, or even great military powers, hold no guarantee for a people's future. Just remember that Babylon, ancient Egypt, the glory of Rome, all the great empires are no more.
Wealth, success and power are also not products of agreements and laws but are all products of knowledge, skills and godly wisdom.
Read More @ Source More »
Bonology.com |
Barisan Nasional (BN) |
Sociopolitics Plus |
大马社会政治 
Read More @ Source 
When reminded that the poser was instead about the electoral roll clean-up, and not a clean electoral roll, Wan Ahmad said the negative result might have arisen due to perception.
Wan Ahmad insisted that the EC is conducting matters exactly to the rules and laws available with "no hanky panky".
Lucius Goon
