From Terence Netto
In a speech to mark his official birthday, Yang di-Pertuan Agong Sultan Ibrahim pronounced the acceptance of the Rukun Negara as the litmus test of a Malaysian’s fitness to be a worthy citizen of the country.
Most Malaysians, save possibly avowed atheists, would have no problem accepting its five principles: belief in God, loyalty to king and country, supremacy of the constitution, rule of law, and courtesy and morality.
The government promulgated this code in 1970 as the basis for nation-building and national unity in the aftermath of the May 13 riots of the previous year that shook the country to its foundations.
The Rukun Negara was an imitation of Pancasila, the Indonesian code of national unity promulgated by Sukarno and other progenitors of the Indonesian nation in 1945, following the proclamation of the country’s independence.
After the upheaval of May 13, it was felt that Malaysia also needed a foundational code to keep the nation from being fissiparous.
The post-riots national unity consultative councils, drawing inspiration from Pancasila, settled on the Rukun Negara.
An easily forgotten aspect of the promulgation of the Rukun Negara is that its preamble contains a statement of its objectives, which include to create a liberal society.
Clearly, the liberal society meant as the aim of the code is a reference to the disposition the country’s multiracial and multi-religious citizens ought to have towards each other in order to promote peace and harmony in society.
But this “liberalism” has come in for a great deal of disparagement in recent years.
It has frequently drawn stick from no less than personage than the president of the largest (by parliamentary representation) political party in the country, PAS.
In his most recent stricture against liberalism, PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang urged Umno to return to the “true path” after having associated with the “liberal” PKR and the “extremely secular” DAP in the Madani government of national unity.
In these criticisms, Hadi casts “liberal” and “secular” as pejorative terms.
Since both terms orient Malaysians towards receptivity to the multifariousness of their society, how do things stand in the light of the king’s declaration that Malaysians’ worthiness of being citizens of the country should be judged by their acceptance of the Rukun Negara?
Not just the principles of the code but also the objectives of the whole exercise in national building.
In emphasising the importance of acceptance of the Rukun Negara and in proscribing those who reject it, the king is drawing a line that separates citizens of liberal disposition from those of censorious bent.
A lot of people of seemingly irreproachable credentials have to take note of this demarcation.
Terence Netto is a senior journalist and an FMT reader.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.