Are there rights in a borderless world?
Irony and LogicPublished: Jan 2, 2001 7:23 AM | Updated: Jan 29, 2008 6:21 PM
There has been so much discussion on whether it is Malay rights or privileges that are being questioned, whether it is enshrined in the constitution or not, whether it involves a social contract, etc. that I wonder whether we are barking up the wrong tree. With the direction globalisation is heading, the rights and wrongs of the argument seem largely irrelevant.
After World War II, the visionaries in Europe beheld the concept of a Europe without borders, where, say, a Scot can live in Germany if he so wishes or a French can study in Norway. It was to have been a long journey, but started off with trade because, complex as it is, it was the simplest matter to resolve. The concept has come a long way since, with greater western Europe already having a common currency and free travel among many countries.
The sheer economic, political and social advantages of such union cannot be denied, and, following suit, North America has formed Nafta - at present an economic grouping of Canada, USA and Mexico. Although restricted to trade (the immigration barriers cannot be withdrawn yet until all three countries have more or less the same standard of living - otherwise the whole of Mexico will empty into Canada and the USA!), there is little doubt that Nafta will eventually also lead to political union.
In time, South America, Central America, Africa, Arabia, etc. will also form common markets leading eventually to political union, although it may well take 100 years or more. In more time yet, the various political unions will merge into a united world - a literally borderless world.
Given this scenario, it is most logical that Asean forms a common market (which, in a way, it already has) eventually leading to political union. It is hard to see a political union now because almost all the people will move to Singapore (highest standard of living), but there is no doubt that it is heading that way.
If the political union of Asean comes about, a Malaysian should be able to buy a house in Thailand and land in the Philippines, and the nationalities of those countries will be accorded the same rights in Malaysia. If a Thai can buy land (any land) in Malaysia, it is difficult to see how a Chinese Malaysian, say, cannot be allowed to buy Malay reserve land, or how the land can be denied to the Thai. Or how the racial quotas in the universities, jobs, etc. can still be justified.
One can, of course, take the perverse view that even the US has Indian reserve land, so why not Malay reserve land here? These parallels would not be very close. Firstly, the Indian reserve land are in out-of-way places which generally no one wants. Secondly, if oil were to be found there or the suburbs of New York City extend to them, the Indians themselves are free to deal with their land as they see fit without recourse to higher authorities.
I hope that the government of this country (whether BN or BA) will treat the matter seriously and not play politics with it for popular support. If Malay rights can be entrenched in the borderless world, fine, then - go ahead and tout it for all you can. If it cannot, then the sooner it is recognised so the better - time is of the essence in preparing for the eventuality.
Look at the NEP - after 30 years, it hasn't exactly achieved much, has it? And the NEP is for helping (throwing goodies at) the Malays, whereas the anti-NEP is for weaning them off the goodies - an inherently far harder thing to do.
After World War II, the visionaries in Europe beheld the concept of a Europe without borders, where, say, a Scot can live in Germany if he so wishes or a French can study in Norway. It was to have been a long journey, but started off with trade because, complex as it is, it was the simplest matter to resolve. The concept has come a long way since, with greater western Europe already having a common currency and free travel among many countries.
The sheer economic, political and social advantages of such union cannot be denied, and, following suit, North America has formed Nafta - at present an economic grouping of Canada, USA and Mexico. Although restricted to trade (the immigration barriers cannot be withdrawn yet until all three countries have more or less the same standard of living - otherwise the whole of Mexico will empty into Canada and the USA!), there is little doubt that Nafta will eventually also lead to political union.
In time, South America, Central America, Africa, Arabia, etc. will also form common markets leading eventually to political union, although it may well take 100 years or more. In more time yet, the various political unions will merge into a united world - a literally borderless world.
Given this scenario, it is most logical that Asean forms a common market (which, in a way, it already has) eventually leading to political union. It is hard to see a political union now because almost all the people will move to Singapore (highest standard of living), but there is no doubt that it is heading that way.
If the political union of Asean comes about, a Malaysian should be able to buy a house in Thailand and land in the Philippines, and the nationalities of those countries will be accorded the same rights in Malaysia. If a Thai can buy land (any land) in Malaysia, it is difficult to see how a Chinese Malaysian, say, cannot be allowed to buy Malay reserve land, or how the land can be denied to the Thai. Or how the racial quotas in the universities, jobs, etc. can still be justified.
One can, of course, take the perverse view that even the US has Indian reserve land, so why not Malay reserve land here? These parallels would not be very close. Firstly, the Indian reserve land are in out-of-way places which generally no one wants. Secondly, if oil were to be found there or the suburbs of New York City extend to them, the Indians themselves are free to deal with their land as they see fit without recourse to higher authorities.
I hope that the government of this country (whether BN or BA) will treat the matter seriously and not play politics with it for popular support. If Malay rights can be entrenched in the borderless world, fine, then - go ahead and tout it for all you can. If it cannot, then the sooner it is recognised so the better - time is of the essence in preparing for the eventuality.
Look at the NEP - after 30 years, it hasn't exactly achieved much, has it? And the NEP is for helping (throwing goodies at) the Malays, whereas the anti-NEP is for weaning them off the goodies - an inherently far harder thing to do.
View Comments0