This article examines the direction of ethnic politics in Malaysia by investigating the 2008 election results and the subsequent political maneuverings of political parties following the election. The results do not clearly demonstrate the demise of ethnic politics; however, the communal political paradigm of the Barisan Nasional Party (BN) has become increasingly ineffective in its attempts to appease both Malay and non-Malay communities. Following the election, the BN seems to have moved towards the adoption of a multiethnic agenda, whereas its affiliated parties have chosen to maintain their communal political paradigm. Furthermore, the Pakatan Rakyat has not outlined a clear multiethnic platform and has failed to reject communal politics. The Malaysian political paradigm has yet to shift qualitatively away from ethnic politics. • View full text
• Download full textOne of the key concepts of national integration in Malaysia is to increase and develop the country economically. In a plural society like Malaysia, citizens nowadays hardly work together due to lack of communication between each another. Therefore, it is important for national integration to take place so that people in Malaysia work together and help each other to increase the country’s income; this is because when there is unity there is teamwork. On the other hand, according to Dato Lim P.G. (2003) building a harmony society is also one of the key concepts of national integration.
Malaysia a country that has many types of races of people must reduce the difference between them and to come as one to create a community with strong moral and ethic values so that a harmony society can be build. According to Poobalan (2007), the other key concept of national integration is to motivate Malaysian nowadays to learn to unite with each other and also to enhance the patriotism spirit in them. This is to ensure that people from various ethnic groups here can learn to tolerate each other and work together to bring our country forward.
Poobalan. (2007, May 13). National Unity and Integration Plan 2006-2010 launched. Retrieved from http://poobalan.com/blog/borninmalaysia/2007/05/13/national-unity-and-integration-plan-2006-2010-launched/ Dato Lim P.G. (2003). Towards National Integration: Of The Constitution, Governance and Ethnicity. Retrieved from http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=98 [continues] Read full essay
Federalism and National Integration: a Nigeria PerspectiveFiscal Federalism and National Unity Richard M. Bird and Robert D. Ebel
An important characteristic of many countries is that they exhibit, to greater or lesser degrees, some “asymmetry” in the way in which different regions are treated by their intergovernmental fiscal systems. This paper explores some of the varied extents and manners in which such asymmetrical treatment may help or hinder the maintenance of an effective nation-state, where “effectiveness” encompasses both how effectively, efficiently, and (perhaps) equitably public services are provided throughout the national territory and also the effects asymmetry may have on the very existence of “fragmented” nation-states.
Fiscal Federalism and National Unity Richard M. Bird and Robert D. Ebel
Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Canada, People’s Republic of China, Germany, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Philippines, Russia, Spain, Sudan, Switzerland—what can this diverse set of countries possibly have in common? One important answer is that each contains within its boundaries a significant territorially based group of people who are, or who consider themselves to be, distinct and different in ethnicity, in language, in religion, or just in history (ancient or recent) from the majority of the population. Indeed “fragmented” countries (Bird and Stauffer, 2001)1 are found throughout the world. Homogeneous nations are more the exception than the rule. Indeed, heterogeneity, whether ethnic or economic, is a more common feature of most countries than homogeneity. 2 A second important characteristic of many countries is that they exhibit, to greater or lesser degrees, some “asymmetry” in the way in which different regions are treated by their intergovernmental fiscal systems. While… [continues]