Dear Editor,
Plural societies, especially those formed out of colonial experiences, need to work consciously at nurturing and deepening national cohesion. This is an ongoing process that requires commitment, structures, and legislation. Guyana and Guyanese need to think hard about the conscious, careful consistent process of deepening national cohesion.
There are experiences of this process at work and in this essay we shall look at three of these from far-away Asia, three members of ASEAN that have successfully experimented with policies of helping people to understand one another and to relate better as part of the national fabric. We shall look at Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia – all former colonies, all countries that have diverse populations.
In Singapore, legislation provides for state funding of national associations of its three founding peoples, Chinese, Malay and Indian. This is meant to encourage them to promote and explain their cultures and to help give them a sense of cultural self-determination within the body politic. Singapore is not without ethnic rivalries and tensions, but it one of the most successful former developing countries in the world.
At the time they achieved independence, Singapore and Guyana were probably at the same stage of development. Nowadays, while the former is enjoying spectacular progress, the latter has been chugging along, although the new oil revenues could provide opportunities for dynamic development. Singapore has benefited from tapping the brainpower of its people and from smart trading
policies. This process has been assisted by its efforts to promote national cohesion. Guyana has always been blessed with a talent-pool of educated people. I saw this first-hand as Chancellor of the University of Guyana.
Malaysia has also sought to pay attention to the cultures of its three founding peoples, Malay, Chinese, and Indian. One of the main planks of the Malaysian experience, grounded in its legislation, has been a policy of affirmative action for the Malay community, which was considered disadvantaged historically. Thanks to these policies, the situation of the Malay community has improved markedly since independence. Guyana could copy the Malaysian example and introduce a policy of affirmative action, for a start, for its Amerindian people, to give them matching services and bring them up to the standard of living of the rest of the population. The policy of affirmative action could also extend to particularly needy communities in the population.
In Indonesia, the policy has been one of promoting peaceful co-existence and inclusiveness in governance, even if Indonesia has seen great ethnic violence in the past – as has Guyana. Indonesia’s approach is encapsulated in its policy of Panca Sila, or five principles. These are belief in the oneness of God, just and civilized humanity, the unity of the country, democracy arising out of deliberations among representatives, and social justice for the whole of the people of Indonesia.
All three countries have national human rights institutions working in good faith to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms inside the country. The Indonesian and Malaysian national human rights commissions have been particularly imaginative in the promotion of the rights of everyone, including ethnic communities. It would be fair to say that Guyana’s elaborate national human rights commissions are still on their launching pads, awaiting take-off.
Might the Parliament of Guyana decide, for a start, on the formation of an Advisory Commission on National Cohesion in Guyana?
Yours faithfully,
Bertie Ramcharan
