Chapter 5

CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

5.1 Analysis of the News Articles
Among the interesting observations during the period leading up to the 1999 general elections was the Suqiu episode and politicians’ responses to it. The MCA tried to play the middleman by organising meetings between the BN politicians and the Suqiu Committee, and even invited the Suqiu Committee to sit in the National Economic Consultative Council II (NECC II). Obviously, the existence of Suqiu outside the national political framework was threatening MCA claim that they are representing the Chinese interests. Thus, after Suqiu Committee decided not to be part of NECC II, MCA still repeated their invitation to Suqiu to be part of NECC II [Rethink decision to stay out of panel, group told, The Star, 13 October 1999].
The announcement of the Appeals was first published in the Nanyang Siang Pau on 17 August 1999. This straight forward article reported that the Appeals was targeted at all political parties, not just the BN as made out to be by the Malay language papers.
The Suqiu Committee consisted of eleven Chinese organisations, spearheaded by the United Chinese School Committees of Malaysia (Dong Zong) and the United Chinese Teachers Association of Malaya (Jiao Zong), collectively known as Dong Jiao Zong (DJZ).
Prior to the launch of the Appeals on 16 August 1999, Suqiu had approached FCAM and ACCCIM, inviting them to be part of the Committee. Both FCAM and ACCCIM declined the invitation probably because of their leaders had close relationship with MCA and other BN political parties.
The Appeals was popular among the Chinese, and leaders of the Chinese-based political parties within BN like MCA, Gerakan and SUPP voiced their support for the Appeals and publicly announced their acceptance of the Appeals on 23 September 1999.
The second phase of Suqiu episode started when Utusan carried a report on 14th August 2000 regarding vice-chairman of the NECC II David Chua remarks that Malaysian government should consider of doing away with affirmative actions policy if Malaysia wants to remain competitive [‘Hapus hak istimewa Melayu’ (‘Abolish Malay special rights’), Utusan, 14 August 2004].
The fact that UMNO Youth choose to deal with Suqiu Committee directly at the end of 2000 also dealt a blow to MCA position and function within the BN framework. The elite community leadership co-operation had virtually bypassed MCA, and rendered them irrelevant within the national political framework.
Why would such broad-based Appeals create so much controversy and misinterpretation?
Suqiu Committee knew well the political mood in Malaysia at that time when making public their Appeals. Like the former Selangor chief minister Harun Idris and UMNO politician Azim Zabidi pointed out it was a “wrong timing” for Suqiu to make such demands.
Or maybe it was the fact that every single one of the 11 organisations that made up the Suqiu Committee was a Chinese organisation, some of which are staunch critics of the ruling government. Thus, the Appeals inevitably came across as the Chinese applying pressure on the Malays. The fact that Dong Jiao Zong is the main proponent of the Appeals also did not help in ensuring that the Appeals would be received in positive light by the ruling coalitions, especially UMNO. As noted by historian Prof Khoo Kay Kim of Universiti Malaya, if UMNO, a party dedicated to safeguarding the Malay supremacy, were to accept Dong Jiao Zong, the party would collapse (Tong 2002).
The Appeals was generally termed as ‘aspirations’ or ‘appeal’ by the Chinese papers but the Malay papers called it ‘demand’ or ‘blackmail’, in line with Malay politicians’ general response to the Appeals. News reports on politicians’ remarks were generally similar. The differences were in the attributes about the Appeals that each paper chooses to highlight. Generally, Malay language papers chose to highlight the more communal aspect of the Appeals, while Chinese language papers highlighted the universal aspect of the Appeals.
In the second part of Suqiu episode, after Dr Mahathir Merdeka speech remarks, Utusan even reinterpret the Appeals as “83 demands”, which in fact, was the sub-points in the 17 point Appeals [Meneliti 83 tuntutan Suqiu (Scrutinise 83 Suqiu demands), Utusan, 20 December 2000]. This different interpretation on the entire episode by different language papers was meant to be, in line with the prevailing culture of ethnic politics in Malaysia. It is also important to note that Malaysian papers, as an extension to the ruling BN coalition, are well-known to project different messages to different readers, just like their political master. Seeing this in the bigger picture, it is not surprising knowing that different politicians could be saying different things at the same time in different papers.
By studying the data collected before and after the 1999 general elections, four types of framing could be identified. Among the various papers surveyed, Utusan seems to be the most persistent in their framing. This is understandable, considering Utusan’s history in galvanising Malay unity, notably during the Malayan Union proposal.
On other occasions, there was little noticeable difference between the news in various papers, especially when the news item is about remarks made by prominent leaders like Dr Mahathir. Perhaps the noticeable difference would be the background use in the news reports, and the attributes that each paper chooses to highlight.

5.1.1 Suqiu is a selfish Chinese demand, not a Malaysian aspiration
MCA president Dr Ling was quoted in Sin Chew Daily report as saying that Malaysian Cabinet “acknowledged that many points in the Appeals were in line with Vision 2020” [Ling: No word on Chinese DPM, Cabinet sees Suqiu in line with Vision 2020, Sin Chew Daily, 23 September 1999]. If this statement is to be taken seriously, it essentially means that Malaysian Cabinet was suggesting that the Appeals represent every Malaysians’ aspiration.
In fact, in the press statement issued by Suqiu Committee later, it was stated “the Cabinet representatives agreed to continue liaise with the [Suqiu] Committee so as to implement the Appeals in stages” (Suqiu 2002, p. 85).
Dr Ling was also quoted as describing the Appeals as “broad-based and would benefit all ethnic groups” and “was multi-racial in nature” [Huatuan and BN parties unanimously accept Suqiu, Guang Ming Daily, 24 September 1999]. However, articles in the Malay papers framed the Appeals as selfish Chinese demands, and framing the Suqiu Committee, if not the Chinese community as ‘opportunists’.
Lee (2004, p. 95) noted that some of the point raised by Suqiu “had in fact been brought up by Dr Mahathir and some UMNO leaders in their address to young Malays”. Lee (2004, p. 95) reasoned that “while Malay leaders could criticise aspects of the NEP, it was something else altogether for non-Malays to bring up what would be considered as a sensitive subject in public”. In fact, in March 2000, then deputy prime minister Abdullah Badawi called for affirmative actions to be focused on “Bumiputras who genuinely need a head start by way of income and opportunities” (Asiaweek, 15 September 2000). Gerakan president Lim Keng Yaik pointed out in the same Asiaweek article that “for the Malay to say that is all right, for Chinese to say that is not”. This interpretation is within the framework of Malaysian politics which promotes Malay supremacy.
On 7 September 1999 news reports, Utusan only choose to highlight two points from the Appeals – equal treatments to all races, and building more Chinese-language schools. This is perhaps a clear indication of what were to come in the future news reports – that this issue will be framed from a communal perspective.
Only in the 24 September 1999 news article, Utusan did mentioned some of the more universal points in the Appeals like national unity, defend basic rights and justice, curb corruptions, protect the environment, and fair economic policies. This change of tone comes after the Cabinet declaration that they will not reject outright the Appeal, but will initiate positive dialogue with Suqiu.
Knowing well how politics will be framed in Malaysia, Suqiu Committee had earlier rejected suggestion from FCAM to include the demand for second post of deputy prime minister being created for the Chinese. Suqiu know well that if this were included, it would definitely be unable to avoid being framed as a selfish Chinese demands. It was reported that FCAM deputy president Fong Tian Heng, in his response to the initial draft of the Appeals had suggested that it should include proposal to appoint Chinese as the second deputy prime minister and finance minister as recognition to Chinese contribution to Malaysia [Hua Zong (FCAM) wants Chinese DPM, Nanyang Siang Pau, 24 August 1999].
Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall (SCAH) president Ngan Ching Wen responded to FCAM suggestions stating that it was “impractical and could jeopardise” the Appeals if such suggestions were to be included and that “the numbers of Chinese ministers was not an issue” [Call for Chinese DPM is impractical, Nanyang Siang Pau, 25 August 1999].
Clearly from the start, the Suqiu Committee was trying to avoid racial accusations knowing well the nature of Malaysian politics. However, this initial development was not reported by other papers. The first mention of FCAM in a Malay paper was on 8 September 1999 in a report by Berita Harian [FCAM kutuk tuntutan pertubuhan Cina (FCAM condemns Chinese organisations demands), Berita Harian, 8 September 1999]. FCAM president Chong Chin Shoong statement was definitely a contrast compared to their initial suggestions. Or so it seems.
It would definitely seem that way if one only relies on Berita Harian reports. Chong later clarified in Nanyang Siang Pau that the report in Berita Harian was a “distortion of his words” [FCAM chief denies criticising Suqiu, says words were distorted, Nanyang Siang Pau, 9 September 1999]. Chong was quoted as saying:
“The Chinese group concerned should not put the government in a difficult position without taking into consideration of the government’s contributions, adding that FCAM would continue to support the BN for the sake of political stability and national unity. [Chong] said FCAM felt that the government was open to ideas and suggestions from Malaysians and therefore the Suqiu group should not jeopardise racial unity by threatening the government. BN should not worry about the support from the Chinese community because [FCAM], the most representative group of all Chinese organisations, would support the BN leadership”.

Chong said that none of the above statements were from him. Chong said he would seek clarification from the Malay papers. However, the Malay papers published no such clarification subsequently.
If the purpose of the Malay papers were to pit one Chinese organisation against the other, it seems that they managed to achieve that somewhat. As a response to Chong statement, Jiao Zong deputy chairman Loot Ting Yee lashed out at Chong, reminding him that:
“It is FCAM’s right not to endorse the appeals but the statement by Chong showed complete ignorance to the wished of thousands of Chinese organisations. He has chosen to stand opposite to that of the community. This is making people angry”.
So far it seems this much is clear; FCAM wanted some of its suggestions to be included in the final draft of the Appeals. Suqiu Committee turned it down. Thus, FCAM “agree but did not endorse” the Appeal. FCAM, however, did not “condemn” Suqiu for threatening the government.
The initial FCAM suggestions were later attributed to Suqiu. MCA president Dr Ling had to clarify that there was no suggestion for Chinese to be appointed as second DPM [Tiada desakan pemimpin Cina TPM kedua – Ling (No demands for Chinese to be second DPM – Ling), Utusan, 23 September 1999]. It seems that there was no stop to the Malay papers’ attempts in framing the Appeals as a selfish Chinese demands.
Further clarification was published in The Sun on 30 September 1999. In the news article, Dr Ling was quoted as saying that the Cabinet had, in principle, accepted the Appeals as a “non-communal stance on social equality and justice”. Dr Ling was also quoted as saying that the Appeals “are universal principles which cover a broad consensus that can be accepted by all races”. NST also quoted Dr Ling as saying that the Appeals are “very humble one and it will benefits all races” [NECC II will have some reps from Chinese associations, NST, 30 September 1999].
Sensing that this episode would take a more positive tone, Utusan published a letter from its reader that called Malays to unite as their political differences were giving other races to “demands for equal treatments for all races” [Kaum lain ambil peluang dari perpecahan Melayu (Other races taking advantages from Malay split), Utusan, 6 October 1999].
The issue of Chinese schools was also highlighted at that time to suggest that the existence Chinese schools in Malaysia was no longer an issue, as four papers – The Star, The Sun, Utusan and Berita Harian – quoted then Minister of Education Najib Razak reminding the opposition political parties not to exploit this issue. All four papers carried similar reports on 5 September 1999.
As noted by Freeman (2000, p. 49), Chinese education “can be seen as a barometer of how the Chinese community is faring politically in Malaysia”. By suggesting that the Chinese schools are no longer an issue, the BN government is implying that political discrimination was not an issue for the Chinese in Malaysia. Thus, the Chinese should not be making groundless demands at that time.
Seeing this in a larger context, the highlight of this issue was to remind the Chinese community that the government was taking steps to address the general Chinese grievance, and hence, the Chinese should not be making unrealistic and selfish demands. The government was hinting that the Chinese were being selfish when they continued to demand for other things, especially when their demands were ‘communal’ in nature. This ‘reminder’ was delivered during the opening of the 99 Education Expo at the Chong Hua Independent Chinese School in Kuala Lumpur.
NST also managed to frame the Appeals as ethnocentric, and had National Unity chairman Lee Lam Thye to remind Malaysians to “work together to create Bangsa Malaysia instead of being preoccupied with ethnic origin” [Need to create Bangsa Malaysia, NST, 12 September 1999]. NST quoted Lee as reminding Malaysians that they “must be prepared to reduce their strong sense of ethnicity”. This framing fits into the broader rhetoric that the Chinese are always preoccupied at preserving their ‘Chineseness’, often at the expense of national unity.
Utusan was clever in its 14 October 1999 report on MCA president Dr Ling Liong Sik clarification that the Appeals was not demands. Among the details of the report, Utusan highlighted that among the aim of the Appeals were to demand that government abolish the racial-based quota system for university entry and subsidy, increasing Chinese and Tamil language schools, cancel the Vision School plan, and equal funding to all types of schools. One particular interesting point in those highlighted was the Vision School plan.
Vision School plan was framed by national media and politicians as the solution to racial polarisation among the younger generation. It is important to note that UMNO politicians first mooted the Vision School plan. Under the Vision School plan, national and national-type schools of different languages will share common compound and facilities, while conducting their own classes. Educationists have since stated their reservations for this plan. Furthermore, Suqiu Committee had clarified in their press statement that their objection against Vision Schools plan should not be viewed as objection against national unity (Suqiu 2002). However, by framing the Appeals within a bigger picture of national unity, and highlighting that the Appeals wanted to do away with the Vision School plan, there was little left to guessing as to who the culprits to national unity were to the eyes of Malay language papers.

5.1.2 The Chinese are blackmailing the weak BN government
When the reports on the Appeals first surfaced in the Chinese language papers like Nanyang Siang Pau, Suqiu Committee chairman, Quek Suan Hiang had stressed that the Appeals was a way to “highlight their plight to all the political parties, both ruling and opposition, in the face of general election soon” (All parties should support and realise Suqiu, Nanyang Siang Pau, 17 August 1999). The report also mentioned that Quek hoped that “all political leaders would take into consideration the wishes of five million Chinese Malaysians, as reflected in the Appeals when the general election comes”.
The fact that MCA came out to announce that they agreed with the Appeals in principles only goes to show that the Appeals was well accepted in the initial stage (MCA agree with Suqiu principles, Nanyang Siang Pau, 18 August 1999). MCA then vice president cum election preparatory work committee chairman, Ong Ka Ting said that the “larger principles in the Appeals were in line with MCA’s struggle throughout the years”.
Thus, it is important to note that from the start, the Appeals was never targeted only at BN politicians, and it was never meant to be a demand or conditions in return for Chinese support as mentioned in their letter to all political parties, and in their press statement issued on 15 October 1999 (Suqiu 2002). In fact, the Appeals covered a wide spectrum of contemporary issues which are of concern to Malaysians. However, soon this episode took a nasty turn when the Malay language papers started to pay attention to the Appeals. Taking cue from the BN politicians, and considering their readers, Malay language papers generally framed the Appeals as a Chinese demands meant to blackmail the weak BN government.
In fact, Utusan was very persistent with this angle of news framing. Through out the episode, Utusan did gave space for the Chinese community to explain the real situation and stand, but would later published remarks by Malay leaders that called the Appeals as a demands, or worse, a blackmail.
Utusan fired its first salvo with its news article on 7 September 1999. Its news article headlined “Tanpa syarat jika mahu sokong BN (No conditions if want to support BN)” quoted then Malaysian deputy prime minister Abdullah that those who wanted to support the BN should not imposed any conditions.
It also quoted the UMNO Youth president saying that the government would not compromised on anything concerning the Malay special rights. From the first news reports on Suqiu, Utusan had framed the Appeals as a condition for Chinese support for BN government. In the general understanding of racial politics in Malaysia, the Chinese were usually portrayed as an ‘opportunist’, ‘demanding’ and ‘ungrateful’ for the citizenship granted to them, as well as the economic opportunities available to them.
The news reports chose to label the Appeals as a “permintaan (request)” rather than using the word “rayuan (appeal)” which essentially is what the Appeals was all about. By quoting the UMNO Youth president’s remarks, Utusan had, in effect, pit this episode head-on with Malay special rights – an issue that was sure to ignite fury responses from the Malay community.
Utusan mentioned that among the demands were equal treatment to all races, and building more Chinese medium schools. This news article set the tone for the following news and commentary articles by the press. There was consistent portrayal of this episode as a ‘Chinese demands’ concerning their own interests.
In order to project neutrality in their news reports, the Malay papers also quoted Chinese leaders as calling Suqiu to stop blackmailing the BN government. In its 8 September 1999 news reports, Berita Harian quoted the president of Federation of Chinese Associations of Malaysia (FCAM) saying that Suqiu should not “take advantage” on the election period to seek personal interests without appreciating BN’s contributions.
Dr Mahathir joined in by saying that the BN will not bow to pressure from certain quarters just to secure their votes. The Sun in its news reports on 21 September 1999, headlined “Mahathir: We won’t give in to blackmail” quoted Dr Mahathir as saying that there will always be opportunists who will want to take advantage of the pre-election period. This use of label to describe Suqiu Committee as “opportunist” fits into the consistent rhetoric in Malaysia ethnic politics that the Chinese are never satisfied with what they have and will actively seek opportunity to gain more.
However, The Sun’s news report was accompanied by another news report on Suqiu coordinator’s clarification that Suqiu was not out to threaten or blackmail the government with the Appeals. It quoted Suqiu coordinator Ser Choon Ing saying that “the list was made with good intentions, there are no social demands and thus, it should not be seen in a negative light” [Chinese guilds not out to blackmail govt, says committee, The Sun, 21 September 1999].
China Press carried a similar report on the same day, quoting Dr Mahathir as warning the Chinese groups not to bring up the Appeals in view of an upcoming national election as a “pressure tactic on the government” [Don’t threaten the government with Suqiu, China Press, 21 September 1999]. Dr Mahathir argued that if the government were to entertain the Appeal, other races would soon follow suit and make their demands, and this would destroy racial harmony and national unity. This statement suggested that Suqiu should not pressure the government with something as impractical like the Appeals. It also implies that the Chinese should not be making demands for themselves at the expense of racial harmony and national unity. Despite Suqiu’s clarification, Dr Mahathir still accused the Committee of threatening the government with demands that was “unreasonable”.
Berita Harian carried a similar report on Dr Mahathir’s remark. However, Berita Harian upped the ante when it suggests that these ‘certain quarters’ had “threatened not to vote for BN if their demands are not fulfil”, despite the government, according to Dr Mahathir, had been “fair to all races” [Barisan tidak akan layan ugutan: PM (BN will not entertain threats), Berita Harian, 21 September 1999]. No news reports on Suqiu clarification were carried in the Malay-language papers.
In the power relations between the Malays and Chinese in Malaysia, it is certainly unacceptable to the Malays that the Chinese see it as fit to ‘threaten’ them with demands. The Appeals was never meant to be a binding document, and it was not only directed to BN politicians – a fact that was conveniently sidelines in the news reports in Malay language papers.
In the 24 September 1999 news reports, Berita Harian quoted MCA president Dr Ling Liong Sik as saying that Suqiu promised to co-operate with government and would not imposed any conditions in the proposing the Appeals. The fact remains that, there was never any conditions imposed by Suqiu in the first place.
Another way to frame this episode is to imply that Suqiu was taking advantage of the political development to pressure or blackmail the weak BN government at a time when the Chinese should be throwing their support behind BN. It is after all, as the news reports implied, only the BN government could ensure the continuity and stability that Malaysians – Chinese included – enjoyed. It is this stability that gave the Malaysian Chinese the opportunity to advance economically and having a share in Malaysia’s political direction.
This frame of argument was first uttered by PM Dr Mahathir in Utusan [Jangan lupa sejarah 1969 (Do not forget history of 1969), Utusan, 10 August 1999]. Dr Mahathir reminded Malaysians that a weak government that was under tremendous pressure could jeopardise racial harmony as what happened in 1969. This report gave a good background to the argument that Suqiu Committee should not take this opportunity to ‘blackmail’ the BN government as this might result the same outcome.
As that reminder from a Malay prime minister might not be convincing to the Chinese community in Malaysia, Utusan also quoted MCA deputy president Lim Ah Lek saying that “the Chinese community are reminded not to gamble to decide the government that will govern the country as wrong decision will only jeopardise the Chinese community’s future” [Lim ingatkan jangan berjudi tentukan kerajaan (Lim remind us not to gamble in deciding government), Utusan, 8 August 1999].
This framing was also earlier used in Utusan when Gerakan president, Dr Lim Keng Yaik said that the Chinese and Indians were watching closely the political development of the Malay community [Kaum Cina, India mahu Melayu bersatu (Chinese, Indians want Malay to unite), Utusan, 2 August 1999]. The report quoted him as saying that the Chinese and Indian community wanted the Malay community to be united as Malay unity and leadership were important to ensure the continuity of socioeconomic development and political stability in Malaysia. This was to remind Malaysians that Malays are the backbone for unity and peace. Seeing from a bigger picture, this frame only reinforces the Malay supremacy within the political sphere of Malaysia.
Utusan also managed to get a prominent Malay politician to agree with Utusan’s editorial stand that the Appeals were indeed demands all along. In this technique, it is important to properly label the prominent figure quoted. Thus, Dr Rais Yatim was labeled as a “veteran politician” [Tuntutan 17 taktik agar kerajaan mengalah (17 demands a tactic so government gives in), 14 October 1999]. In that main news of Utusan, Dr Rais was quoted as saying that such tactic should not be practiced at all in a multiracial society like Malaysia that have live peacefully for a long time. Utusan quoted Dr Rais saying “Those that make these demands are seen as very opportunists, so I felt that the Malay should be firm in opposing these demands”.
By quoting Dr Rais Yatim, Utusan was able to present the report in a ‘balanced’ way. As the frame to understand this episode was set earlier by Utusan, it was convenient for Utusan journalists and politicians to fit themselves into it.
Dr Rais Yatim remarks came after Utusan ran an interview with the former Selangor Menteri Besar (chief minister) Harun Idris [Melayu pecah, Cina buat tuntutan (Malay splits, Chinese make demands), Utusan, 10 October 1999]. Harun Idris was labeled as a “Malay leader that was concerned with Malay political status”.
The interview started off with a write-up highlighting that the nation was “shocked” by the actions of 11 Chinese organisations that forwarded election demands. Utusan said the demands looks proper on the surface, but the details show a glaring racism that questioned the basis of racial unity in Malaysia. Utusan was implying that the demands could threaten national.
Utusan also repeated Dr Mahathir’s remarks that this group should not “threaten” the government by stating that they would withdraw their support for the government if their demands were not met. This accusation by Utusan was baseless, as Suqiu Committee had repeatedly clarified that there was no such conditions issued with the Appeals. The introduction to that interview continues by saying that Dr Mahathir wanted unconditioned support and that Suqiu Committee should not pressure the government.
Besides slamming Suqiu as threatening national unity with their demands, Utusan also managed to imply that the foundation of national unity is Malay unity. The introduction also mentioned that the Malays should stay united so that others would not make any demands that will threaten national unity.
Utusan only published clarification from Suqiu Committee at the bottom of page 2 on 16 October 1999. It reported that Suqiu Committee “claimed” that the Appeals were meant for all political parties and candidates taking part in the general elections. The Sun published a similar report, but used a neutral “said” instead of Utusan’s “claimed”. The use of verb by Utusan fits into the frames Utusan had been propagating since the start of the episode.

5.1.3 The Chinese are breaking the social contract
The social contract in Malaysia is understood as non-Malay endorsement for Malay special positions in the society, as a return for the state to grant citizenship to the non-Malays. Thus, any attempts to question such arrangement will be seen as challenging the social contract and a direct challenge to the Malay special positions. Malaysian Constitution explicitly points out these ‘special positions’. However, over the years, these ‘special positions’ had mysteriously morphed into ‘special rights’. Framing the Appeals as a direct challenge to Malay ‘special rights’ was a sure way to gain supports from the Malay community.
For this angle, the press was implying that the Chinese community, through Suqiu were going against the social contracts – in which the spirit of co-operation and sharing among different races, while accepting the political supremacy of the Malay community – had been agreed in the period leading up to the independence of Malaysia by leaders representing different ethnic communities.
This frame was contradictory to the assertion that Suqiu did not represent the Chinese community. If that was the general belief, as reflected by the news reports, then we could wonder for the reason on the accusation of the press that the Chinese community was breaking the social contracts.
Utusan report on 7 September 1999 took on this line of argument when it quoted the UMNO Youth chief Hishammuddin Hussein as stating that the government would never compromised on issue concerning the Malay special rights. By linking the Suqiu episode to Malay special rights, Utusan was able, from the start, framed this episode as a threat to Malay special rights, and thus, able to influence the general interpretation of its readers on this episode.
From then on, Utusan could generally frame the Appeals as a direct challenge to the social contract. By demanding for the abolition of the Malay special rights – which the Appeals never demanded so – Utusan was trumpeting that the Chinese were just a bunch of opportunists that were taking advantage of the weak Malay-dominated BN government to increase their political rights, and certainly were ungrateful for the political rights granted to the Chinese community through the accepted social contract.
One of the occasion that subtly illustrate the concept of Malay hegemony was during the annual assembly of the Association of Chinese Chambers of Commerce and Industry of Malaysia (ACCCIM) which was officiated by the prime minister Dr Mahathir. In his speech, he asked Chinese corporate leaders to share experience and help out the government to revive the Malay entrepreneurs who were badly affected by the economic crisis.
In both Utusan and Berita Harian reports, the angle of the story was that the Chinese should ‘co-operate’ with the government to help the badly affected Malay entrepreneurs. In fact, Berita Harian headline did not even give any hint of that. It just mentioned about equity restructuring and that the Chinese should co-operate with the government [Susun semula ekuiti: PM minta masyarakat Cina beri kerjasama (Equity restructuring: PM request co-operation from Chinese community), Berita Harian, 13 October 1999].
During the NEP period, government contracts were freely awarded to Malay entrepreneurs – which formed some cooperation with Chinese businessmen – but seldom directly to Chinese companies. Chinese businessmen would have to find ways to survive, like venturing overseas, forming business alliance with Malay partners, or keeping their business capital below of the NEP requirements. When the economy downturn hit these Malay businesses badly, the Chinese were expected to perform national service by coming in to rescue badly hit Malay businesses. This arrangement could only be understood from the frame of Malay hegemony.
In that annual assembly, which was also graced by Gerakan president Dr Lim Keng Yaik, Utusan also published an article quoting Dr Lim reiterating that the Appeal was not an election demands. Dr Lim said that it was the poor way in which the Appeals was announced that created much misunderstanding and anxiety among the Malays. Never mind that it was the Malay language press, together with Malay politicians desperate for a punching bag, which initially framed the Appeals from communal, not universal perspective. This ‘kowtow’ gesture certainly fits in nicely within the Malay hegemony framework. NST also carried a similar report on Dr Lim’s remarks, but this clarification was published with small headline.
With that occasion, Utusan also saw fit to editorialise that it “was time to help not demands” [Masa untuk membantu bukan meminta (Time to help not demand), Utusan, 13 October 1999]. The editorial praised the prime minister as “appropriate” in asking the Chinese business community to help rebuild the Malay business especially in the context of global economy competition. It also reminded the Chinese community that it was not the time for them to make demands, especially with the economic and political scenario, and any attempts to do so would be interpreted as blackmailing.
It was also convenient for Utusan to support its way of framing the issue by publishing letters written by its readers. This would enable the paper to claim that it merely reflects social reality and that it provides a platform for Malaysians to engage in intellectual intercourse. One of the examples was through a letter from ‘Melayu Jati’ (Pure Malay) [Tuntutan 17 perkara mencabar maruah Bumiputra (17-point demands challenging Malay dignity), Utusan, 26 October 1999].
‘Melayu Jati’ wrote that he/she was ‘shocked’ and ‘sad’ upon knowing that the 11 Chinese organisations made demands as conditions for the Chinese to support BN candidates in the coming general elections.
As explained earlier, the Appeals were never meant to be conditions for supports. This misinformed Utusan reader certainly was making error in his/her judgment and even had his/her letter conveniently published even when Utusan knew very well the real situation of the Appeals. Definitely, there is no way we could verify the authenticity of the writer.
‘Melayu Jati’ suggested that the Chinese were never honest in their support for the government because they would in turn, pressures the government when the government was perceived to be in need of Chinese support. ‘Melayu Jati’ concluded that the Chinese were always looking for opportunity to strengthen their position on every aspect.
Another way to pile pressure on Suqiu Committee was to get organisations to issue statement as a response to the Appeals. Among these organisations, like the Lembaga Adat Mandailing Malaysia (LAMA), demanded the Chinese organisations to retract the Appeals as to avoid suspicion among the Bumiputras [LAMA gesa persatuan Cina tarik balik 17 tuntutan (LAMA insist Chinese organisation to retract 17 demands), Utusan, 28 October 1999].
Another organisation issuing statements was the Dewan Perniagaan Melayu Malaysia (DPMM) (Malay Chamber of Commerce Malaysia). DPMM statement fits into the framing of the Appeals as challenging the social contract. DPMM assumed that Suqiu Committee did not understand ‘Formula Malaysia’. Its president Syed Amir Aljefkri said the Appeals gave the impression that the current government was discriminating other races in Malaysia [Tuntutan persatuan Cina tidak munasabah (Chinese organisation demands do not make sense), Berita Harian, 29 October 1999].
Another way to framed Suqiu Committee as breaking the social contract was to frame the Appeals as extreme and do not fits into the moderate approach governing political conducts of Malaysia all these while.
Utusan carried such article with that implication, in which, it quoted Dr Mahathir as saying that the policy of not giving excessive priorities to a particular race is the formula to maintain BN government [PM: Sikap toleran formula BN kekal (PM: Tolerance in BN formula to stay), Utusan, 5 November 1999]. Dr Mahathir said the government had moderate approach in everything and practiced tolerance to all races in Malaysia. This was to contrast with Suqiu Committee approach which the Malay language papers framed as extreme.
NST also reported on the same issue on 5 November 1999, quoting Dr Mahathir as saying that it was not proper for any one race to demand everything for itself, suggesting that the Suqiu Committee was doing such. This frame was implying that Suqiu Committee was threatening the sharing formula within BN framework as Suqiu was portrayed as demanding everything for the Chinese.
This sharing framework was further enforced by an Utusan report which quoted Dr Mahathir attributing the basic economic strength of the Chinese community as one of the factors that helped Malaysia face the attacks by currency speculators [Masyarakat Cina berkongsi kemakmuran demi kestabilan negara (Chinese community share prosperity for the sake of national stability), Utusan, 6 November 1999]. Dr Mahathir praise was more like a reminder when he said that the Chinese have clearly shown their willingness to share the bounty that Malaysia offers with the Malays and other races in the overall interests of Malaysia’s stability. Berita Harian and NST carried similar reports along the same framing.
The Sun carried a report quoting Dr Mahathir as saying that “the Chinese always contributed much by not being extreme in its demands”, implying that it is not proper for Suqiu Committee in demanding things as outlined in the Appeals [BN will receive strong support from Chinese: PM, The Sun, 19 November 1999]. This report, while praising the Chinese in general, also reinforced the notion that the Appeals was breaking the social contract, which partly means taking moderate approach and negotiations and not making demands.
When the issue resurfaced in 2000, Utusan carried a report quoting Gerakan president Lim Keng Yaik urging everyone to understand the social contracts in order to maintain unity and harmony [Kontrak social antara kaum perlu difahami (Social contracts have to be understood), Utusan, 21 August 2000]. Lim pointed out that “demands by certain Chinese organisations” that wanted Malay special rights abolished are not suitable as the demands were going against the agreed social contract.
From this frame, Suqiu was also portrayed as the party to be blamed if other organisations choose to retaliate by issuing similar demands. When the issue resurfaced in the end of 2000, Utusan was consistent in their reports suggesting that there was no basis for the Appeals in the first place, and that Suqiu should be responsible if other organisations – meaning Malay organisations – choose to issue their own demands. Utusan carried a report quoting president of Gabungan Pelajar Melayu Semenanjung (GPMS) (Federation of Peninsula Malay Students) saying that GPMS was “insulted” by the Appeals and “was forced to act to protect their interest” as a response to Suqiu that “does not understand the meaning of unity” [GPMS kemukakan 100 tuntutan (GPMS propose 100 demands), Utusan, 14 December 2000].
Berita Harian also framed the Appeals as a threat to national unity and harmony. In its 13 December 2000 report [Rakyat desak Suqiu gugurkan tuntutan (Citizen urge Suqiu to drop their demands)], it even quoted non-Malays urging Suqiu to drop the Appeals so as to avoid it being turned into a racial issue that will jeopardise racial relations. The news report quoted K. T. Ng from Kuala Lumpur stating that Suqiu should discuss with the government before making such proposal. The report also quoted Yap Fong Mee saying that Suqiu should not be making demands that is contrary to what was collectively agreed upon in the past. Among the other quotes published in the same news report, Malaysians of various ethnic backgrounds puts the blame squarely on Suqiu. They said that “such demands should never surface especially after 43 years of independence”, that Suqiu “should not continue to pursue such demands as it clearly did not help in racial harmony”, that such demands “shows that Suqiu do not respect the Malays which were accorded special rights”, and that Malaysian government “should not entertain such demands because majority of the people do not support Suqiu’s action”, that Suqiu “should realised that the Malays had surrendered much of their rights to other races”, that “it is such a pity that groups such as Suqiu choose to bring up sensitive issue that will hurt the feeling of other races”, and that it is “not proper for Chinese that had progressed more than other races in Malaysia to make demands, rather they should co-operate with the Bumiputras”.
A day before that, Utusan carried a report quoting PM Dr Mahathir stressing that the Constitutions and social contract would have to be set aside if the government were to accept all “83 demands from the extremist group”. Dr Mahathir also stressed that Malaysia would not be peaceful if all the “83 demands” were accepted [PM: Keamanan terancam (PM: Peace threaten), Utusan, 12 December 2000].
On the same day, Utusan also editorialised that Suqiu should realised that their demands were threatening national peace [Suqiu perlu lupakan tuntutan (Suqiu should forget about the demands), Utusan, 12 December 2000]. The editorial argued that Malay special rights were part of the social contracts agreed upon in the past and should be honoured. Utusan pointed out that by insisting on their demands; Suqiu Committee essentially wanted to challenge the social contracts, and to demand everything for the Chinese. Suqiu Committee had from the start asserted that they never intended to challenge the Malay special rights.

5.1.4 Suqiu does not represent the Chinese community
When the Appeals were made public by Suqiu Committee, MCA came out to announce that they support the Appeals “in principles” and its president, Ong Ka Ting even goes on to say that the Appeals “were in line with MCA’s struggle throughout the years” [MCA agrees with Suqiu principles, Nanyang Siang Pau, 18 August 1999].
On the same day, Gerakan also said that the point raised in the Appeals were “meaningful and in line with the struggle of the party throughout the years” [Gerakan: Suqiu best implemented by ruling parties, Nanyang Siang Pau, 18 August 1999].
This demonstrated that the Appeals somehow reflect the aspiration of Chinese political leaders as well, even though these political leaders did try to incorporate the Appeals into the national political framework. In fact, MCA president Dr Ling was on the record, saying that “the Appeals was supported and accepted by 99 per cent of Chinese Malaysians [Huatuan and BN Chinese parties unanimously accept Suqiu, Guang Ming Daily, 24 September 1999]. Dr Ling statement was also carried in China Press.
However, for the same event, Utusan’s report lead off with statement by Dr Ling denying that there was any demand for a second DPM [Tiada desakan pemimpin Cina TPM kedua – Ling (No demand for Chinese leader as second DPM – Ling), Utusan, 24 September 1999]. This is only expected, as Dr Ling’s statement does not fit into the frame used by Malay papers, and at the same time, repeating the impression that the Appeals include demand for the post of DPM for the Chinese.
This frame was first used by a Berita Harian on 8 September 1999, a day after another Malay language paper Utusan framed this episode as a “Chinese request” [FCAM kutuk tuntutan pertubuhan Cina (FCAM condemns Chinese organisation demands), Berita Harian, 8 September 1999]. In the report, it quoted FCAM president Chong Chin Soong as condemning the actions of “some Chinese organisations” for making various demands as conditions to support the BN. FCAM said it was throwing its support behind the BN government for the sake of unity. This reports implied that Suqiu did not represent the Chinese community. It also quoted Chong reminding these ‘Chinese organisations’ not to take this opportunity to seek “personal interests” without considering BN contributions.
Berita Harian in this report managed to quote someone agreeable to Berita Harian. As Kohn (2003, p. 120) pointed out, “a news organisation may insert into a story its own editorial views by actively seeking and then reporting the opinion of someone who agrees with the editors”. In this instance, it was even more convincing when Berita Harian managed to get the president of FCAM to make such statement. Why the president made such statement would is anyone’s guess, considering that was FCAM that initially proposed a racist demands to be included in the final draft of the Appeals. As noted, FCAM proposal was unanimously turned down by Suqiu Committee. In the same report, Berita Harian also repeatedly pointed out that the Appeals were a condition for votes by the Chinese organisations.
Both Utusan and Berita Harian also went to town trumpeting the outcome of Dr Mahathir meeting with ACCCIM and FCAM.
Utusan reported that ACCCIM and FCAM had organised a meeting with Dr Mahathir and had expressed their continued supports to the BN government for their success in maintaining political and economic stability [Kaum Cina sokong BN (Chinese community support BN), Utusan, 3 November 1999]. In order to support Utusan framing that the Appeals do not represent the Chinese community, Utusan highlighted the fact that both ACCCIM and FCAM had existed more than a century ago, even before the existence of political parties. This statement is to imply that Suqiu Committee did not have long history, and thus, did not represent the Chinese community.
Berita Harian also framed the meeting in similar fashion [Dua pertubuhan terbesar Cina sokong Mahathir (Two largest Chinese organisations support Mahathir), 3 November 1999]. This report was even more personal considering that the paper framed the supports not for BN, but for Dr Mahathir. Berita Harian goes on to explain that ACCCIM is the federation of 17 Chinese chambers of commerce, representing 20,000 companies, and FCAM representing 100,000 members. ACCCIM deputy secretary general, David Chua also pointed out that their association and FCAM was not part of Suqiu Committee. With that, the framing of the Appeals as not representative of the Chinese community was complete.
Another ‘Chinese’ group that came out to announce their support to Dr Mahathir-led government was the Kesatuan Kebangsaan Guru-guru Besar Malaysia bagi SJKC (National Federation of Principals for National Type Chinese School Malaysia) during the opening ceremony of an education seminar in Kuala Lumpur [Guru besar SJKC jamin sokong pimpinan Dr M (SJKC principals pledge to support Dr M leadership), Utusan, 5 November 1999]. Utusan article reported that the Federation gave their guarantee to continue their support. This was to deny that Dong Jiao Zong (DJZ) represent them, as DJZ is one of the main component of Suqiu Committee. Utusan did not failed to mention that the Federation’s president Kang Siew Khoon, in his long speech, lapped praises on Dr Mahathir, as how a subordinate should behave in the presence of their superior.
The Star could not take this angle of the story, as it would be unbecoming for a Chinese educationist lapping praises on a Malay politician. Thus, it highlighted Dr Mahathir praising that “students and teachers in national-type school” have “equal patriotism and loyalty to the nation despite the use of their mother tongue as the medium of instruction”. This was to imply that the government did acknowledge Chinese patriotism to the country.
ACCCIM and FCAM reiterated their support for BN government after the election date was announced by Dr Mahathir. In Utusan and Berita Harian reports, ACCCIM president Lim Guan Teik was quoted as saying that ACCCIM understood that the Chinese appeals for equal treatments, fair business and education opportunities still could not be fully fulfilled. Utusan also reminded its readers that the Appeals demanded that the government abolish the NEP, and give equal rights to Malaysian regardless of their races. Other more universal point like abolishing corruption, protecting the environment, and implementing housing for all was again left out.
When the Suqiu issue resurfaced after the 1999 general elections, the press took this angle again in their framing of the issue. In an attempt to support the argument that Suqiu did not represent the Chinese community, NST published a letter from reader on 28 September 2000 [‘Suqiu, enough is enough’ by Robert M. S. Phang from Kuala Lumpur]. In the letter, the writer argued that even though the Chinese community played a significant role in helping the BN return to power, it should not be used as “a tool to gain leverage and to make demands of the Malays, in particularly UMNO”. The writer also pointed out that it was the Chinese-based political parties within the BN that should be credited for mustering Chinese support for the BN to be returned to power, not Suqiu. This implies that Suqiu does not represent the Chinese as the community’s supports are firmly with the political parties in BN.
Utusan was more direct in their framing that Suqiu did not represent the Chinese community in their 20 August 2000 report. The report quoted MCA Youth chief Ong Tee Keat as saying that general public should not be making assumption that Suqiu represent the majority of Chinese community. Ong said that Suqiu only represented a small fraction of Chinese community, and thus, did not reflect the attitude and stand of the majority. Ong also pointed out that the majority of Chinese supported BN as demonstrated in the 1999 general elections.