Contesting Views in the Representation of ICERD Ratification in English Language Newspapers

Abstract

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) is a treaty endorsed by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in 1965. It advocates ending discrimination based on ethnicity and prohibiting the circulation of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred towards ethnic origin. Malaysia is one of the 14 member states that has not ratified ICERD. When the Pakatan Harapan government announced a review of the treaty in October 2018, it sparked a series of protests expressing resentment, predominantly by political and religious leaders, although the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) explained that ratification of ICERD would help to mould a united Malaysia. This chapter aims to unpack how articles in mainstream English language newspapers discursively represent the sentiments of the various parties for and against ICERD. Employing the dialectical relational approach, and premised upon membership categorisation and identity politics, this chapter studies New Straits Times and The Star and unveils the interplay of racial, social, and political voices and the justifications for the positions taken. The findings indicate that ICERD is largely constructed by social actors using the discourses of fear, threat, and discrimination against the Bumiputeras, who seemingly would be undermined by the minorities. These are discursively manifested in hypothetical forms through the use of conditionals and modality as well as overlexicalisation of vocabulary to intensify the tone of extremity. The debates on ICERD employing the discourses of identity politics seem to be for political gains rather than for the interest of equality and human rights for all Malaysians.

9.1 Introduction

Malaysia prides herself as an ethnically, religiously, and culturally pluralistic society. Of the 29.7 million citizens, the ethnic composition comprises the Bumiputeras (69.6%), Chinese (22.6%), Indians (6.8%), and other minorities (1.0%) (Department of Statistics, 2020). The Bumiputeras (a Malay term translated as “sons of the soil”) form the largest group with the majority Malays together with the indigenous people of Sabah and Sarawak. The current demographic state could be traced back to the eighteenth century when Chinese and Indian labourers were brought into the then Malaya by the British to work in the plantation and mining industries. Following this policy, the Chinese subsequently formed one-third of the population and the Indians one-tenth (Barlow & Loh, 2003). When Malaya gained its independence in 1957, the Reid Commission recognised the growing issue of economic disparities between ethnic groups. Based upon this recognition of the need for equity in economic and social development specifically for the Bumiputeras, the founding fathers of the country agreed on affirmative action provisions in Article 153 of the Federal Constitution (Jomo, 2005).

Article 153, Clause (1) states that it is the King’s responsibility to “safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the states of Sabah and Sarawak”. Clause (2) outlines the safeguarding in areas of reservation of “positions in public service”, “privileges”, and “special facilities” in exhibitions, education, trainings as well as trade and business licences (Attorney General’s Chambers of Malaysia, 2010, pp. 145–146). Despite this exceptional status, the Chinese continued the control of the country’s wealth, straining inter-ethnic relations which led to racial riots on 13 May 1969. Following this, the government introduced the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1970 that sought to eradicate poverty and restructure society to eliminate the identification of ethnicity with economic function in the aspiration of national unity (Jomo, 2005). NEP endorsed quotas advantaging predominantly the Malays within the social, economic, and education sectors. Further, Parliament made a decree in 1971 which prohibited the questioning of the special provisions in Article 153 (Suzuki, 2011).

Despite constitutional prohibition, Article 153 continuously invites socio-political debates publicly and privately. The original conception left by the colonial powers has over the years been recontextualised by different voices. Deemed highly sensitive to Malaysians from the majority group, particularly the Malay or Islam-based political parties while being viewed as racist by those at the opposing end, the social understanding of the provisions of the Article and the introduction of NEP reflects the perspective of the political power of the administration. There were also undocumented claims that the forefathers of the non-Bumiputeras had informally agreed to the special rights in exchange for citizenship at the time of negotiation for independence. Other questions raised include how the preferential treatments have been reinterpreted as guaranteed rights, and whether the positive discrimination has now moved away from its original intention since it has resulted in creating elite Malays while other Malays continue to be left behind economically. The argument by civil society is the NEP permits the perpetuation of systemic and constitutionally approved discriminatory practices. Political parties in particular the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) has also championed the narrative of “Ketuanan Melayu” (Malay pre-eminence). This is despite the fact that the understanding of Bumiputeras should also encompass the indigenous peoples whose voices have been subdued.

The 14th General Election on 9 May 2018 made history when there was a change in the federal government after Malaysia had been ruled by Barisan Nasional (BN) for 61 years. The newly minted government, Pakatan Harapan (PH), made promises and commitment for the development of human rights including ratifying the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). ICERD is a treaty endorsed by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in 1965 that advocates ending discrimination based on ethnicity and prohibiting the circulation of ideas based on superiority of ethnicity or hatred towards colour or ethnic origins. It is in consideration of the Declaration of Human Rights that all human beings are born free and possess equal dignity and rights and that every individual is equal before the law, and all are authorised to the same protection of the law (OHCHR, 1996). Supremacy based on racial variation is scientifically false, morally not right, socially unfair, and harmful, and a deterrent to peaceful living (OHCHR, 1996).

Of the 195 UN member states, Malaysia is one of the 14 countries that has yet to ratify ICERD. When the then appointed minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Waytha Moorthy, announced on 24 October 2018 that PH would review ICERD in 2019, it sparked a series of protests including a mass anti-ICERD rally on 8 December 2018 led by leaders of UMNO and Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS). Media reporting denoted that the opponents were disconcerted that ratifying ICERD was a contradiction to Article 153 and implied threats on the country’s sovereignty and Islam as the official religion of the state as accorded in Article 3 of the Constitution. The protesters played on the fear of losing their special positions as guaranteed by the Constitution, constructing themselves as victims should ICERD be ratified. The protest from the alliance of nationalists and Islamists was also perceived as reactionary to the political power loss of BN and PAS and to demonise the minorities in administration. In particular, the Chinese-dominated Democratic Action Party (DAP) as well as ridiculing Waytha Moorthy, the minister who happened to be an ethnic Indian and former member of Hindu Rights Action Force (HINDRAF), a coalition of 30 religious-based non-governmental bodies advocating for Hindu rights (Temby, 2020). They were also other discourses of resentment through press conferences and social media. Through hashtags #TolakICERD (#RejectICERD) and #LucutWaytha (#SackWaytha), an Islamist youth NGO known as Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (ISMA) was instrumental behind the very strong social media outreach (Temby, 2020). The mobilisation of Malay Muslim-led protests eventually succeeded in preventing the ratification of ICERD.

There were also proponents of ICERD. The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) had urged the government to endorse ICERD. SUHAKAM’s chairman, Tan Sri Razali Ismail, said that one of the basic principles of human rights is upholding human dignity and that human rights are in line with all religions in the world, including Islam. Thus, ICERD would not be in conflict with religious norms (Zainal & De Souza, 2018). SUHAKAM assured the protection of human rights according to Rukun Negara and Constitution and that the rights of certain ethnic groups would not be abolished as enshrined in the Constitution (Bernama, 2018). There have been calls by Malay bourgeois and non-Malays that the government should no longer advocate for race-based politics and norms (Boo, 2019; Star, 2020). In fact, many governments have achieved economic success due to the collective empowerment of society focusing on human rights which include casting votes against poor governance and corruption that violate human rights (Bernama, 2018). It seems obvious that the voices of ICERD proponents have been subdued or downplayed in this public discourse.

The ICERD protest became one of the key platforms that represent the complexity of identity politics used in advancing the agenda of ethnic and religious-based politics (International Commission of Jurists, 2019). After more than 60 years of independence, the understanding of preferential treatments for the Bumiputeras has become part of the fabric of the country where entitlements and rights are awarded as the birth right of a particular ethnic group. There have been calls from the Malays and non-Malays, also from SUHAKAM for change of mindset, advocate for meritocracy and a fairer distribution of the economic pie (Star, 2020). However, Article 153 continues to be key to the legitimation of Bumiputera rights. Indirectly, it has also implicated discriminatory racial discourses and discourses of resistance against an acknowledgement of equality for all citizens accorded under Article 8. Article 153 was initially aimed to close the gaps through equity in socio-economic and political policies. It has subsequently created inequality within the Bumiputera subgroups themselves and with other citizens. The identity politics embraced has socially constructed citizens in a pecking order. In critical discourse terms, this is a social-political practice of social constructionism through membership categorisation. The debates from the majority and minority persist as both are perceived as politicising ICERD from different sides. The Bumiputeras, predominantly the Malay Muslims, have been using the argument of social equity as well as constitutional and legal discourses while the minorities use the understanding of social equality from a human rights discourse perspective for social justice, but all were entrenched in complex identity-based politics. Thus, it is the interest of this research to understand these multiple voices as reported in the media on the intention to ratify ICERD. The questions asked are as follows: How do the various voices discursively argue for and against ICERD ratification as represented by mainstream news reporting? What are the implications of the current social-political stance? This chapter will shed light on how arguments and justifications have been presented to the public through news reporting to better understand the social-political sentiment and reactions of represented parties. Apart from empathising with the represented and under-represented parties, this study assesses the perceived implications of the non-ratification of ICERD.

9.2 ICERD Ratification as a Discursive Issue

In the context of public policy and administration, social justice can be discussed through the lens of social equality and social equity. Miller (1998, p. 23) distinguished two sub-types of equality which are firstly, “distributive equality” where there are equal distributions of social goods and, secondly, “social equality” that promotes “the ideal of a society that is not marked by status divisions” and “hierarchically ranked categories”. Meanwhile, “social equity” is a moral imperative of the field where some segments of underprivileged people should be given more to enable them to be on par with the rest in society in achieving the desired social equality (Johnson & Svara, 2011; Svara & Brunet, 2005). Such was the intention that sparked the “episodic corrections” of affirmative actions in Article 153 which was also similar to the American Civil Rights Act 1964 (Guy & McCandless, 2012, p. 55). In both cases, social equality and social equity are argued as a social construct realised through political discourses where members of both represented and under-presented groups are positioned in a hierarchical order of socio-economic and political priorities to recompense for prior exclusion. This is viewed as precisely the basis of (counter) arguments on the relevance of ICERD in Malaysia.

Related to the above is Membership Categorisation Analysis (MCA). In a paper written by Sacks in 1979, he stated that “any person who is a case of a category is seen as a member of a category, and what’s known about the category is known about them, and the fate of each is bound up in the fate of the other” (cited in Fitzgerald & Housley, 2015, p. 4). MCA explores the way members accomplish their interaction and knowledge of the world through methodical organisation of social categories, devices, and predicates mapped onto categories (Fitzgerald & Housley, 2009). A study done by Clifton (2014) on political debate in a radio talk show employing MCA unveiled practical reasons in which Islamophobia was defined through dual membership devices of (1) “worlds” with the argument of Islam and Western cultural incompatibility and (2) “race” through relational pairs of Muslim/Asian versus White British. Membership categorisation devices allude to how social order is accomplished through what is done by people, and how people conduct and carry themselves and interact with one another, subsequently organising social categories where members form co-membership or structure themselves in a certain pecking order (Fitzgerald & Housley, 2015). Although studies using MCA are largely conducted on spoken interactions and MCA is a methodology itself, in this study, the notion of “category devices” from MCA is borrowed as a method to analyse membership devices in direct and indirect speech in news reporting. Identity categories can be discursively created through purported cases of ethnicity, religion, constitution, and political affiliation in this study.

Identity categories are also linked to the discourses of racism similar to gender, class, or religious-based inequality. From the perspective of discursive psychology, Wetherell and Potter (1992, p. 70) contended that attitudes and stereotypes are actively constitutive of social and psychological processes, creating prejudices. Identity politics is contended as a social construction and association with aristocratic descent and membership related to a dynasty or ruling house (Wodak, 1999). They are in fact manifested discursively as perspectives and stance, constructed, and reconstructed by means of discourse (Wodak & Reisigl, 1999). They evoke legitimising, exploiting, and oppressing certain social groups by dismissing opportunities to privileges and advantages in different areas.

The idea employed by both proponents and opponents of ICERD is to construct a positive self-identity as a basic opposition to politics as well as gain more self-governing right, freedom, and superiority. In politicising ICERD, political power control seems to be the predominant agenda (International Commission of Jurists, 2019; Temby, 2020). Power possession allows the holder to have access to limited resources in society, for instance finance, status, information, different public discourse, and communication channels with the aim to control the actions and thinking of members (van Dijk, 2001). Specifically, broadcast news and related media not only report “facts” but are resources for promoting government initiatives and policies to the voting public (Boortin, 1973). The media represent a channel where accountability and democratic checks and balances are performed (Fairclough, 1995). Power can be exercised through persuasion and manipulation through text and talk. Therefore, to explore and understand how the construction of identity categories is enacted through ICERD debates, mainstream news reports have been selected as the medium of investigation in this study.

Since the research is interested in investigating the opaque dialectical relationship between media discourse and social practice, it adopts Fairclough’s (2010) critical discourse approach (CDA) as the main theoretical framework. CDA has been adopted in previous research to understand how discourse structures could influence thinking. Among them are on identity politics in the news media (Caballero Mengibar, 2015; Fairclough, 1995; Ho, 2019), specifically in issues of racism and nationalism in the media (Costelloe, 2014; Teo, 2000; Wodak et al., 2009) and anti-Semitism (Wodak, 1991). In terms of racism and ICERD, social and legal studies by Falcon (2011) and Hill (2016) revealed that the United States (US) government evaded ICERD responsibilities through the legal discourse of Reservations, Understandings, and Declarations (RUDs) which allowed the US to alter treaties in conflict with domestic obligations. Through the legal discourse of RUDs, the US lawfully restrained full responsibilities including prohibition of minority-owned business and execution of death penalties on black citizens not because of the crime committed but because they were poorly defended as socially disadvantaged. Specific to ICERD and local Malaysian media research, only one study was found. Joharry and Saupi (2019) did a cross-linguistic corpora study on how ICERD was reported in English and Malay online newspapers. Both consistently reported high occurrences of “not to ratify” but interestingly the Malay newspaper exhibited this high co-occurrence of not ratifying ICERD with expressions of gratitude. While the study has highlighted sentiment and frequency counts, it did not employ a critical lens onto the social practices. On the whole, previous studies on both local and international data found systemic othering and stereotyping of ethnic communities along with prejudices and ideologies. Therefore, it is the aim of this study to unpack how the mainstream English language media in Malaysia (New Straits Times and The Star) have reported the represented voices and (de)legitimisation of ICERD ratification and to what extent the media space has allowed fair debating on racial politics and ethnoreligious tension.

9.3 Data and Methods

This research employs the Faircloughian dialectical relational framework (2010) of critical discourse studies which sees semiotic or discursive elements being constitutive and constituted by social practices in society (Fig. 9.1). In simple terms, ideological potentials influencing behaviours in society are shaped by discourse constructions and continue to be redefined through changes in discourse. The research follows the three stages of identifying formal characteristics of the discourse (descriptive), interpreting of the discursive choices (interpretative) and explaining the interaction with the social context (explanatory).

Fig. 9.1

Fairclough’s (2010) dialectical relational framework

The dataset was derived from a total of 257 news articles (82,607 words), comprising 123 published in The Star and 134 from New Straits Times (NST). These are the top two Malaysian mainstream English language newspapers in terms of circulation and readership in both print and online versions (Audit Bureau of Circulations, 2018). Opinion pieces from columnists and individual letters to the editors were excluded to focus only on the reporting of what happened on the ground. As the research focuses on the media coverage of ICERD, the data collection started from 24 October 2018, the day Waytha Moorthy announced the ratification of ICERD, and ended on 31 December 2018, close to a month after the anti-ICERD rally. Three keywords used in data collection search were “ICERD”, “anti-ICERD”, and “ICERD + rally”. This was to avoid collecting data specific to any party.

As entry into data, the automated one-click sentiment analysis function in a qualitative analytical software (Nvivo12 Plus) was utilised to check for the general stance taken by both newspapers. This software performed the broad semantic parsing of words and broadly categorises them according to the positivity and negativity of lexical meanings. Figure 9.2 show that both newspapers generally exhibit more negative sentiment in reporting the issue. However, what is more important is that both share similar tone as observed in the similar percentage exhibited in each category of the “very negative”, “moderately negative”, “moderately positive”, and “very positive” (Fig. 9.2). It is crucial to verify the stance of each newspaper as findings could be skewed should a different position be taken by any one of the newspapers. The consistency displayed suggests that it would be valid to group both datasets together in the analysis and they are representative of mainstream voices.

Fig. 9.2

Sentiments in the reporting of ICERD ratification by NST and The Star (trend of cases in Nvivo12 Plus)

Sentiment/Newspaper	Very negative		Moderately negative		Moderately positive		Very positive		Total
	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%
NST	99	11.45	328	37.92	385	44.51	53	6.13	865	100
The Star	127	15.26	328	39.42	377	45.31	51	6.13	832	100

Also as entry into the context of the data, another semantic parsing corpus software (WMatrix4) was used to identify the uniqueness of the data through the keyness function. This step enabled the identification of key linguistic categories found in the data under study and hence statistically validated them as the prominent features worthy of investigation. To identify the characteristics distinctive to ICERD as well as journalistic reporting, the data was compared to a general written English corpus. Here, it was compared to the British National Corpus (Written) as a practical means of comparison since this corpus is pre-installed in WMatrix4. Figure 9.3 shows the top 30 categories unique to the corpus under study.

Fig. 9.3

Key semantic categories found in corpus under study compared to the British National Corpus (Written) in WMatrix4

Figure 9.3 informed the researchers and confirmed that the prominent clusters of word meanings or key semantic categories (Rayson, 2009) and discourse features found in the corpus studied:

• a. direct and indirect speeches (Line 3 Speech Communicative; Line 21 Speech Act): to analyse direct and indirect speeches and speech act functions

• b. power struggle (Line 29 No power): confirms the issue of power struggle and hence the need to unpack the contesting voices

• c. sentiments (Line 8 Drama; Line 12 Comparing; Line 13 Hindering; Line 16 Negative; Line 26 Strong obligation): to analyse vocabulary expressing sentiment/tone/stance/feeling.

• d. discussion of time (Line 15 Time: Period; Line 28 Time: Future): to study the grammatical elements related to time, specifically modality and if-conditionals in speaking about the future.

• e. membership (Line 5 Belonging to a group; Line 30 People): to analyse how members are socio-politically packed in the news through the following membership devices:

  • i. device of “religion” (Line 17 Religion)

  • ii. device of “constitution” (Line 19 Law and Order)

  • iii. device of “politics” (Line 27 Politics)

  • iv. device of other social categories (Line 7 Social Actions, States and Processes).

These membership devices are also consistent with those identified through literature review which are ethnicity, religion, rights, constitution, and politics.

Based on the above, the two key aspects to be analysed are sentiment analysis and membership analysis. Sentiment analysis is concerned with identifying the mood or opinion of subjective elements within a text (Bhadane et al., 2015). By understanding the positive–negative polarity in the discourse, we can gauge the stance (orientation and disposition) on ICERD. To understand the sentiments of the reported voices more accurately, lexical items related to positive and negative emotions and their overlexicalisation were extracted from WMatrix4. Overlexicalisation refers to a word that conveys emphasis or accentuation of meaning of an idea or concept, often carrying the tone of extremity. Data were also coded in Nvivo12 Plus for grammatical analyses of modality and if-conditionals to determine how the social actors expressed sentiments through predictions of the outcomes of ICERD ratification. The second part of the analysis focuses on membership categories of the social actors. Data were also coded according to category devices identified which are ethnicity, religion, rights, constitution, and politics.

9.4 Analysis

9.4.1 Sentiment Analysis

Sentiments can reflect the degrees of preference or opposition of the citizens, and they suggest if ideological values are reinforced or contradicted. In the dataset studied, the voices of the Malay nationalists and UMNO were consistently strong in opposing ICERD’s ratification. In terms of words employed by these actors, the Negative Word list generated in WMatrix4 shows 1103 tokens, while the Negative Emotions word list exhibits 132 tokens. These lexical items connote that ICERD is a cause or source of disaster, disorder, and disharmony. Top words found in the data which indicate such notions are “concerns”, “tension”, “threaten”, “hatred”, “worry”, “riot”, “fear”, “trouble”, “jeopardise”, “disaster”, “trigger”, “provocation”, “warning”, “chaos”, “rifts”, “harm”, “dangerous”, and “disharmony” as seen in Extracts 1–4 below:

Extract 1 NST	UMNO Vice-President Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled Nordin said trouble could arise if anybody did anything to ‘touch’ the Constitution.	Warning/Expressing fear
Extract 2 NST	“I worry that if the government proceeds with the ratification of the ICERD without prior consultation with non-governmental organisations and Bumiputera leaders, it will trigger dissatisfaction and provocation among the Bumiputera.”	Expressing concern and fear
Extract 3 The Star	“We have no issues with the Chinese controlling the economy, having their own schools. But do not create chaos over this issue,” he said.	Warning/Threatening
Extract 4 The Star	“We do not want ICERD to be signed. It will bring harm if it is signed.”	Expressing refusal/fear

The bolded items above highlight the negative thoughts and perceptions of the nationalists and Malay-Muslim politicians towards ICERD as something that would bring trouble and put peace and sovereignty of the country at stake. The words carry nuances of extremity or are overlexicalised, resulting in the reinforcement of the intensity and seriousness of the situation as well as persistence of the quoted voices. The utterances also act as expressions of warning, refusal, fear, and concerns in terms of speech act functions with underlying tone of anger and dissatisfaction. These suggest the predominantly negative sentiment and resentment of the reported political voices.

Sentiments could also be observed from the analysis of modality. Modality is a semantic category which can be indicative or subjunctive; it expresses the mood of a verb. There are high occurrences of modal auxiliaries expressing the degrees of possibility and certainty that something undesirable would occur if ICERD is ratified. These are realised through auxiliaries such as “could (not)”, “must (not)”, “should (not)”, “would (not)”, and “will (not)”. Modalities inform us about the commitment people have towards what they utter including revealing and concealing.

In analysing the voices of the opponents, the auxiliaries “could (not)” appeared 107 times and were largely used to express predicted possibility of negative effects of ICERD ratification. Examples from the corpus under study include (Extracts 5–7):

Extract 5 NST	He said UMNO is against the ratification as it is “a new form of colonialism” which could jeopardise racial harmony.
Extract 6 NST	The group said the report was lodged as ICERD could threaten the country’s religious and racial stability.
Extract 7 NST	The move has sparked concern among various quarters, especially UMNO and PAS, who believe that it could, among others, signal an erosion of Malay and Bumiputera special rights.

ICERD is viewed as a possible threat to stability, harmony, and rights of the Malays and Bumiputeras in general. It is also deemed as a chess piece used by the PH government as a hidden political agenda. The use of “could” suggests prediction, which means the threat did not exist but propagated as a possible future implication and hence constructing ICERD as a possible destruction of the Malays and the country.

The use of modal “must (not)” (N = 106) is also found, as seen in Extracts 8–10:

Extract 8 NST	“All quarters must repent (on this matter). We do not want to mention (the ICERD) again until Hari Kiamat (doomsday/Judgement Day).”
Extract 9 The Star	Tuan Ibrahim said that the government must not beat around the bush over the issue of the ratification of ICERD anymore.
Extract 10 NST	“We must oppose (ICERD) because it is compulsory for Muslims to say that Islam is correct.”

In the extracts above, “must (not)” is employed to express a compulsion to prohibit the action of ratifying ICERD as well as  assert and persuade Muslims not to surrender. Instead, they must come together to oppose it as if it is their duty to do so. The strong rejection and disagreement towards ICERD are significantly magnified through the auxiliary “must (not)”.

The modal verbs “should (not)” were also found in the data frequently (N = 204). As seen in Extracts 11–13, they are expressions of advice and recommendations to the government and public which indicate speakers’ expectations. Although “should” is more subtle in terms of modality compared to the compulsive tone in “must”, the former co-occurs with many expressions of opposition against ICERD.

Extract 11 The Star	“Even the Prime Minister had in an interview with The Washington Post in 2002, said that we should not be in a situation where the demands of the minority can cause problems to the majority,” he said in a statement.
Extract 12 NST	Shahidan said the issue of the ICERD as it pertains to Malaysia should now be laid to rest forever, as it is a sensitive matter in the country; and cautioned all ministers against ever again making inflammatory statements related to the ICERD.
Extract 13 The Star	Malaysia should not ratify the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) as “positive discrimination” helps to reduce inequality among races, says Umno deputy president Datuk Seri Mohamad Hasan (pic).

The modal verb “would (not)” has a high frequency (N = 444). It is often used to produce conditional meaning or reference to a future action as the past form of “will”. Referring to the examples in Extracts 14–16, it is utilised to express extreme possibilities or as hypothetical statements of serious future actions including threats and plans to organise rallies. When such highly intense sentiment is expressed, it purports a lead to kinetic actions (Puschmann and Powell, 2018).

Extract 14 NST	Shahidan said he would bring 2,000 people from Perlis, while PAS had guaranteed the attendance of 200,000 people.
Extract 15 The Star	Asked what would happen if the government went ahead with the ratification, Tuan Ibrahim said it would result in mass mobilisation of Muslims and Bumiputera from Sabah and Sarawak, who would also be affected.
Extract 16 NST	Last night, UMNO president Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi warned Putrajaya the Malay-Muslim community would run “amuk” to protest the government's pledge to ratify ICERD.

The most widely used modal verb is “will (not)” (N = 456). It is used to make promises or voluntary actions in the future or predictions about the future, express willingness, or ability in making requests or offers, finish a conditional sentence, prompt likelihood in the immediate present, and issue commands. Using “will (not)” also adds assertiveness and forcefulness to the expressions. In Extracts 17–19, it was found that “will (not)” was used to assert actions that would take place in the future, which was the anti-ICERD rally held on 8 December 2018. The modal verb “will (not)” was used to indicate future events, for example, the number of people at the rally. It acts to caution the PH government to be careful about their actions so that nothing unwanted would happen. The determination was strongly felt through their expressions. The speech acts of threatening and warning were expressed as a conditional relationship; this meant that if the PH government proceeded with the ratification, the opposition would retaliate with actions and protests as seen in Extracts 17–19.

Extract 17 NST	“This is to show that the Malays are really against ICERD. It is also to make sure that the matter will not resurface in the future,” he said.
Extract 18 NST	“ICERD is like a virus in our body, when we (Muslims) are strong and have strong antibodies, ICERD (referring to those proposing for Malaysia to accede to it) will be quiet, but when we are weak, it will grow quietly.”
Extract 19 NST	“This is a peaceful gathering and UMNO Youth will not compromise with any form of provocation and attempts to play up racial sentiments. We will send agent provocateurs to the police ourselves,” he said at a press conference after chairing an UMNO Youth meeting at Menara Dato Onn here today.

The conditional relationship is further seen in the use of “if-conditionals” (N = 232). In speaking about ICERD, “if-conditionals” were predominantly used to predict an imaginary future if ICERD was ratified. The opponents expressed their worries and concerns that if the ICERD treaty was ratified, something unwarranted would happen and this was with reference to the proposed rally and the probable eventual loss of Bumiputera rights. This further suggested the opponents’ sense of insecurity. The “if-conditionals” were also expressed as a form of threat directed to the PH government to cease the ratification, which indirectly hinted that havoc would ensue if the ICERD treaty was ratified. The adamant attitude of the opponents was presented in hypothetical form rather than factual (Extracts 20–23).

Extract 20 NST	“I worry that if the government proceeds with the ratification of the ICERD without prior consultation with non-governmental organisations and Bumiputera leaders, it will trigger dissatisfaction and provocation among the Bumiputera.”
Extract 21 NST	“At the same time, we also thanked the government for not ratifying ICERD. But we can’t help but wonder if there is a guarantee that the matter will not be brought up again in the future.”
Extract 22 The Star	“If we do not give the Malays more opportunities than other races, if we believe we must give everything equally, in equality, then those who are competent will be more successful and those who are not will be left behind.”
Extract 23 NST	“This is a lie. Take it back… if he refuses to do so, we will mobilise NGOs in the whole of Malaysia to gather in Putrajaya to urge for a retraction and an apology from him to the Muslim community.”

Generally, the sentiment analysis of the ICERD opponents shows that emotive words and expressions of mood through modality largely suggest negativity with strong opposition, resentment, and concern and insecurity. The opponents of ICERD manipulated the discourses of fear and threat as a means to champion Bumiputera rights. By opposing the ratification, indirectly, they also constructed the PH government as weak, as if the latter did not earnestly defend and uphold Malay constitutional rights. Their criticisms could be interpreted as a political opportunity for the opponents to gain more popularity.

9.4.2 Membership Analysis

As seen in the previous section, the arguments by the opponents were largely justified on changes in social action and social processes. This is consistent with the semantic category presented in Line 7 in Fig. 9.3. Their justifications centred on the positioning of membership of citizens using “membership devices”. The voices in the discourses of ICERD used the category devices of ethnicity, religion, culture, heritage, rights, constitution, and politics in categorising Malaysian citizens. However, these devices might not necessarily be single categories but could be realised in dual or more categories as a “collated” device that effected the division of us and them. This is precisely the argument of how the various identity categories have been fused in the politicking process due to the diversity Malaysian society.

Analysis of the discourses seems to suggest that ethnicity and religion are two indivisible components in the discourse, as Siti Nurnadilla (Chap. 8) finds. Many of the people who reacted strongly against the ratification of ICERD were Malay Muslims or the opposition parties, especially PAS, an Islamist party. They assumed a responsibility for themselves and turned themselves into guardians of Islam. They were reported to represent themselves as being disadvantaged, with their rights at risk, and had to rise and defend their religion. Expressions found which denote such notions are “responsibility”, “uphold”, “we should not forget our tradition, heritage, and history”, “obligation to reject”, “unite to oppose ICERD”, “protecting the dignity of Islam and the Malays”, “uphold and defend Islam as the official religion, “defending the right of the Malays”, “defending our faith and religion”, “concerns the sovereignty of the royal institution and Islam”, and “claiming what is enshrined in the Federal Constitution, which are Articles 3 and 153”. The fuller expressions of these discourses are seen in Extracts 24–31:

Extract 24 NST	On Nov 16, thousands of people, comprising UMNO and PAS leaders as well as non-governmental organisations, gathered nationwide to protest plans to ratify the convention, which they deemed would be detrimental to the Muslim way of life in Malaysia, as well as a blow to Bumiputera rights and the monarchy.
Extract 25 NST	“We have to reject ICERD as it also concerns the sovereignty of the royal institution and Islam,” he said.
Extract 26 NST	“We are here because we are not anti-Chinese, or anti-Indians, we are just defending the right of the Malays.”
Extract 27 NST	“We don’t hate the Hindus, the Buddhists or the Christians but we are only defending our faith and religion,” he said.
Extract 28 NST	PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang says all Muslims have a duty to oppose the ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), which he claims would place Islam on the same level as other religions.
Extract 29 NST	We can give rights to other religions but to say that other religions are the same as Islam is unacceptable.
Extract 30 NST	“As such, Muslims have an obligation to reject liberal concepts which place all religions equally. It is only natural for all religious followers to believe that theirs is the true religion; not think that it is the same as other religions,” he said in a statement on Thursday.
Extract 31 NST	Tuan Ibrahim also stressed that the anti-ICERD rally was not held to deny the rights of other races or religions, but to uphold and defend Islam as the official religion as stated in the Federal Constitution.

Article 160 of the Constitution defines a Malay as a “person who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language and conforms to Malay custom.” (Attorney General’s Chambers of Malaysia, 2010, p. 153). Islam is the official religion of the federation; this likely stems from the fact that all persons of Malay ethnic origin are “automatically” Muslims if viewed from the perspective of the Constitution. Therefore, it is not surprising for the data to show a fused category of “Malay + Muslim”.

The devices of “Malay + Muslim” are also collocated with the “royalty/monarchy”, as represented in Extracts 24–25. The association with the ruler as also lawfully enshrined in the Constitution further constructs the superior position of Malay and Muslims in the discourse. This could be deduced from their discursive positioning in Articles 3, 153, and 160 of the Constitution as explained earlier. The unpacking of the data also suggests that superiority of the Malays and Islam is also a co-construction with membership of other ethnic groups and faiths practised in the country. As evident in Extract 26 (membership device of ethnicity—the Chinese and Indians) and Extract 27 (membership device of religion—Hindus, Buddhists, and Christians), the discourses construct non-Malay Muslims as “less superior” or the other. The rejection of equal status is denied as seen in Islam not being “on the same level of other religions” (Extracts 28–30), and this is “unacceptable” (Extract 29). While Malaysia is not a theocratic Islamic country, the special position of Islam is recognised in the Constitution, which is used as a device to establish its higher status (Extract 31). What has also been observed is the under-representation and lack of the reporting of the voices of other Bumiputeras (the indigenous people in East and West Malaysia). The backgrounding or silencing of the other Bumiputeras, where the majority of them are non-Muslims, is another co-construction of the less superior ethnic group. Despite being “Bumiputera”, they do not belong to the ‘Muslim’ category device and hence, discursively less significant in membership.

The device of “race” is also packed with “rights” of social-economic advantages privileged by birth and constitutional definition. In line with the understanding of social equity, “rights” is another device used to socially construct a hierarchy in society. “Rights” is co-constructed with the privilege and achievement of social justice measured by sub-devices of “social equality”, “social equity”, or even possibly “social superiority”. Generally, the opposition of ICERD arises from the device of “rights” of certain groups being threatened or taken away. This notion is evident in phrases such as “erosion of certain rights” (Extract 32), “…my rights are taken away?” (Extract 33), “remove our privileges” (Extract 35), and “special rights, political and legal rights…abolished” (Extract 36).

Extract 32 NST	“ARMADA urges the government to reconsider ratifying the ICERD if it leads to Malaysia’s laws to be on the same level as international laws because this could lead to socio-economic imbalance and erosion of certain rights,” the Member of Parliament for Muar said in a statement here today.	Social equity
Extract 33 NST	“Can I accept it if my rights are taken away due to discrimination? The answer is no,” added the Barisan Nasional secretary-general.	Social equity Social superiority
Extract 34 NST	“As a Muslim and Malay, I oppose the ratification of ICERD. Everyone has been treated fairly before this and there is no need for Malaysia to ape the West,” he said.	Social equality
Extract 35 NST	“To remove (our privileges) in our weak state in the name of equality is not right.”	Social equity Social superiority
Extract 36 NST	“ICERD’s definition and scope of discrimination is wide ranging encompassing all forms of discrimination in the country which include special rights, political and legal rights which will be abolished.”	Social equity Social superiority

As seen in the Extracts 32–36, the yardsticks employed in the contestation of ICERD are about whose rights and the kinds of rights. Fairness and justice are subjective and a matter of perspective of a particular voice. What is fair to the nationalists is their entitlement to additional rights (social equity) to remain competitive with the richer ethnic groups in the country as originally agreed at the point of the country’s independence. However, in the subsequent decades post-independence, the interpretation has become rights to “social superiority” or “exclusivity” (Roberts, 2000). Religious and racial agenda has become more politicised than ever by political parties like UMNO and PAS.

Despite the above, some of the political voices have also categorised all Malaysians as a group as “us” against “foreign policy and harmful Western ideology” (Extracts 37 to 39) as “them”. The Western agenda was assumed to be detrimental as they had “abandoned religion and the true ethics of humanity” (Extract 39), and it was demonised as a “Freemason agenda” (Extract 41). Freemasonry is a group of fraternities steeped in rituals and symbolisms; here, the religious leaders had politicised it as threatening faiths practised by Malaysians and that Islam was the only true teaching. By this too, it was claimed that Malaysians would forget and lose their “tradition, heritage and history” (Extract 40) connoting an agenda of colonisation by the West or echoing an orientalist view where the values of the East are distorted by Western perspectives (Said, 1978).

Extract 37 NST	Speaking at Dataran Merdeka during the anti-ICERD rally in the city, Hadi said Malaysia should never bow to “policies created by the West.”
Extract 38 NST	“So there’s no need for Malaysia to import foreign policies. What’s more important is that we care for the welfare, peace and harmony of this country,” he said.
Extract 39 NST	“Muslim, those with religion, the Bumiputera and all races must unite to oppose ICERD. Do not be swayed by the Western agenda which has long abandoned religion and the true ethics of humanity,” he said.
Extract 40 NST	“To be liberal in terms of progress and innovation is good. But we should not forget our tradition, heritage and history,” he wrote.
Extract 41 NST	“Those who champion ICERD must be opposed as this is a Freemason agenda to destroy religion, race and country.

The strong opposition against ICERD eventually made the PH government postpone the ICERD ratification before the rally day itself. This was despite assurances from the advocates of ICERD including SUHAKAM and PH politicians, some of whom were Malay Muslims too. They had continuously provided reassurances and commitment to take responsibilities through the modal verbs of “will (not)” and its past tense form of “would (not)” and “have to” as seen below:

Extract 42 NST	“If ICERD needs to be ratified, then the views and suggestions of all stakeholders will be taken into account. We will engage all government representatives and opposition.
Extract 43 The Star	Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad had said that Malaysia would only endorse the convention after consulting with all ethnic groups in the country.
Extract 44 The Star	He said ICERD will become the last convention ratified by the government as it involves a law that has to be scrutinised as well as to seek views from various parties through negotiations to eliminate any concerns.
Extract 45 NST	“The matter involves various communities and Islamic groups, so I have to discuss with a cabinet colleague and seek views on the aspects of Islam.”
Extract 46 NST	“The government gives its guarantee that Article 153 of the Federal Constitution will neither be amended nor abolished.
Extract 47 NST	He said assumptions that the ratification would result in Malay rights being diminished or threaten the status of the Malay rulers and Islam was incorrect.
Extract 48 NST	He said ICERD would not change the identity of the country from the aspect of Constitution, culture or anything for that matter..
Extract 49 NST	Certainly, we will conduct an in-depth study, including taking into account what happens at the grassroots level and all state governments,” he said …

The use of “will (not)”, “would (not)”, and “have to” in Extracts 42–49 evoked the notion that the PH government and SUHAKAM were determined, committed, and took serious responsibilities in considering ICERD. The tone of commitment was also co-constructed with an image of openness where the government would be in consultation with parties (Extracts 42–45 and 49) and would factually consider ICERD through “in-depth study” (Extract 49). While the voice of SUHAKAM was clear in favouring the ratification (Extracts 47 and 48), the tone of the PH government was more cautious, impartial, and less hasty, which suggests careful, reliable, and fair leadership and governance (Extracts 42 to 46 and 51). In terms of issues related to Article 153, the PH government made promises and was firm in matters pertaining to upholding the constitution and law, assuring rights, suggesting attempts to pacify the protestors, and mitigating the ongoing negative sentiments (Extracts 44 and 46).

Through the reporting of views of the PH government, there were mentions of sub-devices of “race/ethnicity” (Extracts 43 and 47), “religion” (Extract 45), political affiliations of “government” and “opposition” (Extract 42), and “grassroots” and “states” (Extract 49). However, collectively as seen in Extracts 42 to 49, they suggest that the PH government’s discourse would construct the people as a holistic “group”, as citizens belonging to a country first rather than categories of ethnicity or religion. In line with the multi-ethnic nature of the PH government, society as a whole was recognised, unlike UMNO and PAS who seemed to define people primarily by ethnicity or religion. The politicking of membership as inclusive or exclusive is all dependent on a political organisation’s agenda.

9.5 Discussion and Conclusion

This study has shed light on how arguments and justifications were presented to the public through news reporting to better understand the socio-political sentiment and reactions of represented parties towards ICERD. The research has shown how the news discourse reporting on the contesting views of ICERD ratification is dominated by the voices of the majority Malay Muslims but under-represented the views of the other Bumiputeras as well as the Chinese and Indians. These non-Malays were not highlighted in the press to express what they felt about social equality and ICERD, as if they lacked rights in such discussions. While SUHAKAM was a clear advocate of ICERD, the PH government was represented as more cautious and impartial on the ratification issue, to minimise of the risk of losing political support from the majority Malays.

In general, the sentiment and membership analyses have shown the predominance of negative stance of religious leaders and political parties representing the Malay Muslims, in particular UMNO and PAS. These are manifested discursively in hypothetical forms through the use of conditionals and modality as well as overlexicalisation of vocabulary and structures to intensify the tone of extremity. ICERD is alleged to evoke intimidation of the majority and the Constitution, whom and which seemingly would be undermined and threatened by the rise of the minority. ICERD is presented as the cause of disorder, dissatisfaction, and provocation of the majority and a disguised ideological domination of the West. The discourses have generally construed the victimisation of the Bumiputeras, particularly the Malay Muslims but less was mentioned about the non-Malays and non-Muslim Bumiputeras in Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah, and Sarawak.

The membership and entitlements of the Malays were constructed through the dual devices of Malay Muslim, which are constitutionally and legitimately superior and above other ethnic groups and faiths in Malaysia as evident in the analysis of membership devices. The constitutional conflicts have been cited as justifications of “social superiority” and “social equity” in contradiction to “social equality” as propagated by ICERD. ICERD was originally associated with fighting colonialism where the minority ruled over the majority with philosophies of segregation, discrimination, and racial superiority. However, in the context of Malaysia, the politics of it is about the majority defending their rights of racial superiority for fear of lagging behind in socio-economic and political dominance if the minority were given equal standing. This so-called positive discrimination has become part of racial politics in Malaysia and continues to be manipulated for the political dominance of certain political parties.

While it is understandable that the current socio-political construct particularly the Malay-Muslim rhetoric is fundamentally historical and constitutionally based, the voices of non-ratification of ICERD here could be interpreted as politically hegemonic and permit the persistence of alleged systemic racism. From an epistemological perspective, the discourses of ICERD are a social construction, formed by consequences of subjective social ideas, social actions, and social processes in line with the Fairclough’s (2010) notion of dialectical relationship. This subjective experience when assimilated becomes common sense and normalised. This racial sentiment in political discourses ought to be highlighted, or it would continue to legitimise the unequal power relations.

In brief, ICERD is seemingly constructed as a threat and victimisation of the majority Malay Muslims with the arguments of constitutional clashes and intimidation of the rights to social equity and social superiority. The discourses in the English language newspapers also suggest that reported dominant voices seem to manipulate the ratification issue for their own political gains. In particular for UMNO and PAS, this was to regain the votes and trust of the Malay Muslims which they lost in the 14th general election in 2018 rather than any effort to resolve the challenges of the ratification in practical ways without disrespecting the Constitution and balancing this with mutual respect for all ethnic groups and faiths. Rejecting the ratification amounts to rejection of a further commitment to racial equality, the continued fight against hate speech, and the affirmed prohibition against discrimination. As long as ICERD is debated through the discourses of identity and racial politics rather than equality and human rights, the pecking order of membership in Malaysian society based on ethnicity/religion will continue. Such is the irony and complexity of ICERD ratification in the pluralistic Malaysian scenario.