Integration with Integrity: Are we Malaysian First?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 View as single page

By KJ JOHN

Malaysians first: the hope

The 12th General Elections of 8th March 2008 and the by-elections of Permatang Pauh established that we are Malaysians first. Not all however agree that we are Malaysians first and ethnics second¹. Many prefer to end their study of our history with the Malayan Merdeka and “our social contract” but ignore historic Malaysia day of 16th September; which is “the real merdeka for Sabah and Sarawak.” And a minority others still want to retain and remain within only their “Tanah Melayu ideal” day-dreaming that colonial history never existed or that history may prove UMNO Founder Dato Onn Jaffar right about multi-racialism in Malaya.

Such logic and analysis may be okay for the Malayans in Peninsular Malaysia; for that was the grounding logic and founding principles for our “achieving merdeka” from British colonialism². This more dominant UMNO view placed their hope and premise on a return to “retain control of the Malay Peninsular,” essentially lost to various colonial powers over the years. They believed that the Malays are in fact a race, and not just an ethnicity. There are books and scholars today that declare otherwise³.

The only problem with such a dated view is the agreed terms of the Merdeka Constitution⁴; agreed by all our forefathers and not under duress for anyone; whether by the Malay Rulers or Malayan politicians⁵. While there exists a genuine tension on these core issues between the minority and majority groups within UMNO and among Malays, the mainstream supporters of Pakatan Rakyat parties believe otherwise⁶. Such an unresolved tension has always been present from the very founding days and even today with the 20-point Agreement, especially with Sabah. Many books and articles about the journey to Merdeka capture this tension between these two groups. I call these two groups; the nationalists and the ultra-nationalists,⁷ for the purpose of this paper. It is pertinent to note that these groups of ultra-nationalists even documented a statement of their concerns and worries to the BN before the last GE.⁸

Nonetheless, for the rest of the original Alliance leadership threesome (of the very classic so-called Malays, Chinese and Indians9); and since then for all the others, of the “anak Malaysia10″generation: Malaysia is the only land of their hopes, dreams and aspirations. In fact, a an article by Yuen Yuet Leng, the former CPO of Perak in the SUN Extra on Thursday 27th September 2007 captured the spirit of a nationalist Malaysian dream well. Within such a context, the ultra-nationalists can be viewed as behaving like “katak dibawah tempurung;” who cannot see through their own “opaque cultural sky of the Persekutuan Tanah-Tanah Melayu syndrome.”11

I honestly believe that the large swing majority of Malaysians, who voted to trust PM Pak Lah¹² for his integrity premise, chose otherwise in the 12th General Elections. These are nationalists who want a Malaysia integrated with integrity. These, I suspect, make up more than 50% of all peace-loving moderate Malaysians; Bangsa Malaysians who believe that they are Malaysians first and ethnics second.

Therefore, my honest question for our current leadership of Malaysia, can we ever really and truly ever become a nation which considers ourselves Malaysian first and ethnic second? One simple example of the implications of such a worldview would be the office of PM; it must always remain a person holding the Malaysian first and an ethnic second worldview¹³. That will also mean that our PM may no more simply be “always” an UMNO president but could well be from any party with a majority in Parliament¹⁴. She could even be a lady and could come from either Sabah or Sarawak. But, theoretically the Office should always remain Malaysian first without an ethnic, or gender bias, or relegating every other consideration as secondary. The Deputies, and all other Cabinet Ministers may remain ethnic-biased representatives, but such a mind-set should never be allowed or permitted for the Office of the PM. The PM remains always the PM of all Malaysians and must lead premised on the “Malaysian First Agenda.” The person always stands to protect and preserve the Federal Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Even the Office of the Yang Di Pertuan Agong, although always a Malay Ruler as per Federal Constitution, must also be Malaysian first and ethnic Malay only second. Only in matters of the Muslim religion is the Malay ruler a Malay first. That is precisely the history already contained and included in the Federal Constitution¹⁵.

Underlying mindset: our problem with a common identity

The logic of the above argument; where feelings of ethnicity give way to a more comprehensive Malaysian mindset can be understood in one of two ways, based on my worldview analysis model.16 Such an analysis can be done either from the outside in or from the inside out. Humans are much like onions; with layers and layers of social, cultural and religious filters, which define our personal, communal, and ultimate loyalties based on our worldviews. These worldviews are sociological and cultural constructs we hold about our world and life views.

Nationalism

Therefore, as a case-study, if you peel my outermost external onion layer, I can only be called a Malaysian first and foremost. Yes, I look ethnic brown, maybe, but I am nationally only a Malaysian, and can therefore claim my place under the Malaysian sun, as Raja Nazrin so clearly put it.¹⁷ The Malaysian Passport is my only external and globally recognized identity, within the framework of the United Nations! And this identity cannot ever be changed by the Government of any country; unilaterally. Consequently, if I tell an American Indian from India that I am also an Indian; he will look at me kind of knowingly, but will appreciate the fact that I am Malaysian first although he will also fully understand from my name, that my cultural and ethnic heritage is also from the State of Kerala in India. Likewise with Tamils from Tamil Nadu or Cantonese from the province of Canton or Javanese from Java!

For that matter, factually and ethnically, I am not and should never be considered an ethnic Indian because an “Indian” remains always only a national construction and never an ethnic one. At best, I am only an ethnic Malayalee with parents having originated from the State of Kerala in India.¹⁸ But this is the same geography from which, for another example, former PM Mahathir’s grandfather came from. So, how then can I then be an ethnic Indian and Mahathir, ethnic Malay, based simply on our Constitutional definition! Can our Constitution change genealogical ethnic status of scientifically verifiable genetics of today? Is it then only because Mahathir is Muslim, that he is now legally also a Malay? Consequently therefore, then, is not the term “Malay” in the Federal Constitution, not an ethnic definition but a nation-state definition artificially created by the Constitutional framers to address real practical political considerations at the formation of our Federation of Malaya? My point is a simple but an important one. Therefore, like Mahathir and all other passport carrying Malaysians (whether 1st or the 100th generation in Malaysia), including all members of our Council of Rulers, we are all only Anak Bangsa and Rakyat Malaysia based on the United Nations definition of nation states, at the outermost levels; never ethnics first. At least that is my rational non-emotional conclusion.¹⁹

That foundational definition of nation-states is one in which Malaysia joins every other community of nations in this one Universe! Frankly, and rationally, those who do not or cannot agree with this interpretation can and should “legally and emotionally” leave Malaysia (which is impossible without real or practical political asylum), or they need to “unlearn their natural tendency” to think, live and breathe ethnicity before all else; ala Ketuanan Melayu or Chinese or Tamil!. This also becomes an artificial Hobson’s choice for all “ethnic Malays” who live and breathe entirely in an ethnic Malay Mindset.20 Those who so choose should then come solely under the strict jurisdiction of their own Raja Melayu-based worldview and entirely only upon state citizenship; as per the terms of the original Federated Malay States.21 They then cannot claim to be national citizens of the Federation of Malaysia while insisting upon also an “ethnic ketuanan” mindset. Maybe then, within such ethnicity-based definitions, they should consider themselves as state citizens of “Persekutuan Tanah Melayu” with no Federal claims or rights as Malaysian citizens, other than those explicitly guaranteed by the Federal Constitution for Malays within the State structures. To them, maybe then, the “ketuanan Melayu agenda” in their own Tanah Melayu will be of utmost and sole importance. The Federation of Malaysia with a Malaysian Merdeka may not be of a major concern or pre-occupation for them.22

I believe the people of Kelantan might in fact agree with such a suggestion. Even our Council of Rulers was concerned with these types of issues at our foundation; and all such views were captured within the context of the Merdeka Constitution, especially after the Cobbald Commission findings. Kelantan did also in fact register and get their views recorded on all such matters. But the Malaysian nationalists also had equally strong views and the framers followed the federal nation-state logic, presumably with the experience of other “so-called independent states” like India and Ghana being accorded the similar Commonwealth-based British/American model of a written constitution. Their views were captured during the final days of the original Social of 1957 and again subsequently with “second” legal contract of 1963. The sum total of such views became the spirit of both the “Original Social Contract and the subsequent legal contract²³.” The nationalists therefore had their day and final say! PM Tunku Abdul Rahman was probably the foremost of the true Federalists. Maybe even today, some of these ultranationalists (or really, ’statists’), if given their options, may in fact say, that the Chinese, Indians, Kadazans and Ibans should in fact leave their Tanah Melayu and return to their homelands of Sabah, Sarawak, India and China! Such distinctive and real thinking and logic has been expressed in various versions of the Malaysiakini Dialogue on issues of the 50th versus 44th Malaysia Day debate²⁴.

Faith

Now, if you peel yet another onion layer off my worldview, you find that I am a Christian; and that too for “more than 2000 years of Churchianity!” Yes, that is my theological, philosophical and historical background but which also defines my faith and belief systems, or my worldview. Likewise also, in the case of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed too, I am sure his family has been Muslim for many generations; probably even before the Malays of Malaysia. What does that really mean for both of us, as Malaysians? We are both Malaysians first, but that we are Muslim and Christian second, respectively; based on our genealogies and current worldviews of choice. Consequently, although our faiths may differ and define who we really are and what we believe, we are Malaysians all the same. This means that when Mahathir thinks of Article 11, he thinks of it as a Muslim. He thinks of rights and duties under Syariah consistent interpretations of Muslim meaning of human rights and freedoms.²⁵ But, that does not deny my human rights of conscience or more importantly my right to define my freedom of faith or that of any other Malaysian, including Lina Joy. The Constitution; which is above both of us, as federated Malaysians, gives Mahathir his right and me, my right too. So, he is free to interpret and believe as he pleases, and so am I. The only problem is that under the legal constraints assumed by “judicial interpreters of the Federal Constitution today,” Lina Joy was not accorded that same privilege; and her dignity and destiny as a Malaysian federal citizen has been sadly denied.

That is my greatest sadness today as we have politicized the Article 11 definition and its interpretation.

Now, with the current review of the Lingam Tape Affair, we may soon find out that even our Justice system has in fact been corrupted and compromised by the previous executive governance system. What may be even worse is that, we have done it using a particular interpretation of the Federal Constitution and thereby denying the very justice of Article 11 guaranteed to Lina Joy by her first right of being a Malaysian. That is clear injustice, based on our own Federal Constitution which we all claim to be federated under! Our “one-eyed judicial system,” therefore saw it both ways, especially when we consider the dissenting judgment of the Chief of Sabah and Sarawak which appears to have been argued with the other eye! With all three Judges living in the same country, with the same history, and reading same Constitution, how come we can have double eyed justice? Or, was it only one-eyed justice delivered with the one-eyed vision!²⁶

Ethnicity and Community

The third onion layer may be related to our community and ethnicity. In this sense, both Mahathir and I are Malayalees by descent of our father’s genealogy. But under the same ethnic construct, even in Kerala one can find Malayalees who are Muslims, Hindus and Christians (including Catholics) living side by side with no problems whatsoever! Therefore, while ethnicity may define culture and practices (including spoken language), it does not matter when it comes to faith and nationality. There are Malaysian Muslims, Christians and Hindus, and they can be from very different ethnicities! Let us celebrate such diversity! Therefore we can find Malayalee Muslims, Christians and Hindus who are all Malaysians. They may have many similar cultural practices and a common language but they remain different in faith and with one common nationality; in this case Malaysian.

Now, with mixed marriages, the culture gets infected with each others’ cultural values, but the nationality need not be and the faith need not be. Therefore, we can argue that nationality is a more primary form of identity, before faith and before even ethnicity. Ethnicities are embedded in our past and are natural to us, but not so our faith and nationality. These can be changed and reviewed over time and space. Even cultures can be somewhat moderated by urbanization and modernization but that too becomes a matter of choice or preference; not by compulsion.

Psychological personality

The fourth layer of my onion peel is what I think of as our psychological personality. Again, these are fixed at birth, according to psychology theories, although some modifications are possible by knowing one’s own personality traits; much of them are natural to a person from birth. Again, our personality helps define our behaviors and style of conduct, but beyond that there is really no difference in terms of faith, ethnicity and nationality. There may also be some national traits, like the generalization that Americans and Australians are “outgoing and outspoken” or Singaporeans are ‘kiasu,’ but these are mere non-statistical generalizations and may not have real validity if properly measured.

Conscience

I believe there is a fifth and final layer; that of the conscience. This is the lowest level of human consciousness and sub-consciousness, the ‘id and ego’ of depth psychology. These are what make us human; animals do not have such a conscience. These define our sense of right and wrong; even more primary than our religious beliefs. This was what Blaisé Pascal described as, “in every human heart there is a God-shaped vacuum.” There are a myriad of different ways this level of human consciousness is described and treated but for the purpose of our argument their differences make little difference.²⁷

Conclusion: The Way Forward

Now then, when we are called Malaysians; it means we carry a Malaysian passport; speak the Malaysian language, have a faith in some God, belong to a particular ethnicity, and fly the Jalur Gemilang, and sing Negaraku or even Negarakuku. Does it really matter that we are Malay or Chinese or Malayalee or Tamil or Kadazan or Murut or Iban or from any other ethnicity? I do not think so. So, why is it then so important to have race-based parties, race-based everything defining everything else? What should it matter if the Prime Minister is a Malay or Kadazan or Murut so long as he is head of the party leading in Parliament with the highest number of supporters? Why is his religion really important, when the Federal Constitution and the Council of Rulers will always protect and preserve that interest in Islam?

This paper was first tabled to Professor Azizan on the occasion of the Inter-Religious Dialogue with NUS hosted by UM’s Centre for Civilisational Dialogue.

---

¹The current MB of Johore in fact made a public statement that the concept of Bangsa Malaysia is not acceptable to Malays, just before the last UMNO General Assembly probably speaking for those from within his UMNO constituency in Johore. UMNO Johor only lost one seat at the recent GE.

2Even here, historically, there are two sets of views if we remember Dato Onn Jaafar’s original vision for a “Malaysian Malaya” and the repeat reasons of why “Semangat 46″ was even formed, as a break-away from UMNO.

³See A book entitled “Contesting Malayness: Malay Identity Across Boundaries” Edited by Timothy P. Barnard, Singapore University Press, NUS, 2006.

⁴Here, the writer is rejecting any post-modernist view which believes that “all social reconstructions of history are true for all.” The writer believes that the Malayan “social contract” was a historical event and must be “only reviewed based on the documented historical context and times; as originally agreed.”

⁵See one good and fair historical recording of this process in “The Position of Islam in the Constitution of Malaysia by a UM Professor Joseph M Fernando in the Journal of Southeast Asian Studies dated 06/01/06.

⁶The results of the 2008 GE recognize the “beginning of what is today called the Pakatan Rakyat,” the loose coalition of anti-BN political parties Malaysia.” Nevertheless the role distinctive role of Civil Society organizations in the last GE cannot be underplayed.

⁷The ultra-nationalists are “narrow minded Malays who cannot accept the new reality of the Federation of Malaysia, as a multi-cultural entity, post-Merdeka and is more than the federated and un-federated Malay states compromising with the British to accommodate the non-Malays.” The reality of the inclusion of Sabah and Sarawak as “two newly independent non-Malay states who joined the Federation of Malaya as equal members of the Malaysia of four entities. Singapore left the Federation of Malaysia in 1965.

⁸Please refer to the political statements by BADAI and their partner groups of intellectual Muslim groups and the more recent protest by this same line of thinkers at the Bar Council Forum on “conversion.”

⁹It must be acknowledged that even these three communities are not all of the same ethnicities, if this is honestly recognized. None of them are traditional homogenous ethnic groups. The old assumption does not hold anymore.

¹⁰These include all younger Malaysians who were born after Malaysia Day of 16th September 1963.

¹¹This is a value judgment by the writer.

¹²It must be borne in mind that the Pak Lah Administration received the highest ever popular votes via his 11th General Election.

¹³It is pertinent to note that many times, when tensions were high in Malaysian politics, the PM had often resorted to assuring the people that he is the PM of a all Malaysians. Now the new CM of Penang is using this same phrase to appease the detractors of his governance.

14The photograph of the most recent Cabinet had the Agong in the middle, and Minister Bernard Dompok sat next to the PM’s right hand, with DPM on his and Agong’s left. In the future, the Deputy PM could be anyone else too!

¹⁵I am not being a revisionist here but merely trying to capture the original spirit of the Merdeka Constitution.

¹⁶My doctoral studies looked at this issue of “worldviews” and A.B. Sulaiman now has a manuscript on almost the same problem set.

¹⁷Raja Nazrin’s Keynote Speech at a meeting for young Malaysian organized by CPPS and the Bar Council covered by the NST.

¹⁸Recognizing and conscious of this reality, since the birth of my first child in 1983, I have registered their ethnic identity on their birth certificates as “Malayalee” and not Indian.

¹⁹Such Dialogue must be non-emotional and not turn rowdy, as it did for the Article 11 Dialogue in Penang and Johore.

²⁰AB Sulaiman has written a full and complete thesis on this subject, soon to be published.

²¹These issues are very real today, as the PKR Chief for Selangor struggles to “agree if in fact a Deputy MB needs to also be a Malay.”

²²I believe, such an “autonomous status” maybe what the majority in Kelantan want for their Malay state.

²³It is important to record that the Federal papers and due processes involved are available for a review of the facts of this case, if we want to leave aside the “feelings and emotions on such issues.”

²⁴If requested, I am sure that Malaysiakini can give us copies of all such expressions of nationalism and anti-nationalism for review.

²⁵In fact, the former PM is recorded to have said that Lina Joy can convert if she agrees to give up her Malay rights!

²⁶The traditional western model of justice presumes that the “Lady of Justice” was always blind!

²⁷In my doctoral thesis, I even looked into different theories of the nature of man to understand and appreciate these differences. There are two prevalent views: the two-part view or three-part view of the nature of man.

---

Dr. K. J. John is the Executive Director of OHMSI, a civil society organization that began the National Congress on Integrity. He also is Director of the Malaysian Institute of Development and Asian Studies or MiDAS at the University College Sedaya International in Cheras. He has retired from public service after more than 30 years.

Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 View as a single page

People who read this also read

1. Championing The Malaysian Dream
2. Broken Promises: The Malaysian Constitution and Multiculturalism
3. In the Chasm of Malaysian Ethnic Pluralism - Malaysia’s Dutch Descendants
4. Dignity or Efficiency? - Malaysian Monarchy at the Fringes
5. Figuring the Malaysian