Is citizenship established for heaven or only on earth? This is an important question. Citizenship defines both our dignity and sense of destiny, it would seem.

\"\"

Let us consider WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, as a case in point. He is a citizen of Australia, but appears to have done much of his research and work outside his home country. He now seeks asylum in Ecuador and is waiting out the process at its embassy in London.

UK police have said he will be arrested and deported to Sweden to answer alleged sexual-offence charges and then perhaps be sent on to the US for “unstated crimes” against the US, under secret EU-US arrangements.

Now, does it really matter which country Assange is a citizen of? Is not his citizenship in heaven the real reason that he still has some rights and privileges until the government of Ecuador rules on his asylum application?

By the phrase ‘citizen of heaven,’ I mean the notion that he is the child of a Creator who has given him the dignity of life and so-called democratic freedoms under globally agreed human rights principles.

Does it really matter whether he is black, brown or yellow in ethnic terms? Or, does it even matter that he is of green faith, or blue faith, or simply holding black and white faith positions and ignoring instead all the colours of the rainbow?

Does it really matter if he wears his religiosity on his sleeve or does not show it at all? What if his true spirituality is only known to his family and neighbourhood community?

Is it not a scientific fact, that we are the only human race? Genetically we are all supposed to be immigrants from the continent of Africa. And who says black is not beautiful or that only small is beautiful? Does not every human being still require an identity, at least here on earth? And, maybe, in heaven too?

One ex-leader asserts that one million immigrants were given citizenship illegally by our first prime minister. A writer argues that even that leader’s father received his citizenship rights as part and parcel of that same social contract.

So, why is the ex-leader now more legitimate that the Jakun or the Iban or Kadazan in terms of chronology of arrival? And, whose history is it anyway?

Yet others argue that historical primacy within geography defines ‘first mover rights’. But immigrants into the US will be the first to concede that it was the ‘American Indians’ who were natives of that land.

\"\"

Likewise, if we are honest and truthful we would be the first to argue that it is neither Parameswara nor Hang Li Poh nor Hang Tuah nor Hang Jebat who were the primary residents of Malaya, but that it is the Orang Asli of Malaya and the native communities of Sabah and Sarawak who are true natives (Orang Asal) of these lands that we today call the Federation of Malaysia.  

Be that as it may, and given that the Dutch, Portuguese and British arrived and Malaya became a colony, such pretentious pride must take second place in the true history of this nation. In fact, there are some NGOs who are actively working to establish the Sejarah Malaysia Sebenar. May we all see the value of such projects of truth-seeking and truth-telling.

The real fuss came about with the abusive retelling of the historical story and narrative of the ‘social contract’ – the implicit and written agreement between Malay leaders and their rulers (excluding the Orang Asli as an entire community), and the Chinese and Indian migrants and their leaders. It was brokered by the Alliance leaders and agreed to by the British and the nine Malay rulers.

Issue of treason?

Historically, the Philippines have laid claim to Sabah, which it has yet to let up. There have always been Muslim minorities in the Philippines who wanted an autonomous governance region.

This is a practicality arising out of the communal nature of the Islamic faith and the particular interpretations of Islamic personal and family law. The same set of issues and concerns appear any time there is a significant Muslim community, regardless of where they live in the world.

The royal commission of inquiry (RCI) on Sabah immigrants has begun to establish the fact that ‘Project M’ or ‘Project IC’ is a reality.

The fact is that thousands and maybe millions of Filipinos and/or Indonesians (and possibly Pakistanis) in the Borneo regions have been legally or illegally given identity cards, and maybe also Malaysian citizenship.

\"\"

he RCI will, we hope, establish both the veracity and validity of these claims and counter-claims. We do not need to argue them for now.

My greater concern is: why was all this done in the stealth of darkness? What do light and darkness have in common? For that matter, should oil and water be forced to mix, when they cannot? Was all this not treason?

In the US, when undergraduates are exposed to philosophy, they are first and foremost exposed to what is called Logic 101. In logic one learns that ‘what is’ and ‘what is not’ are mutually exclusive. They cannot be the same thing.

Therefore apples and oranges are both fruits but they are not the same. Dogs have four legs and chairs have four legs but a chair is not a dog. Plato first made famous this notion of categories and logic systems for classification of words within knowledge.

Let me use Logic 101 to make my case against why granting Filipinos a Malaysian identity card is possibly an issue of treason. Registration officers had been detained under the Internal Security Act for the same reason, but were they merely scapegoats?

1. Immigration is a state matter in Sabah.

2. Citizenship is a federal matter, with clear and transparent written federal rules.

3. Undocumented Chinese and Indians in Malaya after Aug 31, 1957 were given citizenship through a very cumbersome and often non-transparent process, and after long years of uncertain waiting. Hindraf still deals with such case stories.

4. We became Malaysia on Sept 16, 1963 when Malaya, Sabah, and Sarawak came together to become Malaysia. Originally Singapore was the fourth member of Malaysia but it left in 1965.

5. The granting of citizenship to all Anak Bangsa Malaysia after 1963 was a commonly agreed and well documented process which involved all three states as decision makers through the federal cabinet. Concessions made had to be agreed to by all three, after Singapore left.

6. Citizenship of Malaysia is therefore a federal matter and cannot be decided only by one state or its leaders.

The RCI will reveal all truths about these matters; and the truths do matter.

May we as Malaysians come to know this truth and then reconcile all issues and concerns in legal and legitimate ways, remembering always, that we are all immigrants from Africa!

May God continue to bless Malaysia.