All humans must know the smell of a rose; regardless of how it is spelt, ‘ros’ or rose. What does it mean we know the smell of rose? Does it mean we know the experience of its unique smell? And can we not then certify that ‘sirap ros’ seeks to emulate the same smell? Now, would it smell any different if I call the same; ‘pinky red?’

How then can we in ‘Bolehland’ pass a law that says, that ‘ros’ becomes a Melayu word (more than ‘mawar’) and cannot be used by non-Melayus in text? We even ignore the fact that the original word for the flower was in English, and that the word was copied into Bahasa Malaysia by the locals. Worse still, we ignore the reality that in all other lands the same word and meaning is used as originally labelled and intended.

Can we then now therefore become Melayusia; no more Malaysia?

Why Malaysia?

The words, ‘Malay and Malaysia’ are etymologically English words. They are not Melayu words; in the Bahasa Melayu literary form or linguistic norm. This etymological dimension of such a word captures the essence of why the Melayu conservatives want the national language to be known not as ‘Bahasa Malaysia’ but rather as ‘Bahasa Melayu’. The certain clarity about this reality is why we called the new nation-state Malaysia and not ‘Melayusia’.  

After all, it was Persekutuan Tanah-Tanah Melayu or the federation of the Malay lands before 1957.

If one pauses long enough, and then realises that even the Orang Asli, who were the Orang Asal or ‘pribumis’ by the Indonesian definition of the same word, were not included as part and parcel of the Tanah-Tanah Melayu; then one understands the fact of why they were presumed as ‘semi-human beings’; recognised only as an Article in the constitution.  

We, however, created the Conference of Rulers as a new institution from scratch and created a new reality which did not exist before; or at best for those who were only warring factions. The Orang Asli were however not given the same dignity, honour, or respect.

Malaysia, conceptually and etymologically, is therefore not made up of 13 ‘Malay states,’ but rather constituted by the original four and then three former states of the British colonial nations. They came together to make Malaysia; never Melayusia.

Malaysia – meanings and symbols

The preamble of the Rukunegara is probably the clearest intentional statement about what we want the real Malaysia to be like, and what we want achieved through this nation-state we have come to love and call home:

BAHAWASANYA NEGARA KITA MALAYSIA mendukung cita-cita hendak:

  • Mencapai perpaduan yang lebih erat di kalangan seluruh masyarakatnya;
  • Memelihara satu cara hidup demokratik;
  • Mencipta satu masyarakat adil di mana kemakmuran Negara akan dapat dinikmati bersama secara adil dan saksama;
  • Menjamin satu cara liberal terhadap tradisi-tradisi kebudayaannya yang kaya dan berbagai corak; dan
  • Membina satu masyarakat progresif yang akan menggunakan sains dan teknologi moden.
  • Berkhidmat untuk negara.

MAKA KAMI, rakyat Malaysia, berikrar akan menumpukan seluruh tenaga dan usaha kami untuk mencapai cita-cita tersebut berdasarkan atas prinsip-prinsip yang berikut :

  • KEPERCAYAAN KEPADA TUHAN
  • KESETIAAN KEPADA RAJA DAN NEGARA
  • KELUHURAN PERLEMBAGAAN
  • KEDAULATAN UNDANG-UNDANG
  • KESOPANAN DAN KESUSILAAN

Now, did we use the newly forbidden word for God, but still referred to the same Almighty One? Yes, the ‘Allah’ word was not part and parcel of our historical lexicon, and therefore to impute new meanings and interpretations are disconcerting, to say the least. Even for the non-Muslims and Sikhs of Malaya.

We sang ‘Allah selamatkan usia Raja-Raja;’ and why is that wrong now? Can the Sabahans and Sarwakians make a reverse of the same argument and question the institution of the rulers? Or, can the Orang Asli now call Melayus the ‘real pendatang’?

Was that not why we, all the rakyat of Malaysia, signed up to the Rukunegara in good faith? We all did, with Tuhan and no ‘Allah debate’ then.

We must therefore always be reminded the context of our Rukunegara. It was promulgated on Merdeka Day 1970 as our new way forward after the racial riots which had psychologically destroyed and decimated our vision of a new nation-state and almost killed all of the Tunku’s idealism. It is the unwritten preamble for the Malaysian constitution.

Why then Melayusia, now?

We must all watch the Hindi movie called ‘Three Idiots’. Please do that and you will have much fun. It may be better than ‘Tanda Putera’. We can all then laugh at ourselves for trying to be idiots and then we can also recognise the real “idiots” in our midst. But with due respect and regard to our three, I see the following flaws in their arguments.  

One has anthropomorphised the God of scriptures to become ‘a Melayu God’, but somehow it is still the same as the Arabic one. Another has opted to become a Christian theologian and insulted all Bible translators who first translated the same word for ‘the God’ in the 1600s. That was the first non-English translation of the King James Version of the Bible and it was actually published in Malacca.

The third has misinterpreted the same constitutional human right privilege into a sub-category under the law of publications meant for banning books which were of the communist tenor.

My question to all three of them is: since when has the federal constitution which defines itself as supreme, become subservient to the home affairs minister or even the social construct, wrongly interpreted? Who really has authority over “scriptures” which are now reduced to become “mere books like secular publications”, under the conditions of war and emergency provisions? Are there no more Holy Books for reverence?  

Not only that, since when does the federal constitution explicitly allow the home affairs minister to have authority over religious matters in the Federation of Malaysia? Did the home affairs minister seek the authority of the Conference of Rulers, who has such explicit authority under our constitutional monarchy system? But, are not religious matters always under them, but only as state rulers?

The beginning of the end?

Jeffrey Kittingan, the chairperson of Star, the new political party of Sabah, has predicted that if this issue of heart-felt burden for Sabahans and Sarawakians in their Malay-based worship of their God Almighty, is not handled well, it will lead to the break-up of Malaysia. I fully agree.

And, if this does happen, I can say almost categorically that I will then choose to move into the new neighbour countries of either Sabah or Sarawak; whatever they are called.

May God continue to bless Malaysia; regardless.