Not all Malaysians agree that we are Malaysian first. Some prefer to end their reading of our history with the \’Malaysian Merdeka\’; others want to retain the concept of Tanah Melayu , day-dreaming that colonial history and global influences never existed.
Such logic may be okay for one group, for that was their founding logic and provided the grounds for achieving their merdeka from British colonialism. Their hope and premise was a return to retaining control of the Malay peninsula.
The only problem to this outdated view was posed by the agreed terms of the Merdeka Constitution – agreed by all our forefathers and without anyone – including the Rulers and politicians of the day – being under duress.
There exists a genuine and unresolved tension on these core issues between the first and second group. Many books about the independence process capture this. I call these groups the nationalists and sub-nationalists. For the rest of the original Alliance leadership and since then, for all those of the Malaysian-Merdeka generation, this is the only land of their hopes, dreams and aspirations.
A recent honest article ( The Sun , Sept 27, 2007) by former Perak police chief Yuen Yuet Leng, captured the spirit of a truly nationalist Malaysian exceptionally well. The sub-nationalist is like the proverbial frog under the coconut shell who does not see beyond ketuanan Melayu .
I believe a large majority of Malaysians who believed and trusted the prime minister with their vote in the last general election were nationalists who wanted a Malaysia integrated with integrity. They, I suspect, make up more than 50 percent of those who believe that they are Malaysian first.
My question to others is whether we can put our nationality ahead of our ethnicity. Recently, the PM made a similar call for a Malaysian mindset. That must also extend to him – as PM, he must be always be Malaysian first.
The logic behind feelings of ethnicity and Malaysian-hood can be likened to the structure of an onion. Humans are much like onions, with layers of social, cultural and religious filters that define our personal and communal loyalties based on our worldview.
First layer
So, if you peel off my outermost layer, I would be called Malaysian. Yes, I look brown but am nationally only a Malaysian. That is my only external and globally recognised identity. Therefore 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 although he understands my cultural and ethnic heritage is from Kerala, India. This is the same place from which former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad\’s grandfather came.
So, why am I then deemed to be an ethnic Indian and Mahathir ( photo ) an ethnic Malay, based on a constitutional definition? Is it simply then because Mahathir is Muslim, that he is now legally Malay? Consequently therefore, is the term \’Malay\’ in the Federal Constitution an ethnic definition or a nation-state definition?
My point is quite simple but nevertheless a very important one. Like Mahathir and all other Malaysians, including members of the Council of Rulers, we are all Anak Bangsa Malaysia at the outermost level. At least, that is what my research of nation-state politics says.
Those who do not agree with this interpretation should review their sub-nationalist mindset of being \’ethnic Malay\’ under the strict jurisdiction of a Malay Ruler, as per the original terms of the unfederated Malay States. They should not technically claim to be citizens of the Federation of Malaysia, but only state citizens of the Federated Malay States.
Second layer
If you peel off my second onion layer, you find that I am a Christian. Yes, that is my theological, philosophical and historical background but which also defines my faith and belief systems or my worldview. Our former PM\’s family may have 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 we are Muslim or Christian second.
Third layer
The third layer may be related to our community and ethnicity. In this sense, both Mahathir and I are Malayalees by descent of our father\’s side 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. Therefore we are Malaysian Muslims, Christians and Hindus from different ethnic groups.
Mixed marriages infuse different values into culture, but not necessarily into nationality and faith. We can argue that nationality is a more primary form of identity, before faith and before even ethnicity, in a modern nation-state.
Ethnicity is embedded in our genes and is natural to us, but faith and nationality can change and be reviewed over time and space. Even cultures can be somewhat moderated by urbanisation and modernisation but that too becomes a matter of choice or preference; never by compulsion.
Fourth layer
The fourth layer is what I think of as my psychological personality. Again, this is almost fixed at birth, according to psychology theories, although some modifications are possible by knowing our personality traits.
Again, our personality helps define our behaviour and style of conduct, but beyond that there is really no difference in terms of faith, ethnicity and nationality.
There may be some generalised national traits, like saying that Americans are \’outgoing and outspoken\’, but these are mere generalisations and may not have real validity if properly measured or evaluated.
Fifth layer
I believe there is a fifth and final layer; that of our conscience or our spiritual personality. This is home to our mind, emotion and will. This is the lowest level of human consciousness and really, our sub-consciousness; the realm of the \’id and ego\’ of depth psychology and the home of spirituality. 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 religious beliefs. This was what Blais Pascal described as \”in every human heart there is a God-shaped vacuum\”. There are a myriad ways that this level of human consciousness is described, analysed and treated but for the purpose of our argument, their differences do not make too much difference. This last layer also defines our identity as human beings; it is who we really are.
Personal question
Now then, back to my original question, are we not Malaysians first? This means we carry a Malaysian passport; speak the Malaysian language, have 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 any other ethnicity? I do not think so.
So, why is it then so important that we have race-based parties, race-based thinking defining everything else? Why should it matter if our prime minister is a Malay or Kadazan or Murut so long as he is head of the majority party in Parliament with the highest number of supporters?
Why is the premier\’s personal religion really important, when the Federal Constitution and the hereditary Council of Rulers will institutionally always protect and preserve that interest?
My personal question to every Malaysian is \”are you not Malaysian first?\” This is also my response to Subang Jaya assembly representative Lee Hwa Beng and his response to my earlier article about our Malaysian-ness.
If you are not Malaysian first, please explain why to your own conscience and then please e-mail me as well. God Bless Malaysia.
