Patricia Martinez recently proposed a core thesis in the editorial page of the New Straits Times ( NST ) on Aug 10, based on the results of a Merdeka Centre Study of 1,000 randomly selected Malay Muslims and their views about a variety of issues and concerns.
The startling findings of the study, to me at least, were that 72.7% of the respondents considered their Muslim identity as the primary aspect of their self-concept, even more foundational than their Malay heritage. Assuming good statistical sampling design, and the validity and reliability of the instrument used, this means that the vast majority of the Malays consider themselves first as Muslim Malays and not so much as Malay Muslims.
The study also found that even more see themselves in their second identity as Malaysians rather than as Malays. Compounded and by simple linear extension, this means that the majority of Malays are Muslims first, Malaysians second and Malays third!
I find this quite astounding and therefore would like to hold in doubt some of the conclusions and the generalisations from this study. Nevertheless, it is very interesting that an overwhelming majority of the respondents (97.1%) gave a resounding \’yes\’ to their willingness to live alongside those of other religions, and races presumably. The NST editorial therefore highlighted and headlined the article – \’Thumbs up to living in Malaysian diversity\’. My doubt: is this only skin-deep diversity?
Three plausible interpretations
Martinez offers three plausible interpretations of the interesting set of findings:
Firstly, she argued that it may be \”a sort of heightened self-consciousness about being a Muslim, since Islam dominates public discourse.\” I would personally add further that especially since 9/11, the global Muslim identity has been scathingly attacked especially in the global media and Muslims as one category of a specific faith community of people are severely affected by this unfair onslaught: especially from the wrong media hype about the negative halo effect that: \’all Muslims may be terrorists.\’ Therefore, this environmental factor may have had the \’siege effect,\’ and thus the findings.
Secondly, Martinez hypotheses that, \”After 49 years of nationhood, Malaysians have adopted many aspects of Malay culture – food, dress and language – thus blurring the boundaries that differentiate Malays from the rest of the population. Islam then becomes the defining element of Malay identity.\” This, \’relative cultural distance argument,\’ is also worthy of consideration.
The third plausible interpretation she offers is as follows: \”Could be the intense emotion that a love for one\’s religion evokes, hence identifying oneself primarily by the religion rather than by nationality or ethnicity.\” A reasonably plausible argument as well.
The study, findings and \”alternative explanations or theories\” are very interesting and may help us to think seriously about the concept of all Malaysian citizens as constituents of our Malaysian nationhood. And, premised on such thinking, Martinez correctly concludes, \”Most of our policies and programmes on nation-building and unity focus largely on overcoming schisms of ethnicity. Perhaps we should note that it is not just race which differentiates us as Malaysians; religion is clearly confirmed as also a key factor.\”
In fact, premised on such thinking, the National Congress on Integrity held their 3rd National Congress on Integrity last weekend wherein two world renowned scholars dialogued on the topic of integrity based on the Muslim and Christian worldviews. It was enlightening to note that on this very important issue of integrity there is very little disagreement about the concept and definitions; except that they were both, an institutional or sociological dimension, and also the personal dimension.
These sociological values and the imperative of a personal responsibility for all our actions related to all forms of corruption and bribery became the core issue. Therefore, drawing the explicit lines of a good and godly character and exemplary discipline early in life became the moral imperative. Training and teaching by parents, religious and educational institutions and society at large became the core and critical issue.
Therefore, while I think that the study is pointing to some interesting considerations, I also have a problem with the potential design construct of the specific study, without knowing all the details; that it makes an artificial difference and distinction between the two core ideas of race and religion; or of culture and faith. Race, or ethnicity (or culture), and religious beliefs (faith-based assumptions about life) in most societies have built within them three or four layers of underlying assumptions about the nature of life and living.
Regardless of the particular faith held, most cultures most often can accommodate different and differing belief systems. Therefore, usually, such a layering of underlying assumptions is defined by: the most primary beliefs (i.e. the religious underpinnings); secondly, values (or natural or cultural preferences), and thirdly, attitudes (a personal predisposition to act in a fixed way) and finally, behaviour which is the visible action of the actor and the personal reasons for the action.
Therefore, while a Malay is apparently ethnically defined in the constitution as one (who follows Malay culture and practices Islam), there are Malays in the country who are of the Javanese, Minangkabau, Achinese etc, etc (to name only a few) types of ethnic origin groups in Malaysia who were originally descendants of the Malay-Indonesian Archipelago. Then, with the formation of Malaysia, the term bumiputera was introduced to also include the non-Malays as also \”sons of the soil\” in Sabah and Sarawak. The Indonesians use the term \”pri-bumis.\”
The Orang Asli groups in the peninsula were also non-Malays in that cultural sense, although equally sons of the Malayan soil in Peninsular Malaya. Therefore, I am not sure that it is really helpful to make such a simple or non-complex either-or-kind of option choices and draw such a conclusion about one\’s primary identities. We may need to offer a more complete analysis in order not to oversimplify the findings.
Alternative hypothesis
Let me therefore try to offer an alternative hypothesis regarding the same findings but using more of a worldview form of analysis. Worldviews define both a view of the world (an espoused theory, based on some belief system) and a view for action in the world (a theory-in-use or an action theory based on the core values). Therefore, based on this model (with underlying beliefs, values, attitudes and potential actions) whether you are a Malay or a Muslim or Malaysian with asset of primary and core values; these are not simply a matter of just the \”espoused theory,\” but also guide for all their actions themselves.
Therefore, for the study to have greater credibility, I would propose that one has to longitudinally \”follow the respondents\” to see whether their actions are also Muslim, Malay or Malaysian, as the case may be. Let me quote my experience.
For example, in 1995 I hosted a Christmas open house, for the first time in a long while. Many Malay Muslims attended, and in fact a then Puan Sri – in her 40s – personally told me that it was the very first time she had ever attended a Christmas open house; a true eye-opener for me. Nonetheless, after the Mahathir-Anwar crisis of 1998, again we hosted a similar open house for Christmas, but this time many of my Malay-Muslim neighbours did not attend, and even some of those who did come, did not partake of the food and festivities: because they were not sure whether the food was \”halal;\” although the caterer had an explicit halal licence.
Those who came were extremely neighbourly; as it is with Malay culture and traditional friendliness, but many of them did in fact become more \”Muslim\” in their views, and thus did not partake in the food even though it was certified halal. We have always striven for a \”halal home,\” especially to be able to host Muslims. That experience of mine supports the findings propagated in the study, that they were \”Muslim\” in the specific actions and less Malay because \”Malay custom would teach not to refuse drinks and food offered in a home.\”
What I did not know was whether they would be the same at a Deepavali open house and for a Chinese New Year open house. But, when the Perak Mufti says that Kongsi Raya is not \”halal,\” we are getting right into this core issue.
The complete argument is that only when our total behaviour in all areas of life and living are consistent between espoused theory and practice or theory-in-use, that we can conclude that Muslim values have in fact become a primary source of all their views and actions. But, if one is a Muslim only in the external and religious terms and form but not a sincere and practicing Muslim in many other areas, like in corruption and other \”so-called popular sins\” I think they are still very much Malay in cultural terms and not necessarily yet very much more Muslim in their worldview; in both beliefs and actions. At least, this is my personal opinion and belief, having also studied a subject on \’Malay Culture\’ in Universiti Malaya.
Three types of Malay-Muslims
Furthermore, having grown up in the Royal Military College and then having worked 30 years in the public service in a majority Malay cultural environment, I now conclude that there are essentially three types of Malay-Muslims currently prevalent in Malaysia. The first group are the modern and urban Malays who are religious moderates and can be considered as global or universal citizens and hold values most of the time that are universal, with some minimal exceptions. They can get along with most non-Malay Malaysians as a result of the cultural tolerance inculcated over the last 40 years or so.
The second category is semi-urbanites or recently urbanised people groups who have migrated into the urban setting in the last 20 years or so and are direct results of the success of the government\’s New Economic Policy of uplifting the Malays out of poverty and agrarian way of life but who are also distinctly defined by their worldview and other \”entitlement beliefs,\” based on their Malayness, and rights under Article 153 of the Constitution. These include the many intellectuals who are even prepared to dress up as \”Arabs\” to declare their \”world and life views,\” often as Muslims first and Malays second. They would argue that their feelings of the \”ummah\” (or community) take precedent over the feelings of their \”Malayness.\”
The third category are the rural Malays who are the same simple, kind, gentle and genteel Malays who historically have been misunderstood by all and sundry as such. Courtesy is their way of life; not like those described by the Reader\’s Digest study recently in the urban areas. To them, traditional Islam is a cultural way of life, as it was for their forefathers and enshrined with their core beliefs; wherein their faith and culture are intertwined but as currently and clearly reflected by their traditional kampung way of life.
They do not explicitly articulate or verbalise their views and beliefs as do the intellectuals or the \”preacher-teachers\” of the more recent kind; but they speak through their way of life. For instance, they would not interpret \”the pelamin used for the Raja-se-hari in a traditional Malay wedding as a \”hindu\” cultural aspect.\” To them it is and always was the Malay culture and way of life, based on the history of the nation and our geography.
Based then on my alternative hypothesis, I suggest that the Merdeka Centre continue their very interesting studies and help the nation better develop our understanding of everyday and real events with new and improved ways so that we can all anticipate new actions and behaviors, and have a way to interpret them.
New phenomenon
I personally nevertheless have a yet deeper concern about a new \”Muslim-Malay\” phenomenon which seems to be rearing its ugly head more recently. I believe that Dr Azly Rahman, a malaysiakini columnist called this the \” amuck and \’latah \’\” phenomenon in his most recent article.
My concern relates to a \”group think\” type phenomenon historically made famous by the Cuban missile crisis during the days of John F Kennedy as president of the US. The simple thesis is that, sometimes, even very rational people within emotively-charged groups, behave like a \”mob\” and operate more from the mob-psychological effect of group action rather than the moral imperative of individual rational and responsible behavior.
My professor Jerry Harvey called this same phenomenon the \” Trip to Abilene .\” That is the only way I can interpret the behavior of, for example, the anti-IFC group; whether in Penang or in their Johor Baru protests; that the coalition was becoming a mob rather than a group of civil protestors who follow the rule of law; regardless of the quality or quantity of the protest.
The two more recent protests organised by yet another two groups of protestors who claimed to be \”defenders of Islam\” fit the first category of \”universal and civil protestors\” under my classification of Malay-Muslims. They followed the rule of law and managed their \”civil behavior.\” The danger I see is that: once the group mob-effect takes over, the rationality of peaceful dialogue is over and an emotionally charged environment does no one any good.
Therefore, while I agree and appreciate that diversity is a well-appreciated feature of Malaysian tolerance; we only \”merely tolerate\” it, almost gritting our teeth, but then our real \”convictions of the tolerance are also only skin-deep.\”
Let me quote three other circumstances to further develop this hypothesis. First, was the UPM mob affair wherein a majority Malay-group \”amucked\” (using Azly\’s term) a majority Chinese group. The second was the majority Umno Youth \”mob-protestors\” against Condi Rice, the US secretary of state. Although the Malaysian government was the host of her visit to our country, members of the ruling coalition chose to \”violate the rule and become a mob.\” That is not very civil behaviour.
Finally, the more recent Barisan Nasional internal quarrel about the Penang chief minister\’s post, and the \”mob-like\” behavior of Umno Youth even after the PM had already intervened to \”end the dialogue.\”
The point is that when \”mob-rule takes over, reason gives way to emotion and the mob becomes a new rule unto themselves and disrespects both the law and the rights of the \’others\’ in the given situation.\” Moreover, when the group-think takes over, rationality is thrown out of the window and mob-psychology takes over.
Therefore, if in fact, as Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz has often threatened that amok is a Malay word and we understand the full nuances of his statement and threat; Azly Rahman is very accurate in his prognosis and has now given us a newer lexicon for such individual behaviour at the group level; which is to become \”amucked\” and to \”latah.\” I dread to think of the effects of such \”group-think\” taking over with a new kind of group-amok.
In conclusion therefore, the Martinez report is an excellent starting point for the beginning of a dialogue on the nature of Malaysian core values; but let us not be simplistic and assume that in real terms our diversity is really more than skin deep. We need to better appreciate the \”full effects of the common religious dimension underlying ethnic factors which we have historically called the Rukunegara\” before we begin to make skin-deep conclusions about these perception studies and findings and generalise the results about our real diversity toleration.
