I guess gOod writings should be shared, so this reproduction of a well writ article spied at Mkini is "borrowed" by an unconventional reader -- okay, a thief by any other name like "borrower" is steal a thief; a kiss is just a kiss, a sigh is still a sigh...Catch me in Casablanca, will you?
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet." (Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)
So, Deputy Prime Minister Muhyi
ddin Yassin (right) reiterated that he is first and foremost a Malay, and offered no apologies. Is it a setback for the '1Malaysia' propaganda?
Hardly. Let's not forget, there is no such thing as a Malaysian nation, at least not yet. The only identity that Malaysians feel safe to fall back on is still our respective ethnic affiliation.
But who is a Malay?
Kadir Jasin, a former group editor-in-chief of the New StraitsTimes, calls on others not to question his desire to be known as a true-blue Malay.
And he drives home the point by saying that "if fate decrees that I should suddenly fall by the wayside, anyone stumbling across my stiff body will know that I'm a Muslim when they see my race recorded (in IC) as Malay."
As Benedict Anderson argues, the significance of ethnicity lies in its salience for group consciousness, and people are willing to die for their collective "nation" on account of the powerful appeal and persistence of ethnic sentiment, something that Umno has successfully planted into the Malay mind over the years.
Yet the question remains: is ethnicity given or ascribed at birth?
Clifford Geertz, a prominent cultural anthropologist, contended that human society has been revolving around blood, speech, culture, religion etc. since time immemorial, and these elements are fixed, permanent and a priori. What Geertz failed to appreciate are the tension and dynamics in the formation of identity.
In refuting primordialism, Jeffrey Ross emphasises that ethnicity is "a group option in which resources are mobilized for the purpose of pressuring the political system to allocate public goods for the benefit of the members of a self-differentiating collectivity".
Azly Rahman, my fellow columnist, articulates his understanding of the Malay ethnicity that is vastly different from that of Kadir Jasin:
From the standpoint of philosophy of culture, or ethno-philosophy, I propose that there is no real ethnic group called 'Malay'. We have hybrids and border-crossers. 'Malay' is a historical construction of an "imagined community.
Ethnic identity
Needless to say, human history is inundated with examples in which regimes and states sought to unify or divide the masses through the construction of ethnic identity.
Meanwhile, cultural similarities do not stop two or more groups from developing an inter-ethnic relationship.
In Taiwan, the cultural elements of the Hakka, the Hoklo (Hokkienese) and the Mainlanders are remarkably close, all having originated in mainland China. Still, distinctive ethnic identities have evolved over the decades and now become a tool for political mobilisation. By contrast, the aboriginal communities in the island state represent a distinct ethnic presence vis à vis the Han Chinese.
The same goes for the Ceylon Tamils and the Hill Country Tamils in Sri Lanka, who despite their cultural and religious affinities remain two separate ethnic communities thanks to colonial rule and differing historical experiences.
The most absurd and grotesque is the attempt by the Chinese Communist Party in recent years to encourage the aborigines in Taiwan to participate in the worship of Confucius and even the Yellow Emperor, all for the sake of the Greater China discourse. The Chinese nation has always been an imagined community.
The Malays in Malaysia are also a people made up of heterogeneous groups, evidenced by many prominent political leaders who are of various ethnic origins, ranging from Javanese, Turkish, Arab, Tamil to Cham in Hainan Island! 
But Kadir Jasin (left) is least interested in how the Malay nation is formed. In stressing ethnic pride, he is conveniently oblivious to the fact that even his name is no longer originally Malay.
If anything, his ethnic identification is a conscious and rational choice when he argues that "I want my Malay identity to be known and acknowledged because I'm a pribumi of Tanah Melayu - belonging to a race from the Malay Archipelago... In the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, Malay and Islam cannot be separated".
Apparently, Kadir Jasin knows full well race is already a discredited idea. There has been too much interbreeding between human populations that a pure race is impossible to find. Even in China, where nationalist sentiment is among the strongest in the world, some have begun to debunk the myth of a pure Han nation.
Little wonder that the instrumentalist/rational option now affords many with a way out to their "ethnic dilemma". Had there been no special status for the Malays under the Federal Constitution, would the part-Indian Mahathir Mohamad and the Chinese Muslim Ridhuan Tee have chosen to be Malay?
Which is perhaps why Azly Rahman warns that the word 'Malay' has become a political tool to destroy economic and social foundation of this nation.
Compared to her father, Marina Mahathir is more honest. In September 2008, she wrote the following on her blog:
I'd like to ask everyone, especially those categorized as 'Malays', to list their family histories. And see how many of us can really go back further than three generations born in this land. I know I can't.
Stronger ethnic affiliation
The non-Malays responded to Malay ethnocracy with stronger ethnic affiliation. Even the peranakan Chinese, who assimilated well into Malay society, have begun to rediscover their "roots" in the face of heightened Malay nationalism and religiosity.
The moment an identity is perceived as being driven into a situation of threat, the tendency for ethnic revitalization becomes inevitable. The arrival of Perkasa at the scene is only expected, as it, too, has to try to make others look 'equally extreme', if not more racist.
Given the complexities in ethnic affiliation, I utterly disapprove of the futile effort by Lim Kit Siang and Lim Guan Eng to prioritize one's identity. Living with dual or multiple identities is never a hindrance to social cohesion. However, conflicts are bound to ensue when one seeks to impose a clearly delineated and consciously constructed identity - be it Malay, Chinese, or Malaysian - on others.
When a Malay person is seriously ill, will he/she care whether the doctor is a Chinese or a Malaysian?
When Hadi Awang and Nik Aziz Nik Mat (right) meet, do they see each other as fellow Malaysian Muslims, or political partner/rival?
And how does Nurul Izzah prioritize her multiple identities as a daughter, wife, mother, Malay, Muslim, and an MP?
In our pursuit of a nation of intent, we must also strengthen the discourse by placing greater emphasis on its contents in addition to deconstructing the ethnic myth.
Because of Malaysia's ethnic differences, a cultural nation was always a pie in the sky. So we settled on a political nation. With the issue of an Islamic state lurking in the background, even a secular political nation now seems beyond our grasp.
If a nation called Malaysia is based on the equity, justice, transparency and diversity, Kee Thuan Chye would have no need to name his children after the "major" races just to prove his loyalty to this country. Neither would many have converted to Islam in order to become "Malay" or "mainstream".
It is also in a nation like this that people like Lim Kit Siang, Lim Guan Eng, Muhyiddin and Kadir Jasin would be confident and courageous enough to say: while I am pleased to be Chinese/Malay/Muslim, I will ensure the welfare of all found in this country is taken care of.
And the issue of identity will return to where it is: a personal choice, with no value judgments implicated.
Malaysia, after all, is just a name. It is the substance, rather than the form, that we should set our minds on.
1 comment:
Spinned your facts to get to yr point but deny NOT Malay of its identity.
Post a Comment