This year appears to the only time in my lifetime when National Day and the end of Bulan Ramadan overlapped and therefore that the government was willing to switch our so-called “Independence Day” celebrations to coincide with our Malaysia Day celebrations.
All three originating states, if I am not mistaken, Malaya, Sarawak and Sabah, have factually different independence days. All three also achieved their independence at different times but from the same British colonial jurisdiction.
Therefore, as we seek to celebrate this truly national event of Malaysia Day soon, allow me to ask a critical but important question: Was it true, honest, and realistic for the federal government to have claimed in the past that Aug 31 is the Independence Day for what we all call Malaysia? Was it not factually only the Independence Day for Persekutuan Tanah-Tanah Melayu or the Federation of Malay States?
Even more important for our consideration and reflection, as the debate between 46 and 54 years of age rages, is: what really then is this ideal called Malaysia? Is she just merely another potentially failing state? Or, is she one of the more modern and successful multicultural multiethnic nation-states?
Consequently also, who then is the Anak Bangsa Malaysia, or who are the citizens of Malaysia? Are not all, every citizen born in Malaysia after Sept 16, 1963, considered Malaysians and nothing else? To me these can also include all Singaporeans who were born within the two years when Singapore was also part of Malaysia. Most countries recognise such a birthright.
Can or should we ever therefore ever raise a debate about Ketuanan A or B or C, which is always an argument about ethnic superiority? Or, is even the variant question of 'who came first' ever of serious relevance? If we were in fact the first; why then were we not clever enough to dominate the entire geography and keep all outsiders out?
But, then again, while this 'conquer and dominate worldview' may belong to some people groups, it may never belong to some others.
Symbiotic and harmonious worldview
For example, the Orang Asal of Tanah Melayu, whoever they maybe and whatever the land was then called, may not have a “ruler-ship attitude or worldview!” They may have only had a symbiotic and harmonious worldview which considered the rest of the geography part and parcel of the creator's heritage which we were only to be trustees of? We were only called to steward and use what we needed but never to dominate and abuse the world around us.
I have another equally troubling but related question? Is the root word, 'Malaya' and the roots for the word 'Malaysia' from the same root language or do they have the same etymology? I do not know.
It is my hypothesis and belief though that “Malaya” (or Melayu as in original Malay form) may have its roots in Sanskrit but the root word for “Malaysia” may be from some other language form.
If then 'Malaysia,' for example, is a product of her extrapolation from its root in English (it could be Dutch or Portuguese, too, and I am not sure) as the original language, it could most likely be translated to mean “the Malay world,” that is, if Malay is used as an adjective to describe “sia,” whatever it means and from whichever origin.
This particular interpretation then, for example, would make it from English etymological roots and therefore the entirely English concept of Malaysia; both as a nation-state, and a concept that has her meanings in the English colonial past of this region.
Therefore, maybe we cannot simply rewrite history as we choose to (using the dominion and control mindset) and still be accurate in her historical record and meaning, in the sense of modern science of facts and logic versus emotion and wishful thinking. History is always about the past, in time terms, and always about the current day meaning and understanding about that common past.
History will never be allowed to written by the victors only, but neither is it only about the “so-called victims of the same history.” Therefore, we need to rid ourselves of the colonial mindset of domination and control and with it the practice of a divide and rule ideology to achieve this agenda.
We (and most colonials states do) often accuse the “other colonials about their abuses” but sometimes we are behaving worse than them. Ask our Sarawakian and Sabahan brothers and sisters.Colonisation often carried with her the so-called 'civilising mandate' or what is often called the 'white man's burden.' While that inspiration and agenda can be debated and argued, what cannot be disputed is that whatever notion of development or progress that we have, it must include the concept of becoming more civilised or orderly (versus chaotic) in issues of life.
Civil conduct in public spaces
Our conduct must always be civil in the public spaces of life, or we will degenerate into uncivilised forms of disagreement using emotions and not reason. Maybe the Orang Asli are victims of this worldview.
The 1BangsaMalaysia challenge is therefore to radically review our understanding of our history without false emotions and to use reason to moderate between differences and disagreement. The use of authority, or power or any other domination language is a truly feudal mindset which needs to be acknowledged as such.
Dr Mahathir Mohamad cast the original dream of the Bangsa Malaysia ideal in his framework for the nine challenges of Vision 2020. His basic argument was that we must together face all those challenges and we needed the capacity and capability of everyone within Bangsa Malaysa.
While he did not precisely define the term or concept, the fact his speech was delivered to the Malaysian Business Council, and it was delivered in English, makes the interpretation of it about a nation-state valid. This is opposed to the alternative interpretation of a race perspective. If he first used it and delivered it in Malay, then the use of 'Bangsa' may have referred to the use of the enlarged concept of ethnicity or race or people group. But, that is not the 'facts of the case.'
PM Najib Abdul Razak then went one step further, with his alphanumeric version of 1Malaysia as his equivalent but greater concept of being inclusive of all peoples of Malaysia. My only disagreement is that his concept still refers to the ideal of a nation-state and my variation begins to refer to the people who make up the nation-state and their desire to become one united people of Malaysia.
Finally also, there is a civil society movement called the Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia. It is a positive statement about us as peoples of this nation, who were born into Malaysia; the nation-state. Many of us are signed on as members. We say we are Malaysians first and other ethnicities second. We are first and foremost citizens of this nation-state called Malaysia.
That is why we carry the Malaysians passport when we go overseas. We may have a slightly different ethnic heritage than other Malaysians but we can all speak the Malaysian National Language (which is Bahasa Malaysia based on Bahasa Melayu or Bahasa Indonesia), and we all sing the Negara Ku (Our Nation), and finally we can all restate the Rukunegara.
Is anything else needed? And, yes, sure, we will fly the National Flag or Jalur Gemilang on Malaysia Day. May God bless Malaysia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KJ JOHN was in public service for 29 years. He is now dean of the Faculty of Economics and Policy Science at UCSI University, Malaysia. The views expressed here are personal views of the writer and not those of the university or any other institution he is involved with. Please write to the columnist at kjjohn@ohmsi.net, if you have any feedback or views.
Source : http://www.malaysiakini.com/columns/174968
No comments:
Post a Comment