Farish A. Noor
(www.othermalaysia.org)
[Reposted with permission]
A quick look at the troubles in the predominantly Muslim-Malay provinces of Southern Thailand – which has been a troubled spot for the past four years at least – would point to a fundamental flaw in the line of thinking of the powers-that-be in Bangkok. Having disregarded the historical factors that make the four provinces of Patani, Jala, Satun and Narathiwat unique compared to the rest of the country, successive governments in Thailand have tried to make the Malay-Muslims of the south think of themselves as Thais, who are an ethnically different people with a language, culture, religion and history of their own.
Since the late 19th century following the conquest of Patani, Jala, Satun and Narathiwat by the Thais, and compounded by the Anglo-Siamese treaty of 1909, the four provinces have experienced what can only be described as a policy of cultural assimilation. During the 1930s and 40s Thai leaders like Phibun Songkram have tried to force Thai culture and cultural norms on the Malays by any means possible: From forcing them to speak Thai to adapting Thai dress and manners as their own.
Needless to say, this has alienated the Malay-Muslims even further, and has only helped to fuel the resentment they feel against the Thai political elite. Over the past four years this resentment has boiled over to the point of violence, leading to the needless and senseless slaughter of innocent Malays and Thais all over the south.
But looking further to the other countries of Southeast Asia we see a similar pattern at work too. The government of Indonesia tried, in the 1950s and 1960s, to force the Chinese minority of the country to adapt and adopt Indonesian cultural norms as well. The Chinese language was cast as a foreign language, Chinese culture was deemed alien and the Chinese were forced to assimilate by taking on Indonesian names and thereby losing their identity. This was done for the sake of national unity and integration, but it was well known that the driving factors behind this were really the conservative and racist elements of the ethno-nationalist right who wished to eliminate all traces of difference in the country. Sukarno was not able or not willing to defend the cultural identity of the Chinese minority, and the net result was the denial of the fact that the Chinese (like the Arabs, Indians and other migrant communities) had settled in the Indonesian archipelago for at least five hundred years.
In Malaysia the elites of the country have likewise been hard at work promoting the ideology of Malay dominance following the racial clashes of 1969. Time and again successive Malaysian politicians have harped on and on about the racial violence in May 1969 and used that as the leitmotif for a cultural assimilationist policy that has only alienated the other communities and which has denied them the right to make their cultural mark on the country.
But while successive generations of right-wing Malay-Muslim politicians in Malaysia have talked at length about the race riots of May 1969, they conveniently overlook that Malaysia has always been a nation of migrants and itinerant communities, and that the so-called ‘foreign’ Indians and Chinese have likewise settled in the land for at least five hundred years. So how long does a migrant have to stay in any country before she or he is accepted as local?
The simmering ethno-cultural and ethno-religious tensions that threaten to rip apart the countries of Southeast Asia thus all have the same factor in common: The desire on the part of the dominant group to impose their cultural-ethnic-religious stamp on all other minorities. Hence the dominance of Burmese culture in Burma, where the Burmese are in fact one of many communities; and the dominance of the Thais in Thailand where there are other communities too. Likewise in Malaysia and Indonesia the nation-building process has been overtaken by the exclusive agendas of the dominant communities despite the fact that these are really multiracial and multi-religious polities that are plural and diverse.
How do we get past this impasse of our own making then? Perhaps the biggest failure of the postcolonial states of Southeast Asia is the fact that most of them took off on an integrationist, assimilationist footing and were foregrounding a national agenda that was sectarian and divisive from the outset. In Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Burma, the concept of universal citizenship remains a distant abstract notion when in fact it ought to have been the foundational pillar to the nation-building process itself.
But nations are all works in progress and thankfully it is never too late to change tack and take on a new trajectory. Part of the solution to the woes of Southern Thailand would be to recognize that the four provinces of the south have a history of their own that demands and requires respect and recognition. The plight of the Malay-Muslims in Southern Thailand is no different from the appeal of non-Malay and non-Muslim minorities in Malaysia and Indonesia: ‘Listen to us, respect us, recognize our culture, language and identity. And then we will be citizens like any other.’
But can the political elite of Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia listen to the appeals of the marginal and the minorities? Or will the same cycle of denial, assimilation, forced integration and ultimately violence and rebellion continue to repeat itself, and become the defining feature of the failed nation-building process in all these countries?
This entry was posted
on Saturday, May 31st, 2008 at 10:51 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
May 31st, 2008 at 4:59 pm
I congratulate Mr Farish Noor on his excellent article. I totally endorse it. The validity of his arguments are demonstrated by the shining example of the vision of Mr Lee Kuan Yew who fought for a Malaysian Malaysia, and those of the founding fathers of Indonesia & Malaysia; and of course we know that Singapore was kicked out of Malaysia because Tengku Abdul Rahman was a decent man and he too saw that if Singapore remained in the Federation the way Mr Lee wants her to be, Malaysia will be embroiled in never ending sectarian strife. Both Mr Lee and the Tengku were in their own right visionaries and they were faced with no choice but to go their own separate ways.
I was then in Singapore and saw the TV telecast of an agonized Mr Lee Kuan Yew speak to the nation. I believe he was faced with a grim prospect of making a go of a Singapore that had no resources except the skills and talents of her people. Therein lies the irony of history, a Singapore with only people and nothing else, and a Malaysia that had everything that will make Malaysia succeed, except the vision that will pave the way forward to make a promise of success into reality. Singapore succeeded with nothing and Malaysia failed because of a lack of a vision that will bring the proper mix into nation building. By any measurement the performance of Malaysia over the last 50 years had been a dismal failure, and if this present Malaysia is to progress beyond this 21st century, Malaysia must face the truth of history.
It is the defense of Malay leaders that Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea succeeded because these are all homogenous societies and therefore they have no problem with racial diversity; but that is looking at the issue with head buried in the sand; because both Singapore & Hong Kong are multicultural societies. The truth is more simple than that, it is the racial arrogance of the Malay race, a people who are mired in a jumbo inferiority complex. It really amazes me why is it that important which race holds the most money and which race holds the leadership in the country ? Who cares that the richest man in Malaysia is Malay or who cares that the Prime Minister is a Malay. Let us assume that Singapore had not been kicked out of Malaysia, WILL YOU WANT A PM WHO IS THE TENGKU OR MR LEE KUAN YEW ?
I speak to this issue because for the first time in 50 years, the Chinese can change history, and for the first time ever in Malaysia the Chinese can fight for an equal place in the Malaysian sun. The solution for the Chinese to right their half century of discrimination is for the Chinese to stand alone as a SWING VOTERS’ BLOCK; this means that Chinese voters will not commit blindly to support any particular political party, because until now the Chinese have voted for the MCA a party that is characterized by greed and wholesale corruption; a political party that sold out the Chinese for mere paltry favours for themselves. The election of this March 8 is signal because for the first time in history the Indians & Chinese voted opposition; even Dato Seri Anwar was surprised.
The power of the Chinese & Indians lies in each individual deciding what is best for himself and to forget that he is Chinese or Indian. The question that he needs to ask himself is, WHAT IS IN IT FOR ME IF I VOTE PAKATAN RAKYAT ? That is the question that we all need to ask ourselves, AND TO DO THAT THE CHINESE & INDIANS MUST PUSH UMNO OUT OF POWER; only then will it be possible for the Chinese & Indians to wield political power, because by pushing UMNO out of government you will have slashed the ropes that the MCA & MIC had over 50 years bound you hand & feet. You were slaves to the Malays for 50 years and you will need to free yourselves by pushing UMNO out of government. THE TRUTH is very mathematical and simple, Malays are 64%, Chinese are 24% and Indians are 8%; therefore if Chinese and Indians BREAK AWAY FROM MCA & MIC, then by my strategy they vote for their best self- interests and THAT MEANS THEY HAVE TO THROW THEIR VOTES TO THE OPPOSITION IN ORDER TO SWING THE PENDULUM, so to speak. It does not matter whether Dato Seri Anwar is a good or bad man, WHAT WE WANT TO ACHIEVE THIS TIME AROUND IS TO SWING THE PENDULUM; to vote PAKATAN RAKYAT ! Remember that for the first time in history we have the good fortune to have Dato Seri Anwar to lead a political party that is equal in strength to that of UMNO; this development means that of the 64% Malay vote bank 34% goes to UMNO and 34% goes to Dato Seri Anwar. This makes it possible for the first time in history to SWING THE VOTES. Then when in 4 years of government Pakatan Rakyat fails to prove that they work to your interests, you go on and vote for UMNO, but to get into this position of power, you need first to push UMNO out of government.
I say it is only this once in a lifetime that we are lucky to have a strong and charismatic Malay leader who now knows that what Malaysia needs at this point of history is a multicultural MALAYSIA or the path of development into this century will BE A BLEAK ONE AND MALAYSIA WILL DESCENT INTO THE GUTTER OF 3RD WORLD STATUS. Returning to my point, IF UMNO EVER RETURNS TO THEIR POWER OF PRIOR TO MARCH 8TH, THEN I SEE UMNO MASSIVELY RIGGING THE POLLS IN THE NEXT ELECTIONS TO GURANTEE THEIR HOLD ON POWER. I say to those dogs in MCA that they have a duty to cross the floor of Parliament to vote with Pakatan Rakyat TO CHANGE GOVERNMENT FOR THE GOOD OS EVERYBODY IN MALAYSIA.
May 31st, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Sir, I would like to strongly differ from what Farish Noor had to say.
Keeping aside whatever local polital stirrings be at the moment regarding NEP and so on..
Malaysia is the only country in South East Asia,
which has indeed recognised Chinese and Indians
as different cultures existing in Malaysia.
Echoing some of the things that Dr Tun Mahathir recently wrote in his blog,
Its only in Malaysia where we find Indians wanting to have seperate Tamil schools and getting them funded by the government too.
As a non-Malaysian expat in Malaysia,
I have loved this country very much,
but it is sad to see some minorities, grumble too much about it,
and trying to reflect to others in naive, how terrible thier situation is.
This truly is not the reality from what I observe,
and those who believe so do so by making thier own phantom malaysia.
If only they have tasted what actual repression towards minority is,
they would stop doing so and work together.
Afcourse, its not all free from problems,
every country has its own problems.
It up to it to sort it out unanimously.
May 31st, 2008 at 6:44 pm
The process of assimilation in Malaysia was well underway. The Chinese/Malay assimilation resulted in the Nyonya Baba group. These are Chinese that practise Malay customs and speak the Malay language. They have their own unique way of dressing, cooking and even celebrations.
The Indian/Malay assimilation resulted in the Mamak group. These Mamaks have their own uniqueness. They speak Tamil and Malay as easily as a duck take to water. The Mamak groups have their own duistinctive traits and over time have become more Malays than the Malays themselves.
These were already successful infusion of culture between the races resulting in a unique culture grouping. Nowhere else do we have a Nyonya Baba and Mamak groups. So we should this process of assimilation continue and eventually we will have a Bangsa Malaysia with Malay language and culture as the basis or unifying factor.
May 31st, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Comment on Farish Noor (2)
I regret that Dr. Zhivago & Shrek has totally missed the point that Dr Farish in his excellent article wanted to make. I believe his point is that assimilation politics equates with trying to change a black cat into a white cat, and that that would be counter productive because that would militate against man’s cultural, religious and educational total being, a bit like saying man does not live on rice alone !
The example that Shrek cited relating to the existence of the Baba doth not all together irrelevant is a bit neither here nor there; the babas are of mix parentage, Chinese marrying into Malays, and should we say that they are Chinese or Malays ? I am not too sure about that because Tan Siew sin is baba, I think I will leave that alone.
Returning to Dr Farish Noor’s thesis, and arising from his perspective, let me ask you, WHAT WOULD BE DONE TO 5 MILLION CHINESE IN MALAYSIA WHO WILL DEFINITELY baulk at the thought of giving up their CHINESENESS to become MALAY ! Thin Ah Kong (GOD by Chinese ) forbid ! Will the Malays freely assimilate into the China men ? How about Malays becoming Chinese ? So you see ! There are 5 million Chinese who will not want to be Malay, just as there are 23 million Malays who will not want to be Chinese.
The second point he raised was that that being (above point one) what the situation is, it is more productive to solve the problem by accommodation than to sweep the problem away by assimilation, that absorbing the problem INTO NOTHINGNESS ! Yes, for the Babas that is possible, because when they lived in the days of “HUNG TUA” there were only very few Chinese but today you have the problem that is the size of 5 million Chinese. How do you marry off 5 million Chinese to 5 million Malays ? That was the simplistic solution that was proposed by Tun Tan Cheng Lock father to Tan Siew Sin. Anyway, Tun Tan was not seen as Chinese enough to suggest such abomination !
The formula for success is still the Singapore solution that allows for FREEDOM TO LIVE OUR LIVES THE WAY WE CHOOSE BUT TO LIVE WITHIN LIMITS IMPOSED BY LAW.
May 31st, 2008 at 10:37 pm
YapChongYee
I fully understand what Dr Farish was trying to explain in the article. You cannot force people to be who they are not. Bottom line. Dr Farish had cited futile attempts by Thailand, Indonesia and others.
My point is why FORCE. The Baba and Nyonyas wre not forced but did it on their own through natural progression and assimilation. They were successful in building a very Malaysian identity not chines or Malay. Only a fool would try to marry off 5 million chines to 5 million malays.
I don’t think Tun Tan Checg Lock and Tun Tan Siew Sin ever proposed marrying off the Chinese to the Malays. Tun Tan Siew Sin is a Chinese Baba and is a great Malaysian if I ever see one. I knew Tun Tan Siew Sin personally. Even as we speak there are many Chinese marrying Malays vice versa and will continue because people fall in love and love is blind.
A sizeable number of leading Malays are married to Chinese, Mohamad Rahmat, Raja Petra Kamaruddin, Ahmad Sabki Jahidin Tengka Razaligh Hamzah just to name a few. Even the Kuok family have married to a Malay.
Talking about Singapore “Freedom to live our lives the way we choose….” Ha ha ha . In Singapore they try to marry the engineer to the doctor to get a super baby. They tried zero growth, population control and many more programs that fail. Singapore is nor PERFECT but is a good country wher things do work
May 31st, 2008 at 10:51 pm
The issue that Farish Noor (FN) highlights is as old as the hills and not just restricted to Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia. The cases of the Kurds in Turkey (in Iran and Iraq too), the Tibetans and Uighurs in China, the French Canadian case, the Roma (gypsies) in Europe and the Muslims (Sikhs and Dalits too) in India are other examples. There are several examples in Africa too. Even the United States, despite their immigrant friendly history and their “melting pot” perspective has had a hard time assimilating immigrant groups, most recently Latino immigrants.
What compounds the issue of “differences” between ethnic groups is economic disparities between ethnic/racial groups.
I do not think there are any easy answers to issues FN raised here. Perhaps the Swiss knew what they were doing when they separated themselves into geographically and linguistically distinct Cantons hundreds of years ago but shared a common national identity. That solution is simply not possible anymore.
The one solution to the problem, as I see it, is constitutional due process. This is one where the rights of minorities are protected, not as a member of a group, but as individuals. In other words enforce anti-discriminatory laws to protect rights of minorities as individuals to practice their religious faiths, send their children to vernacular schools, and ensure that minorities as individuals are entitled to equal and fair treatment in the workplace as long as they meet the necessary standards.
I’m no expert on Southeast Asian constitutions and legal systems but I suspect the civil rights protections in these would be rather weak. Moreover, an independent judiciary anchors constitutional due process – something that is lacking in many countries in the region.
And I think it’ll take time for Civil Rights law to develop and mature in places like Malaysia where the Constitution enshrines special rights. I do not see Malay special rights as an obstacle to adopting Civil Rights legislation as much as the lack of political leadership and will. It takes visionary leadership, patience and an acceptance of reality that what is good for individuals overall is good for the nation.
One final point, even in the U.S., which is one of the oldest constitutional governments around, it was only in 1964 (nearly 180 years after its constitution was ratified) that important Civil Rights Legislation that prohibited discrimination based on a variety of factors was passed.
So Southeast Asians in general and Malaysians in particular have to be patient and hopeful.
June 2nd, 2008 at 2:53 am
Farish’s observation is valid. What he did not say is that assimilation can only happen if the culture is superior based on merits of the time. Can you imagine the world being assimilated by the African culture today?
One way to strengthen a culture is to do a reverse assimilation of meritable values from other cultures like the American and Indian in the last 100 years, and the Chinese and British in the last 10-20 years.
In our context, is the Malay culture so superior and/or open enough to do a reverse cultural assimilation to strengthen itself when compared to its minorities’? If not, I think Malaysia can never reverse course until the reality sets in. It may take as long as Myammar yet to do.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:20 am
I know shrek and BM have been harping on their “perceived failure” of the Singapore’s population policy in the past where zero growth is the target. I find it strange for a foreigner to think that this is an issue while it is completely out of Singaporean mind!
Singapore is looking for quality in its people and a sudden rise in infusion of immigrants does not equate to a failure in policy in the past but a prove of its flexibilty in governance based on merits.
Malaysian kampong folks can produce like machine but can they educate their products properly? You think Singaporeans aspire to be like them?
June 5th, 2008 at 3:59 am
Ramumenon, the world started a stroll 200 years ago, and now it’s a 400m run while you still stare at your back. And very soon you’ll gulp dirts in 50m sprint.