There Can Only Be A ‘Pivotal’ Malaysian Nation
There Can Only Be A ‘Pivotal’ Malaysian Nation
By Farish A. Noor
With the UMNO General Assembly just around the corner, it is clear that the race for leverage and pole position within the party has already begun. UMNO being what it is – an ethno-nationalist party with a political agenda based primarily on a race-based form of communitarian politics – it would hardly be a surprise to us by now if some of the more vocal leaders of the party were to play to the gallery yet again. We have already been treated to the sordid spectacle of UMNO leaders reaching for the keris and brandishing it in public for the sake of making a statement. Likewise we have been reminded of where UMNO’s true loyalties lie by the proclamations uttered by some of its leaders on thorny issues such as the New Economic Policy (NEP), the privileged status of the Malays, and the place of Malay identity in the constellation of Malaysian politics.
Now, yet again, we have been reminded of the inherent sectarianism and parochialism of the party thanks to the statements uttered by some of its leaders, notably Datuk Abdul Ghani Othman, chief of UMNO Johor. While delivering his policy speech in the state of Johor recently, Datuk Ghani bluntly stated that there should be less talk of ‘bangsa Malaysia’ (the Malaysian nation) as such talk would only lead to confusion and political uncertainty. He insisted that the concept of an abstract Malaysian nation would merely lead to a ‘mish-mashing’ of the different racial identities and groupings in Malaysia, and that there was no justification for some parties to call for the creation of a Malaysian nation in the first place. Datuk Ghani’s qualifying remark was one that seemed to sum up the mind-set of many an UMNO leader today: “Even if the term bangsa Malaysia were to be used,” he argued, “it must only be applied in the context of all the peoples of Malaysia, and with the Malays as the pivotal race.”
Accompanying this remark was a train of essentialised notions about the traits and characteristics of the Malay people, as well as ‘the Malay way’ of doing things; which may presumably include not questioning the status of the Malays as the ‘pivotal race’ of Malaysia.
At a time when the nation should be thinking of new ways of re-imagining itself and its place in the world, it is sad – nay, pathetic – that such narrow-mindedness should prevail among some of its political elite. While the younger generation of New Malaysians are looking for ways and means to bridge the divisions of race, ethnicity, language and religion, the old guard are still harping on about the good old days and the good old ways when this land was referred to as ‘Tanah Melayu’ (Land of the Malays). So once again we are brought back to the homespun colonial fictions of the not-too-pleasant colonial past.
It is ironic, to say the least, that the very same party that claims the right to wear the mantle of anti-colonialism would be the first to reiterate the manifold contradictions of colonial historiography and colonial anthropology and ethnology. Part and parcel of the British colonial enterprise in Malaya (then later, Malaysia) was the systematic re-writing of its history to privilege one ethnic-racial group over others. By the mid-20th century when it became patently obvious to all that the colonial enterprise was about to reach its agonizing climax, Britain (like the other European colonial powers of the time) sought an effective exit strategy from its colonies east of Suez; and in the Malaysian case came up with the blueprint for what would eventually be known as the inter-racial elite compromise between the elites of the various ethnic-racial communities.
Yet was it ever the case that there was such a thing as a ‘Malay’ race per se, understood in purely essentialist terms? If one were to revisit the colonial census of the 19th century, it is clear that the very idea of ‘Malayness’ was not only vague (a ‘mish-mash, as Datuk Ghani might put it) but also far from essentialised.
It is clear, both from the colonial census and the historical records of the many community-based associations that sprung up during that period that the people of Malaya did not see themselves as fixed ethnic blocs or racial groups. In fact up to the early 20th century the category of ‘Malay’ was just one sub-category in a wider group of ethnic identities. Alongside those who called themselves ‘Malay’ were other groups summarily labeled as Javanese, Bugis, Makasarese, Sumatrans (ranked as Minangs, Acehnese, Lampungs, and others), Jawi Peranakans, Arab Peranakans, Indian Peranakans, Chinese Peranakans, and so on. Nowhere was the concept of Malayness presented as a given, static, essentialised fact. If anything, territorial loyalties were paramount and the people of the land referred to themselves as ‘Johorese’, ‘Kelantanese’, ‘Kedahans’ first and foremost. One might add here that the categories of ‘Chinese’ and ‘Indian’ were likewise nowhere as simplified, as the communities that would eventually be grouped under these general headings were then defined as Hokkiens, Cantonese, Hakka, etc; and Punjabis, Bengalis, Tamils, Ceylonese, etc.
It was with the passage of time and the development of the colonial state that the various communities were lumped together into neat and homogenous blocs, conflating differences and reducing the communities to essentialised categories like ‘Malay’, ‘Chinese’ and ‘Indian’. Seen from this critical perspective, the invention of the ‘Malay race’ was in fact a by-product of Western colonialism and imperialism in Malaysia!
Yet since 1957 this nation of ours has labored under the oppressive fiction that there exists such a thing as a homogenous, fixed and essentialised ‘Malay race’, which can only be defined artificially via the legal instrument of a constitutional definition.
It is upon such instrumental fictions that the Malayan (and later Malaysian) nation-state was built, though it has to be remembered that once this elaborate political fiction is placed in a broader historical context the Malaysian political experiment is seen as a relatively short episode. For centuries the peoples who have lived in this land have seen themselves as mixed, each being a multifarious nation and an assembly of ‘races’ on his/her own. A cursory reading of the complex biographies of the ‘great Malaysians’ of the past (before the very idea of Malaya/Malaysia was even mooted) would show that most of them recognized, and even valorized, their hybrid identities. Consider the biography of Munshi Abdullah for instance, regarded as the father of the Modern vernacular Malay novel, who was of mixed Peranakan heritage himself. Likewise the same could be said of men like Syed Sheikh al-Hadi, Sheikh Tahir Jalaluddin, Ibrahim Yaakob and others. All of them were of mixed parentage and all of them were and remain true Malaysians.
Yet today when the fundamental contradictions of racialised capitalism in Malaysia are coming to the surface and when it has become clear that the fiction of racial difference can no longer be sustained, it is precisely the most sectarian, conservative communitarians in our midst who clamor for a return to the politics of racial difference and ethnic compartmentalism, solely for the sake of preserving the status quo.
How long can this fragile balance be maintained before the very socio-cultural fabric of Malaysia rips itself asunder? Faced with the realities of a globalizing world where parochialism of any form – be it religious or ethnic-racial – would be detrimental to the health and future of a nation-in-making, the falsehood that is at the heart of Malaysia’s racialised political culture has to be exposed for what it is.
Ethno-nationalist politicians will undoubtedly find it hard to change their spots and stop themselves from playing to the gallery. The clarion call of ‘the Malays in danger’ rings sweet in the ears of those conservative ethno-nationalists for whom the keris is a potent symbol of power and hegemony. But Malaysian society today is more complex, plural and hybrid than ever; and it is the complexity of Malaysia that may well save it in the long run, opening up cultural and historical bridges to other countries (not to mention the rising Asian economies of India and China) in turn.
Those who call for the protection of the Malays as the ‘pivotal race’ of Malaysia fail to note these political realities and the historical subtleties that render such ideological over-simplification useless and futile. Yet in the weeks and months to come, as Malaysia heads slowly towards a political crisis that seems to be on the cards for all, it is imperative that we remind ourselves that the only thing that can still keep this country together is the abstract idea of a universal Malaysian citizenship, premised on the belief and conviction that there is, and has always been, a complex and hybrid Malaysian nation after all: despite what the history books and keris-wielding politicians may tell you.
Dr. Farish A Noor is a Malaysian political scientist and human rights activist. Visit his site at www.othermalaysia.org
November 10th, 2006 at 7:41 pm
While I still find this piece verbose, it does have some very significant subtleties.
However, the argument and fact that historically the concept of Malay is less definitive lacks a certain relevance when our constitution has some very definite ideas about it.
The bottom line is that our constitution did not forsee that our nation would wish NOT to be united Malaysian, that it did not forsee the political elite finding it advantageous to them to divide the country for ease of control and manipulation. Maybe someone did forsee it but could not built it into the constitution to guarantee it at that time.
Assumption was always that if the protection of equal rights was there that Malaysian would HAVE TO come together eventually. This assumption has been proven wrong as the guarantee of equal rights has been eroded over time first by tinkering with the law and constitution and then through direct intervention of the institutions particular the judicial and police.
Perhaps our founders may still be right that there is no real choice but to be a united nation in the end. However, the cost may be that we may have to come close to losing that nationhood itself before we decide to make sure of that. Clearly the likes of Ghani prefer to lose the nation rather than share it with someone else.
November 10th, 2006 at 10:25 pm
The Whites of South Africa had no shame when they used apatheid to oppress the Blacks. Hitler killed millions in the name of a supreme race. Now, we have people pushing for a pivotal race in Malaysia. Although all these people will ultimately fail to achieve their goal, they have proven to be very dangerous and damaging to society. Malaysians must wake up to this curse and say GO TO HELL, YOU BLOODY RACISTS! We won’t be your slaves.
November 10th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
This is a very well written piece Dr. Farish.
I have to agree that many of us have quite forgotten that the “Malay”, “Chinese” and “Indian” ethnicities are essentialised categories that were legitimised by the Constituion, laws and policies into becoming instrumental fictions.
Verbosity? Far from it.
The legacy of imperialism and colonialism, whether it is Hindu-Muslim relations in India and inter-state hostilities between Pakistan and India, Israel and the Arab states and the Palestinians - all points to a historic system of divide and rule. However, it is also equally true that it is a test for us to overcome such distinctions to forge a real Bangsa Malaysia.
I was utterly devastated that Abdul Ghani took to such extremes in repudiating the Bangsa Malaysia in order to cement the myth of Ketuanan Melayu. Even in the heydays of the Malay ultras, a Bangsa Malaysia is still an accepted identity, even if the image is laden with Islamic and Malay cultural sensibilities. To now argue that a Bangsa Malaysia is impossible unless it is a Malay-oriented identity would be farcical considering the fluidity and impermanence of such constructs.
We must realize that the Constitution stated no such thing about Malay and Bumiputera’s supposed superiority. Instead, repeatedly expressed the notion of a special position. A special position is not necessarily a superior one. The spin and the lies have gone on long enough.
The reason why communal politics will never work in our party system is simple. Once pushed, party candidates will fall back of race politics and strive to outshine others in their extremist dogma, not on the platform of common national interest. Abdul Ghani might be the Menteri Besar of Johore, a state with a multicultural population, but when he speaks on the UMNO platform, his zeal for the Malay struggle is far more important than, say, his fervent beliefs in common sense, reason and democracy - if he has them.
I wouldn’t fault Abdul Ghani too much for his need to pander to his crowd. Afterall, he is speaking in the capacity of an UMNO chief, not the MB. However, this clearly illustrates what communal politics force our politicians to do - doublespeak. Orwell would be proud of how that tradition flourishes in Malaysia.
We need Bangsa Malaysia simply because matters of communal interest sometimes get in the way of common or greater good. Onn Jaafar went on length in the pre-Independence days on the difference in being a Malayan, between nationality and citizenship, as well as national and state identity.
It is possible for some of us to be legally Malaysian, but to have no rights of political participation. This is what is slowly happening in Malaysia. I might be Malaysian in nationality, but unless I am in UMNO, there can be no meaningful participation, citizenship-wise. This is the marginalization that turns so many Malaysians into spectators, including Malays who aren’t in UMNO. This is also responsible for the general sentiment that only the Malays can change things and make things happen, because the UMNO General Assembly is almost a de-facto Parliament on its own.
I would say that those who call for the protection of the Malays as the ‘pivotal race’ of Malaysia are very aware of the realities of globalisation. India and China are being used to intimidate the Malays (when most Malaysians realize that they are competitors of our nation, not a community). One of the more illogical response I am seeing is to punish other Malaysians of Chinese and Indian descent instead of seeing them as partners to tap into a foreign market. When a factory in Malaysia closes to be relocated to China or Vietnam, all the workers - whether Malay, Chinese, Indian, Bugis, Javanese or Indonesian, will be out of a job.
All of us are in this ship together, except for those who are bailing. If the way we choose our captain and first mate is based on skin colour more than ability and character, then we are screwed if they don’t know how to get everyone to work together and perform their best. Running a country is like running a ship, and when you have idiots taking care of the sails, the ship is more likely to run aground and get stuck there, at the mercy of the elements and the rest of the crew can only pray hard to ask for divine intervention to steer them off danger and mishaps.
November 11th, 2006 at 4:20 am
Politicians like Johor’s Ghani Othman and others like UMNO Youth’s Khairy Jamaluddin and Hishamuddin Hussein are playing with fire. But do they care? No, they don’t. They will use every opportunity to inflame Malay chauvinistic passions, and exploit Malay insecurities as long as they can gain political support.
Their message to the Malays seems to be this: “Don’t worry. Big Brother UMNO is here to safeguard your interest”. Little do the Malays in the kampongs in particular realise that their political leaders are motivated by personal interest, greed and power. Furthermore, the reality is that times have changed, and “other Malaysians” are no longer going to grant them carte blanche.
Frankly, I am more concerned with Abdullah Badawi. He seems to be unable to control them. It is now standard practice for him to maintain a posture of “elegant silence”. In stead of taking full control and putting an end to bigotry and perverted religious dogma, he thinks national problems can be solved by inaction.
We see Badawi, for example, being unable to discipline corrupt UMNO politicians and unwilling to punish ulamas like the pro-Syria Perak Chief Mufti and those religious policemen who caught an elderly American couple in Langkawi, Kedah and charged them for khalwat (close proximity). He is reluctant to curb growing religious intolerance in Shahidan Land(Perlis). Do we have a Badawi Administration? If we think we do, what is this government doing?
Dr. Farish is right. I would like to ask the pure Malays to please “stand up and identify themselves”. There are none, I feel, since the Malays over many generations have intermarried. They are hybrids of one sort or another. Maybe, Ghani is of the view that those in Johor who have adopted Arab culture with the Ghazal and Zapin are the real Malays. Or has he been wrongly advised on this matter?
Lest we forget, Malaysia is a multi-racial, multicultural and multi-religious country. Diversity is our strength and mutual accommodation and tolerance are the foundations of our peace and harmony. Right now, our country is being challenged by extremes across our political divide. If we choose to ignore these undercurrents of discord, we are all at risk. United we stand, divided we will split asunder.
November 11th, 2006 at 7:57 am
AAB also have relative at Hainan, China. His pass away wife also have blood tie with Japanese. Selangor MB also descendent of Javanese, etc. So, how to define “pivotal Malay”?
November 11th, 2006 at 8:02 am
AAB also have relative at Hainan, China. His pass away wife also have blood tie with Japanese. Selangor MB also descendent of Javanese, etc. So, how to define “pivotal Malay”?
November 11th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
Frankly as a Malay..I’m still waiting for best alternative for UMNO. Is there an alternative for UMNO which can truly capture the heart and mind of the all Malays. Keadilan was just a pretender. DSAI failed miserably.
November 11th, 2006 at 11:24 pm
How have a achieve a pivotal Malaysian Nation?
Read this from Malaysiakini’s Jeff Ooi column.
Persatuan Pengguna Islam Malaysia (PPIM) hari ini membuat laporan polis terhadap sebuah syarikat pengeluar aiskrim terkemuka kerana kepingan biskutnya mempunyai imej salib.
Rombongan PPIM ketika membuat aduan di Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah Cheras itu disertai anggota beberapa badan bukan kerajaan termasuk Kongres India Muslim Malaysia (KIMMA) dan Yayasan Bakti Khidmat Masyarakat Malaysia (YBKMM) dengan diketuai Pengarah Sekretariat PPIM Dr Izham Nayan.
… and a commentary from a reader
Aiskrim walls yang dimaksudkan memang mengandungi lambang salib. tidak salah utk kami membantah. kerana ini adalah percubaan untuk menyebarkan unsur agama lain kepada penduduk yang majorinya beragama islam.
My says ….
The reader thinks that the company is attempting to preach Christianity to Muslims. It is an insult to Malaysian Muslims. Their faith can be shaken by just looking at a cross on the packaging of ice creams.
What about Islamic programmes, some by chinese converts, on national tv? Likewise, the non Muslims can also say that the programmes are aimed at converting them into Islam.
Worse still, national tv are funded by tax payers money, the bulk of it is contributed by non-Muslim.
Islam preach fairness. Perhaps, maybe Persatuan Pengguna Islam Malaysia (PPIM) should ask the government for air time for other religions.
Where to put our face if this news is picked and beamed across the world.
November 12th, 2006 at 1:26 am
Dr Izham Nayan .. May Allah save you from the Infidels who are always trying to paint Muslim as terrorists. What was written by Phelps is nothing but the words of a Zionists propagandist. WE Muslim must always remembers that even in Malaysia, people like Phelps exists. They however will masquerade as the champions of equality. BUt we know who they really are and what they are up to.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
ooops…I think this is fast degenerating into one of those “me more-righteous Muslim than thou…Malaysian style” forum.
here’s one free advice for both Phelps and joey…if you MUST say these things, for the love of God, please go learn to read and write English well. (not that there’s anything special about the English language other than the fact that this forum is being conducted in English) if not, you both just sound like “third-world level mentality using first-world technology.”
irrespective of what one claims oneself to be…one’s true character will show up by the manner in which one argues a point.
grammar, choice of words and stringing them all correctly together are the basics of all languages and if you can’t get them right…how on earth do you expect people to take you seriously?
mind you, you are now “discussing” religion…a most serious subject indeed!
and, with your present level of understanding, of language and religion, you are not doing your religion any justice.
on the contrary, you are causing a split of the brotherhood which is the exact opposite of what religion is all about.
this is not the fault of any particular religion but the fault of it’s followers.
remember, a little knowledge is always dangerous! period.
lastly, had God wanted a spokesman for His religion, He would not have wanted the likes of you OR me to be that person.
so, you still want RESPECT?
well, go earn it!
November 14th, 2006 at 7:03 pm
asri … do not think that you’re better that others just because you write better English ( bagus sangat ke? English dia ni! ) … the fact that u are here in this blog “picisan” is a reflection of who you really are!
November 14th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
joey, that was very rude of you to say such things to asri.(man, i am so tempted to do this :p)
what asri is trying to say is just that, man will look at himself or herself as holy when he or she may not be. it can be utterly irritating when one starts acting ‘holier than thou’. being holy is in the heart and mind and soul of a person and not by what one says or by one’s physical appearance. it doesn’t mean what you say or wear will determie that you are holier than another of the same religion as you may be doing malicious things behind the back of others.
November 14th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
joey, that was very rude of you to say such things to asri.(man, i am so tempted to do this :p)
what asri is trying to say is just that, man will look at himself or herself as holy when he or she may not be. it can be utterly irritating when one starts acting ‘holier than thou’. being holy is in the heart and mind and soul of a person and not by what one says or by one’s physical appearance. it doesn’t mean what you say or wear will determie that you are holier than another of the same religion as you may be doing malicious things behind the back of others. and for goodness sake, it has nothing to do with his english being better.
November 15th, 2006 at 1:12 am
LKY’s idea of Bangsa Singapore means erasing the historical root of early Temasek and the Malays as the basis of the nation-state. Singapore’s history and claims as a nation-state began only with its founding by Raffles!!! The original name of Singapura may soon be forgotten. Modern Singaporeans would not be able to relate the significance of the Singa monument!!
That’s the crux of LKY’s idea of a Malaysian Malaysia which was strongly opposed by the Tunku (UMNO) with full agreements of MCA and MIC!! This is a manifestation of the social contract that was agreed upon by the Alliance.
The MCA and MIC apparently have chosen not to remember this important affair when opposing Dato Ghani’s reminder. The DAP is understandably still trying to parrot LKY’s Malaysian Malaysia nation!!
The Gerakan’s stand against Ghani’s statement must be looked from its political make-up of a supposedly non-racial political party!! For that matter, being a non-racially based party in a racially-based coalition govenrment is somewhat strange,if not opportunistic!! This is the main reason for the acrimonious relationships that’s prevailing between UMNO and the Gerakan!!
It would be better off for the Gerakan to join with the “ideologically-based” parties like DAP, PRSM,Keadilan…and leave the UMNO-MCA-MIC-PBB-etc to slog their own communal turfs which will in the end strike-each-other-out for a national compromise!! This is the “power-sharing” formula of the early Alliance and the now BN.
This is the basis of Ghani’s BANGSA (i.e. WARGA) MALAYSIA. He is referring to a NATION not RACE (KAUM). He is refering to a NATION of various races, with the Malay race as pivotal due to its historical and sociological standings which are truthfully reflected in our Constitution, agreed upon by the Malay Rulers, the UMNO-MCA-MIC Alliance and has been the pillar of our society.
April 4th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
This is just mental masturbation - none of the politicians believe in any of this. They just want to feather their nests before the oil runs out and most of the jobs go to China. These politicans are the true “Bangsat Malaysia”. The rest of you are just idlers. Hurry up, join them and get some contracts before the oil runs out. Even the PM’s brother has opened a nasi kandar shop in Perth and his on has bought a multi-million dolalr house in Perth, according to reports. These are smart, well-connected and clever men. They know things cannot last forever. So join BN’s 40 thieves and become part of the real “Bangsat Malaysia”.
June 11th, 2007 at 1:13 am
It’s been interesting to read such free-flowing comments on an all “Malaysian” free for all. While we are on the subject, how many of you have read the book entitled “Contesting Malayness”? Written by a Professor of National University of Singapore. Cost S$32 (about). It reflects the Anthropologists views that there is no such race as the “Malays” to begin with. If we follow the original migration of the Southern Chinese of 6,000yrs ago, they moved into Taiwan, (now the Alisan), then into the Phillipines (now the Aeta) and moved into Borneo (4,500yrs ago) (Dayak). They also split into Sulawesi and progressed into Jawa, and Sumatera. The final migration was to the Malayan Peninsular 3,000yrs ago. A sub-group from Borneo also moved to Champa in Vietnam at 4,500yrs ago.
Interestingly, the Champa deviant group moved back to present day Kelantan. There are also traces of the Dong Song and HoaBinh migration from Vietnam and Cambodia. To confuse the issue, there was also the Southern Thai migration, from what we know as Pattani today. (see also “Early Kingdoms of the Indonesian Archipelago and the Malay Peninsular”)
Of course, we also have the Minangkabau’s which come from the descendants of Alexander the Great and a West Indian Princess. (Sejarah Melayu page 1-3)
So the million Dollar Question… Is there really a race called the “Malays”? All anthropologists DO NOT SEEM TO THINK SO.
Neither do the “Malays” who live on the West Coast of Johor. They’d rather be called Javanese. What about the west coast Kedah inhabitants who prefer to be known as “Achenese”? or the Ibans who simply want to be known as IBANS. Try calling a Kelabit a “Malay” and see what response you get… you’ll be so glad that their Head-Hunting days are over.
In an article in the Star, dated: Dec 3rd 2006
available for on-line viewing at:
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2006/12/3/focus/16212814&sec=focus
An excerp is reproduced here below:
“The Malays – taken as an aggregation of people of different ethnic backgrounds but who speak the same language or family of languages and share common cultural and traditional ties – are essentially a new race, compared to the Chinese, Indians and the Arabs with their long histories of quests and conquests.
The Malay nation, therefore, covers people of various ethnic stock, including Javanese, Bugis, Bawean, Achehnese, Thai, orang asli, the indigenous people of Sabah and Sarawak and descendants of Indian Muslims who had married local women.
Beneath these variations, however, there is a common steely core that is bent on changing the Malay persona from its perceived lethargic character to one that is brave, bold and ready to take on the world. ”
The definition of “Malay†is therefore simply a collection of people’s who speak a similar type language. With what is meant by a similar type language does not mean that the words are similar. Linguists call this the “Lego-type” language, where words are added on to the root word to make meaning and give tenses and such. Somehow, the Indonesians disagree with this classification and insist on being called “Indonesians” even though the majority of “Malays” have their roots in parts of Indonesia? They refuse to be called “Malay”…. Anyhow you may define it.
The writer failed to identify (probably didn’t know), that the “Malay” definition also includes, the Champa, Dong Song, HoabinHian, The Taiwanese Alisan and the Philippino Aetas. He also did not identify that the “Orang Asli” are (for lack of a better term) ex-Africans. If you try to call any one of our East Malaysian brothers an “Orang Asli”, they WILL BEAT YOU UP! I had to repeat this because almost all West Malaysians make the same mistake when we cross the South China Sea. Worse, somehow, they feel even more insulted when you call them “Malayâ€. Somehow, “kurang ajar†is uttered below their breath as if “Malay†was a really bad word for them. I’m still trying to figure this one out.
Watch “Malays in Africaâ€; a Museum Negara produced DVD. Also, the “Champa Malays†by the same.
With this classification, they MUST also include the Phillipinos, the Papua New Guineans, the Australian Aboroginies, as well as the Polynesian Aboroginies. These are of the Australo Melanesians who migrated out of Africa 60,000yrs ago.
Getting interesting? Read on…
“Malay” should also include the Taiwanese singer “Ah Mei” who is Alisan as her tribe are the anscestors of the “Malays”. And finally, you will need to define the Southern Chinese (Southern Province) as Malay also, since they are from the same stock 6,000yrs ago.
Try calling the Bugis a “Malay”. Interestingly, the Bugis, who predominantly live on Sulawesi are not even Indonesians. Neither do they fall into the same group as the migrating Southern Chinese of 6,000yrs ago nor the Australo Melanesian group from Africa.
Ready for this?
The Bugis are the cross-breed between the Chinese and the Arabs. (FYI, a runaway Ming Dynasty official whom Cheng Ho was sent to hunt down) Interestingly, the Bugis were career Pirates in the Johor-Riau Island areas. Now the nephew of Daeng Kemboja was appointed the First Sultan of Selangor. That makes the entire Selangor Sultanate part Arab, part Chinese! Try talking to the Bugis Museum curator near Kukup in Johor. Kukup is located near the most south-western tip of Johor. (Due south of Pontian Kechil)
Let’s not even get into the Hang Tuah, Hang Jebat, Hang Kasturi, Hang Lekiu, and Hang Lekir, who shared the same family last name as the other super famous “Hang” family member… Hang Li Poh. And who was she? the princess of a Ming Dynasty Emperor who was sent to marry the Sultan of Malacca. Won’t that make the entire Malacca Sultanate downline “Baba” ? Since the older son of the collapsed Malaccan Sultanate got killed in Johor, (the current Sultanate is the downline of the then, Bendahara) the only other son became the Sultan of Perak. Do we see any Chinese-ness in Raja Azlan? Is he the descendant of Hang Li Poh?
Next question. If the Baba’s are part Malay, why have they been marginalized by NOT BEING BUMIPUTERA? Which part of “Malay†are they not? Whatever the answer, why then are the Portugese of Malacca BUMIPUTERA? Did they not come 100yrs AFTER the arrival of the first Baba’s? Parameswara founded Malacca in 1411. The Portugese came in 1511, and the Dutch in the 1600’s. Strangely, the Baba’s were in fact once classified a Bumiputera, but a decided that they were strangely “declassified†in the 1960’s. WHY?
The Sultan of Kelantan had similar roots to the Pattani Kingdom making him of Thai origin. And what is this “coffee table book” by the Sultan of Perlis claiming to be the direct descendant of the prophet Muhammed? Somehow we see Prof Khoo Khay Khim’s signature name on the book. I’ll pay good money to own a copy of it myself. Anyone has a spare?
So, how many of you have met with orang Asli’s? the more northern you go, the more African they look. Why are they called Negrito’s? It is a Spanish word, from which directly transalates “mini Negrosâ€. The more southern you go, the more “Indonesian†they look. And the ones who live at Cameron Highlands kinda look 50-50. You can see the Batek at Taman Negara, who really look like Eddie Murphy to a certain degree. Or the Negritos who live at the Thai border near Temenggor Lake (north Perak). The Mah Meri in Carrie Island look almost like the Jakuns in Endau Rompin. Half African, half Indonesian.
By definition, (this is super eye-opening) there was a Hindu Malay Empire in Kedah. Yes, I said right… The Malays were Hindu. It was, by the old name Langkasuka. Today known as Lembah Bujang. This Hindu Malay Empire was 2,000yrs old. Pre-dating Borrobudor AND Angkor Watt. Who came about around 500-600yrs later. Lembah Bujang was THE mighty trading empire, and its biggest influence was by the Indians who were here to help start it. By definition, this should make the Indians BUMIPUTERAS too since they were here 2,000yrs ago! Why are they marginalized?
Of the 3 books listed, “Contesting Malayness” (about S$32 for soft cover) is “banned†in Malaysia; you will need to “smuggle” it into Malaysia; for very obvious reasons….
or read it in Singapore if you don’t feel like breaking the law.
The other, “Kingdoms of the Indonesian Archipelago, and the Malay Peninsular” (about RM84) are openly sold at all leading bookshops; Kinokuniya, MPH, Borders, Popular, Times, etc. You should be able to find a fair bit of what I’ve been quoting in this book too, but mind you, it is very heavy reading material, and you will struggle through the initial 200+ pages. It is extremely technical in nature. Maybe that’s why it wasn’t banned (yet)…coz our authorities couldn’t make head or tail of it? (FYI, if I wasn’t doing research for my film, I wouldn’t have read it in its entirety)
While the “Sejarah Melayu” (about RM 35) is available at the University Malaya bookshop. I have both the English and Royal Malay version published by MBRAS.
Incidentally, the Professor (Author) was invited to speak on this very subject about 2 yrs ago, in KL, invited by the MBRAS. You can imagine the “chaos” this seminar created……
There were actually many sources for these findings. Any older Philippino Museum Journal also carries these migration stories. This migration is also on display at the Philippines National Museum in Luzon. However, they end with the Aeta, and only briefly mention that the migration continued to Indonesia and Malaysia, but fully acknowledge that all Philippinos came from Taiwan. And before Taiwan, China. There is another book (part of a series) called the “Archipelago Series” endorsed by Tun Mahatir and Marina Mohammad, which states the very same thing right at the introduction on page one. “… that the Malays migrated out of Southern China some 6,000yrs ago…â€. I believe it is called the “Pre-History of Malaysia†Hard Cover, about RM99 found in (mostly) MPH. They also carry “Pre-History of Indonesia†by the same authors for the same price.
It is most interesting to note that our Museum officials invented brand new unheard-of terms such as “Proto-Malay” and “Deutero-Malay”, to replace the accepted Scientific Term, Australo-Melanesians (African descent) and Austronesians (Chinese Descent, or Mongoloid to be precise) in keeping in line with creating this new “Malay†term.. They also created the new term called the Melayu-Polynesian. (Which Melayu exists in the Polynesian Islands?) Maybe they were just trying to be “Patriotic†and “Nationalisticâ€â€¦ who knows…? After all, we also invented the term, “Malaysian Timeâ€. While the rest of the world calls it “Tardy†and “Lateâ€. It’s quite an embarrassment actually…. Singaporeans crossing the border are asked to set their watches back by about 100yrs, to adjust to “Malaysian Timeâ€â€¦
In a nutshell, the British Colonial Masters, who, for lack of a better description, needed a “blanket†category for ease of classification, used the term “Malayâ€.
The only other logical explanation, which I have heard, was that “Malaya†came as a derivative of “Himalayaâ€, where at Langkasuka, or Lembah Bujang today was where the Indians were describing the locals as “Malai†which means “Hill People†in Tamil. This made perfect sense as the focal point at that time was at Gunung Jerai, and the entire Peninsular had a “Mountain Range†“Banjaran Titiwangsaâ€, as we call it.
The Mandarin and Cantonese accurately maintain the accurate pronunciation of “Malai Ren†and “Malai Yun†respectively till this very day. Where “ren†and “yun†both mean “peoplesâ€.
Interestingly, “Kadar†and “Kidaraâ€, Hindi and Sanskrit words accurately describe “Kedah†of today. They both mean “fertile Land for Rice cultivation. Again, a name given by the Indians 2,000yrs ago during the “Golden Hindu Era†for a duration of 1,500yrs.
It was during the “Golden Hindu Era†that the new term which the Hindu Malay leaders also adopted the titles, “Sultan†and “Rajaâ€. The Malay Royalty were Hindu at that time, as all of Southeast Asia was under strong Indian influence, including Borrobudor, and Angkor Watt. Bali today still practices devout Hindu Beliefs. The snake amulet worn by the Sultans of today, The Royal Dias, and even the “Pelamin†for weddings are tell-tale signs of these strong Indian influences. So, it was NOT Parameswara who was the first Sultan in Malaya. Sultanage existed approximately 1,500years before he set foot on the Peninsular during the “Golden Hindu Era” of Malaysia. And they were all Hindu.
“PreHistory of Malaysia†also talks about the “Lost Kingdom†of the “Chi-Tu†where the local Malay Kingdom were Buddhists. The rest of the “Malays†were Animistic Pagans.
But you may say, “Sejarah Melayu” calls it “Melayu”? Yes, it does. Read it again; is it trying to describe the 200-odd population hamlet near Palembang by the name “Melayu”?(Google Earth will show this village).
By that same definition, then, the Achehnese should be considered a “raceâ€. So should the Bugis and the Bataks, to be fair. Orang Acheh, Orang Bugis, Orang Laut, Orang Melayu now mean the same… descriptions of ethnic tribes, at best. And since the “Malays†of today are not all descendants of the “Melayu†kampung in Jambi (if I remember correctly), the term Melayu has been wrongly termed. From day one. Maybe this is why the Johoreans still call themselves either Bugis, or Javanese until today. So do the Achehnese on the West coast of Kedah & Perlis and the Kelantanese insist that they came from Champa, Vietnam.
Morover, the fact that the first 3 pages claiming that “Melayu” comes from Alexander the Great and the West Indian Princess doesn’t help. More importantly, it was written in 1623. By then, the Indians had been calling the locals “Malai†for 1,500 yrs already. So the name stuck….
And with the Sejarah Melayu (The Malay Annals in page 1-3) naming the grandson of Iskandar Zulkarnain, and the West Indian Princess forming the Minangkabau. Whenever a Malay is asked about it, he usually says it is “Karut” (bullshit), but all Malayan based historians insist on using Sejarah Melayu as THE main reference book for which “Malay” history is based upon. The only other books are “Misa Melayuâ€, “Hikayat Merong Mahawangsa”, and “Hikayat Hang Tuah†which is of another long and sometimes “heated†discussion.
I find this strange.
I also find, that it is strange that the “Chitti’s” (Indian+Malay) of Malacca are categorized as Bumiputera, while their Baba brothers are not. Why? Both existed during the Parameswara days. Which part of the “Malay†side of the Baba’s is not good enough for Bumiputera classification? Re-instate them. They used to be Bumiputera pre 1960’s anyway.
Instead of “Malay”, I believe that “Maphilindo” (circa 1963) would have been the closest in accurately trying to describe the Malays. However, going by that definition, it should most accurately be “MaphilindoThaiChinDiaVietWanGreekCamfrica”. And it is because of this; even our University Malaya Anthropology professors cannot look at you in the eye and truthfully say that the word “Malay” technically and accurately defines a race.
This is most unfortunate.
So, in a nutshell, the “Malays†(anthropologists will disagree with this “race†definition) are TRULY ASIA !!! For once the Tourism Ministry got it right….
We should stop calling this country “Tanah Melayu†instead call it, “Tanah Truly Asiaâ€
You must understand now, why I was “tickled pink” when I found out that the Visit Malaysia slogan for 2007 was “Truly Asia”. They are so correct… (even though they missed out Greece and Africa)
BTW, the name UMNO should be changed to UTANO the new official acronym for “United Truly Asia National Organization†. After all, they started out as a Bugis club in Johor anyway….
I told you all that I hate race classifications…. This is so depressing. Even more depressing is that the “malays” are not even a race; not since day one.
“Truly Asia Bolehâ€
December 5th, 2007 at 8:53 am
interesting lesson in history…many threads drawn together to weave a pattern to make the point that the concept of RACE is best left in the hands of academic anthropologist because it becomes less than bankrupt as political constuct.It therefore stands to reason that it finds fertile ground to nature in politically bankrupt enviornments.
It is unfortunately like religion when used in a political framework, very effective and almost always very cruel in manifestation.
There appear to be many who contribute who speak on behalf and in defence of the respective religions and GODS.Do you really believe YOU are required to do so?
December 5th, 2007 at 8:54 am
Well argued