REPLY TO OWEN JONES

Owen Jones’ crude attack on what he called Malay ‘racism’ (after reading Anwar Ibrahim’s criticism of Tommy Thomas’ memoir) revealed his alarming poverty of knowledge about the country’s Constitution, the history of the land, and the Malay people and culture. Any non Malay citizens of Malaysia, in particular Malaya, ought to have a good understanding of those three subjects so that they would not misunderstand, misinterpret, or mis-accuse on national matters. Any new citizens of Norway, for instance, would be expected to learn about the native Norwegians and their cultures so that they would be able to integrate well with the natives and the thinking of the natives.

I would not be crude as Jones. Jones attacks what he calls “special privileges for Malays written into the Federal Constitution”. But, there is nothing written about Malay “special privileges” in the Constitution ! There is, however, in the Constitution a provision of “special position” for the Malays (and bumiputeras of Sabah and Sarawak). Just appreciate that Malays had agreed to accept as citizens of Malaya the non Malays who in 1948 outnumbered the Malays 51:49, in an unprecedented act of making a minority of themselves. And, the non Malays were far ahead of the Malays economically, and in education. A Malay “special position” was certainly in order, so that they would not be overwhelmed in the independent Malaya, on top of the fact that Malays were the natives.

And, that the British were in the Malay states by agreement with the Malay rulers, and were to protect Malay interests. The “special position” of the Malays had been recognized by the British throughout their administration of the Malay states. What kind of independence would it have been if Malays were stripped of their historical “special position”.

Independence was about getting a better deal, and of preserving what the Malays had always had, not about accepting a worse state of affairs. Whereas, the non Malays had zero rights, and were to be granted massive rights as citizens.

It is inconceivable that the Malays had agreed to accept the others as citizens even to the point of them taking over the country. The “special position” of the Malays is a political provision in recognition of the Malays’ historical and rightful dominion in the land. The “special position” would of course carry certain real preserves, not ‘privileges’, as privileges are what are conferred (like in citizenship), not what are original rights. The Malay “special position” is thus eternal, just as citizenhip for non Malays is eternal. The Malays should be able to make their arguments, and do not just slam their arguments as racist.

The “special position” of the Malays does not nullify the rights of the other citizens, as that provision also has an end clause which provides for “legitimate interests of other communities”. It was a balanced provision made by the framers of the Constitution. With different historical origins, there could not be complete similarity of rights and interests. Typically, the end clause is never mentioned when the “special position” of the Malays is attacked.

Let me just ask a question. Would China with population of 1.1 billion, agree to accept 1.3 billion Indians as citizens in a 49:51 ratio, like the non Malay - Malay ratio that Malays accepted in Malaya in 1948 ? Of course this is a silly question, as the Indian subcontinent would be emptied out, just as it would be silly to expect the Chinese to agree - even if a “special position” provision is provided in the constitution for the original Chinese.

Malay “special position” with the attendant policy practices, that are savaged by Jones, does not create an apartheid state as claimed by Jones. As Jones ought to know, an apartheid state is when non natives (whether as a majority or minority) dominate the country absolutely in all fields, and discriminate and segregate the natives comprehensively by law, as in South Africa at one time. Neither the Malays nor the Malay “special position” segregate or promote segregation. Who opposed the vision school (sekolah wawasan) plan which wanted to integrate pupils of national schools and vernacular schools in Malaysia ? Not the Malays. On the other hand, without the intervention of policies that support the “special position” of the Malays, we would have massive segregation in Malaysia as new cities and posh neighbourhoods become exclusively non Malay, as well as gated, as Malays cannot afford to purchase homes in those places.

“Malay racial and religious discrimination” as described by Jones, is a term and allegation invented by the non Malays too (although, there are instances when religious considerations cause segregation). One may find it hard to believe that Malays are not racists by nature and culture, if only one cares to honestly learn about the Malays. The Malay society has historically been an open and accommodating society, and welcoming to outsiders. Skin colour means nothing to Malays. Malays themselves come in different skin colours : putih melepak, kuning langsat, sawo matang, hitam manis, and Malays of different skin colours have no problems with each other. And, it was Malay hospitality that made peace and harmony a feature of the Peninsula for centuries of the non Malay presence here, sometimes in the face of very serious acts. Do read about the Lukut massacre of 1834.

But, Malays defend and seek to preserve their historical position and rights in their tanah air - and, that is not racism. That is as much a natural human rights as are the other kinds of human rights, such as the rights of minorities, etc. ‘Discrimination’ is an act of discrimination for its own sake without any justifications whatsoever, except the ‘skin colour’.

The so-called “official”/”institutionalised discrimination” is also a non Malay invented term. They are about policies put in place precisely because Malays ‘do not know’ how to be culturally racists. Otherwise, why the need for ‘official discrimination’. Many races and communities are known to be racists by culture; they do not need to have official policies to discriminate against other races because they are already culturally and inherently racists. And, their discrimination is not plain “individual level” acts as humbly suggested by Jones; it is about all individuals (almost) behaving in a discriminatory manner, as a straightforward cultural instinct. You find that in the US, in Singapore (complete with the unmistakable arrogance), and locally too here, a form of behavior associated with an “innate sense of superiority” - the phrase used by Anwar Ibrahim. ‘Official discrimination’ is easy to see, but it is also clearly explained. Cultural racism on the other hand, is deniable and by its natural hidden nature, does not have to have any explanations.

In Malaysia, non Malay racism is always denied. It would be momentous indeed if non Malay habits of racism or discrimination (which are pervasive) are openly pointed out, especially by non Malays themselves. That is not likely to happen because it is noticeable that while there are Malays who frequently express understanding and support for non Malay interests and arguments (the mark of an open culture), for example defending Tommy Thomas’ memoir, non Malays would never express understanding and support for Malay interests, because non Malays who do so are easily labelled traitors by their communities. Thus, no non Malays have joined the chorus of Malay criticisms (which are not unreasonable) of Thomas’ memoir. Prof Teo Kok Seong, Tan Siew Sin, and Sambanthan, people who understand/understood and support/ed Malay interests are very rare non Malay individuals who possibly would be found only once in a 100 years.

Why the complaint about ‘only Malays’ in GLC’s top leadership, Malay domination in government service, etc. but silent non Malay domination in other fields. Human affairs is not about meritocracy, and the right to compete alone. Man is born of a history. A land is born of a history. Other factors need to come into play in government decision making. Or, do non Malays expect the full right and freedom to dominate the public sector too - which would mean effectively ruling the country. It is a matter of serious concern that there is the attitude that Malays have no natural, legitimate rights whatsoever any more in their own native homeland, after having agreed to citizenship for the non Malays. It is an attitude ‘what is mine is mine, what is yours (Malays’) is debateable’. The kiasu doctrine.

All these would point to an unspoken belief in the non Malay communities that non Malays especially the Chinese, have the right to inherit Malaya upon the departure of the British. This was in fact the essence of the thinking of Tan Cheng Lock (the foremost non Malay leader in immediate pre independence Malaya) in the 1940’s, when he was living in southern India to escape the Japanese occupation in Malaya. Tan Cheng Lock was the archetypal compradore of British capitalists in Malaya, those who helped the success of British economic interests in Malaya. And, it was precisely this British capitalist compradore fact of the Chinese in Malaya that caused the Communist government of China then to refuse to take back the Chinese in Malaya, and closed the shores of China. Also, in a different manner, it was the thinking of the Communist Party of Malaya.

At merdeka in 1957, excluding the remaining British, non Malays occupied 70% to possibly 90% of the higher positions in the civil service, in the teaching profession, and in the top ranks of the police force, apart from dominating the economy and the professions. They were then strongly established like the Spanish communities who made Latin America their home, who eventually inherited the Latin American countries when the Spanish governors left.

Thus, an unabated tirade against the Malays alleging ‘racism’, ‘institutionalised discrimination’, ‘apartheid’, ‘Malay supremacy’, and so on is explainable. A rejection of Malay governorship and administration. Even, by those non Malays who tried to obtain permanent residency in Tasmania etc, but were rejected or, who thought of migrating to Canada etc. but found they could not establish a career there, who then returned to Malaysia, and found the hospitable natives of Malaysia still accepting them, and that they indeed could live a good life here. Without ever being thankful. Instead, they recharged their anti Malay animosity.

Do not we all need to be respectful. And, to stop the Malay bashing. The ethnic minorities in the Malaysia are not living in ghettoes because of ’Malay supremacy’, or Malay ‘official discriminaton’, etc. And, the ‘We are better than you’ attitude has led to arrogance - in many parts of the world.

I.M. Aroff