Why does the Malay mindset need changing?
Why don’t the newer populations adjust their social and political mindsets to the soul of the new land they have come to inhabit? At the very least, that is basic manners.
Arof Ishak, Free Malaysia Today
On Oct 13, Tajuddin Rasdi wrote about what he called “the failure” of “(Malay) intellectuals in changing the Malay mindset”, expressing his disappointment about a forum on the subject of “how to change the Malay mindset in the new Malaysia”.
I found his essay disappointing in many ways. The essay was a plateful of simplifications, uncritical acceptance of clichés, misconceptions and the usual condescension toward Malays.
A mindset is a set of attitudes. There are social attitudes, political attitudes, economic attitudes. While the forum the writer was referring to was deliberating on Malay attitudes in the “new Malaysia”, the writer went through the whole gamut of Malay attitudes finding fault with all of them without exception. An extremist writing in its absolute form.
The question has to be asked: why the need for Malays to change their attitudes in a “new Malaysia”? There is a common tendency, especially among non-Malays, to insert adjectives with regard to anything Malaysian – “new” Malaysia, “multiracial” Malaysia, “multicultural” Malaysia, “Malay” racism, etc. What is surprising is that critical intellectuals uncritically accept this adjectivistic habit, not realising that deploying adjectives is a cause of conflict. China, which has six to seven times more races than Malaysia, never calls itself, or is referred to, as “multiracial China”. No need for adjectives there.
For the native Malays and other Bumiputeras, Malaysia or Tanah Melayu has always been “Malaysia/Tanah Melayu”, without adjectives. They do not change the name of the land or their thoughts about it. If, for instance, Tanjung Malim became 80% inhabited by Germans, the place and the thoughts about the place would remain “Tanjung Malim”, not “multiracial Tanjung Malim”. That is the Malay social and historical mindset, a conflict-averse mindset that eschews adjectives.
You want to ask the Malays to change their mindset in all matters? Why should they? Just because some other ethnic groups came to inhabit the Malay historical homeland? Why don’t the critical intellectuals instead ask: why don’t the newer populations adjust their social and political mindsets to the soul of the new land they have come to inhabit? At the very least, that is basic manners.
The native social and political mindset is the same throughout the world. All historical natives in the world, throughout history, have always expected newer populations to integrate and even outrightly assimilate with the native culture, thoughts, and history, as clearly evidenced by the fact that they have to adopt the native language. And never to dispute with the natives in any matters as clearly that would be unsettling. And, least of all, to demand that the natives change their mindset to meet the “new” situation. Aren’t the newer populations themselves in a “new situation”, or in fact in a completely new world, both ethnically and geographically?
A mindset is not something that intellectuals are expected to shape for the masses. That would be arrogance of an unnecessary kind. A cultural mindset is a community consciousness shaped by historical experiences and existence in a native homeland. It is not produced by a textbook, nor by the lectures of some intelligent men, or even women. Some intelligent people may say “but I can change my mindset”. Well, in that case they fail to understand the artificiality of it all, and are just seeking to accommodate themselves to a perceived superior social pressure. In other words, a false consciousness.
One may change economic or corporate mindsets, though. Tajuddin expressed disappointment that the forum he attended did not go into a discourse on “new Malay values and responsibilities in nation-building”. Again, he is placing the burden, the pressure and the blame on Malays (wholly – in this case, in the problem of nation-building). However, it is well known throughout the history of man on all continents of the world that nation-building developed in states and territories naturally (not according to formats developed by intellectuals), as newer populations integrated or assimilated with the established or home populations. It has never been that the home populations had to integrate or give way to the newer populations instead (unless the home population has been vanquished, as happened in Australia and America, etc). In the case of Malaysia, it seems that the home population is instead expected to develop “new values” so as to enable nation-building to take place. And, apparently, that is the job of Malay intellectuals – to change the Malay mindset.
One should be guarded about placing (self) importance in intellectuals. Let society call for them instead of them imposing themselves on society. In the meantime, intellectuals should just impart knowledge – but not necessarily wisdom. Wisdom has its own way of emerging through deep experience of man in society.
If in the course of furthering one’s journey of finding fault with the Malay society and mindset, one complains about the alleged silence of Malay intellectuals “when Jamal Yunos and the Red Shirts hooligans shouted obscenities at other races”, or “when Ibrahim Ali threatened to burn Bibles”, one would need to venture further back than those incidents. One would discover that there was a series of serious provocations and insults thrown at Malays that caused the emergence of the behaviours complained about. Which would in fact lead one to question why Malaysian intellectuals (including the habitually vocal “progressive” and “liberal” Malay intellectuals) were silent when those many provocations and insults took place. And the provocations and insults are still happening. That would be the complete story. Provocations and insults are to blame as they incite reactions.
Ah, it is so simplistic to suggest that Malays believe they are good “and others in Malaysia and the world are bad” (what a rotten mindset?), which is then the source of all Malaysian problems. Hence the demand for Malay intellectuals to embark on changing the mindset of the “less educated or even the well educated” Malays! It is just as simplistic to suggest that one’s writings are ridiculed “just because one used to be a DAP member”. There would certainly be more tales than that.
Tajuddin expressed his concern about the absence of “racial, religious and historical inclusiveness” in Malaysia, which apparently he believes is caused by the prevailing Malay mindset that the Malay intellectuals need to change. Let me suggest that it is absolute folly to listen to or accept accusations without exercising independent, critical and intelligent judgment. Because, the question has to be asked: since when have the Malays in government and administration failed to understand and practise inclusiveness over the past 60 or so years? Foremost, look at the Persekutuan Tanah Melayu and later Malaysian Constitution, Article 153 (1) that says “Adalah menjadi tanggungjawab Yang di-Pertuan Agong memelihara kedudukan orang Melayu dan Bumiputera mana-mana Negeri-negeri Sabah dan Sarawak dan kepentingan-kepentingan sah kaum-kaum lain mengikut perkara ini”. Is not that the greatest statement of inclusiveness (and reasonableness) in our country? That is not just a philosophy, but a founding socio-political principle.
Understanding this principle will facilitate comprehension as to why the civil service, for instance, is heavily Malay (apart from balancing the fact that the private sector is heavily non-Malay). The interests of all are included. Add intelligent understanding to the fact and reality that the interests of Malays and other Bumipuetras are different from the interests of kaum-kaum lain because of different historical origins. Hence, the need to understand the meaning of the kedudukan istimewa (“special position” – not “special privileges”, the term used by Tajuddin) of the Malays and other Bumiputeras.
The kedudukan istimewa carries with it special rights, certainly, that will ascertain the position of the Malays and other Bumiputeras (in the context of an independent society where kaum-kaum lain are culturally superior in commerce and industry), and that will maintain their stewardship of the land; otherwise kedudukan istimewa is a useless statement. And Merdeka would be meaningless to the Malays and other Bumiputeras. Natives do not merdeka from the colonials only to lose again their historical ownership of their land. This is the ultimate consideration that has to be understood. The historical right of natives not to lose their native homeland should be the absolute principle in any human rights deliberations. The traditional Malay mindset knows this, as do the natives’ mindsets all over the world. The genuine Malay (and other native) intellectuals would know this too.
Hah, there is now the demand that the history of Malaysia be made “inclusive” too, and Malays must accept that. The natural and responsible response to that would clearly be that the history of any country including Malaysia unfolded naturally in the course of the evolution of the native civilisation in the country. History is a discipline that has its own honoured principles through the ages. We want to ignore all that and instead design a country’s history so that it becomes “inclusive”? That is really asking for history to be produced according to specifications, like a factory product. Not only would that be artificial history, it would be an insult to the dignity of the discipline of history. No responsible persons rewrite history or manufacture history just to suit “liberal” thinking (or a self-avowed “anti-communal” thinking).
Last of all, one should not imagine or claim the defence of natives’ historical rights and interests in their own native homeland as “racism”. Natives all over the world seek to preserve their rightful historical independence and civilisational and cultural heritage, and that cannot be considered “racist”. On the other hand, non-natives or foreigners who demand principles and practices of “equality”, “meritocracy”, “inclusiveness”, etc in national affairs know very well that those principles practised outrightly and vehemently will have the effect of pushing the natives to the absolute bottom of national society everywhere in the world – is not that plainly an ideology of designed oppression? If the right of natives to defend their interests is deemed “racist”, the demand of the so-called “progressives” and “liberalists” is plain designed oppression.
The native mindset (which is found in native societies all over the world) that naturally militates against the threat of external oppression cannot be said to be wrong from the perspectives of human and natural justice.
Bear in mind the Malay goodwill of agreeing to citizenship for non-Malays in Tanah Melayu in 1957, at a time when non-Malays outnumbered the Malays. Apart from the Fijians, which other ethnic group in the world has ever done a similar act – agreeing to grant citizenship to alien populations who outnumbered them? Further, to facilitate the non-Malay immersion in the Tanah Melayu society, the Malay government changed the writing script used for the Malay language from the Arabic Jawi to the romanised one, to help the non-Malay population learn to write and use the Malay language faster and more easily. Malays were willing to abandon their Jawi literary heritage for that. Otherwise, today all – including non-Malays – would be writing in Jawi.
Despite all that and more, must Malays now be expected to accept as fair play the other ethnic groups robbing them of their country, robbing them of their stewardship of their land, and robbing them of their history, in the name of a sloganised “democratic race-less” Malaysia? Otherwise, Malays would be labelled “racists” for the whole world to see!
Malays are expected to understand that the country is “multiracial” and that minorities have rights, while non-Malays are not required to understand the country has a native and a founding population who have fundamental and inherent rights. In other words, there seems to be a privileged attitude: “You have to recognise us, we need not recognise you.”
Change the Malay mindset?
