Can there be a truly ‘Malaysian’ identity that transcends ethnicity?
The idea that we should be “Malaysians first, Chinese/Indian/Malay second” may be symbolically empowering, but it sounds conceptually hollow. Even Opposition giant, Lim Kit Siang, appears to skirt the issue of what a Malaysian is in his interview with Nut Graph. This is his reply when asked what his Malaysian identity means to him:
“I’m a Malaysian, first and last. I’m proud to be a Chinese, and as I’ve said in Parliament, I’m proud to be a Chinese, but a Malaysian, first of all. Nobody is suggesting that anyone should give up their ethnic identities, but we should have this common bond where we agree that we are first of all, Malaysians. I will accept the definition of 1Malaysia as being Malaysian first, then race, religion, or geographical origin second.”
This reminds me of a joke quoted by Slavoj Zizek about a guy who visits a doctor for medical advice. The doctor examines him, thinks hard, then tells him, “You need medical advice!”
In short, Lim doesn’t have a definite answer. Then again, do we really need one?
The term ‘Malaysian’ could be what some wickedly smart (and a little crazy) Continental philosophers call an empty signifier, a pregnant negativity, a positive void i.e. it’s a term which names a space to be contested politically. Filling in the word ‘Malaysian’ with positive content thus becomes LESS IMPORTANT than the battle for the right to do the filling in.
When activists like Hannah Yeoh and her husband fight for the right to register their child as ‘Anak Malaysia’ instead of either Chinese or Indian, it’s the gesture itself that counts. Yeoh, Lim and others wish to carve out an empty space not because they value emptiness in itself but because in times of injustice, we need an “liberating/open negative” to challenge the “oppressive/closed positives”. We need to keep certain symbols – in this case, the word ‘Malaysian’ – ripe for redefinition, free from propaganda and dripping with enchanting possibilities.
Should we then accept that no definition is forthcoming and/or stick with defining ‘Malaysian’ by what it is not (or should not be)? Maybe not. The liberating vacuum that ‘Malaysian’ stands (in place) for should invite engagement even as it resists hegemony and monopoly. We MUST throw in our lot with hammering down a clear meaning of our Malaysian-ness whilst simultaneously recognising that for the good of the term itself, our nails will never be completely, uh, banged down.
So, here’s one take: We can see the word “Malaysian” as an emergent symbol which draws its integrity and meaning each time ethinic harmony and cultural cooperation happens. This is to say that my Malaysian identity is simply the name for the compassion and concern I have for people of other ethnicities, with whom I share this nation-state. Paradoxically, this means that I am a (Chinese) Malaysian to the extent that I let my neighbour grow and flourish in his Indian-ness or Malay-ness (or Nepalese-ness) and vice-versa.
The term ‘Malaysian’ is therefore is not so much propositional as it is performative, less of being than becoming. The Malaysian identity would therefore focus more on WHAT I DO rather than WHO I AM. It’s certainly ethnic in character but it’s not defined via antagonism but is instead grounded in constructive multi-ethnicity.
The ‘Anak Malaysia’ thus can be a living and embodied recognition that the other is what makes self possible.
The Micah Mandate is a Christian-based public interest advocacy ministry that seeks a transformation of our nation through justice, mercy and humility.
June 15th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
To me, the word Malaysian carries two meanings.
First of all, it is the nationality of those people who have made this nation their home. For anyone who wishes to call himself or herself Malaysian, being Malaysian should come first. If your ethnicity supersedes your loyalty to the nation, you do not deserve citizenship. This also applies to those of Muhyiddin’s ilk. If you place your ethnic identity first, you are not capable of thinking of the nation first. It’s that simple.
The second applies to people who choose to be Malaysian and nothing else, giving up any ethnic identity and immersing wholeheartedly into this Brave New World. It could be that they have mixed parentage and choose not to identify with one or another of their parents’ ethnicity. It could be that they see the greater good in helping to forge a unified nation undivided by ethnic barriers. Or it could be something else.
Whatever the case, Malaysian is not merely a hollow symbol. It is a something real, a tangible asset that we should value and nurture and bring to maturity.
I am proud to be Anak Bangsa Malaysia, even if the Jabatan Pendaftaran refuses to recognise me. If possible, I would like to remove ethnic labels from my children as well.
June 16th, 2011 at 10:37 am
Singam,
I’m not sure that removing ethnic labels is the solution, as if being Indian or Chinese denoted something negative. It’s only the elevation of these labels to a factor which creates exclusivity that is problematic.
Anyway, my point in ‘hollowing out’ our Malaysian identity is to keep it open in a way which avoids any one or any party monopolising it. Also, I think to be Malaysian is to be inevitably bound upin ethnic relations – the ‘trick’ is to transform ethnicity into something positive and creative **rather than** outright rejecting it.
June 17th, 2011 at 12:16 am
That’s exactly my point. One should not pigeonhole this matter. There is no question of one variation being better than the other.
Those who wish to retain labels should be free to do so. But it is essential that those labels not detract from the oneness required for nationhood.
Meanwhile, those who prefer not to have labels should be free to dispense with them. They should not have to wear labels just because some others cannot do without them.
The whole idea of offering more than one meaning is to offer freedom of choice.