In Malaysia, the question is often framed as: Are you first a Malay, Chinese, Indian, or Malaysian? Some insist that ethnicity must come first. Others argue that citizenship should be above all else.
But perhaps we are asking the wrong question. Ethnicity and nationality are not in competition. One describes our heritage, the other our belonging. To be proud of being Malay, Chinese, Indian, Dayak, Kadazan, or Iban does not contradict being Malaysian. In truth, we can and must be both.
Unfortunately, politics thrives on false choices. The same voices that ask whether we are “Malay or Malaysian first” may soon demand to know if we are “Malaysian or Muslim, Christian, Hindu, or Buddhist first.” The aim is not clarity, but division.
Like a wicked man who asks a child, “Do you love your mother or father more?”, they plant seeds of doubt and pain where none should exist. The child, confused and torn, does not realise that he is being manipulated into betraying what should be natural: equal love for both parents.
When translated into our politics, “mother” and “father” become “ethnicity” and “citizenship.” The outcome is a divided society. And the wicked man—political opportunism—walks away with satisfaction.
Realpolitik and Malaysian Stability
If we are honest with ourselves, Malaysia will remain bound to race-based politics for some time. This is the reality we must deal with, not deny. Instead of pretending otherwise, we should work to ensure that it evolves in ways that strengthen rather than fracture our nation.
For that reason, it is dangerous when the majority community—the Malays—find themselves split into two, three, four, or more competing parties. No country thrives when its political centre is broken into fragments. Stability requires a strong and credible Malay-led party. But such a party must not merely exist to secure Malay votes.
It must return to the spirit of early UMNO leadership—men and women who, while firmly rooted in their community, were accepted as leaders by all Malaysians: Chinese, Indians, Sabahans, Sarawakians alike. They understood the line between being racial and being racist. They drew strength from their base but applied power as Malaysians.
They were measured, inclusive, and pragmatic. They sought realpolitik not for narrow gain, but for national balance. In their leadership, the Malays saw protectors, and the non-Malays saw partners. That equilibrium is what made Malaysia possible.
The pressing question is: Which Malay party today will rediscover this formula? UMNO? Bersatu? Pejuang? PAS? Whichever it is, the first to take this step will not only gain my vote—but, I believe, the trust of many others who long for leaders capable of being both racial in base and Malaysian in spirit.
Beyond the Wicked Question
We Malaysians must learn to recognise the traps being set for us. When asked, “Are you Malay or Malaysian first?” we must answer as the child should have answered the wicked man: I love them both, equally and fully.
Our future depends on refusing false choices. It depends on leaders who know that ethnicity and nationality can coexist. It depends on us being smart enough not to fall into the wicked man’s game.
Because if we allow that seed of division to grow, the harvest will not be unity, but brokenness. And Malaysia is capable of better than that.
As Tunku reminded us, our future depends on how well many different kinds of people can live and work together.
In short, it Is OK to Be Racial, But Not Racist.
Peace,
Anas Zubedy
Penang.
No comments:
Post a Comment