A case for defiance against nationalism

In a trip with an Uber driver, it has always been interesting conversations. However, I was particularly saddened by the lamentations of this man when he said Malaysia does not feel like his home even though he was born here.

"Given a chance, I want to go back and live in China. That is my motherland, is it not?" he said. "But I am not welcomed there because it is just too different there. They will not accept me. At the same time, I am being told to go back home. Do you see the struggle?"

Such causality stems from our familiarity with the term "Malay nationalism" that is flamboyantly flashed in our faces in the public sphere of the country – be it an academic assessment of the nation's history or the utterances of politicians.

More frequently, it is often used by predecessors of Umno, who have always sworn to protect the interests of the Malay community, whether it is in the form of racial and religious identity or constitutional rights.

Just recently, an article from last year's Umno general assembly had resurfaced and was being shared on social media.

The Youth and Sports Minister Khairy Jamaluddin had ruffled some feathers after his policy speech at the party's general assembly last year. He expressed dissatisfaction about how non-Malays should not question Malay rights simply because these have been the existing terms agreed upon and led us to Independence.

Particularly, I was captivated by the underlying sentiments of this statement (that still prevails), as quoted from a report by The Malaysian Insider:

"The demography of the nation changed drastically when the Malays opened the doors of the land to other races to build the nation together. We cannot imagine how big a sacrifice this is.

"So, great were the sacrifices of the Malay people, and all that we ask in return is for the non-Malays to accept several of those matters which I just brought up as the other end of the bargain."

To acknowledge the magnitude of how much racism reeks in this is merely touching the surface of a bigger problem. There appears to also be a couple of characteristically flawed conceptions that are deeply disturbing - (a) the hard-on for the "pendatang" fallacy, and (b) the denial of Malay cosmopolitanism.

Malaysia has had a long history of racial integration, since the beginning of the Malay kingdoms that welcomed traders that travel far from different seas. Much of these people have not only displayed the seamless interconnectivity in the diplomatic relations between countries, but also the readiness for cultural assimilation that flourishes with the normalisation of pluralism.

A testament to this would be the existence of multi-ethnic groups, whether Peranakans, Baba Nyonyas, Kristangs or Malabars that have settlements that date back to even over 2,000 years ago.

It is because of these great lengths of multi-culturalism that has deeply embedded itself in this land, to deny the cosmopolitan elements of Malay culture could be perceived as an obliterated understanding of its essential beauty.

After all, the Malay-Polynesian heritage extends through many borders including New Zealand, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Sri Lanka and more. Hence, with much contradictions to the fixation of otherness every non-Malay is guaranteed with, the Malay identity actually invites more room for inclusivity than it is ideologically portrayed in the country's political sphere.

Yet, for some odd reason, it has been easily forgotten. Instead, the pluralism of the Malaysian society is reminded to be founded on the basis that the British imperialists imported labour from the regions of India and China to exploit the fruits of colonized lands.

We have to acknowledge that the history of Malaysia's nation-building process goes beyond the precedents set by our former Colonial masters. Regrettably, it persists to pose as a challenge to make non-Malays unwelcomed to the granting of their citizenship.

It is with this very same reductionist attitude to compartmentalise people of different shades that begs to be propagated as the sole of the need for separation - a false incentive to create social cohesion but to retain the power struggles in preserving this consciousness.

Which is why I believe there is an alarming urgency for us to re-examine the way we define nationalism in our society.

For as long as I can remember, "semangat nasionalisme" (nationalist spirit) has found itself comfortably indoctrinated into the minds of students during a reading of the History textbook for national schools.

One would think that a sense of nationalism would promote not only patriotism, but also a sense of security that no matter what were to happen, there will always be place for us to call home.

Moreover, it has also been portrayed as a fuel to defend the sovereignty of the state from foreign intervention – such beliefs are evidently symptoms from the post-traumatic stress left behind by the establishment of nation-states after colonialism.

We actually have done little to deviate and heal ourselves from the shackles of power. Even if we were to sound the bugle for Malaysians to make a reclamation of the definition of nationalism, I remain sceptical as to the positive changes that a revitalization of "Bangsa Malaysia" would make.

Technically, nothing actually does change. The boundaries have only been widened, but nonetheless, the boundaries still exist.

Someone else remains as the "other" in the pursuit of creating a uniqueness for our national identities. So much so, nationalism could be said to be as problematic as it is central in the filtering of our choices of who gets to call our land as their home as well.

In Myanmar, the persecution of the Rohingya is regarded as purposeful to some parties that perceive them as immigrants from Bangladesh. As for the case of Muslims in European countries, people are ready to judge them as tourists on the very same soil that they were born on, simply because their religion is associated with the crisis of violence in the Middle East, justifying the societal rejection for national security.

To me, there is a case for defiance against nationalism because it still allows the proliferation of racial sentiments but it has also made the borders of nations grow cold towards each other.

This begs the question of how relevant it is for us today to uphold nationalism. Such rhetoric does not fall far from the apple tree as we relentlessly eradicate all forms of fluidity in our cultures and histories.

Instead, it is about time we retrospectively evaluate the origins of a region that once exemplified the very meaning of common humanity.

The doors were once open to all of us, but they are slammed shut in our faces now. In order for us to feel like we truly belong to the global community and prosper together, against the manipulative forces of war and atrocity, we need to inculcate a sense of love and appreciation for the true openness, all embracing nature that underlies the shared discourse of not only Asia, but the entire world. – December 3, 2015.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer, organisation or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.