Member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) are host societies in which indigeneity (the quality of being indigenous) is recognised and accepted, unlike the settler societies such as USA, Canada and Australia where indigeneity is not recognised and therefore denied.
During the colonial era, workers from China, India and elsewhere came to participate in the economies of the countries in Southeast Asia. When they finally became independent from their colonisers these countries were not only populated by their indigenous people but also migrants who opted to become citizens of the young nations.
How many paths are there for Asean countries that have put assimilation as their thrust in nation building? An assimilationist focuses on the needs to uphold the oneness of a people despite the range and intensity of diversity in the populace.
In Asean, the oneness of the diverse citizens is bonded to the indigeneity that defined their ways of life, governance and development.
Malaysia took a different path, choosing integration as the basis of nation building. In this approach, indigeneity is recognised and accepted together with diversity which is considered as an asset and strength of the nation.
Indigeneity is the core of integration. The various ethnic groups are recognised and accepted, and their religions, languages and interests are protected.
In Malaysia, our citizens have to accept the positions of the Malays, natives of Sabah and Sarawak, Islam, Malay language and the King as the core of the nation. For integration to work, each ethnic group gives loyalty to the nation in return for the King’s protection.
Thus, Malaysians have their respective ethnic names and mother tongues, religions, cultures and various other interests. Studies have shown that Malaysians take pride in their ethnic identities. It is what defines them as Malaysians.
In other Asean countries, there is one national education system (used by all schools), one language, one system of naming, preference for the official religion and ethnic identities are not recognised publicly. The citizens are identified by their nationalities.
Malaysia, on the other hand, gives priority to development and governance rather than nation-building. Delivering the benefits of development to the populace not only create harmony among the multi-ethnic citizens but also ensure socio-political stability and progress.
The other Asean countries fought their colonial masters and mobilised their diverse population as freedom fighters to build their nations. The ethnic origins of the nation defined the nationalism and ethno-symbols.
As examples, in Indonesia the nationality is Indonesian and in Thailand it is Thai. In this way every ethnic group is defined nationally with “one blood, family, language and religion”.
In Malaysia, the citizens are called by their ethnic identities as Malaysian Malay, Malaysian Chinese, Malaysian Indian and Malaysian natives of Sabah and Sarawak.
Studies indicate that the assimilationist approach is able to develop a unified nationality as they speak the same national language, use the same education system, share a national culture and often religion. While these countries do practise democracy they are often ruled by authoritarian leaders and are not free from military coup d’etat.
Ethnic and regional group rivalries are observed and supported by separatist movements. Thailand has its Pattani Movement, Philippines have the Moros, Indonesia has the Achinese and Iran Jaya, and Myanmar are facing resistance from Shan, Mon, Karen and Rohingya, among others.
Malaysia too has not been free from social tensions, inter-ethnic group fightings and frequent competition between ethnic groups over access to public resources and fruits of development.
Since independence, major ethnic riots have occurred in Kuala Lumpur on May 13, 1969, Kampung Rawa – 1997, Kampung Medan – 2001, Sungai Petani and Lawas – 2012, Low Yatt – 2015 and Seafeild – 2018.
However, analysis of these incidents showed that the root causes of the May 13 riots lay in social inequality and failure to manage inherited poverty among the urban poor.
National unity is a work in progress in Malaysia. The ethnic harmony and stability that the nation enjoys is through the attainment of social cohesion as a product of good governance and development.
As man is not totally homo economicus in which social action is motivated by material benefit, ethnic sentiment, ethno-nationalism and ethnic group preferences do operate independently from economic calculation. The members of these ethnic groups feel that their blood ties make them a part of a fully extended family.
These ethno-national bonds lie “beyond reason”, and has political potency that can make people kill and die for their ethnic groups. People do not voluntarily die for things that are rational.
The growing ethnic tensions and downward spiral of good ethnic relations because of hate speech and hate crimes in Malaysia call for swift actions to monitor and intervene to stop the people of various ethnic groups from drifting apart.
The government has to emulate the work of our forefathers such as Tunku Abdul Rahman, V T Sambathan and Tan Chang Loke who believed that the political agenda of the party must be sacrificed and return to our Constitution so as to rebuild the national ethos.
Our diverse population must be brought back to the platform of integration where a culture of plurality has been a part of our life.
With greater integrity in governance and social justice and inclusivity as the thrusts of our development, our ethno-nation would ensure stability and progress as it increasingly ingrains greater civic and modern cultures among the people in managing public spaces for all Malaysians.
