Dear Mr Defence Minister, to say that non-Malays are under-represented in the military (or in the civil service industry) as unpatriotic dismisses the history of politicised racism in Malaysia..

Since Independence, non-Malays have always been discouraged from enrolling in the military or civil services. In fact, the only moment in the history of Malaya when the Chinese were encouraged to enlist in the Police was during the Emergency because, as it was reasoned, they speak Chinese and could infiltrate into the Chinese communities that were supposedly feeding food and vital information to members of the Malayan Communist Party.

Furthermore, it is a open secret that there has always been a racial glass ceiling incorporated into the military and civil bureaus, so much so, it has become almost idiotic for non-Malays to even want to think of becoming a part of the huge racist bureaucratic machinery.

I will now address your following accusation, that non-Malays, because of their marginal representation in the military (and in civil service) amounts to them being unpatriotic. Let me now dwell on this nonsensical hypothesis.

Allow me to introduce the notion of ‘salary’. It is important to pause here to bring out the relations that existed between the salary and the constitution of political subjects. In theory, a salary is a remuneration obtained for work done or service or duty performed. By ‘work’ is understood the time and the effort devoted to the production of what is ‘useful’.

But in Malaysia, that is not the case. Have you never heard of the term ‘gaji buta’? In Malaysia, as in most post-colonial nation-states, one could get rich without actually much effort if one is in the civil industry or the military.

Or more appropriately, one could devote time to the production of things that were perfectly useless or, at any event, contributed nothing to the formation of the common wealth. Does the common rephrase, “not my department, don’t know lah,” sounds familiar to you? I can assure you the rakyat are sick, tired, and embarrassed by such ethics of our civil servants, be it in the context of Malaysia or in her overseas consulate offices. In these contexts, the prime purpose of the salary was not to remunerative productivity; it constituted, above all, a purely ascriptive type of allocation.

As such, the salary that one is remunerated as a civil servant or a military personnel is essentially caught in your typical ‘patrons and clients’ relationship. Simply put, it acts as a resource the ruling regime - read Umno - could use to buy obedience, gratitude, and votes.

The salary was what legitimised not only subjection but also the constitution of a type of political exchange based, not on the principle of political equality and equal representation, but on the existence of claims through which the state created debts on its civil servants.

The ruling regime is fully aware of this. Otherwise, why is it that only civil servants posted overseas and their families, and military personnel are the only ones allowed to vote through postal votes and not the multitude of Malaysians living overseas?

In other words, by transforming the salary into a claim, the ruling regime granted a means of livelihood to all its military personnel and civil servants under a certain obligation, making then a dependent of the state. The means of livelihood he or she received is not designed to reward a process of converting effort into wealth, but is helping shape a particular figure of submission and domination. This, moreover, is why, in some public speeches, these claims are treated as, if not favours, at least privileges.

So, Mr Defence Minister, it is not about patriotism among your military personnel or those in the civil services. It is about buying allegiance, buying votes.