Judging from the continuous flurry of letters to malaysiakini on the issue of Malaysians emigrating overseas en masse, the subject matter seems to sit uncomfortably on the conscience of many readers.

Since time immemorial, human beings have always migrated across geographical and political boundaries. There is nothing new in this phenomenon.

In fact, if the latest anthropological hypothesis is to be believed, the species called Homo Sapiens probably had its origin somewhere in Africa. Migration of the species over a couple of million years has succeeded in spreading our kind over all corners of the globe, to evolve into humans of various shades and colours.

Perhaps, we are all descendants of migrants. The gripping idea of an original 'homeland' could be a mythical construct that has been glorified by the rise of ethnic nationalism in recent centuries.

Why do people leave the security of their familiar niches and just uproot themselves for the uncertainties of another land?

Cutting one's umbilical cord

In the context of our contemporary world, the push factors of hunger, poverty, war and political persecution, work in a coupling action with the pull factors of better opportunities for survival abroad, in motivating mass exodus of human bodies all over the world.

This sort of sociological explanation sounds sensible because it appeals to our common sense. The key word is 'survival'.

In reality, I suspect the motivation for cutting one's umbilical cord with the land of one's birth is much more complex than what appears on the surface. There must be as many human stories of pain, alienation, fear, hope, curiosity, disappointment, and restiveness as there are emigrants the world over. Inevitably, not all emigrants will find the paradise that they look for in their new home.

At least in the present contentious discussion on Malaysians 'voting with their feet', the concept of 'survival' can hardly apply, unless we stretch the meaning of the term beyond recognition.

We are talking about very qualified professionals and successful business people who will have no problem surviving very well in present-day Malaysia. In fact, in moving overseas, they may face uncertain risks and loss of social status and perhaps even bigger income which they would otherwise enjoy in Malaysia.

It is easy to paint these emigrants as greedy individuals who would move overseas for more money and material benefits, at the expense of being subservient to 'white men', but it is bad argument. Likewise, calling them 'cowards' is hardly useful in inspiring reasonable discussions towards understanding a phenomenon that is both complex and emotionally charged.

The racist undertones and the name calling that pollute the discussion on the issue on malaysiakini is nothing new. In fact, it is the political norm for public discussion in Malaysia on matters of culture, language, religion, education and the economy to degenerate into labelling, name calling and finger pointing that betray a mountain of undeclared racial prejudices and mutual dislike.

Unfortunately, like so many significant phenomena in Malaysia, the mass migration of qualified professionals and businessmen does seem to have its origin somewhere in the body politics of the nation. On the surface, it does look like a racial thing.

One million have migrated

I remember vaguely reading a recent report of a study submitted to the Chinese guilds and associations, claiming that something like a million Chinese citizens have emigrated during the period between 1957 and 1991.

This shocking bit of findings hardly caused a stir. The Chinese people have known it all along, having friends and relatives who have all packed up and left in a steady stream over past decades. Others are busy packing and making arrangement for the big move of their life. Many who cannot leave for various reasons look on those who leave with envy, and understood the reason why.

I am told by a doctor that Indian professionals are even more prone to emigrating than the Chinese. Unfortunately, we have no statistics.

This is shocking news because a million outgoing migrants in a nation of 23 or so million population signify a substantial loss of bodies from the nation. The birth rates of the Chinese community are already falling far behind the population of other ethnic groups. At this rate of Chinese migration outward to greener pasture, no matter how hard the Chinese try to make new babies, they would merely be producing potential emigrants.

In 1957, the Chinese people made up 35 percent of the nation's total population. That figure has fallen to something like 25 percen at the present moment. In a land where the interests and rights of a citizen depend heavily on racial arithmetic, would this fact not propel more qualified and wealthy Chinese towards thinking about changing their nationality?

That indeed is how many emigrant letter writers perceive the problem - in racial terms. They make the painful move of uprooting themselves, lock, stock and barrel, because of the many forms of discrimination directed against them based on their ethnic identity. They feel completely excluded from meaningful sense of belonging because of the lack of a level-playing field.

They despair of any change in the basic rules of race-based political game. They move unwillingly, but move permanently they must, because of their hope for a better life for their children.

Whether such a move is ethical or not in the Socratic sense is quite another matter. We moderns do not have much use for Socrates anyway, and I doubt if the old Greek sage can even find a job selling insurance or chicken rice in Kuala Lumpur today.

I am more interested in finding out why the exchange of opinions on malaysiakini on this subject tends to degenerate into a contest of vitriolic. And that heart-rending narratives of the emigrants as revealed in those letters often solicits nothing more than rhetoric with veiled racist connotations.

Communication breakdown

Why is it that all forms of political discourses in Malaysia on sensitive subjects such as race, religion, language, culture and economics tend to sink into the cesspool of personal attacks, name-calling, labelling, and downright expression of disgust and even hatred?

I suggest that this is a legitimate and crucial question. Whatever answer the readers may come up with, this question may eventually lead us towards some ethical rules of engagement in a truly communicative discourse across ethnic lines on matters of state.

My answer is this. Discussion on racial issues inevitably breaks down because people begin their points of view with the declared or tacit declaration of "Speaking as a Chinese." or "Speaking as a Malay"

When you speak out, once you assume your ethnic identity as the metaphysical centre of the speech act, you denigrate all other points of view to the margin. All speech acts then become expression of the will to power, and to dominate.

True consensus towards mutual understanding and collective action becomes impossible in the subsequent zero-sum language game. There will be no dialogue, but mere noisy declarations of personal communiqus as you will find in a general assembly between chickens and ducks.

If my diagnosis is correct, then the obvious solution is to suspend our ethnic consciousness when we speak out on the politics of race so rampant in the country, if this is at all possible.

In other words, when we oppose or support many of the race-tinged policies that are tearing the country apart, we have to presume that we do not know how the change in policies will affect us as individuals. We will then be free from the prejudices embedded in our personal vested interests.

This proposal is not all that novel. It is similar to the "veil of ignorance" that John Rawls suggested in his theory of justice, in an attempt to ground political legitimacy on principles other than utility.

Loss of human capital

Trying to speak out with this limiting condition in mind, this is how I can observe and conclude about the phenomenon of massive migration of Malaysians abroad:

The net loss of so many qualified and wealthy citizens - irrespective of their ethnic origin - signifies a loss of immense financial and human capital which has been developed and accumulated with Malaysian resources. Economically and otherwise, this loss will hurt all Malaysians, Malays, Chinese, Indians, Ibans and Kadazans.

Emigration is like tearing up an original social contract. The massive rejection of the Malaysian social contract by the best of her citizens indicates serious flaws in the assumptions of nation-building.

If the most basic assumptions in Malaysian nation-building are the question of racial inequality, then its failure must be reflected upon, questioned and rectified. This project must also entail critical reflection upon the legitimacy and the plausibility of building a Malaysian nation-state.

Racial inequality is not the only form of injustice in Malaysia after nearly half a century of nation-building. There are many manifestations of horrendous injustices in Malaysia today that are not related to racial issues. The more than six years of loss of personal liberty by Anwar Ibrahim is but only one of them.

Perhaps those who feel racially marginalised, irrespective of their ethnic origin, should also consider injustice as a generic phenomenon affecting all citizens. Injustice hurts everybody.

Otherwise, it will be a matter of time, when qualified and wealthy native citizens will also emigrate en masse, hurting future generations of Malaysians of all races.

Those involved in politics will all struggle in the name of justice, and many will wittingly or unconsciously perpetuate those injustices that they purport to destroy. What we need is not better or worse politicians, but a civil society that will exercise eternal vigilance as a price for their freedom, from oppression and from sheer ignorance.