COMMENT I am not particularly interested in the recent developments in the political scene of this country of ours.

Although the controversial and offensive remarks claiming Chinese as “pendatang” (immigrants) or “penceroboh” (intruders) made by numbers of “racist” organisations are being constantly highlighted in the media, no effort is being undertaken to find an amicable solution to this racial dissent.

Worse still, there now are Malaysian Chinese reacting by claiming that the Malays are “pendatang” as well.

Rationally, should we agree that 37 percent of the Malaysian population is made up of pendatang? In a historical perspective, I will definitely agree with this, as historical facts prove clearly that the Chinese migrated to Tanah Melayu.

Jus soli vs jus sanguinis

Even before Merdeka, Malay leaders compromised a lot to accept them as citizens of Malaya, by adopting the jus soli principle.

The Malay leaders were willing to share the nation by neglecting the doctrine of jus sanguinis, even though it was the common practice of all newly-independent states in the world at the time and acknowledged by international law.

Jus soli is the principle that the country of citizenship of a child is determined by the child's country of birth, irrespective of the nationality of the parents.

In a nutshell, the doctrine accepts all who are born in a country as citizens of that country, without taking their ancestors into account.

Ironically, jus sanguinis is defined as the principle that the country of nationality of a child is that of the country of nationality of the parents, irrespective of their place of birth.

In other words, it regards all descendants of immigrants as non-citizens, despite the fact that they were born in the country.

Plural society

The book “Controversial History Education in Asian Contexts” pointed out that in the 1970s, there were objections from academicians on the use of the term “plural society” to describe Malaysia, which to them implied equality among all Malaysians.

The contention of the academicians was that the Malay race should be regarded as the “base society” of Malaysia and the non-Malays, as “immigrants”, were just “splinters” broken off from their own societies.

Perhaps the older generations must have their own interpretation, without looking forward to the younger generation of Malaysia 50 years ahead, which will need the recognition of the term plural society, by hook or by crook.

Now, after 56 years of independence, the question arising among the young generation is what constitutes a national society and certainly, the answer in their minds is “plural society”, where the principle of equal citizenship prevails.

As human beings, none of us wish to be born in this country as a second class citizen and having said so, there is no doubt whatsoever that all Malaysians should be treated as equal citizens.

When our forefathers decided to adopt the jus soli principle, did they decide to accept the non-Malays as citizens with the title of “immigrants”?

Citizenship is everything. Once you are a citizen, your equal rights are protected by Article 8 of the Federal Constitution.

Definitive people

Nevertheless, history should not be forgotten by all quarters, particularly those who reacted negatively by claiming the Malays to be “pendatang”as well. It is a fact that the Malays migrated to Tanah Melayu, but it is also a concrete fact to say that the Malays were the “definitive” people of this land.

The basic principle is this: one particular land belongs to one particular nation whose people first played a significant role in determining the nature of the land.

In fact, the existence of aborigines in this country, before the Malays came, is not a significant basis to claim that the aborigines are the “definitive” people.

No “government” was established by them, what more international trade with governments outside the land, thereby reflecting the recognition of them as the rightful owners of the land?

They merely lived exclusively, without bothering who gave the definition to this land.

Unlike the Malays, who defined this land by setting up a kingdom and by having played much significant roles, this land was given the name of Tanah Melayu, which literally means "Malay homeland" and the Malays assumed proprietorship of the Malay states.

One common example that can be illustrated from the book "The Malay Dilemma" is by looking at the case of the “white man” who claimed his race to be the definitive people of Australia, even though there existed the aborigines, long before the white man migrated to Australia.

Charting the way forward

The major concern today is not about “pendatang” or “penceroboh”, but the conflict of interest between the Malays and Chinese. Both have claimed that their authentic rights in many fields have been seized and marginalised.

This racial impasse must first be solved. We need to look forward for the betterment of the Malays and Chinese together. It is a must for us to make concrete decisions that incorporate good governance and policies of equality, which should be upheld in helping those who are suffering and living in poverty and miserable conditions.

Hence, we must have a new language of discourse by looking at the problems as a collective responsibility.

It is irrelevant to confine the problem to one particular ethnic group by labelling it as a Malay or Chinese problem. The perspective must be shifted to make it a “people problem”. We must speak up and act on behalf of all Malay, Chinese and Indian citizens.

It is now time for us to shut off the terms “pendatang” and “penceroboh”, since these terms are no longer relevant in this plural society of ours - and not even what our forefathers expected.

When they accepted non-Malays as citizens, their expectations certainly were not just for 10 years of Malaysia but forever for Malaysia with its indispensable element of multiculturalism.

MUHAMMAD FAISAL ABDUL AZIZ is secretary-general of the Malaysian Islamic Youth Movement (Abim).