Don: Malay a hybrid race, official definition limiting
The definition of the term 'Malay' under the Federal Constitution is too limiting, lamented historian Ariffin Omar, who says it has limited the Malays historical ability to assimilate the best of other cultures.
He said the Malay race is so diverse, complex and open that he felt it cannot circumscribe a "narrow definition" such as that in the constitution.
"That is why I really feel that the definition of 'Malay' as in the Malaysian constitution is an injustice to the Malays. Why? Because it cuts the Malays off from liberation – the freedom that they had to take in the best of other cultures," he said at a forum in Petaling Jaya today.
The forum was held after the launch of the English translation of his book 'Bangsa Melayu' and a new edition of the Malay-language original.
Article 160 of the Federal Constitution defines a Malay as a person who is a Muslim, habitually speaks Malay, and practices Malay customs.
However, Ariffin (photo) , a DAP senator, pointed out that even Malay customs is very diverse, such that practices in one state would differ from those in another state.
In addition, he said Malays have always been a 'hybrid race" and there is no "pure Malay race" anywhere in the world.
Instead, he said it is a mix of Chinese, Siamese, Arab, Indian, and other groups.
This is why when the pre-Independence era movements such as Pusat Tenaga Ra'ayat - All-Malaya Council of Joint Action (Putera-AMCJA) mooted its vision of a new nation in the late-1940’s, it proposed 'Malay' as the nationality of its denizens.
'Melayu' to denote nationality, not ethnicity
These groups viewed Malays an identity that is wide-encompassing enough to include all other groups in the new nation, Ariffin said, and the idea was deemed very feasible at the time.
"To me, it was a tragedy that that the issue was not seen to its logical conclusion, maybe because vested interests refused to push the idea of a Melayu nationality, which at that point and time was even accepted by the AMCJA.
"Had they done so, then the issues of race and religion that we see now may have been pushed into the background," he said.
In his talk, the Penang native explained that one of the reasons for the rejection of the idea of a Malay nationality is the British colonial rule.
This, he said, left the Malays feeling vulnerable, marginalised and inward-looking.
The Malays in the Malay Peninsula were also insulated by the British from the nationalist movements in Indonesia, which had seen violent uprisings against the Malay sultanates in Sumatra and people discarding their Malay identity in favour of an Indonesian nationality, he said.
When the British introduced the idea of a Malayan Union 1948, the response of the already-vulnerable Malays was therefore to reject it, and to place heavier emphasis on their Malayness.
The rejection of the Malayan Union of so strong, he said, that even the sultans find themselves publically accused of treason (derhaka) against the people and the state.
Although Malaya did eventually become independent in 1957 as the Federation of Malaya, Ariffin pointed out that its official Malay name as stated in legal documents is Persekutuan Tanah Melayu.
"For those who are anglicised, they say it is the Federation of Malaya. This is the where we have this dichotomy that still emerges to this day – is it Malayan nation, or a Malay state? Which one is it?" he said.
Looking forward, Ariffin said he hopes Malays can be convinced to 'liberate themselves'.
“The battleground is in the realm of ideas (instead of the ballot box). You have to fight in the realm of ideas and convince the Malays to liberate themselves from the narrow-minded shackles that have been imposed on them by the ruling party,” he said.
Related reports
Many skeptical of 'himpunan rakyat bersatu'
DAP: Umno man's admission on anti-Bersih rally shocking
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?
This action cannot be undone.