COMMENT My recent proposal for non-Muslims to accept the fact that we may have little choice but to abide by the law and not use the Arab word for the name of the one God received mainly negative reaction.

In that article, I explained that unless there is a change in the constitution at state level, there is really nothing much that the federal government can do except to appeal for all quarters to compromise and respect the 10-point agreement. This is simply because we are a federation with clearly defined limits to what the federal government can do.

Only for two short years between 1946 and 1948, were we (Malaya) a union. The Malayan Union was rejected by the Malays and received lukewarm support from the non-Malays.

The Malay rulers, many of whom had little choice but to collaborate with the invading Japanese army, were in a very weak position. Those appointed during the Japanese Occupation like the ruler of Selangor were deposed and exiled. The rest were persuaded by the British to agree to the formation of a Malayan Union.

The Malayan Union also comprised the Strait Settlements of Penang and Malacca minus Singapore. The reason being that with Singapore, non-Malays would numerically outnumber the Malays.

Even without Singapore, non-Malays were almost numerically equal to the Malays thus making the Orang Asli numbers so important that they were also regarded as “natives”. As expected, Penang did not want anything to do with this union and Penang started a secessionist movement.

In all of this, there were a consistent number of stakeholders including the British colonial administration, the Malay rulers and after various local level and eventually Malayan elections, elected leaders of the “people”.

There also emerge political parties that quickly supplanted the old system of colonial elite leadership. Some of these leaders like Tan Cheng Lock was able to make the transition and became president of the MCA. Others like Onn Jaafar were less successful and were left behind.

What is the point of this long-winded historical context and how is it relevant today? The historical path that led to the formation of independent Malaya was based on the rejection of the Malayan Union.

A union, on the one hand, is a centralised system with Kuala Lumpur as the main decision-maker in all matters of national importance. A federation is quite different with state governments maintaining rights and privileges over certain areas.

In our case, state governments have rights over land, natural resources and, in the case of states with sultans, over religious matters.

Nation building

Now, the business of nation building in the immediate independence period, had to do with the creation of a national identity. Whilst it was not possible to create a Malayan race, Kuala Lumpur focused on breaking down “state” identities.

This is often called “semangat kenegerian” or loyalty to the states. Once again, the federal government did not do as well with the people of Penang and Kelantan, where state identity was particularly strong.

But it was rapid urbanisation and greater physical integration that makes these state privileges now look rather anachronistic. How can, for example, Selangor want exclusivity on natural resources when it depends on other Malaysian states for water? Is there really any distinction between Malacca and Negeri Sembilan when it comes to highway connectivity? Can we have one set of religious laws for each state when Malaysians travel across state borders hundreds of times a day?

Whilst the prime minister can have all the best of intentions when he brokered a deal with East Malaysians through the 10-point agreement on the use of the Arab word for the one God, he was depending on the goodwill and common sense of the rest of Malaysia to allow non-Muslims to use the word in their religious ceremonies.

Unfortunately, the federal government initiative has no leg to stand upon when it comes to implementation at the state level. It is simply an initiative and not a governmental policy, the latter has to have strength of law and the 10-point agreement does not.

So, where are we now on this matter? In the case of the Arab name for the one God, it is very clear that all sides have hardened with feet firmly planted in the ground. In the Malaysian tradition, all of us see this as symbolic of how we have all been compromising too much.

All Malaysians feel that they have been marginalised and disadvantaged. I am reminded from a scene from hell where the sinful are constantly hungry because each had a very long spoon and was unable to get food to their lips. It was hell because it never occurred to them to feed one another.

I am afraid in the case of the Arab word for the one God, we are actively making our own funeral pyre by refusing to recognise our own unique history and development as a federation. It is the old formula of “give and take” that has made us a functional country.

All sides must realise that the desire to be a strong and united country is just that. It is just an aspiration and can never be as we are a federation of interest groups that have come together in a single political unit because life will be terrible otherwise.

So, until there is a referendum and a concerted effort to mount constitutional reforms, we have to live by existing laws and practices. There is little doubt that religion is now a far more pervasive and identity-defining factor in all our lives. There may be even more curbing of personal freedoms as the Islamic police force comes into being. There will be even more challenges to our existing way of life.

It is therefore not defeatism that motivates this article but a call to see things clearly and decide how to deal with the new realities of Malaysian life.


NEIL KHOR completed his PhD at Cambridge University and now writes occasionally on matters that he thinks require better historical treatment. He is quietly optimistic about Malaysia's future.