Malaysia, like many other developing countries in the world today, seems to be facing a crisis of governmentality itself.

By this I refer to the difficulties faced not only by those who are at the forefront of the process of governance and management of the state, but also the problem of trying to understand what "governance" itself means in the context of a world where "traditional" modern categories and notions such as borders, frontiers, territorial spaces and economies have been put to question.

From the day that the Internet revolution hit the country, the ruling elite and those who man the machinery of the state have been hard pressed to come up with new modes of governing and controlling Malaysian society and its constituents.

The problem is, we no longer seem to recognise where the boundaries of this thing called "Malaysia" really lie and what constitutes the thing itself.

The advent of the Internet has brought to the surface once-hidden or marginalised aspects of Malaysian society - both from the past and the immediate present - to our attention.

Suddenly we come face to face with a plethora of once invisible constituencies - ranging from millenarian religious movements to discriminated gender groupings. "Malaysia", it would seem, has been a mirage all along. What lay beneath the facade of a seemingly-unitary space was actually a multiplicity of "Malaysias" that are now coming out into the open.

That this was bound to happen is old news to those who could read the signs. Years ago, I happened to live in Sabah where my family was posted. My experience of living in Sabah for four years taught me how people on the margins of mainstream Malaysian society saw themselves and located themselves in relation to the centre.

East Malaysians were complaining all the time about how they felt they were being sidelined in the national political and cultural discourse which was being churned out by the propaganda and educational machinery of the state.

That constituencies such as these could feel themselves left out and marginalised was both ironic and to be expected. It was ironic for the simple reason that the story of a multiracial Malaysia which we constantly tell ourselves has become a national narrative which binds our imagined community together.

National day parades

Every year we bear witness to our colourful national day parades where practically every ethnic and minority group is represented. The state goes out of its way to ensure that all communities are enrolled into this public pageant and given the chance to take part in the weaving of this national discourse.

But upon closer examination one cannot help but notice the subtle and not-too-subtle inconsistencies, irregularities and unstated biases that lurk within this national discourse of ours.

Again the national parade serves as a good example: During the national day parade we see practically all the major and minor races and ethnic communities represented. But the way in which each constituency is given a place and role in this parade also tells us a lot about our shared assumptions about which are the "dominant" races and which are not.

Simply looking at how each ethnic, religious and cultural constituency is represented and located within the parade itself tells us a lot about how our socio-cultural topography is laid out and how uneven the political terrain of the country really is.

Many a time I have heard the complaint that during these parades the ethnic groups of East Malaysia are re-presented as the "exotic" brethren from that other side of Malaysia which is somehow always lagging behind the rest.

This image of East Malaysians as being our "backward" second cousins is further reinforced by some of the ads and images we get from our own tourist industry. Invariably, East Malaysia is presented to tourists and West Malaysians alike as a "land of mystery", once ruled by the "White Rajahs" (as if West Malaysia was not!), infested with wild animals and, yes, the descendants of head-hunters.

Now this sort of condescending and patronising nonsense was obviously not going to be tolerated for long. Sooner or later, those on the receiving end of this not-so-flattering narrative were bound to respond and reject it.

The same could be said about the host of other marginalised, suppressed and/or slighted constituencies that have existed in the country. After being confined to the margins of the national imaginary they were bound to seek ways and means to redress these imbalances. This is where the Internet comes in.

Cast the Net out wide

The arrival of the Internet has become the solution to the problem for many of those constituencies that feel that they were somehow left out or not given a space in the discursive economy of the nation. Like that other invention which paved the way for the modern era, the hand-held revolver, the Internet has managed to equalise the relations between the strong and the weak, the dominant and the suppressed.

What the Internet does is open the way for other sites of discursive activity to take place. In the various chat-rooms and websites that cut across the unchartered terrain of cyberspace, a host of discursive communities have appeared - discussing matters ranging from the need for an Islamic state to the need for a secular option for the future. Here at least we do not need police permits for meetings involving more than four people at a time.

The state's response to all this has been sadly predictable. The technocrats and securocrats have responded to the rise of these sites of discursive activity with alarm and suspicion. The fact that so many private and autonomous discursive networks have appeared overnight means (for some at least) the need for more policing and control, as the state fulfils its maximalist potential. Now there is even talk of controlling the Internet by allowing strict anti-sedition laws to operate in cyberspace as well.

Repression and control, however, will not and cannot stop the fact that such ideas and beliefs already exist in our society. If there exists in our midst constituencies that feel they have been sidelined or repressed by the mainstream, controlling their activities will not bring them any closer to integration. Clamping down on Islamist websites and chat groups will not erase the presence of these communities any more than banning gay websites lead to the elimination of homosexuality.

The fact that such groups do exist, have always existed and have the right to exist has been bracketed out of the discussion altogether. However, to even think of such measures would be an open admission of the level of desperation that exists in the corridors of power in the country these days.

In view of these pressing realities, what other option is there for the State and the citizens?

Brave new world

Well, for a start, we might as well admit that some of our most conventional and orthodox understandings of the nation-state, the process of government and the political process itself needs to be radically put back into question.

Rather than pressing on regardless with the mistaken notion that the nation is a unified entity with clearly demarcated and governable boundaries, we need to accept that the nation is actually an expansive and unlimited terrain that is fundamentally unsutured, open and multifarious in nature.

National communities are in fact assemblies of collective imaginations - more often than not in direct contestation and confrontation with each other. Traditional-minded securocrats may regard this as a cause of alarm but level-headed optimists might see in this the potential of creating a productive and positive critical mass where ideas are free to flow and the best of them will flourish.

That these interests may compete and collide with each other is also a potentially positive thing as well, for the simple reason that as once-alienated communities and constituencies are forced into close proximity with each other they will be forced to adapt and to negotiate with each other. At the very least, even if we hate each other we will have to learn a common language so that we can curse each other intelligibly!

Recognising the multifaceted nature of Malaysian society is something that is long overdue, and thankfully the Internet has made this move an imperative one. True, our traditional notion of what constitutes Malaysian society may well be challenged as a result - already we see signs that traditional values and markers of political identity have lost their currency among the young.

But this in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. In place of the monological and static discourse of the old, unified Malaysia we may well be on the verge of watching a new fragmented and differentiated national discursive space being born.

Our children will not know of the old Malaysia that was neatly circumscribed by the vectors of race, religion and ethnicity only. The brave new world of the future promises to be a more complicated one, and one that demands a new understanding of governmentality itself.

It's just a pity that the last people to understand this are, as usual, the government itself.