I refer to the letter What Israel can learn from Malaysia.

The writer says: ‘…our realities of Malay reserved land versus squatter Indians and old Chinese communities still living on TOL’ as self-evident to Malaysia’s practice.

I won’t claim to know much about land policies, history or even the notion of citizenship in Malaysia but I suspect it is different from the notion that I mentioned which the state of Israel practices. Correct me if I am wrong, but citizenship in Malaysia is by birth and not jus sanguinis, or the ‘right of blood’.

A popular notion with Israel is that as they continue to receive ‘returning’ Jewish citizens and as the story goes, some were resettled on land that once belonged to the Palestinians who were forcefully uprooted from their land and resettled in refugee camps that make up part of today’s Palestine. In the case of Malay land reserves, we have to go back into our history and ask why did the British support the creation of the Malay reserves? Why delineate a territory and designate it as Malay reserve?

But to be fair, the idea of Malay reserves was not exclusive, other indigenous lands were also recognised and in Sabah, Sarawak and the Peninsula, there is the recognition of native land and Orang Asli reserves. And I may be stretching it here, but in my opinion, flirting with the idea of indigenous reserves belongs to that era of British preoccupation with race and nation.

The writer’s point is probably more specific to squatters and to the preferential treatment alluded to by some when land is gazette and titles given to some and not to others. What does that say about Malaysia? That we practice discrimination! That is not a revelation. But, my point (and this is probably where we may concur) is that we are seeing the increase of a racist discourse and the language that is similar to the argument put forward by the Israel state (or any state that is moving towards ethnic nationalism).

On the surface of it, cutting Singapore off from Malaysia parallels what the Israel state had done by recognising Palestine. As the writer puts it, ‘When Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005, she divested herself of the (currently) 1.5 million Palestinians there similar to Malaysia divesting ourselves of Singaporean Chinese in 1965 at the time when Lee Kuan Yew was proclaiming his slogan ‘Malaysian Malaysia’. The difference - and this is a big difference - is that neither Malaysia nor Singapore chose to embark on a policy of heighten militarisation and subjugation.

Malaysia may have talked and haggled to get a more favorable price for water from Singapore, but they never cut water supply or created an embargo. Nor, considering Singapore’s precarious position, did Singapore use force to secure water from Malaysia and neither did they build a wall to separate them from the rest of Johor or deny Malaysians jobs in their country.

I do, agree, however that Malaysia is increasingly taking the path of a racist discourse. Our preoccupation with race is reflected in the writer’s response: ‘Malaysia's ratio of Chinese and Indians in the population is shrinking. In 1987, Malays had a TFR (fertility rate: children born/woman) of 4.51, Chinese 2.25. By 2070, the two-kids-per- family Chinese are expected to decline to 13 percent of the population’.

We talk of race and demography in the context of politics. This is a language we need to be wary about. It isn’t unique to Malaysia. It perhaps is several decades late (although people are seeing a trend that there is a rise in ethnic nationalism in Europe as well). I would like to suggest that any country which continues to pursue race-based nationalism over more substantive issues (like employment, growth, food supply, education, etc.) will push itself into oblivion. A good example today is Burma and probably South Korea. The real step forward is not ethnic nationalism, it’s the economy.

Malaysia need to move forward, but it starts with recognising that there is no linear progression. What holds us back, and I would stretch that to include other countries which also use race arguments, is that we still have our heads buried in the 1930s. We become preoccupied with dominating and needing to feel dominant that we forget, more often than not, that the ones we colonise are ourselves.

If I am not mistaken, in the 1960s, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Korea, and Taiwan were probably more on par with one another. In fact, South Korea and Taiwan were probably in a far worse off position having either concluded a war or were in a under constant threat. Plus, what natural resources did they have? Malaysia and Philippines, of course, had timber, petroleum, etc. Singapore had a strategic port and was the financial hub of a fading colonial world.

But just look at the economic growth of South Korea and Taiwan today.

Finally, Malaysia is not an Islamic state, unless of course, this has been signed by parliament. How did we become an Islamic state? Is it because the former PM announced it at some public forum? Plus, the rhetoric of race and domination, in its current manifestation and association to the government, is relatively recent; much of which, in my opinion, found its origins during the Mahathir-Anwar period.

Perhaps since both are out of office we should ask them for clarification on this matter. As for identification of race and faith, that was inserted in the constitution at the start. The problem I suspect is not with the association of race and faith as much as it is with the association of state and race. Starting with the need for racial superiority, I suspect we shall hear more of a one-sided argument on purity and moral righteousness.

Towards this end, more often than not the way forward starts with disciplining your own first.