BENDING THE 'SUPREME' FACTS: Are the Malays immigrants?

Last week several dailies published an article titled “Were the Malays immigrants?”

The authors teach law at national universities. The authors took a twisted path and arrived at an unexpected though welcome conclusion: non-Malays in Malaysia are no longer immigrants.

One author, Dr Mohd Hazmi Mohd Rusli, teaches Shariah and Law at University Sains Islam Malaysia, the other, Dr Rahmat Mohamad, teaches International Law at Universiti Teknologi Mara.

One purported goal of their article is to demonstrate that it is incorrect to call people of “the Malay race” immigrants. Yet they do not explicitly define the words “race” and “immigrant.”

A second purported goal of their article is to justify the constitutional guarantee of “the special position of the Malays in Malaysia, the ‘sons of the soil’ (bumiputras) of the nation” (Article 153).

Their article is infused with errors, selectivity and omissions. I’ll list ten examples:

First, they speak of a “Malay port” called Langkasuka, though Langkasuka is the Sanskrit name for a region.

Second, they define “Malays” as persons who lived in the Nusantara, the Malay Archipelago, which encompassed “the modern day Indonesia, Malaysia, Borneo, Singapore, southern Thailand, southern Philippines and Timor-Leste”. They bypass the constitutional definition of a Malay (Article 160):

“a person who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language, conforms to Malay custom and – (a) was before Merdeka day born in the Federation or in Singapore or born of parents one of whom was born in the Federation or in Singapore, or is on that day domiciled in the Federation or in Singapore; or (b) is the issue of such a person.”

Third, they conflate Malay with Islam – they say Chinese and Indians could not assimilate with “the Malays” because they did not profess Islam.

Are they unaware that according to their “Nusantara” definition, the Hindu Balinese, who are assimilated in Muslim-majority Indonesia, are also Malays?

Fourth, they speak of “the Malay kingdom of Srivijaya”, seemingly oblivious of the fact that Srivijaya is, like Langkasuka, an Indian word.

Fifth, they expostulate that the demarcation of the Malay Archipelago was done by the British (and the Dutch) via the Anglo-Dutch treaty. They are silent over the fact that Malaya/Malaysia was also the creation of the British.

Sixth, they say nothing about the Orang Asli in West Malaysia. Why does the Malay language refer to those who live in the jungles as Orang Asli which means “native people?” Isn’t it vastly important that Malay is the language of the invader (worse than immigrant?), not of the native people?

Seventh, by asking “Were the Malays immigrants?”, they frame the question in the past tense, to insinuate that Article 153 is a flag flown to recognise that Malays are not immigrants. Yet Article 153 was crafted to provide affirmative for the Malays for economic reasons, not because “Malays are not immigrants”.

Eighth, they say “Malay migrants” (i.e., those not from the peninsula, but from other parts of Nusantara), unlike Chinese and Indians, came with the intention of making Malaya their permanent home. They imply that Malay migrants “were not migrants” because they made themselves subject to the Malay rulers.

Without offering any basis, they claim that only Malays consented to be subjects of the Rulers. They pass over the fact that Malay Rulers brought in Chinese coolies, who became loyal subjects.

Ninth, they appeal to the free movement of Malays within Nusantara as proof that Bugis, Javanese, etc., are Malays. They don’t mention that there were also wars within Nusantara. They also don’t mention how – if at all – Bugis, Javanese, etc. were treated differently from Chinese and Indians when they arrived at Malayan ports.

Tenth, they downplay the fact that Article 153 was inserted in order to convince elite Malays to accept the Chinese and Indians who wanted to make Malaya their permanent home!

Enough of the errors, selectivity and omissions which demonstrate historical revisionism in their article. I propose it is more useful to discuss specific examples of Malay immigrants.

I’ve chosen two stalwarts of Malay superiority, both of them linked to Perkasa, the champion of Malay Superiority in Malaysia.

Tan Sri Zaman Khan’s father was a Pashtun, i.e., with roots in either Afghanistan or Pakistan. His father was a trader. He fathered children in Malaya, then moved his family to Thailand before returning to Malaya. Zaman, who ended his career as a high-ranking police officer, was born in Malaya.

Tun Dr Mahathir’s grandfather was a Malayalee, i.e., with roots in the state of Kerala in India. His father was born in Penang. He worked and fathered children in Malaya, and dedicated his life to the betterment of others. Tun Dr Mahathir, the prime minister for 22 years, was born in Malaya.

Going by the authors’ logic “if not from Nusantara, then not Malay”, Zaman Sr. and Dr Mahathir’s grandfather were not Malays, since their roots were not within Nusantara. This is what we would expect. What about the migrant status of their offspring?

Going by the authors’ logic, Zaman and Mahathir Sr. were never immigrants because their mothers were Malay-Muslims (wouldn’t apply if their mothers were Orang Asli), not because they were born in Malaya.

Going by the authors’ logic, Zaman Sr. and Mahathir’s grandfather came primarily to marry and procreate, with employment as a secondary goal.

The authors say Chinese and Indians, unlike Nusantarites, came primarily for employment, not to make Malaya their permanent home. Therefore, they say, generations of Chinese and Indians were immigrants until they qualified for citizenship under the Constitution.

Although they use a twisted path to get to the end point, they come to a welcome conclusion: “the Malays have to accept the fact that now [non-Malays are] their fellow compatriots”.

The authors’ ignore everything but race. They ignore economics. They ignore the equal rights enshrined in Article 8 of the Constitution. They ignore the consequences of their “logic” for Malays living in Thailand, South Africa or the USA.

Article 153 is not a racial provision. It’s an affirmative action provision. Immigrant status has nothing to do with it.

Perkasites say non-Malay citizens are immigrants. Therefore many respond that because the Orang Asli are the native people, Malay citizens are also immigrants. The authors don’t mention the Orang Asli. What grade does their paper deserve?

Rama Ramanathan blogs at write2rest.blogspot.com.