Thread by @walski69

In 2020 Malaysia, politics is still pretty much about identity. Policy and ideology generally take a back seat. Worse, both don’t get to ride the bus at all, especially during election times.

Identity here being “race”, and increasingly of late, religion.

[This be a thread]

I put “race” in quotes because it really refers to ethnicity, and not race in the scientific sense. I’m referring to 2020 science and not what was regarded as ‘scientific' in the 19th century (which unfortunately some still cling on to as being authoritative).

And so “race”- and religion-based - political parties still have relevance in 2020, because much of the population sees things along “race” and religious lines. And this way of looking at things is not going to go away anytime soon. Primarily because we perpetuate this view.

And so in 2020 many generally still have a reluctance to view all Malaysians as being equal by citizenship. Instead many would rather compartmentalize themselves into the racial silos they identify themselves with.

And with those silos, the ‘Us vs. Them’ worldview.

But if anyone bothers to do any research, you’ll find that this compartmentalized view is something inherited that we’ve consciously CHOSEN to perpetuate.

It is one of the lasting British colonial legacies we continue to perpetuate.

I’ve mentioned in passing more than once in the past about how Malaysian society came to be compartmentalized into Bumiputera/Malay, Chinese, Indian and Others.

So I thought today I’d share some details about this, how our rich multi-ethnic tapestry became these 4 check-boxes

Our story begins about 149 years ago in the Straits Settlements and Federated Malay States, when a census exercise took place, on a sunny Thursday afternoon.

Ok, so I don’t really know when in 1871 this census took place. Or if it was sunny.

But do look at the categorization.

The source of this table is the appendices of a paper written in 1988 by Charles Hirschman, Professor Emeritus at University of Washington in Seattle. This oft-quoted paper may be read in full via JSTOR jstor.org/stable/2056899…

Later on in the 1901 census the categorization expanded to include the other territories in the Malay Peninsular. And again a decade later in 1911.

Sorry, left one out…

But the evolution of our present day categorization of “Race” really starts to take shape in the 1921 census, continuing into the 1931 and 1947 exercises.

The 1931 table is interesting because of the use of “Malaysian” to cover all the Malay and Malay-speaking subgroups.

Still, each ethnic subset is identified quite distinctly.

The last table in the paper shows the categorizations in 1957 through 1980.

Please note that these tables I’ve presented are only for the Peninsular.

Notice, however that the granular distinction for “Malay” has disappeared.

Perhaps the historians among you with more knowledge on this know why that’s the case. My guess is that it coincides with how “Malay” is defined in the Federal Constitution, to become a catchall categorization.

In other words, a “Malay” today is purely a political construct

A Malay person is defined in the Federal Constitution article 160, essentially "professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language, and conforms to Malay custom”.

Continuing with the thread… by reading the definition, I have this question: WHICH “Malay" custom would this be referring to? Because each of the different ethnicities that make up the umbrella “Malay” category is quite distinct culturally.

A cursory look at how our society is categorized will show that the basic structure of the 1980 umbrella categorization is pretty much maintained (see pqi.stats.gov.my/result.php?tok…)

Hirschman, in his paper notes: “The classification of ethnicity in a census may be arbitrary, but it is not accidental. The selection of some categories but not others and the criteria used to differentiate among them tells us something quite important about… (cont.)

“… the nature of ethnic relations in a society. Tracing the evolution of an ethnic classification is an exercise in the sociology of knowledge; it informs us of changes in ethnicity as seen through “official” eyes.”
- Hirschman (1988) jstor.org/stable/2056899…

It is no secret that the British colonialists used the “Divide and Rule” precept in governing Malaya (not sure if this was the case in Borneo - can anyone help enlighten?).

And this continues to be how Malaysia is governed to a certain extent.

I remember in the 1970s there was this big push to rename roads in Malaysia, removing names associated with colonial rule. But in my opinion, frankly, this was just window-dressing, to camouflage the fact the rule-by-division we inherited continues to be how we’re governed.

This year we will be commemorating 63 years of initial independence, and 57 years of Malaysia.

We have come a very long way since then, without a doubt. But where do we go from here?

I end this thread with some questions for you to ponder:

Is it still necessary to govern the nation based on perceived ethnic divisions? And if you think it is, WHY?

Isn’t it time to leave “race”-based politics behind, for a more inclusive Malaysia-centric push? If no, WHY NOT?

@threadreaderapp unroll