Malaysia’s Diversity: Accommodation
Not Assimilation
By William Leong Jee Keen
3rd February 2020.
Managing
Cultural Diversity
Malaysians
are tired of statements made this festive season that: it is wrong for Muslims
to greet their Christian friends “Merry Christmas”; wrong for
Muslims to attend “Ponggal” festivals; wrong for schools to put up
“Tanglung” for Chinese New Year.
This is
not the first time Malaysians are celebrating these festivals. Malaysians, know
what to do. However, political rabble-rousers want to see whether this new
government knows what to do with their agitation.
Unfortunately,
the new government’s ambivalent response has not inspired confidence in its
ability to manage our cultural diversity. If managed well, greater recognition
of cultural diversity will enrich people’s lives. If left unmanaged or managed
poorly, it can become the greatest source of instability, triggering conflict
and taking development backwards.
UMNO’s Failed
Attempts
UMNO
leaders both before and after independence were aware this country cannot attain
full development if it is divided along ethnic, religious and cultural fault
lines.
Onn
Jaafar tried to open UMNO’s doors to other ethnic groups but he was rejected by
the members and the community for his efforts.
In
1991, Tun Mahathir launched “Bangsa Malaysia” under Vision 2020. 2020 is here
but “Bangsa Malaysia” is nowhere in sight.
Onn
Jaafar failed because the foundation for multiculturalism had not been laid
then, without which, he was unable to overcome the emotive appeals of Malay
nationalism. The Malay nationalism’s cry of “saving the Malay race” and
protecting the “Malay homeland” following opposition of the Malayan Union in
1946 overwhelmed him.
UMNO failed
to shift nation-building from Malay nationalism to Malaysian nationalism due to
a lack of political will. Political elites manipulated Malay fears and raised
nationalist feelings for short-term gains. Also, political patronage,
rent-seeking and corruption had set in.
PH Must
Come Out with both Policies and a Narrative
The PH
leadership must come out with concrete policies and a narrative to counter the
multiculturalism opponents’ arguments.
Talk of
focusing on social, economic and political reforms without first addressing
cultural diversity issues is fallacious. Managing cultural diversity is not
about season’s greetings, attending cultural events or decorations. It is about
inclusive policies on issues such as mother tongue education, vernacular
schools, matriculation places, university admissions, scholarships, demolishing
and building places of worship, finding jobs, securing work, accessing healthcare,
and acquiring affordable homes. Another year has come, another cohort of young
talents will face disappointment with their future sacrificed on the altar of
preferential policies through no fault of their own.
It is
about providing public services irrespective of ethnicity and religion for each
person to live a full and flourishing life, resetting political and
institutional mechanisms so ethnic groups live and work together cohesively and
share resources equitably.
Changing
policies without recognition and accommodation of cultural diversity is not
reform. It is recycling old wine in new bottles while entrenching
discriminatory practices.
The PH
Narrative
The
narrative must deal with the arguments against multiculturalism.
First, Assimilation
Is the Best Approach to Deal with Diversity
No. Traditional
approaches to social, economic and political equality have been based on
assimilation. Groups are expected to take on the language of the dominant
culture at the expense of their own and must sometimes deny their religions and
other traditions to succeed. There is nothing wrong with identifying with a
dominant culture but people should not be forced to make a stark choice between
their identities and economic or political progress.
The
Human Development Report 2004 states that cultural liberty is a vital part of
human development because being able to choose one’s identity – who one is-
without losing the respect of others or being excluded from other choices is
important in leading a full life. People want the freedom to practice their
religion openly, to speak their language, to celebrate their ethnic or
religious heritage without fear or ridicule or punishment or diminished
opportunity. People want the freedom to participate in society without having
to slip off their chosen cultural moorings.
Assimilation
without choice is not a viable or necessary model of integration.
Second,
a State Is Restricted to One Homogeneous Ethnic Group
No. The
idea of nation-building in 17th and 18th century Western
Europe was to create a state for a single homogeneous ethnic group sharing a
common ancestry, faith and culture. Prior to World War II, ethno-cultural
nationalism justified racialist ideologies that explicitly propounded the
superiority of some peoples and cultures and their right to rule over others.
These ideologies, widely accepted in the Western world, underpinned domestic
laws such as racially-biased immigration and citizenship laws as well as
foreign policies for the conquest of colonies.[1]
These
ideologies caused more tragedy and misery than benefits. This resulted in suppression
of ethnic minorities, often brutally, through state sponsored religious
persecution and ethnic cleansing. These ideologies also resulted in every day
exclusion and social, economic and political discrimination.
Despite the tragic and horrendous costs of
such extreme strategies, there is almost no country that is homogeneous.
According to the Human Development Report 2004, the world’s nearly 200
countries include some 5,000 ethnic groups, two-thirds have more than one
ethnic or religious group making up at least 10% of the population. 20th
century history has shown that attempts to exterminate cultural groups or to
wish them away have met with stubborn resilience. By contrast, recognizing
cultural identities has resolved never-ending tensions.
The
world recoiled in horror to Hitler’s fanatical and murderous use of such
ideologies, the atrocities and genocides in Rwanda and the Balkans. Multiculturalism
is the solution to resolve ethnic diversity issues. In the past it was assumed
the only way to engage in this process was to impose a single undifferentiated
model of citizenship on all individuals. But the ideas and policies of
multiculturalism that emerged in the 1960s give effect to group-differentiated
rights based on human rights, civil liberties and democratic accountability.
By this
process, the dominant majority group is required to renounce fantasies of
racial superiority, to relinquish claims of exclusive ownership of the state
and to abandon attempts to fashion public institutions solely in its own image.
Deeply rooted traditions, customs and symbols of exclusion and stigmatization
of minorities are identified and removed.
For
both practical and moral reasons, it is far better to accommodate cultural
groups than to try to eliminate them or to pretend they do not exist.
Third, Recognition
of Diversity Affects State Unity
No. Individuals
have multiple identities that are complementary – ethnicity, language and race
as well as citizenship.[2]
Identity is not a zero-sum game. Loyalty to the state is not lessened by
recognition of one’s cultural identity or any other identities. I am not less a
Malaysian because I also identify with: my Chinese ethnicity, people from
Selangor, residents from Selayang, with villagers from the kampongs, with
families in the estates and plantations, with Christians, with followers of
different faiths, with my schoolmates, with my colleagues, with fans of my
football club and with members of the various groups I associated with. We do
not because of one feature, an ethno-racial identity, shut out the many other
individual identities that we share with people outside of race or ethnicity.
We have more identities in common than differences. Kwame Anthony Appiah,
philosopher and cultural theorist said: “Racial identity can be the basis of
resistance to racism but let us not let our racial identities subject us to new
tyrannies.”
Countries
do not have to choose between national unity and cultural diversity. Surveys
show that the two can co-exist. These countries accommodate diverse cultures by
building unity through fostering respect for identities and trust in state
institutions.
Fourth,
Recognition of Diversity Leads to Instability, Ethnic Conflict or Violence
No. There
is little evidence to justify the political elites’ claims that instability or
violent conflict is due to cultural or ethnic differences. This argument
diverts attention from important economic and political factors. While culture
is inherited, it is also socially constructed and chosen. Studies have shown
that the root causes of conflict are rarely the cultures themselves. Recent
research explains that what appears to be ethnic conflicts are actually
struggles for control of valuable resources. They are often simply a resource
grab by elite groups who manipulated ethnic loyalties for their personal ends.
The elites’
argument is a myth when viewed in its historical context. Will Kymlicka, the
Canadian political philosopher best known for his work on multiculturalism said
in one sense, multiculturalism is as old as humanity – different cultures have
found ways of co-existing. Respect for diversity was a familiar feature of many
historic empires such as the Ottoman Empire. Multiculturalism is about
developing new models of democratic citizenship grounded in human rights ideals
to replace earlier uncivil and undemocratic relations of hierarchy and
exclusion.
Fifth, Accommodating
Diversity Will Dilute the Dominant National Culture
No. Multiculturalism
is supportive of and complementary to the idea of a national culture while
respecting other group identities[3]. The
majority culture is already part of the national culture. Multiculturalism is
extending this valued recognition to minorities. The predominance that the
cultural majority enjoys in shaping the national culture, symbols and
institutions should not be exercised in non-accommodating way on the minorities.
Multicultural
nationalism recognizes the legitimacy of the majority culture, it denies the
majority is entitled to prevent the accommodation of minorities simply because
it runs counter to majority culture or majority preferences where it does not
breach any democratic rights.
The
majority and minority should stand in a two-way adaption, in which each may
seek to have aspects of their core cultural identities preserved. Neither has a
unilateral right to impose upon the other in a way that the other identity is
not allowed to co-exist. Tariq Modood, one of the leading authorities on ethnic
minorities in Britain, explains that multicultural nationalism is a form of
integration which fosters “a sense of belonging” where a member of the minority
is accepted by the majority as a full member of society with the right to feel
that “he or she belongs.”
Multicultural
nationalism recognizes the concerns of the majority ethnic group while accommodating
ethnic minorities to provide a viable alternative to monocultural nationalism.
Sixth, Certain
Ethnic Groups are More Likely to Develop Economically Faster than Others
No. There
is no evidence of a causal relationship between culture and economic progress.
Cultural determinism – the idea that a group’s culture explains economic
performance – is not supported by econometric analysis or history.
Similarly,
Professor Syed Hussein Alatas in his book “The Myth of the Lazy Native” said
the idea of the lazy native was a colonial ideology to justify compulsion and
unjust labour practices. Books such as UMNO’s “Revolusi Mental” and Tun
Mahathir’s “Malay Dilemma” were an internalization of this colonial ideology
and an extension of the negative stereotypes. It is unsupported by scientific
evidence and a distortion of the Malay community.
Conclusion
Social
integration will not be achieved by requiring or forcing minority ethnic groups
to assimilate into the dominant majority group. A multicultural society is one
where people of different races, ethnicities and religions live together in the
same community. It is a society that recognizes and values the cultural
differences of its people. Multiculturalism is not only a better way it is the
only way for Malaysians to live a better and flourishing live.
[1] Will Kymlicka, “Multiculturalism:
Success, Failure and the Future” Canada Research Chair in Political Philosophy
Queens University
[2] Kwame Anthony Appiah, “Race,
Culture, Identity: Misunderstood Connections.” The Tanner Lectures on Human Values 1994
[3] Tariq Modood, “A Multicultural
Nationalism?” Brown Journal of World Affairs Spring/Summer 2019 Volume XXV
issue 11
