Agama, Bangsa atau Negara?

It's been a while since my last posting. In that time, I've managed to steer clear of "touchy" issues in my NST columns and avoided having too many being turned down.

But sometimes, especially as a writer, issues come up which are impossible to ignore. Writing about it is cathartic and therapeutic. The recent Kit Siang and Muhyiddin spat about "Malay" or "Malaysian" is one of those issues that I felt I just needed to wade into.

Unfortunately, NST is not taking up the piece, mainly because of a lack of space. I'm pretty sure that is the real reason and not just the "official" reason, simply because the editor in charge is a straight talking person. Yes, there are still people like that in the newspaper.

Anyway, that means this blog is scraped out of the top shelf, the dust is blown off its covers and it is pages are once again opened to provide an avenue for the thoughts I couldn't share via the NST.

To those 1 or 2 people who do watch this space, enjoy.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Setia will probably always be one of the most memorable patriotic jingles to have ever come out of RTM's production line of anthems.

It's unforgettable mainly for Francisca Peter's gorgeous voice, the rousing melody and its soaring ending. The one that went, “Untuk agama, bangsa dan negara”.

Much as I loved that song, that one line was always a source of some discomfort to me. The question that often floundered in the murky recesses of my mind was: Is that the order in which we place our allegiances? Does country come last?

It's a question that has hit the collective public conscious following the lovers' tiff between DAP's Lim Kit Siang and Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin.

The question Kit Siang put to Muhyiddin was as simple as it was clever. Are you Malay first or Malaysian first?




It was a Catch-22 situation for Muhyiddin. Choose the latter and risk alienating your Malay supporters. Choose the former, which he did, and be bashed by the naysayers, which is what is happening now.

But, how does one prioritise any of these loyalties over the other anyway?

The idealists and nationalists would say that fealty to nation should be placed above all. That we should look at everything in the greater context of being a Malaysian. That there will not be peace, unity and stability unless we look at ourselves as Malaysians and not Malaysian Portugese, Malaysian Ibans or Malaysian Orang Asal.

Try telling that to those with a religious bent. To them, it is God and religion above all else. And when you consider that adherence to religion directly affects you in the afterlife, is it any wonder that the faithful choose to place religion above all else?

And then we come to race. On the surface, this seems like the flimsiest of ports to which to anchor our loyalties to. But, like it or not, race is often one of the most crucial components in a person's – especially a Malaysian's – sense of identity. There's a chicken and egg situation in this. Has Malaysia become so hypersensitive to “race” due to the largely race-based nature of its politics and policies? Or have those politics and policies arisen mainly due to the diversity of Malaysia’s races? As with all chicken and egg scenarios, there is neither an answer nor an end to that argument.

The fact is, it is the people of our own social group that, for good or bad, often make up our support systems; reinforce our beliefs and generally influence our lives in a great many ways.

These social groups can range from people of similar interests and hobbies, to members of sporting clubs, those of similar sexual orientation or people of similar occupations. But at the most basic level, it still often comes down to race. Our race is our culture and our diverse cultures makes up the gorgeous tapestry that is Malaysia. It is not something to be sneered at, looked down on or belittled.

So, it comes back to Kit Siang's conundrum. Which is supreme? Agama, bangsa atau negara?

Could the answer be none of them, and all of them?

After all, why do they have to be mutually exclusive? Why does any one have to be superior or inferior to the other? Why can't they all be of equal importance?

At the root of it, I am a Malaysian by nationality, Indian by race and Catholic in religion. Being Indian doesn't mean having to pledge allegiance to the flag of India. Being Catholic doesn't mean being any less Malaysian. Being Malaysian doesn't mean the dilution of my Indian heritage.

And why can't one fight for the people of his race without being any less of a Malaysian. As long as that fight is not to the detriment of people of other races, where's the problem? Would Kit Siang's question have been put to, say, an Orang Asal activist? “What are you? Orang Asal first or Malaysian first?”

It's striking that when a Malaysian meets a fellow Malaysian outside the country, the question is never “Are you Malay, Indian or Chinese?” It's “Are you Malaysian.” And the joy in an affirmative answer is always genuine and unforced. It's odd, and a little sad, that the moment we step back onto our shores we immediately have to break it down to petty sub-categories.

Let's look at Setia again through the lenses of this particular controversy. Maybe we've been placing the emphasis on the wrong words of that closing line. Maybe it's not the “agama”, “bangsa” or “negara” that's important. Maybe, just maybe, the operative word in that line is the humble “dan”.

Race, religion AND country. All at once, all equal, all important.

I can live with that.