THIS article is in reply to one written by Murray Hunter a couple of days ago, titled “Malaysia: permanent ethnic Malay polity”.
He mentions, among other things, that “what is very Malay about the grab for power currently under way in Parliament is that the change of government was not a result of a defeat at the polls or on the floor of Parliament, but rather, a decision made by the traditional Malay patriarch, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong – the current king, Al-Sultan Abdullah Sultan Ahmad”.
Firstly, he heavily criticises the power grab and blames the Agong for appointing Muhyiddin Yassin as prime minister.
Malaysia is a progressive democracy, and the Agong was acting within the powers accorded to him by the federal constitution to appoint a PM after Dr Mahathir Mohamad himself resigned in February. In the last parliamentary session held in May, the Agong reiterated that he had persuaded Dr Mahathir not to resign, but the latter did anyway.
Other than that, the king has never interfered with the democratic system in Malaysia. Despite all adverse allegations, democracy has thrived, and this was clearly depicted when Barisan Nasional was ousted from Putrajaya in the 2018 general election.
Secondly, he mentions that everything in Malaysia has been “Malayised”, and that the country is moving from being a multicultural one towards monoculturalism. This statement is utterly misleading.
Although Malaysia is a majority-Muslim nation, it has always respected the cultures and traditions of other races and religions.
The constitution stipulates clearly that Islam is the religion of the federation. Nevertheless, other religions can be practised in peace and harmony. Compared to Western countries, the Chinese and Indians in Malaysia are free to practise their cultures and converse in their mother tongue, and even have their own vernacular schools funded by the government – something that is not available in many First World nations.
Thirdly, the author portrays all Malays as being weak, incompetent and power-crazy. This is all untrue and racist. The author also accuses Malays of altering the history of the nation in favour of the community. It is to be noted that Malays are the natives of the land, and this is clearly indicated in the fact that there are nine Malay rulers taking turns to be appointed as the Agong every five years.
The institution of the Malay rulers originated from the Malay kingdoms or sultanates that have existed across the Malay peninsula and Malay archipelago for centuries. These kingdoms were sovereign not only because their rulers had relationships with other sovereign powers, but treaties were also concluded between them, indicating their sovereignty over Malay lands.
For instance, the late Queen Victoria of the British Empire recognised Sultan Abu Bakar of Johor as a sovereign ruler, and consented that the Treaty of Friendship be concluded between the empire and Johor in 1885. Moreover, the International Court of Justice in 2008, through its judgment on Pedra Branca, recognised Johor as a sovereign nation.
Thus, it is impossible for Malaysia to have a Chinese or Indian Agong, since the Malay rulers are hereditary in nature. This is also the reason why Malays and other natives in Malaysia enjoy the status of Bumiputera, or “son of the soil”.
There are a number of Chinese, Pakistani, Indian and other immigrants in Australia, New Zealand and the UK. They have lived in these nations for generations, and have been accorded citizenship. If the same standard is to be applied, could the position of the Queen of England (who is also the Queen of Australia and New Zealand), as the head of state, be relinquished from the British royal family to these former immigrants?
He also notes that the Malay political scenario in Malaysia is very “Malay”. However, the political scenario in the UK, Australia and New Zealand has always been dominated by the whites. In addition, there has never been a non-white PM in any of these nations.
Although Malays form the bulk of the population of Malaysia, non-Malays have never been ignored, excluded or left behind. There is no need for careful observation to realise that there are a lot of successful businessmen, politicians, athletes, ministers and millionaires from non-Malay communities.
Penang, for instance, is a Chinese-majority state. As a result, it has never had a chief minister appointed from the Malay or Indian community, but this has never been an issue since independence. If there was a so-called “apartheid regime” or “permanent Malay polity” in Malaysia, non-Malays would not enjoy a sizeable share of the nation’s wealth or be appointed to political positions.
After more than six decades of independence, Malaysia has flourished into one of the most successful nations in Asia, given its stability and economic growth. The Global Peace Index has ranked Malaysia as one of the most peaceful nations on Earth. Malaysia has also been successful under the leadership of the current PM, Muhyiddin, in combating the Covid-19 pandemic.
The country is now in the recovery phase of the movement-control order. This shows that the Malay leadership, supported by other compatriots, is working well in driving Malaysia to prosperity and stability. Other than the 1969 riots, there have not been racial flare-ups here like the ones happening in the US at the moment.
Although the thrones of the Malay rulers are hereditary and remain exclusively within the Malay royal families, Malaysia has always been able to provide for all of its citizens. All lives matter in Malaysia.
Therefore, a question to ponder is, is it wrong for Malaysia to be a permanent ethnic Malay polity?
By Associate Prof Dr Mohd Hazmi Mohd Rusli and Dr Fareed Mohd Hassan – THE MALAYSIAN INSIGHT
The Stringer 