The hansard of July 1 records Datuk Tajuddin Abdul Rahman (BN-Pasir Salak) as saying that “before Merdeka, besides Malays, all others were migrants,
immigrants. We accepted them with a good heart.

The hansard of July 1 records Datuk Tajuddin Abdul Rahman (BN-Pasir Salak) as saying that “before Merdeka, besides Malays, all others were migrants, immigrants. We accepted them with a good heart. The Malays accepted them well, and gave them citizenship.” he did not use the loaded term “pendatang”, but at the core of his speech lay the same jus soli argument, which serves today principally to differentiate one Malaysian from another. Furthermore, during a verbal assault on M. Kulasegaran (DAP-Ipoh Barat) in Parliament again last Thursday, he expressed a willingness “to give up my life” ostensibly in defence of Malay rights, and accused Kulasegaran of being “anti- Malaysian” and “a hindraf supporter”. he also recently attacked M. Manogaran (DAP-Teluk Intan) as “undeserving of Malaysian citizenship” when the latter raised the matter of declining educational standards in public universities during the debate on the Mid-Term Review of the Ninth Malaysia Plan. Many can – and do – consider such remarks to be hurtful, inflammatory, perhaps even racist, but really, they are neither new nor particularly noteworthy in a country that is obliged to deal with communal difference as a fact of everyday life. T h e m a j o r i t y o f Malaysians appear to pay little enough attention to such matters; and, arguably, Tajuddin receives more publicity when he is under attack by liberals, as compared with anything else. Many are thus tempted to dismiss his arguments as mere “politicisation”, but really this misses something quite dangerous: In order to politicise something, arguments must first resonate at an emotionally fundamental level where “identity” and “difference” are very much in conflict. The larger of these conflicts include race, religion, and language – categories familiar enough to Malaysians who have struggled to maintain distinct ethnic, religious, and cultural identities within a larger nation-state. We have only to consider how stubbornly we mount the defence of, say, Chinese and Tamil vernacular schools, to appreciate the depths to which these divisions reach in our society. In Malaysia, as elsewhere, statements of identity are equally statements of difference: “We are Aryans”, to use an old argument, not only implies – but demonstrates – that we are not Jewish, gypsy, communist, Catholic, homosexual or any other deviation from “good and proper”. The problem today, however, is not so much that these insane distinctions exist and thrive, but that they lead to the radicalisation of individual beliefs, and thence to violent conflict, much faster than they did at any time previously in history. The world is lurching as a whole to the right: The ease and speed of global communications, coupled with the negative impact of globalisation and the erosion of economic independence, isolates people as much as it brings them together. In Malaysia, new technology has made available open, unregulated fora that subvert the more repressive laws of association and expression that we say we cling to against the tides of “chaos and disorder”. These fora encourage discussion – and admittedly rational debate is rather rare – not only about the current state of political despair, but also about the official version of history we find in our textbooks. Tajuddin, in his speech on July 1, attacked attempts at reassessing Malaya’s struggle against the British, saying that students could be fooled by such notions. “These are lies,” he told the house. “They wish to fool the younger generation by saying that Umno leaders were not among those who fought for independence. Instead, they say it was the Communist Party of Malaya and those on the Left.” however right he might be, his argument is really the same as before: The clearly identifiable ‘us’ of Umno, versus the nebulous ‘them’ of the CPM and the leftist Malay intellectuals. however attractive this mode of thought might be to those with the emotional range of a teacup, it does nothing more than divide political society in two for no good reason. The more secure argument: that independence was a goal that transcended not only race, but also political ideology and intellectual purpose, is conveniently ignored because it has no political use. It doesn’t put the fire of patriotism (or whatever) in the bellies of believers. It doesn’t instill in young hearts the sense of belonging for which they yearn. It doesn’t point to the hero we seem so desperately to need. Likewise the idea that – after 51 years of independence – non-Malays need to be reminded of their immigrant origins is one that will ultimately defeat the unifying intent of this nation’s founders.
• U-En Ng graduated in mediaeval languages and is a journalist. He is parliamentary sketchwriter for Malay Mail.

Source: Malay Mail – July 21, 2008