Who is the Nation?

Many Malaysians remain unaware of our rich history of alternative, progressive voices

by Anil Netto

The Prime Minister’s statement last September that Malaysia is an Islamic state was made purely on the basis of political power, asserted Dominic Puthucheary, a constitutional lawyer who was the first speaker at an Aliran fraternity dinner/talk. “It was not constitutional, not legal,” he asserted.

The talk, “Islamic State or Constitutional Democracy”, was held at the Aliran office on 2 March 2002. After a simple vegetarian dinner, guests packed the ground floor of the office to hear what two invited speakers had to say on an issue that continues to grip the nation’s attention.

Enlightened Movement

Dominic took the audience back to the years leading up to Independence when the Reid Commission, formed in 1955, was set up to prepare a constitution for an independent Malaya. “The mandate given to the Reid Commission did not include this consideration [the Islamic state issue],” he pointed out.

He also recalled that a constitutional court in 1988 had ruled that Malaysia was not an Islamic state. Article 10 of the Federal Constitution provides for ‘freedom of expression’. “But if you want to have an Islamic state, who can discuss it?” he asked.

The question of an Islamic state raises a fundamental question: “Who is the nation?” he asked. The real issue, he suggested, should be “Islamic state or who is the nation?”

Explaining what he meant, Dominic pointed out that Malaysia had a rich history of diverse voices but progressive voices of the past had been silenced. “Historically, the Malay nationalist movement was an enlightened and progressive one.”

The movement in the late 1940s was open, progressive and worked with groups of all ethnic backgrounds. On the other hand, “racialism was an invention of the political power,” asserted Dominic, with the British colonial power playing a big part in their divide-and-rule strategy.

Intellectuals and historians today, he said, have a great responsibility to create awareness of our rich history ­ a history that has seen many progressive and liberal voices snuffed out, forgotten or largely ignored.

Sadly, many intellectuals and historians have instead contributed to the tension within the country. “We must be honest and have the moral courage,” he said. Our responsibility, he added, is to remind ourselves of the true history of the country

A Red Herring?

For academic Maznah Mohamad, the second speaker, the Islamic state issue cannot be addressed simply by looking at the constitution. There is a need to look at social, political and cultural factors as well.

She wondered aloud, “Is the Islamic state issue a red herring?” and then answered her question, “Yes, it is.”

“There is no formal statement or document at least coming from PAS to state what an Islamic state shall constitute,” she said. The only clue we have is from the PAS Selangor website http://passelangor.com under the heading “Isu Negara Islam” (The Islamic State Issue).

She said that PAS has never stated in any of its documents that it wants an Islamic state. Even if it had, worries about a conservative Islamic state are probably unfounded. “I think PAS will never succeed in wresting the national leadership,” she said. “There will be means employed by the-powers-that-be to counter PAS’s ascendancy.”

So far, what we have is “only a declaration [by the Prime Minister] that we are an Islamic state, not that he would work towards such a state,” observed Maznah. Tellingly, she noted, the other component parties in the Barisan Nasional were not at all perturbed, suggesting that they knew what the PM’s declaration was all about.

What is clearly at stake is Mahathir’s political legitimacy. “He is more concerned about himself as a non-western leader able to deliver development on the basis of capitalism,” she observed.

Certain political parties, on the other hand, are more concerned about how to use Islam to reinforce their political legitimacy.

Maznah then presented an overhead transparency comparing the characteristics of a nation state modelled along ‘western’ lines to the tenets of an Islamic state as widely understood. From the transparency, it was clear that there was a considerable gulf between the two concepts.

The most important issue was not about the Islamic state, she said: “We already have Islamic laws; laws governing personal life ­ divorce, marriage, inheritance, child custody.” Of concern now are newer laws that make it an offence to “insult” the religion and greater Islamisation.

Group Identities

Maznah said that Malaysians have to be prepared for a scenario in which various groups try to assert their own group identities. And worryingly, the discourse over an Islamic state is tugging Malaysians in two directions: those supportive of an Islamic state and those against.

In a sense, she said, we are paying for the missteps of the past, when a complacent civil society allowed various laws to extend the scope of Syariah beyond family law. One such law is the Syariah Criminal Offence Enactment (Enakmen Kesalahan Jenayah Syariah), which makes it an offence to “insult” Islam.

When the economy was doing well, some activists even allowed themselves to be swayed by the “Asian values” debate.

How do we deal with the new discourse? Maznah suggested several ways which would require constitutional amendments. First, there should be greater recognition of group rights, including minority cultural rights. Also, the individual autonomy to be free from group compulsion must be recognised. This is one way of ensuring that the shaping of group identity is done in line with popular will. Finally, she called for the repeal of laws that criminalise freedom of expression and free speech.

A Struggle for Democracy

The session was then open to the floor and a lively exhange of views followed. One Muslim woman said that the issue should not be seen along a black-and-white Muslim-non-Muslim lines. “Where do Muslims like me who do not fit the stereotype of a typical Muslim woman fit into this whole discourse?”

Someone suggested that the real struggle is the struggle for greater democracy. There had been a moral failure in the existing system ­ corruption, income inequalities, injustice - and most people had to search within themselves for an alternative model.

Because many Malaysians were not aware of their history, they had few ideas on possible alternatives. Among the Muslims, the only alternative many of them were familiar with was that of an Islamic state. Many Malaysians, for instance, have not heard of the more inclusive views and the struggle of Muslim Malaysians like Burhannudin al-Helmy and Ahmad Boestamam ­ all of whom are part of our rich heritage.

What emerged from this discussion is how little most Malaysians know of their country’s real history ­ a history that is largely ignored in the official versions we come across. Many among those present felt that it is about time that this “alternative history” of our nation is told to a generation that is desperately searching for alternatives.

Now tell us what you think. E-mail us.