Caste System - Blame history for the 'divisions' .... by (Sanatan Dharam Sabha Kuala Lumpur)

Friday February 11, 2011 NEW STRAITS TIMES (NST) - LETTERS Pg 19

Caste System - Blame history for the 'divisions'

I REFER to the article "Who are the 'Paraiyars', really?" by Universiti Sains Malaysia vice-chancellor Professor Tan Sri Dzulkifli Abdul Razak (NST, Feb 6). 

He shed new light on the "Paraiyars", after making references to a book by Abbe Dubois. It was a good attempt to explain the issue but, as a history lover, I found the article slightly misleading.

All those who had argued about this subject, whether Indians or non-Indians, have not explained it clearly enough for the nation to understand this issue of "Paraiyars". Many are not clear about the caste system where the word "pariah" is said to originate.

One would be surprised to know that the caste system does not exist in Hinduism. In Hinduism, there is a system known as the "varnashrama", which divides society into four natural groups -- Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra -- depending on individual characteristics and disposition.

Every human has certain tendencies by natural inclination and choice. These are divided into four divisions known as "varna" (colour). It does not relate to skin colour but to a person's aura or consciousness.

After reading a student's aura and his tendencies, the master would decide which job would suit him most, where it would allow the student to serve society in a harmonious way and not frustrate him.
A student is placed in the varnashrama of either the Brahmana also known as Brahmins (intellectuals, academics, priests), or Kshatriya (rulers, administrators, soldiers) or Vaishya (businessmen, farmers, bankers, those engaged in commerce) or Shudra (ordinary workers, those engaged in physical labour, dancers, singers).

It was never a condition that birth determines a student's division. This was a system of self-discovery and development in assisting a person to find his place in society, where he could contribute to it by doing a job in accordance to his nature.

This system is sanctioned by a book that no one commenting on the issue had referred to, namely the Bhagavad Gita, where Sri Krishna talks to the warrior Arjuna at the battlefield of Kurusethra.
It states: "According to the three modes of material nature and the work ascribed to them, the four divisions of human society were created by Me" (4.13).

"By following his qualities of work, every man can become perfect... By worship of the Lord, who is the source of all beings and who is all pervading, man can, in the performance of his own duty or occupation, attain perfection" (18.45-6).

Clearly, no one is forced into the work he dislikes. Neither is birth a criterion for determining the division he would enter for work purposes. The underlining principle in Hinduism is that work is worship and one is allowed to change the division one is in.

For example, if a soldier has had enough of battles and wants to become a priest, he will leave his Kshatriya division and enter the Brahmin division. It's as simple and flexible as that. This system allowed everyone to work according to his nature and bring happiness to himself and society. It was never meant to divide society according to materialistic divisions. The sole object was to unite people in a cooperative society in the service of God. Every individual in the divisions had equal rights.

From the above verses, there is no mention of "pariah". So what happened then?

As time went on, the varnashrama system was abused by the Brahmins, who made it a condition that those born of a parent who worked in a particular division would remain there. Switching from one division to another was not permitted. In that way, the Brahmins gained control over power and money.

This new condition was against the teachings of Hinduism. Some Brahmins and Kshatriyas opposed these new conditions. However, by this time, India was invaded.

These invaders not only massacred people, but burnt down great libraries that contained most of the information regarding the varnashrama.

A new materialistic caste system was born. When the British arrived in India, they saw the system as an opportunity to divide society further to suit their interest and twisted it with a view of converting the Hindus.

The British then created another theory -- the Aryan theory -- which stated that European nomads came by chariots and conquered India and later composed the Vedas.

Dzulkifli touched on the origin of the word Brahmin, but it was misleading. First, the Brahmins are not followers of Brahma. They, and all other Hindus, pray to the one supreme God known to them as "Brahman". Brahma and Brahman are different entities.

Second, he said the Aryan Brahmins carried out "conversion" and those who refused to convert were "cast out". This is misleading.

Scientifically speaking, there are no Aryan or Paraiyar races. The three primary races are Caucasians, Mongoloid and Negroid.

Both the so-called "Aryan Brahmin" and "Paraiyars" are related branches of the Caucasian race, which is in the same Mediterranean sub-branch. Biologically, they are of the Caucasian race.

"Aryan", or its correct term "arya", was discovered in the Vedas of the Hindus. The term "arya" means noble or spiritual and it never meant a race of people. Those who followed the noble Vedic way of life or arya dharma may be termed as arya. It is a term of respect, something similar to a "datuk".

During the 19th century, many Europeans believed that they belonged to a superior race and their religion was the best. With the racial theory of man in vogue, they thought that the fair-skinned Indians were different from the dark-skinned Indians.

At that period, similarities were discovered in Sanskrit and the European languages. Therefore, they thought that since Sanskrit was related to their languages, it must have come from a white race and not the darker-skinned Indians (compared with the Europeans).

It was a linguistic theory adopted by the British to hold power. They began interpreting the Vedas in the same racial manner. The forces of light against darkness were interpreted as white race against dark race.

Hence, their theory of an Aryan race from Europe that invaded India and gave them the Vedas. Terms were mistranslated to suit the British objective, which was to convert Hindus and to justify their rule.

Many archaeologists and researchers forwarded theories of the location of this Aryan homeland but it kept changing. An exact time period when the so-called Aryans came to India was never established.

This was also because, to the Europeans, the world was created at 9am on Oct 23, 4004 B.C. The great flood of Noah occurred in 2500B.C. So the philologist Max Muller and the rest gave the Aryan invasion date at 1500 B.C. In short, everything was mere speculation which, unfortunately, became part of Indian history.

New archaeological and scientific studies indicate that the Indus civilisation that preceded the Aryans, was Vedic and centred, not on the Indus, but on the banks of the Saraswati river and its language was Sanskrit.

The Rig Veda praises the Saraswati river in its hymns. The river dried up around 1900 B.C., which means Hinduism and those who composed the Rig Veda were there before 1900 B.C. and if the Aryans arrived in India about 1500 B.C., how did they know about this river and build their culture on its banks if the river did not exist any more?

The latest studies also indicate that the Indus sites were wiped out not by war or invasion but by a drought. The skeletons unearthed there showed no signs of injuries caused by war but by starvation or dehydration. This was the drought that wiped out civilisations in Sumeria and Mesopotamia.

Similarly, in Mohenjo-Daro, there was an absence of any signs of war, like extensive burning or weapons or any remains of armour-clad soldiers. Interestingly, evidence of temples and seals of Shiva and Vishnu exist which mean that the Vedic religion had been part of these people and not brought by any Aryan Brahmins.

In short, scholars are rejecting the invasion theory based on this emerging evidence.

Coming back to the "Paraiyars", they were indeed once land owners who lost their land, advisers to the kings, farmers, musicians, singers and members of the manual workforce who were suppressed by the British in the light of their divide-and-rule policy.

They were exploited by the British and later, "Paraiyars" was mispronounced as "paria" just like Singapura became Singapore, Pulau Pinang became Penang, Mumbai became Bombay and orang utan became rang a teng.

The term "pariah" signifies colonial oppression of farmers, musicians, singers and the manual workforce.

ARIFF SHAH R.K.

Penang

for and on behalf of
The Management Committee of
Shree Lakshmi Narayan Mandir
(Sanatan Dharam Sabha Kuala Lumpur)
68 & 69 Jalan Kasipillay, off Jalan Ipoh
51200 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: 603-40412993, Fax: 603-40455857
Mobile: 012-3979776
Email: mandir@sdskl.com
FaceBook: http://www.facebook.com/sdskl

CPI Commentary: The Islamisation of Malaysia (Pt II)... by Michael D. Barr & Anantha Raman Govindasamy

The Islamisation of Malaysia: religious nationalism in the service of ethnonationalism 2

Commentary

Written by Michael D. Barr & Anantha Raman Govindasamy

Friday, 31 December 2010 00:00

Islamisation of education Let us start our study of the education system, not in education proper, but at an educational display in Malaysia’s Museum of National History as described by Virginia Hooker (2003: 4-6) in the opening pages of her A Short History of Malaysia. The most significant feature of this display for our study is that it represented the history of Malaysia as beginning with the coming of Islam. The peninsula’s pre-Islamic history was not denied, but it was effectively discarded. For instance, the Srivijaya Empire, which ruled both the peninsula and what is now East Malaysia from the seventh to the twelfth centuries, was only admitted to have left behind historical remains that show its ‘influence’ (Hooker 2003: 5). This ‘influence’ was put into sharp relief by a nearby map with flashing lights showing the spread of Islam throughout South-East Asia, and a replica of what Hooker describes as ‘the famous Terengganu Stone’ (Hooker 2008: 5). This archaeological artefact is a stone pillar dating from the early fourteenth century, which uses Jawi script (Malay written in Arabic script) to say that Islam was at that time already the local religion of the peninsula. Hooker (2003: 5) tells us that ‘the Terengganu Stone is the earliest record of the presence of Islam on the Peninsula and is cited [in the museum display] as evidence that Malaysia has one of the oldest links with Islam in Southeast Asia.’ Hooker was making the point that the display was presenting a skewed, Islamised version of Malaysian history that overplayed the place of Islam in the peninsula’s history, but as distorted as the Museum’s display might have been, it was much less Islamised than what has been taught to secondary school students in their history lessons since 2003. In that year, a new history syllabus and a new series of history textbooks were introduced in all secondary schools across Malaysia. The only significant point of difference between the old and the new versions was in the Form 4 syllabus and textbook.15 Form 4 is the year when schools teach the history of civilisations under the title ‘World Civilisations’, but since 2003 this has not so much been a course in ‘World Civilisations’ as a course in ‘Islamic Civilisation’. The old textbook, which was used until 2002, was titled Sejarah Peradaban Dunia: Tingkatan 4 (World Civilisation History: Form 4) (Ministry of Education Malaysia 1999), and was a broad civilisational history of the world. It contained six chapters titled (in English translation): ‘Early Human Civilisation’, ‘Islam Changed Human Civilisation’, ‘The Transition of the European Society and Its Impact’, ‘Revolution and New Phase of Human History’, ‘Western Imperialism and Local Reactions’, and ‘Moving towards International Cooperation’.16 In this textbook, Islamic history was presented conceptually as having a central place in world history as the religion that ‘changed civilisation’ by contributing to an improvement in world civilisation, but this conceptual centrality was not allowed to overwhelm the syllabus: it was studied in only one chapter out of six, with other chapters studying, for instance, Indian, Chinese and European civilisations. The syllabus also discussed in detail the pre-Islamic period in South-East Asia, with much emphasis on Hindu-Buddhist influence in the Malay world. In the revised version, however, Islamic history was given an unprecedented prominence, occupying fully half of the book. This textbook, titled prosaically Sejarah Tingkatan 4 Buku Teks (Form 4 History Textbook) (Ministry of Education Malaysia 2002a), consists of ten chapters, five of which focus on Islamic history: ‘Islamic Civilisation and Its Contribution in Mecca’, ‘Islamic State in Medina’, ‘The Formation of Islamic Government and Its Contribution’, ‘Islam in South-East Asia’, and ‘Islamic Reform and Its Influence in Malaysia before the Arrival of the Colonial Powers’. The other five chapters survey the early development of civilisation per se: Indian and Chinese influence in South- East Asia (in Chapters 1-3), ‘Developments in Europe’ (Chapter 9) and ‘The British Policy and Its Impact on the National Economy’ (Chapter 10). The chapter on the British in Malaysia sits incongruously in a book on civilisational history, but its presence, along with Chapter 8 (‘Islamic Reform and Its Influence in Malaysia before the Arrival of the Colonial Powers’) serves to articulate the rest of the book very firmly into the history of Malaysia. As Milner noted in his brief analysis of this textbook: Although highlighting ‘Islamic Civilisation’, the book is in fact written from the stand point of Malay civilization and Malaysia. . . . Although the potential of a rigorously Islamist perspective . . . is acknowledged, the book manoeuvres back in its final chapter to the task of foregrounding Malays and Malaysia [and] the final sentence of the book asserts the continuing importance of the Malay people and the Malay language (Milner 2005: 153). Indeed, the final two chapters of the book provide a direct link between the civilisational history studied in Form 4 and the Form 5 syllabus, which is a more traditional celebration of Malay nationalism, with barely a mention of Chinese or Indians (Ministry of Education Malaysia 2002b). The tight pathway from religious nationalism in Form 4 history to ethnic nationalism in Form 5 should come as no surprise. It provides evidence to support the argument being made in this article that Islamic identity is being kept subservient to Malay identity in official discourses and is being used by the governing Malay elites to bolster the conventional Malay-centric nationformation mythology, especially since history textbooks have always reflected official state-driven agendas of nation-building, emphasising the primary importance of an almost egalitarian multiculturalism during Tunku Abdul Rahman’s rule before 1969 (Milner 2005: 132-3), a more Malay-centric multiculturalism after 1971 when Tun Abdul Razak was prime minister, and promoting the strong Malay-centric national identity of 1987 while Anwar Ibrahim was Minister for Education (Abdul Rahman Haji Ismail and Badriyah Haji Salleh 2003: 184-6). The output of this overtly Islamic textbook was therefore shocking to minority political leaders (Lim 2003) and prompted debates in Parliament because it was recognised that it was not the result of a whim on the part of the authors, but part of a systemic program. The direction of the content of this textbook was, in fact, determined at the time the authors were appointed. Fully half of the co-authors (two out of four) are Islamic scholars: Mohammad Bukhari bin Ahmad and Rosnanaini binti Sulaiman, who trained in Islamic civilisation and Islamic education, respectively. Mohammad Bukhari bin Ahmad obtained his PhD from the University of California and also studied at Ferdowsi University (Mashhad), Tehran University in Iran and Bosphorus University in Turkey. His scholarly writing includes Qasidahs in Honor of the Prophet (1983) and The Ocean of Unity (1993). Rosnanaini binti Sulaiman is a specialist in Islamic history and education, and has been teaching Islamic history for two decades. Currently, she is affiliated to the Maktab Perguruan Perempuan Malayu (Malay Women’s Teachers’ Training College) in Melaka.17 With half the authors Islamic scholars, no one should be surprised if half the textbook is on Islamic civilisation. The decision to appoint this panel of authors must have been taken at a high level in the Ministry of Education, suggesting that even though we are talking about only one year of the history syllabus, this was part of a broader program of Islamisation. If confirmation of the presence of this broader program is needed, it could be found in a 2008 statement by Datuk Alimuddin Mohd Dom, the Director General of Education for Malaysia, when he foreshadowed the systematic promotion of Islam Hadhari in the school curriculum (New Straits Times Online 2008), a program that is, in fact, an effort to create an image of a ‘big Malaysia’ that spiritually, if not actually, traces its roots back to the Prophet Muhammad in seventh-century Mecca. If we look at the Sejarah Tingkatan 4 Buku Teks (Form 4 History Textbook), it is, in fact, an exemplary manifestation of Islam Hadhari. Tour of a textbook Yet, despite the imposition of this religious nationalist construction on Malaysia’s history syllabus, it is still ostensibly directed towards enhancing Malaysian unity, just as the old syllabus had been (Ministry of Education Malaysia 2000: 3, 2002c: 3). The 2005 National Education Policy has even elevated the teaching of history per se to the status of a ‘core subject at secondary school’, with the specific intention of using it in the promotion of ‘National Unity’ (Ministry of Education Malaysia 2005c: 40). The approach of the 2003 Form 4 textbook makes it clear that this ‘unity’ is to be built around the centrepiece of Islam. Even before opening the book, the front cover confronts us with a picture of the same Terengganu Stone that featured in Hooker’s account of the Museum of National History’s display, set against a background that is dominated by pictures of Islamic architecture. Once this civilisational history book is open, we find that the opening three chapters present a superficial overview of ancient civilisations, with accounts of the Mesopotamian, Roman, Greek, Mauryan, Gupta and Chinese empires interspersed amongst each other, and rarely an entire page devoted exclusively to a single subject (Ministry of Education Malaysia 2002a: 1-64). Islamic civilisation is absent from these chapters, probably because it cannot be easily construed as being ancient, but Islam itself is nevertheless treated in the final three pages of Chapter 2, which offer a cursory survey of world religions. These few pages are very significant in our study, consisting of less than a page each for Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Confucianism and Taoism (Ministry of Education Malaysia 2002a: 65-8). The importance of this feature is that it is the last mention of Confucianism and Taoism in the book, and consideration of Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity is thereafter restricted to contextual references in Chapter 3 (on ‘Ancient South-East Asian Civilisations’) and Chapter 9 (on ‘Developments in Europe’) (Ministry of Education Malaysia 2002a: 71-97, 214-42). Turn to Chapter 4, however, and the reader faces an entire chapter just on the development of Islam in Mecca-before it even took the 200-mile journey to Medina (Ministry of Education Malaysia 2002a: 98-116). It is obvious that this marks the beginning of a radically different approach, but the full significance becomes apparent only when we read the instructions to teachers conveyed in the Ministry of Education syllabus about the teaching of this chapter. The purpose of this chapter, teachers are told, is to understand the development of the ummah and the importance of leadership for its well-being (Ministry of Education Malaysia 2002c: 31). The word ummah is an exclusively Muslim term, referring to the ‘community of believers’ and its unqualified use in the context of Chapter 4 already carries the clear message that the Muslim perspective is being privileged in this history. The message is reinforced by the stated purpose of the following chapter, which is to convey the message that ‘Muslim solidarity strengthens national prosperity’ (Ministry of Education Malaysia 2002c: 35). This is an explicit claim by the Malaysian ummah to the centre stage of Malaysian society: claiming that prosperity for the rest of the country must be built around the solidarity of the Muslim centre. Yet, after two chapters, this coverage of Islamic civilisation still has not progressed beyond the lifetime of the Prophet or the borders of the Middle East. Students still have ahead of them two more chapters in which they follow Islam to Europe and Asia, and, in Chapter 8, they finally get to read of Islam being established in Malaysia (Ministry of Education Malaysia 2002a: ch. 6-8). This chapter is the grand denouement of the arc of chapters on Islam: the faith has arrived in Malaysia and is accepted by the Malays, beginning in Melaka and working through the peninsula. The word ummah is never used in this chapter, but the anachronistic term masyarakyat Melayu (‘Malay community’) is used to great effect.18 After four chapters of prelude, there is no need to make explicit the assumptions of the centrality of Islam in the national history. It is nevertheless made explicit in the syllabus, which speaks at one point of the religious education system as ‘our national heritage’, and instructs teachers to impart an appreciation of the current national education system on the basis of this heritage (Ministry of Education Malaysia 2002c: 49). History is a compulsory subject, and all children passing through the education system are examined in it externally when they sit for the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (Malaysian Examination Certificate) at the end of Form 5. The imposition of an Islamic metanarrative at this point can be neither accidental nor incidental. It must be regarded as a deliberate attempt to impose a new form of identity on both the Muslim and non-Muslim children. This conclusion becomes even more pointed if we look beyond the teaching of history, and consider that the Islamisation process has permeated the entire schooling experience for those students who attend national schools. At this level, there is no need to look very far to find an official statement of intent, since as recently as 2007 then Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak declared explicitly ‘the government’s aspiration to empower Islamic education in the country’ (New Straits Times 2007b). To this end, the government is not only providing compulsory Islamic religious education for Muslims, but is also in the process of introducing the Arabic language in primary and secondary schools as a compulsory subject for Muslims and as an option for non-Muslims (Ministry of Education Malaysia 2005c: 16-7). These programs, along with training in Jawi script, Quranic recitation and Fardhu Ain (‘Islam’s obligatory duties’), are being taught making full use of information and communication technologies through a new RM150 million program that was intended to build 1666 special teaching laboratories in national primary schools across the country (Ministry of Education Malaysia 2005c: 17; New Straits Times 2007b). With a program like this in train, it is no wonder that the Form 4 history syllabus asks teachers to present the traditional system of Islamic schools as part of the national heritage: by the time the upgrade is finished, the national school system will have become a twenty-first-century version of the old eighteenth-century madrasah, except, of course, for the increasingly awkward presence of non-Muslim children. These are very contemporary initiatives, but they have not appeared in isolation. Since the early 1980s, national schools have become increasingly Islamic in their ambiance and ethos, under the explicit direction of successive prime ministers and ministers of education. Islamic education is now compulsory for all Muslim children in national schools with five or more Muslim pupils (down from the previous threshold of 15) (Government of Malaysia 1985: 48; Ministry of Education Malaysia 2005c: 16-7), and courts have confirmed that no consideration will be given for personal or parental wishes regarding the element of compulsion (New Straits Times 2007a). The general ambiance is now so thoroughly Islamic that even some Malay parents are keeping their children out of the national schools because so many of them are, in the words of one such parent, ‘more like Islamic religious schools’ (New Straits Times 2007c). According to this parent, some schools hold Muslim prayers during assemblies, while others refuse to organise school concerts for fear it might be un-Islamic to make music. At the moment, non-Muslims are exempt from compulsory attendance at Islamic and Islam-related classes-and, indeed, non-Muslim children cannot attend an Islamic class without the written permission of their parents-but there are grounds to be concerned that this could change. It is suggestive that in a 2003 seminar on ‘Education and Religion’, the President of the Malaysian Muslim Lawyers Association felt confident putting the view that Muslims and non- Muslims should be taught ‘the same moral values’ and that Islamic classes be opened to non-Muslims as an option, ‘just as you would choose another language as a subject because you would like to learn about it’ (Zaitoon 2005: 112-3). The significance of this episode is not that this was a particularly strong indication of forthcoming change-seven years later the suggested reform has not been introduced-but simply that this leading Muslim professional felt that this was an appropriate suggestion to put on the table and it was published in a book coedited by someone (Abdul Razak Baginda) who was closely identified with then Deputy Prime Minister (and now Prime Minister) Najib. Even more worrying is the fact that this suggestion is very much in the spirit of a series of specific initiatives taken by former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohammad over the The Islamisation of Malaysia 1980s and 1990s designed to ‘Islamise’ education. In 1982, Dr Mahathir tried to introduce a new tertiary subject on Islamic civilisation and make it compulsory for all university students in Malaysian universities. He repeated the exercise in 1997, once again trying to make it compulsory for all students. Both moves faced political backlashes from non-Muslims and both were watered down-the 1982 course was quickly made optional for non-Muslims (Mauzy and Milne 1983-4: 640-1) and the 1997 course was superficially broadened to include a notional coverage of Indian and Chinese civilisations (Milne and Mauzy 1999: 89-90)-but the direction and spirit of the moves is clear. It is, in fact, the direction and spirit of the whole religious nationalist project in Malaysia-placing Islam and the Muslim community at the centre and making it very clear to the minorities that their place in society is in a position of subordination. This is not the full story of Islamisation, nor does it give an adequate account of some of the more aggressive or oppressive aspects. Somemention has been made in passing of custody battles, and the destruction of non-Muslim places of worship, but this does not convey the full flavour: systematic and violent destruction of Hindu temples (Farish 2008); the current import and publishing ban on the Christian Bible and any Christian use of the word ‘Allah’ as Malay for God (AFP 2009a, b; New Straits Times 2009); and the episodes of bodysnatching as Syariah courts posthumously declare recently deceased people to have secretly converted to Islam and then insist on burial with Muslim rites (Associated Press 2006). These episodes and many others like them represent the sharp thorns of Islamisation, but they are not central to the program. Barr had the chance to ask a fairly senior member of the Malaysian elite about these incidents in early 2008 and found him apologetic, explaining these actions as the result of a disconnection between Malaysia’s modern elite and its more backward grassroots: either autonomous actions by overenthusiastic local authorities or highlevel political responses to grass-roots expectations. Although his response was highly political in itself, there is probably a lot of truth in it. After all, these actions are not sensible or prudent, and it is difficult to see much point in most of them. If we take this explanation at close to face value, we should relegate the more extreme of these actions to the periphery of our analysis, even though they will be at the front of the minds of victims and potential victims.  The significance of our study of developments in the education system is precisely that these measures cannot be dismissed as peripheral. They were planned years in advance and administered from the highest levels of government. Furthermore, they are undoubtedly one set of drivers that are feeding the grass-roots reactions that were bemoaned by Barr’s confidant.   Conclusion What our study of the education reforms reveals is not an assimilation program designed to assimilate people into Islam, let alone into ‘Malayness’, but a systematic attempt to assimilate non-Malays and non-Muslims into Malaysian society on terms dictated by the hegemonic core national grouping: Malay- Muslims. The religious nationalism of Malay-centric Islam feeds directly and explicitly into traditional Malay nationalism, reinforcing the self-confidence and sense of entitlement of the Malay-Muslim community, and exaggerating the message to non-Malays (and especially to the Chinese and Indians) that they are not core participants in the Malaysian nation. Neither part of the ummah nor the Malay masyarakat, they are subordinate, vulnerable and marginalised in their own country, yet expected to contribute to the Malaysian national project from the margins. Part I of this paper appeared yesterday. It was first published in the Australian Journal of International Affairs, Vol.64, No.3 of June 2010. ************************* Notes: 15. The history textbooks for Forms 1 to 3 are designed to provide a basic overview of Malaysian history. They have a significant bias towards Malay nationalism but are free of any Islamist bias (see Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2004, 2005a, b). 16. All translations are by Anantha Raman Govindasamy. 17. The information about the authors is derived directly from the back cover of the Sejarah Tingkatan 4 Buku Teks (Form 4 History Textbook). 18. The use of the term masyarakat (‘community’) in this context is anachronistic because there was no conception of a Malay community until the twentieth century. See extensive discussions on this matter by several contributors to Barnard (2004). _____________________________________________ References: Abdul Rahman Haji Ismail and Badriyah Haji Salleh, 2003. ‘History through the eyes of Malays: changing perspectives of Malaysia’s past’, in Abu Talib Ahmad and Tan Liok Ee (eds), New terrains in Southeast Asian history (Athens: Ohio University Press), pp. 168-98. AFP (Agence France-Presse), 2009a. ‘Catholic paper defies Malaysian government ban on ‘‘Allah’’ ’, 20 January. AFP (Agence France-Presse), 2009b. ‘Malaysia to reinstate ‘‘Allah’’ ban for Catholic paper: report’, 1 March. Amrita Malhi, 2003. ‘The PAS-BN conflict in the 1990s: Islamism and modernity’, in Virginia Hooker and Norani Othman (eds), Malaysia: Islam, society and politics (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies), pp. 236-65. Andaya, Leonard Y., 2004. ‘The search for the ‘‘origins’’ of Melayu’, in Timothy P. Barnard (ed.), Contesting Malayness: Malay identity across boundaries (Singapore: Singapore University Press), pp. 56-75. Associated Press, 2006. ‘Malaysia’s racial harmony shaken by dispute over Everest hero’s faith’, 1 January. Barnard, Timothy P. (ed.), 2004. Contesting Malayness: Malay identity across boundaries (Singapore: Singapore University Press). Barnard, Timothy and Jan van der Putten, 2008. ‘Malay cosmopolitan activism in post-war Singapore’, in Michael D. Barr and Carl A. Trocki (eds), Paths not taken: political pluralism in post-war Singapore (Singapore: National University of Singapore Press), pp. 132-53. Barr, Michael D., 2002. Cultural politics and Asian values: the tepid war (London: Routledge). Barr, Michael D. and Zlatko Skrbis?, 2008. Constructing Singapore: elitism, ethnicity and the nation-building project (Copenhagen: Nordic Institute of Asian Studies). BBC News, 2005. ‘Malaysia to curb ‘‘moral policing’’ ’, 26 March, world/asia-pacific/4383911.stm>. Bernama Daily Malaysian News, 2004. ‘Shamala-Ridzwan’s custody case raises constitutional issues’, 23 June. Camroux, David, 1996. State response to Islamic resurgence in Malaysia: accommodation, co-option, and confrontation’, Asian Survey, 36(9): 852-68. Chandra, Muzaffar, 1987. Islamic resurgence in Malaysia (Petaling Jaya: Penerbit Faja, 1987). Cheah Boon Kheng, 2002. Malaysia: the making of a nation (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies). Cheah Boon Kheng, 2005. ‘Ethnicity in the making of Malaysia’, in Wang Gungwu (ed.), Nationbuilding: five Southeast Asian histories (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies), pp. 91-115. Chong, Terence, 2006. ‘The emerging politics of Islam Hadhari’, in Saw Swee-Hock and K. Kesavapany (eds), Malaysia: recent trends and challenges (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies). Daniel, Lynn (ed.), 2006. The Far East and Australasia 2007 (London: Routledge), Thirty-eighth edition. Department of Islamic Development Malaysia, 2005. Islam Hadhari: an explanation (Putrajaya: Department of Islamic Development Malaysia). DeVotta, Neil, 2007. Sinhalese Buddhist nationalist ideology: implications for politics and conflict resolution in Sri Lanka (Washington, DC: East-West Center). Farish A. Noor, 2003. ‘The localization of Islamist discourse in the Tafsir of Tuan Guru Nik Aziz Nik Mat, Murshid’ul Am of PAS’, in Virginia Hooker and Norani Othman (eds), Malaysia: Islam, society and politics (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies), pp. 195-235. Farish A. Noor, 2008.The Hindu Rights Action Force (HINDRAF) of Malaysia: communitarianism across borders?, Working Paper No. 163 (Singapore: S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies). Frith, Tabitha, 2000. ‘Ethno-religious identity and urban Malays in Malaysia’, Asian Ethnicity, 1(2): 117-29. Government of Malaysia, 1985. Report of the Cabinet Committee to review the implementation of educational policy (Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Education). Hamayotsu, Kikue, 2003. ‘Politics of Syariah reform: the making of the state religio-legal apparatus’, in Virginia Hooker and Norani Othman (eds), Malaysia: Islam, society and politics (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies), 55-79. Harper, T. N., 2001. The end of empire and the making of Malay (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Hng Hung Yong, 1998. CEO Malaysia: strategy in nation-building (Subang Jaya: Pelanduk). Hooker, Virginia Matheson, 2003. A short history of Malaysia: linking East and West (Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin). Hooker, Virginia Matheson, 2004. ‘Reconfiguring Malay and Islam in contemporary Malaysia’, in Timothy P. Barnard (ed.), Contesting Malayness: Malay identity across boundaries (Singapore: Singapore University Press), pp. 149-67. Kahn, Joel S., 2006. Other Malays: nationalism and cosmopolitanism in the modern Malay world (Singapore and Copenhagen: National University of Singapore Press and Nordic Institute of Asian Studies in association with the Australian Studies Association of Australia). King, Ross, 2008. Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya: negotiating urban space in Malaysia (Singapore and Copenhagen: National University of Singapore Press and Nordic Institute of Asian Studies in association with the Australian Studies Association of Australia). Lee, Raymond, 1988. Patterns of religious tension in Malaysia’, Asian Survey, 28(4): 400-18. Lim Kit Siang, 2003. ‘Defend secular Malaysia’, Speech at the 46th National Day Celebration, Tanjong Parliamentary Constituency, 31 August, lks2563.htm> (accessed 21 January 2008). Lukman Thaib, 2005. Islamic political representation in Malaysia (Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press). Mahathir Mohamad, 2000. Islam and the Muslim ummah: selected speeches of Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Prime Minister of Malaysia, Hashim Makaruddin (ed.) (Subang Jaya: Pelanduk). Malaysiakini, 2006a. ‘Ministers want protection for religious minorities’, 20 January, . Malaysiakini, 2006b. ‘Ministers back down, memo withdrawn’, 21 January, com/news/46065>. Malaysian Federal Constitution, 2006. (Putrajaya: Government Press). Martinez, Patricia A., 2001. ‘The Islamic state or the state of Islam in Malaysia’, Contemporary Southeast Asia, 23(3): 474-503. Mauzy, Diane K. and R. S. Milne, 1983-4. ‘The Mahathir administration in Malaysia: discipline through Islam’, Pacific Affairs, 56(4): 617-48. Means, Gordon P., 1969. The role of Islam in the political development of Malaysia’, Comparative Politics, 1(2): 264-84. Milne, R. S. and Diane K. Mauzy, 1999. Malaysian politics under Mahathir (London: Routledge). Milner, Anthony, 1982. Kerajaan: Malay political culture on the eve of colonial rule (Tucson: University of Arizona Press for the Association for Asian Studies). Milner, Anthony, 2002. The invention of politics in colonial Malaya (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Milner, Anthony, 2005. ‘Historians writing nations: Malaysian contests’, in Wang Gungwu (ed.), Nation-building: five Southeast Asian histories (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies), pp. 117-61. Milner, Anthony, 2008. The Malays (Chichester: Wiley). Ministry of Education Malaysia, 1999. Sejarah Peradaban Dunia: Tingkatan 4 [World civilisation history: Form 4] (Kuala Lumpur: Institute of Language and Literature). Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2000. Sukatan Pelajaran Sejarah, Kurikulum Bersepadu Sekolah Menengah [History syllabus itemisation, integrated secondary school curriculum] (Putrajaya: Malaysia Centre for Curriculum Development, Ministry of Education Malaysia). Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2002a. Sejarah Tingkatan 4 Buku Teks [Form 4 history textbook] (Kuala Lumpur: Institute of Language and Literature). Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2002b. Sejarah Tingkatan 5 Buku Teks [Form 5 history textbook] (Kuala Lumpur: Institute of Language and Literature). Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2002c. Huraian Sukatan Pelajaran Tingkatan 4, Kurikulum Bersepadu Sekolah Menengah [Form 4 history syllabus itemisation, integrated secondary school curriculum] (Putrajaya: Malaysia Centre for Curriculum Development, Ministry of Education Malaysia). Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2004. Sejarah Tingkatan 1 Buku Teks [Form 1 history textbook] (Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Institute of Language and Literature). Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2005a. Sejarah Tingkatan 2 Buku Teks [Form 2 history textbook] (Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Institute of Language and Literature) Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2005b. Sejarah Tingkatan 3 Buku Teks [Form 3 history textbook] (Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Institute of Language and Literature). Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2005c. The national education policy: pre-school to postsecondary level (Putrajaya: Ministry of Education Malaysia). Mohamed Aslam Haneef, 2005. ‘The development and impact of Islamic economic institutions: the Malaysian experience’, in K.S. Nathan and Mohammad Hashim Kamali (eds), Islam in Southeast Asia: political, social and strategic challenges for the 21st century (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies), pp. 82-99. Mutalib, Hussin, 1993. Islam in Malaysia: from revivalism to Islamic state? (Singapore: Singapore University Press). Mutalib, Hussin, 2007. ‘Religious diversity and pluralism in Southeast Asian Islam: the experience of Malaysia and Singapore’, in K.S. Nathan (ed.), Religious pluralism in democratic societies: challenges and prospects for Southeast Asia, Europe, and the United States in the new millennium (Singapore and Kuala Lumpur: Konrad Adenauer Foundation and Malaysian Association for American Studies), pp. 35-60. Nagata, Judith, 1980. ‘Religious, ideological and social change: the Islamic revival in Malaysia’, Pacific Affairs, 53(3): 405-39. New Straits Times, 2003. ‘Custody turmoil’, 15 September. New Straits Times, 2007a. ‘Muslim pupils must take ‘‘core subject’’ ’, 30 March. New Straits Times, 2007b. ‘Institute for research in Islamic education’, 26 September. New Straits Times, 2007c. ‘Why parents don’t opt for national schools’, 19 October. New Straits Times, 2009. ‘Syed Hamid warns the ‘‘Herald’’ ’, 22 January. New Straits Times Online, 2008. ‘Guidebook on Islam Hadhari for school’, 18 February, www.nst.com.my>. Noordin Sopiee, Mohamed, 1974. From Malayan union to Singapore separation: political unification in the Malaysia region, 1945-65 (Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press). Pardesi, Manjeet S. and Jennifer L. Oetken, 2008. ‘Secularism, democracy, and Hindu nationalism in India’, Asian Security, 4(1): 23-40. Rahim, Lily Zubaidah, 2009. Singapore in the Malay world: building and breaching regional bridges (London: Routledge). Riddell, Peter G., 2005. ‘Islamization, civil society and religious minorities in Malaysia’, in K.S. Nathan and Mohammad Hashim Kamali (eds), Islam in Southeast Asia (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies), pp. 162-90. Roff, William R., 1994. The origins of Malay nationalism (Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press), Second edition. Shad Saleem Faruqi, n.d. [No title], in Abdul Razak Baginda and Peter Schier (eds), Is Malaysia an Islamic state? Secularism and theocracy: a study of the Malaysian constitution (Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Strategic Research Centre and Konrad Adenauer Foundation, seminar proceedings 2002), pp. 13-75. Shamsul, A.B., 2004. ‘A history of an identity, and identity of a history: the idea and practice of ‘‘Malayness’’ in Malaysia reconsidered’, in Timothy P. Barnard (ed.), Contesting Malayness: Malay identity across boundaries (Singapore: Singapore University Press), pp. 135-48. Straits Times, 1951a. ‘Malays let down: Onn’, 26 August. Straits Times, 1951b. ‘Onn dominates meeting. But silence was profound’, 27 August. Straits Times, 1961. ‘Tengku hits at a British built barrier in Borheo’, 24 July. Straits Times, 2006. ‘Couple in court over son’s conversion to Islam’, 22 September. Straits Times, 2009. ‘Conversion case puts gov’ts promise to test’, 27 April. Willford, Andrew C., 2007. Cage of freedom: Tamil identity and the ethnic fetish in Malaysia (Singapore: National University of Singapore Press). Zaitoon Othman, 2005. ‘Zaitoon Othman’, in Abdul Razak Baginda and Peter Schier (eds), Education in multicultural societies: perspectives on education in Malaysia (London: ASEAN Academic Press).

TMI: History syllabus and textbooks.... by Dr Lim Teck Ghee

History syllabus and textbooks – Dr Lim Teck Ghee

TMI: January 01, 2011

JAN 1 – The Ministry of Education has finally replied to concerns raised by many Malaysians that the teaching of Malaysian history has been debased through changes in the syllabus and textbooks.

However the letter by the Corporate Communications Unit of the Ministry totally ignores the allegations and makes no attempt to address the specific and general concerns articulated in the media and the internet.

Instead, the reply is a public relations job detailing non-Malay participation in the writing of text books and referrals made in recommending text book writers. This is insufficient to allay concerns or refute the allegations made of the political bias, crass nationalism and blatant Islamization that have come to dominate the history syllabus and text books.

Now that various names have been made available to the public, the onus is on these individuals identified in the Ministry letter to step out of the shadows and to vouch for the high standards and integrity of the syllabus and textbooks process put in place by the Ministry.

One of these select experts – Dr Ranjit Singh Malhi – has already spoken out.  What do the others – presumably paid for their services by public funds – have to say in response to the charges of a racialized, politicized and religiously propagandistic process that has infiltrated and subverted the history text book and syllabus system?

The history syllabus is presently undergoing revision.  This is the right time for those named in the Ministry’s letter, as well as others that have been participating in these expert panels and textbook work, to come clean and provide some feedback to the public on what is wrong with the current system and what should be done to ensure that the Malaysian history taught in schools has a truly balanced perspective of the contributions of all ethnic communities and civilizations.

Besides Dr Ranjit Singh Malhi, those mentioned in the Ministry’s roll of honour owe the hundreds of thousands of students who will be required to spend many hours memorizing and regurgitating what the Ministry decrees to be the true history of Malaysia and the world no less than their full and honest disclosure and appraisal of the system, its products and probable outcomes – a system that the Ministry is imputing has not only their full participation but also their endorsement.

There are larger issues as well that we need to debate vigorously in the public sphere. Will the teaching
of history, especially in its current form, foster patriotism and national unity? Or will it result in greater racial and religious polarization?

There have been no studies as well as empirical evidence showing that the enhanced teaching of history will bring about the wildly optimistic ends that the Minister of Education has publicly pronounced.

Should history be made a compulsory pass subject?  And does this imply that more hours in the schools and greater attention should be given to the teaching of history?

How useful is the emphasis on history, Malay studies and Islamic studies to the student population in schools and in the universities?

The outcome of the emphasis on cultural and religious learning and knowledge (including history) in our national schools and universities has been disastrous, especially for Malay students. It has resulted in poorly trained low quality human capital unable to meet the needs of a competitive global market and lacking the flexibility, open-mindedness and adaptive knowledge to contribute to economic development and national productivity.

Does the Government not see that this misguided move to strengthen the teaching of a racially and religiously bigoted history may in fact reinforce the culture of alienation and poverty that is at the root of many of our social and economic problems?

Instead of emphasizing the importance of history and other narrowly cultural-religious subjects in the schooling system (religious learning has a place but it should be in the private sphere of the home, and not in the public sector) the Government should prioritize the teaching of science, mathematics, computing, communications, English and other related subjects that are internationally acknowledged as the main drivers of innovation and intellectual capital.

If the Minister of Education is hell bent on making his mark in history the wrong way – and at the expense of our precious young minds – it is incumbent on his Cabinet colleagues to put him right.  But perhaps they do not give a damn since their children and grand-children are studying in private schools and abroad.

* Dr Lim Teck Ghee is the director of the Centre for Policy Initiatives.

CPI: History syllabus furthering political interests... by Lim Teck Ghee

History syllabus furthering political interests

by Lim Teck Ghee
malaysiakini, Dec 16, 2010, 3:32pm

A few days ago, two senior academicians involved in the writing of history textbooks emerged from the shadows, saying that the history textbooks in the country are biased and littered with errors.

According to one of them, Dr Ranjit Singh Malhi, "secondary (school) textbooks have been used to promote political interests".

The other concerned author, Ng How Kuen, expressed the fear that making history a compulsory pass subject in Sijil Perlajaran Malaysia (SPM) would mean that students would have to subscribe to the official version of events or risk failing the entire examination.

It is said that history is written by the victors, but it is also true that we get the history we deserve. The disclosure that the teaching of history in schools has been skewed and has a political agenda - besides suffering from distortions and errors - is not the first time this issue has been brought to public attention.Earlier attempts to highlight the issue of what constitutes the true history of Malaysia and what is being passed off as officially-sanctioned history in the schooling and larger public system, such as the BTN courses, may have begun with a bang - but they have all ended with a whimper.

Forcefeeding the 'four diseases'

If we go by previous experience we can expect the following responses:

• Bureaucratic foot-dragging and feigned ignorance on the issue;

• Justification and cover-up of the existing history textbook and syllabus system and attempts to prevent any public discussion and reform;

• Use of the mask of impartiality and superior knowledge to deflect criticism;

• Attacks on the credibility of whistleblowers; and

• Deafening silence from key stakeholders, including the academic community, political parties and professional organisations.

Why is the great majority of our Malaysian public not concerned about the version of history that is being propagated in the schools?

Why do the people close their eyes and their minds to the distorted history that is being taught to their children and grandchildren?

Do they not realise the consequences of the victory of a history that is radically different from the history that they themselves learnt when they were in school not so long ago? Was the history that they studied so wrong that it needs to be substantially changed in emphasis, content and scope?

Why are they silent on the development of a propagandistic and truncated history that is increasingly infiltrated by the forces of Islamisation and crass nationalism, and where the four major diseases that afflict BN - delusion, amnesia, inertia and arrogance - are prominently evident and force-fed to the young minds of the country?

The answers are complex, but they essentially boil down to apathy and lack of concern, especially among the educated and elite groups of our society on these important issues that are crucial to our future as a rational and thinking society.

Underscoring this 'tidak apa' attitude is the dominant factor of self-interest and self-preservation.

Those involved with writing history text books and who are in the know about the deplorable and compromised standards of their peer group want to protect their lucrative side-employment.

Others, such as academicians or teachers of the subject in the schools, do not dare to speak out for fear of being labelled as 'anti-national', or as in the case of those in the public universities, for fear of running foul of the Universities and Universities Colleges Act, which will be selectively enforced on them should they write or speak publicly on issues that are out of line with the official position.

Academics BN sycophants

It is no coincidence that academicians and opinion writers who are regularly trotted out in the mainstream media are those who seek to justify or reinforce the current status quo. These sycophants have not only academic or intellectual immunity but they also enjoy perks akin to those enjoyed by the business cronies of the BN.

If there is any reaction from the academic community to the two whistleblowers, we can expect their comments to come from those who will toe and reinforce the official position and circumvent from the main issue of the Islamisation and politicisation of the Malaysian history school syllabus.

Dissenters, on the other hand, have to face the possibility of lost or delayed promotions and other forms of punishment not easily discernible to the public eye.

"Shut up, mind your own business" and cari makan (even though this may be through rent-seeking, queue-jumping, plagiarism and other unethical practices) have been the credo of the great majority of the professional elite in Malaysia. It is a culture that has served them well personally, but at what cost to the nation?

Malaysian history must be based on facts and the scrupulous depiction of historical reality. The writing of textbooks should not be left to those who regard it as a business or their political agenda and are prepared to bend the truth so that it meets with the vision of an Islamic and Umno-dominant Malaysia.

Unless we are prepared to fight for a scholarly, reliable and representative history, we will end up with a future - as well as a past - that reflects the dominant ethnic and religious culture and community, and marginalises or erases the contributions of other cultures and communities.

Dr Lim Teck Ghee is director of the Centre for Policy Initiatives.

malaysiakini: Entrenching Malaysian History with 'Ketuanan Melayu' dogma?

Ibrahim Ali and Muhyiddin, partners in history?

AB Sulaiman
Dec 11, 2010, 2:04pm

COMMENT So, Ibrahim Ali is back after a medical sojourn ('Ketuanan Melayu in the words of Ibrahim Ali' Dec 2) . For his first public statement he sounded like an old record played and replayed over and over again: he has to harp at the special rights of the Malays. I suppose some things or some people don't change for the better, but to regress for the worse.

He mentioned this 'special rights' case in his speech with the title 'Man must have history, for without history man is nothing.' The connotation is that he wished for ketuanan Melayu to be embraced by all as a matter of course, and its credibility to be understood by its critics within the context of history.

Let me support my contention; let's examine the facts.

For one, Ibrahim Ali said that ketuanan Melayu was a slogan coined to unite the Malays during the struggle for independence.

Secondly, he further said, "The justification of ketuanan Melayu becomes a 'right' when it (is) further stipulated and enshrined in our constitution. Ketuanan Melayu was not just plucked out from the heavenly sky but had (been) demonstrated in the historical evolution of our nation.”

I quite disagree on both counts.

I happened to be a young student during the immediate pre- and post-independent period. From experience I know that the favourite slogan used by the emerging political leaders like Tunku Abdul Rahman was just 'Merdeka!' repeatedly.

Lesser leaders would exclaim “hidup Melayu” and “untuk bangsa, agama dan negara” and when independence was achieved, it was 'untuk pembangunan negara' (for national economic development). For the life of me I do not recall 'ketuanan Melayu' being bandied about.

So 'ketuanan Melayu' had not yet been coined during the independence era.

Special position not right

As for the principles behind the phrase 'special position' I remember our founding fathers (e.g. Tunku Abdul Rahman again) taking note of the economic situation of the Malays. Apparently the Malays were economically backward with their participation in the economic wealth creating activity at about a meagre one or two percent. They obviously needed a boost if they were to play any meaningful part in the country's subsequent economic developments.

The founding fathers then established government-based development agencies like Mara, Felda, Fama, and many others principally to help Malays be more involved in mainly in agriculture, fishing, and education.

This was what the 'special position' of the Malays originally was intended to mean. It has been addressed by our founders and yes, enshrined in the constitution. To this extent I'd say Ibrahim's second point has validity.

But this is within the context of the phrase special 'position', not 'right'. To me 'position' relates to privilege, but 'right' relates to entitlement. They are totally different so to make one similar to the other would amount to misrepresentation and dishonesty.

What then is the difference between them? 'Privilege' in this context refers to the feeling of empathy and concern over the emotional plight of the Malays at that time. So a special emphatic treatment was thought out by the founding fathers again by providing assistance and support to the Malay community.

The important point to note though, is that the treatment is entirely voluntary, emphatic and humanitarian in nature.

Position, privilege vs rights, entitlement

Now I have to go back to history to see where or how the term 'special position' has developed into a 'right' and an 'entitlement'.

Since the creation of the institutions catering for the special Malay position (and thus privileges) Malay economic advancement was not spectacular in the ensuing years after independence. By 1969 there was this unfortunate May 13 incident that many had thought has been partly economic in nature, between the Malay have nots versus the non-Malay (mainly Chinese) haves.

Tun Abdul Razak saw this Malay plight as a collective loss of face, a big no-no to Malay pride.

So thinking that desperate time required desperate measures, he devised and introduced a radical public policy boosting the government's effort to assist Malays rise up the modern economic ladder. Thus giving birth to the New Economic Policy with a specific target and timeframe: thirty percent of Malay involvement in the economy within twenty years, i.e. by 1990.

But unlike the voluntary 'special position', this new ruling has the element of entitlement, of 'right'; it's a virtual decree saying that the Malays have the right to get thirty percent of the economic cake; that the country owes them this right; that the country must deliver this to them; all within twenty years. This has not been enshrined in the constitution at all.

In any case Tun Razak was having the perception that Malay economic backwardness was caused by lack of opportunity and could be solved by economic policies and within a period of time.

Mental prerequisite for progress missing

On looking back he was right, but had missed or overlooked another equally potent factor, namely the psychology of the Malays, used to the traditional rural agrarian life, and not privy or motivated to the challenges of an emerging new economy.

Could they rise to the challenge of mastering, controlling and managing the economy from one (or two) to thirty percent within twenty years only with copious government help but without any psychological preparedness?

The mental preparedness comes in many forms, like having technical knowledge, awareness of change, preparedness to accept change, and capital availability.

It also involves the willingness to dump old habits, work extra hard, have a lot of perseverance, and develop a presence of mind to make sacrifices today in the interest of a better tomorrow.

History has shown that they could not.

Most unfortunately Tun Razak (right) passed away hardly a fifth into the NEP implementation period. His successors Tun Hussein Onn and later Dr Mahathir Mohamad virtually institutionalised the NEP not only by way of continuing to propagate it by ignoring the coercive thirty percent 'quota' and twenty-year limit.

When 1990 came by the Malays were still no way near the target (at least based on official figures). Again, Malay prestige (or 'mertabat') was at stake. Again, desperate time required desperate measures. Very subtly the Malay-led government ignored the twenty-year period and continued with the NEP, albeit in different nomenclature.

Most unfortunately the Malays ignored or refused to acknowledge the mental prerequisite mentioned above. On the contrary the Malay 'special position' had been hijacked to become a full blown 'right'. The lesson offered by history was lost.

Regretfully all successors to the NEP (e.g the National Development Plan, Malaysian Mission, Vision 2020) were still addressing Malay economic backwardness, but ignoring any possible psychological hang-ups on their part.

People like Ibrahim Ali should be aware of this subtle omission although he might choose to ignore or be blind to it. In the event he is being intellectually dishonest and deceitful.

And skip this “man has history and without history man is nothing” crap. To me this is one badly thought-of script masquerading as God-sent wisdom. Perhaps Ibrahim Ali should have cleared it first with his favourite ulama (like Harussani Zakaria for example). The ulama might find it distasteful for he would rather hear Ibrahim saying something like “man has religion (i.e. Islam) and without religion man is nothing”.

Indoctrinating ketuanan in schools

Meanwhile Muhyiddin Yasin the Minister of Education announced at the last Umno general assembly the proposal to make History a 'must pass' subject in schools. Could there be a link between Ibrahim's Malay rights and Muhyiddin's compulsory history exams?

Could it be that they are conniving to plug the possible loophole on ketuanan Melayu I have suggested above, and justify its credibility by projecting Ibrahim's perception into the history books for our younger generations to internalise?

Again to me this is intellectual dishonesty and deception, but nonetheless a real possibility.

But public opinion quickly reacted negatively to it. Public concern surrounding this proposal seem to centre on two points: one, what kind of history, and two, who writes it.

One, which history. Will it be the history of the ancients (e.g. the Srivijaya and Majapahit eras followed by the Malacca Sultanate)? Or will it be that of the modern world (e.g. from period of the British colonial rule to independence); or of current history (e.g. from 1957 to the present day)? The possibilities are endless.

My bet though is that the government is conniving to record for posterity ketuanan Melayu as perceived or understood by people like Ibrahim Ali.

Then comes the writers of the history. History is written by the victors, which should be different from that written by the vanquished. In this case it may well be history written by government-sponsored historians or writers.

From the nation's current experience history written by government writers would hyperbolically project Islamic and Malay experiences and accomplishments.

Current history text-books would give ample evidence to this observation. They are full of insular ethno-theological superlatives, namely that the world is beholden to Islamic and Arabic civilisation, that Malay is a lucky race for being Muslim.

Ingraining mediocrity

My regret is that there will be no mention of the strings of inglorious things that have happened since the Umno-led coalition governed the country since independence. I'd mention below some of them that would find little chance of mention in the Ibrahim-Muhyiddin history syllabus:

First of course is the country's string of failed economic plans; of its regression when compared to others like Singapore, Korea, China, Hong Kong.

Second is the breaking down of infrastructure especially education and judiciary; the breaking down of democracy.

In the meantime the racial schism will widen, the broken public institutions will continue to decline, local investors will run away, foreign investors will not come.

Human resource planners will find it difficult to increase the productivity of (Malay) workers.

In a nutshell history as taught by the government does not enhance student maturity, nor does it boost any intellectual growth. It is a perfect vehicle for students to go round and round in the loop of mediocrity.

Ibrahim Ali's re-emergence bandying ketuanan Melayu and possible linkage with Muhyiddin Yassin (above) particularly on the question of Malaysian history is good news only to racists and theologians.

And to politicians depending on racism and theology to ensure their political survival. That's so very sad for the country.

AB SULAIMAN is an observer of human traits and foibles, especially within the context of religion and culture. As a liberal, he marvels at the way orthodoxy fights to maintain its credibility in a devilishly fast-changing world. He hopes to provide some understanding to the issues at hand and wherever possible, suggest some solutions. He holds a Bachelor in Social Sciences (Leicester, UK) and a Diploma in Public Administration, Universiti Malaya.

LKS blog: Transformation starts with transition... By Thomas Lee

Transformation starts with transition

By Thomas Lee

In one of my recent postings on Facebook, I stated that my choice for Prime Minister is Nurul Izzah, the intellectual and independent-minded eldest daughter of Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim.

My good old friend Chong Phow Yew asked why I opted for the unbranded maverick young lady, and not veteran DAP leader Lim Kit Siang or his popular luminous son Guan Eng.
True, either Kit Siang or Guan Eng will make a first-class PM, perhaps even better than Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore.

But the political reality in Malaysia is such that as long as the race factor is the major consideration in Malaysia, the pragmatism is that the time is not ripe yet for the acceptance of a non-Malay PM, even if the person is a Chinese Muslim. It took the US more than 200 years to finally accept and elect a Black American as its president. Even so, President Barrack Obama’s religious faith is a matter of controvery until now.

A period of transition is needed, during which liberal moderate and intelligent Malays like Nurul Izzah, Zaid Ibrahim, Khalid Ibrahim, Nizar Jammuludin, Khalid Samad, Harris Ibrahim, Raja Putra Kamarudin and many others, who have no racial inferiority complex, no intellectual insecurity, and no social inadequacy, could initiate a mental revolution among the new generation of Malaysians to have a broadened perspective in life and thoughts.

Hence, I strongly support the sending of our students overseas for further studies, hoping that the exposure, experience and education would help in broadening their worldview and transforming them to be more rational, inclusive and judicious in their life and thought, with a real discreet sense of values and wisdom.

Unfortunately, this is not happening, as most of them who are supposed to be “educated” nowadays seem to lack the intelligence and intellectual capacity, the sagacious discernment, good judgment, and astute ability to accurately assess situations or people. Some are downright dishonest to what they personally know and understand, and sell their souls and principles for the sake of money, positions and power. Take the case of one who calls himself an “intellectual” who wrote a doctorate thesis on the evil of the Internal Security Act (ISA), but who rebuts his own research findings by endorsing and supporting the oppressive law when offered a top government post.

Basically, what is woefully wrong in our nation is the fundamental lack of a clear and comprehensible education philosophy based on truth, honesty, scholarly orientation, and an objective worldview. What we are having now is a baffling perplexing education system premised upon racial and political expediency, with nary a concern for the real mental and intellectual development of the young minds. Even a very ingenuous matter like the learning of languages such as English or mother tongues has been turned into a controversial polemic dispute with an ugly racial overtone.

The recent proposal by the federal government to make History a must-pass subject in the SPM has, not surprisingly, elicited reactions and responses from various quarters, mostly concerned about the reinterpretation and reenactment of the local history based on racial factors.

History per se is a very subjective subject, involving the interpretation of events, facts and figures. The narration of historical events is generally coloured by the personal perception, bias, and skewed orientation of the interpreter. The fact that an event took place could not be disputed, but how and why it happened are subjected to interpretation by the historian. The May 13 incident, for example, did happen, but there are many versions of how and why it happened, depending on who is doing the interpretation and reporting of the incident.

Hence, the study of History in our schools is a highly contentious and querulous matter, especially with regards to the official textbooks which are perceived by many people to be tainted with twisted inferences to promote certain racial agenda or political objective.

What we need now is to work for a real transformation of our nation into a truly demoncratic liberal society with thriving and flourishing fundamental common universal values such as the acceptance and respect for each other, without the discriminative coloured considerations of racial, religious, cultural, linguistic, gender, and economic class status. The basic human, civil, and constitutional rights of all citizens must be preserved, protected and promoted.

The destiny of our nation and the fate of our children are in our own hands, and what we, as citizens of Malaysia, must do is to stand up and be counted, by doing our individual part in the promotion, persuasion, and performance of tranforming our nation into a place where everyone of us is proud to call home. Don’t allow the march to Putrajaya to turn from a virtual dream into a dreadful nightmare!