Multiculturalism: There’s something wrong
Malaysiakini
Sep 21, 2006
Marzuki Mohamad

There seems to be nothing wrong with multiculturalism, an ideology which advocates mutual co-existence of distinct cultural, ethnic or religious communities in a plural society.

In his article ‘Multiculturalism - how can it be wrong?’(the Star, Aug 25), Ng Kam Wong, research director at Kairos Research Centre, stressed the significance of ‘multiculturalism as the best modus vivendi for developing a national identity that expresses unity in diversity and equality for all peoples regardless of their culture and religion.’

This is at least what the proponents of multiculturalism - both as a political ideology and state policy - want to impress upon the constituents of a plural society: that distinct cultural and religious communities should be allowed to co-exist; that their existence should be on equal status basis; that national identity should include and encompass cultures of different communities; and that the minority (usually immigrant) communities should not be assimilated into indigenous community in the name of national integration. Hence, the stress is on unity in diversity and equality for all.

But rendering multiculturalism as unproblematic is itself troubling. Often times, the need to preserve group’s cultural and religious particularistic has to contend with national aspiration for a common national identity, which is considered as a condition precedent to national unity. At the same time, multiculturalists also need to grapple with indigenous communities’ skepticism that multiculturalism is nothing more than allowing alien cultures to subvert indigenous culture.

It is on this ground that, despite its lofty modern-liberal ideological appeal, multiculturalism has been debunked even by the governments of some liberal European countries. In the 1990s, faced with the influx of immigrants, both from the western and non-western world, the Netherlands reversed its multicultural policy into a monocultural one, apparently in the name of Dutch nationalism.

Islam and multiculturalism

Interestingly, Islam has been at the heart of this policy change. Political opposition to the Netherlands’ multicultural policy, among other things, was developed along perceived fear that a steady influx of Muslim immigrants into the country would eventually lead to ‘Islamisation of the Netherlands’. In Germany, immigration policy was tightened up in order to filter out Islamic values which are considered unacceptable to German culture.

Antagonists of multiculturalism have also been using democratic language to justify their position. In relation to Islam in particular, the opponents see Islam as incompatible with democracy and western culture. As such, they contend that Islamic culture should not be allowed to flourish in Western societies. Unfortunately, tribal rather than religious practices such as honour killing and female circumcision have been cited to exaggerate the incompatibility between Islamic and Western cultures, and to reject multiculturalism on this score.

In Malaysia, multiculturalism has been at the heart of the evolution of its deeply plural society. Demographically, due to the immigration of Indian and Chinese communities in large numbers into Malaya during the colonial days, Malayan society before independence was already multi-ethnic and multi-religious. By the 1940s, the Chinese and Indian communities constituted about 42 percent of the population in Malaya. By June 2005, official figures from the Malaysian Department of Statistics showed that of the total 24.3 million Malaysian citizens, 53.9 percent are Malay bumiputeras, 11.5 percent non-Malay bumiputeras, 25.1 percent Chinese, 7.4 percent Indians and 2.1 percent other ethnic communities (the Star, June 16, 2005).

With this kind of demography, in which each ethnic community forms sizable portion of the population, multiculturalism is a natural social condition. It is thus incumbent upon the government to devise policies that allow different cultures to coexist and grow, and at the same time promote national unity.

Informal consensus

Though there has been no concrete official policy on multiculturalism, there seems to be informal consensus among communal leaders at independence in 1957 that people of different ethnic and religious communities should be allowed to co-exist, practice and promote their own cultures; and that the culture of the indigenous Malays, especially their language, should be given privileged position. This informal consensus was then translated into the Federal Constitution and various government policies.

Based on the informal consensus, Article 152 of the Federal Constitution provides that the national language shall be the Malay language, but no person shall be prohibited or prevented from using, teaching or learning any other language. As a national language, the Malay language shall be used for all official purposes.

Malay language is also the sole medium of instruction in national schools, but other languages can be used in vernacular schools. A bend toward monolingualism in the 1970s, apparently for the purpose of promoting national unity after the outbreak of divisive racial riots in May 13, 1969, witnessed the exercise of ministerial power under section 21(2) of the Education Act 1961 to convert all vernacular schools into national schools. Strong protests especially from Chinese education movements, however, spared the Chinese and Tamil national-type primary schools from such conversion.

The much criticised National Cultural Policy introduced in 1971, while giving prominence to the indigenous culture, seemed to be accommodative to the cultures of distinct ethnic communities as well. The National Cultural Congress which formulated the policy recognised the centrality of the Malay culture and Islam as defining elements of the national culture, but also accepted as part of the national culture the elements of Chinese, Indian, Arab, western and other cultures, as long as they are consistent with the Federal Constitution, the Rukunegara, national interests, universal moral values and spiritual values of Islam as the state religion. In this sense, the National Cultural Policy was not a full-fledge monocultural policy aimed at assimilating ethnic minorities into the indigenous majority.

Be that as it may, in the 1970s through 1980s, cultural performances of non-Malay/Bumiputra communities were vigorously subjected to the requirements of the National Cultural Policy, prompting protests especially from Chinese and Indian communities. There were incidences where Chinese lion dance performances were banned for contravening government’s policy on national culture. Attempts by Chinese educationists to establish a Chinese medium university was also foiled on the ground that it contravened the National Language Act which requires the use of Malay language for official purposes.

Greater appreciation

But a shift toward greater appreciation of multicultural diversity occurred in the 1990s onwards. The booming tourism industry paved the way for Malay as well as non-Malay cultural performances to emerge as valuable cultural products essential to promoting Malaysia as a culturally unique tourist destination. Ever since, multicultural performances have become common sights during cultural events and national celebrations, and thus being an official symbol of unity in diversity in Malaysia.

An important development also took place in education. The new Education Act 1996 abolished the power of the minister to convert vernacular schools into national schools as was previously provided under section 21(2) of the old 1961 Act. This means, there will be no forced conversion of Chinese and Tamil national-type schools into national schools in the future, paving the way for permanent footing of mother-tongue education for the two major ethnic communities in Malaysia. The new Private Higher Education Act 1996 also allows the use of non-Malay language as medium of instruction in private institutions of higher learning.

In the realm of electoral politics, the 1999 general election was perhaps an important marker of an emerging new multicultural politics in Malaysia. On both sides of the political coalitions, member political parties were pretty much multi-ethnic, the most significant of which was the cooperation between two culturally and ideologically extremely distinct political parties in the opposition Barisan Alternatif coalition, namely the Malay-based Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS) and the predominantly Chinese secular social democratic, Democratic Action Party (DAP).

All this and other developments have led contributors to an edited volume, The Politics of Multiculturalism: Pluralism and Citizenship in Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia (Hefner 2001) to suggest that there has been an emerging inclusive multicultural politics in Malaysia which augurs well for the growth of a vibrant civil society. But this does not suggest that all is well with multiculturalism. As is the case with other plural societies, Malaysia’s experience with multiculturalism is not unique. The lurch towards promoting national unity through inclusive integration of various cultures often times collided with each and every cultural group’s desire to preserve its own cultural distinctiveness.

More often than not, as communities are quick to defend their own cultural heritage against any perceived or real threat to its longevity, any attempt at cultural integration will inevitably invite protests and resistance from sections within the various communities. Such resistance will eventually revive group’s cultural distinctiveness and widen the cultural gap between each community.

This was what transpired for instance in the ethnic community’s objection to a number of government initiatives aimed at forging cultural integration. One of them is the Vision School project. The project, which envisages the placing of Chinese and Tamil vernacular schools together with national schools on the same compound, was objected by some quarters within the Chinese community, especially its educationist movement, fearing that the project would in the long run risk the preservation of Chinese cultural heritage.

There are also voices from within the Malay community urging the authorities to help revive the use of Malay language in the country amidst the rising influence of English and Mandarin in the private sector especially. The Malay linguists in particular are worried that the government’s more liberal attitude toward the use of non-Malay languages not only undermines the national language’s paramount role as the unifying language in the country, but also significantly reduces its economic value.

Uphill struggle

Proponents of the new multicultural politics are also facing an uphill struggle when the much touted PAS-DAP coalition crumbled due to divergent ideas about the nature of the Malaysian state that both parties cling to. The former advocates an Islamic state which also accommodates non-Muslim interests, while the latter aspires it to be completely secular.

Here lies the problem with multiculturalism.

Despite its lofty ideological appeal, multicultural politics in a deeply plural society is so contentious that it seems to fit neatly into Harold Lasswell’s definition of politics itself : ‘Who gets what, when and how.’ In such a society, the battle over culture can easily reduce to a zero-sum game in which official adoption of cultural elements of a particular group, even in the name of national identity and unity, is considered as a victory for one group and defeat for the other.

Multicultural politics becomes even more complex when it is closely linked with socio-economic issues. To be sure, the constellation of economic and cultural issues had in large part contributed to the outbreak of Malaysia’s bloodiest racial riots in1969. It was the feeling of economic alienation within the Malay community coupled with articulation of sensitive cultural issues, especially language and religion, which fueled the ethnic tension. In hindsight, the tension could have been better managed if the economic issue had been fully resolved earlier.

Perhaps, the culture-economic link can also offer plausible explanation for little resentment among the indigenous Malay/bumiputera community to the government’s bend toward greater multiculturalism from the 1990s onwards. It is believed that, among other factors, upward social mobility within the Malay/bumiputera community in the 1970s through1990s - which was in large part due to the implementation of the New Economic Policy - had effectively alleviated the Malay community’s resentment against other ethnic communities.

But economic upliftment alone cannot guarantee successful experience with multiculturalism in a deeply plural society. As the Malaysian case demonstrates, religion also plays a significant role. This is evident in a spate of recent issues involving the special constitutional position of Islam in Malaysia, which is one of the cultural terms agreed upon by the communal leaders at independence in 1957.

The special constitutional position includes Islam as the religion of the federation, constitutional safeguard against proselytization among the Muslims and state funding for Islamic institutions. In 1988, the Federal Constitution was amended to exclude civil courts from having any jurisdiction over matters which fall under the jurisdiction of the Shariah courts, and thus significantly elevated the status and powers of the Islamic courts. Such matters are those related to Muslim personal law as enumerated in Paragraph 1 of the State List in the Federal Constitution.

Delicate issue

Of late, there have been arguments among some quarters within the Malaysian society that giving privileged position to one religion over the other does not augur well for the growth of a truly multicultural and multireligious society. Some fundamental aspects of the Islamic faith, such as a ban on inter-religious marriages, strict observance to Islamic moral codes and prohibition from converting out of Islam, are criticised for being a hindrance to efforts at promoting multiculturalism and religious pluralism.

To the mainstream sections within the Muslim community, however, the promotion of absolute right to religious freedom, which includes Muslims’ right to religious conversion, is said to impinge on the sanctity of the Muslim faith and the constitutional protection that the religion enjoys. Apostasy has long been considered a serious crime in Islam, and the constitutional protection to Islam has long been jealously guarded by the Muslims. This makes the current debate on Islam in Malaysia a multifaceted issue. It is the question of religious faith on the one hand, and the longstanding political settlement between the leaders of Malaysia’s major communal groups on the other.

As ethnic identity in Malaysia has often been closely linked with religion, the current debate on absolute religious freedom and its implication on Islam’s special constitutional position will likely have a far reaching impact on ethnic relation as well. Though the present situation does not suggest that there is a looming threat to ethnic harmony, any mishap in dealing with the issue can possibly cause tension to run high in Malaysia’s deeply plural society. Malaysians have seen in their history that extreme elements are easy to stir up tension and cause violence whenever open discussion on sensitive issues such as religion and ethnicity has gone out of hand.

Multiculturalism is thus a delicate and multifaceted issue. It can be wrong, like monoculturalism as well, if it is pushed too far. At worst, it can be a highly divisive issue. In the present debate, questioning the very fundamental aspects of the Islamic faith, which the Muslims hold very dearly, in the name of promoting multiculturalism, is way off limits.

It is wise therefore for the actors in the current debate to deal with the issue in the most delicate way possible. No one can gainsay that living in a deeply plural society entails high level of tolerance and moderation on the part of its constituents. In such a society, understanding each other’s culture and religion, and respecting the differences, are key factors to maintaining peaceful co-existence between the distinct ethnic, religious and cultural communities.