Mahathir’s Broadside About Race: Time to Map Out a Coherent Vision

True to form, Mahathir Mohamad has stirred the hornet’s nest by saying that not all non-Malays belong to Malaysia. While his comments are deemed irrelevant in the current context, it behoves the incumbent administration to elucidate the vision of a multicultural country.

During a recent interview with Indian television channel Thanthi TV, Mahathir said that ethnic minority groups who have “their own schools, their own language, their own culture” are “different from the original people who founded this country”, and therefore Malaysia cannot belong to them. When pressed further, he said they are “not completely” loyal to Malaysia as they “want to identify themselves with their countries of origin”. He said they should become Malay and assimilate with the country’s majority race if they want to claim that they belong to Malaysia. Mahathir’s questioning of the Indian community’s loyalty to Malaysia was heavily criticised. However, the debate that arose out of his comments is reflective of problems with Malaysia’s model of multiculturalism.

Alongside other ministers including the Democratic Action Party’s (DAP) Anthony Loke and Gobind Singh Deo, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim said Mahathir was irresponsible for such “outdated views [that] will destroy the country”. Opposition members such as Gerakan president Dominic Lau and Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia youth chief Wan Ahmad Fayhsal were also critical of his comments.

Mahathir responded to some of these criticisms, one of them coming from former DAP leader P. Ramasamy who accused the former of “convoluted logic” and being the “prime architect” of divisive policies. Mahathir countered that Ramasamy was the true racist for leaving DAP to establish an Indian-based party. Ramasamy retaliated, saying that Mahathir is a “more intensive racist”.

Anwar and members of his Unity Government were quick to capitalise on the episode to belittle Mahathir and boast about their commitment to multiculturalism. Having said that, this is an opportune time for Malaysians to decide what multiculturalism means to them.

Many Malaysians deem Mahathir’s remarks irrelevant and anachronistic. Yet, one should understand the roots of his thought, dating back to pre-independence Malaysia. Shaharudin Maaruf’s Malay Ideas on Development explains Mahathir’s theory of Malay backwardness. In his book The Malay Dilemma, Mahathir mixed Darwin’s survival of the fittest, the Malays’ genetic inferiority and their perceived indolence. The notion of the “lazy” Malay was a colonial, orientalist construct that Mahathir latched on to and continues to hold on to. He contended that the Chinese carried better genes due to “cross-breeding”, and would beat the Malays in business. As the land’s indigenous peoples (bumiputera), Mahathir also called on the government to grant the Malays special privileges to correct economic imbalances vis-à-vis the pendatang (migrant) Chinese and Indians and consequently retain the Malays’ political power.

Interestingly, Mahathir as prime minister in 1981 distanced himself from the 1971 National Culture Policy blueprint, which stated that the country’s culture rests on three principles: Malay culture, “suitable” elements from other cultures and Islam. Mahathir advocated the Bangsa Malaysia doctrine. However, the jury is out on whether Bangsa Malaysia — an ambiguous concept — truly departed from the National Culture Policy. His government contended that anyone should be able to identify themselves with the country, but also gave in to Malay language lobbyists who insisted that their national language is Bahasa Melayu and not Bahasa Malaysia, the more unifying term aligned with the Bangsa Malaysia concept. The language lobby’s argument: Bahasa Melayu has existed for centuries, while Malaysia has only existed since 1963.

Mahathir’s premiership between 1981 and 2003 institutionalised his thinking about Malays’ upliftment in the form of affirmative action policies such as the New Economic Policy (NEP) and the National Development Policy. During his 22-year reign, the United Malays National Organization (UMNO) was first among equals in the Barisan Nasional (BN) government, underscoring the Malays’ political dominance. To this credit, Mahathir allowed  Mandarin and Tamil vernacular schools to continue. As a result, support from the Chinese and Indians for UMNO and BN remained consistently strong.

One wonders about Mahathir’s end game for his remarks on Malaysia’s Indians. There could have been political intent. Mahathir is an example of someone with Indian ancestry but has proudly assimilated as a Malay; some would even say he is an “ultra-Malay”. While this was not the first time he has lambasted the Indians — he was once critical of the Hindu rights movement HINDRAF — he might have further alienated the community from supporting Perikatan Nasional (PN). Lately, Parti Islam SeMalaysia, a key PN member, has been shoring up ties with the former prime minister, and even appointed him as advisor to the four states under their control. Now, PN members are distancing themselves from his remarks so as to save their non-Malay supporter base.

The episode is a stern reminder of the fragility of race relations in Malaysia and how it can be used for political ends. Anwar and members of his Unity Government were quick to capitalise on the episode to belittle Mahathir and boast about their commitment to multiculturalism. Having said that, this is an opportune time for Malaysians to decide what multiculturalism means to them. Does being Malaysian mean assimilation to become more “Malay”? Can one remain a non-Muslim yet speak the Malay language fluently? How about the Malay middle class who rarely speaks the language, preferring English instead?

Mahathir is a product of his era. It is the current prime minister who must unequivocally put the matter to rest and regain lost support from the ethnic minorities. Being a proponent of the Bangsa Malaysia doctrine when he was Mahathir’s deputy, Anwar’s vision of a Malaysian nation under the Islam-inspired Madani concept remains wanting. With a supposed emphasis on multiculturalism, inclusivity, and equality, he must address how Malayness will feature in it and seize the moment to promote an alternative vision. So far, Anwar’s Madani makes references to inclusivity, but it does not downplay the significance of Malay rights in Malaysia. He should do both, but this would be tantamount to squaring the circle.     

2024/17