Cross Boundaries

Mainstreaming the Minorities: The Case of the Mandailings in Malaysia and Indonesia
By Abdur-Razzaq Lubis
Malaysian Representative, Mandailing All-Clans Assembly (HIKMA)

I would add to this, his or her religious preference and particularity. You will see the significance of this addition later on.

I. Introduction

Who are the Mandailings?

Our people originated from the south-western corner of the island of Sumatra. Their homeland is called tano rura Mandailing [the land and water of Mandailing]. Today it is known as the kabupaten of Mandailing-Natal, or the regency of Madina. The motto of the regency is Madina yang Madani [Civil Madina].

Our social and cultural markers include:
The Dalihan Na Tolu, the Mandailing social structure
The Urup Tulak-Tulak, the Mandailing script
The Namora-Natoras, the institution of Mandailing governance
The totem Sangkalon, a symbol of justice
The Gordang Sambilan (the nine great drums)
The Arbit Godang, the ceremonial shawl
The Bindu Matogu which represents the Mandailing's philosophy of life

Among our outstanding attributes are a tradition of consultative governance and an egalitarian society governed by customary law (adat), a clan system (marga) and genealogical tradition (tarombo) and our strong literary and historiography tradition. For centuries the Mandailings have migrated throughout the peninsula and Indonesian archipelago.

Famous Indonesian Mandailings include Tun Adam Malik (of the Batu Bara clan), the former Foreign Minister and vice-president; A. Haris Nasution, the great military leader and historian; Mochtar Lubis, the crusading journalist; Batara Lubis, the artist and Tudong Mulya Lubis, the human rights lawyer and activist. Famous Malaysian Mandailings include nationalist educationist, Aminuddin Baki (Lubis); Supreme Court Judge Tan Sri Hashim Yeop Sani (Rangkuti); former Inspector General of Police, Tun Hanif Omar (Nasution) and former Mentri Besar of Selangor, Dato' Harun Idris (Harahap).

Perhaps the Mandailing's biggest contribution to peace at the regional level was to help end the Malaysian-Indonesian Confrontation. The 'Konfrontasi' arose as a result of Sukarno's opposition to the formation of Malaysia, which the Indonesian's saw as a British-inspired polity. Two Mandailings - Indonesia's Foreign Minister Adam Malik and General Haris Nasution conspired to broker peace between the two neighbouring countries.

The families of Adam Malik and Haris Nasution hailed from the same village in the Mandailing homeland - Hutapungkut. However, Adam Malik himself was born in Chemor, Perak in Malaysia as his mother Siti Salamah was a Chemor woman. (1) Whenever he visited Malaysia, he would take the opportunity to visit Chemor.

General Haris Nasution's nephew, Mohd. Zain Mohd. Salleh, was also a son of Chemor. At the time of Konfrantasi, Haris was a general in the Indonesian army and his nephew was the chief of staff Malayan navy. (2) General Haris Nasution had flatly refused to go to war with Malaysia as he likened it as fighting his own relatives.

Indeed, Adam Malik felt that his main task as Indonesia's Foreign Minister was to end the Confrontation. He even challenged Sukarno over the matter. He achieved his objective when the two neighbouring countries agreed to end the Confrontation. After the peace treaty was signed in 1966, the first thing Adam Malik did was make a trip to Malaysia and visit Chemor to reassure his relatives. (3)

In spite of their of their enormous contributions to politics, society, music, literature and the press both in Indonesia and Malaysia, Mandailings continue to be culturally marginalized in Indonesia and Malaysia. Academic works have subsumed them under the categories of the Angkola, Batak and Malay. In Malaysia, racial politics and state-sponsored socio-economic engineering in the name of nation building, backed by the academia, have resulted in the acculturation of the Mandailings into the dominant Malay racial category. In Indonesia, the Mandailings have been lumped into the dominant Batak group since the Dutch colonial era. As a result, the basic human right of the Mandailing to define themselves has been overlooked by most Malaysian and Indonesian intellectuals who have accepted the state's discourse on ethnicity. Indeed,

Are the Mandailings a minority in Malaysia?

What is a minority? Who defines a minority? Who are the beneficiaries of minority rights?

Thus far there are no definite answers. The difficulty in arriving at an acceptable definition of the term 'minority' lies in the variety of situations in which minorities exist. Some live together in well-defined areas, separated from the dominant population, while others are scattered throughout the national community. Some minorities has a strong sense of collective identity based on a well-remembered or recorded history; others retain only a fragmented notion of their common heritage. In certain cases, minorities enjoy - or have known - a considerable degree of autonomy. In others, there is no past history of autonomy or self-government. Some minority groups may require greater protection than others, because they are threatened by ethnic or cultural cleansing or facing extermination (genocide).

Despite the difficulty in arriving at a universally acceptable definition, various characteristics of minorities have been identified, which, taken together, cover most minority situations. The most commonly used description of a minority in a given State can be summed up as 'a non-dominant group of individuals who share certain national, ethnic, religious or linguistic characteristics which are different from those of the majority population'. It has been argued that the use of self-definition which has been identified as 'a will on the part of the members of the groups in question to preserve their own characteristics' and to be accepted as part of that group by the other members, combined with certain specific objective requirements, could provide a viable option.

As far as statistics go, the Mandailings are in the majority in their homeland, but they are a minority in Indonesia and Malaysia. According to the 2003 census, the population of the regency of Madina stands at 369,691 the majority of which are Mandailing. (4) In 1982, the Mandailing Welfare Association of Malaysia (IMAN) estimated that there were about 30,000 Angkolan and Mandailings in Malaysia. (5) The Angkolan are the neighbours of the Mandailings to the north of the homeland. Many people of Angkolan descent in Malaysia, consider themselves Mandailings. Assuming that the 1982 figures are correct, the author estimates that there are about 50,000 people of Mandailing and Angkolan descent in Malaysia, today.

In the past, the Mandailings in Malaysia lived in settlements where they formed the Muslim majority and offered leadership not only to their own clansmen but also to other ethnic groups such as the Rawa (6) and Hakka Chinese. They enjoyed some degree of autonomy or self-governance but the leadership were gradually co-opted and absorbed into the colonial administration, and the nation-state. Over time Mandailing society became fragmented because of rural-urban shift as well as outward immigration. There were also overwhelmed by an influx of fresh migrants. The Mandailings have a strong sense of collective identity derived from social memory accumulated over generations, and from recorded history as reflected in their rich historiography.

Though they have to varying decrees assimilated into dominant Malay ethnic group, they remain the non-dominant group within the defining dominant group. In spite of assault on their character, their identity survives, and over the decades they have made attempts to revive their identity albeit with some compromises. Their music, language, folklore, custom, dressing and other social and cultural markers have remained relatively intact in the homeland and is experiencing a revival. Marginalized in the nation-states of Malaysia and Indonesia, the Mandailing have turned to the internet to create a virtual community, a borderless world in pursuit and promotion of their identity and cultural heritage. Complimenting this, Mandailing scholars are involved in a regional movement to deconstruct mainstream history and state-constructed ethnic categories.

Notwithstanding these encouraging developments, there is no separate ethnic category for Mandailings in Malaysia or Indonesia. In Malaysia, the father of a new born child in required to declare his descent (keturunan) in the birth certificate. I had no problems declaring myself as of Mandailing descent upon the birth of my two children; this was when the procedure was done manually. But when my third child came along, I could no longer state in my son's birth certificate that I am of Mandailing descent because there was no category for Mandailing in the now computerised system.

Interestingly, there are categories for other ethnic groups such as Minangs, Javanese, etc., aside from the Malays. Not to be deterred Malaysian Mandailings have incorporated their clan names into their children's name. Some have even started using their clan names again. But for all intents and purpose, they are regarded administratively as Malay by the state and perceived as such by non-Malays generally.

In Indonesia, the Mandailing ethnic category does not exist as the Indonesian state wants Indonesians to see themselves as bangsa Indonesia. In Malaysia, the DAP's Malaysian Malaysia, and the government's bangsa Malaysia is no different. It is expedient for a political party like the DAP or the government to call for a national identity as the DAP dominated by the majority Chinese ethnic group and the government dominated by ethnic Malays, would have their identity secured in the bargain.

II. Historical Migration

'adventurers or economic opportunists…'

The disruptive religious Padri wars (1820-1833) followed by forced cultivation (cultuurstelsel) of cash crop such as coffee coupled with belasting (corvee labour) during Dutch intervention were the pull factors that marked the Mandailing migration to the peninsula in the nineteenth century. (7) Conversion to the Judeo-Christian religion also provided new motives for trade and travel.

In terms of the scale, the exodus that took place during and in the wake of the Padri wars, was the most significant as hundreds if not thousands left the homeland. Many came as adventurers, political and economic refugees escaping the hardship of their homeland; most of them returned to their homeland. I am descended from this wave of migrants. The arrival of Mandailings in chain migration caused shock waves and changed the political and economic landscape of the peninsula, the effects of which can still be felt to this day. Many settled in the states of Perak and Selangor on the west coast of the peninsula because of the economic opportunities afforded there.

Many a Mandailing opened settlements (mamungkas huta) in the above mentioned states. Like many rural settlements in Malaysia today, Mandailing settlements are in a state of limbo (hidup segan mati tak mau) due to urban migration. A Mandailing by the name of Sutan Puasa of the Lubis clan was in part the founder of the historic Kuala Lumpur. Trickle of Mandailing migration continued well into the 1970s; many sponsored by their relatives.

III. The Mandailings Muslim Identity

'Bataks disguised as Muslims'

Mandailing society was forcefully converted to Islam some at the point of the sword by a radical brand of Islam - Wahabitte Islam - which some considered a deviationist strand, and is still a menace today in the Muslim world. Incidentally the term Padri stem from Padres referring to the Portuguese Christian priests in their robes. (8)

Although 'converted' to a radical brand of Islam, the interpretation and application of Islam in Mandailing is very different from, say the Minangs or the Malays. The Minangs are matrilineal; the Mandailings are patrilineal. While the Minangs adopt a position of custom based on Islam law (adat basandi syarak); the Mandailings adopt a position of adat (customary law) in proximity with Islamic law as reflected in the maxim ombar do adat ugamo.

The Mandailing understanding of Islam is closer to the Madinan tradition of the amal of Madina, than the Shaf'ie madhhab (school of thought) dominant today in Malaysia and the Indonesian archipelago. In the Madinan tradition, daily usage ('urf) is regarded as part of public benefit or public good to be encouraged so long as it does not go against Islamic law. In Mandailing society, change in tradition is checked by the strongly held concept of biaso (literally usual indicating normality).

In other words, the Mandailings practised an indigenized brand of Islam. However, this historically unique way of maintaining and reconciling their traditional customs with their new found religion is under threat from all sides. On one front the Mandailings' indigenized Islam is under onslaught from regional Malay-Indonesian Islam, and on another front from globalized Arab-Islam. This is happening through institutions of Islamic learning such as al-Azhar at the international level and madrasa, pondok or pasentren at the local level. Mandailing Muslims are being subverted and homogenized into an ethnic-based ummah (Islamic brotherhood), fundamentalizing them in the process.

Religion was the vehicle through which the Mandailings gain acceptance, first as Malays albeit with some reservations and then as Muslims as becoming Muslim in both East Sumatra and the peninsula is equated with becoming Malay or 'masuk Melayu'. But in parts of eastern Indonesia the phrase 'masuk Melayu' (10) meant to become Christian. This blending in and association with Malay Muslim society, be it in East Sumatra or in the peninsula amounts to cultural shift resulting in cultural loss to the Mandailing identity.

The Mandailings were culturally divided from the Malays until the early nineteenth century until their conversion to Islam, but this did not in anyway guarantee their full and unconditional entry into the Islamic brotherhood as illustrated by the following observation,

In the eyes of the Malays, who see themselves superior by virtue of them being Muslim much earlier as well as becoming civilised thereof, say that the Mandailngs were formerly Bataks: that when in Sumatra they became Muslims and so 'raised their standards'. A more pejorative view is the description of the Mandailings as 'Bataks disguised as Muslims'. (12)

Islam is said to be the most definitive Malay marker, and by extension Malays are Muslim and Muslim are Malays; in other words Malay equals Islam and vice versa. This perception has been carried to its logical conclusion in the Malay Reservation Enactment of 1913, and enshrined in the Malaysian constitution in which the Malay is in addition to Malay language and custom is also defined by the Islamic religion, confirming a Malay-Islam identity.

'We created…people and tribes (nations)'

Since the majority of the Mandailings are Muslims, they must find within Islam a model for maintaining their identity, not as Bataks or Malays, but as Mandailings. There are ample justifications Mandailing Muslims can find in Islam, the religion of multiculturalism and preservation of human diversity, although the doctrine and the practise does not always tally.

Islam reserves the 'Oneness' of God only for the His Essence, and not for His creatures and the worlds. His Creation and His act of creating is plurality or diversity as is evident in the diversity of the planets, plant, animal and human species. In fact, plurality and diversity is one of the 'signs' of His Greatness from the signs of His creation.

The above verses show the plurality and diversity in the creation of humankind, which reflects the 'diffferentness' in language, complexion, tribes, nations and people. The wisdom in this differentness is to enable humankind to know of each others' distinctiveness and local genious. Therefore plurality and diversity in Islam stems from the primordial state, individual disposition or self preservation; the different nations and people born out of the natural state. Plurality and diversity is part of the inherent nature of God's creation that cannot be changed or replaced. In other words, plurality and diversity is in His Nature.

'That is what He created them for…', as if plurality and diversity is the raison d'etre of creation itself.

Plurality and diversity in Islam rejects racial, ethnic or communal fanaticism, and at the same time rejects the idea that goodness is the monopoly or the preserve of any particular group. Good and evil is inherent in humankind; each group has its 'perfection' and 'imperfections', which means that we all have our good points and bad points. We are perfect in our imperfections, and so take pride in our own distinctiveness without denying the distinctiveness of other people.

In another verse, the same message is repeated, the purpose of which 'so [as to] compete with each other in doing good'. As such, at the end of the day, the business of mankind is to strive in doing good. (13) In short, plurality and diversity is an impetus to face challenges, hardship, competition and strife between nations and people with different civilization, way of life, philosophy, in the race to do good, welfare and creativity for this world and the next.

To form a nation or people, we do not have to be from the same stock, having the same language, religion or race. A nation or people can stand on historical continuity as well as having the same cultural values. In other words, a community is a group people who are united by a particularity, which differentiates them from other people. The unifying factor is their unique characteristics, genealogy, language, kinship, etc.. The confusion between communities, people and nation with nationalism and nation-state comes from Western political philosophy.

The ummah a community, a nation of people is not a singular community, but diverse communities including plants and animals.

The existence and the presence of the Mandailing people is a 'Sign' from the sign of God's Greatness and His inherent power of creation. The Mandailings is an ummah amongst many ummah.

IV. Mainstreaming Identity for Administrative Convenience The 'Wedge Policy' and the Unreachable People

In order to check the spread of Islam, Stamford Raffles proposed in the nineteenth century the creation of a buffer Christian block separating the Muslim states of Aceh and Minangkabau. (14) Raffles was also the architect of the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824 that irrevocably and arbitrarily divided the cultural unity of Sumatra and the peninsula. The contemporary boundary of Malaysia and Indonesia is a direct legacy of that treaty.

The Dutch authorities having regained full sovereignty over the island of Sumatra following the treaty, maintained a 'wedge policy', a strategy of keeping the two Islamic bulwarks separated by a belt of non-Muslims into what became know as the Bataklanden. (Bataklands). (15) By accident of history, the Mandailings were labelled as a sub-group of the Batak people as an extension of this agenda.

In the words of the American anthropologist, Susan Rodgers,

With the coming of Muslim and Christian missionaries, the soul of the Mandailings became a point of contestation between the two world religions. Described as 'nominal' Muslims by Christian missionaries, the Mandailings became the first target of zending (Christian missionary), who had some success with conversions in Pakantan, Upper Mandailing. Until today, there are Mandailing Christian and a church in Pakantan. The Baptist, Rheinische Missionary Society from Bremen, Germany and Methodist Episcopal Mission in Singapore, carried out Christian missionary work in Mandailing. (16) The Mandailings continue to attract Christian missions to this day, who described them in the negative as 'the unreachable people'. (17)

The failure of the Christian missionary in making Mandailings Christians has been explained in a historical-theological study. According to Jan Sihar Aritonang,

A key factor in explaining the failure of the Christian Batta Mission (Batak Mission) as they themselves described it is the insistence on calling the Mandailings - Batak, thereby associating the Mandailings with the Tobas, which the Mandailings find objectionable as they have in the past taken the Tobas as slaves. This process of 'levelling' is seen and interpreted as an attempt to humiliate them. Seen from political and socio-economic perspective, the Christian Batakmission was in working hands in glove with the colonial agenda of Batakization.

The historian Lance Castles pointed out,

Linguists and ethnologists persist to use the label Batak to ascribe the Mandailings justifying it as 'necessary' because of the strong common elements found in these societies, but at the same time, ignoring their subjects' historicity. In their own words,

This in spite their acknowledgement that

The Mandailings took the matter of their identity seriously; to established the distinctiveness of and the legality of their identity, they went to court and won a landmark case in the 1920s declaring themselves distinct from the Batak. The court case was a dispute not between Christians and Muslims, but between people of North and South Tapanuli origin.

The episode was documented in a work aptly entitled Asal-Oesoelnja Bangsa Mandailing (The Origin of the Mandailing People), with the subtitle Berhoeboeng dengan Perkara Tanah Wakaf Bangsa Mandailing, di Soengei Mati, Medan, (with regard to the endowment land of the Mandailing People at Sungei Mati, Medan), published in 1926 in celebration of the Mandailing's victory over the Batak.

Mangaradja Ihoetan, who compiled the, book emphasized three times in his preface that the purpose of the Sungei Mati case was to remind future generations, especially those outside the homeland, not give give up or 'sell' their identity:

English Translation
This account of the endowment land is written and compiled particularly for the use as a reminder to all the Mandailing people who love their nationhood especially for those who live outside the homeland.

…this account is a reminder to the Mandailing people…merely as a future reminder to the descendants of the Mandailing people so that they know the struggle of their ancestors in preserving the standing of Mandailing nationhood. In this way, it is hoped that they will not again carelessly waste their nationhood, easily erasing it by entering into another nation that will not raise its status.

When the 1930 census approached, the Comite Kebangsaan Mandailing (Mandailing National Committee) in Panyabungan, currently the capital of the district of Mandailing-Natal, petitioned with some success, not to be listed as Mandailing-Batak in the census. The Mandailings were still listed under Batak in the census, though the term 'Mandailing-Batak' was not used. (23) Today, the Mandailings do not regard themselves as Bataks; they equate 'Batak' with 'Christian' or paganism, although this is not entirely true as there are many 'Bataks' are now Muslims. The equation is reversed across the Straits of Malacca.

V. Mainstreaming Identity for Political and Economic Convenience

'Mandeling Malay'

Prior to World War II there was little pressure on the Mandailings to Malayanize. They were treated by the administrators as 'Malays' along with the culturally different Javanese and Banjarese from Borneo (Kalimantan); access to land and to education was open to them as it was to the indigenous Malays; socially they were classified as 'orang dagang' or 'foreign Malays'. In British records, the Mandailings were labelled 'foreign Malays', 'Sumatran Malays' and 'Mendeling Malay' - and then simply as 'Malays' in the name of 'administrative convenience'.

As late as the early twentieth century, the Hon. Sec. of the Malay Settlement, B. O. Stoney, continued to classify the 'Indonesians' in British Malaya

Obviously the writer dismissed speech and custom, two important cultural elements as an indicator of a distinct cultural identity in order to push his generalization of what constitutes the Malay race. But what constitute the 'Real Malay' or any ethnographer's 'Malay', 'is [but] a patchwork created by bringing together snippets from culturally diverse sources in Kelantan, Johore, Kedah, Negeri Sembilan, Singapore, Trengganu and Petani.' (25) In 1913, a person of Arab descent was defined as Malay in Kedah, but not in Johor; someone of Siamese descent was considered Malay in Kelantan but not in Negeri Sembilan. (26)

In the Federated Malay States census of 1911, 'Mendeling' was 'Malay Population by Race', likewise in the British Malaya census of 1921. By 1931, 'Mendeling' was removed altogether from the census.

The legal definition of Malay came into being as a result of British protectionist policy in favour of the native or indigenous Malays, better know as the pro-Malay policy. In order to protect the Malay traditional way of life which was orientated around the rice cycle the British administration enclosed the rice-producing lands in Malay reservations. Non-Malays could not obtain grants or buy land in the reservations. A 'Malay' was defined as a 'person belonging to any Malayan race who habitually speaks the Malay language or any Malayan language and professes the Moslem religion'. This definition allowed immigrant Muslim Indonesians to own land in the reservations.

It could be argued that 'Malay' and 'Malayness' were created and confirmed by the Malay Reservation Enactment. The Enactment defined, first, who is 'a Malay'; second, it determined the legal category of people who were allowed to grow rice only or rubber only, and third, it was bound to exert a direct influence on the commercial value of the land. This particular Enactment was instituted separately in the state constitutions of each of the eleven negeri (state) on the peninsula, and in each constitution it offered a slightly different definition of who was a 'Malay'. (27)

As Tugby rightly concluded,

The Malaysian government's programme of rural development whose political aim was to secure for the government the consolidated support of the mainly rural 'Malays', draws no distinction between indigenous Malays and Sumatran and other immigrants from Indonesia in its implementation. The latter was subsumed under the programme as 'Malays' and are therefore was compromised to accept this beneficial identity. By adopting these and other measures the government is attacking some of the bases of ethnicity. In this regard, changes in attitudes and identity is brought about by nation-building efforts, and in light of this, identity is determined by political and economic convenience.

Perhaps no other episode in modern Malaysian history underlies this more than the racial riots between the Malays and the Chinese in 1969 which changed the course of Malaysia's political economy. Some writers blamed Dato' Harun Idris, the Mentri Besar of Selangor at the time, for being directly responsible for the riots. (29) Dato' Harun Idris, as well as some other leaders of the Malay faction during the riots, were in fact not ethnic Malays, but Malays of Mandailing descent. Strictly speaking, Dato' Harun, who is of the Harahap clan, was a Malay of Angkolan descent; but for all intents and purposes see himself a Mandailing in a contextual identity like many other Mandailings. After the riots, the national ideology of Rukun Negara was proclaimed and the New Economic Policy (NEP) was formulated as the economic foundation of Rukun Negara to address the economic imbalances between the major ethnic groups.

Mandailing Dilemma

Suffering from acute identity crises, Mandailings use passing off when convenient. Upwardly mobile 'passing' can have its uses; during the period of Indonesian resurgence under Sukarno it was popular to be a Sumatran, but during Confrontation it was safer to be a Malaysian. Since then the Malaysian government has tempted people of Indonesian descent to identify themselves as bumiputra, sons of the soil/land, the natural inheritors of the Malay tradition and rights. In modern Malaysia, passing off as Malays for government contracts, joining the Malay dominated civil service, to enter politics; essentially to climb the social ladder. Mandailing also use regional identities to obscure their descent.

History and nation-building processes has seen to it that the Mandailings people are divided into two ethnic and cultural identities; in Indonesia they are Batak-Mandailing and in Malaysia as Malay-Mandailings. On one hand they are under the hegemony (ketuanan) of the predominantly Batak Christians and on the other, they are under the hegemony of the Malay Muslims. Torn between two religious and ethnic identities, the Mandailings are caught in a dilemma between two equally undesirable alternatives. Both want to appropriate the Mandailing's differentness. Symbolic of Mandailing identity is the Gordang Sambilan which is experiencing revival in Indonesia and Malaysia. The Gordang Sambilan is recognised as the official musical ensemble in the state of Selangor in Malaysia, but given the Malayanized name gendang sembilan.

The pressure to conform to either Batak or Malay identity is both religious and cultural; the difference is that in Indonesia the weight of the state is not behind it. In Malaysia, conformity is compelled by legal means as well as with the might of the state through national policies such as cultural policy and grant concession development. In Indonesia, regional and ethnic identities is experiencing a surge in the euphoria of regional autonomy and devolution of power (in 1999 the Mandailing homeland became a new regency); in Malaysia the debate that the Mandailings are a sub-group of the Malay stock/race is considered close at the highest level and the thing to do is conform, and not rock the boat. Recent attempts by Mandailings in Perak to exert their identity became explosive; they were charge of splitting Malay-Muslim unity.

Although the definition of race remained uncertain, the term itself has stuck in administrative and academic language of today. In vogue is the idea of 'Melayu inklusif' (inclusive Malay), based on the colonial perception that the peoples of the Indonesian archipelago and the peninsula are all of the Malay race/stock (rumpun Melayu). (30) The Malay nationalists driven by fears of the 'yellow peril' are not letting up in its designs to incorporate the diverse ethnic groups in insular Southeast Asia into the Malay agenda in opposition and to check the so-called Nanyang Agenda of the Overseas Chinese.

VI. Conclusion: Mainstreaming Minorities - An Assessment

Peaceful Coexistence in Human Diversity

Because of the legacy of colonial rule in Malaysia, the most important political parties are racial representing the interest of individual ethnic groups. I would described the brand of majority politics in Malaysia as racial rather than communal. Even though the ethnic interest of the racial trinity of Malays, Chinese and Indians, have been largely attended to, the racial threat remained; Malaysia is also divided along linguistic, religious and social lines. Since independence the principal preoccupation of the government have been the preservation of the country's fragile unity and the welding of a truly united nation, of which the survival or eventual demise of the new nation, depends on.

Opposition to the special privileges of one dominant race appeals to the members of minority groups who feel that their own interests are thwarted by the current Sino-Malay-Indian system, which leaves smaller groups in an isolated and exposed position. Communal politics as it serves to benefit a community is in itself not a bad thing altogether, but racial politics by its nature excludes and discriminates. Barisan Nasional (BN) or Barisan Alternatif (BA) pander to, and knowingly or unknowingly serves this brand of politics as their constituents are mainly from the three dominant ethnic groups.

It has been said, however, that

That diversity characterizes the great majority of countries in the world, and that with the end of the cold war and bipolar international order, claims to ethnic, religious, cultural and religious varieties are becoming stronger. The 'rediscovery' of ethnicity and cultural identities has created an awareness of the need to cope with the management of ethnic and cultural diversity through policies which promote ethnic and cultural minorities participation in, and having access to the resources of society, while maintaining the unity of the country. The fears that cultural diversity, or multiculturalism, has the potential to foster highly divisive social conflicts owing to the highly contentious thesis by Huntington's on the clash of civilization in which religion is argued to play a crucial role; it can be argued that the state and social policies can check and intervene and reduce the potential for conflict. Multiculturalism, as a systematic and comprehensive response to cultural, ethnic and religious diversity, with educational, linguistic, economic, social and religious components and specific institutional mechanisms, has been adopted by a few countries, notably Australia (not necessarily a good example), Canada and Sweden.

Special rights for minorities are not privileges but basic civil rights to make it possible for minorities to preserve their identity, characteristics and traditions. Special rights are just as important in achieving equality of treatment as non-discrimination. Only when minorities are able to use their own languages, practise their own religion, culture, etc., benefit directly from state services, as well as participate fully in the political and economic life of the state, can they begin to achieve the status which majorities take for granted. Affirmative action in the treatment of such groups, or individuals belonging to them, is justified if it is exercised to promote effective equality and the welfare of the community as a whole. This form of equitable system may have to be sustained over a prolonged period in order to enable minority groups to benefit from society on an equal footing with the majority. Recognition and entitlements would secure their cultural survival, guarantee peaceful co-existence with fellow humankinds and their well-beings in a world where cultural and human diversity matters. To sum up,

I would add that the promotion and protection of the rights of persons belonging to a minority group contributes to multiculturalism, both to cultural and human diversity, as human diversity is equally at stake today as bio-diversity, threatened by the same forces threatening bio-diversity, that is, globalized homogenized culture, Machiavellian development and malicious capital. We dream of a world where we can afford to sip a cuppa of the famous 'Mandheling Coffee' on equal terms.

The above paper was presented at a Seminar on Promoting a Culture of Peace organised by Signis Asia Assembly from 5-7 October 2004 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Signis is the World Catholic Organisation for Communication, a non-governmental organisation with members from 140 countries. This is the first time Kuala Lumpur played host for this Assembly. At the end of the event, participants adopted a Charter for Culture of Peace in Asia.

>>> back to 'cross boundaries'