In today’s societal context, many of us have been striving for a united society of people with different ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds. In simpler terms, we yearn for a united Malaysia, though one may argue that we are already united. But the question at hand is not whether we are united or not, as a nation-state of Malaysia. The question is rather to better understand what truly is unity?
I shall first start with what was stated by Professor Emeritus Dr. Ishak Saat on the matter of Malaysian unity. He argued in ‘Malaysia: 1945-2000’ that Malaysia is a unique country due to its status quo in its society where the people of different backgrounds are united, that such unity was only achieved through mutual understanding and cooperation.
Specifically, he argued:
“Dalam sesebuah masyarakat majmuk, tunjang perpaduan ialah hubungan baik antara kaum. Bagi merealisasikan perpaduan dalam sesebuah masyarakat majmuk, kerjasama dan tolak ansur antara mereka amat penting demi memastikan kesejahteraan hidup dapat dikecapi bersama. Malaysia merupakan sebuah negara yang paling istimewa sekiranya dibandingkan dengan negara lain di dunia ini. Keistimewaannya ialah Malaysia adalah sebuah negara kecil yang dalamnya terdapat kombinasi komuniti yang pelbagai.”
It becomes more interesting then to further extend our thought on the matter of unity. To what extent is Professor Ishak’s argument true regarding the need for mutual cooperation and tolerance in realizing unity in Malaysia? Or what is even that?
I am therefore attracted to relate this to the concept of gotong-royong (mutual cooperation). This concept is widely known in the context of traditional Malay communities where such mutual cooperation may be seen in the preparation of ceremonies like weddings and other customary or religious ceremonies. Understanding it, this concept technically directs us to a smaller context of unity through cooperation as portrayed by the members of the said communities in the execution of the ceremonies’ preparation.
If we redirect ourselves back into the discourse of this Malay Archipelago history, the concept of gotong-royong was almost applied at national level in Indonesia. Prior to Indonesian independence, the leaders across the country sat down in formulating a national ideology for Indonesia, which the very Pancasila (Five Principles) is today. Pancasila outlines five pillars which cover from faith, to justice and to the democratic needs of Indonesia.
However, during the formulation process of Pancasila, Sukarno had an alternative to it, in the case where the idea of Pancasila fails in its formulation process. The alternative was called Ekasila (One Pillar) and it was formulated based on one concept of unity, the concept of gotong-royong. With this being said, we may then understand the strong impact this concept of gotong-royong brought with it for the sake of national unity in Indonesia. If it was not as impactful, it would not have been in Sukarno’s consideration at all.
To re-narrate this discussion back to our original discussion, in some way, I do believe that in our societal context, the same concept may or is already applied in uniting all of Malaysia, though its effectiveness is a matter to be debated, still, and is not in the interest of this discussion thereof. But again, this situation now brings us back with the first question. What truly is unity?
In the same book, Professor Ishak argued:
“Dalam konteks Malaysia, proses interaksi, integrasi dan asimilasi budaya berlaku dengan cara mengolah aspek budaya tradisional bumiputera untuk dikemukakan sebagai satu simbolik bagi melahirkan sebuah budaya kebangsaan.”
Understanding this, we are therefore given a framework of thought that the unity in Malaysia was achieved through interaction, integration and assimilation of cultures, which he argued were done symbolically to form a national culture. The key word that shall be given the focus here is ‘symbolic’. Does this mean that unity is just an idea? Or worse, just an illusion?
Why do I say this? With the ideas presented before us now, I do believe that it is just an illusion in the sense where it is not physically binding upon the involved members of the communities that are to be united. It is merely an idea of getting the people to have a mutual respect, just so that the concept of unity can be achieved, and for what purpose is for the authority of governance to answer.
Similar pattern of thought may be seen in Dr. Benedict Anderson’s ‘The Nation as Imagined Communities’ where he argued:
“In an anthropological spirit, then, I propose the following definition of the nation; it is an imagined political community – and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign.”
Dr. Anderson argued here that a nation is merely an imagined community, the similar thought on the concept of unity we are discussing about.
In the next paragraph, he argued:
“It is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion.”
This argument further supported the idea we have on unity that has been discussed previously. To correlate, it is most logical to say that we are not even familiar to a random person living in the neighbouring town, yet, in most cases, we do think of them as a fellow Malaysian. We see them, in a manner we see our own position in this country, that we belong here as a member of this very community. This being said, we might then possess the idea that we as fellow members, should stand on common ground to a certain extent, when it comes to the interest of the community we belong to, which in this case is Malaysia.
But with all this argument alone, it is rather unfair to argue that the concept of unity here is merely an illusion. Sticking with Dr. Anderson, it shall be referred to an imagination, or shared imagination which then creates a common sense of belonging, though, in Malaysian context, the shared imagination may perhaps be a little sporadic with the existence of a very diverse set of members in it.
That is why it is most interesting to relate this concept to the idea proposed by Distinguished Professor Datuk Dr. Shamsul Amri Baharuddin where he proposed the idea of nation-of-intent.
He argued in ‘Nations-of-Intent in Malaysia’:
“It is in this sense that the Malaysian situation, in some ways, is not unlike the African one. If the latter has been complicated by ‘tribal nationalism thus giving rise to a situation described as ‘one state, many nationalisms’, the Malaysian case could be described as a situation of ‘one state, several nations’, or more precisely, nations-of-intent.”
The reason I am arguing that it is unfair to say that the unity we are discussing now is rather an illusion is due to the fact that it works, or at the very least is seen as working in a form of common understanding, knowledge and practice as a collective group of people living in a community of Malaysia. To further argue, an illusion is merely a false portrayal where the said unity is corrupted to the very core.
To end this with a note, let us all think of unity as an invisible social framework in constructing a united society. The idea of unity may be thought of as an idea to get the people of differences to live in the same community in a manner where unneeded tension and thereafter brawls, or worse skirmishes amongst the same people may then be totally avoided. It is thus absolutely fair to conclude that the idea is currently still functioning as it was intended to be, in the past and in current days.
Author : Waqqas Zulfiquer
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the personal views of the author and do not represent AkalWahyu as a whole. AkalWahyu is not responsible for any errors of fact, interpretation, or implications arising from this article. AkalWahyu publishes this article as a space for intellectual discourse and discussion of ideas
