A nation is not a state and vice versa, unless a nation-state is in the equation. Many however do not comprehend the difference between the two concepts. The comprehension of the difference is crucial in understanding why Malaysia as a state and a nation is not 50 years old come this August 31.
There can be no confusion that on a federated state — Malaysia — was formed on September 16 1963. The accumulation of thousands of years of history converged at that one point to allow us to live in Malaysia. It is true that the new state that is Malaysia inherits the institutions of the previous states but just as Russia is not Soviet Union, the state of Malaysia is not the state of Malaya. This historical fact alone insists that Malaysia is almost 44 years old when history remembers the 50th anniversary of a free Malaya.
The idea of state is very straight forward, unlike the concept of nation. The term nation is so vague that its beginning is open to interpretation. So, when an UMNO member from Tambun says that Malaysia as a nation is older than 50 years, he is not at all wrong. His opinion is of course dependent on an assumption that the Malaysian nation is really a Malay nation. This is not new. During a recent debate on Bangsa Malaysia, the chief minister of Johor believes that a Malaysian nation is a nation spearheaded by the Malays.
Throw away the political explosive and the emotional debate, rationally under this assumption a Malay nation would originate as far back as between the second and the sixth century of the common era, when possibly, the first recorded Malay nation was established as Srivijaya.
Even if one disagrees with idea, a Malaysian nation that is neutral of ethnicity exists before the formation of Malaysia and the day Malaya achieved its independence from the United Kingdom. Within the context of this entry, the question that needs to be asked is this: when actually is the birth of this nation? Was the beginning point 1963? Or 1957? Or 1948? 1946? 1824? When?
If the favored idea is the potpourri of nations, then this nation was born some time after the mass migration of Chinese and Indian into pre-existing nations living in Malaya, Sarawak and North Borneo. That would be in the 19th century. It is this nation — no state — that we now call Malaysia. The name may be different then but in essence, those names, refer to the same nation.
August 31 1957 signifies only one thing: a free Malaya. That however does not mean there was no Malaya on August 30 1957. Malaya as a state was established on January 31 1948, after the Malayan Union was disbanded. If Malaya is the reference point for the supporters of “50 years”, then really, logically — throw away the meanings of nation and states for a moment — 59 should be the magic number.
In conclusion, on one hand, as a nation, it is an insult to say we have lived for such a short lifespan, as if all those events, all those interactions before that day in 1957 matter not. On the other hand, as a state, it is boosterism to say that we are older than we are. No nation or state was born on August 31 1957.
I personally do not subscribe to nationalism but if an organic Malaysian nation is a goal one seeks, then embracing unvarnished history is an important step one needs to take. Without understanding one’s past as well as the difference between nation and state, Bangsa Malaysia will be an unsolved riddle, interpreted differently by different community within Malaysia, the state.
18 replies on “[1287] Of searching for the origin of Malaysian nation”
Go back in time at any point in Sarawak 50 Years from now, you will see the Union Jack flying on this soil. Talk about Malaysia to the people and they will give you a blurry look…..maybe the British Administration will laugh at you.
The Indonesian Confrontation, The Brunei revolt, the Communist threat…that was our journey in Independence and what Sarawakians cherished when we formed Malaysia with our partners. Blood and tears were shed to get to 1963 (be it 31 August 1963 or 16th Sept 1963). We shared that pain and celebrated the freedom in 1963 and worked hard beyond 1963 to get to 2020. 44 Years we say!! But our Big Brothers say No its 50 Years!! Forget those 6 years of Blood and Tears – pretend it never happened! Its 50 Years but we will ‘observe’ your contributions in those ‘6 Years’ during Malaysia Day.
This is my perspective. While some of the readers here may argue on the principles of the formation of Malaysia, lest that we forget, the 6 years that Sarawakians and Sabahans put in… in terms of sacrifices should not be ignored or discounted from the ‘Malaysia Story’.
My sticking point is that sovereignty in the Malayan states was not transferred to another location in the formation of Malaysia. If, as you say, the institutions were dissolved and reconstituted, then so was the Crown.
But the portraits of our Head of State in Sabah and Sarawak proclaim him as the thirteenth, not the eleventh. If this was a new state why is its head counted from that of a pre-existing state?
Queen Anne was the first Head of State of the UK, but no one says that Tuanku Syed Putra was the first Head of State of Malaysia — are they wrong?
I do not view the debate through the Borneon Malaysians lens. I take it as the misunderstanding of the concepts nation and state.
The celebration of 50 years need to be qualified because too many people do not understand the difference. Reactions to the UMNO Tambun which belittles his opinion (that particular opinion successfully includes the differentiation of state and nation and as such, quite cultured) got me up in arms while his detractors failed to even understand the basis of his opinion.
And I do not think this is superficial term. The idea of national unity needs to be rationalized and justified first before it could be embraced.
Well, we could argue for ages about it, but I think we should not bother trying to undo this Gordian knot, and should just cut it in half. Treat our national independence day and Malaysia day as two separate events – comparing them is like comparing apples and oranges anyway.
I view this debate as indicative of the problems with East Malaysian integration into the Malaysian nation. Malaysians have been unable to come to terms with national unity in more than superficial terms. Resolve this longstanding problem, and this debate becomes largely irrelevant.
Dear John,
Perhaps, you might have hit the bullseye. But should we celebrate the instance when everybody is free or partially free?
Wait, who among us is celebrating “50 years of Malaysia”? It’s very clear that Malaysia the state is not 50 years old – at least to me. But if you ask me, Malaysia the nation is more than 50 years old, and Malaysia the independent nation will soon be 50 years old. Because of the continuity between the Malayan and Malaysian states, it’s very clear to me that our 50th independent national day is to be celebrated on August 31 2007, while our 50th Malaysia day is to be celebrated on September 16 2013.
Dear John,
About Russia, if I am not mistaken, they celebrate the formation of Russian Federation on June 2 and there is no Russian independence day. But that asides, the point is the UN considers Malaysia as a successor state to Malaya. It did not say Malaya is Malaysia.
Dear John and Abidin,
Revisiting the crux of the matter, are we celebrating independence of Malaya or formation of Malaysia?
For the US, the independence and the formation of their union fall on the same day, which is July 4 1776. Further, they did not undo a union each time a new state join. New member join into a pre-existing union. So, there is no argument on celebrating July 4 1776.
Unlike the US, the formation of the Malaysian Federation is different from the date the Malaya Federation gained its independence. On top of that, again, Sarawak, North Borneo and Singapore did not join Malaya. They and the 11 individual states of the former Malayan federation formed Malaysia, a new federation. With respect to Malaysian Federation, the new members were not the 3 states. All were new members.
Dear Abidin,
About the Cobbold and the Colonial Office, that was before 1963. What used term on September 16 1963?
I would also be careful with the words because IIRC, the exact wording used in the 1962 Singaporean referendum was merger with Malaysia, not Malaya. Keep in mind that in 1962, as a state, there was no Malaysia yet.
Concerning those institutions, the 20-point and 11-point agreements for Sarawak and North Borneo disagree. The institutions may be inherited but officially, there are dissolved with the dismantling of Malayan Federation and the rebuilt with the creation of Malaysian Federation. The 2 agreements explicitly said that the Malaysian Constitution is a new constitution, not a Malayan Constitution amended to accommodate the Borneo states.
I agree that the federation that Singapore joined in 1963 is the same federation in 2006. This matter we are discussing is not simply the changing membership of a federation however.
What makes Malaya of 1962 and Malaysia of 1963 different is that the individual states of Malaya dismantled Malayan Federation and later come together with the other 3 states to form Malaysia. I have to stress this – North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore did not join the Malayan federation. They and the 11 states of Malaya formed Malaysia. This difference in name is more than cosmetics. After all, if the 3 states joined Malaya, why would we need to change the name?
This debate would not have occurred if North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore joined Malayan federation instead of together with the 11 Malayan states formed a new federation. If the 3 states join a pre-existing Malayan federation, then the celebration of 50 years Malaysia is justified. And this would make the scenario a narratively parallel to the US.
However, nobody joined a pre-existing federation in 1963. Everybody formed a new federation. Hence, making 50 years strictly applicable to the former Malayan federation members.
And I celebrate 50 years of free Malaya come this August 31. I will wait for 2013 to celebrate 50 years of Malaysia. To celebrate 50 years of Malaysia this year is disrespectful to two fellow member states (and to the memory of a dead Malaysian Singapore).
Dear Mudasir,
Merdeka Day will always be August 31. North Borneo itself gained self-government on August 31 1963. The question is not on the date per se, but on the age, i.e. the number 50. And of course its semantics. History should be accurately recorded.
One thing for sure is that no Malaysian are merdeka-ed yet.
And as far as the topic goes, well it’s celebrating the independace day not the creation day.
Malaysia was created not freed.
Merdeka is the celebration of the day Tunku declared the independace of this land (Malaya) from any foreign ruler which subsequently expanded to include singapore, sabah and sarawak and was named Malaysia as a tribute to the expansion.
In other words, Merdeka day is always going to be 31 august 1957 and maybe perhaprs oneday we’d have the umnoputras, you know those who have nothing else to think about but semantics and suggest we celebrate Malaysia day on september 16?
;) well, i guess just 50 years of independence then? with some new family members from the east…somehow i think the east malaysians got cheated.
although at that time the konfrontasi threat was rather real. some accounts actually blame lee kuan yew for being the malaysia salesman to sabah n sarawak. both states wanted out after LKY + spore was removed.
but maybe sarawak just has bad luck as after brooke surely ANYTHING would be better?
What, and when, do you mean by “the very beginning”? I suspect you mean 4 July 1776 but why not, for example, 14 May 1607 when Jamestown was established? Similar questions could be asked about our country.
That we began in 31 August 1957 and not 1948 nor 1963 is sensible: the existing apparatus of state – the location of Sovereignty, the Head of State, the Head of Government, Parliament, the Courts etc. – were accepted or augmented by the new members in 1963 (conversely, sovereignty was not endowed in 1948). To that extent 1963 did not see the creation of a new state occupying an existing nation in the sense that Norman England, the French First Republic of the People’s Republic of China did.
As pointed out, international – and I suggest local – opinion accepts that Malaysia is a continuation of the earlier sovereign entity. I accept that this does not necessarily make it true, but I would add that Singaporeans consider the “merger” and subsequent “split” to be with and from the same entity. Colonial Office documents in 1962 also speak of a “merger”; whereas the Cobbold Commission spoke of both the “expansion” of Malaya (“Greater Malaya”) but also the “creation” of Malaysia.
But if you are right, then Sabah and Sarawak use currency on which a Head of State of an obsolete and foreign country is pictured. And the star on his tengkolok has eleven stars, not thirteen.
So you will not be celebrating neither 50 years of nationhood nor statehood on 31 August 2007?
[On Russia inheriting USSR’s seat in the UN: conversely, the PRC usurped the ROC’s.]
That is correct, but I highly doubt that the Russians celebrate the date of the Russian Federation’s formation as their independence day. I highly doubt they celebrate the date of the USSR’s formation as their independence day either.
After all, I was under the impression that when you celebrate your “national day”, you are celebrating your nation, not your state.
I would support the 1948 date, if not for the fact that the Malayan nation was not independent at the time. (Doesn’t the United States celebrate its national day on the 4th of July instead of whenever the first colonists landed?)
John,
I suspect the United Nations considers Malaysia as the successor state to Malaya. This is how Russia maintains its permanent seat as well as other rights and privileges in the Security Council and the UN in general after the dismantling of the USSR.
And of course there is a continuity but that continuity comes in term of nation, not state. Again, not too many people realize the difference between nation and state. That is why there is a general sense of continuity of nation whereas nation is mistakenly identified as synonym to state.
Is it? The understanding of people then, based on what I have read, was that the Federation of Malaya was renamed as Malaysia, and that the 3 new states were admitted to this federation. That is, after all, how the UN understood it – especially considering that Malaysia did not have to, for example, join the UN as a new state. There appears to have been a general sense of continuity between the Federation of Malaya and Malaysia.
Dear Abidin,
The US was formed as a federated state at the very beginning and subsequent states joined into the federation. This is very clear and so, Michigan, Hawaii or Alaska may celebrate the foundation of the US in 1776 even if the dates of their admission are much later. The key word here is admission. With this respect, the starting point of the United States is very clear.
For Malaysia however, the federation that was found in 1948 and became independence in 1957 is explicit different from the federation founded in 1963. Unlike the American case, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore did not join the Malayan federation. Sabah’s 20-point and Sarawak’s 18-point agreements mentioned this explicitly. These 3 states were not admitted into the Malayan Federation. They, together with the 11 states that were previously federated under Malaya, formed the Malaysian federation.
It is probably easier to the determine the age of Malaysia’s constituent states (Kedah 1136, Trengganu 1724 etc.) on the basis that “l’etat, c’est moi”.
Extending that principle would suggest that the Malay(si)an state and nation began on 31 August 1957: the Agong is the Head of State and the Crown is the embodiment of the nation. The admission (and expulsion) of states did not alter that arrangement; thus that “Malaya” became “Malaysia” is cosmetic. (Similarly the “Kingdom of Great Britain” became the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland” and then the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” but we still date 1707 as this entity’s starting point despite its changing membership and movement of sovereignty between the layers.)
If Hawaiians can celebrate 4 July 1776 despite joining the Union in 1959, then Sarawakians can celebrate 31 August 1957 despite joining the Federation in 1963.
But I would much rather think of 2007 as the 660th anniversary of the founding of the Minangkabau nation.