There is a strong emphasis in unity in Malaysia.
It is easy to rationalize why so. The country has been diverse from the very beginning of its modern history. Each group largely lives differently. While difference and diversity can be sources of strength, it can also be a source of conflict.
For all the myths believed by some that race relations nowadays are worse than yesteryears, the worst race riot of the country happened in Kuala Lumpur in May 1963. Another big race riot happened in Malaysian Singapore in July 1964. Conflict between races itself was part of the reasons why Singapore was expelled from the federation in 1965.
Those conflicts have left behind a deep scar in Malaysian society, even as many Malaysians today have never witnessed a race riot first-hand. These old fears are becoming increasingly irrelevant but it is still part of what describes our society. So entrenched is the fear of history repeating itself that many are mindful of the tiniest possibility of a race riot.
To the mindful and those whom are trapped in the 1960s and 1970s still, they believe in the narrative of unity. They believe in unity being the answer to Malaysian divisiveness.
As the wisdom goes, if everybody were united, there would be no reason to quarrel with each other. Nobody would say anything hurtful to the collective ethnic consciousness. In a united Malaysia, everybody would laugh together while waving the Jalur Gemilang happily.
On the surface, the unity narrative is appealing. The ideal provides a stark contrast to the chaotic Malaysia of the 1960s and a period of time after that. Yet, scratch the skin and it will peel to a rotten core.
Their particular unity narrative ignores differing viewpoints. At best, it considers differing positions as foreign. ”It is not part of our culture,” so the typical response goes. Malaysians holding differing ideals are accused as having their mind colonized by outsiders. Imagine in times of globalization, one talks of neo-colonialism. One has to be either paranoid or stuck in time.
When differing viewpoints becoming too intellectually challenging for the simple narrative, threats are issued. When there is nowhere to go within the realm of pure reasons, talk of feelings. File a police reports when feelings are hurt. In the unity narrative, one is not supposed to hurt anyone else’s feeling.
And some fly the flags because for the government demands so. The government even threatened to do something to remedy the failure to fly a piece of cloth back in 2006. In Ipoh in 2010, businesses had to fly the Jalur Gemilang if business owners wanted to renew their licenses.
One can see how pretentious that unity is.
See how it belligerently pushes aside liberty.
It seeks monotony. It rejects colors. It is either you are with us, or against us.
Unity is not mutually exclusive of liberty of course. In fact, true unity can only arise under free environment, where every person is free. It will be hard to achieve unity under such a set-up because individuals in a free society will have difference but if ever dialogue and understanding will overcome the difference, then everybody will unite out of their own free will.
That is the route to true unity. It is tough but it is the unity that is sincere.
The proponents of unity whom are trapped in the 1960s possibly know of this. They probably realize the tough road to true unity. Too cowardly to trust in individual effort to bridge the gap perhaps, they choose the ersatz version.
That version of unity is one that is shown only because there is a big stick somewhere, waiting to be taken out if someone dares say, no, I am different.
