Categories
History & heritage

[1426] Of from the Srivijayan mandala to the Malaysian federation

It strikes me as odd that the most successful federations throughout history of Southeast Asia centered around the Strait of Malacca. Those federations include Srivijaya, Negeri Sembilan, the Federated Malay States, Malaya and later Malaysia. I am unaware of any other federation that exist outside the link between Srivijaya and Malaysia. Is there something about the people of this area that prefer a federated form of government instead of unitary states?

At first glance, I think culture and other deterministic factors like tried form of governance which later reinforced local culture are the answers. I would really love to visit it soon. I find it hard to resort to coincidence; coincidence sounds like a lazy man’s answer.

In the meantime, I would appreciate if you, dear readers, could offer your thoughts on the matter.

Categories
Society

[1420] Of I am a Malay but which Malay?

The wall was white and blank but yet there I was, taking interest in the uninspiring wall. A public discussion was going on inside a small hall. I came because the names of the panel were sufficiently widely known across the urban society but as I found out later and too late, the discussion failed to fill my body with a soul; the discussion was filled with repetitive mosaic of clichés. So, there I was, inattentive, until a friend got up and announced to the audience, explaining, that we were all Malays, once. That took my eyes off the wall, my ears off the low hum of air conditioner, my mind off a pie in the sky.

I have heard many points about race and religion but this was the first time I heard a person saying that we all were Malays. As he went so eloquently, the idea of Malays was far greater than the notion ethnicity as most of us comprehend today. He asserted, if I correctly interpreted his point, that all groups living in Southeast Asia or more accurately the Nusantara were Malays.

Right or wrong, it was a curious notion, and provocative. Indeed, the crowd which was relatively chatty throughout the discussion, fell into silence, perhaps dumbstruck. The fact that the number of Malays amid the audience was limited to few people probably contributed to that silence. After a few seconds of information processing, I said to myself, ”Oooo”¦”

I have given up on the effort to define Malay due to various competing definitions. Though I do prefer certain definition , I do not dwell too much on the matter. Still, the varying definitions do provide one with the amusement one requires when one has little tasks to fill one’s time.

The Malaysian constitution defines a Malay as a Muslim, among other things. This allows Arabs, Chinese, Indians and others originated from outside of the Nusantara who are Muslims to be considered as Malays; Malays whom do not embrace Islam are somehow not Malays. This is as absurd as a pink invisible unicorn.

The regionalist Malays describe Malays as the indigenous populace of the Nusantara; the Malaya Irredenta. The formation of the now defunct Maphilindo was formed to appeal to this regionalist Malay concept, among other things. I myself prefer this definition; it is inclusive enough to bring most people of Southeast Asia organically together but yet, it is exclusive enough for “us” to be unique. I however have met Filipinos and Indonesians who frown when they are described as Malays. Old rivalries and wars between the Malays and the Javanese strengthen the difference. Yet, those wars were called Pamalayu, perang antara Melayu, a Malay civil war.

The cosmopolitan Malays prefer a more inclusive idea: everybody who resides in the Nusantara is a Malay. This, perhaps, was what the friend of mine was referring to.

Another concept of Malay refers to the citizenship of Malaya, just as the citizens of Germany are Germans, the citizens of Italy are Italians, for France French, for China Chinese; a naturalized Nepali could be a German. This was once put forward by Putera-AMCJA in the People’s Constitution of 1947 which was rejected in favor of another constitution that we Malaysians now live under. Well, after all that amendments, sort of.

These definitions are not necessarily mutually exclusive and it is likely not exhaustive either. That however does not prevent me from asking, which Malay appeals to your bias?

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

p/s — this entry was first published at Bolehland.

Categories
Liberty

[1244] Of Justice Richard Malanjum says…

Regulation 4 singles out Muslims for addition procedural burdens and impediments. It requires that a Muslim has to state his or her religion. The requirement does not apply to non-Muslims. There is therefore a differential treatment for Muslims… tantamount to unequal treatment under the law… and has infringed Article 8(1) of the Constitution. It is discriminatory and unconstitutional and should be struck down.

— Justice Richard Malanjum, May 30 2007.

In Malaysia, almost everybody suffers discrimination. The non-Malays as well as the Malays are being discriminated for simply being different.

Categories
Humor Liberty

[1243] Of the state chooses your religion

It is official. A Christian, if the state says so, is a Muslim!

PUTRAJAYA, May 30 (Bernama) — Azlina Jailani, the woman who converted to Christianity, today failed in her appeal to get the Federal Court to compel the National Registration Department (NRD) to drop the word “Islam” from her identity card.

In a 2-1 majority decision, the court ruled that Azlina, 42, who changed her name to Lina Joy, should obtain a Syariah Court order confirming her apostasy before the department could delete the word. [Federal Court Dismisses Lina Joy’s Appeal To Drop Islam In IC. Bernama. May 30 2007]

But oh well, if the majority says 1 plus 1 is 3, the majority wins.

On more serious note, there is really no point of having the identity card stating which religion does one belong to. Unless, of course, if one wants to practice discrimination.

In fact, if most Muslims in Malaysia are obsessed in keeping that label, they should label themselves just like how the Nazi labeled the Jews back in the 1930s and 1940s. These Muslims however would probably wear it proudly anyway.

Categories
History & heritage

[1219] Of why Malacca but not Srivijaya?

A majority of Malays are content to look only as far as the Sultanate of Malacca in the 15th and the 16th century, apparently accepting the era as the golden age of ancient, classical or medieval Malay civilization. Thanks to the education I received through the Malaysian system, I had the same perception too and I do think even Malaysians as a society in one way or another accept Malacca was the greatest civilization in ancient, classical or medieval Malaysian history. My love for history has allowed me to delve far beyond Malaysian textbooks. While Malacca was a great empire, a greater civilization was Srivijaya, an empire that was almost forgotten. I truly believe that Srivijaya was that brilliant light that stayed bright from nearly a millennium. Malacca was a just spark, though brilliant as it may be.

The Malaysian education system fails to give Srivijaya the respect it deserves. So many Malaysian textbook pages concentrate on Malacca and successive minor Malay states but ignored that one large Malay empire that spanned from the Isthmus of Kra all the way down to Central Java and, at one point in time, even the banks of the Mekong. Admittedly, Srivijayan border was porous unlike modern states but its sphere of influence was far wider than that of Malacca or even of Malaysia.

Perhaps part of the reason why the Malays stress so much on Malacca is the fact that so little information is known about Malay history earlier than the 14th century. Relatively modern Malays have been so ingrained with the notion that their history starts with Malacca. That misconception pushes Srivijaya into that one book in a section of a library that nobody goes to.

Srivijaya, despite its status, was only discovered by historians in the early 20th century. The reason why it was so easy to overlook Srivijaya’s existence is the material used for Srivijayan architecture; many of Srivijayan structures were made out of wood. In harsh tropical climate, wood would not last for too long, definitely not for one thousand years. Malacca itself did not leave too much behind to be marveled at by tourists and so, one could not hope too much for Srivijaya. The rain and the sun conspired to erase a chapter of a history book, hushing Srivijaya from history to myth to total obscurity.

That does not mean Srivijaya failed to leave its mark in history. The Sailendra, under the auspice of the Srivijayan Emperor Samaratunga, constructed the Borobudur which still stands today in the middle of Java. But even that monument was only rediscovered in the 19th century by Stamford Raffles. As for the Sailendra, the East Javanese pushed them out of central Java, causing the Srivijayan ally to migrate to the west and built a new hope under the protection of Srivijaya. The royal court of Sailendra was finally eliminated by Srivijayan Emperor Culamanivarmadeva after the Sailendra betrayed the emperor. That act led to the loss to Srivijayan capital, Palembang, to the East Javanese in the early 11th century. Palembang was reconquered by Culamanivarmadeva but by that time, Srivijaya had gone over its hill. It was dusk time.

Notice the names? Yes. The Malays were Hindus then. And Buddhists, and animists, despite whatever the religious conservatives might assert, despite how our history is being rewritten by those that have no respect for truth.

The Sultanate of Malacca itself was founded by an heir to the Srivijayan throne. The struggle between the Malays and the Javanese continued well into the 14th century and sometimes by the late 1300s, Parameswara, a Malay Srivijaya prince, fled Sumatra when Majapahit finally crushed the last remnant of a Malay empire that started humbly by the Musi River.

In a way, Malacca was the successor of the glorious Srivijaya. If Malacca could be seen as a sultanate that later led to Malaya and Malaysia, then Srivijaya could be seen as such as well.

While I was in Bangkok, I visited some of the museums there. It is truly sad to find out that the Thais are more appreciative of the Malay empire than the Malays and Malaysians in Malaysia themselves. Perhaps, that could be explained by the presence of Srivijayan temples, biaras, in Thailand, reminding the Thais of an empire long ago. In Malaysia, almost nothing.

Almost nothing but the Bujang Valley which was under the control of Old Kedah, a state within the realm of Srivijaya. Is it not odd that Bujang Valley, itself being far richer in historical terms, has been outshone by relatively young ruins (if it could be called as such) of Malacca?

Something must explain this bias that sides with Malacca. Could it be religion?